Sitting of 2 July 1947

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

    Mechanised Accounting
    Mr. George Wallaceasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to what extent accounting branches of his Department are using modern methods of mechanised accounting.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): In the majority of Admiralty departments concerned, modern methods of mechanised accounting are either in use or on trial.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Now that the W.R.N.S. have been retained as a permanent part of the Service, would they not be considered suitable for this work?
    Mr. Dugdale: I have no doubt that they would be very useful indeed.

    Overseas Releases
    Commander Nobleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what steps are taken to ensure that an officer or a man desiring to be released from the Royal Navy outside the United Kingdom is not thereby avoiding his obligations to maintain his wife and family.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): Naval Commanders-in-Chief abroad have been instructed that local release is not to be approved unless they are satisfied that the applicant has undertaken to make reasonable provision for maintenance of his family, and that
    1288
    inquiries are to be made beforehand as to whether the man's family know of his intention and ate satisfied with the arrangements he proposes.

    Camps, Rixton-with-Glazebrook
    Sir Robert Youngasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when the naval camps at Rixton-with-Glaze-brook are likely to be vacated; whether they are fully utilised at present; and whether one or other of them can be released in the near future for housing or other necessary purpose.
    Mr. W. Edwards: The Admiralty is in possession of two camps in this area. The work of adapting one, to provide 96 flats for Admiralty civil employees at the Risley Storage Depot, is nearly complete. The second camp formed part of H.M.S. "Gosling" until the beginning of last month, and its conversion into married quarters for naval personnel is now under consideration.
    Sir R. Young: Can the Civil Lord say why these camps are so far away from naval establishments?
    Mr. Edwards: These camps are not far away from naval establishments, though they may be away from dockyards. There is a very large storage dump at Risley, where there are a large number of men employed, and we feel that this accommodation is necessary.

    Small Craft Disposals
    Mr. Scollanasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many small craft have been sold to date by the Director of Small Craft Disposal; how many small craft are still to be disposed of; and what is the total sum realized from these sales.
    Mr. Dugdale: Up to 26th June last, a total of 7,486 small craft had been sold by the Director of Small Craft Disposals. The sum realised was £3,298,402. On the same date, 2,108 small craft were awaiting disposal. Other craft will probably become available for disposal from various sources for some time to come.
    Mr. Scollan: Does not the Minister think that this type of small craft, which has been lying idle for two years and deteriorating, would be much better sold at any price rather than that they should be wasted, as they are now?
    Mr. Dugdale: I could not possibly admit that. The sale of small craft has been extremely effective. We have had good prices, and it has been a very good financial operation.
    Captain Marsden: Has not the moment now arrived when the small craft that have not been sold might be given away to training units?
    Mr. Dugdale: I will certainly give that point consideration.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Could the Minister say where these craft may be seen by possible purchasers, and in what conditions?
    Mr. Dugdale: They are in all sorts of places. I suggest that application should be made to the Secretary of the Admiralty.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Will the hon. Gentleman say if those craft which are suitable for inshore fishing could be sent on a tour round the coast so that they could be seen by prospective purchasers, instead of the prospective purchasers having to make long journeys to London?
    Mr. Dugdale: I will consider that possibility, but it will mean the use of a number of people in the performance of that work, and we are naturally anxious to cut down the number as far as possible.
    Mr. Berry: Could my hon. Friend say how many of these craft will be capable of being sent out without work being done on them?
    Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what classes of motor vessels, suitable for use in, or conversion for, the fishing industry, his Department has available for sale; where they may be seen; and what provision is made for supplying spare parts for them.
    Mr. W. Edwards: The only class of motor vessel at the disposal of the Admiralty acceptable to the fishing industry is that known as motor fishing vessels, which vary in size from 45 feet to 90 feet. In addition to the vessels of this type which have already been sold, negotiations are now in hand for the sale of a further 24 vessels. This number represents the
    1290
    total at present available for disposal. Vessels are sold as they lie, together with such items of equipment proper to the, vessels as are available on board or on shore. No provision is made by the Admiralty for the supply of spare parts.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Can the Minister say how many of these vessels are of American make, and, in view of the spare-part difficulty, whether spare parts can be got for them?
    Mr. Edwards: I am afraid I cannot give details with regard to those of American make, but I think I can say that the vast majority, if not all, are of British make.
    Mr. Charles Williams: Is the hon. Gentleman in contact with the Sea Fisheries Committee for the purpose of trying to dispose of these and other surplus vessels?
    Mr. Edwards: When these vessels are suitable for disposal, it is the policy of the Admiralty to get into touch with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Scottish Home Department for the purpose of drawing the attention of the fishing interests to the matter.
    Mr. J. J. Robertson: In considering this question, will my hon. Friend bear in 'mind the claims of fishermen who have lost boats during the war so that they may have priority?
    Mr. Edwards: As I have said, we communicate with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Scottish Home Department so that they may submit the vessels to their respective buyers.
    Mr. Stephen: Will the hon Gentleman say what is the price of these vessels?
    Mr. Edwards: The price varies according to the type of vessel, but the average price for the 90-ft. type is between £6,000 and £10,000 each, for the 75-ft. type, £5,000 each, for the 45-ft. type, with engines, £2,450, and £1,200 each at launching stage without engines.
    Mr. C. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman go a little further in his excellent efforts to get rid of these vessels by getting into direct contact with the local county authorities who are very closely connected with the fishing interests?
    Mr. Edwards: I cannot see the purpose of doing that at the moment because we

    1291
    have only 24 vessels for disposal, and negotiations are at present taking place for that number. However, if any more come along for disposal, I will certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind.

    Pensions (Re-assessment)
    Mr. Willisasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that pension increases, in certain cases, are not being dated back to 19th December, 1945; and if he will take steps to ensure that the general provisions affecting these increases, as set out in the statement made on 15th April, 1946, are observed.
    Mr. Dugdale: Increases of pensions under the scheme for re-assessment for war service are in all cases paid retrospectively to 19th December, 1945, where men are so entitled. Men who were not released by that date have, their pensions re-assessed as from the date of release, all their service up to the date of release being taken into account. They are not entitled to restrospective payment to a date earlier than their release
    Mr. Willis: Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance that, where this has not been carried out, he will look into it and take steps to see that the increases are made retrospective to that date, because the Admiralty are at present treating these men in a rather niggardly fashion?
    Mr. W. J. Brown: Can the Minister tell us what proportion of the total number of increased pensions given under the 1945 arrangement have, in fact, been paid out?
    Mr. Dugdale: I could not without notice.
    Mr. Willisasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, if he is aware that one condition of receipt of a reassessed pension is that it shall be drawn in weekly payments; and whether he will make arrangements for offering pensioners the option of receiving their pensions in quarterly payments.
    Mr. Dugdale: It is appreciated that some pensioners who were entitled to draw their pensions quarterly under the old code would prefer to continue to do so. It was, however, a necessary condition of the new code that all such pensions should be paid on the weekly system. I might add,
    1292
    however, that weekly paid pensions need not be drawn each week; they may be left to accumulate for any period not exceeding 13 weeks.
    Mr. Willis: Will my hon. Friend consider carrying out the existing arrangement in view of the fact that it would save a considerable amount of work, and. I imagine, manpower as well?
    Mr. Dugdale: I think they have got the option. If they like, they can leave it for 13 weeks, which is, in fact, a quarter.
    Mr. Willisasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, if he is aware that, when calculating reckonable years for purposes of re-assessing pensions, periods over six months and less than one year are being ignored; that this is contrary to the statement made on 15th April, 1946; and if he will take steps to ensure that such periods are counted as a full year.
    Mr. Dugdale: In the statement referred to by my hon. Friend, the concession whereby an officer was allowed to count six months or over as one year was for a particular purpose only. This was in fixing the proportion of the difference between the old and new code pensions to which an officer would be entitled. This is being done in re-assessing pensions for retired officers.
    Mr. Willis: If I send my hon. Friend particulars of cases where that is not being done, and where periods of over 10 months are being ignored, will he look into the matter?
    Mr. Dugdale: Certainly, Sir. I hope that such cases are not many; in fact, I do not think they are.

    Royal Marines (Organisation)
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what changes it is intended to make in the present organisation of the R.Ms.
    Mr. Dugdale: During the present year, a change will be made in the organisation of the Royal Marines in the United Kingdom. At present, there are three Royal Marine groups; one at Chatham, one at Portsmouth, and one at Plymouth, each of which discharges similar functions. In future, each of these three groups will discharge a specific and separate function. A central pay and

    1293
    records system will be located in the Chatham group. Preliminary recruit training will be at Deal; all training for sea service and similar purposes will be located in the Portsmouth group and all land service training will be at Plymouth. This change will give greater efficiency in training and will effect a saving in manpower amounting to approximately 1,000 officers and men.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the great satisfaction that his answer will give to all those, serving in the Royal Marines, both because of the added efficiency it will bring and because of the necessary savings it will effect in manpower at the present time?

    Ships (War Losses)
    Commander Nobleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to say when it is intended to publish separate returns of the losses of Royal Navy, merchant and fishing vessels during the 1939–45 war.
    Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. The return of losses of ships of the Royal Navy is now available for publication, and I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library of the House. The return of losses of British merchant and fishing vessels during the 1939–45 War will be available for publication on 4th July, and I will arrange for copies of that return also to be placed in the Library.
    Sir Ronald Ross: Will the Parliamentary Secretary also arrange to have lists made of the ships of the Royal Navy which are still available for service?
    Mr. Dugdale: That is quite another question.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Weekend Repairs, Marple
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Postmaster-General what arrangements exist for repairing telephones at Marple on Saturdays and Sundays.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling): Marple is part of the Stockport maintenance area. One engineering workman is scheduled to attend throughout Saturday to repair telephones in the area. Owing to pressure of work, he is
    1294
    at present assisted by two other workmen on Saturday mornings. On Sundays, telephone repairs are undertaken on an emergency basis by calling out an engineering workman on "stand-by" duty from his home.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to increase these services, because professional men, hospitals and nursing homes are getting inadequate service with regard to the repairing of telephones?
    Mr. Paling: If these people are not receiving an efficient service, I will certainly look into the matter.

    Quarterly Accounts
    Captain John Crowderasked the Postmaster-General whether sufficient trained staff and office machinery are yet available to enable his Department to revert to the prewar practice of rendering telephone accounts quarterly.
    Mr. Paling: I regret that, in view of the manpower situation, there is no early prospect of reverting to quarterly telephone accounting.
    Captain Crowder: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 31st October last the Assistant Postmaster-General did give an assurance that he expected the changeover to take place early this year? Would he bear in mind that it is very difficult to check these six-monthly accounts, and that this system comes very hardly on monthly wage earners who get these very large bills sent in twice a year? Could the right hon. Gentleman expedite the reversion to the prewar practice?
    Mr. Paling: It was intended to revert to that practice, but owing to certain things which have happened we have not been able to do so. I agree that it is desirable, and we shall do it as soon as possible.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: While the six-monthly account system remains in operation, will the right hon. Gentleman abolish the fee charged for itemising the accounts?
    Mr. Paling: I should have to look into that matter.

    Elmbridge Exchange
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention

    1295
    has been drawn to the unsatisfactory working of the Elmbridge telephone exchange; whether he has considered the representations made to him by the Surbiton Borough Council on this subject with particular reference to inadequate service given at the time of a recent fatal casualty; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: Service at Elm-bridge exchange has been affected by heavy losses of operating staff during the past year. In spite of this, our regular sampling of the service shows that there has been a steady improvement and I hope that, as the new staff gains further experience, this improvement will be continued. I have considered the representations made by the Surbiton Borough Council, in regard to the recent fatal casualty, and I am satisfied that there was no avoidable delay in answering the call for the ambulance.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the service given by this exchange is so conspicuously worse than that of all other exchanges in the neighbourhood; and is he aware that his predecessor gave me an undertaking a year ago that the staff would be increased?
    Mr. Paling: I do not think it is necessary to increase the staff, although it may have something to do with it. I believe there has been a 50 per cent. turnover in staff in this neighbourhood, with the result that a lot of them are untrained. That has a lot to do with it. However, in the last week or two the service has been improving, and I hope it will improve still more.

  POST OFFICE

    Dismissals
    Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Postmaster-General why a large number of men between the ages of 60 and 66 years have recently been discharged from the postal service in Edinburgh so that they may take up work in industry, when, in fact, no industrial employment exists in the city for men of that age; and why he does not retain these older men in the service and release the younger men and women who would be more readily absorbed in employment of an industrial nature.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: Forty full-time temporary postmen, of whom 14 were 60 years of age or over, were discharged at Edinburgh because they became redundant on the introduction of restricted postal services. Because of the curtailment of postal services, younger men, who would otherwise have been recruited to the Post Office, are available for employment in industry.
    Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction with the way this scheme of reduction is operating ?
    Mr. Paling: Where people are redundant and have to be stood off there is always a certain amount of dissatisfaction. That is almost inevitable.
    Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: Does the
    Minister agree that this process which is going on, of dismissing temporary men all over the country, is extremely wasteful from the point of view of manpower, and extremely tragic from the point of view of the men themselves?
    Mr. Paling: I cannot agree about the waste part of it, but I do agree about the tragedy of it. I should like to avoid it, but it has to be done, and we have done it according to the regulations of the Whitley agreement.
    Mr. Chamberlain: Is it not wasteful for men who are good at a particular job, but are too old to be trained for a new job, to be stood down, while younger men who could be trained for industry are taken on in their places?
    Mr. Paling: I do not think that necessarily proves the point about waste.
    Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Gentleman said previously that the restriction of services was due to the lack of manpower, but he now says that the reduction of manpower is due to the restriction in services. Could he say which is correct?
    Mr. Paling: I do not think that I said anything of the kind.
    Lieut.-Commander Hutchisonasked the Postmaster-General whether it is the general policy of his Department to discharge men over 60 years of age on grounds of redundancy in preference to younger employees of both sexes who might more easily find alternative employment in productive industry.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: No, Sir. Temporary staff, as they become redundant, are discharged in accordance with an order of priority agreed in principle on the Civil Service National Whitley Council and in detail with the Post Office staff representatives. This order of priority is related to length of service, and not to age.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaiteasked the Postmaster-General how many ex-Service men, recruited since 1st July, 1946, in line for establishment as postmen, have been dismissed since 1st January, 1947.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: I have no information that such ex-Service men have been discharged, but if the hon. and gallant Member will give me particulars of any case, I shall be glad to have inquiry made.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Is it possible that some of these men may have been issued by the Ministry of Labour with the wrong form and, believing themselves to have applied for permanent employment in the Post Office, have in fact signed a form which makes them temporary employees? May that be the explanation?
    Mr. Paling: I do not know about that, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will send me a case I will examine it.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: May I, Mr. Speaker, through you, give notice to the Minister that I will endeavour to pursue this matter, if I am successful in catching the eye of the Chair, in today's Debate on the Post Office Estimates?
    Mr. Speaker: I must remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that that will have nothing to do with me.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I said, Mr. Speaker, only if I were successful in being called.

    Leicester Square Branch (Opening Hours)
    Mr. Orbachasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the long queues at Leicester Square post office, when it is operating out of ordinary business hours; and whether he is considering keeping open further post offices, after hours and on Sundays, so as to provide a more efficient service.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: I am looking into the matter, and will write to the hon. Member.

    Sub-Postmasters (Appointment)
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the Postmaster-General what are the qualifications necessary and what steps are taken to check on the satisfactory character of a Post Office employee before he is appointed to the position of sub-postmaster.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes) on nth June.
    Mr. Cooper: Does my right hon. Friend realise that a recent case of Post Office fraud, which was reported in the Press at Southend, disclosed that a sub-postmaster had 12 previous convictions; and is he further aware that there is dissatisfaction among Post Office workers with the way in which a good many appointments are being made, and will he look into the matter with a view to removing that dissatisfaction?
    Mr. Paling: I think there was a case of that kind, but the man in question had been convicted a good many years beforehand.
    Mr. Cooper: Is information regarding a man's record available to the Post Office?
    Mr. Paling: Yes, Sir, up to a point.

    Site, Wembley
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Postmaster-General for what purpose his Department has taken over the Air Ministry lease of 10 acres of the Palace of Engineering, at Wembley.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: No accommodation in the Palace of Engineering has yet been taken over by the Post Office. Arrangements have, however, been made for the early acquisition of rather less than seven acres for the repair and servicing of telephone equipment and to meet urgent motor transport and storage requirements.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: In view of the fact that this is one of the best industrial sites in the country, with an exceptional rail and road service, why should the Post Office use it for these

    1299
    light industries when it is urgently required for the purposes of heavy industry?
    Mr. Paling: We are desperately short of room ourselves; this site has been offered to us, and we have naturally taken it.
    Mr. Stephen: Will my right hon. Friend make arrangements for the heavy industry to which reference has been made to be sent to Scotland?

    Returned Correspondence, Liverpool
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Postmaster-General by what authority his Department opened and returned to the sender certain correspondence posted in the Liverpool area sealed on the reverse with a label issued by the Conservative Party.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: I much regret that, owing to an unfortunate misunderstanding of the rules by the local post office staff at Liverpool, the correspondence to which the hon. Member refers was returned to the sender. An apology for the mistreatment has already been tendered locally, and with that apology I would like to be associated.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Would it be some consolation to the right hon. Gentleman, in view of his very handsome apology, to know that the envelopes in question fetched a price of between £2 and £4 when sold by the Conservative Party to a local stamp dealer?

    Savings Bank Depositors (Identity Cards)
    Mr. Marloweasked the PostmasterGeneral under what authority power is given to Post Office clerks to demand the production of an identity card; and under what authority they can refuse payment out to a depositor of the Post Office Savings Bank whose account is in credit, by reason only of a failure to produce an identity card.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: The authority is contained in the Defence Regulations, as extended by the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Act, 1946. Defence Regulation No. 60cc (Statutory Rules and Orders No. 1145 of 1943) gives power to an officer of the Post Office not only to
    1300
    require the production of an identity card in connection with the payment of money out of a Post Office Savings Bank account, but also to refuse to proceed with the transaction until the identity card is produced.
    Mr. Marlowe: As a check on fraud, is not this system a failure, in view of the fact that there was less fraud before the war when there were no identity cards, and is not the inference that controls breed evasion of controls and dishonesty increases under Socialism?
    Mr. Paling: No, I would not accept the first line of argument. As to the suggestion about dishonesty under Socialism, I will leave that until some future time. The production of an identity card may not be the best protection, but it has been some protection in the Post Office against these frauds.

    Collections and Deliveries
    Mr. Bossomasked the Postmaster-General why headquarters Post Office authorities now state that nothing leaves after 6.30 p.m., in view of the earlier announcement that urgent letters taken to any head district post office in London can get a later collection up to about 8 p.m. for delivery by first post in the morning.
    Mr. Paling: I fear there must be some misunderstanding. Letters intended for delivery in England and Wales by first post the following weekday can be posted at any London head district post office up to 8 p.m. The final general collection from the street posting boxes in London is, however, made at 6 to 6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Bossom: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he will telephone to the headquarters of any of these post offices he will be told that nothing goes out after 6.30 p.m., and that if he takes any letters there up to 8 o'clock it is no use whatever?
    Mr. Paling: I will make inquiries into this.
    Mr. Keeling: Could the right hon. Gentleman not give us a later collection than 8 o'clock from this House, as we normally had a collection later than any head district office?
    Mr. Paling: I believe that matter has already been raised; I do not know what the position is at the moment.
    Mr. Bossom: Would the right hon. Gentleman make it his business to see that the chief officers in the various headquarters are aware of the information which he gives to this House, because they certainly are not aware of it?
    Sir Wavell Wakefieldasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the dislocation caused to business firms in St. Marylebone by the late deliveries of the first post in the morning; and what steps he is taking to provide an earlier delivery.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: Rearrangement of the postal services to save manpower means that the first delivery in St. Marylebone now finishes about 15 minutes later than before. The aim is to complete the delivery by 9.0 a.m., and I hope that this, will soon be achieved, as the postmen settle down to their new duties and delivery rounds. Meanwhile I am sorry that business firms and residents have been inconvenienced.
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a special delivery of pools circulars and coupons was made in the Harrow area during the afternoon of 23rd June, although the normal deliveries are now restricted to two daily; and if he will restrict additional facilities of a special kind so as to increase the services to the general public.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: On 23rd June the number of pool items on hand at Harrow was such that they could not wholly be included in the normal deliveries without adversely affecting the services. They were, therefore, disposed of in a special delivery. The abolition of such special deliveries, which obtain only infrequently and over small areas, would not enable me to increase the services to the general public without additional calls on manpower.
    Mr. Skinnard: Is the Postmaster-General aware that this explanation will not by any means satisfy people who were incommoded by what they considered and still consider a delivery that has no moral justification, and which loaded extra work on postmen, when they can see and I can see no urgency in such deliveries?
    Mr. Paling: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has got it right. As I understand it, the special delivery was made specially so that it would not interfere
    1302
    with the other two general deliveries, and so that it would not incommode the general public.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Would my right hon. Friend consider having a word with the Headmaster of Harrow to try to get out of this difficulty, and reduce this football betting postage?
    Mr. Keelingasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the covers of a large number of letters addressed to a Regent-street firm, which were postmarked 9th June in various parts of England, including London, but not received until nth June, or similarly postmarked 18th but not received until 20th June, or postmarked Saturday, 21st June, and not received until the afternoon of 23rd June; and whether such delays will be normal under the new postal restrictions.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: I have examined the covers referred to by the hon. Member. The majority should have been delivered on the morning following posting, and I much regret that delay has occurred from mistreatment in the post. It was quite abnormal and was not due to the recent restrictions of postal services; we are doing all we can to prevent further inconvenience to the firm.
    Mr. Keeling: Could the Postmaster-General say to what this delay of large batches of letters was due?
    Mr. Paling: I could not at the moment, but I know that when complaints first came in one of our high officials went to the place concerned, and was able to put the matter right. I think he has largely succeeded. Complaints of delays have' not arisen since that time.

    B.B.C. (SCOTTISH SERVICE, POLITICAL BROADCASTS)
    Mrs. Jean Mannasked the Postmaster-General how many anti-Government Members of Parliament and candidates for Parliament have participated in talks and discussions on the Scottish service of the B.B.C, between 1st January and 30th June; and how many Members of Parliament or candidates for Parliament who support the Government.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: Between 1st January and 31st May, 1947, the numbers of hon. Members broadcasting in the

    1303
    Scottish Home Service of the British Broadcasting Corporation were: Labour, 16; Conservative, 14; National, 1; National Liberal, 1; Liberal, 1; Independent, 5. In addition, the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) have broadcast in the series "Party Political Broadcasts." Two Government and one Opposition spokesmen broadcast on the Budget, and five Ministers broadcast on other occasions. I regret that information for the further period up to 30th June is not yet available, and that the number of broadcasters who may be Parliamentary candidates is not known.
    Mrs. Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the policy has changed very greatly during June, and that on several Fridays in that month, particularly on the second Friday, we had six speakers of whom two were Tories, one anti-Labour—[An HON. MEMBER: "Anti-Labour?"]—Yes, I refer to the minister of a certain cathedral who has been famous for making anti-Labour pronouncements; therefore, I call him anti-Labour. There were also: one Communist, one Liberal Scottish Nationalist and one Scottish Nationalist. There was no Member of the Government whatever.
    Mr. Hopkin Morris: May I ask what the term "anti-Government Members" in the Question means?
    Mr. Wallace: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be no professional comedians among anti-Government speakers?
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: As one of the six people referred to by the hon. Lady, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman decides whether the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is pro-Government or anti-Government?
    Mr. Paling: No, thank goodness, I have not to decide that.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Radar Station, Start Point
    Brigadier Raynerasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the rapid deterioration of the radar station at Start Point: and whether, in view of this deterioration and
    1304
    the injury caused by the station to local amenities, he will arrange for its early removal.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): I am happy to inform the hon. and gallant Member that arrangements are now being made for dismantling the station at Start Point. I am consulting with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply about the removal of the mast and of the huts.

    Air Accident, Ischia (British Subjects)
    Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will make application to His Majesty's Consul General at Naples to furnish the death certificates in the case of British subjects killed in the air accident on the Isle of Ischia on 8th March, 1947.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I am glad to assure the hon. Baronet that an application for the death certificates of the British subjects killed at Ischia was made to His Majesty's Consul-General at Naples without delay. Various difficulties and misunderstandings arose, but I hope that they have now been removed or overcome.
    Sir J. Lucas: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask if he will bear in mind that the widows cannot get their pensions until the death certificates are given? Will he treat the matter as one of urgency?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir. The Foreign Office have sent instructions to try to secure that this shall be done immediately.

    Mechanised Accounting
    Mr. G. Wallaceasked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent accounting branches of his Department are using modern methods of mechanized accounting.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Mechanised methods of accounting are already in use in the Maintenance Command of the R.A.F.; in all Area Headquarters of the Air Ministry Works Department in the United Kingdom; in the Base Accounts Office where the pay accounts of airmen in Germany are kept; in the branch of the Air Min-

    1305
    istry where Income Tax is recorded; and in a number of other branches in my Department. I am now considering whether mechanised methods can be used in dealing with the pay and allowances of all sections of the R.A.F.; these methods will be introduced in other parts of our accounting system as and when it is possible and advantageous so to do.
    Mr. Wallace: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement means that at last avoidable delays in pay and allowances will be overcome in the very near future?

    Airfield, Podington (Farm Use)
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in the interest of food production and local amenities, he is now in a position to return the site of Podington aerodrome, Bedford shire, to its original owner, who is anxious, at an early date, to graze a herd on it.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The future of the airfield at Podington has not yet been decided. I am glad to inform my hon. Friend, however, that, pending a final decision, the restrictions on the use of the land for farming have been removed, and the land is already being farmed.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Yes, but will my right hon. Friend look into the background of this case, when he will discover that a virtual agreement was come to between his Department and the owner of what, up to now, has been an aerodrome, to return it immediately after the end of the war?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I am not aware of that agreement; but of course, in such cases the public interest must also be considered when a final decision is made.

    Worli Camp, Bombay
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been drawn to the serious condition of the sewerage at the R.A.F, station, Worli, India, where the sewage is constantly bubbling up through the manholes and spreading over the camp ground; and whether he will issue instructions for it to be torn up and relaid.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I have received a report on the sewage system at Worli from the R.A.F, authorities in India who are responsible for hygiene. While they consider that the system is generally sound,
    1306
    they say that there may sometimes be an overflow, and that there is a danger of flooding during the monsoon. At such times, a special squad is detailed to inspect the drains.
    I agree with the hon. Member in thinking that it is most important, in an area where typhoid is endemic, that the sewage system should leave nothing to be desired. I am, therefore, asking the Command to find out whether the drains at Worli are peculiarly liable to overflow, and if so, to carry out the necessary works.
    Mr. Gallacher: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask if he is aware that a friend of my own who is at that camp tells me that he and his associates go about in fear and trembling because they never know when they are going to be struck down by disease?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: My hon. Friend has another Question, to which I will make a further answer in a moment.
    Mr. Berry: What provision is made for chlorination of the mains to prevent, or to help to prevent, the possibility of typhoid?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I am about to say on Question No. 38.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that there were, 36 cases of typhoid, of whom six died, in Worli Camp, Bombay, in 1946; that this year there are a further six cases of typhoid to date; and what steps are being taken to prevent the contamination of the water supply of the camp which is the alleged source of infection.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: In 1946, there were 32 cases of typhoid at Worli Camp; this year there have been 11 cases. In 1946 one man died; on grounds of conscience, he had refused inoculation. As soon as the water supply was found to be infected, all drinking water was chlorinated in mobile tanks. New mains were installed last December, and analysis has shown that the water is now free from all infection, but as an additional precaution, the mobile tanks are still in use

    Aerodrome, Silverstone (Damage)
    Mr. Manningham-Bullerasked the Secretary of State for Air what steps are being taken to prevent damage to

    1307
    public property on Silverstone aerodrome and the wrongful abstraction from that aerodrome of electric and other fittings, kitchen equipment, baths, sinks, etc.; and if he will give an estimate of the damage done and value of the articles improperly taken since the R.A.F. ceased to occupy the aerodrome.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The aerodrome at Silverstone will not in future be required by the R.A.F. All movable R.A.F. equipment was taken away, all R.A.F. personnel were withdrawn, and the aerodrome was closed on 17th March last. Since then, trespassers have done damage to the value of about £250, and about £120 worth of equipment has been stolen. We are now waiting for other Government Departments to take up this accommodation. In the meantime I will take what steps I can to prevent further depredations of the kind to which the hon. and learned Member has been good enough to draw my attention.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the aerodrome has been closed, is he aware that not a single door of any of the numerous huts on that aerodrome is locked at all; that anyone can obtain access from the numerous roads; and that there is no obstruction to prevent people going in? Is he also aware that it would be of immense value to the local authority for housing? Would he consider disposing of it?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Because there was likely to be delay in taking up the accommodation we did remove nearly £4,000 worth of domestic equipment which would not normally have been removed before the camp was closed. I will see what can be done now. The camp was originally laid open to the public by storm damage—that is my information— and then trespassers entered and did the further damage to which I referred.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while the storm did some damage to some of the huts the majority are undamaged, with the exception that all the doors are open, and that there is still a large quantity of kitchen equipment of great value on the premises?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I am going to do everything I can. I ought also to say to the hon. and learned Gentleman—I think he knows it already—that the R.A.F. are very short of manpower, and that to put guards on these places which have been closed is a matter of the greatest difficulty. But we shall do everything possible.
    Squadron-Leader Fleming: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that since March last, when the camp was closed, no R.A.F. guard as a maintenance unit was retained there?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: To my regret there have not been guards.
    Mr. Lipson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the very important domestic equipment he says has been taken away will be made available for houses?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply and the other competent authorities to decide.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is it not the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to keep a small party upon such premises until they are transferred effectively into other hands?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: If we had sufficient manpower, no doubt we should desire to do so. In this particular case it was thought that the accommodation would be very quickly taken up, but difficulty arose because it was found that the accommodation is on land that belongs to the Forestry Commission. There has not been very long delay due to that. I hope to settle it very quickly.

    Requisitioned Area, Cannock Chase
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Air what is the size of the area of Cannock Chase at present requisitioned by his Department; for what purposes it is being used; and when he proposes to derequisition it.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The R.A.F. holds 460 acres of Cannock Chase. Three hundred and ninety acres are used as a range for the demolition of explosives; 70 acres form part of a technical training school. The Air Ministry wish to keep

    1309
    this land, but before a decision is taken their proposals will come before the Interdepartmental Committee on Service Land Requirements.
    Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that this question is causing grave concern in the West Midlands; that the whole of the Cannock Chase has previously been a rural amenity accessible to the public in peacetime; and will there be a local inquiry, at which the local authorities can express their views, before any decision is taken on this matter?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I have no doubt that under the general arrangements to be made a public inquiry will be held, if so desired. As for the access to the public, I hope that for nearly all the time, except when actual explosions are going on, access to the public will be maintained, and I hope the amenities will not be damaged in any way.

    Manpower and Maintenance Units
    Mr. Aylesasked the Secretary of State for Air whether the Manpower Economy Committee have reported on the utilisation of manpower and maintenance units; and whether they have investigated the situation at No. 4 M.U.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Under their terms of reference, the Manpower Economy Committee have been considering questions of a general nature; and not the use of manpower in any single unit of the R.A.F. For this purpose they are inspecting stations both at home and overseas, and they will no doubt consider whether they should visit No. 4 Maintenance Unit. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the information which he has given me about this unit; as a result, we are making special investigations, and I hope that substantial economies may be made.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Would my right hon. Friend tell the House what instructions have been given to commanding officers to reduce personnel as far as possible ?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: There are standing instructions on that; and not only so, but a special branch of the Ministry is constantly considering the matter.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    J.U. 52 Aeroplanes (Conversion)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation how many J. U. 52's have been converted to Jupiters; the total cost of conversion; and on what routes these machines are operating, or are to be operated.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren):
    Ten J.U. 52's have been converted to Jupiters at a cost of about £125,000. These aircraft are at present operated by British European Airways Corporation on five of their Scottish services, but are to be replaced in the autumn of this year.
    Mr. Rankin: Could my hon. Friend say, are all these ships being used at the present time; and on what specific routes are they being used?
    Mr. Lindgren: These are aircraft, not ships. All the aircraft are being used. They are on the following services: Glasgow—Belfast; Prestwick—Belfast; Glasgow—Aberdeen—Orkney—Shetlands; Glasgow — Stornoway — Inverness; Glasgow — Inverness — Wick — Orkney Shetlands.
    Mr. Rankin: Could my hon. Friend explain why these aircraft, which are not by any standard modern, are used exclusively in Scotland?
    Mr. Lindgren: Because, in fact, Scotland is getting most of England's air services.

    Renfrew—London Service
    Mrs. Mannasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation why passengers are refused bookings on the ground that there are no seats available on the Renfrew—London route, when the seats on the journey are not fully occupied.
    Mr. Lindgren: I am informed by the British European Airways Corporation that no bookings are refused on the Renfrew—London route if passenger accommodation is available on the aircraft at the time of the request. It sometimes happens, however, that an aircraft may leave with empty seats, because of a last minute cancellation, or because passengers may fail to make use of their bookings, or

    1311
    arrive too late to board the aircraft. Bookings which are cancelled at the last minute are offered to any intending passengers who may be waiting at the airport. Occasionally an aircraft will leave with empty seats because excess mail is being carried.
    Mrs. Mann: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons why passengers cannot get seats is because the office is closed early at night and opens late in the morning, unlike the railway services, where one can phone at 11 o'clock or 12 o'clock at night; and is he further aware that they have office hours, and that this is just not good enough for an emergency plane service?
    Mr. Lindgren: Scotland has a Scottish Advisory Council to assist in the management of its own affairs. Doubtless, if complaints were made to that Council, they would be looked into and attended to.
    Colonel Gomme - Duncan: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that everything which has been brought by this Council to the notice of the Ministry has been entirely disregarded?
    Mr. Lindgren: That statement is completely without foundation. Not a single item has been brought to the attention of the Minister by the Council. Each item dealt with by the Council has been put to one or other of the various Corporations.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: What about the radar equipment at Prestwick?
    Mrs. Mann: Of what use is the Scottish Advisory Council, or any other council, which does not know that a plane is something which is to be used in an emergency, and that there should be someone on duty at all hours of the night?
    Mr. Lindgren: This is a Scottish battle. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Council was appointed on nominations from various bodies within Scotland itself.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: They did not ask for it.
    Mrs. Mannasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation why bookings to London via Prestwick are refused at Renfrew; and why passengers arriving at Prestwick are
    1312
    told to find their own transport to Renfrew.
    Mr. Lindgren: I am informed by the British European Airways Corporation that a passenger wishing to travel on the Prestwick—London service may, if he so desires, make a booking at Renfrew. If my hon. Friend is aware of any case of refusal and will send me details I shall be glad to bring it to the notice of the Corporation. As regards the second part of the Question, the services London—Prestwick and London—Renfrew are entirely separate and unconnected services, and no question of providing transport between Prestwick and Renfrew therefore arises.
    Mrs. Mann: Does my hon. Friend know that the hon. Member for Coatbridge cannot get a booking between Renfrew and Prestwick; and would he see that the two stations are, at least, on speaking terms?
    Mr. William Ross: Will the Parliamentary Secretary also make sure, in getting these two stations on speaking terms, that unnecessary inconvenience and expense is not incurred by passengers wishing to travel from Renfrew to London when they come from the Prestwick area by having to make their own private arrangements, when the plane itself starts from Prestwick?
    Mr. Lindgren: There are two distinct services, one Prestwick to London and the other Renfrew to London. If a passenger makes the choice of the Prestwick-London service, then it is no concern of the operators to provide transport for them to Prestwick.
    Mr. Douglas Marshall: Is the Minister aware that, whereas Scotland has some type of air service, the West of England and Cornwall have none at all?
    Mr. Gallacher: I want to ask the Minister very seriously, in view of the statement he has made, if the Scottish Advisory Council will be permitted to meet and take decisions on these questions?
    Mr. Lindgren: The Scottish Advisory Council is a council, as its name indicates, to give advice, and its advice is invariably accepted.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: It is never taken, and never has been.
    Mr. Rankin: In view of the tact that the fare from Prestwick to London is the same as the fare from Renfrew to London, is it not absurd that a plane should leave Prestwick with empty seats, and that passengers anxious to use it, because transport—
    Mr. Speaker: This Question asks why passengers arriving at Prestwick are told to find their own transport to Renfrew. It has nothing to do with transport to London.
    Mr. Rankin: It operates both ways. Just as no transport can be laid on to Prestwick from London, no transport is laid on from Prestwick to London. That is the point.

    London Airport (Low Flying)
    Mr. W. R. Williamsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will have immediate inquiry made into complaints by many residents in Heston and Isleworth regarding the low flying of air liners coming into and leaving the London Airport late at night and in the early hours of the morning; whether he is aware that many liners enter the airport at a much lower height during the night than during the daytime and that the noise and vibration caused are disturbing and distressing the inhabitants, especially children; and if he will take all steps possible to reduce the nuisance to the absolute minimum.
    Mr. Lindgren: My noble Friend is always ready to investigate specific complaints of any unnecessary low flying. Detailed examination of past complaints, however, shows that in most cases the aircraft concerned were flying in strict accordance with accepted principles, and that a general inquiry would be unlikely to prove worth while. At night, aircraft appear to observers on the ground to be flying lower than they really are, because only the navigation lights are seen. Moreover, the impression of noise at night is accentuated by the absence of noise on the ground. It is not possible to avoid all noise at a large international airport, but everything possible is done to ensure that pilots of aircraft conform strictly to the rules governing approach and take-off. It is hoped that certain night training that has recently taken place at London Air-
    1314
    port can shortly be removed to a more suitable area.
    Mr. Williams: In order to try to reassure the residents in my constituency who live in close proximity to the London Airport, will my hon. Friend have a special inquiry into the complaint raised in the second part of my Question in regard to night flying?
    Mr. Lindgren: Noise is bound at present to arise when aircraft land and take off. A pilot does not unnecessarily risk his life, apart from the lives of others, by flying low unnecessarily when about to land, or by flying low longer than necessary in taking off. Everything possible is done to minimise the risk to aircraft and to avoid disturbance to passengers.

    Air Services (Free Meals)
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (1) why meals are no longer served free on board aircraft operated by B.E.A.C.; and whether there was consultation with other airlines prior to reaching this decision;
    (2) the cost of providing meals free to passengers by each of the civil aviation corporations for the last financial year or latest available date;
    (3) whether any change is contemplated in the practice of serving meals free to passengers travelling in aircraft operated by the B.O.A.C. and B.S.A.A.C.
    Mr. Lindgren: The cost of meals provided on aircraft, and the question whether they should be provided free, are matters of management with which my noble Friend does not consider it proper for him to interfere. The Question of whether meals should be provided free has been the subject of discussion between airline operators in the International Air Transport Association, and the policy of the three British corporations is in accordance with the resolutions of that body.
    Mr. Davies: Will my hon. Friend inform me, in view of the fact that very heavy subsidies are paid to these corporations, whether the Minister has not the right to ask for this information in accordance with the Act?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir, he can ask for the information, and if it were asked for

    1315
    it would be given, but this House has expressly desired that the Minister should interfere as little as possible in the day-to-day matters of management.
    Mr. Davies: Does my hon. Friend not agree that in this case public money is involved, and that it makes a large difference in the competitive powers of these aircraft with other aircraft?
    Mr. Lindgren: My hon. Friend will be aware that the I.A.T.A. determines such questions as the fares to be charged and what they shall include. The three corporations comply strictly with these international resolutions.
    Mr. Davies: Why is it that a certain European line does provide meals with out extra charge?
    Mr. Lindgren: The fact is that I.A.T.A. works in regions, with each region determining the tares which shall operate and the conditions attaching to those fares. As far as we are concerned, instead of saying that the fare "shall" include meals, it says "may," and the British interpretation of "may" is that they can have an opportunity to charge.
    Mr. Davies: I beg to give notice that J shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

  ARMED FORCES

    Leave Warrants, Germany
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Minister of Defence how many free warrants a year for leave from Germany are given for unmarried Service men; and how many for married Service men and their wives.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): Two free warrants a year for home leave are given to all members of the Services stationed in Germany except married men accompanied by their families, who are not entitled to leave in the U.K.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Can the Minister of Defence say why they are not entitled to leave to the United Kingdom; and would not it be equitable to give them the two free warrants which they may use for themselves and their wives?
    Mr. Alexander: They already have privileges over other people in having their families with them in Germany
    1316
    In addition to which they get two local leave warrants up to within 100 miles of their station.

    Enlistment and Commissions (Conditions)
    Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Minister of Defence (1) whether a sailor, soldier or airman who before joining the Services was subject to an approved school order made by a juvenile court is debarred from attaining commissioned rank, notwithstanding having successfully passed an O.C.T.U. course;
    (2) whether boys who have been subject to approved school orders made by juvenile courts are debarred from enlisting in the Royal Navy, the Army and the R.A.F.
    Mr. Alexander: The fact that a boy Had been to an approved school, would naturally be taken into account, with other factors, by the recruiting authorities, but such a boy would not necessarily be debarred from entry. Candidates for commissions are considered primarily on the basis of their Service records.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very large numbers of these boys in approved schools are not there because they have committed any offence, but because they are in need of care and protection? Is it not unfair that this is not taken into account when a boy tries to get into the Services? Will the right hon. Gentleman cause his reply to be circulated to the selection boards? If I bring a case to his notice, where a boy, having passed O.C.T.U., has been refused a commission because of the fact that he has been honest about his education, will he look into it?
    Mr. Alexander: I certainly will, but one must leave the selection boards to examine the whole record of these boys, in exactly the same way as with other boys, and to judge their individual qualities in leadership and character. If there is a case where the hon. and gallant Member considers there is hardship, I will certainly look into it.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    U.S.A. Turkeys (Purchases)
    Lieut.-Commander Hutchisonasked the Minister of Food whether he is yet in

    1317
    a position to give any information on the proposed purchase of turkeys from the U.S.A.
    The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey):I am sorry that I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave the hon. and gallant Member on 23rd April.
    Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: is the Minister aware that these negotiations have been going on for four or five months? When can a decision be expected?
    Mr. Strachey: The negotiations do not depend on me alone.

    Tinned Sausage Meat
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Minister of Food why tinned sausage meat, Vienna style, which was packed in the U.S.A. in 1942 and sold by N.A.A.F.I. at is. 6d. per lb., was subsequently released to the public at 3s. 2d. per lb.
    Mr. Strachey: Canned Vienna sausage was imported under Lend-Lease for Services requirements, and, as there had been no previous imports, it was at that time issued to N.A.A.F.I. at a price in line with that for home produced canned sausages which were priced at cost. After Lend-Lease ended, the price was adjusted to cover American selling prices.
    Sir T. Moore: Why should the public be forced to pay 3s. 2d. a lb. for this meat, which only a few months earlier was apparently sold at 1s. 6d. per lb?
    Mr. Strachey: Because Lend-Lease ended.
    Major Bruce: Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will not follow too closely the practice of private enterprise in realising a profit on these things.

    Fish and Chips (Conditions of Sale)
    Mr. Symondsasked the Minister of Food if he will consider so amending the Food (Conditions of Sale) Order as to make it an offence for a fish frier to refuse to sell chips to a customer unless he also buys fish.
    Mr. Strachey: Fish and chips are so well known as a composite dish that I do not think I should be justified in seeking
    1318
    to compel fish friers to supply them separately.
    Mr. Symonds: Does not the Minister consider that a conditional sale is indefensible in any circumstances?
    Mr. Strachey: The dish in a restaurant is very often a composite dish and the ingredients cannot be sold separately.

    Manufactured Meat (Allocations)
    Mr. Cooperasked the Minister of Food the figures for manufactured meat allocated to the undermentioned towns, calculated per head of the population: Northampton, Leicester, Darlington, Derby and Middlesbrough.
    Mr. Strachey: I can give approximate figures only of the amount of meat issued to manufacturers who are actually situated in these towns, and it must be remembered that some manufacturers deliver their products over a very wide area.
    The weekly figures are: Northampton, 119 lb.; Leicester, 138 lb.; Darlington,.157 lb.; Derby, 130 lb.; Middlesbrough, 151 lb. They do not include the trimmings from rationed meat, which general butchers can use for making meat products.
    Mr. Cooper: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that calculations show some discrepancy between various towns, and will he review the matter with a view to seeing that those towns with heavy industries are not placed at a disadvantage compared with other towns?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, we have just reviewed this allocation, as my hon. Friend knows, and Darlington and Middlesbrough have benefited, as these figures show.

    Yoghourt
    Mr. Parkinasked the Minister of Food how much liquid milk is allocated to the manufacture of yoghourt in the London area' and how much elsewhere; what is the cost of the process per pint of producing this article, which sells at three times the price of liquid milk; and what is the reason for allowing its unrestricted sale to the public when many old people would prefer the milk in its natural state.
    Mr. Strachey: The manufacture of yoghourt has hitherto been permitted because of its dietetic value, but I am looking at the policy again. The amount of milk

    1319
    used is not known exactly, but it is very small. I have no information about the costs of manufacture.
    Mr. C. Williams: May I ask what is the calorific value of this product?
    Mr. Strachey: The hon. Member may ask, but I should not be able to reply.

    Potatoes
    Sir Ronald Rossasked the Minister of Food why the large supplies of ware potatoes available in Northern Ireland were not used to prevent the recent shortage in London; and why was there a prohibition on their shipment after 24th June.
    Mr. Strachey: I think that the hon. Member has been misinformed. There is no prohibition on shipping. We have been and are still importing every available ware potato from Northern Ireland this year. These supplies are normally used in Lancashire, Wales and the South-West of England, but to ease the shortage, 2,000 tons were brought to London via Bristol last week, and a further 1,000 tons arrived direct by sea on Monday.
    Sir R. Ross: Is the Minister aware that local farmers have been protesting that their potatoes were not reaching London, which they were wishing to assist at the time? Is he further aware that they are under the impression that he cannot ship after the 24th? Is that correct?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, it never was correct. There was never the slightest prohibition on shipping after the 24th, but we are afraid that on July 5th the last ware potato will have been shipped.

    Points Rationing
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Food why the Food (Points Rationing) Order, 1946, and the 13 orders amending it have not been consolidated; and when these orders, which affect housewives generally, will be rendered intelligible.
    Mr. Strachey: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given him as recently as 8th May. As to the second part of the Question, the purport of the orders is given in explanatory notes, in Press notices, in "Food Facts" and on the wireless, and I do not believe that housewives have difficulty in understanding the points rationing system.
    Sir J. Mellor: Will not the Minister save both labour and annoyance by refraining from amending the principal Order at least once a month?
    Mr. Strachey: What we do is to consolidate this Order annually, and it will be consolidated again.
    Sir J. Mellor: Why is it necessary to amend it at least once a month?
    Mr. Strachey: The whole essence of the points scheme is that as supply and demand vary the point values are put up or down.

    DOMINIONS OFFICE (CHANGE OF TITLE)
    Mr. Eden(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make about a change in title of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and the Dominions Office.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. It has for some time past been clear that in certain quarters, both here and overseas, the view has been taken that the titles of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and the Dominions Office are no longer entirely appropriate and are liable to convey a misleading impression of the relations between the United Kingdom and the other members of the Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have accordingly reached the conclusion that it is desirable that these titles should now be changed, and steps are accordingly being taken for the issue of an Order in Council, under the Ministers (Transfer of Functions), Act, to alter the titles to Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and Commonwealth Relations Office, respectively.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eden: Could the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House tell us whether there are any changes in Business for today and for Friday?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. After the Debate on the Post Office, in Committee of Supply, today, we propose to ask the House to consider the Ways and Means Resolution relating to cinematograph

1321
films, and the Motion to approve the Purchase Tax (Exemptions) (No. 1) Order. It may be convenient if I inform the House that on Friday, after the Second Reading of the Crown Proceedings Bill [Lords], we hope that there will be time to take the Committee stage, and, if agreeable to the House, the remaining stages of the Foreign Marriage Bill [Lords].

CADET FORCES (GOVERNMENT POLICY)
Mr. Alexander: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make the following statement:
His Majesty's Government have had under review the objects and future position of the Cadet Forces of the Navy, Army and Air Force. They are convinced that these Forces have an important part to play not only in providing pre-Service training, but also in citizenship training. Training in a Cadet Corps, besides grounding a youth in Service traditions and elementary military knowledge is designed to develop qualities of self-discipline and of leadership. This training not only increases the youth's chances of advancement in regular or reserve service but is a very real asset to him, and therefore, to the country, no matter what career he follows. The introduction of national service as a normal peacetime measure does not in any way detract from the importance of pre-Service training. On the contrary, the task of the Services in making the best use of the national Service men will be greatly eased if among the men presenting themselves there is a significant proportion who, as a result of previous training in a cadet unit, have developed qualities of leadership and acquired a grasp of the elementary principles which would improve their opportunities for advancement and their chances of selection for commissioned rank, either during their period of whole-time service or later in the non-Regular forces. The Government, accordingly, would like to see a substantial increase in the numbers of boys entering the Cadet Forces of the three Services, and I should like to urge the parents of boys, who are not members of any other youth organisation, to encourage them to join a Service cadet unit of their choice. Service in a Cadet Corps is not only interesting in itself, it is also
1322
in a very special sense service to the nation. The opportunity is now being taken to remove anomalies at present existing, through which one Cadet Corps may have suffered from some handicaps or administrative difficulties which have been met or overcome in other Cadet Corps. For example, His Majesty's Government intend to extend to all cadets the services of free transport to annual camps, assistance where necessary over transport difficulties, and payment of officers while in full-time employment at courses or during camps. Other services are under examination.
There is also in preparation a scheme for a new combined Cadet Force in schools which retain boys over the age of 17, to combine the existing Sea Cadet Corps, Junior Training Corps, Army Cadet Force and Air Training Corps school units. This scheme should simplify the administration of the various cadet units in schools. It will provide a common basis of training in the early stages and enable cadets to specialise later in the subjects of one of the three Services. I am glad to take this opportunity of acknowledging the assistance received by the Service Departments from the headmasters' representatives in working out the details of the new scheme. The well-being of the Cadet movement depends not merely on financial support from the Government, and on technical assistance from the Services. It depends upon the fine qualities of character and enthusiasm of the cadets themselves. It depends upon those other members of the community who have worked hard for many years on its behalf. There are the individuals who give voluntary service as officers and supporters. There are the members and staffs of the local authorities who have done so much to foster this work and the work of other youth organisations. I shall be communicating with these authorities about the lines on which further development may best be encouraged. I should like on this occasion to express the thanks of His Majesty's Government to all who have given time and thought and service to the Cadet movement in the past and to assure them that whatever they may feel able to do in the future on its behalf will be a real contribution to the wellbeing of the nation.
Mr. Eden: While I hope that the House will welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement, in particular his tribute to

1323
those who have given most unselfish service to the Cadet Forces—service which has not always been received with friendliness in the past—may I ask these questions? First, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us a little more about the new scheme for the combined Cadet Force in schools? Can he say when he hopes it will come into operation? Further, could not the right hon. Gentleman make it plain to the cadets that by this service they are not only fulfilling a national patriotic obligation, but are also doing a service to themselves which should stand them in good stead when they come to fulfil their military service?
Mr. Alexander: The combined Cadet Force scheme is almost ready for approval. It only remains, among other things, to get final Treasury approval. I think it should be put into operation shortly. We feel that from the point of view of the school authorities, and saving administrative trouble, certainly up to the stage of taking Certificate A, training could be largely merged. I hope it will prove satisfactory. I can give, absolutely, the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman opposite would like me to give to those who intend to join the Cadet Forces. I speak from memory, but I believe that in the Army, during the war, about 5 per cent. had come through a Cadet Force. That 5 per cent, provided 50 per cent. of the commissions of a wartime category, which I think is a great tribute to those concerned. I believe that a large percentage of those from the A.T.C. also obtained commissions in the Air Force, and I know of similar cases in respect, of the Sea Cadets. I hope that assurance will be made widely known
Mr. Shurmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman promise some encouragement to the boys who enter a particular cadet service that when they reach their calling up age they will be able to go into the Service of their choice? I have in mind the Sea Cadets. I happen to belong to a committee of Sea Cadets where the boys pass their seamanship examinations, and, having served for three or four years, they are then pushed into the Army. What encouragement will these boys have to go into the particular cadet service for which they have been trained?
Mr. Alexander: That is being arranged. Everything possible is being done to
1324
allocate a boy to the Service of his choice and the one in which he has taken the trouble to be a cadet. Unfortunately, from time to time, the exigencies of the Services and the numbers required do not always make that possible. I will, however, do everything I can to meet the wishes of the House in this respect.
Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman give further consideration to that point? The number of cadets is relatively so small that it seems hard that a complete assurance cannot be given that when boys have given service to a Cadet Force they should continue to serve in whatever branch of the Service they have given their preliminary service.
Sir Ralph Glyn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the administration of the cadets is to remain in the hands of the Territorial Associations under their new title? How will they be able to provide for Sea Cadets in such areas as are not at present concerned with them? At present, they join the auxiliary associations connected with the Army and Air Force, but the Navy side is left out. Will circulars be sent round to explain the position?
Mr. Alexander: The hon. Baronet knows the position in the Territorial Associations in the case of the Army and Air Force. I think that the House generally knows that a great deal of responsibility for instituting and maintaining the Sea Cadets is laid on the Navy League, and they not only do a great deal of local administrative work, but also raise funds to provide accommodation and the like. I cannot, at the moment, say that the Sea Cadets would be included in the Territorial Associations, but the matter has been under consideration.
Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Does the Minister's reply mean that cadets will be drawn exclusively from the secondary schools, and, if so, will he consider whether arrangements can be made so that lads from the elementary schools, who have to leave school because of their circumstances, will have that right extended to them?
Mr. Alexander: The age of entry into the Service cadet forces is 15. The school unit, as such, will practically all be confined to the secondary type of school, but I have always received considerable

1325
help from headmasters and staffs, and local authorities with regard to encouraging boys to join an open cadet unit as distinct from the school cadet unit, and I hope that they will continue to do so.
Mr. Spence: Will the right hon. Gentleman go even further and guarantee to a cadet the particular unit for which he is trained? Can he in the case of a cadet who has trained for a specialised branch in that unit give an assurance that he will, if possible, get the job for which he is trained? I think that would give great encouragement to cadets.
Mr. Alexander: I will make these views of the House widely known among the authorities who make the selection. We will try to meet the views of the House as far as possible, but I do not want to give a blank-cheque promise of something which it may not be possible to carry out.
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman take special steps to ensure, and to bring to the notice of potential recruits for cadet forces, the particular advantages that may accrue to them if they reach a certain standard of proficiency before they are called up under the National Service Act?
Mr. Alexander: Yes, Sir, certainly.
Sir W. Wakefield: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to inform parents and others of the great advantages of cadet training, not only as a preparation for the immediate Service life, but for industry afterwards, because cadets trained in the cadet service benefit greatly from that training in industry, and will he make that clear to the parents and to the public?
Mr. Alexander: We have intended to enlist the help of the Press especially in getting these points over to the general public and to parents. I am also writing directly myself to all local authorities. We will certainly bear this matter in mind.
Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Many of the cadet units at present have no suitable
1326
local headquarters, and will my right hon. Friend take into consideration the question of the provision of huts or buildings for this purpose for them?
Commander Noble: Arising out of a previous reply of the Minister, does he now imply that these units will now be independent of voluntary contributions financially, and also will the Service Ministries be responsible for finding headquarters for these units?
Mr. Alexander: I would not like to rule out voluntary contributions, as much of the success of the whole of the cadet forces depends on voluntary effort. In reply to the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) with regard to accommodation, we are having difficulties because so many premises used during the war under requisition have had to be given up, and particularly so in some local authority areas where there are special housing difficulties. I am in communication with the local authorities.
Mr. Keeling: Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will not permit any obstruction to the work of these cadet forces on the part of local authorities, such as there was in London before the war?
Mr. Alexander: I have just spoken about the attitude of the Government upon the whole question, and I do not think that I can add to that.
Mr. Blackburn: Did I hear the Minister refer to military conscription as a normal peacetime measure, and, if so, will he withdraw those words which completely conflict with the assurances given to this House that this is a very abnormal measure, which will be brought to an end as soon as circumstances permit?
Mr. Alexander: I do not think that that arises out of my statement.
Sir R. Ross: Can the Minister say if this statement applies in all respects throughout the whole of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Alexander: Yes, Sir.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered:
"That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock and that the Proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).— [Mr. Whiteley.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  9TH ALLOTTED DAY
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  SUPPLY

    CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1947–48
    Motion made, and Question pioposed,
    "That a further sum, not exceeding 20, be granted to His Majesty towards defraying the charges for the following services relating to the Post Office for the year ending on the 31st March, 1948, namely:

    Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments, 1947–48

    £

    Revenue Departments, Vote 3, Post Office

    10

    Class VII, Vote 6, Public Building Great Britain

    10

    £20 "

  POST OFFICE
  3.50 p.m.
  Mr. Grimston: the Post Office touches industry and the general life of the nation at many points, and no discussion of the Post Office could ignore the background of our present economic situation, and more particularly the background of the grave statement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made on Monday. While there are several good reasons for putting down the Post Office Vote on this Supply day, I think it is all the more urgent because of the Chancellor's statement. What we want to do is to draw from the Postmaster General some indication of how the Post Office is going to contribute to the production drive, both by the example it can give and the services it can render. It is platitudinous to say that good communications are essential and bad communications a hindrance to industry, but they can also,
  1328
  whether good or bad, have a moral effect as well. I was struck during the war by a statement of Field-Marshal Wavell, when he said that the rapid carriage of mails between the United Kingdom and the troops serving abroad is priority No. 1 even over machine guns. At one point in the war that was the important place in which he put the carriage of mails to the troops.
  I regret to say that today, two years after the war, there are signs not of improvement but of some running down in the Post Office service in more than one direction. The wartime restrictions and charges are apparently becoming a permanent feature of the Post Office service. I will take the different services seriatim, and I take, first, the postal services. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that last year an improvement was announced in the collections and deliveries in the London and other areas. That improvement was introduced in the early part of this year, but was as rapidly taken off, and these services were reduced. The first reason given was the fuel crisis, and the second was the manpower situation. I want to probe into certain contradictory statements made by the Postmaster-General—and incidentally one was made today at Question Time—on the manpower aspect of the postal services.
  Let us look at the first. I would remind the House of the Debate which took place on the Adjournment on 6th June. On that occasion my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) raised the question of the restricted services in London, and I wish to quote some of the remarks made then by the Assistant Postmaster-General:
  "It is perfectly true that these restricted services are for one reason, and one reason only: because the Government, in reviewing the claims of the Civil Service—and hon. Members opposite have repeatedly called attention to the growth of the Civil Service— on the manpower of the country, asked various Government Departments, including the Post Office, to cut down their manpower, in favour of turning manpower over to production rather than the processes of distribution. That is the reason."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 6th June, 1947; Vol. 438, c. 683.]
  It was made clear in that statement that the reason for the reduced services was the need to reduce manpower.
  Let us look at some of the figures of manpower in the Post Office. I do not

  1329
  want to weary the Committee with a lot of detailed figures, so I will give round figures for the sake of simplification. According to various official publications, on 1st January, 1945, the staff of the Post Office, not including the industrial staff and counting two part-timers as one full-timer, was 219,000. By 1st April, 1946, that had risen to 239,600, and by 1st April, 1947, it had risen to 258,400. If my mathematics are correct that shows that over a year there was an overall increase of 19,000. Let us look for a moment at the number of postmen. On 1st October, 1946, 82,150 postmen were employed, and on 1st April, 1947, 85,868 postmen were employed, an increase over the year of over 3,000 postmen—during the very time the improved postal services were put on and taken off again, the reason for the latter being that manpower must be saved. However, in that period we had an increase of no fewer than 3,000.
  I come now to the Question which was answered today by the Postmaster-General. Question No 14, which was asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison), was this:
  "To ask the Postmaster-General, why a large number of men between the ages of 60 and 66 years have recently been discharged from the postal service in Edinburgh so that they may take up work in industry, when in fact no industrial employment exists in the city for men of that age; and why he does not retain these older men in the service and release the younger men and women who would be more readily absorbed in employment of an industrial nature."
  What was the answer to that? It really was a most astonishing answer in the circumstances. The Postmaster-General replied that these men were being discharged because they were redundant following the restrictions of the postal services. That has turned the whole thing upside down. The Assistant Postmaster-General had said that the services were being reduced because of manpower difficulties, and the Postmaster-General a few weeks later, in answer to a question, says exactly the opposite.
  The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling)The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling) indicated dissent.
  Mr. Grimston: There is no use the Postmaster-General shaking his head. We really want to know where we are. He must tell us whether he is right or
  1330
  whether the Assistant Postmaster-General is right. Further information on this question has reached me from Glasgow. I am told that temporary men over 50 in Glasgow are being dismissed, and the reason given is that they are required for productive industry. I understand that most of these men, owing to their age, are not likely to be fit for the requirements of essential industries, and the outcome of the whole thing is that this has not helped the manpower problem at all but has merely aggravated the unemployment situation in Glasgow. There is a great deal in this restriction of services coupled with the excuse about the manpower problem which requires explanation, and I hope we shall get it.
  I pass to another aspect of the postal services, and would inquire from the Postmaster-General what plans he has for the future. During any war—and the late war was no exception—means of transport in all directions are very much improved. Today we have faster aeroplanes, helicopters and other improvements which extend over different directions. Those things have their part to play in the carriage of mails, and although I am not suggesting that we should use helicopters exclusively to hasten the postal services, in many respects they can be used, as can fast aeroplanes. I want to Know whether there are any means of bringing all these new sources of speed to the aid of the Post Office in order to maintain and develop the postal services of this country. The ideal at which we should aim is to be able to post as late as possible in the evening with certainty of delivery in any part of the United Kingdom on the first post the following morning, using every means at our disposal to achieve a speedy, regular and cheap postal service. I shall be glad to know from the Postmaster-General what are his plans in that direction.
  I turn now to what are called the telecommunications services. I do not know what may have been the experience of other hon. Members and their friends. I do not refer here to the experience of telephones in this House because, as I expect every one knows, a Member of Parliament who goes to a telephone kiosk in the Central Lobby for a trunk call receives priority. My experience other than that, and the experience of my friends, has been of an extraordinary variation in the telephone service. Perhaps I can best

  1331
  make that clear by quoting one or two instances. I myself have sometimes found it quite impossible to get hold of Trunks in the early morning or during the cheap call period, and very often if one tries to get them by dialing "O" that is equally impossible. At other times, however, one gets through very quickly. A friend of mine had what I consider to be an odd experience the other evening, in that he was able to make a trunk call quite easily between five and six, but after trying to get through to Toll for 35 minutes had to abandon the attempt. I find it difficult to understand this variation between the service which is rendered at certain times by the trunk and the toll exchanges.
  Here I want to refer again to the number of telephonists employed. I believe that the Postmaster-General has been having difficulty in staffing the telephone exchanges, and, if that is so, he must look at the conditions of work which obtain there. He said today that one of his troubles has been a rapid turnover. I am sorry to hear that, because one rather hopes that people who go into the Post Office will eventually wish to make a career of it. According to the figures I have for 1945–46, the full-time and part-time telephonist staff and the technical staff employed in connection with the telephone service totalled 41,500. For 1946–47, the figure dropped to 36,000. Here let me say that the service in 1946–47 was certainly no worse than it is now. I see that the figure budgeted for in 1947–48 is 52,700, and I should very much like to hear from the Postmaster-General exactly what the staffing position is with regard to telephonists. I am not sure that that is entirely the trouble, but I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that {the Committee will be interested to learn, the reason for the great variations in the telephone service to which I have referred.
  On top of all that, the cheap service— and here I am turning to the amenities of the service to the public—is still restricted to the hours between 6.30 and 9.30. I would remind the Committee that it was possible to keep the cheap service going for the extended hours right through the night until the latter years of the war. I believe that it was actually in the very last year of the war that this service.
  1332
  which is a great boon to the public, had to be restricted, and we can obtain no satisfaction from out inquiries as to when it is to be reintroduced. Another point is that before the war there was a service called night letter telegrams. This was not very largely used but it was a great convenience to many business men—and here again we touch upon our present difficulties. In the course of his business a man may be visiting a number of factories during the day in connection with progress, orders, or something of that kind, and when he comes' home in the evening and wishes to communicate with his head office or his works, it is a great help to him if he can sit down and dictate a long telegram at cheap rates which he knows will be delivered by the first post next morning. It should not be outside the bounds of possibility for the Post Office to restore this service which, although not greatly used, was extremely convenient.
  The next point I wish to mention is one which is not so important but which does show the trend of Post Office administration. We have not yet had greetings telegrams restored; here again we kept them going as long as possible during the war, and I think it is not unreasonable to ask for them to be restored two years after the war. To sum up, I want to know if the Postmaster-General can tell us the reasons for the discrepancies in the telephone service which I have described, what he thinks are the prospects of a really decent service being reintroduced, what his difficulties are and how long he thinks it will be before we really have a Trunk and Toll service on demand which is, of course, what is wanted. I do not want to be unreasonable and I would not have expected that to be brought about at once, but we are further from it than we ought to be.
  I now refer to another service which it was envisaged might have been introduced soon after the war. It is the ASK service, and perhaps I had better explain to the Committee what that means. The idea was that persons in the London area should dial ASK when they required information. It was not intended to be used by people who wanted to know the name of the play which was showing at a particular theatre, but was meant to be confined to Post Office and Government information. Anybody who wanted to

  1333
  know suddenly how soon they could send a cable to Kamchatka—which is rather a frivolous example—or who required any other information from a Government Department could obtain it by dialing ASK, whereupon they would be linked up with the particular Government Department which could deal with the inquiry. In fact, there would be a service—particularly valuable in these days of Government control, licences and regulations— whereby one could go to a telephone kiosk, dial, ASK and be switched through to whichever Department dealt with the type of inquiry one was making. It was felt that this would be of particular advantage to foreigners visiting this country. I should have thought that there were means by which an exchange could have been adapted to this service. It would have enhanced the prestige of the Post Office if it did nothing else. But it would have done something else as well, and I should like to know if the idea has been abandoned or in what stage of preparation or fulfilment it is.
  Turning now to the question of costs, all the deterrent charges are still with us two years after the war. At the beginning of the war postage was increased, and at various stages during the war telegraph and telephone charges were raised with the one object of preventing people using the telegraph and telephone services in time of war when they were required for more important things. That reason has passed, and two years after the war we still have these enhanced charges which lead to very large Post Office surpluses, as I will show in a moment. We have already asked about the restoration of the commercial accounts of the Post Office which were abandoned for manpower reasons during the war, and I understand that they are to be produced for 1947–48. Meanwhile, the figures of Post Office profits for 1945–46 are as follows: the postal services, a surplus of £15,500,000; telegraph services, a slight deficit of £38,000 which, in relation to these astronomical figures, may be neglected; telephone services, a surplus of no less than £20,500,000. Thus there is a total profit of over £36 million for 1945–46.
  In reply to a recent Question, the Assistant Postmaster-General informed us that to reduce postcards from 2d. to a 1d.—2d. is an outrageous charge for a postcard, but it was done because of the war when we used deterrent charges to stop
  1334
  people using services required for defence purposes—would cost only £1,250,000 a year. To reduce the postage on letters by ½d. to 2d. would cost £7,500,000 a year, according to figures given by the Postmaster-General. Together they would cost £8,800,000; and that is off a surplus of £15,500,000. Even if that concession were given to the British public—and it would be anti-inflationary—it would still leave the Post Office with a pretty handsome surplus according to the 1945–46 figures. I have no figures about the telephones but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us what it would cost to put the telephone and telegram charges back to where they were before the war; that is, to remove the surcharges imposed during the war. I do not know what the figure is, and I am not going to guess, but, at any rate, there is a surplus of £20,500,000 on telephone service for 1945–46, and it seems to me that the public and industry are well entitled to enjoy some reduction in the charges.
  Perhaps the Postmaster-General can answer the question whether at the present moment the Post Office is regarded as a revenue producer, or as an institution which has to give the cheapest and best possible service to the industry of this country. That is a question we really must have answered. If there are to be no reductions in charges and we see this surplus of £36 million, we can only draw the conclusion that the present Government regard the Post Office as a vehicle of taxation. In our present condition the Post Office can render invaluable service to industry and should do so at the lowest possible charge. If that is in fact not the policy, it is a profound mistake and should be altered.
  I believe that the Post Office Advisory Council has been set up again. It is a council composed of outside people with various experiences, both industrial and civil, to advise the Postmaster-General and the Post Office. I should very much like to hear what their work has been since they were set up, and how far any recommendations they may have made have been followed by the Postmaster-General.
  There is another small matter to which I would like to refer. I must make some apology to the Committee for raising it, because it arises out of a case brought personally to me by a constituent of

  1335
  mine. I mention it because I understand that it is a matter which is causing concern to a wider circle. It is the mail service between this country and our troops at present serving in Burma. In this case an anxious parent has written to say that he has heard nothing from his son since last January and can get no reply to letters or cables. I took the matter up with the Assistant Postmaster-General, who has been most courteous in doing all he can to find out the cause of the trouble and in telegraphing to Burma. We have established the fact that the trouble is not at this end. In the last communication I had from the Assistant Postmaster-General he indicated that the Army Post Office in Burma had handed over to the local Burmese service, and it is really almost impossible, I understand, to get inquiries answered. If that is the case, he must do something about it, even to the extent of resuming the Army postal service. It is quite intolerable that parents of troops serving overseas should find that they have no communication for months and that the only thing the Post Office can do about it is to inquire from a new government, which I suppose is not running very well at the moment and seems incapable of replying or, at least, incapable of replying in a reasonable space of time. I raise the question because it is causing concern to a number of people who have relations serving in Burma.
  I would also like to know if the "Post Office Magazine" has been started again. It was a very valuable medium for exchanging information among the staff of the Post Office. I attach great importance to anything that can be done to help the staff because, be it remembered, however good the technical apparatus and so on of the Post Office may be, the efficiency of the service comes down in the end to the attitude of the staff. "Can I help you?" was one of the best phrases ever coined, and it was acted up to well. The staff touch the public at all points—on the counters, in telephone exchanges, and also through the men coming to see to one's telephone in the office or the house. Anything which can help the staff to know one another and make the whole thing a happy family is good. I should like to hear if the "Post Office Magazine"—it is only one example of what can be done—has been
  1336
  restored. Other suggestions have been made, and I should like to know if any others have been put into operation.
  I would remind the Committee that the Post Office is the oldest of our nationalised industries. The Opposition do not quarrel with the issue in this instance. There are many extraneous and historical reasons why we think the Post Office must remain a nationalised institution. In that connection I would remind the Committee that it was orginally Charles I who enjoined one Thomas Withering to organise a State service for the conveyance of private letters from London to Holyhead and thence to Ireland, and to bring back answers in six days. [Interruption.]An hon. Members behind me says, "Quicker than now." The title which has come down from those days,"Royal Mail,"is something which we on this side of the House would be sorry to lose.
  The Government are today calling for increased production of industry in view of our present circumstances, but what do we see in this oldest of our nationalised industries which is vital to production? We see rather a falling off in the services. We do not see that improvement in the services which we ought to find. The figures I have quoted appear to show less work by more people. No Postmaster-General should be satisfied that that is the sort of lead to give, or to appear to give, to the rest of industry at this time. I very much hope that the Postmaster-General will be able to tell us something to show that that is not the lead—he has been a very short time in office—he intends to give.
  Nobody who has had the honour to be in the Post Office, as I have had, can fail to have an affection for that institution and its staff, and I am perfectly certain —I say this most sincerely—that if they are put on their mettle, they will respond to any lead the right hon. Gentleman cares to give them. I remember the behaviour of the staff after air raids. I remember more than one occasion when, after a shattering air raid, the postman or telegraph boy was seen next morning delivering among the ruins. Although un-happly he might not be able to find the recipient, the mere gesture that that was being done by this great Government Department raised the morale of the place. We want to see something of that sort

  1337
  today, particularly when the Government are putting out appeals to industry to rescue the country from its difficulties. Yet we do not see that being done.
  I wish to conclude with a reference to a publication issued shortly after the war. It is called "The Post Office Went to War," and on the back of the publication appears a facsimile copy of a letter written to the Postmaster-General by the Supreme Allied Commander which I will read to the Committee. It is dated 22nd June, 1944, from Supreme Headquarters, and reads as follows:
  "The build-up of the necessary forces for-the current operations has involved the construction of a vast network of communications radiating from key centres of vital importance in the United Kingdom. The greater part of this work has been undertaken by the engineers and staff of the General Post Office. It is my great pleasure on behalf of the Allied Expeditionary Force to ask you to pass on to them my sincere appreciation for their contribution and for the long hours which they have worked and for the excellent co-operation they have given toward our success."
  The letter is signed "Sincerely, Dwight D. Eisenhower." I hope the present Postmaster-General is going so to direct the affairs of the Post Office that its contribution today and the lead it can give will not fall short of the tradition enshrined in that letter.
  4.22 p.m.
  The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling): I shall be dealing with quite a number of things which the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) referred to, later in my speech, when I propose to give a general survey of some of the main items. The hon. Member raised one or two points with which I would like to deal now. Anything which I miss in this statement will be dealt with by the Assistant Postmaster-General. Some of the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman are questions of detail, and we will have to get the information in order to reply to them. In regard to the postmen, there seems to be a difference of opinion, although I do not think it is a contradiction, and I will try to explain it. It is a fact that in 1946 there were 82,150 postmen, and in 1947, 85,868. We did make an attempt to put into operation new services, and actually put them into operation, and our staff was increased because of that fact. Then came the fuel crisis and various other matters, includ-
  1338
  ing the need for men in productive industry. We decided to cut the services and to reduce the number of men accordingly. Immediately we made the decision to cut the services and to provide men for industry, we began to reduce the number, and the reduction will appear in next year's figures. The reduction is going on now, as hon. Members will have appreciated from answers to Questions they have put to the Department.
  Mr. Grimston: I have some monthly figures here. Would the right hon. Gentleman be able to give the latest figures in answer to a Question, or perhaps during the Debate, say, for 1st June this year?
  Mr. Paling: I will try to do that. The hon. Gentleman made a point about the dismissal of men in Glasgow threatening a rise in the unemployment figures. It might well be that after we have dismissed these men, some weeks may elapse before all of them can find their places in industry. There may be a temporary period during which there will be a slight margin of unemployment. It will take some time to swallow all these men. I hope that in the present circumstances it will not be long before they all find employment. The hon. Gentleman also asked what would be the cost of going back to the preware telephone charges. I am told that the cost would be in the neighbourhood of £16 million.
  Let me now give the general survey. The Post Office is asking for nearly £147 million. This is a big sum of money, and it reflects the huge business which the Post Office handles. The value of our dealings with the public in 1946 was £3,500 million. We handled nearly 7,000 million letters, nearly 239 million parcels, nearly 52 million telegrams, and more than 2,500 million telephone calls. We paid nearly 550 million pensions, services, and billeting allowances, and the number of our Savings Bank transactions was 123 million. In almost every way—telephones, telegraphs, savings bank, parcels and counter transactions—the business done is well above the prewar level. It is only in postal orders and letter packets that we are handling fewer than before the war, and these are steadily going up. This outstanding increase in business is a sign of the equally outstanding effort made by the Post Office since the end of the war, with diluted and

  1339
  often too little staff to recover as much as possible of prewar standards of service and efficiency. All sections of the Post Office made an ungrudging contribution to the war effort; this left us with a good deal of leeway to make up, and many causes, most of them beyond our own control, have since combined to hamper our recovery. None the less, the greater part of my tale is one of progress, progress made in the face of great difficulties.
  The Post Office is such a vast organisation, and its occupations are so many and so different, that I do not find it easy to know where to begin my story. But of all our services the postal service is the senior, and I think that it would be appropriate to begin with that. During the war, the postal services were severely reduced. After the war we aimed at giving the following services: In London head districts five deliveries of letters and three of parcels, the first delivery to start at 7.15 a.m. and the final delivery at 7 p.m. In London sub districts four deliveries, the first commencing at 7 a.m., and the last at 7 p.m. The collections in London were to be more or less as prewar, except that the final collection, both in head and sub districts, was to be at 9 p.m. instead of 10 p.m. to midnight. The latest time of posting for first delivery throughout the United Kingdom was to be 6 to 6.30 p.m. Parcel deliveries were to be as prewar, three in head districts and two in sub districts. In towns adjacent to London there were to be three deliveries, the first starting at 7 a.m., and the last between 4 and 6 p.m.; two parcel deliveries were to be made as prewar. In other provincial areas there were to be three deliveries in the largest towns and twp in the smaller towns; the first delivery to start at 7 a.m. and the final delivery at about. 3 p. m.; the final collection to be at 8 to 8.30 p.m. and restricted to main thoroughfares. In rural areas the prewar service was to be provided generally, that is, two deliveries, one morning and one afternoon, and two collections, the last collection generally about 4 to 6 p.m.
  I must explain that the circulation' of mails in this country rests, and is likely for some time to come to rest, on the network of night travelling post offices. Prewar this system provided a very efficient service along the railway routes, but it was inevitable that certain towns,
  1340
  such as Birmingham, should benefit from their geographical position as compared, for example, with Edinburgh, Glasgow, Belfast and Aberdeen. There were also gaps in the cross-country services when they cut across the main railway routes. One main target which the Post Office set itself in the postwar period was to level up, so far as possible, this unevenness of service by using air services; long distance ones between London and Scotland and Ireland on the one hand; and on the other, shorter links between travelling post offices to close the cross-country gaps.
  Our first task was, therefore, to restore the travelling post offices. Immediately the war in Europe ended we broached this with the railway companies. They expected great difficulty because of the state of their permanent way, but they very generously undertook to start the travelling post offices earlier than they themselves regarded as practicable. As a quid pro quo the Post Office was not to expect the same standard of time-keeping as prewar. I should like here to pay a tribute to the public spirited attitude of the railway companies in this respect. They also agreed, in spite of their serious operating difficulties, to re-schedule parcel mails to passenger trains much earlier than they had thought practicable. It was realised on both sides that labour difficulties, particularly at railway transfer points, would prevent us reaching prewar standards here also.
  The Post Office also approached the Ministry of Civil Aviation about night flying services. The Committee will realise that, if an effective postal service is to be provided, the air service should operate with practically 100 per cent. regularity. For 100 per cent. regularity in night flying services, the air operators must have at their disposal all the most up-to-date night flying aids. Lack of this equipment has held us up so far, but we are being very persistent. I hope that, within the next 12 months, it will be possible to make a start with the long-distance inland night air services. The provision of airlines between travelling post offices is even more difficult. We need airfields practically next door or as near as possible to the railway stations, if we are not to lose the time we gain in the air by delay between the airport and the railway station. Possibly a solution of this

  1341
  difficulty will be found in the direction mentioned by the hon. Gentleman opposite. It may be that we shall have to wait until a helicopter service has been developed. At the moment the helicopter is in its infancy and there are only a few machines in this country. We are expecting to make experiments soon in collaboration with the Ministry of Civil Aviation, and with dummy mails; but the helicopter has to make a lot of progress yet. In particular, it must be faster and, from our point of view, it must have a greater mail capacity than it has at present.
  We actually made a start in October, 1945, with the restoration of the night travelling post offices by putting back the four main mail carrying trains, the Up and Down Specials, which run between London and Aberdeen, and the G.W.R. travelling post offices which run between London and Penzance. Seven more travelling post offices were put back in the spring of last year and the remainder, with one or two exceptions, in the autumn. As the travelling post offices were put back we were able to begin our work of introducing the post war services, and by the end of the year they had all been established in the provinces. London offered a more serious problem. The postwar services were not ready until the end of the year. To avoid confusion with Christmas work the new services were deferred until 20th January. They were then introduced under the most unfavourable conditions. The transport strike had left an accumulation of mails to be disposed of, and the severe weather had led to very heavy sick absences. All the same, the new services went in. They had only run for some three weeks when the fuel crisis and the amount of sick leave made it impossible for us to continue with the late delivery and collection.
  At this point we were called on, along with other Departments, to make our contribution to releasing manpower for productive industry. The Post Office is a commercial concern, and its staff numbers are closely related to the services. The only way in which we could show a substantial manpower saving was by cutting services. This, though it went right against the grain, we had to do. We have tried our best to avoid inconveniences to the community as a whole
  1342
  and, in particular, to the commercial community. By retaining a first delivery starting about 7 a.m. and a final general collection from 5.30 to 6.30 p.m. —Head Office boxes are later, of course, and are generally not cleared before 8 o'clock—the Post Office offers the best service it can provide with the manpower available to it.
  I am sorry to say that the new services are not even now working everywhere as they should. In the first place, the change in deliveries meant in many places a complete recast and reorganisation of the postmen's walks. Thus, for the moment, many postmen are entirely new to their duties. They will quickly become familiar with their new rounds, and as they do, the services will show a steady improvement. Secondly, the railway companies frequently find it impossible to maintain scheduled running times, and so mails sometimes miss connections. I have already described how the Post Office and the railway companies are working closely together to provide an efficient mail service, but so long as the present difficulties regarding manpower, rolling stock, coal and permanent way remain, the companies find it difficult to restore their services to the pre-war level. They have gone out of their way many times to retime trains to try to help us.
  I can assure the Committee that nothing is being overlooked which will make for improvement in the mail services. As an earnest of this, I am glad to be able to say that I am arranging to restore the prewar late fee facility on mail trains. As from 7th July, the public will be able to post letters with an extra halfpenny stamp on mail trains to which sorting office carriages are attached. Let me freely admit that the services the Post Office is offering at present fall short of our own standard of an efficient postal service. My intention is, as soon as the manpower position lets us, to build up the postal service again to the level which was aimed at after the war.
  Let me say a word about personnel. The Committee should realise that at the same time as the Post Office was reorganising its postal services after the war, it was also carrying out the most radical overhaul in its history of its postal personnel, of their grading and organisation with the sole aim of greater efficiency. I

  1343
  should also on this point say something about the conditions of work of the postal staff. There is a feeling that I and my predecessors have given too much weight to the claims of the staff when mapping out the shape of the services to the public. Before I do this, I must pay a tribute to the scores and hundreds of thousands of ordinary Post Office workers of all kinds—postal, telegraphs, telephone, engineering and clerical—who kept the services going, often in the worst possible conditions, throughout the war, and through the in some ways not less difficult times since the end of the war. The public is apt to take the efforts of these unassuming Post Office workers too much for granted. During the war they perhaps did not realise to what an extent the whole defence mechanism of the country depended on services constructed, manned and maintained by Post Office men and women.
  They sometimes do not fully realise under what a strain these men and women have been working, both during the war and at times such as we experienced earlier this year when the climate did its worst for us. There is also a very special class of officer, the counter clerk, who stands particularly in the public eye, and who has to contend with a pressure and a variety of business very much greater than before the war, and to contend with it in conditions which are often not nearly as good as they ought to be. I have myself seen the number and the variety of transactions undertaken by some of these counter clerks, who must be nearly encyclopaedias in the width of their grasp. I think the Committee will agree that, taken by and large, these servants of the Post Office have done magnificent work during these last hard years.
  As regards staffing conditions on the postal side, the Committee must realise that the efficient yet not extravagant postal service which we enjoyed prewar rested on staff conditions and attendances which, under present-day conditions, could not be defended. In London many postmen began work at 6 o'clock in the morning and did not finish until 10 o'clock at night. This "covering period" of 16 hours, with a break in the middle of the day, was only tolerable at all because most of the postmen concerned worked in the neighbourhood where they lived. Now, as a result of war damage in London,
  1344
  the position has been radically altered. Many postmen now have to travel a considerable distance to their work. I hope the Committee will agree with me that it is quite out of the question to ask any man to accept a working day covering 16 hours with the addition of a journey to and from his work, and we know in London how long these journeys can be. In the provinces, too, most postmen worked "split duties." and though the "covering period" was not as long as in London, "covering periods" of as much as 12, 13 or 14 hours were common. After the war, "split duties" were abolished entirely in London, and we were considering how to reduce them in the provinces when the manpower crisis supervened. When the services were reduced we took the chance of improving staff attendances, without additional calls on manpower and, in town areas, we have materially reduced the number of "split duties."
  Now let me mention one or two aspects of the postal services which will be of particular interest. Today there are letter services to all parts of Europe and parcel services to all parts except the Dodecanese Islands. To the rest of the world, except the Far East, postal services continued during the war, but they were hampered by the lack of shipping. As the shipping position has improved, the postal services have also improved. Today there are letter services to all the world and parcel services to all the world except parts of the Far East. We keep a keen eye on shipping outlets and send mails by all suitable available ships. We have made some very solid if not spectacular progress since the war in connection with external air mails. The air services to Europe have now been restored on a surcharge basis and B.O.A.C. now carry the bulk of the mail. It is hoped that the outcome of the Universal Postal Union Congress at present sitting in Paris will be a reduction in operators' air transport charges to Europe. If this comes off, I hope as a result to be able within the next 12 months to restore the prewar non-surcharge system to Europe under which letters will be carried by air without surcharge whenever the use of air affords worth while acceleration.
  We are keenly exploiting the Empire Air Mail Services, so tremendously important to us and the rest of the Commonwealth. Today the volume of air mail carried on the Empire route is roughly

  1345
  equivalent to what was carried in 1938–39 under the Empire Air Mail scheme. The Committee will not think I am satisfied with this. It is a matter of aircraft. Give us the cargo space and we will fill it with mails. The air service before the war to North America was in its infancy and mails were almost exclusively carried in American planes. Today the volume of mails totals some five tons a week and the great bulk of it is carried by B.O.A.C. In January, 1946, South American Airways Corporation started their service to South America and today they carry weekly one ton of mail as compared with the weekly figure of 200 lbs. before the war which was carried by French and German services.
  The Committee will be interested to learn of the improvement which has been effected in transmission times. Whereas before the war the mail took 12 to 14 days to reach Australia, today it takes three. To New Zealand before the war it took 16 to 21 days, today it is five. To India it took five to seven days, today it is three to five. To South Africa it took five to six days, now it is three to four. To West Africa it was five days, now three. To South America it took three to four days, now two to three days. To Egypt two to two and a half days, now it is one.
  Now let me say a few words about telecommunications, which the hon. Gentleman raised. Whatever the world may think about the telecommunications services, the progress has indeed been spectacular. The Post Office faced the peace with some five to six years of arrears of plant and a waiting list of 300,000. Added to this, the appetite for telephone service was just about double that of prewar. Some 16,000 out of 41,000 of our engineering staff had joined the Forces but, as demobilisation proceeded, we managed to recruit some first-class material from the Signal Services. We have now an engineering force of about 53,000 and, during last year, 1946, we succeeded in providing over 800,000 telephones as against the prewar record of 438,000. In spite of this great effort, of which the Post Office may well be proud, the waiting list has slowly but steadily increased until it now stands at just over 400,000.
  In the last 12 months our great difficulty has been to obtain sufficient stores and equipment from the manufacturers and to get the necessary buildings. We
  1346
  have placed large orders, but we are competing with demands for housing and the export trade, and delivery of plant has not kept pace with our needs. To add to all our difficulties, we have now a shortage of raw materials, particularly cotton, steel, timber, and moulding powder for plastics. We are still managing to provide between 50,000 and 60,000 telephones a month. Before the war our pace was 35,000. However, we have been living on our fat, our margin of spare plant has steadily dwindled, and the provision of telephone service now means the construction of more new plant than it used to do. We still have to impose restrictions on the amount of plant and stores we can afford to use for the provision of service to a new subscriber; but we have specially in mind the needs of rural areas, and the farmers in particular. We feel justified in devoting to them a larger proportion of our resources than we would to subscribers in urban areas.
  We are anxious too, to provide more telephone kiosks. Since the war we have provided 1,000 new kiosks and we are aiming at 1,700 a year for the future. We try to give special attention to those applicants who have, I am sorry to say, had to wait so long. Demand is still high, and there is plenty of room for further development. We shall not be happy until we see a telephone in every house. In the meantime we hope to go on providing 50,000 to 60,000 telephones steadily month by month so long as supplies of plant and buildings permit, and to continue our intensive research into the use of substitute materials. We have in mind also new methods of distribution to give us a greater exploitation of line plant, and we are studying carefully the possibilities of developing "snared" service under modern conditions. I should like to note here that a similar position exists in America. At the end of 1946 the Bell Telephone system had a waiting list of about 2,000,000, much the same proportion to existing lines as obtains in this country.
  Another telephone problem to which we have been giving our attention is that of maintenance. Preventive maintenance work had to be dropped during the war and a good many weaknesses in the plant were caused by war damage. There is no doubt that the whole of the telephone

  1347
  plant requires a thorough overhaul, and this has now been put in hand. It is a job, of course, which will take several years to complete. The telephone system suffered widespread damage from the severe weather during the first three months of this year. About 200,000 subscribers' lines were put out of action, mainly by the floods. It is something of an achievement that service was temporarily restored within a month to nearly all these subscribers. Permanent repairs still remain to be done, and they will have to be completed before next winter, even if provision of new service has to suffer in consequence.
  At the same time, while we have had this constantly increasing demand for more telephones, the use of the service by existing subscribers has been increasing. There are now nearly four and a half million telephones in this country, well over a million more than there were before the war. In fact, one out of every four telephones in use today has been provided since the war. The local calling rate has risen, and during the last year there were 2,300 million local calls. The increase in the use of the trunk service also has been astonishing. During the war many thousands of trunk circuits were handed over to the fighting Services, but these have now been returned to us. More cables have been laid; now we have some 13,500 trunk circuits in use. Last year the number of effective trunk calls rose to well over 200 million, just about double the prewar use.
  The standard of service has been steadily improving, though it is still some way behind the prewar standard, and the latest observation results show that 75 per cent. of the calls were completed on demand. All these increases in traffic have meant a large increase in the operating force, about which the hon. Member asked. There are some 14,000 telephone operators in London alone, and we expect that as the staff gain more experience the standard of service will continue to improve. As I mentioned in answer to a Question today, we are faced with the added difficulty of a tremendous turnover of telephone staff each year, amounting, in some parts of London, to nearly 50 per cent. The Committee will imagine what a great effort has been required of the engineering staff, who
  1348
  have formed a spearhead of this very great expansion on the telephone side. I should like the Committee to know that they too at the same time have taken in their stride a not insignificant reorganisation—a reorganisation aimed like that on the postal side, at greater efficiency and flexibility.
  These increases in staff mean an increase in training facilities. This indeed applies over the whole field covered by Post Office activities. The provision made for training in the Post Office is one of its most notable achievements. On a recent visit to Edinburgh I had the opportunity of going round one of the engineering schools, where young men, most of whom have been in the Services, were given an opportunity of acquiring new knowledge or, in some cases, brushing up their old knowledge. Perhaps equally important, a lot of the young ones, the boys coming into the service, had been sent to the training school to become acquainted with the new equipment in a much better way than they could by going straight into the service. Thus they get some elementary training, so that when they go into the service they will have some knowledge of it.
  Now for a few words about the telegraph service. This service suffered severely from enemy action; the Central Telegraph Office—the largest telegraph office in the world—was destroyed in the heavy raid on London at the end of 1940, and other large telegraph offices such as Liverpool, Birmingham, Bristol, were severely damaged. It was thus necessary to introduce dispersal arrangements, and the service is still suffering from the fact that the average telegram has to undergo more handlings than in prewar days. As the trunk telephone service has improved, telegraph traffic has fallen, but it is still higher than it was before the war, in spite of the fact that we are not yet able to restore the "Greetings telegram." I agree with the hon. Member, I should like to do so at the earliest possible moment. Paper restrictions and printing difficulties are the main difficulties which stand in the way of our doing this.
  We are steadily introducing switching methods to eliminate the retransmissions of telegrams. The present switching system is operated manually and we propose to replace this by automatic switch-

  1349
  ing. We hope to begin this work in 1949 and to complete it by about 1953. Meanwhile the standard of service, though still well below the prewar standard, is steadily improving. The average time from the handing in of a telegram to sending out for delivery was 30 minutes in 1939, and 140 minutes in 1945; today it is 45 minutes. Before leaving the subject of telephones and telegraphs, I would like to say a few words about the restoration of the overseas services. Before the war the public telephone service was available to every European country except Albania. A 24 hour service has now been restored to all European countries except Albania, Greece, Turkey and Poland, and negotiations are in hand for the restoration of services to these countries. The volume of traffic is about 84 per cent. of the prewar level.
  Our research engineers have developed a submarine repeater, a very notable achievement, and this is likely to have a marked effect on the technique of submarine cables. We have already incorporated one in a new cable laid to Germany and expect to lay a new cable with repeater to Holland in the next few months, to be folowed some time later by one to Belgium. Radio telephone services have been restored and extended to most of the important countries outside Europe and to ships at sea and radiotelephone traffic is now about two-and-a-half times the prewar level. Similarly the telegraph services to Europe have been restored and the traffic is about 25 per cent. above the prewar level and ship-shore traffic is also well above the pre-war level.
  Let me say a word about savings, which is also an important part of Post Office work. I refer to the work done by the Savings Department. Since the start, in November, 1939, of the War Savings Campaign, this has been continuously expanding. During the year ended 31st March last, the number of savings bank transactions amounted to 123 million with a turnover of £1,249 million. The 25 million active accounts at 31st March, 1947, had a balance of £1,981 million standing to their credit. Compare this with the figures at the end of 1938–39, when there were 11½ million active accounts with a balance of £523,700,000, and the number of transactions had, during the year, amounted to 47 million, of £264 million.
  1350
  The foregoing figures include transactions in accounts opened for war gratuities and postwar credits due to members of the Armed and Civil Defence Forces. The work of issuing these credits involved the opening of a new office at Manchester. The degree of activity in these accounts generally is much higher than that in ordinary savings bank accounts, as the benefits were mainly intended to help the recipients in the difficult task of resettlement into civilian life. The work of issuing the bank books and maintaining the accounts requires a staff of nearly 1,800. In view of the abnormal activity of the accounts, work which can be classed as non-essential to the day-to-day upkeep of the accounts has had to be allowed to fall into arrear, and some 12 million payments on demand are awaiting posting to the accounts. Extra staff is required to clear off these arrears. The number of release benefits accounts opened to date is 6,400,000, with initial credits amounting to £362 million. In the last financial year, 3,100,000 accounts were opened.
  The curtailment and abandonment of prewar safeguards and checks have led to a growth in the amount of losses by fraud, particularly since 1945. The recent large increase is attributed in the main to two factors—to the fact that forged identity cards are easily obtainable by determined offenders; and to the increase in criminal activity following demobilisation. All the same, the requirement that the National Registration identity card be produced, first when a new account was opened, and later when a withdrawal on demand was made, has been of valuable assistance in checking fraud. Further measures for preventing fraud have recently been introduced.
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: Can we have some idea of the extent of the frauds? Were they very large?
  Mr. Paling: Yes, they were large. If the hon. Member would like more detailed information, I will try to obtain it during the Debate so that my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General may give it when he replies.
  Finally, we come to the work done by the bank in connection with national savings certificates. The total value of certificates issued during the financial year was in the neighbourhood of £208 million

  1351
  The number of holders is approximately 17 million and, at 31st March, they had to their credit £1,650 million, exclusive of accrued interest. At 31st March, 1939, the amount of principal remaining invested was £381 million. The present rate of issue of new holdings is about 40,000 per month. When the total amount invested by holders of national savings certificates is added to Post Office savings bank deposits and holdings of Government stock, we get the enormous sum of £4,868 million of national savings in the custody of the Post Office on 31st March last. It may well be imagined that for the staff involved in this vast extension of savings department business, life has not been a bed of roses; nor is it now. They have worked loyally and for long hours, many of them in what they consider to be exile from London. The older among them have had to help to train, and to carry while training, hundreds of newly-recruited staff. I think great credit is due to all concerned for keeping the machine going as they have done.
  I hope that I have given some impression not only that the Post Office is going surely forward, in spite of all difficulties, but also of the tremendous size and scope of its activities. I should like to mention again, just for the sake of tasting the vast-ness of the figure, £3,500 million, the value of our annual dealings with the public. This is a vast figure, and some of my hon. Friends complain that it in turn leads to a vast surplus which I am doing nothing to disperse in a rational manner. I thought, therefore, that I might ask the Committee to join with me in an examination of this vast surplus. It is now about £22,500,000.
  Mr. W. J. Brown: Is that for the year 1946–47?
  Mr. Paling: This is the last figure we have.
  Mr. Brown: I understood that the surplus of the Post Office as a whole was £36 million odd. I cannot quite reconcile that £36 million with this £22 million.
  Mr. Paling: I will explain it. The figure mentioned by my hon. Friend in his speech was the 1945–46 figure. This is the 1946–47 figure which has not yet been made public on paper, though it has
  1352
  been mentioned in the House. Of this figure of £22,500,000, the postal services contribute some £10,500,000, and the telephone service £14 million. There is a deficit of rather over £2 million on telegraphs. The costs of providing all these service are much higher today than before the war.
  The costs on the postal side are predominantly labour costs. I have described the large re-organisation of work and grading on this side. Staff conditions have been deliberately improved and provision has to be made to strengthen the pension fund. Those improvements, together with wage increases, mean that the labour bill, including pensions, on the postal side is 92 per cent. above the prewar bill. In addition, other expenses, such as the cost of conveyance of mails, have risen, so that total costs are now 85 per cent. above the pre-war level. Although services in connection with savings business and services for other Departments have, of course,' increased appreciably, postal traffic generally is below the prewar level, though it is steadily increasing. We cannot expect it to reach the prewar figures until paper rationing is eased. In these circumstances, I feel that it would be unwise to make any material alteration in postal rates for the present, quite apart from broader national financial considerations.
  On the telephone side also wages have risen, but here plant costs are a major consideration. The cost of lead has risen from £16 to £90 per ton, an increase of 460 per cent. The cost of copper has risen from £48 to £137 per ton. Broadly speaking, new plant now costs rather more than double what it did before the war. The reason for the present large telephone surplus of £14 million is that we have been using up £200 million worth of pre-war plant. New plant has to be constructed at higher prices to meet the current telephone demand, and naturally this surplus will fall. Exceptionally heavy expenditure is also needed for the next few years to put the plan) into proper condition. The present surcharge on telephone rates is 50 per cent. on trunk service and 15 per cent. on local service, or about 27 per cent. over-all. In view of the rise in costs of new plant and the increase in the wages bill, it is clear that there can be no question of dropping this surcharge. I hope, however, that as a result of the intensive

  1353
  research which the Post Office and the telephone manufacturers are conducting, and of improved technique, we can avoid an increase in tariffs at least for some years to come.
  On the telegraph side, there is a deficit, as there was before the war. The service is still suffering from the results of the war, but, as already stated, an automatic switching system is being planned, and this should lead to some economies. The traffic is falling and we are not yet able to visualise any reduction in rates I am afraid it is only too clear to me that this vast surplus is nothing more than a very temporary phenomenon. I do not think there is any businessman in this Committee who, if he were faced in his own business with this kind of position, with his bread and butter depending on it, would decide that now was the time to lower charges all round. I do not think that my duty as Postmaster-General, with my responsibility for public money, permits me to look at it in any other light. I hope the Committee will agree with me.
  The hon. Member also raised the question of the Advisory Council, and I would like to say a word about that subject. I understand that he took a very great interest in this organisation when he was at the Post Office. This is one last detail of Post Office progress since the war—the re-forming of the Post Office Advisory Council. As most hon. Members already know, this is a kind of consumers' council. The members are appointed by the Postmaster-General and they are drawn from the major political parties and the spheres of commerce and learning. The members are also chosen in order to ensure that the point of view of each constituent of the United Kingdom is represented. Before the war, my predecessors had come to rely a good deal on the advice given by the Advisory Council. Meetings lapsed during the war but, as soon as the war was over, my predecessor lost no time in re-forming the Council. I myself, in the short time that I have been Postmaster-General, have been happy to preside over two meetings of the Council already, and I can personally testify to the value which the Post Office attaches to their views. I am glad to see here this afternoon on both sides of the Committee hon. Members who have been so kindly co-operative with the Post Office in this way.
  1354
  I come now to the end of what I have to say. Already we have heard some, shall I say, criticism of the Post Office this afternoon, and I am afraid that we shall hear more before the day is done. I am not going to say that the Post Office cannot "take it." Of course, I do not complain about criticism. The Post Office was weaned on criticism. As that part of the Civil Service which comes most in touch with the public, it has to contend with a constant and never-ending stream of criticism. I do not want to say that some of the criticism is not deserved. But there is a moral in all this which I should like to draw. We are told that if one sheep out of 1oo goes astray and is then brought back to the fold, the angels rejoice. I think the public, and some hon. Members of this Committee, are like the angels in this way. If, out of a million letters, 999,999 go right, they rejoice over the one in the million that has gone wrong; if more than 800,000 demands for telephones have been met in the past year, they rejoice to find one or two persons whose demand has gone unfulfilled for over a year. If, finally, out of 25,000,000 savings accounts, some score cases are found where there has been delay, or even a mistake in a transaction, they rejoice to have found that score.
  I must ask the Committee not to misunderstand me about this, or to think that I am complacent; that the millions of letter that do go right, the hundreds of thousands of telephones that are installed, the millions and millions of savings bank transactions that meet with no hitch, blind me to the troubles that still remain, the troubles that are mainly due to the difficult times through which the nation as a whole is passing and not to any innate cause within the Post Office itself. I am conscious that there is a great deal of hard work still to be done to get the Post Office straightened out after the hard war years and just as hard— perhaps—peace years. I propose to devote all my energies to doing this, and I shall know that I have the loyal support of all my staff, from the highest to the lowest and back again, criticised or not criticised. But I do want to make it plain that it is no good arguing from these sometimes unavoidable failures or defects of service that the Post Office, as a great national undertaking, is falling to pieces or on the road to decline. It is

  1355
  nothing of the kind. It is rather an uphill road for the Post Office at present, and if it sometimes stumbles, it is because the hill is at times pretty steep. But we shall get to the top all right.
  5.12 p.m.
  Mr. Keeling: I found the Postmaster-General's speech extremely interesting, and if he will allow me I should like to congratulate him on the grasp which he has obtained of his vast Department in the very few weeks during which he has been in charge of it. I should also like to thank him for two assurances which he gave. One was that there would be a reduction in air-mail charges, and the other, which came at the end of his speech, was that he was not complacent about the Post Office. At the same time, he did not answer, though, perhaps, the Assistant Postmaster-General will answer, the numerous criticisms which have been made during the last few weeks at Question Time by my hon. Friends, by the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) in his speech, and in the Debate less than a month ago. That Debate was very brief, but it aroused a good deal of attention in the Press, and in no paper more than in the "Economist," which cannot be accused of Tory bias. The "Economist" first of all, has its own grievance. It said:
  "There is no room for doubt that the efficiency of the postal distribution of periodicals is disastrously lower at the present time than ever before."
  Then it went on to make it clear that this criticism was not confined to periodicals, but applied to the postal services generally, and I would like to read to the Committee a further extract from what the "Economist" said in its issue for the second Saturday in June:
  "None of those who know why this deterioration in efficiency has occurred—not during the war. but two years after the war ended—seemed to be very anxious to give a candid explanation. At one time, the fuel crisis was the excuse;"—
  —and, by the way, we have never had an explanation of how the fuel crisis affected the Post Office—
  "now it is the need to reduce the Civil Service, though enthusiasm in that cause is not very noticeable elsewhere. The truth is, as Mr. Burke should have been man enough to admit, that the Postmaster-General is beating a steady retreat before the demands of the Union of Post Office Workers, whose objectives are a 40-
  1356
  hour week and no night work if it can possibly be avoided. The Union, of course, is fully entitled to make such claims—that is its reason for existence. But it would be less hypocritical of the Assistant Postmaster-General if he abandoned the pretence that the public interest is being defended against these claims. In the present combination of trade union Government and full employment, the public interest is defenceless, and the Post Office is being run in the interests of its staff rather than for the service of the public. That will change later, when circumstances change; but that it is so at present hardly admits of doubt."
  These are grave words, and I think that we ought to have an answer to them this afternoon. In the Adjournment Debate a few weeks ago, attention was drawn primarily to the cuts in the postal services recently announced, and I would remind the Committee that not only the evening but the afternoon delivery has been abolished all over the country, except in a small area of Inner London; that the morning delivery, in many parts of the country, is so late that people have left for work before it comes; and that when they get home in the evening the last collection has gone. The result is that, even if the reduced collections and deliveries were functioning properly, which I shall explain in a moment is not at all the case, no letter posted in London after 6.30 p.m., except at half-a-dozen head post offices, will reach any part of the Provinces or even Greater London, for 38 hours, or. if posted on a Friday for 62 hours; and this is also true of letters coming to London from the Provinces and between many provincial towns, even if they are close together.
  The Postmaster-General gave impressive figures about the speed of the airmail service, and, in doing so, really confirmed the statement which I made in the Adjournment Debate that it is quicker on some days to send a letter from London to New York or Johannesburg than it is send one from London to Twickenham. I suggest that this is a deplorable standard of efficiency, and I want to put these questions to the Postmaster-General: when last, in time of peace before 1939, was there no general collection of letters after 6.30 p.m. and when last was there no afternoon or evening delivery of letters anywhere in the country, except in Inner London?
  This cancellation of collections and deliveries means that a very considerable part of the life of the country, industrial,

  1357
  commercial and social, is slowed down, and it is all the more serious because of the inefficiency of the telephone service and of the fact that so many people— the Postmaster-General said 400,000— cannot get telephones. The inefficiency of the postal service reacts on the telephone service and increases its congestion. I have had many complaints about the cancellation of collections and deliveries, and I am sure that other hon. Members have also had them. One of the most striking, I think, was a letter from the United Kingdom Commercial Travellers' Association, in which they say that, all over the country, a commercial traveller, returning to his hotel at the end of his day's work, is now unable to despatch to his firm the orders taken that day. What becomes of the Postmaster-General's suggestion just now that the new restrictions do not seriously affect commerce? That example could be multiplied in many directions, and clearly the effect on business is very considerable.
  So much for the restrictions imposed by the Government a few weeks ago. I now have an even more serious complaint to make. I shall prove that even these miserably restricted services are not performed, and that the delays are much longer than has been announced. I have evidence that letters duly collected have been lying in post offices, either at the place of dispatch or the place of delivery—I do not know which—for a day and night on end. It seems that something approaching a breakdown of the service has taken place in some post offices. I will give a few specific instances. At Question Time today, the Postmaster-General referred to some covers which I had sent him, and which had been received by a Regent Street firm, which showed that it was the common practice, day after day, for letters, even many posted in London, to take two days to reach them. The Postmaster-General, when asked about it in my supplementary question today, could give no explanation of the cause.
  I submit that there is only one explanation which fits the facts, and that is that bags of letters arrive one day and are not sorted until the next. The Postmaster-General assured me that he hoped, in the case of this firm, which collects its letters two or three times a
  1358
  day from the W.1 district office, that the difficulties had been overcome. But since this Debate opened, I have had further covers sent to me by the firm which prove that the difficulty has not been overcome. I believe that, in some of these places, the post office is slower today than it was in the reign of Charles I, to which my hon. Friend referred. By the by, I understand the reason why Charles I nationalised the post office was because he wanted to have a look at what his subjects were writing, and the six days which it took for a courier to get to Holyhead and back included time for censorship.
  I will give two or three more facts to support my contention that, in some post offices, even the reduced services are not functioning. A large firm in the W.C.2 district has given me particulars of letters received each morning for the last five days. Last Friday, of 49 letters received, 11 were postmarked in England, some of them in London, at least two days earlier. Last Saturday, of 47 letters, five were similarly delayed. On Monday, of 56 letters, 14 were posted on Friday or earlier, and yesterday afternoon and this morning the Post Office touched low water mark because of 43 letters received, 20, or nearly half, had been delayed. Another even more remarkable experience is that of a firm in the W.1 district, which has sent me today over 300 covers received over the last four days—about one-fifth of its total mail—which were posted two days or more before delivery.
  I submit that these figures are conclusive proof that we can have no faith in the assurance given by the Assistant Postmaster-General less than a month ago, that if letters catch the evening collections they will be delivered the next morning. I am quite sure that many other hon. Members could confirm what I have said. It is not a question of the millionth letter, to which the Postmaster-General referred. Everybody knows that delay to single letters is understandable and inevitable in a system dependent on human beings; it would be unreasonable to expect anything else. But my evidence is that whole batches are being delayed. When a firm can prove that 20 or 100 letters duly posted to it on a single day are not delivered until the third day, there is something really wrong. In the past, everybody in this country, whether in

  1359
  business or in private life, used to rely on a letter which was posted one afternoon, or even in the evening, being delivered the next day. People arranged their business and their engagements on that basis. But all that seems to be a thing of the past. There can be no reliance on the Post Office today, and, in the words of the "Economist",
  "The efficiency of postal distribution is disastrously lower than ever before."
  During the war, my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), in addressing some words to the Civil Service, said:
  "Not a day, not an hour must be lost."
  The Post Office today is causing the loss of two or three days on a nation-wide scale, and when we make complaints, all we get is an extremely polite letter or answer in the House that the Postmaster-General is sorry for the inconvenience caused. I suggest to the Government— not in any hostile spirit, but because I think that these delays must, in their own interests, receive attention, that these complaints are so widespread, so well authenticated, and so serious, that there ought to be an impartial inquiry into the whole matter.
  I can summarise the points which ought to be inquired into under four heads. Firstly, is the small saving of manpower which the cuts in the service have made possible worth while, in view of the slowing down of business and the general dissatisfaction caused? Secondly, even if the present reduction of staff were maintained, could there be a reorganisation, either by mechanisation or some other method, which would prevent the serious delays which are occurring? Thirdly, to what extent, if at all—I do not desire to prejudice the matter in any way—is the breakdown of the present services due to the unreasonable behaviour of the staff? Is there any truth in the statement of the "Economist" that the Post Office is run in the interests of the staff? Fourthly, and lastly, have the postal staff any just grievances, and, if so, what is going to be done to redress them? Are there any difficulties in staffing, and, if so, what is going to be done to overcome them? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury that we all have an affection for the individual postman
  1360
  or postmen who deliver letters at our door. We do not deny for one moment the splendid service which the whole of the Post Office renders to us. But I suggest there is a powerful case for an inquiry into these evidences of inefficiency.
  5.28 p.m.
  Mr. Randall: Like the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling), I am sure the Committee will want to congratulate my right hon. Friend very warmly on the very excellent statement he made to us this afternoon. We on this side of the Committee regard the subject of his statement as the shop window of nationalisation. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) said in his speech that they did not want to put the Post Office back into the hands of private enterprise; it was doing its job as a nationalised industry. I also say that it has done its job. We are well satisfied with many of the things which my right hon. Friend has said this afternoon. In particular, I am sure that the Post Office staff will applaud many of the things he has referred to in connection with them.
  At the commencement of the war which has just finished, I was a postman. I went to Coventry on the morning after the blitz; I saw the postmen going out in that blitzed city, and I know what the people of Coventry said. It lifted their hearts and cheered their spirits to see those postmen going through the streets. I went to Exeter, Southampton, and quite a number of our great cities, and I know the valuable work which the postmen did. If I understood my right hon. Friend correctly, he said that the long covering periods will not be introduced again. I hope that is true, because the postmen, in particular, have a grievous complaint with regard to their attendances over many years, and hon. Members opposite must take the full responsibility for that state of affairs. This issue was raised again and again in the past. My right hon. Friend also referred to the work that was done before the war in connection with the abolition of split attendances in London. I must say, in fairness to the men, that many of the postmen in London made their own contribution to the abolition of the split attendances in London, because they agreed to, long-spread duties in order to abolish part-time labour. My

  1361
  hon. Friend the Member for East Walthamstow (Mr. H. Wallace) made his contribution.
  I wish to refer to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) whose criticism of the Post Office, I thought, was very mild. He displayed an appreciation of the difficulties through which the Post Office is going. I thought the hon. Gentleman recognised that despite those difficulties, the Post Office has passed through a very good year. The criticism of the Post Office by hon. Members opposite is the same as it always was. Some habits die hard, especially so far as diehards are concerned. The criticism involves reduced charges; earlier, later and more collections and deliveries; and I almost expected to hear—but it did not come this time—the suggestion that private enterprise could do the job better. I think hon. Members opposite are satisfied that the Post Office is doing a very good job. I am not sure they would not reduce charges to the uneconomic, so far as the staff and their conditions are concerned. Hon. Members opposite were responsible for many of the uneconomic conditions of the staff, and I think today they would be prepared to reduce postal charges to an extent which would impose uneconomic conditions upon the staff. Let us remember that it was a Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1930, Sir John Simon—[An HON. MEMBER: "He was a Liberal."] I am sorry; but, after all, National Liberals and Tories are bedfellows. I do not think there is a great deal of difference between them. It was Lord Simon who was responsible for increasing the postal charges, and he said it was done deliberately for revenue-producing purposes. It still is a question of taxation. Our opponents saw the wisdom of obtaining taxation by increasing the charges.
  I now wish to deal with the question of earlier, later and more collections and deliveries. This depends upon cost in relation to benefit, and the suggestion might be more costly than is justified. We could have those deliveries and collections if manpower permitted but, what is still more important, is the effect upon the staff. Here I would warn the Committee that there have been violent changes with regard to the recruitment of staff. Conditions have changed completely, and any question of increasing the number of deliveries and collections must have an
  1362
  important bearing upon recruitment. In what I am going to say to my right hon. Friend I shall be critical, but in my criticism I want to spur on the Post Office to do an even better job than has been done during the last two years. I say to my right hon. Friend that unless he reorientates his ideas on staff conditions, hours, wages, etc., there is a danger of a breakdown in these services. That is a real danger unless these matters are attended to.
  I am very glad that the hon. Member for Twickenham asked whether the staff had any grievances. The staff have some grievances which require attention. In the past, the State has been a very bad employer, and its only competitor was unemployment. Today the competitor with the Post Office is full employment, and the Post Office is facing a losing battle because of the conditions, hours and wages of the staff. Let us, for example, look at the question of recruitment. The Union of Post Office Workers have had an examination into the recruitment question. We have had three offices under review. At one office there was an intake of 540, and between August and December, 1946, 200 left in the same period of five months. In another office 208 left and in yet another there was an intake of 439 and 139 left in the same period. We had a review of 212 branches of our union. In one year among those 212 branches, 4,000 left the Post Office service and of those 4,000, 2,000 were established. They were so dissatisfied with the conditions of services, the wages and hours, that 2,000 were prepared to give up their establishment and everything that establishment means.
  Therefore, before meeting the demand that there should be reduced charges, and earlier, later and more deliveries and collections, apart from the necessity for this demand being economically sound and justifiable in the light of cost, and within the scope of available manpower, there is also the important factor that there must be decent hours, wages and conditions for the staff. Further—and this applies particularly to the telephone exchanges—there must be the necessary buildings and equipment. Too few people appreciate the number of telephone exchanges which were hit during the war, and it takes a long tune to put them back into working order.

  1363
  If we want improved postal services, we dare not ignore staff conditions. If we improve facilities at the moment, it can only mean the worsening of the already difficult hours of the staff, and the further filling up of the 24 hour day. I would remind hon. Members that when we see the postman coming along in the morning, we very often forget that he may have been on all night. 1 was on night duty permanently for three years in order that the public might have their mail in the morning. For a number of years I was also on duty at 5 o'clock in the morning, in order that the city merchants might have their mail in the morning. Because I could not get a house in the city of London I had to go out to the suburbs, and morning after morning I had to be up at 3 o'clock in order to see that the mail was available for the City merchants. I think that if such conditions are to he imposed, if such unsociable hours are to be called for from members of the Post Office staff, the Post Office ought to pay them, and pay them 'generously, in return. If we are to have good services, if we have increased deliveries, if we have more collections, they will mean further unsociable hours for the staff, and I think that the staff are entitled to have decent wages and decent conditions.
  Mr. Keeling: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman to ask him whether, if and when the manpower supply permits, he would object to the collections and deliveries being restored which were, in fact, in force in three weeks in January?
  Mr. Randall: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that that must depend upon conditions. I cannot give a categorical answer unless I am satisfied about those. It is no good hon. Members opposite jeering on this question. One has to remember not only the Post Office servants themselves, one has got to remember their families. They are entitled to have their menfolk at home. Bairns are entitled to see their fathers. But for the unsociable hours and conditions in the Post Office at the present time—and if these services are increased—we should give the Post Office staff full compensation.
  Let me give some figures to the Committee. A postman of 18 years of age is paid £2 15s. 6d. a week—at 18 years
  1364
  of age; an inner London postman. It will take him 12 years to reach his maximum of £5 15s. At 25 years of age, when, probably, he has a young family around him, he is paid £4 15s. a week. It is not good enough. The Postmaster-General, I think, ought to be able to give us something better. I could go on to mention the Class III postmen in the provinces, where the conditions are worse. £4 5s. at 25 years of age. Then there are the postal and telegraph officers, men comparable to bank clerks. It takes them 18 years to reach their maximum— 18 years, starting at 16; and when they reach the age of 34 they get £7 10s. a week. I believe the bank clerks' rate today is about £9 10s., and there is a difference, there is a considerable difference, between what is being paid to postal and telegraph officers in London and what is being paid to bank clerks. The postal and telegraph officers are not only responsible for stocks of many hundreds of pounds in the business they transact during the day, but they have to have an encyclopaedic knowledge to pass on to the public; and they get £7 10s. The telephonist takes 15 years to reach her maximum in London of £4 19s. Shorthand typists in London command £6 or £7 a week, and the telephonist at her maximum gets £4 19s.
  I need not weary the Committee with more figures, but I would underline some of the things I have said. If there are to be improved collections and deliveries they will impose worse conditions upon the staff. In the view of the workers of the Post Office, we want to give the best possible service to the public; we recognise that we are public servants. But it seems to me that we do not want to have too much sentiment about it, and merely say how affectionate we are to the postmen, and how dear they are to us. We want something more than affection. If we have affection for the postmen, let us express it in pounds, shillings and pence in return for their services—I believe they are willing to give the best possible services within reason—and let us give them proper wages and conditions in return for those services.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Randall) has drawn attention, very properly, to the long record of the Post

  1365
  Office as a nationalised industry. He appeared to derive considerable satisfaction from that; but I do not think he quite apprehended what a close connection there is between that fact and the facts to which he invited attention in the very forcible closing passage of his speech. The hon. Member gave us several examples of the apparent disparity between the rates of remuneration paid to to the Post Office staff—and I am perfectly certain that no hon. Member is better equipped to give that information than the hon. Member for Clitheroe—and the rates paid in private industry for similar services. Now, it is surely the most obvious thing in our economic system that the State pays badly when compared with private enterprise; and, therefore, I ask hon. Members, if they complacently contemplate the fact that the industry which we are discussing today is a nationalised one, to be honest with themselves, and to bear in mind that that fact, by itself, carries with it the inevitable consequence—to which, it appears, the hon. Member for Clitheroe has just drawn attention—that the staff's pay is worse than that which any decent private firm would contemplate paying.
  Mr. Gallacher: What about the Royal Ordnance factories?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is another factor to which I would invite the attention of the Committee— and here, I think I shall have the agreement of the Postmaster-General. It is, surely, highly desirable in the case of all nationalised industries that the House of Commons should have the opportunity of having just the sort of Debate that we are having today; which has given to the Postmaster-General the opportunity, of which, I must say, he has taken full and proper advantage, to describe to the Committee and the country the policy which he is pursuing in his Department, and has given to hon. Members the opportunity of voicing particular criticisms. I only wish that similar opportunities could be given by the Government to this Committee to discuss other nationalised industries in the same detail, and with the same valuable consequences.
  I do not want, in the one or two detailed criticisms which I propose to advance, even to suggest that they are the personal responsibility of the right
  1366
  hon. Gentleman. Members of the Committee know that he has only recently assumed his present office. I should like in that connection to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) in saying, with due humility, that the right hon. Gentleman has evinced a remarkably rapid grasp in that short time of the problems of his Department. But it is right that his attention, and that of the Committee, should be drawn to certain respects in which the Post Office works badly. I was very sorry that the Postmaster-General seemed to think that any hon. Member could regard it as a matter of rejoicing that the millionth letter had gone astray. We do not. But we do regard it as our duty to our constituents and to the country, when anything is wrong with a public Department, to draw the attention of the responsible head of that Department to that fact.
  The particular matter to which I invite the attention of the Committee and of the right hon. Gentleman is the telephone service in the London area. I think that the universal experience of everyone who puts through telephone calls from anywhere except the House of Commons is that the service in the London area has deteriorated very substantially since before the war. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will pay particular attention to the working of that part of the system which is obtained through the London Toll Exchange. It has been my experience, it has been the experience of many of my constituents, it has been the experience of many hon. Members, that at certain hours of the day it is virtually impossible to attract the attention of the Toll Exchange in any period under half an hour. That does cause, not only a great deal of exasperation, but, in the aggregate, an immense amount of loss of working time for the population of this city and its immediate surroundings.
  I put this suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. I appreciate his difficulties with staff, or rather lack of trained staff, and so on, but surely it is possible to arrange in the London Toll Exchange for somebody, not necessarily at all skilled, to be available to answer the telephone, to record the calls which are put in, and then to pass them on to the skilled operators who manipulate the machinery. What is required is simply somebody to record the fact that number so-and-so requires

  1367
  number so-and-so, rather than leaving some unfortunate person sitting with the instrument to his ear, feeling that he has been forgotten by the Postmaster-General and by all the world, in the hope that eventually he may be answered. Surely, it is possible to deal with this with quite unskilled labour, with almost any reasonable and sensible person simply to answer the telephone, to write down the number required, and to pass it on to the highly skilled operators at the switchboard? Because the amount of ill-feeling which is generated, and the amount of time which is wasted, by inability to get the London Toll Exchange is one of the largest factors, in London at any rate, of the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman's Department.
  In connection with the London Toll Exchange, perhaps I might be permitted to illustrate a certain degree of the inconvenience occasioned by it by telling the Committee of my own experience as recently as last Friday. I attempted to put through a call from the Bayswater area to Seaford. This is the diary of what happened. At 2.30 the call was put through, and I was informed that I could be connected with Brighton, but no further. I asked to be called back as soon as the line was free. Nothing having happened by 2.45, I put through a further call, when I was told' that Brighton had ceased to be within possible reach, but I was given the gratuitous, and to my mind wholly irrelevant information, that there was interruption on the line to Southend. I expressed due sympathy with Southend, indicated my preference for Seaford, and asked to be connected with Seaford as soon as possible. Being of a patient nature, I waited until 4.30, when I put in another call and was informed by the London Toll Exchange that as my earlier call had been booked they, the. London Toll Exchange, had no further jurisdiction in the matter and could do nothing. Being in the state of exhausted patience, which is more generally associated with the late Corporal Schickelgruber, I got in touch with the supervisor and was immediately connected with my Seaford line. That is an example, for the benefit of the Postmaster-General, of what does happen to those citizens who, unlike the right hon. Gentleman, have to put in their own telephone calls without
  1368
  the assistance of skilled and courteous staffs of their own. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to do something about that.
  The other matter, to which I should be grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's attention, has already been referred to briefly at Question Time today, namely, the staffing and operation of the Elmbridge exchange. To those hon. Members who are not as closely informed on the geography of Surrey as the right hon. Gentleman and myself are, I would point out that the Elmbridge exchange is one of those, I might almost say, crypto exchanges on the outskirts of London which are obtained, or not obtained, by dialling the first three letters of the name of the exchange, and by then waiting, often for a prolonged period, for the exchange to answer and to get one the particular number. This matter has a certain history. Almost exactly a year ago, on 1st July, 1946, the Surbiton Borough Council and the Surbiton Chamber of Commerce both invited the attention of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor to the unsatisfactory working of this exchange. A little later in the year, in October, I also invited the attention of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor to this matter. We were informed, in almost identical phraseology, that, although the Elmbridge exchange had been causing difficulty through lack of recruits, it would be possible to post additional staff to the exchange in the near future; and the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, in a letter to me dated 6th November, indicated that he was doing his utmost to secure an improvement.
  It has been the experience of my constituents and of the borough council concerned, that there has been no improvement since that undertaking was given; but that, on the contrary, there has been a deterioration, as the result of which last month the borough council again made representations, either to the right hon. Gentleman or, it may have been to his predecessor in his closing days in that office. They drew his attention to it in somewhat tragic circumstances. As I think the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the circumstances arose out of a bathing fatality in a local swimming pool when a boy was brought out of the water, unconscious but alive. When an attempt was made to telephone for an ambulance a period of three or four

  1369
  minutes elapsed before the Elmbridge exchange would answer. I do not know whether those three or four minutes would or would not, in the circumstances, have made any difference, but the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that to those closely concerned with that fatality those three or four minutes must, inevitably, loom large. I am perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman himself appreciates the vital importance of telephone exchanges answering quickly, because in one call in a thousand, or even one in ten thousand, the quickness of response may have an importance in a life or death matter.
  Both the Member for that Division and the local authority have been very patient in this matter. We have had assurances. We have been making representations for a year. I am sure the Postmaster-General will agree that complaints of this concentrated nature, and by a responsible local authority, are not made on sheer gossip or on temporary irritation. They are made as the result of longstanding faults. Without wishing to impose too far on the right hon. Gentleman, I would be grateful if he would give his personal attention to this matter and secure that this exchange, which serves a highly-populated area, shall be properly manned and properly operated in future. I would hasten to say, that I cast no reflection—and I should like to put this on record—upon the personal willingness of the staff concerned. So far as I know, they are doing their best with a wholly inefficient system. It is the system, and very possibly the equipment—although on that I am not competent to speak—which is at fault, and which does require to be remedied by the right hon. Gentleman. I and a good many thousands of people in the area concerned would be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman if an early improvement could be effected in the operating of this exchange.
  There is only one other matter which I feel bound to mention, by reason of something which the right hon. Gentleman said. He seemed to treat it as exceptional—that was the implication of his speech—for an application for telephone installation to be outstanding for more than a year. He referred to such cases as exceptional. I have beside me at this moment two cases in which appli-
  1370
  cations were outstanding for three years and for four years respectively before they were remedied, and then only as the result of contact by the Member for the Division with the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman. I believe those examples could be multiplied in the experiences of most hon. Members. If the Postmaster-General is really proceeding on the basis that applications outstanding for more than a year are highly exceptional, I hope he will go into the facts again, because I believe he will find that they are very different.
  I am sure the Postmaster-General appreciates that the criticisms which I and some of my hon. Friends have made of the working of his Department are intended to be constructive and helpful. The right hon. Gentleman has an immense responsibility and immense difficulties. No one would dispute either of those facts, but they, call for an attitude of willingness to listen to criticism, and a willingness to make improvements. From my own knowledge, I have no doubt that he has these qualities. When this Debate has taken place and these criticisms have been made, I and my hon. Friends will await, in a mood of hopeful anticipation, to see whether anything results. I do not wish to utter any threats, but if these criticisms have not been met when next year comes around, the. Debate which takes place then may be of a less amicable character than today's Debate.
  6.1 p.m.
  Mr. Henry Wallace: The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) will hardly expect me to follow him in his remarks, because they were based on personal experience and can best be answered by the administration. For myself, I should like to see a service in which there are no complaints, which is the view shared by the Post Office staff; I should also like to see a service in which the staff have no complaints. I am glad to see that the Postmaster-General is sitting in this Chamber. I never liked the arrangement whereby the Postmaster-General sat in another place, and I hope that it will not be repeated. I am pleased that the Postmaster-General is here where the people of the country are represented by Members on this side—I leave hon. Members opposite to draw their own conclusion from that. Not only do I want

  1371
  to see the Postmaster-General's report presented in this Chamber, so that we may have an opportunity to discuss it, but I should welcome an extension of this principle to other nationalised industries. Circumstances are changing, and the structure of our industry and commercial organisation is changing, and this is the place where these industries must come under public examination and criticism. I hope that the Government will initiate suitable changes in due course, although I do not expect them to do everything in one day.
  Reference was made to the commercial accounts. I understand that they are to be introduced shortly, an4 I am glad to hear it. I am not sure whether the details of establishment have yet been reintroduced, but I hope that they will be. On publicity the Post Office has much to do, and I appreciate the difficulties under which they 'are labouring. For example, I should like to see a return of the publication known as "The Green Book." I know that the public are anxious to get information about these services. If they knew what was being done at the Post Office counter by way of social services, pensions and the giving of advice and guidance, there would be less talk about this inefficient service. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) has left the Chamber, because his indictment against the Post Office was that of inefficiency, in spite of the information which has been given on the advances made. I should like to see the Post Office making a greater use of the films, in schools and elsewhere. I have seen some examples of their work in that field, and they were very good.
  In past Debates, research has been discussed, and the Assistant Postmaster-General has told us that he hoped to see the development of large-scale research, particularly in regard to the work done at Dollis Hill. I hope that he will tell us that there has been an advance in this direction since last he spoke. I have seen information on the scale of research work being done in the United States. While I have been impressed with what we have been doing, I must say that in comparison with the research in that country, we have a lot of leeway to make up. I should like to see Dollis Hill given its head, with the necessary money provided. The
  1372
  Chancellor of the Exchequer often tells us that profits should be ploughed back into industry. I wish that some of the £22 million profits of the Post Office could be ploughed back into the Post Office. I hope that the Postmaster-General will be insistent that these surpluses of the Post Office shall be used for the development of the Post Office. Hon. Members opposite will agree that the Post Office should not be used as a means of raising revenue. That is a vicious policy which has been followed for a good many years.
  Reference has been made to part-time labour, and it has been thought that there was something funny about it. In case the facts are not known, I will state them. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames seemed to come to the conclusion that if conditions were found to be bad in a nationalised service, it should be handed over to private enterprise.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I did not advance that conclusion, but if the hon. Member finds it logically inescapable, I will not, of course, dispute it.
  Mr. Wallace: The implication of the hon. Member's statement was certainly to that effect. That being so, what would he do if conditions or pay were found to be bad in the Army or Navy? Hon. Members opposite will remember that whenever the Post Office has found itself in the arbitration court, they have not got justice, after pleading that men were starving on Post Office wages, because they were told that the rates had been fixed by comparison with outside industries, the railways being a notorious example.
  Take the case of a part-time officer. He used to rise at four in the morning to be on duty at 5.30. He returned home at 10 o'clock, after finishing his delivery, and then went out again for the 8 o'clock delivery in the evening, which he finished at 10 o'clock. I do not think hon. Members opposite would wish to see those conditions return. I say to the British public that they also have a duty to perform, in seeing that these unsociable conditions are abolished. This would not be denied in the case of the mines or cotton mills, and yet, even in this nationalised industry, we have the remnants of a very bad and vicious past. I know, from personal experience, of a man going home to his wife, telling her that for the first time in 20 years he had earned a full

  1373
  week's wage. Those conditions were no laughing matter to that family. We are glad that that state of affairs has gone, and that the Minister has said that he has no intention of bringing them back. I do not believe that the public of London want the late delivery. I talk with some experience of London opinion, and I believe that if it were tested, through borough councils, we should find that they did not want it. The idea that a man dashes home from work, sits down, has his tea, and then starts on his correspondence is not the British public returning home from work in London, or anywhere else.
  I welcome the progress which has been made in the telephone service, but it is not enough. I would like to see the Post Office introduce 1,000,000 telephones a year, not 800,000. After all, as Members opposite have said, the service is tested by what happens to the individual. I will not give details of complaints which have been made to me in Walthamstow, but some people there have been waiting a long time for a telephone. That is their test. On the other hand, new cables have been put down, and the exchange is to be extended as soon as possible, but we are up against the building difficulty. The Minister may know that after the first world war there were the same building difficulties. The arrears following this last war have been added to them, to make things still worse. There are bad buildings, ventilation, lighting, and layout, which cause fatigue, boredom and waste of manpower. Some day, there will have to be a revolutionary programme in the erection of new Post Office buildings.
  I would like to remind the Minister that after the first world war it took so long to get a new telephone exchange that by the time it was erected it was out of date. My right hon. Friend must see that there is ample margin left for development. In those days by the time the buildings branch of the Post Office had put forward their case to the Office of Works—now the Ministry of Works—and to the Treasury, and it had circled round those three Departments, the opportunity of putting a building on an appropriate site had been lost. Millions of pounds were lost because of what happened then. Personally, I would like to see the Post Office buildings branch given more freedom. There is no institution in the country which gets better
  1374
  information, and it that branch could move quickly things could be done. I will not develop that case, but the Minister should consider whether the time has not come to give up the silly notion that Post Office sites cannot be used for revenue raising purposes, for instance, by having flats on them. I do not see why that should not be done, or that the Post Office would be endangered in any way.
  There has been an advance in welfare in the Post Office, but it has not been enough. Lighting and cleanliness could be improved, because I do not think anyone would dispute the importance of welfare conditions in getting the appropriate response from the staff. Industry has discovered that if a man or woman who has to work for four or five hours at a stretch is given a break of 10 to 15 minutes after the first two hours nothing is lost. I have always held the view, and held it strongly, that a man who comes on duty at 5 p.m. 5.30 p.m. or 6. 0 p.m.—and I ask the Committee to realise what occurred last winter —to prepare and go out on a delivery, and who does not reach home until 10 o'clock, should have a cup of tea and a little something to eat during that time. I ask the Minister to agree to this being done, bcause if he will not allow the staff to do it one way, they will do it the other. When I was a postman we used to watch the supervisor, and dart into the kitchen for an unauthorised cup when his back was turned. Some wise supervisors used to turn their backs, but if a man was caught he was given Form 18, and asked to explain why he had left the bench to get the cup of tea. Now there has been an improvement. Subject to the exigencies of the job a man may have a cup of tea, but there is still friction between supervisors and staffs over this question. Why not get rid of it? Let the staff have it on the first delivery. I do not think anything will be lost by it.
  In connection with services, it is as well to remember that the Post Office is dependent to a large extent on the railway companies. The Post Office has not complete control of the transport they need. I hope to see a greater development of the Post Office motor services, whose record and costs stand up quite well by comparison with those in industry outside. I welcome the Ministers intimation that more use will be made of transport. This question of the working

  1375
  period, the covering period, attendance and wages is very important. It is significant that 2,000 established civil servants are leaving the Post Office. The Post Office service is no longer attractive. Men will not look at it, but now my right hon. Friend has an opportunity to put an end to the vicious system whereby a man has to wait for 10, 12 or 14 years before he gets his maximum pay. The man has full responsibility at 21; indeed, he has it at 18. In my day it took 30 years to get the maximum.
  As the average service was 21 years, a man stood a darned good chance of being in Heaven, or somewhere else, before he got his maximum. Although that period has been reduced it is still too long. Men and women should have the chance of getting their maximum within five years, as is the case in industry outside. A Post Office worker has little opportunity of being with his family in the evening and in addition, he is often working on Sundays and public holidays, cut off from his friends at a time when they and the rest of the community are enjoying themselves. These things must be altered. I ask the Minister to shorten the scale. I think that this is one of the first things that we ought to do. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Advisory Council. I say nothing against the Advisory Council, but I do not think that in the selection of its members the Advisory Council has a wide enough field. I will not suggest how the field should be widened, but I think it should be done. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not tell us something about the agenda of the Advisory Council. What does the council discuss, how are the discussions carried on, what does the council advise, and what notice is taken of its advice? There is much to be said for the Advisory Council. I much regret that the right hon. Gentleman said nothing at all about the Whitley Council.
  Hon. Members will perhaps agree with me that the adaptation of the Whitley Council principle to the Civil Service and the Post Office has produced excellent results. He referred to the report on training. I hope that hon. Members will not think that I am boastful, but I am certain that if they saw the report produced on training by the Whitley Committee they would recognise it as a first-
  1376
  class document. There is a long record of successful joint working on the Whitley Committee, but I think that its agenda should be widened. If we are to ask the worker to take responsibility, the sooner we bring him into our counsels and let him know what the facts are, the sooner he will take responsibility; but he has to be convinced of what is necessary, and I think that the best way of convincing him is to let him be in at the discussions. I hope that when my right hon. Friend has had time to settle down and look round he will find it possible to widen the agenda of the Whitley Council. Whether there could be some connection between the Whitley Council and the Advisory Council I do not know. The word "consultation," which we hear so much of, is all right as a word, but I believe that the need of the hour is to apply it in a practical fashion. It has come into the mines, and it will come into other industries that we nationalise. I believe it to be one of the greatest problems and, if rightly settled, could be one of the greatest contributions in the call to the worker for increased output.
  I hold the view that the Postmaster-General should have more freedom and more power, and, even though the control of the Treasury may have been relaxed. I feel that it still plays too large a part. It ought not to be in a position to stop reforms and improvements being initiated by the Postmaster-General. If he finds that there are restrictions on his desire to initiate improvements, I hope that he will come to the House and let us settle the matter here. I welcome this report and the presence of the Postmaster-General in this Chamber. I look forward to next year, and I hope that his report will record greater improvements, not only for the public, but for members of the staff who have waited very patiently for many improvements long since realised in outside industries.
  6.26 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I think that the Committee is very fortunate in having two such well-informed and knowledgeable speakers as the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Randall) and the hon. Member for East Walthamstow (Mr. H. Wallace) to give us so much intimate information about the Post Office. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side should remember, however, that there

  1377
  are two sides to the Post Office counter. There is the side behind which the Post Office officials serve, and the side which the public approach, and I am, therefore, going to deal with the matter from the public point of view—the frustrated queue-tired war-worn, poor British public, including the housewives. I was fascinated by the exciting recital which the Postmaster-General gave us of the worldwide ramifications of the postal service. Possibly, we missed a little warmth and colour in that exciting story and would have liked a little more time to savour it, but he had a great tale to tell, and I hope that next year he will tell it with the same vivacity and intelligence as he has shown today.
  I now come to my criticisms. I asked a Question some three months ago as to what were the profits of the Post Office for the previous year. I was shocked at the answer of £36 million. I thought that when the charges for stamps and telegrams and telephones were put up, it was for the purpose of restricting their use at the beginning of the war and, therefore, to save manpower, which was very natural and very necessary during the war. I naturally assumed that when this had been achieved, the charges would be lowered, and the public would get the benefit of having done their job during the war years, so I asked the Assistant Postmaster-General to what extent now, in view of this very handsome and substantial profit, would charges be reduced. He, for some obscure reason which he did not go into at any great length, intimated that no reductions would be made. I asked why had the Post Office suddenly entered into competition with private individuals in regard to this despised profit motive, and whether they had to make profits and double profits. I waited for the answer of the right hon. Gentleman himself, in which he tells us that for the past year the profits have been £22 million. That does not make sense to me, because not only does the taxpayer pay the very expensive charges for maintaining the services of the Post Office, telephones and so on, but he is also mulcted again in these increased charges which were originally only to be for the purpose of saving manpower. It is all very odd. I am not protesting against the Post Office being nationalised. I think that it is one of those services, like the Army and the Navy, that must be nationalised, but I
  1378
  would hold that it must be like Caesar's wife, above reproach, and it must offer an example to a very troubled community of what a nationalised service is and should be.
  According to what some of our Ministers say, in the next nationalised services it will only be the trade union member with his ticket who will get a seat on the railways or a spot of electricity, since the large majority of the people of the country do not matter, to use the classical phrase, "two hoots," and they are an "impertinent lot of hussies." I would like to see the Post Office taking advantage of its nationalised position to give efficient service. It is all very well to say that they are doing their best, but there is something wrong with the system, something wrong with the machine, and something wrong with the counter service in London. When I refer to the counter service, I mean the man behind the counter in the post office as well as the young lady behind the telephone exchange. In the country and in the small towns it is different. There you get the public and the staff knowing each other as they are drawn from the same community. There is more kind liness, courtesy and good humour. In London, except perhaps in this House, there is a great deal to be desired, and I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman when he has finished reading his letter—[Interruption]. I happen to have the Floor through the goodwill of the Chairman, and I will stay on my feet and make my speech exactly as I choose, without any assistance from hon. Members opposite.
  The other day I was in a North-Western Post Office. I am bringing this case to the notice of the Postmaster-General because I believe he would like to know about it and would like to send out directives to this office and to others where the same offence is committed, because this is not by any means the only one. I was standing in a queue—as we know now, the national method of attending to our business—and an elderly woman was in front of me waiting to despatch a registered parcel. We waited for 10 minutes to be attended to, and while we were still waiting the male assistant behind the counter was fiddling about attending to his own affairs. The elderly lady asked him to get rid of her

  1379
  registered parcel as she wanted to go to the grocer's shop and get the household rations. The assistant behind the counter barked at her, "If you don't like the service you get here you can go somewhere else." That is not the type of service we expect from a nationalised industry, and if we are expecting millions of visitors this summer to help us out of our economic mess and to give us much needed dollars, then, surely, an industry, of which the Government is in control, should do its very best to make the welcome warm, courteous and efficient. I suggest those as the guiding watchwords of the Service.
  I should now like to say a word on trunk and local calls. I mentioned this on the last occasion when I was speaking as the Assistant Postmaster-General will well remember. He said then that the telephone service was worn out and that the internal machinery by which the messages were received and transmitted was in a bad state. That is a couple of years ago, and honestly I cannot now see very much difference. One dials "Tol" or "Tru" and then in desperation dials "O" and the result is just the same. Either you get the carefree voices of the young people discussing affairs of the heart—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Oh, yes, it is true. If we do not get that, we get silence. Again I would say that if the Government are apparently paying £200,000 to the Travel Association in the form of assistance to attract visitors to this country, then we should see that they get a courteous and efficient welcome. We want to see it in our telephone system and in our Post Office and encourage these visitors not only to come here but when they come, to stay.
  These are a few of the suggestions I should like to make and I would have it understood that I am not making a general charge against the Post Office staff, because it would be unjust and untrue. I think the technical staff is first-rate, while the higher grades of the supervisory staff are men and women of great capacity and of great integrity. However, there is something lacking and whether it is in the counter staff or whether it is in the machine I do not know, but we need to infuse humanity and warmth into the service, and the right hon. Gentleman is the man to do it because we have had examples of his courtesy and kindness
  1380
  when he occupied a previous job as Minister of Pensions. I should like to see him carry that into his new job, where it matters almost as much. In regard to this question of staff, I am entirely in agreement with the hon. Member for East Walthamstow. I believe the Service would be better if they were paid better and there were more inducements. A lot can be done in those directions. There must be some inducements. Everyone lives on inducement if it is only the reward of virtue. We must have something to encourage these people to go forward to do better. As things are at the moment, the Post Office official can be inefficient, discourteous and still go home at 5 o'clock without thinking whether some member of the public is waiting to be served. His salary still goes on, as do his pension rights, but there must be some further encouragement in better wages or pension rights or something to give these officials more than the average interest in their job.
  Major Cecil Poole: I am interested in the hon. and gallant Member's reference to some added inducement to Post Office officials for working at their job after 5 or 5.30 o'clock, but I would ask him what inducement ought to be provided for those members of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's party other than the 28 who were not here for the Division at 11 o'clock last night?
  Sir T. Moore: I think the Committee will agree that that is a very cheap and irrelevant interjection. I will not take any notice of it because, as the hon. and gallant Member himself knows, it does not deserve any notice. That was the final remark that I wanted to make in regard to the staff. I believe there are great possibilities before the right hon. Gentleman. This is the time for him to take any action he can because there is no room for waiting. We are at the end of our resources, and we want to offer, in the public service, inducements which will lead to a happier feeling amongst the staff and a better service to the public and the community as a whole.
  6.37 p.m.
  General Sir George Jeffreys: I was glad to hear the Postmaster-General say that he aimed at improving the postal services, because it has appeared in the case of some of the speeches of hon. Gentlemen on the other

  1381
  side of the Committee as though they thought that the only thing that mattered was the question of the conditions of service of Post Office employees. Everybody here will admit that the matter of conditions of service is very important, but it is certainly not the only thing and not the first thing that matters. The first thing that matters is the provision for the public of an efficient postal service, and I believe that almost every thinking person will admit that the present service is very far from being efficient and satisfactory. It is not too much to say as regard letters and telegrams that the service is not only less satisfactory than it was before the war, but it is less satisfactory than it was in 1914.
  As to telephones, I do not think we nave ever had a good service in this country so that there is no question of getting back to what we never had. In 1914 there was a penny post for letters all over the Empire and to the United States, while a postcard was a halfpenny. A telegram was 6d. for 12 words and delivery was prompt, accurate and quick. Finally there was a Sunday delivery of letters. We all know that at the present time letters cost 2½d. and postcards 2d., that telegrams at 9d. for 12 words are not promptly delivered and are frequently not accurate, and that generally there is a very much less efficient service than there was in those far off days of 1914. Again, rightly or wrongly, there is now no Sunday delivery.
  It cannot be said that a better service cannot be afforded. I agree that many hon. Members, and certainly some on this side of the Committee, think that it might be possible to revert at any rate to cheaper postal rates than those from which we suffer at the present moment. Whether this is so or not we do claim most strongly that the very first object of the Post Office should be efficiency, and that the public interest should be considered above all. If it is the case that we cannot afford to reduce postal rates then it is quite certain that we can afford to increase efficiency—so far as "affording" applies—because, as we know, there is a large profit on the Post Office which goes to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  It is only quite recently that second posts have been restored in the country generally, and very often the delivery
  1382
  times are inconvenient and result in undue time being taken for the delivery of letters from, for instance, the North of England and Scotland. Deliveries of letters in general have, in fact, been irregular and very often delayed. I venture to give one or two examples which have occurred to me within the last three weeks. In the first case I addressed a letter from London to the chairman of a local authority in Hampshire and it was not delivered until 48 hours after posting. The chairman in question informed me that he had been told that the reason why he had not received the letter in time for a certain meeting, as I had hoped that he would, was that the postman who delivered letters in that particular district was ill and that nobody was available to take his place. While no one can help a postman being ill, it does seem to me that it should be possible for him to be replaced and that a case of that kind should not arise. The fact remains that more than 48 hours was taken to deliver a letter from London to an address about 50 miles away.
  The next case was that of a circular from another local authority containing a report by their medical officer of health which should have reached every member of the authority, of whom I was one, before a meeting which was to be held. To reach my address the circular had actually to come exactly seven miles, but it had not been delivered by about one o'clock the next day, and was thus too late for the meeting in question. The third case was one which was nearer home, in this honourable House. My copy of the Parliamentary Proceedings posted here in the House at two p.m. on 28th June, which was Saturday last, should have reached me on Monday morning before I left to come here for the resumption of the House. They were actually delivered at my house in the country—again not much farther than 50 miles from London—by the first post on 1st July. I admit that Sunday came in between, but can there be any kind of real excuse, for the. non-delivery of a letter posted in this House at 2 p.m. on Saturday, 28th June, before the first post on 1st July? It seems to me to be a very long time, and if I thought it was an isolated incident—as it is in fact in this particular connection—I would not say much about it, but these unduly long times which are taken for the delivery of letters have been all too frequent of late

  1383
  weeks and months, not only in my particular area, but all over the country.
  I come back now to telephones. I began my remarks by saying that—as I think even hon. Members opposite will agree—we have never had a good telephone service in this country. There are too many delays and breakdowns now and—a statement which I make after certain remarks which have been made concerning other ladies—a very large number of girl operators are extremely inefficient indeed. They gabble their replies so that they cannot be heard, they frequently do not take sufficient trouble to obtain the right number, they often give wrong numbers and make mistakes, and, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) there are long delays in obtaining an answer in the case of trunk calls.
  As the right hon. Gentleman has in fact said, it is also true that there are very long, and as some of us consider, undue delays in getting telephones installed for people who want them. Another point—small compared with the others—concerns telephone accounts. These are sent out in a form in which it is quite impossible to check them in any way—a form which I think any business house would reject as very unbusinesslike and undesirable. It is very often hard to make out what in the world a telephone account means, what is to be carried forward at the end of one page, and to what the dates and so forth relate.
  I think that there has always been a great reluctance to change anything that has been Post Office policy or practice so far as the telephone is concerned. This was extraordinarily noticeable in wartime, certainly in my county where I was at that time chairman of the local civil defence organisation. For instance, because they said it was the right policy in peacetime, it was most difficult to persuade the authorities that it was the wrong policy in war to have their main exchanges in the principal enemy targets of Portsmouth and Southampton. The result was that there were constant breakdowns and it was only after a visit which I paid to the General Post Office here that we were able to persuade them to put some lateral lines that were clear of Portsmouth and Southampton and not likely to be knocked out by an early bomb
  1384
  in the event of a raid. I am by no means convinced that it is sound policy, even in peacetime, to concentrate all our lines in one or two large places like Portsmouth or Southampton.
  I come now to telegrams, and I realise that, as the Postmaster-General has said, the service suffered from war damage. There is a charge nowadays of 9d. for 12 words, and whatever is thought about the remainder of Post Office charges I do not hesitate to say that that is an overcharge because there is no telegram service worth mentioning. It is, in fact, very bad indeed. The Postmaster-General said that it was steadily improving, but it has to improve a very long way before it is efficient in any sort of sense. What is the object of sending a telegram? Is it not to transmit a message accurately and rapidly to a certain address? What is the present system? In the country, at any rate, the message is presumably telegraphed—I am not sure that it is not telephoned even from the beginning—to some big office. In my case it is to an office 20 miles from my home. Thence it is telephoned to another sub-office, and possibly directly to the addressee, if he happens to be on the telephone, with frequent inaccuracies, due to gabbling and indistinct pronunciation, usually by women operators. A confirmatory copy of the telegram is sent by post, after 24, or 36, or even 48 hours in some cases, when there is a slight apology. If the addressee is not on the telephone, as quite a number of people are not, the only copy that he gets is sent by post. In effect, it is not the delivery of a telegram at all. In fact, it is hardly too much to say that in a great many parts of the country there is no real telegraph service, in the sense that messages are accurately sent in a reasonable time.
  Surely, it is time that all our postal services were very greatly improved. Delivery of letters and of parcels should approximate to the rapidity, the regularity and the frequency of 1914. Our telephone service should be made to compare favourably even with the telephone service in the United States. Telegrams should once more be accurately transmitted and rapidly delivered. They really are not worth 9d. for 12 words, or anything like that price. Lastly, the interest and the convenience of the public should be the first consideration of the

  1385
  Post Office, even before a reduction of charges, whenever that should be possible, and in advance of improved conditions for those who are employed in the Post Office. I believe that the first consideration ought to be, now and always, the convenience of the public.
  I have little more to say. I hold here the wrapper, if the Postmaster-General would like to see it, of the letter to which I referred, delivery of which took from 28th June to 1st July. I hope that some of the points which I have mentioned will receive the attention of the Postmaster-General and that he will strongly adhere to his expressed intention greatly to improve our postal services.
  6.55 p.m.
  Mr. Mulvey: I intervene in this Debate in order to complain about the administration of the postal service in Northern Ireland. As the Committee are aware, the service is operated in Northern Ireland under the jurisdiction of the authorities there. I am sorry to say that, for a long time past and actually up to the present, a system of postal censorship is being carried on in that area, and it is, in the main, directed against the opponents of the present administration in Northern Ireland. In fact, it is directed against the opponents of the Tory Party. When I say that, I am saying something which, in effect, means that the service is being utilised in some respects in the interests of the Tory Party. In regard to correspondence addressed to myself, I know that postal packets frequently have the corners torn away and the contents exposed. The complaint is continual, on the part of Nationalists and some Labour Members in Northern Ireland, that—
  The Chairman: I am in some doubt whether this matter of postal censorship can properly be raised upon the Post Office Vote. I do not think the Postmaster-General is responsible. In the matter of censorship, the Home Office and not the Post Office would appear to be the Department concerned. Has the hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that censorship is a Post Office responsibility?
  Mr. Mulvey: I understand that the Post Office in Northern Ireland is in the hands of the Postmaster-General.
  The Chairman: Does the Postmaster-General accept responsibility on his Vote?
  Mr. Wilfred Paling: I have no knowledge of a censorship of this kind.
  Dr. Morgan: Does that answer mean that the Postmaster-General does not take responsibility for the censorship in Ireland, even though it involves interference with postal rules and regulations regarding delivery of postal communications in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Paling: I said that I was taking no responsibility because I know nothing about it.
  The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is responsible for postal matters in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Paling: Yes, Major Milner, we are responsible for postal matters in Northern Ireland. The important point is that I am not responsible for the censorship which has been talked about.
  Mr. Janner: May I, on that point of Order, respectfully point out that unless my right hon. Friend denies that censorship takes place or can give some reason for the censorship taking place, he cannot divest himself of responsibility for what takes place in that respect? Therefore I suggest that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey) is in Order.
  The Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will proceed with his argument and we shall see.
  Mr. Mulvey: The complaint is made by Nationalists and by some Labour Members that their telephone messages have been tapped, as well as their letters having been censored. I put a Question to the Home Secretary recently—
  The Chairman: If it is a matter for the Home Office, then it should properly be raised on the Home Office Vote and not on the Post Office Vote. It appears that the hon. Gentleman took that view when he put down his Question.
  Major Poole: Inasmuch as the letters of the hon. Gentleman are in the sole custody of the Postmaster-General, does it not follow that whatever happens to them between the time when they are posted and the time when they are

  1387
  delivered to the hon. Gentleman, must be within the responsibility of the Postmaster-General in some way or other?
  Dr. Morgan: Do I understand from your Ruling, Major Milner, that when a Government Department, such as the Post Office, is responsible to the House for the carrying out of certain duties, another Department which interferes with the carrying out of those duties can escape criticism?
  The Chairman: I did not say that at all. I was in doubt as to which Government Department is responsible for what is complained of by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey).
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Perhaps I may seek to help the Committee. I am clear that there is no responsibility here upon the Postmaster-General. Obviously security matters arise from time to time upon which action may have to be taken, but that action would not rest with the Postmaster-General. In so far as the Post Office is involved, it would not be involved in any decision. The decision would come from another Department. I submit that the Postmaster-General, as such, has no responsibility in this matter.
  Mr. Mulvey: I should like to explain, Major Milner, that when I raised the question with the Home Secretary, his reply was that the censorship regulations were no longer in force and that censorship had been discontinued. That answer was given to me on 2nd May. Since then censorship has been carried on in Northern Ireland.
  The Chairman: That may be so, but it is clear that in the past the hon. Member has accepted the position that if this be the responsibility of any Government Department, the Minister responsible to the House is the Home Secretary and the Vote that of the Home Office. That being the case, I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to proceed.
  Mr. Janner: While I appreciate that the ultimate responsibility may be that of the Home Office, if the instrument for carrying out the decision of the Home Office happens to be the Postmaster-General or some other Department, surely that other Department is answerable to hon. Members for what is being done.
  Mr. H. Morrison: With respect, Major Milner, I submit not. At the very most, the Postmaster-General can only be brought in as an agent acting under the direction of another Minister. The Postmaster-General has no option. All the responsibility in this matter, in so far as it exists, rests clearly on the Secretary of State for the Home Department and not on the Postmaster-General; but the hon. Member is quoting an instance in which the Home Office denies that the censorship exists. I cannot, however, argue that matter.
  Major Poole: The Leader of the House has now put the Committee in an extremely difficult position in this matter.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I am trying to put the Committee right.
  Major Poole: The right hon. Gentleman may think that he is putting us right, but some may think that he has put us very much wrong. For the reason that the Home Office has denied that there is any form of censorship on correspondence in Northern Ireland, there may be nothing carried on the Vote of the Home Office in respect of the censorship of letters in Northern Ireland. With all respect, Major Milner, it would, therefore, be quite impossible to raise this question on a Home Office Vote because that Vote is nonexistent.
  The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member is quite wrong. I rule that the matter as at present disclosed is clearly one which comes under the Home Office Vote and not the Post Office Vote. If the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey) has any observations on strictly Post Office practice, he may continue.
  Mr. Mulvey: Is there no remedy? Must this censorship continue until I get an opportunity to raise it on the Home Office Vote?
  The Chairman: Not at all. The hon. Member will find many opportunities to raise questions of that sort. He may raise the question on the Adjournment of the House, on the Home Office Vote, or by a Motion on the Order Paper.
  7.4 p.m.
  Mr. Cooper-Key: There was one question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) to

  1389
  which the Minister did not give an adequate answer. It was in regard to the transfer of the surplus of the Post Office to the Treasury. The Committee will remember that the Bridgeman Committee was originally charged with the task of finding a compromise in the old conflict between two principles within the Post Office—its duty to the public against subordination to the Treasury. The recommendations of that Committee laid down that a fixed charge should be paid to the Treasury of £11,500,000 a year and that the balance of the profits should be halved, one half going to an improvement fund for Post Office services. The present practice of transferring Post Office surpluses to the Exchequer is a reversion to the situation in which instead of being a self-balancing service, it is a milch cow of the Treasury. Today every letter that is sent is taxed, and every stamp that is bought is a compulsory contribution to the public expenditure. On top of that, for their 2½d. today the public are getting curtailed services and very much less value than they received before the war for 1½d. The point is whether, as the State infiltrates more and more into the economic industry of the country, those industries will be run at cost or carry extra charges to the public, which will in fact be masked taxation. I hope that the Minister will give an answer to that question when he replies.
  The Postmaster-General referred to the curtailment of the postal services in reply to Questions last week. He said that the postal services throughout the country had been modified in order to save manpower and to release staff for production. Modifying means changing the form. There is no question of modification in the curtailment of the services we are now experiencing. It is an essential ancillary to business houses and to production that we should have an efficient postal service. This curtailment is having, or will have, a very serious repercussion on the country's business life.
  As to the question of manpower, the Postmaster in my constituency of Hastings had a circular from the Department, in consequence of which many men employed in the post office there were put off work and sent out to join the great production drive. In Hastings there is very little opportunity to produce, and there is no possible means of finding em-
  1390
  ployment for those men. In fact they walked round the streets for some days and could not find employment, and I now understand that two of them have opened shops. The point arises whether the problem is one of the shortage of manpower or of how that manpower is being used. I agree that there are bad conditions in industry, but the use of manpower and the working conditions in the Post Office are very much worse than in other industries. In 1939 the staff of the Post Office was 205,000. The Post Office now has at its disposal 262,000, an increase of approximately 25 per cent. On the other hand, the volume of letters has fallen from 7,000 million odd in 1939 to 4,700 million in 1946. There is an increase in staff and a decrease in the volume of the mail.
  The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Burke)The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Burke) indicated dissent.
  Mr. Cooper-Key: The Assistant Postmaster-General says, "No," but I have the figures here. There has been a decrease in the volume of letters and the service to the public has steadily deteriorated. The Minister knows perfectly well—certainly the Assistant Postmaster-General does—that the fundamental problem of economic output is related to the two peak loads experienced by the Post Office system—the peak loads at 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.—and the hours about midday when there is comparative inactivity. If he tried to avoid that by staggering labour and output, he would arrive at an economical improvement of the postal services. I put up two months ago a scheme whereby those peak loads and the comparatively inactive periods would be levelled out, and there would be a constant flow of postage and production throughout the postal services. I will repeat what I said then, because I would like to see whether the Minister will not change his mind. I suggested that in order to achieve that object he should accept a scheme for midday letters, to institute penny postage on letters posted before 1 p.m. for second delivery—late delivery—next day, which would be for non-urgent letters, and to put the rate for ordinary letters posted any time within the 24 hours at 1½d., urgent letters with speedier delivery.
  There you have a distinction, as in telegrams and in telephoning, between the

  1391
  urgency and non-urgency of the matter to be sent. Now, the practicability of that proposition has been challenged but, on the other hand, to every single one of the points brought up by the Assistant Postmaster-General in April last, in that, Adjournment Debate, there is an answer. It is generally recognised that this is the only system by which you can get back to an efficient postal service. The Minister said it would be difficult to administer this. I say that the postal services are in danger of collapse. There will be a crisis very shortly, when the Post Office workers make further demands on the Department. There is bound to be a crisis. If he went to his Civil Service and said, "I want this scheme carried out," he would find that while the Post Office service is quite the most obstructive of all services when a new proposition is put up to it yet, once the Minister has laid down that a plan shall be adopted, there is no service which is more efficient or which will more expeditiously bring a plan into being and make it a success.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: Before the hon. Member resumes his seat, would he give the Committee some evidence of what he has just said, because to some of us it is so contrary to the true situation that I am in doubt whether the hon. Member's information is correct? It may be that he would like to give us examples of the charges he has made against the Post Office service?
  Mr. Cooper-Key: In the first place, I said I would speak for 10 minutes, and secondly, I am not certain what the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. W. R. Williams) means by the charges I have made.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: If I may remind the hon. Member, he said that no Department is more obstructive to new ideas than the Post Office. I asked the hon. Member to give us some examples of what he has in mind.
  Mr. Cooper-Key: I would say that there can be no band of men who, if they wish to be obstructive, can be so successfully obstructive as the Civil Service, particularly the Post Office service—
  Mr. W. R. Williams: If they want to.
  Mr. Cooper-Key: If they want to, but if they get instructions from the Minister, they will loyally carry out those instructions and make the plan work. I would remind the Minister that it took great efforts to get the present system adopted. The revolution we had in 1840 in the Post Office services was much greater than I am suggesting today, and it was that there should be a charge on despatch, rather than a charge on delivery. If they could make that tremendous revolution in 1840, surely it would be elementary to do this small adjustment now. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will take up the matter and examine it with the Advisory Council he mentioned in his speech.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Asterley Jones: It is natural that a Debate of this kind should have a critical tone about it, but I hope that the various criticisms that have been made—I am afraid I shall be no exception to the general rule—do not dim our eyes to the fact that the Post Office has done a remarkable job of work and is still doing a remarkable job of work. I do not agree with the prophets of gloom who say that we are on the verge of complete catastrophe, but at the same time I am sure my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, if his past record is anything to judge by, will listen to the various criticisms made.
  There is no doubt that at present there is a good deal of dissatisfaction with certain changes that have taken place. I shall not weary, the Committee with instances which have been brought to my notice; I will send them on to my right hon. Friend at a later date; but I know that the Minister will give his careful attention to these grievances because they are genuine, and I feel certain that with good will on both sides—the staff side and the Post Office side—these things can be put right. At the same time, I sometimes think, when I am travelling on parts of our railway system, that if they had been under the jurisdiction of the Postmaster-General there would have been many more questions and criticisms of all kinds. I think the Post Office can compare very favourably with a large number of private enterprises of comparable character and size.
  I wish to speak for a few moments about one point of general interest to

  1393
  hon. Members who represent rural constituencies, that is the provision of telephone kiosks in small villages and hamlets. It is true that, where there is a post office, for the most part a telephone kiosk will be provided without any charge being made upon the local authority, even though such a telephone kiosk may be run at a loss, and, broadly speaking, we find the Postmaster-General rather more forthcoming at running his business at a loss in rural areas than, say, the owners of bus companies, who are rather less willing to do so. At the same time there are many hamlets and small villages without post offices which have a considerable number of people living in them, but which at the moment have no public telephone within a considerable distance. I imagine this applies even more to Scotland and Wales than it does to England. The policy which has been adopted by the Post Office in the past has been simply to say, "If we are convinced that this box will provide a reasonable return within a short space of time, we will provide it."
  Alternatively, they say that if the local parish council is willing to guarantee a sum of £4 for a period of five years, they will get some sort of priority. I ask my hon. Friend what is the basis upon which those applications, coupled with a guarantee of £4 for five years are treated? Is it that the Post Office in each year allocates its resources between urban applications and rural applications and then, within that rural allocation, gives preference to those parish councils who are willing to put up the £4, putting back to the end of the rural list those parish councils which, for some reason, do not put up the £4or, when such an application, coupled with this guarantee, is made, does that divert resources from the urban areas? Quite clearly, if the first is the case, and every parish council puts up £4 a year, the rural areas would be in precisely the same position, and my right hon. Friend would be better off to the tune of £4 multiplied by the number of parish councils. I think the system works a little unfairly, but I am prepared to admit that at present there must be some form of priority, and I cannot think of any other ready means of assessing that priority other than readiness to pay. At the same time the cost of these installations is comparatively small, compared
  1394
  with the total number in the country as a whole, though obviously the expenditure on the line as distinct from the instrument and the box is very much greater.
  The fact remains that there are many concentrations of population, amounting, perhaps, in some cases to 100 or 200 people, living a mile, two miles or perhaps three miles from a post office, with no public telephone to which they can go in times of emergency. I hope that in the next few weeks my right hon. Friend will make a survey in each of his regions of the number of applications which have been made, and will do his utmost to see that these very necessary installations are made at the earliest possible date, even at the risk of delaying to some extent applications from urban areas. We are all dependent for our food supplies upon the people who live in isolated areas. I do not think it would be unfair to say that people who live in towns should delay their telephone installations for some time, in order that those people who live in isolated districts may have made accessible to them means by which a doctor, nurse, or ambulance can be summoned at very short notice.
  7.23 p.m.
  Sir Basil Neven-Spence: I am glad that the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Asterley Jones) introduced the topic of rural telephones. I will come back to that subject later. I had not intended to refer to the telegram service, but the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) on that subject reminded me of what I think is a classic example of delay. It happened on a fine summer day when I was at home in Shetland painting a boat down on the beach. The local steamer was passing, and she altered course and blew a signal, and I went out in a boat. I found a horse dangling at the end of a derrick. The horse was lowered into the sea. I secured the halter, and got it ashore. I went to my home, and then I received a telegram sent off two days before to say the horse had been despatched to me. That was not the worst of it, because, owing to the iniquitous system which prevails, I had to pay half-a-crown to have that telegram delivered. I think the Postmaster-General might go into the question of the charges still existing for rural deliveries of telegrams. They are a perfect nuisance

  1395
  to everyone concerned. The cost could quite well be spread over the whole service.
  I listened with great interest to the Postmaster-General giving his account of his Department's work in the past year. I thought he had been a little dazzled by the brief which had been put up to him, but he saved himself in the last sentence by saying that he did not pretend to be complacent. I was glad to hear him say that, because that is the last thing he should be, and, as he is a new broom, I hope he will shake up the Post Office in several respects. Several hon. Members have mentioned that the Post Office is a nationalised service. I prefer to call it a State monopoly. It is a very difficult thing to criticise it because we have no yardstick by which to judge its commercial efficiency and standard of service. But there is not lacking evidence that in some respects that if the Post Office were run as an up-to-date, modern, commercial undertaking the service would be better, cheaper, and quicker, and I am not sure that the Post Office staff would not be better treated. I hold no brief for State monopolies in any shape or form, but if we are committed to one in the case of the Post Office—and I do not think anyone wishes to disturb the present set-up, certainly no one on this side of the Committee—it is absolutely essential that we should endeavour to spread the whole of the benefits of the service as evenly as possible. I do not think that is done at present. The Postmaster-General referred, with some pride, to two deliveries of mail and two collections of mail in the rural areas. Does he realise that in my constituency there are people who do not have two deliveries or two collections, they do not even have one delivery or collection but have a delivery three days a week, and a pretty slow one as it is often not being sent out until the day after the steamer has arrived.
  I am not criticising the officials of the Post Office in any way, nor indeed the technical competence of the people in the telecommunications department, but I say the Post Office is terribly slow in improving its service. My Post Office file is packed with things with which I have been dealing for years past. It is very difficult to get the Post Office to pull up its socks and to improve its services. For 12 years now we have had an air service
  1396
  to the Islands of Shetland provided by private enterprise, and run with clockwork regularity. It took me two years of continuous pressure in this House to get the Post Office to take advantage of that service. They did eventually—
  Dr. Morgan: Is the hon. Member now referring to the period between 1930 and 1938, and not to the period during the war, or is he comparing the situation with that which exists now?
  Sir B. Neven-Spence: What I was trying to say was that in 1936 the air service started, and it was not until 1938 that the Post Office made use of it. It took another 10 years to get the Post Office to distribute this daily air mail throughout the mainland of Shetland every day. That was only undertaken this summer. I think that is an example of how appallingly slow the Post Office is in giving benefits to the people as a whole. But that is not the end of the story. One quarter of my constituents live on the Islands of Yell, Unst, Fetlar and Whalsey. There is a public service daily either by steamer or by the overland route to Yell and Unst, but still we cannot get the benefit of that daily delivery spread to these islands. I want the Postmastef-General to look into this matter. I have letters from his Department about this, but I do not agree with a word they say to the effect that nothing can be done. It is not as though the Post Office had to provide the transport, although I see no reason why they should not provide some of the vans.
  These are big islands, with up to 1,500 people on them; there is fishing, agriculture, etc., and there are many merchants and others there who have to send away knitted goods. These people ought at this time to have the benefit of a daily service. It is perfectly practicable, and it is merely a question of spreading the benefit of these services over the whole of the people. I wish to say a word about the telephone service. Here again the Post Office is being very slow indeed. It is astonishing to contrast the telephone service in the Faroes and that in Shetland. The Faroes are very like Shetland; they are populated by the same people, who came from Norway originally and settled down in the islands there. The populations are very much the same. The Faroes have not the backing that Shetland has, as a part of the United Kingdom, but in spite of that

  1397
  fact there is a most excellent telephone service in those islands. It is not State-owned, which may be the explanation, I do not know, but there it is. Every island is connected up, and everyone is within easy reach of the telephone. I want to explain to the Committee the sort of thing with which my constituents have to put up. At the present moment on my island the very fine wife of a very fine shepherd is giving birth to what I hope will be a very fine baby. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) will appreciate this point: The doctor attending her lives on another island six miles across the sea. There is no telephone to my island. I made inquiries some years ago about getting one. I was told that if I chose to pay £300, and four subscriptions, which I suppose would mean £32 a year, they might consider putting one in. There was a rider that I might have to pay the costs of the cable ship coming up if there was a breakdown.
  What has happened in this case is that the doctor has had to leave a large island of 2,000 people and reside on a smaller one for about 48 hours until this birth takes place. That is unreasonable. I think that the telephone service might be extended to link up all these islands. I put down a Question about this quite recently. I asked how many demands there were from Orkney and Shetland for public call offices. The answer I got was 88. I think the number should be 89. Those are 89 communities with anything up to 20 or more families in them, living perhaps nine or 10 miles away from a doctor or nurse, and often with no motor car. The day has passed when people should be deprived of these modern conveniences such as the telephone service. There is no Supply without redress of grievances. I have put one or two grievances tonight, and I would like to put one or two more. I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will convey what I have said to the Postmaster-General, because there is enormous room in the Post Office for spreading the benefits of these services amongst the whole people.
  7.34 P.m.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: The two hon. Members who have just spoken have dealt particularly with the work of the Post Office in rural areas. They have spoken especially of the telephone service. I would like, in pass-
  1398
  ing, to pay a very warm tribute to the ordinary postal deliveries in rural areas and to the work done by the postmen, who tramp long distances in all weathers to remote cottages to deliver perhaps nothing but a postcard or an envelope with a circular inside. It is a great thing that people in all parts of this island can be kept closely in touch with the general life of the nation, daily receiving their letters and daily papers and, even more important, their weekly reviews, at the appointed time, owing to the faithful service of those men who bring their letters to their door every day. I would refer also to the difficulties of many of these rural post offices in providing messengers for telegrams which may come in at any moment, and which may have to be carried considerable distances. We owe very much to the local postmistresses and postmasters who make this possible.
  Reference has been made more than once today to the fact that it is just over 100 years since the penny post was introduced in this country. In some respects, we are getting a service less satisfactory than we were getting then. That is true in one respect which has already been emphassied—the cost of the carriage of letters. It is really outrageous that we should be paying 2½d. for our letters today and handing £36 million a year to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Some weeks ago I put a Question as to the average cost of sending a postal package in this country. I forget the precise figure, but it was a very small fraction over a penny.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It was 1.4d.
  Mr. Harris: Yet we have to pay 2½d. for the carriage of an ordinary letter. We have listened to the eloquence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he comes here and lectures private firms on the duty of ploughing back their profits into the enterprise. When it comes to the Post Office there is no question of ploughing back profits, which could be done with great advantage to the public. If the Post Office retained its profits we could get all sorts of services which we now lack. It would be a great encouragement to the Post Office itself if it could use its profits for the development of its own plans and to give a better service to the public.

  1399
  My memory does not go back to the days when the penny post was introduced, but it does go back to the early part of this century. I was then living in a provincial town, Plymouth, and we were getting an incomparably better service there than we are getting in London today. I think, perhaps, we were getting too good a service. We had five deliveries, the latest between 9 and 10 at night. We had a 7.30 p.m. collection—what we do not have in London—so that letters could be delivered in London and elsewhere by the first post on the following morning, and a midnight collection so that our letters could get all over Devon and Cornwall the next morning. I do not think the Postmaster-General realises the inconvenience imposed on the public by the withdrawal of the 6.30 p.m. collection. The Post Office does not exist entirely for business men, but also for personal correspondents. The average man does not get home in time to answer his letters before 6.30 p.m., and unless he does so they will not be delivered the next day.
  Take communications between the Southern capital and the Northern capital, Edinburgh, which are carried on to the great advantage of the Northern capital, which gains immeasurably by its contacts with London. If we in London do not succeed in posting our letters by 6.30 p.m. Edinburgh has not the advantage of receiving them until the next day but one. That seems to me to be something which is indefensible and which ought to be remedied. We are told it is the result of lack of manpower. But let us consider the distribution of manpower. Why should that particular delivery, which is so important to an immense number of people in this Metropolis, be cut off? I do not know, but we do see some reasons advanced in the correspondence columns of "The Times," suggesting that the postal trade unions have a great deal to do with it. I quite understand that postmen do not want to work later, collecting letters, sorting them and transmitting them. But neither do miners like working late, nor for that matter do journalists or nurses and doctors. I suggest that the Post Office owes it to the public which it serves to restore this particular collection.
  Having harked back to the introduction of the penny post in 1840, I would like
  1400
  to remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that even before 1840 we had something which we have not got now—a penny post in the London area. I wish to suggest to him very seriously that it would be entirely practicable, very desirable, and an immense convenience to the public to establish a penny post in the London area. Obviously, it would pay hands down. If the average cost of transmitting a letter anywhere is 1.4d., it must cost a great deal less to transmit it in the London area. I have no doubt that we shall be told that it will be administratively impossible. All I can say is that it has been done. It was done, I agree, under different circumstances, but clearly letters posted in a special box in London could be accepted with a penny stamp and delivered over a certain restricted area. The inner parts of London are full of such boxes already. The area could be increased gradually. I am sure that it could be done without any loss to the Post Office and, certainly, it would be of the greatest benefit to the public.
  I think the Post Office is to be commiserated with a little on the many extraneous services which are thrust upon it and which really ought not to be in its charge. I do not know where one ought to go to get a dog licence, but I am quite sure that it should not be the Post Office. I should like to ask for information, if the information has not been given already, upon whether, after the National Insurance Act comes into force, the whole business of pensions and allowances which has thrown such an immense burden upon postal officials, is to be dealt with in some other form.
  Finally, I wish to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General whether there is any Department in the Post Office which is studying the practices of other post offices all over the world. Many of them are rendering services to the public which are of great value and which we do not get in this country. Is there any investigation department"? Is there a suggestion department? Is imagination being brought to play on' this great service? I think that is what we want more than anything else. No service is in more intimate touch with the public. No service is better able to make life convenient and easy for the public than the Post Office.

  1401
  I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General, if his Government lasts long enough, which is perhaps doubtful, will have a great opportunity to bring his own imagination to bear and to consider how he can make this service of benefit to the public. I hope he will use all the profits that he can legitimately make and find some way of avoiding handing any of them over to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Bridgeman Committee, in recommending that a certain basic payment should be made, in my view went too far. The Post Office, like any of the new national boards, should be self-supporting and should plough back its profits, giving the public the very best service it can as a result of the payments which the public is compelled to make to it.
  7.44 p.m.
  Dr. Morgan: This has been a most amusing discussion, because Parliamentary representatives who apparently have only a superficial knowledge of postal services have taken part. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) no doubt would be terribly angry if a postal employee attempted to tell him how to run his supposedly intellectual weekly on intellectual lines. Some of his, criticisms of the postal service were jejune. I am surprised that a university representative should consider such criticisms worthy of delivery in this Committee. Some of the points he raised have already been demolished in an earlier speech by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Randall). The hon. Gentleman and the hon. and gallant Member for Holder-ness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) can read that speech tomorrow. The hon. Member for Cambridge University will see that his case has already been completely answered.
  Sir William Darling: I do not think so.
  Dr. Morgan: I said "demolished." I know the hon. Member is very finicky. The hon. Member for Cambridge University suggested, for example, that in London the inauguration of a special penny post within a certain area would be a very valuable thing. That breaks across the whole principle of uniformity in the postal services of the country.
  Sir W. Darling: Why not?
  Dr. Morgan: Administratively it would be hopeless. It cannot be done.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: Does the hon Member want every trunk call to be charged at the same rate whatever the distance?
  Dr. Morgan: There is a complete difference between a trunk call and a postal delivery. A postal delivery is one item, but a trunk telephone call, or a toll call, may last anything from one minute to an hour. The charge must vary according to the time taken on the instrument. The hon. Gentleman's argument is nonsensical. A well-known Socialist once said that the one thing a human being hates more than any thing else is thinking and hard thinking Apparently the Parliamentary representative of the university hates it more than anybody else. The moment- we started giving a penny postal service for London, what would Liverpool, Plymouth or Glasgow say?
  Sir W. Darling: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me?
  Dr. Morgan: I "finished" the hon. Gentleman before;—but if he wants "finishing" again, he can go ahead.
  Sir W. Darling: If the hon. Gentleman will concede to the County of London an underground traffic service. is it not possible, then, to concede a penny postal service?
  Mr. Messer: Is a penny postage stamp like a railway ticket?
  Sir W. Darling: It is not unlike
  Mr. Keeling: Is the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) aware that in some countries there is precisely that service for a limited area?
  Mr. Gallacher: We are talcing about this country.
  Dr. Morgan: I would like to thank hon. Members for the compliment they are paying. Apparently, I am touching the heart of the problem because at least four Members have tried to ask me a question. The hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) has apparently not read the life history of Rowland Hill. If he would read that, he would find his case completely answered. We cannot go into

  1403
  every little detail of every little town and every city in the country and then ask what they do in foreign countries, and say whether it should be done here. The postal service of this country is equal to the best in the world. Even under Tory Governments it was the best in the world. I submit that there is not the slightest reliable evidence that the postal service deserves a fraction of the criticism which it has received today.
  The junior Burgess for Cambridge University said that of all places in the world the Post Office was not the place in which, to get a dog licence. Of all the places where a legal opinion on a workman's compensation case should not be given, one is the doctor's surgery—and yet it is done. Human life cannot be put into little petty boxes here and there. One must take the whole problem and deal with it as a whole. Some hon. Members speak as though these questions have not been considered. The question of deliveries has been considered by a Government Committee, and the Bridgeman Report was published as long ago as 1932. The answers given then are unchallengeable. They cannot be answered. This is not something new; it is nearly 15 years old. Apparently, hon. Members have not read that Report. It says:
  "Improvements in the scale of deliveries, are almost entirely a question of cost involved in relation to the benefit accorded. We find little evidence of any widespread and genuine desire on the part of the public for the restoration of the somewhat lavish scale of postal deliveries obtaining before the war, nor do we think it would be easy to find any general unanimity as to the form any widespread increase in the scale should take; indeed, it is possible that some existing deliveries might, on investigation, be found to involve more expense than is justified by their value. We believe that the Post Office are fully alive to the necessity of meeting the legitimate requirements of the public in specific cases, so far as considerations permit."
  Sir Wavell Wakefield: Why do they not reduce the price?
  Dr. Morgan: I am making one particular point, and the hon. Member is trailing a red herring across my path about reduction in price. That is the sort of childish argument that had better be settled in a sportsmen's den somewhere; it ought not to be considered seriously in a representative Chamber. I want to tell the Committee what is stated in a report submitted by the Union of Post Office
  1404
  Workers. I asked a Question a long time ago, as the result of my own observations. I have been medical officer. to the Union of Post Office Workers for 25 years, and I know how the health of these men has been affected by their work—-split duties leading to gastric symptoms, and late night duties leading to cases of insomnia. I knew, of course, of the high physical standard demanded on recruitment by the Post Office, and I knew also of the good educational standard which was demanded. I knew that, the moment they got there, the Post Office would expect that they would give regular and efficient service, since the Post Office is not like a. private employer, who can dismiss his men when he likes. The Post Office give their men pensions. Because of that, I frequently had to fight on a wrong diagnosis by Post Office medical officers, who were general practitioners and who were trying to get these men out of the service. I have been doing it for a series of years, and that is why I am interested in the postal service. My job is to prevent injustice being done, on medical grounds, to Post Office workers.
  I know something of the telephone service, so far as I have seen it, from a perfectly impartial point of view and in a professional way, and I know that the people there really render very fine service to the community as a whole. Of course, special instances can be quoted, and one man in one particular constituency may have a little difficulty. One hon. Member mentioned the service in the -Shetlands and another mentioned other islands as not having efficient postal services, and they were demanding special telephone services and so on. But who started taking the profits of the Post Office? Who started the policy of not ploughing back the profits into the business? Was the Labour Party ever responsible for that? Had it not been going on for many years previous to a Labour Government, and have any Conservative Members ever voted against the policy of their own Government in not ploughing back the Post Office profits?
  Mr. Wilson Harris: Surely, this is not a question of party politics, but a question of the efficiency of the service for the benefit of the public?
  Dr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman is as feeble as ever. I must say that I would not accept that from a sixth form school-

  1405
  boy. I am making a case that past Governments, usually of a certain character, have not adopted the policy of ploughing back into the business a proper proportion of Post Office profits, and the hon. Gentleman gets up, throws out his chest and tells me that this is not a question of party politics, but a question of administration. Of course, any party in power trying to provide a genuine, honest, decent administration would have adopted this policy of ploughing back the profits for the development of the business long before. The hon. Member, in his very well-known paper, which is so widely read and sometimes disparagingly discussed here, has said that this is a matter in which the profits should be ploughed back. We really have not had yet a Postmaster-General of wide imagination to give us efficient service, as a whole, from the point of view of telecommunications all over the world, but all these petty criticisms seem to me to be going against the whole dignity of Parliament and to be lowering the tone of the Debate. could go on discussing this Memorandum—
  Mr. Kirkwood: Tell them what you think.
  Dr. Morgan: I can only say that I have seen the Post Office from the inside, and I can say that all sections of the staff are quite willing and prepared, in consultation with the Post Office authorities, to give a good service, not in the interests of the staff, but in the interests of the public; but of course, there must be certain inducements—good conditions of work, good pay and good buildings. Have any hon. Members ever been inside some of the telephone exchanges in which these girls have to work, contending with noise and dust, and without ventilation? [Interruption.]The hon. Member for South Edinburgh says "Nonsense."
  Sir W. Darling: I did not say "Nonsense." The hon. Gentleman asked if we had ever been in a telephone exchange where these young ladies work. I have not been there, because I would not be allowed.
  Dr. Morgan: I did not realise that, even in Edinburgh, the charm of the hon. Gentleman would be so disarming that the postal authorities would see fit to guard the ladies in the Post Office against him. The hon. Gentleman is trying to get me
  1406
  away from what I am saying. The buildings are not modern, there is bad ventilation, and there are bad sanitary arrangements. These are the conditions under which these girls have to work night and day and when they sometimes get tuberculosis from somebody infecting the instruments, they have to fight hard for months or years to get compensation, because they do not come under the compensation Acts. The whole of the criticism of the Post Office in this Debate has shown a lack of understanding of Post Office conditions. There is a lack of manpower, a lack of modern buildings and modern equipment, but the staff is anxious and willing to give to the public a really decent service which is worthy of the country. Instead of any appreciation of that spirit, we have this pettifogging, trivial, superficial argument about the services provided. Private offices and private firms do not come under the Factories Act. Post offices, bad as they are, are far superior to anything in most of the private working institutions of this country.
  Before resuming my seat, I want to pay my tribute to the excellent work done by the Post Office clerks under most difficult, and sometimes almost impossible, conditions, and for doing their work in a way which will cause satisfaction to anyone who takes a pride in work well done and service well rendered.
  8.1 p.m.
  Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: As the first Yorkshire Member to be called upon to speak in this Debate, and as a fellow member from the county of the broad acres may I begin by congratulating the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General upon his appointment to the important office which he now fills. I remember once playing in a cricket match at Castleford, which the right hon. Gentleman knows well. When I went in to bat, some boys standing round the gate said, "Give him a clap while you have the chance, as he will be out in a minute." I am giving the right hon. Gentleman some applause now, because I have to make some observations which are of a less complimentary nature.
  I want to begin by reverting to a matter which I raised at Question Time today, about the recruitment of ex-Service men and their quota of employment by the Post Office. A young signalman, who served

  1407
  under my command during the war with great distinction and who was mentioned in dispatches, was very anxious to enter the Post Office on demobilisation. I did what I could to make the necessary arrangements for him. I found out that when recruiting opened a few months ago, a certain form had to be obtained from the Ministry of Labour, and that, after that, consideration was given to ex-Service applicants. I took the further precaution of letting the postmaster at Southend know that the young man was coming along, and was a suitable person for employment. In due course, the lad complied with this procedure and was accepted. Then, on 24th May, I heard from him that he had been dismissed. I will send the right hon. Gentleman full particulars of the case. That inspired my question. I should like to feel that the 50 per cent. quota of ex-Service men has not been altered by the manpower situation with which we are now confronted.
  I will now turn to the question of the restored services which have since been removed from us. Long talks on this matter were concluded on 20th October. The new services came into operation on 20th January, only to be taken from us before they had hardly got into their stride. They were taken from us on two counts—firstly, the fuel crisis, and, secondly, the shortage of manpower. I am just as bemused as other people as to why a fuel crisis prevents people collecting and delivering letters, and I think that the manpower shortage is the much more likely reason. I think that the Post Office has been called upon for a run-down of their staff. If I am right, why are the skilled women sorters being dismissed as well? Surely, if there is a manpower shortage, and appeals by the Minister of Labour to women to return to industry, it hardly makes sense to discharge women sorters who have become skilled in their work.
  I cannot help feeling that the bottleneck which is causing these late deliveries exists, to a certain extent, in the sorting offices. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman, or whoever is going to reply, will tell us something about this, because it seems to me to be a mystery why these women should be dismissed. The real reason for the taking off of the services was completely explained to us by the
  1408
  hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Randall). A little later I am going to be able to agree cordially with something else which the hon. Gentleman said earlier in his speech. He made it quite clear that the chief reason for the union's objection to late deliveries was not the fuel crisis or the manpower shortage, but that the postman did not like working late. He said so in the plainest possible language.
  Mr. Randall Mr. Randall rose—
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I am afraid I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. He was not courteous enough to give way to me, and, as a Roland for his Oliver, he must now listen to what I have to say. He told us that the men ought to be at home with their wives, that they did not like working late, and so on. They are quite entitled to that opinion. But are we to assume from that, that when the railways are nationalised next year, there will be no trains after 6 p.m. because the drivers do not like working late, and want to be at home with their wives? Likewise, are we to assume that when the hospitals come under the Minister of Health, the nurses will not work after 6 o'clock at night, because that is what his argument really means, if it means anything at all.
  Mr. Randall Mr. Randall rose—
  Lieut.-Conunander Braithwaite: Very well, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, although he would not give way to me.
  Mr. Randall: I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his courtesy. But he really must not misquote me. What I said was that the staffs were willing to give a good service provided we compensated them with good wages and good conditions. I tried to say that, surely, the first charge was to see that they were properly compensated.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: What the hon. Gentleman is now telling us is that it does not matter about them going home to their wives if they are paid a bit more. Before leaving that point, may I say—I hope with the approval of all sides of the Committee, and without raising any controversy—that I hope the hon. Member for Clitheroe will convey these views about late hours and the impropriety of separating husbands and wives to the Leader of the House.

  1409
  I think there is another possible bottleneck which is causing delay in the delivery of mails The Postmaster-Genera) will, I think, be familiar with the case I am going to put to him. When I go to my constituency, I frequently catch the 10.10 a.m. train from King's Cross which, as he knows, splits at Doncaster for Bradford, Leeds, Harrogate and Hull. On its way to Doncaster it calls at Peter-I borough, Grantham, Newark and Retford, and serves a large number of important provincial centres. I frequently notice at King's Cross trolley loads of mail labelled for these various towns. I suspect that some of those mail bags reach the station in time to catch earlier trains. I further suspect that a great many do not get on to the 10.10 train, because, to reach the restaurant car from the Hull portion of the train, one has to traverse the whole length of the train, through several guards vans, and very few mail bags are to be observed in them. I wonder if they get left behind? If so, it is small wonder that we get this persistent complaint of delay in the delivery of correspondence. I ask the Postmaster-General, whose fault is it if the mail bags are not loaded on to the train? Is it the duty of the station postal staff, or of the railway staff alone? If it is the duty of the railway porters, it may be that they, not unnaturally, prefer to handle passengers' luggage and collect tips, rather than the mail. I think a little investigation might be worth while in that connection.
  I will now turn to the question of telephones. In his very interesting speech, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Bell system in America,' and gave us some comparative figures of installation. It is rather an interesting thing that when the great majority of people hear the name of Mr. Bell, the telephone pioneer, they think of him as an American. He was not; he was a Scotsman. The reason he had this American label tacked on to him is that the United States seized upon this invention, and developed it through private enterprise to a higher state of efficiency. That is why the name of Bell is connected with the United States. Before the war—because we cannot compare this country with America after six years of blitz—nine out of every 12 households in America possessed a telephone, and in this country the figure was three out of every 12. That is a most obvious comment upon the nationalisa-
  1410
  tion of this important system. This, of course, has developed a great deal more in' the present Parliament. The present Government, in their famous Election manifesto, advocated nationalisation as a panacea for our industrial ills. They are now forcing through ill-prepared and even more ill-discussed Measures to that end.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: It was a Tory Administration that nationalised the Post Office services, and the telegraph system in particular.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: As a matter of fact, I believe it was a Liberal Administration, but, in any case, I did not sit in that Parliament. It happened some little time ago. We have now had an opportunity of seeing how the system works, and I am not one of those who are impressed. The important thing is this: experimental Measures are going through at the moment, and are in an early stage of administration, -dealing with coal, railways and the like, but here in the Post Office is a going concern, already nationalised, as we have been told, years ago—whether by Liberal or Tory, it does not matter. Surely it should be an outstanding success. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] Hon. Members are interrupting a little too soon.
  From the start the Government were obviously anxious about the value of the Post Office as an advertisement for State control, because it is only just over 12 months ago that they appointed a public relations officer—not a civil servant. and with no connection whatever with the Post Office, well over the age of retirement for Post Office servants, but who possessed the cardinal virtue in these days of having at one time served in Parliament as a Socialist Minister without any great distinction. I refer to Sir Drummond Shiels. He was relied upon by the Government to "sell" the Post Office as an example of State control. In the words of the Postmaster-General himself last week, Sir Drummond became very comfortably "bedded down" in the Post Office. He has been a singularly unsuccessful salesman. The only slogan which I have seen since he took office, and which I seem to recall from the days of "Tory misrule," is "Post early for Christmas." It is unnecessary to pay any gentleman £1,250 a year, or one and a quarter times the salary of a Member of

  1411
  Parliament, to produce that particular slogan. Let us be fair to the public relations officer—this gentleman so well stricken in years. Let us admit that he has had an impossible task. This Government cannot even run an industry which was already nationalised when they came into power, with the full resources of the State behind them, and allowed to sell 1½d. stamps for 2½d. to all and sundry. What have we found? There has been a steady run-down in efficiency.
  Let me digress to deal again with the hon. Member for Clitheroe who told us that it was Lord Simon who, in 1940, put up the price of the 1½d. stamp to 2½d. That is true. It was done with the approval of the whole House, because there was no Division. The price was increased as a wartime revenue raiser, and also deliberately to restrict Post Office traffic and to discourage the writing of letters,' and so on. Lord Simon made that clear in introducing the tax. With all that, there has been a steady run-down in efficiency. I doubt if there was ever a time in the memory of any hon. Member present when, in peacetime conditions, the Post Office services were so unsatisfactory as they are today. I suggest they have even deteriorated since the Adjournment Debate which was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) nearly a month ago. There was a Question on the Order Paper today saying that letters posted in the London Western District addressed to a place in the same District took over two days to deliver. The senders could have delivered them by hand in a quarter of an hour without any difficulty at all. I am told that in this particular office, W.1—and the Postmaster-General might look into this— one of the difficulties is that among the sorters are extremists of the U.P.W. who may leave the bags undealt with and go home at the hour of six to their wives and families—as suggested by their representative here.
  I want to turn for a minute or two to what I would call the "Wallington affair," which has had some prominence in the newspapers during the last few days. The Union of Post Office Workers has a very excellent slogan, "Pride of Craft." There could be no better one for any industry or body of people. Telephone directories are normally delivered in bulk
  1412
  by van. In this instance at Wallington there were two to deliver—obviously, an insufficient number to justify any special arrangements. Equally obviously, the addressees were entitled to receive their telephone directories for which they had paid. The postman on whose walk their houses were situated refused to take the directories, and was, accordingly, suspended. Here the matter gets a little more interesting. He, being a prominent official of the local branch of the U.P.W., immediately pulled out all his colleagues, who came out on a sympathetic strike. According to the Press—and the Postmaster-General will tell me if this is not true—the terms for resumption of work included the demand for overtime payments to deliver correspondence which had accumulated as a result of this strike. I do not call that "pride of craft." I call that sabotage—sabotage of the most obvious character. I very much hope and believe that the Postmaster-General is not the type of man to subordinate himself to this kind of pressure. I do not think he is at all the type of man to regard himself as in any way a servant of the U.P.W—in the same way as the Minister of Fuel and Power is the abject slave of Mr. Arthur Horner.
  Dr. Morgan: Rubbish.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I do not think the Postmaster-General is that type of man at all. But here I come to remarks that I would offer to the Committee in which I find myself in alliance with the hon. Member for Clitheroe. To say that the Postmaster-General should not allow himself to submit to pressure of this kind by a trade union is not to say that there is not a long and large list of grievances which exist among the Post Office staff. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) not very long ago said of the present Government that they demoralised everything they touched. He was then speaking of the Committee of Privileges. But there is no doubt whatever—no doubt at all—that during the past two years the Post Office staff have become increasingly depressed and demoralised.
  We have heard today in this Debate from both sides of the Committee about shortages of switchboard operators, of shortages of telephone girls. More than one hon. Member has referred to that. There is no mystery about that, or about the rapid turnover in the staff of the

  1413
  Postmaster-General. The reason, of course, is that the remuneration of these girls falls so far below what they can obtain from any private firm. The same is true of the shorthand typists in the Post Office. The hon. Member for Clithcroe gave us some figures that will be on record. I am bound to say they appalled me: they were lower than I thought. He, at least, I hope, will be in agreement with me here, that the reason for the rapid turnover is that the telephone operators and the shorthand typists look for jobs in private industry where the remuneration is higher. The other day I had two Post Office engineers come to mend a defect in my telephone in my own house—middle-aged men, thoroughly disgruntled, saying that if they could start all over again they would not go into the Post Office, but that they would go into private industry under a capitalist employer. They had little to look forward to.
  Dr. Morgan: They were pulling the hon. and gallant Gentleman's leg.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: They had been badly paid all their lives, and had only small pensions to look forward to. That is what these gentlemen told me, and I do not think they knew I was connected with this House. In any case, they had nothing to gain by currying favour with me. Let the right hon. Gentleman ask among the engineering staff how their wages compare with what can be obtained in private industry outside. There is no doubt at all what the answer will be.
  Finally, I should like to say a few words about the public post offices. Cannot something be done about the long queues one finds lined up at post office counters during the busy hours? The other day I visited a post office during a slack period. Behind the counter was an extremely pleasant and delightful young lady. I asked her if she liked her job. She said she did not. She told me that she was overworked, and was seeking employment outside the Civil Service at the earliest opportunity. It will be a bad thing for the Post Office if the demoralisation which is so pronounced in that Department, and about which the hon. Member for Clitheroe has been telling us, spreads to the public counters of the post offices. I cannot help thinking that there has been a certain lack of fore-
  1414
  sight in providing adequate staff for these undoubtedly heavy counter duties. What has emerged from the Debate this afternoon is, in the words of the hon. Member for Clitheroe, that the State is a thoroughly bad employer. The hon. Member went on, however, to qualify that by saying that, of course, the State is handicapped now because full employment is in our midst.
  Mr. Randall: That is correct.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: He should, of course, have said "full underemployment." We all know that people are drawing larger wage packets and working short time. But the handicap is there just the same, and must be admitted. The State, then, in the words of the hon. Member for Clitheroe, is a thoroughly bad employer. That is the moral of our Debate on the nationalised service taken over two years ago by the Socialist Government as a going concern. The situation is not quite as black as it looks. I pin my faith to the Minister who has now been appointed. His noble predecessor knew nothing at all about these matters. I agree with the hon. Member for East Walthamstow (Mr. H. Wallace), who welcomed the fact that the Postmaster-General was here with us in the House of Commons. I think that is a very good thing. The Motion to reduce this Vote, which will be moved a little later is, of course, the Parliamentary method of registering displeasure. The Postmaster-General has inherited this muddle from his predecessor.
  Mr. Edward Evans: The hon. and gallant Member should say "predecessors"; he should have put an "s" at the end.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: The right hon. Gentleman was a good Minister of Pensions—sympathetic, assiduous, and courteous. I believe he brings all those qualities with him to the Post Office. As I said at the commencement of my remarks, he has the greater advantage of being a native of Yorkshire, and we all know that when England gets into trouble, the Yorkshireman comes out of the farmhouse to stop the rot and put things right. I believe the right hon. Gentleman will look very carefully into the various grievances which have been brought to his notice today from all quarters of the Committee. Indeed, I believe he will re-

  1415
  verse the present trend of administration in these nationalised industries. The nationalisation of coal has obviously been operated for the benefit of the National Union of Mineworkers; but the commodity is scarcer and dearer. I suspect that a year from now the railways will be the instrument of the National Union of Railwaymen: we shall have to pay first-class fares for third-class accommodation 12 months from now. Let not the Post Office be the instrument of the Union of Post Office Workers. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will get rid of the "tinker's cuss" complex, which is so apt to come down upon some of his colleagues today. Let him be a Minister in the literal sense of that word; let him be the servant of the public, and he will then deserve well of his fellow Members, and, indeed, of his fellow citizens.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. Skinnard: I usually listen to the speeches of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Holder-ness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) with interest and amusement, because his sallies generally have some basis of fact, but today I am moved more to indignation, because if ever there were a speech calculated to cause trouble and to dishearten a body of men and women working under very difficult conditions, it was this one. I have appeared from time to time as a critic of one or two matters here and there which I felt could be remedied, and I have found the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General always ready to deal with the points I have raised. In no case have I found the remedy delayed more than a month after I have raised a matter. I think that the hon. and gallant Member was sincere in welcoming the former Minister of Pensions to this great, important, public business of the Post Office, but his welcome is echoed in a more practical form by the body of men and women he has denigrated in his speech, which he has, either purposely or puckishly, rubbed up the wrong way.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I was merely expressing my agreement with the view expressed by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Randall), who is an official of the U.P.W.
  Mr. Skinnard: I think that we can leave the members of the U.P.W. to read
  1416
  the hon. and gallant Member's speech with the attention it deserves. The U.P.W. are doing their utmost to help the Postmaster-General, in what is admitted to be his very difficult task. Purely by accident, this document came into my possession. It is an order or directive from the local branch of the U.P.W., with which I have no official connection, and whose officials I have not met as far as I know. It is significant of the attitude which the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General have inspired in the Post Office workers. It states:
  "Owing to the large number of entrants in the area, I feel that I should give some guidance to those not acquainted with the staff rule book, and who have not received adequate training. If you look at your U.P.W. subscription card, you will find that our first aim is for 'an efficient Post Office service.' In our area, owing to the staffing conditions, the majority of our indoor members have been unable to attend the Counter training establishment, and consequently our service to the public is not all that it should be. Perhaps a few helpful suggestions would help in giving the public the service it is entitled to, as laid down in the rules governing counter procedure."
  Speeches from Members opposite have a tendency, when dealing' with organised workers in any union, to assume that they live entirely as organised workers. They forget that in their leisure they are members of the public and expect as such to receive the benefits of public services. They have a dual capacity, and their attitude is well expressed in the quotation I have given. Lest it be thought that this directive applies merely to counter staff, I would point out that it goes on to give instructions to postmen; and this is a complete denial of the implications contained in the speech to which we have just listened. It states:
  "It is felt that the postmen colleagues of our branch, particularly the new entrants, require some guidance on the correct procedure so far as the performance of their duties is concerned. It is appreciated that the time factor is involved when handling correspondence for sortation and delivery."
  If the junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) were here, I would apologise to him for the use of the word "sortation," but it is not of my breeding:
  "It is in your own interests that proper regard be paid to the correct handling of postal traffic. The desire to get finished early and 'catch' the Department for 10 minutes or so is understandable, but it must be pointed out that when an officer commences duty before

  1417
  the scheduled time, without signing on at that time, an offence is committed. No officer should handle postal traffic unless he has signed on duty, and any officer who makes a false entry on the attendance sheet is open to disciplinary action."
  These are the instructions given voluntarily by the Union of Post Office Workers as a supplement to any instructions which are given by the Post Office. I taught citizenship for many years, and I claim that if my students have shown the same sense of citizenship as the Union of Post Office Workers do, as evidenced by this typical branch circular to their members, they deserve well of their country. These Post Office workers are truly citizens; they are working long hours and, in many cases, are receiving very poor pay.
  Now I want to revert to my normal role of making a few constructive suggestions to the Minister, because they have been drawn to my attention, and rightly so, by members of the public. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for mitigating the difficulties in connection with telephone exchanges, particularly in the Greater London area, which are partly manual and partly automatic. Here, curiously enough, the human factor appears to be infallible, while the automatic factor is fallible. It has been difficult, on many occasions, to get the dialling mechanism to work. Perhaps after the tenth and finally successful attempt a courteous and immediate connection has been made by the manual operator.
  I called the attention of my right hon. Friend to the difficulties in this type of exchange, and I was gratified to know that increased staffs were the result. Unfortunately, however, I did not correctly diagnose the fault, and I now suggest that some attention should be paid to the automatic side of these exchanges. I know that is is impracticable, at the moment, to make the automatic side of the part-manual exchange as efficient as the long-functioning, fully automatic exchange, but I hope the Minister will look into this question of partly dial, partly verbal exchanges.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Holderness was particularly aggressive in his references to the number of telephones in America, as compared with the number in this country. As he possibly knew, the number possessing a telephone does not mean the number possessing a separate line. Right through the United States the
  1418
  party line is a popular way of dealing with telephone traffic. When 1 resided in a Pacific Coast city I shared a party line with some neighbours. The Post Office in this country have shown ingenuity in trying to overcome difficulties caused by six years of blitz and war conditions. They have been endeavouring to "sell," in the American acceptance of the word, the idea of the party line in order to surmount the temporary difficulty of supplying everyone who wants one with a telephone. Despite the success of "Let us Face the Future" many men and women are still conservative, with a small "c," in their ideas, and "jib" at the party line because they do not think it provides the necessary privacy. As a matter of fact, the party line works so well in America, that I wonder whether it would be possible for the publicity department of the Post Office to do more to explain that it is a commonplace there, which is economical and appreciated. I hope that the Post Office staff will continue to lend their full support to a progressive Minister in the work of rehabilitating the postal services of this country which even now I claim are second to none.
  8.35 p.m.
  Sir Ralph Glyn: There are three or four matters which I should like to mention and to which I hope the Postmaster-General or the Assistant Postmaster-General will reply. I would urge him to say whether a little more money can be devoted to research. It seems to me that the work done at Dollis Hill is so good and efficient, and the savings that have been made are so considerable, that it is high time Parliament appreciated the value of that work. At Dollis Hill the accommodation is not good. If, having a great service like this, we are to take advantage of all the wartime inventions which are germane to the business of the Post Office, it is absolutely essential that a higher priority should be given to the work that is being done there in connection not only with radiotelephone communication, but with regard to the amplifiers now being put in the cables. We are being promised increased services on existing capital expenditure with very little increase of money, and I do not think that it is right that a sum of only £200,000 should be the total amount paid in salaries to skilled scientists and research workers in a business of this magnitude. Parliament should vote more

  1419
  money so as to get the most efficient scientific service that can be devised.
  I think that the work done—one does not like to mention names because it is invidious—by Mr. Gill, the Engineer-in-Chief of the Post Office, has never been properly recognised. I consider that the work which he did during the war, the assistance which he gave to the Armed Forces, and the efficiency with which the whole of the engineering side of the Post Office functioned immediately before the attack on the Continent have never received proper appreciation, and I would urge the Postmaster-General, if he has this public relations officer which we have heard about, to direct his attention to publishing the true story of the great contribution made by the Post Office to the assistance of the British Army immediately prior to that attack.
  Science never stands still. There are great changes coming of which we read in the technical papers, and I think that we ought to do more to encourage research training by competent junior persons in the Post Office. There are many boys serving in the Post Office now who have qualifications but no opportunities. Every large firm in this country worthy of the name does try to arrange a system whereby boys who start at the bottom may have an opportunity of going to a technical college or university, and they are encouraged in every possible way. There are too many risks in the present Post Office set-up of dead-end operations. I often talk to telegraph boys and ask them what they are going to do. I am quite convinced that there ought to be some information given both to the boys and their parents of the avenues that are open to them, so that they may get that extra training which is so necessary. I think that now we have the National Service system and the cadet system, of which we have heard today, it might be possible for the Postmaster-General to link up the cadet system and the National Service system so that these boys who have to join up could become part of the signal and postal staffs of the Services. If that is done during the short period of service they would be gaining scientific knowledge which would stand them in good stead when they go back to the postal service.
  1420
  Having been to Dollis Hill and seen some of the work there, and having talked to some of the people who are employed there, I feel it is really most unfortunate that at this juncture we have not got better accommodation there. I think it would be to the general advantage if the Postmaster-General could induce the Ministry of Works to disgorge some of the accommodation which they control or if he obtained possession of some house which is being requisitioned for use in coanection with the research centre. I believe it would pay tremendous dividends.
  There is one other aspect with which 1 should like to deal and which is, I believe, not as much appreciated as it might be. We have heard about the railway postal service. It is an extraordinarily efficient service. I do not know if any hon. Members have ever travelled in a travelling post office, but the men know exactly where they are by sound. They know whether they are going through a tunnel or over a bridge, and at the appropriate place they put out their nets and get their stuff. There are matters in connection with this service which could be improved, and I believe that the whole system should be carefully studied by the Post Office prior to the taking over by the State of the transport of the country.
  It really is fantastic that we are still using the ordinary postal bag, and that we do not convey a lot of these mails in a container. The amount of double handling under the present system is astonishing. It is quite possible to invent a form of plastic container which would ease the work of the postal service. No doubt many Members have noticed at a junction a trolley with a trailer towing the mail bags. Solemnly the bags are unloaded on to the platform, and then they are taken off the platform and put into the van; at the next station they are taken out of the van and put on to the platform again, later being lifted from the platform on to a trailer. There is a tremendous amount of double handling and waste of time here and often it means delaying the train. There is quite a simple arrangement used in Sweden where there is a light form of container into which the mails are put and the appropriate container is pushed through into the van with far less trouble and it is a far better system.

  1421
  I know that it is very difficult at the present moment to safeguard registered packages, but on the railways we have some extremely able police officers whose duty it is to try to protect the mails. I think it is a wonderful thing when we remember all the immense traffic that is handled that there is practically no thieving as long as the bags are in the possession of either postal workers or the railway staff. There are black sheep in every profession, but I think the high standard here is something of which we ought to be proud. It is asking for trouble to have the mails in the loose and put into a van when passengers have the right to walk through the train to go to the dining car or for some such reason. Sometimes people cannot resist temptation. On the L.M.S. the other day there was caught a clever gang who had been working for a long time. They were disguised as ordinary travellers. Like the Post Office workers on the trains, they knew exactly where the train was and they pitched the stuff out at the appropriate point where it was put into a lorry and away it was taken. That sort of thing is very difficult to detect. This gang was caught and the appropriate sentence was passed upon its members.
  The Postmaster-General said that he looked forward to the re-establishment of the old timings with travelling postal vans which would give a better service, but I must say that I am afraid that unless the railways are able to obtain the necessary materials, the Committee should appreciate that instead of faster running there will be reduced running. I think it is wrong to hold out to the public the belief that the old timings can be re-established because we cannot get sleepers or steel rails, and it will not be sale to travel at the old speeds. I think it is right to say, however, that as soon as the material is forthcoming, and the rolling stock put right then, no doubt, the old speeds could be maintained.
  I quite agree with some hon. Gentlemen who said that some Post Office buildings are deplorably bad. They are, and one despairs of knowing when they are to be improved. I support the idea that somebody on the building side should have greater powers. If a suitable site suddenly becomes available, for heaven's sake buy it before it is unobtainable. Otherwise the taxpayer suffers. While you may think that you are frightfully
  1422
  clever in safeguarding the taxpayer with strict Treasury control, if there is not elasticity which permits of quick action, it is the taxpayer who suffers. I think it is only right to say, however, that recently the architects employed by the Post Office have produced some very fine buildings of which I think we ought to be very proud indeed. In too many cases, however, insufficient land is bought so that when the population increases the post office concerned cannot be made adequate to serve the particular community. I think all of us know of post offices where there is tremendous congestion, for some reason or other—perhaps because the Minister of Town and Country Planning has had some new idea for erecting prefabricated houses there or something of the kind. I ask the Postmaster-General if he will not have a competition for a month in an attempt to produce a new design in post offices so that every counter will be available and not one single counter used for everything. So long as pensions or postal savings are mixed up with the buying of penny stamps we shall not have a good arrangement, but if we could have a guichet with a label showing what it is for, and somewhere for people to sit down before they have to go in, congestion would be avoided. It is maddening for the counter staff to have to switch from one thing to another.
  Some years ago I was interested in trying to help telephone operators by providing them with a lighter headpiece. I do not know whether it is realised that in hot weather telephone girls had a perpetual headache or the risk of it because the apparatus was too heavy. I believe that there would be a tremendous dividend if a competition could be organised to provide a good type of headpiece, and I am quite sure that Dollis Hill can and will produce ever better type of equipment. Finally, I hope that the Postmaster-General will consider using motor buses for travelling post boxes in rural areas. In any rural district what was the junction or the station in 1876 is still the junction or the station where the local mail goes. It is quite the thing in Switzerland and Scandinavia for a post office box to be attached to the bus. One posts one's letters in the travelling box and the bus then takes it to the main town. The box is collected

  1423
  at the bus offices there and an enormous amount of time is saved. It would reduce the cost I believe from the present figure of 1.4d. to something considerably less because we should be using transportation already provided. All that is wanted is a box inside. It is clamped in, and is automatically locked. It is perfectly safe, and would not mean a lot of risk. An hon. Member who spoke for one of the Scottish Divisions told of conditions in his part of the world. I also know the West of Scotland. I hope that the Postmaster-General will soon experiment with the dropping of parachuted containers in some of the outlying parts of the country. It is not beyond the wit of man to use them for Post Office purposes.
  If the Committee look at the Estimate they will find that it is rather an interesting document. It reveals that no less a sum than £19,854,462 was the value of services to other Departments using the Post Office. That is an immense sum and it makes me ask whether something cannot be done to reduce the number of forms which we are circulating through the Post Office. A reduction would be of great benefit, at any rate to the present recipients. I always remember one extraordinary thing in connection with the Select Committee on Public Expenditure, of which I was a member. We had some information during the war that a Department had ordered 12 million copies of a particular form. The Stationery Office had a Committee examining the wording of forms, with a view to using less paper. They communicated with the Department concerned, who replied that if the form were not printed in the way they wanted it they would not have it at all. That seems to me a very good way of stopping some of the immense weight of paper passing through the Post Office. The postal services today are not perfect but on the whole they are extraordinarily good. It is not a good idea to cry down this service. If we give encouragement to and increase the welfare of the staff I am sure that the public will benefit.
  8.53 p.m.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: I do not think that I can do better than start my observations at the point at which the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) finished his. In
  1424
  a few well-chosen phrases he practically disposed of all the criticism from hon. Members opposite regarding the postal services. I wish to associate myself with the very nice tribute which he paid to Mr. Gill and to the staff at Dollis Hill. I do not know whether the Committee will ever know how much we owe to those people, not only in the development of telegraph and telephone services, but in connection with the war effort of this country. I agree that money spent on research at Dollis Hill or any other station or extension will be well spent. We can never make the Post Office too efficient.
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard) referred to the fact that the first point in the programme of the union with which I have been associated is not more pay and not fewer hours, but an efficient Post Office service. I would like the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut. - Commander Braithwaite), who made such ungallant statements this evening, to bear that in mind. He seemed to take an unholy delight in forgetting all about the Post Office and trying to chase a union of which he had a very small knowledge.
  I want to refer to the opening statement of the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston). I would like to thank him for what I regarded as a very moderate statement. If the terms in which he put his constructive views before the Postmaster-General had been adopted by some of his successors, it might have been said that this Debate was worth while so far as the Post Office and this Committee are concerned. He said he would like to have some consideration given to the reduction of postal rates. As a Member of Parliament, I can readily subscribe to that, as can most hon. Members. I should imagine.
  Sir W. Darling: I have a dozen letters here bearing 1½d. stamps and none of them has been surcharged.
  Mr. Williams: That is no doubt quite possible when dealing with Scotsmen. There are some considerations which should be kept in mind in relation to the postage rate. I do not agree that the Post Office should be regarded as a milch cow for the Chancellor of the Exchequer or anybody else. It is an industrial concern which ought to have its own profits ploughed back into it.

  1425
  I would bring to the notice of hon. and right hon. Members that there is plenty of scope for using the Post Office profits if one only looks for it. The hon. Member for Abingdon referred to one use for it. I should not like to say how much money will be required for research during the next five or ten years, how much will be required for the development of air services and helicopter services for delivery within certain areas, and how much will be required to bring the conditions and wages of Post Office workers up to a standard of living which is reasonable in these days compared with the wages in outside industry. There is plenty of scope for using all the profit the Post Office can make if we only look in the right direction. My advice to the Committee is that for the time being at least we should leave that alone. If I know anything at all about him, the Postmaster-General, being a Yorkshireman, will certainly know what to do with the brass when he gets hold of it.
  I shall take no notice of the contribution of the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness, because I do not believe that it was seriously made or seriously intended, except to say that insofar as the Wallington incident was concerned, he had nothing like the whole story and nothing like the true story. If he had been in a position to know everything about it, he might have been the first to pay tribute to the excellent relationship existing between the official and staff sides which nipped in the bud an incident which would have been a very serious matter—and did it in the course of two or three hours. This Committee ought to be very grateful to the official side and to the staff side for being able to do it so quickly.
  In these Debates on the Post Office, we should look more or less objectively at the position. I know there is a tendency—and a very natural tendency—for all of us to pick out small things that we know best, and I think some good comes out of it. I wish we could have a Debate like this on transport. It is all to the good that these things should come here for free Debate. [Interruption.]I am giving my point of view. If it happens to coincide with that of hon. Members opposite, I am very surprised. In regard to the objective review which I would like to have here,
  1426
  I hope the Postmaster-General will not listen to some of the complaints which have come from the other side regarding the Union of Post Office Workers and other associations connected with the Post Office. I hope sincerely that he will go further still in getting the closest cooperation possible, because the days are over—the days that hon. Members opposite remember—when the trade unions were simply more or less defensive factors in industry. Trade unions now will play their part and take their share in industry, and they will have some right of control and direction and guidance in industry. If my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General is a wise man in his generation, in regard to his contacts with staff associations, he will encourage that relationship with the associations which will be of tremendous value to him and to the Post Office in the days to come. For the best, part of 30 years now I have been closely associated with Whitley working in the Post Office, on a local level, on a departmental level, and on the National Staff side level of the whole Civil Service. During that 25 or 30 years, I am satisfied that they have made a tremendous contribution not only to improving the conditions of service of their own people, but to improving the over-all general efficiency of the service. My right hon. Friend should devote himself to the wonderful opportunity he has.
  May I suggest for his consideration in passing that not only should he carry on the close co-operation of the past, but that representatives of the staff should be placed on the Post Office Advisory Committee. There are all sorts of people on that Committee whose lack of knowledge of the Post Office would fill volumes Why not, for a change, put persons there who have working knowledge of the Post Office, who are interested in the work of the Post Office, and so on? I commend all those suggestions to my right hon. Friend but, above all. I hope he will show human understanding towards the people who are working in the industry, because I can assure him, despite all that has been said by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling), despite all that has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness, that there is no more loyal body of workers in this country than the workers in the Post Office

  1427
  have been all these years. I hope, therefore, that he will treat them with a good deal of human understanding in these difficult days.
  There are three major factors concerned in this review that I would have liked to mention had time permitted. The first is that it would be wrong to assume that services can either be contracted or expanded at will, or that the only factor in the determination of level of services is a public demand for a certain service. I believe that' the three main factors in this relate to building and equipment available, suitable manpower, and an observation of staff conditions in the industry. Those are considerations that it would be worth while for the Postmaster-General to examine. A large number of the buildings used by the Post Office are buildings of the last century. They ook it, and feel like it when one works in them. I challenge whoever is to reply for the Opposition to say that in his opinion previous administrations of the Post Office did all that was possible at a time of national prosperity to improve those buildings, to expand and make them more suitable, modern, and practicable for the purposes for which they are used. Sir Kingsley Wood certainly did something with his "brighter post offices" campaign. He certainly cleaned up the fronts of post offices, but he left the backs in a terrible state. Whatever money and material my right hon. Friend is likely to get from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I ask him to allocate some of it to improving buildings in which some of our people are working.
  Will my right hon. Friend have inquiry made into the counter staffing, telegraph staffing and telephone staffing in many areas? In addition to difficulties arising from the war, new difficulties are arising through the redistribution of industry, and the decentralisation of industry, and] the Post Office is being asked to face up to the new situation without the wherewithal in accommodation or staff to do so practically or properly. I am glad to note the advance which has been made in regard to training. As one hon. Member has already suggested in the Debate, hon. Members should read the report on training. It is an excellent document, and shows the good relationship which exists between the official side and the staff side
  1428
  in their consideration of matters of mutual interest and of interest to the service as a whole. The Postmaster-General could, with advantage, read some of the reports on welfare and training, and such matters.
  Some of my hon. Friends have discussed the question of wages, but I wish to say a word about hours. We can joke as much as we like in this Committee about people wanting to be at home with their wives and families, but the fact is— and it cannot be ignored—that the hours of Post Office workers are unsociable hours. They are not prepared to carry on with those hours, and my right hon. Friend will have to face the possibility of the service breaking down through a lack of recruiting, or inability to retain men and women to work Under such conditions. Men and women working at the counters and telegraph staffs in London are leaving for private industry, not so much because of the wages they can there earn, but because the conditions of work and the hours are very much better. Some form of compensation must be given. If necessary, working hours must be reduced in certain directions in the Post Office if the system is to be made to work as it should, efficiently and well, in the future. I am afraid, Mr. Beaumont, that you are looking very angrily at me. I have been looking very angrily at many hon. Members who have been speaking when I wished to address the Committee.
  The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I am not angry, but I hope I am making an impression on the hon. Member.
  Mr. Williams: Whenever you look at me, Mr. Beaumont, you make the most favourable impression possible. I sincerely hope that this Debate will be of great assistance to my right hon. Friend. I wish him well. I think he will do as well in the Post Office as he did at the Ministry of Pensions. If he shows the same human understanding of our problems, I do not think the Post Office will regret his appointment; and the people who work in the Post Office will find him a first-class Postmaster-General.
  9.11 p.m.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. W. R. Williams) must find it somewhat maddening, after a lifetime spent in

  1429
  Post Office work, to be cut short in order that some one who cannot claim ever to have been anything other than a consumer of Post Office goods should take his place. The hon. Gentleman gave, or tried to give, the impression that now, for the first time, in contrast to the bad old days of Tory rule, the Union of Post Office Workers and His Majesty's Government were marching in complete harmony and concord towards an agreed solution, leaving behind them altogether the bitter days when, according to him, Tory Governments of the past regarded the Union of Post Office Workers as being an obstructionist and unnecessary organisation. The trouble, as he knows very well, is very different. One of the reasons why we are very disturbed at the present situation in the Post Office is the language now being used towards the Socialist Government, and towards each Minister in succession, by the very Union which the hon., Member has now claimed is going to march in harmony with his own Administration.
  This has been a very strange Debate. I wish to preface my controversial remarks by joining with other hon. Members on both sides of the Committee in congratulating the Postmaster-General on his appointment, in wishing him and the public success while he is at the headquarters of the General Post Office. I should like to thank the Assistant Postmaster-General for the unfailing courtesy which he has shown during his longer period at the Post Office in dealing with the host of personal problems which arise, and which we believe— I say this frankly—have largely increased in number and complexity since his Government took over. But that is not his fault, and he has certainly been extremely courteous in dealing with any troubles which we have brought to him. We have had a series of fierce attacks by three if not four Socialist Members on the first nationalised industry, and we have watched the spectacle of them facing the impossible dilemma of trying to suggest that conditions in the Post Office service are deplorable, and at the same time to give the impression that a nationalised industry must always have been efficiently run.
  We have also seen universal acceptance of the view that the services have tragically deteriorated since be-
  1430
  fore the war, though some Members say that the past good service before the war was achieved by demanding too harsh conditions from a large number of postal workers. We are all agreed that the services have deteriorated, and as we are all jointly concerned in the matter of the postal, telegraph and telephone service, it is up to the Committee to suggest ways whereby this deficiency can be remedied. We think it has deteriorated in all the communications side of that large business organisation, in the telegraph, telephone and postal delivery services. As for the telegraph service, we were glad to hear earlier today from the Postmaster-General that the average time for handling a telegram, which I think was 30 minutes before the war, is now 45 minutes, which is an improvement on the high figure during the war and on the figure recently given in this House, of, I think, 70 minutes.
  We are glad to hear that, but we are very disturbed by the large number of stories that reach all of us individually of the long delays in the delivery of telegrams, and also by the disclosure that the right hon. Gentleman threw out almost en passant this afternoon that while the telegraph services made a deficit in the year 1945–46 of, I think, some £38,000, the deficit last year was no less than £2 million. It appears to me to be a piece of arrogant presumption to assume that no private organisation in the world, with the examples of America and elsewhere, could not have made a profit out of sending telegrams in the course of the last year of business recovery and great industrial revival.
  Dr. Morgan: Press subsidy.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Why not have one here?
  Dr. Morgan: There is a subsidy.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As for telephones, there was previously the gloomy information from the right hon. Gentleman that in London alone there are 136,000 people waiting to become subscribers, and no less than 390,000 in the country as a whole. Even if this large total is satisfied, we shall remain from the point of view of telephone density one of the poorest served great countries in the world. On the question of telephone boxes, I think no

  1431
  one would deny that they are shamefully dirty, broken, neglected and frequently out of action in such a way that if they belonged to the railway companies or to any private owner the Chancellor of the Exchequer would call them, "a pretty poor bag of assets." As to Trunk and Toll Services, I think most hon. Members will agree with "Punch" that:
  "Trunk is only for the tough, toll for the brave."
  What about the postal services? We heard today that last year the postal side of the Post Office made a profit of £10,500,000 and we know from published figures that in 1945–46 the profit was £15,500,000. I agree with my hon. Friend the junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) that it is quite monstrous that with figures of this kind and the acknowledged fact that the average cost of handling a single letter all over the country is 1.4d., we should have to pay 2.5d. for every letter we put into circulation. I saw no indication this afternoon—and I do not think any of my hon. Friends did either—that the Government have made up their mind whether the Post Office exists to produce revenue or to help to conduct the nation's business.
  I agree with the hon. Member for East Walthamstow (Mr. H. Wallace) that it should exist as a business and that the money should be ploughed back into it, but we are not at all sure that His Majesty's Government accept that view. We want a restoration as fast as possible of the admirable postal facilities of prewar days. We are quite prepared to agree with the Government, and with the spokesman of the union, that the country should pay for these services and most certainly we should not have good services at the expense of the postal workers. We are prepared to pay differential rates for speedier service. I entirely agree with the junior Burgess for Cambridge University that there is no reason why we should not have differential rates. When discussing what the deliveries used to be, it is now possible to find people of about 18 years of age who do not even remember how quickly letters travelled in England before the war. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) mentioned the Bridgeman Report. Surely, he realises that the deliveries mentioned in
  1432
  the Bridgeman Report, and which were regarded as adequate, have largely gone now.
  At that time it was possible to post a letter in the inner London district at 5.30 p.m. which would be delivered in the inner London district that evening; or at 7.30 and it would be delivered by the first post next morning anywhere in England; or, up to midnight, and it would be delivered in the inner London area and the Home Counties and some districts outside by the first post next day. The Postmaster-General boasted about speedy services to the Empire, and we are certainly delighted that it is now possible to send a letter, for instance, to Australia in three days, and to some parts of Africa in less, but the truth of the matter is that, if I wanted to post a letter to my own constituency, 45 miles away, and this were a Friday, it would take 2½days to arrive—62 hours—about as long as it takes a letter to get to Australia. The same would be true if I posted it today, when it would take at least 38 hours. While we do praise him and all concerned about Imperial communications, we ask him to spare a moment to deal with communications here in the heart of the Empire itself.
  The truth of the matter is that, the first post arriving after a large number of people have left their homes for their daily work, and the last collection having taken place before they get home, millions of people who hitherto have answered their letters by return cannot now do so. That is what happens now, and we are prepared to accept it if it is temporary, but what alarms us is the feeling that this situation has come to stay, and has come to stay for reasons that have nothing to do with efficient postal services, but are a great deal due to the origins of this Government and the obedience which they are obliged to pay to certain powerful unions from whom they drew political authority. We agree, of course, that the Government have a great many difficulties in regard to staffing and production, but it ought to make them more careful in later years not to promise the workers of the country a 40-hour week without waiting to see what the situation would be like when they were called upon to implement their promise. They have also to face great difficulties in regard to equipment, and that' ought to make them a

  1433
  little more lenient to private interests, like the railways, which suffered precisely the same troubles during the war years. The Government, however, have another lesson to learn in this field of activity. They have to meet and face the challenge of certain trade unions whom they first taught to link their industrial and political activities—
  Mr. Cove: They are most docile.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: They may be, but it does not augur very well if this is the most docile of the unions. I will come now to the extraordinary story which unfolded itself a few months ago in regard to the temporary return of postal facilities in London and elsewhere. In March of last year, we were promised in London restoration of the 7.30 and 9 p.m. collections, and the restoration every day except Saturday and Sunday of the 7 p.m. deliveries. This was postponed from the summer until last January. It was tried, as the Committee knows, for a brief period in January and was then dropped, and we have never had any real explanation why it was dropped. The fuel argument is, of course, ridiculous, and no one today got up seriously to defend it. The new argument is the shortage of manpower, but, as has been pointed out, there are now 700 more postmen than there were when the experiment was tried in January, some 19,000 more postal workers than on 1st April last year, and some 50,000 more than on 1st April, 1939, before the war convulsed all our affairs.
  Coming to this question of the relations with the staff, I agree wholeheartedly with all hon. Members who have paid tributes to the Post Office staff for their work during the war. I saw something of them during a brief period at the start of the war when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Home Security. I saw a great deal of them in fields other than A.R.P. when I was in the Navy. 1 well remember the men who, in the blitzes in London and elsewhere—men like the cable jointers—stood hour after hour in water and sewage to build up again the communication system on which our victory depended, and who used, as it was stated in one case, the words:
  "It is a privilege to be allowed to restore this vital communication service."
  These are very fine people if properly led, and if frankly told the truth. They are
  1434
  just as good as their predecessors of 300 years ago who formed part of the 45 postal workers in London at the time of the Great Plague and the Fire, of whom it was said that they wrote:
  "They consider the dispatch of your Majesty's service more important that the preservation of themselves and their families."
  They are very good people, but the Government have got to be quite frank with them with regard to our present position. The Government must remind certain of their leaders, whose powers as leaders, I am sure, will cause some distress to older trade union leaders in this House, as elsewhere, that the union and these people exist to serve the public, and not the Post Office to serve the union.
  It has been said by a number of hon. Members that the Post Office is not attracting new recruits, despite the fact that it is a nationalised service. There is, they say, no attraction offered to young and enterprising people. There is a huge turnover of man and woman power. Some figures have been quoted today of the turnover of workers which, if they had applied to private businesses, would rightly be regarded as proof of most inefficient management somewhere. We have also heard from the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Randall) and the hon. Member for East Waltham-stow (Mr. H. Wallace) the story of the situation today in postal work, which suggests that everything is by no means rosy, even in that nationalised industry. Quite lately the Secretary of the Union of Postal Workers urged the right hon."Gentleman's predecessor to copy model private employers. I think that a certain irony attaches to those words. I feel that the trouble is that this particular union is watching other unions. The words of its chairman at the last conference of the union are rather significant. He drew attention to the success of other unions,
  "to the progress of pay and hours of labour obtained by unions who used their industrial powers in disputes."
  The general secretary of the union said:
  "The year has been bitterly disappointing The permanent officials are now more firmly in the saddle than ever"
  And, as I will come to shortly, if I have the time, he ventured to prophesy a clash between the Government and the union if certain extreme demands were not conceded. There are no politics in this,

  1435
  because the present Government are being attacked by the anion and in its journal just as fiercely as was any Tory predecessor. Indeed, in one copy of the Metropolitan branch paper, Sir Kingsley Wood was held up as the best Postmaster-General the Post Office had ever known. One year after the 1930 Socialist Government had been in office, this journal said:
  "Under-employment, under-payment of workers, parsimonious and ill-conceived ideas of increasing the public usefulness of the Post Office, a total lack of enterprise in all sections of the service, everything going on in the same old routine, everybody in the same old ruts."
  Shortly after the present Prime Minister ceased to be Postmaster-General, the same journal said that the whole postal service was alive with discontent. Therefore, Lord Listowel need not think he is making history when he is abused, and I do not think that the present Postmaster-General need imagine that he is going to have a clear run just because they have called off the hounds for a moment, and have given him a friendly welcome at the start. There is a fear that the control of the service is going to be taken out of the hands of the Minister and placed in the hands of political trade unions. The edition of 1st June this year of the journal of supervisory officials said:
  "Special treatment of air mails should finish on their arrival in this country. After all, they have gained many hours by air service and a few hours' delay in this country would still give them a good many hours of advantage over the prewar service."
  The general secretary said only a few weeks ago:
  "I hope that it will not be necessary to lead the manipulative grades of the Post Office in a demonstration of their strength industrially, particularly against a Labour Government, but unless something better in the way of meeting our claims is done than the irritating and almost insulting references to manpower and economic conditions, then a clash is inevitable."
  Dr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman referred to two unions. One was the Federation of Post Office Supervisors, and the h6n. Gentleman gave a quotation from the general secretary, and then he referred to "the general secretary" without stating the organisation of which he was the general secretary.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: When I was referring to the Federation of Post Office Supervisors, I said so. The second quotation was from the general secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers, to which I had earlier referred. This clash which is now threatened, we feel, will arise everywhere if the field of nationalised industry is expanded. What the average person wants is good wages, chances of promotion, more money if he works better and faster, the ability to change his job if he wants to, and to go to an alternative employer, and a personal relationship with his employer which makes him feel that he is part of a joint enterprise. The Government must face this problem of trying to give to nationalised industry in this form, something of the personal relationship which is the best feature of the best of private industries.
  I had a number of other things which I was rather anxious to say, but I have made certain promises to the hon. Gentleman who will be winding up the Debate, and I do not want to speak beyond one or two moments more. I feel this is an important note, and one on which to end. The general secretary of the union drew attention to the need for the Postmaster-General to act as a model employer, using, as I have said earlier, a phrase with a certain irony in it. There is an opportunity here of bringing in some model employers, possibly in the form of a working party or something of that kind, to advise on how staff relations can be improved, for if that is not done, then quite definitely there is every prospect of a clash which will bring the communication services of this country to a sudden end.
  We know the difficulties of the Post Office; I have not denied them before I agree with one hon. Member who said that in the future we shall probably have to face the possibility of dividing the different functions of the Post Office. It is no longer going to be possible to accept as permanent an arrangement under which one side of the Post Office is a large Government Department catering for all sorts of activities which have got nothing to do with the communication services of the country; and, on the other side, a large business to be run as a business and not taking a form which enables it to be run as such—a vast business but not organised as one; with an over-centralised authority; with Treasury control over its

  1437
  surpluses; with no power of the Postmaster-General to turn these surpluses that its own ingenuity and skill may have achieved, to purposes which he thinks good for his own Department; with the power of the Treasury, with footling and false economies, to hamper that expansion which would be really fruitful to the Post Office services as a whole.
  The Government have an opportunity, in dealing with the Post Office, of coping with the dangers which lie in the field of vast State monopoly conducted, as this one is being conducted, without the power to apply a proper business yardstick to its day-to-day transactions. That is one of the difficulties from which all hon. Members suffer when they try to see the work of the Post Office at close quarters. We have great difficulty in being able to analyse the accounts and to get a fair picture of how the business is being conducted. There has been a great improvement since those prewar years when the accounts were even more obscure, but even now it is difficult for people who want to apply business tests to the Post Office business side to see. how, in fact, it is being conducted. The accounts for 1947–48 will be the first accounts we shall have had for some time, and I hope that these accounts will be published in such a form that the average layman in this Committee will be able to understand, as far as possible, the exact cost that goes to the sending of a telegram, the making of telephone calls and the postal services in general. For it is on this model that the Government will find the country judging the wisdom of their nationalisation proposals.
  I wish it had been possible, as there is such a field of common interest and common good will in regard to the postal services in general, and with such a universal liking for the people engaged in those services—I wish it had been possible to allow this to be an agreed Vote. But as we very much disapprove of a great many actions of the Government in regard to the postal services as a whole, and as we regard the telephone situation today as being lamentable, and the telegraph situation as being little better, we have no option but to challenge the Vote, and I shall therefore move—
  The Deputy-Chairman: It would be more convenient if the hon. Gentleman
  1438
  would move the reduction of the Vote at the conclusion of the Debate. This will avoid any limitation of the scope of the Debate.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That would depend upon the hon. Gentleman giving me time to move it at the end of the Debate.
  The Deputy-Chairman: Yes.
  Mr. Delargy: On a point of Order. Earlier in this Debate my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey) raised the question of the postal censorship in Northern Ireland. He was ruled out of Order on the ground that this question might be addressed to the Home Secretary. But, after some research, I find that it is an offence against Section 56—
  The Deputy-Chairman: That question has been ruled out of Order, therefore that matter cannot be discussed.
  Mr. Delargy: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Beaumont. Despite my lack of knowledge and my shortcomings as a comparatively new Member of the House, may I ask whether I may raise a point of Order when reinforced by an Act of Parliament?
  The Deputy-Chairman: I allowed the hon. Gentleman to rise to a point of Order, but a point of Order as stated by the hon. Member is a challenge on the Ruling of the Chair. The question raised by the hon. Member is out of Order on the Post Office Vote.
  9.37 p.m.
  The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Burke): We have had a very wide Debate, and very many points have been raised by various Members; and, at the risk of this course making my remarks rather scrappy, I should like to deal with those points as they have been made. I want to thank those hon. Members—and they have been very many on both sides' of the Committee—who have paid tribute to the work of the employees of the Post Office, and who have said many kind things about what the Post Office did in the past and even what the Post Office is doing at the present time. The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) made a speech which was critical in many

  1439
  respects, but which was from his own knowledge of the Post Office, kindly, I think, in its intentions; and I should like to say at once, about the study group of which he was chairman, that those who have followed on after him value very much the work of that study group and have tried to implement as many of its recommendations as we possibly could in the difficult circumstances of these times.
  It was the opinion of that study group that the Post Office Guide should be published as early as possible. That we have done. It was the opinion of that study group that we should have an inquiries section for the public at the counters, and, as far as possible, in some of the bigger offices, that also has been done. It was suggested that there should be public relations officers in the various regions. I think it is true to say that eight have already been appointed. The telephone directories have been issued. I am sorry we have not been able to get the quality of paper we thought we were entitled to, but that is one of the difficulties' with which we are faced; but still we have got the telephone directories out. The "Post Office Magazine," hon. Members will be glad to know, has been published, and has a circulation of 170,000, and is very warmly welcomed by the staff and much appreciated. Those are all recommendations of this interim report. We are trying to do as well as we can with regard to the other recommendations of the report, which came out later, but many of them depend upon supplies of paper and getting the printing done; and, in so far as that is difficult, it is made difficult for us to carry out those recommendations.
  The hon. Member asked about the "Ask Me" service. That corresponds I think, with a service they have in France called the"M'aidez"Service, or something of that description. We have considered that very carefully. As the hon. Member said, it has very great attractions, but unfortunately it would need a good deal of work on telephone equipment, as he probably realises. In the present state of the telephone services, when so many demands are being made upon us for fresh installations and speedier services, I am afraid that that service cannot be put into operation at the present time; though, I must say it is one of the things, amongst others, which the Post Office are looking at, and we hope that sooner or later there
  1440
  will be an opportunity of putting it into operation. When something like it was run under private enterprise, I believe by Selfridge's, I understand it had to be abandoned because people were making rather frivolous use of it. Possibly that is one of the dangers we would have to avoid in the Post Office.
  The hon. Member next asked whether we were thinking about the use of helicopters. We have this in mind. In the speeding up of the service we have in mind not only the use of helicopters, but also the use of ordinary aeroplanes. The difficulty, of course, is that the Post Office would want planes which would fly at night, and that cannot be, unless we get perfect regularity, and perfect regularity depends upon certain navigational aids, which are not available at the present time. I remember the case of Burma, which the hon. Member mentioned, because I dealt with it, but I am afraid there were complications of a personal nature there, which I do not want to enter into now, which prevented us obtaining all the information which we might have obtained in another kind of case. It was the responsibility of the War Office, who withdrew the Army postal facilities there, and they regarded their action as being essential. It is not a matter about which the Post Office itself had any control.
  The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) raised the question of frauds, which has caused a good deal of perturbation in the minds of hon. Members. We know that a good many frauds are taking place now with Post Office bank books, and we have withdrawn certain facilities in order to try to tighten up the machinery. I am not trying to minimise these frauds, but on the other hand people ought to have this thing in the right perspective. The frauds come to between £90,000 and £100,000 out of a turnover of about £1,250 million a year. In other words, the extent of the fraud is about equal to 1.9d. in every £100. When one reads about these frauds in the reports of court cases it looks very formidable, but in actual practice it does not involve the public in any very great loss of money.
  I come now to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) who has repeatedly raised the question of the inefficiency of the Post Office, and who has

  1441
  said that he has never had an explanation—and one or two other hon. Members have said the same thing—why the services which were put on at the beginning of this year, on 20th January, were withdrawn at the end of the fuel crisis. In spite of many definite denials on my part, I think the hon. Member is still of the opinion that those services were withdrawn because of the pressure of the staff; and he has quoted to us a passage from the "Economist," in which the editor, or whoever wrote the article, shares that view with him. He read it very impressively and felt very right about it, but he is not nearly as right as he thought.
  The only reason these services were withdrawn in the beginning was because of the fuel crisis. While that fuel crisis was on, we were asked by the Government to make a contribution to the manpower situation, by releasing some of the people in the employment of the Post Office. We looked around, and we found that we could not release anyone from the savings bank, from the telephone side, or from among the engineers. As a commercial firm, if we had to make a contribution, we could make it only by cutting down some of the services. Therefore, it was decided not to restore these cuts when the fuel crisis eased. The reason the fuel crisis interfered with the services was because the men had to go out into darkened streets in the evenings and early morning, and because the staff had no heating in the sorting offices. For all these reasons the services were cut, and as a result we have succeeded in releasing about 3,500 up to the moment, as well as stopping the recruitment upon which we were engaged to improve the services.
  If the need for manpower had not arisen, we should have continued with that recruitment, easing away our temporary people, and recruiting, as we have been doing all along, ex-Servicemen on the 50 per cent. basis. I hope that I have disabused the mind of the hon. Member, although I am afraid that he will still be of the same opinion; but if he is, he is sticking to it in complete contradiction of the facts. The hon. Member also asked whether we were doing anything about mechanisation. It is very difficult to get mechanisation on the postal side, but our research department are doing what they can. He also asked whether the staff were running the Post Office. Well, the staff do not think they
  1442
  are running it at all. To all those who have been talking about the influence of the trade unions on the Post Office, let me say that we understand the trade union point of view. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) has told us what we ought to do about the unions and those who lead them. The unions have been choosing their leaders for a long time, and they will not take advice from the hon. Member on that. We are not afraid to trust the trade unions, or to take them into our confidence. I am perfectly satisfied that we shall handle this situation, getting the goodwill of the workers, and at the same time doing the right thing by the customers. It is not the intention of the Postmaster-General to be in the hands of one side or the other. His intention is to hold a just balance between the needs of the people and the rights of the trade unionists.
  The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) referred to the difficulty of getting a toll number last Friday. I do not know why that was, but I suspect that last Friday quite a few lines were put out of action by the storm. It seems that the services of the Post Office are not supposed to stop at all. Even when there is a storm, like we had last Friday, it seems that if a Member of Parliament wants to make a telephone call he ought to be able to get through. Although we have control of many things we do not control the weather. The hon. Member exaggerated a little, I think, when he said that somebody died as a result of an accident, because of the failure of the Elmbridge exchange. We went into that case, and the trouble was not that the hon. Member failed to get through in three minutes as he said—somebody else said it was two minutes—but because there was no local ambulance available. It was, therefore, wrong of the hon. Member to put the blame on the Post Office for that.
  In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Walthamstow (Mr. H. Wallace), and the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), I am glad to be able to tell them that the Post Office is doing a considerable amount towards the improvement of research at Dollis Hill. We have taken some houses at Stone, in Staffordshire, at which we shall train 1,000 engineers, some of whom have

  1443
  been at Dollis Hill. This has been done so that other people can have more accommodation at Dollis Hill in tackling real problems of fundamental research. We expect, by 1950, to have 150 fully qualified scientists and engineers on basic research work, and we propose to double the major scientific and engineering staff during the next few years at Dollis Hill.
  I want to deal briefly with the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite). I would only say this to him: that I thought his remarks about Sir Drummond Shiels were in extremely bad taste. He criticised someone who cannot defend himself in the House. I always understood that it was not the right thing to do to criticize a member of the Civil Service when he could not defend himself. To the knowledge of myself, and others, Sir Drummond Shiels has been a very loyal and faithful servant of the Post Office, and is very widely respected by' many people with whom he has come into contact. His has been one of the best appointments which the Post Office has ever made.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir B. Neven-Spence) asked about telephone facilities in that area. We have plans for improved communications for the whole of Scotland and the Islands as soon as possible. It is only a short time ago since one of the Islands up there was marooned, and the Post Office succeeded in getting a plane across and delivering the mail. The hon. Member for Abingdon also asked me about plastic containers. This is one of the matters upon which our research department is at present engaged—
  Mr. Keeling: Surely the hon. Gentleman will reply to the charge I made, and proved up to the hilt, that the reduced postal services are not functioning properly, and that a considerable proportion of letters is not being delivered.
  Mr. Burke: I am not going to forget the hon. Gentleman if he will leave me alone. I will deal with the question of party lines and rural services. We are going out of our way to do what we can for the rural areas. We have given concessions which will enable us to meet the needs of the farming community in a better way than before.
  1444
  I now come to the postal services. It is true that the hon. Gentleman has brought to our notice some evidence of delay from a firm in Regent Street. It appears that there was a breakdown in the service, and it may be that these new services will take some time to work themselves in. All these things have to be worked in with one another. The fundamental thing, as I said before, is still true: we have not deteriorated the postal service in the way in which it has been suggested. All that has happened is that we have had to take off the late deliveries in order to save manpower, but if letters are posted before 6 or 6.30 in London or in most of the large towns, they will, when the services are running normally, and provided that transport, over which we have no control, does not let us down, get first delivery next morning in most places in the country. This was the kind of service given before we had the cut, and this service will meet the needs of 90 per cent. of the correspondents of the country. I shall be asked: What about the other 10 per cent? It is hard, but even in their case we have done what we can to meet them. If those 10 per cent. of correspondents will go to the head offices of the towns, up to 8 o'clock, their letters will get the same treatment as the letters which are posted before 6.30.
  I contend that in meeting the reasonable needs of the business community to the extent of 90 per cent, of the correspondence, and in providing a let-out for urgent correspondence at night, we have met the reasonable needs of the country as a whole, in view, of the demand for manpower. It is true that if we had unlimited manpower we should like to put back the services, and if the manpower position eases we may be able to restore them, but if we have to make a contribution to the manpower situation, we have done it with the least possible curtailment of the services of the country and with the minimum amount of upset. If 90 per cent. of the correspondence is posted before 6 and 6.30 —and special arrangements are made for Members of the House of Commons to post up to 8 o'clock at night—then we believe the country will be satisfied that it was reasonable to cut the services in order to make a contribution to the manpower position. I suggest to the Committee that, having regard to all the difficulties we have had to face, the Post Office does not deserve condemnation tonight, but rather commendation.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move "That Item Revenue Departments, Vote 3, Post Office, be reduced by £5."
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes,. 102; Noes, 258.

  Division No. 292.]

  AYES.

  [10.0 p.m.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Grimston, R. V.

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

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

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Head, Brig. A. H.

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

  Birth, Nigel

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

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

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

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Neven-Spence, Sir B

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Nicholson, G.

  Bracken, Rt Hon. Brendan

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Nield, B. (Chester)

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Writing, Anthony

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

  Howard, Hon. A.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

  Peaks, Rt. Hon. O

  Bullock, Capt. M

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

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Butcher, H. W

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

  Pickthorn, K

  Byers, Frank

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Prescott, Stanley

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Jennings, R.

  Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

  Keeling, E. H

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Crowder, Capt. John E

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Darling, Sir W. Y

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Digby, S. W

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D,

  Lennox-Boyd, A. <ob/>.

  Savory, Prof. D. L

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

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Stanley Rt Hon. O

  Drayson, G. B.

  Low, Brig A. R. W

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir C. (Richmond)

  Lucas, Major Sir J.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col M

  Eccles, D. M.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Lytteiton, Rt. Hon. O

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

  MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

  Teeling, William

  Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L,

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Touche, G. C.

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P M

  Maclay, Hon J. S.

  Vane, W. M. F

  Gage, C.

  Maomillan, Rt Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T D

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J

  Gammans, L. D.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Williams, C (Torquay)

  George, Lady M Llovd (Anglesey)

  Marples, A. E.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Grant, Lady

  Maude, J. C.

  Mr. Studholme and

  Lieut.-Colonel Thorp.

  NOES.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Castle, Mrs. B. A

  Foster, W. (Wigan)

  Adams, W T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Champion, A. J.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

  Chetwynd, G. R

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Cobb, F. A.

  Gaitskell, H. T. N

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Gallacher, W.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Coldrick, W.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Collindridge, F.

  Gibbins, J.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Collins, V. J.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Ayles, W. H.

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs B.

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

  Greenwood, A. W J (Heywood)

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Grey, C. F.

  Baird, J.

  Corvedale, Viscount.

  Grierson, E.

  Balfour, A.

  Cove, W. O

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Barstow, P. G

  Crawley, A

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Barton, C.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Battley, J. R

  Daggar, G.

  Gunter, R. J.

  Beehervalse, A. E.

  Daines, P

  Guy, W. H.

  Belcher, J. W

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H

  Hall, W. G.

  Benson, G.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Berry, H.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Beswiek, F.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hardy, E. A.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Harrison, J.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Diamond, J.

  Hastings, Dr Somerville

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W

  Dodds, N. N

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Donovan, T.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

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

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Harbison, Miss M.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Dumpleton. C. W.

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Bramall, E. A

  Durbin, E. F. M.

  Holman, P.

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hamsworlh)

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Edelman, M.

  Hoy, J

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Hubbard, T.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Fairhurst, F.

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

  Buchanan, G.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Burden, T. W

  Field Capt. W. J

  Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Burke, W. A

  Follick, M.

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

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

  Foot, M M.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Callaghan, James

  Forman, J. C.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Irving, W J.

  Murray, J. D

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon G. A

  Nally, W.

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F

  Janner, B.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Sparks, J. A

  Jay D. P. T.

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

  Stamford, W

  Jeger, G (Winchester)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Steele, T

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

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

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)

  Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

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

  Stross, Dr. B

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  O'Brien, T.

  Swingler, S.

  Kenyon, C.

  Oldfield, W. H

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

  Oliver, G. H.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Kinley, J.

  Orbach, M.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Kirkwood, D

  Paget, R. T

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Lang, G.

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

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

  Layers, S.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Lee, F (Hulme)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Thurtle Ernest

  Lee, Miss J (Cannock)

  Pargiter, G A

  Titterington, M. F.

  Leonard, W

  Parkin, B. T

  Tolley, L.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G

  Levy. B. W

  Pearson, A.

  Turner-Samuels, M

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Peart, Thomas F.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Lindgren, G S

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Usborne, Henry

  Lipson, D. L

  Porter, E (Warrington)

  Vernon, Maj. W. F

  Lyne, A W

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Viant, S. P.

  McAdam, W.

  Price, M. Philips

  Walkden, E.

  MeEntee, V. La T.

  Proctor, W. T

  Walker, G. H

  McGhee, H. G.

  Pryde, D. J

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Randall, H E

  Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  McKinlay, A S.

  Ranger, J.

  Webb, M (Bradford, C.)

  Maclean, N (Govan)

  Pees-Williams, D. R

  Weitzman, D

  McLeavy, F.

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  MacMillan. M. K (Western Isles)

  Rhodes H

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Malialieu, J. P W.

  Richards, R.

  West, D. G

  Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)

  Hidealgh, Mrs. M.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Wigg, Col. G. E.

  Mathers, G.

  Robertson, J J. (Berwick)

  Wilkes, L

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Messer, F.

  Royle, C.

  Willey, F T. (Sunderland)

  Middleton, Mrs. L

  Scollan, T

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R

  Segal, Dr. S

  Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)

  Mitchison, G. R

  Shackleton, E A. A.

  Williams, W R (Heston)

  Monslow, W

  Sharp, Granville

  Willis, E.

  Moody, A. S

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Wills, Mrs. E A

  Morgan, Dr H B.

  Shawcross, Rt. Hn Sir H (St Helens)

  Woods, G. S

  Morley, R

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Wyatt, W.

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

  Simmons, C. J.

  Yates, V. F

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Skeffigton-Lodge, T C

  Younger, Hon. Kennet

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

  Skitinard. F W

  Mort, D. L

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mulvey, A-

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

  Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Original Question again proposed.
  It being after Ten o'clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding,The CHAIRMAN left the Chair. to make his report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

  WAYS AND MEANS

    CINEMATOGRAPH FILM (CUSTOMS)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Treasury shall have power by order to alter or add to Section ten of the Finance Act, 1935, so as to secure that the value of exposed cinematograph film shall for the purpose of customs duties be determined in such manner as may be provided by the order."—[Mr. Dalton.]
    10.11 p.m.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): We are tonight dealing with what I hope and believe hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will regard as a first and preliminary stage in the discussion of what is an important matter, on which many Members on both sides of the Committee may wish to express their views. I think the occasion for such Debate will come better next week, or whenever—I do not want to prejudge the programme—the House takes the later stages of the Finance Bill, and particularly the Report stage.
    Tonight all I am doing is, so to speak, putting myself in Order by asking the Committee to agree to the permissive Motion which is on the Order Paper and that will enable the ordinary procedure to follow, when the Finance Bill is considered on Report, and for this matter to be taken then as a Government pro-

    1449
    position. It is open, of course, to any hon. or right hon. Member to express his views at any time on any of these questions; but it will be more convenient, I think, for the Debate on the merits of this matter to be deferred until we take the Finance Bill on Report stage.
    The Motion I am asking the Committee to accept tonight is very short and very simple. If it is accepted, in due course an Order would need to be made to put the matter into its proper position. At this stage we are not asking the Committee to agree to any levy on cinematograph films in addition to the levy now imposed on films as such. All we are asking the Committee to do is to agree that, if circumstances should be such as to seem to the Government to justify the imposition of a further tax, we should have power to propose to the Committee that such a tax should be imposed.
    The general case for this Motion can be very simply stated. We are in conditions of considerable dollar stringency. This is true not only of this country but of almost every other country in the world. We shall have to debate this matter in suitable fashion at greater length no doubt next week. That being so, we must arm ourselves in advance with such weapons as may help us if the stringency becomes more acute, to check the flow of remittances from this country in dollars in respect of films imported from the United States, and indeed from other countries at large—though in fact much the most important item is remittances to the United States, rather than to other foreign countries or to any part of the Empire. When I was asking the House to agree to an increased tax on tobacco, I ventured to submit the simple slogan, "Food before Fags." Tonight, in general defence of this proposition, I submit the simple slogan, "Food before Films," if the choice must be made.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: "Food before Flicks."
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. Dalton: "Flicks," I believe, is the colloquial expression. I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. The magnitude of the dollar drain which we are now experiencing in respect of "flicks," etc., has risen from about £7 million a year before the war to a figure which over the last year or two has varied between
    1450
    £17 million and £18 million a year payable in dollars. I am not tonight going into the question of the balance. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. O'Brien) looks dangerously inclined to make a speech, which will no doubt be of the best kind, but he will get a very much better Press if he postpones his speech until next week. I give him that hint, but I do not know whether he will take it. He will be better reported on the second occasion if he makes his speech at the right time of the day, and it will then do full justice to him.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: We cannot hear a word.
    Mr. Dalton: I am sorry that the noble Lord cannot hear a word. The case is extremely simple. The Government ask the Committee to give us power, if we judge the situation to demand it, to limit the outflow of dollars from this country in respect of films imported from other parts of the world. That is the simple proposition. The manner of doing it as as follows. This is what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) would like me to make clear, and I will seek to do so in simple fashion. At present the only form of import duty on films is a duty on the film as such, regardless of what may be inscribed upon it. From our point of view, that is no use. Therefore, what we propose is that power should be taken to impose in future an Import Duty collected by the Customs on the estimated earnings of the film when it comes in. This will be, I will not say a shot in the dark, but a shot in the twilight, which the Customs can make. It will be adjustable thereafter upwards or downwards according to what are shown to be the actual earnings of the films. In the first instance, the Customs will estimate what earnings the film will bring in—whatever figure seems to them to be appropriate. The duty will be levied on that figure at whatever rate we shall hereafter determine with the consent of the House. That assessment of the earnings is to be made by the Customs, and that payment will be made at that point in the story.
    Thereafter, when the film has had its run and when we know what the earnings have in fact been, the estimate will be corrected in relation to the actual

    1451
    earnings of the film, and either more will be collected if the original estimate turns out to be too low, or something will be refunded if the original estimate turns out to be too high. I hope I have made the essential point clear. Much thought has been given to this matter by my advisers, and we have examined various alternative modes of procedure. It has seemed to us that this is the best way of carrying out the general principle that we should take power now to levy a certain tax upon the dollar remittances and remittances in other forms of foreign exchange which may diminish in respect of earnings of this character. I hope that has made the matter sufficiently clear. The Government do not at all wish that debate on this matter should be abbreviated. We are anxious to get the view of different parts of the Committee on the matter, but I suggest that for the sake of avoiding duplication of debate and of beginning at a reasonable hour, it would be better that debate should take place when the Finance Bill proceeds to its later stages. Tonight, I merely ask the Committee to agree to this permissive Resolution.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: This obviously is a matter of great importance. It touches a great industry and it touches the employment of a great many people and the enjoyment of many millions. It touches it in a wholly novel way, because the procedure which the Chancellor has briefly outlined for us tonight in response to a request from me —and I am grateful to him for doing so— is quite unprecedented in our fiscal history. For all those reasons, therefore, we regard this as a matter which will necessitate the most serious and searching debate by hon. Members. I, for one, feel that at this time of night, to start a long and complicated Debate of that kind, is possibly not the most convenient course, and I propose to postpone the remarks which I wish to make upon this important point until a further stage of the Finance Bill, when we shall hope to have an opportunity of debating this at a more convenient time. As far as I am concerned. I would add only these two things: first, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not take silence now necessarily as acquiescence when the next stage comes: secondly, that he will realise that if I and any of my hon. Friends, for the conveni-
    1452
    ence of the Committee, postpone our remarks now, that at least gives us some entitlement to an adequate time for discussion on the Report stage. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has not yet studied the Order Paper, which contains already 30 pages of Amendments to the Finance Bill—
    Mr. Dalton: All concessions.
    Mr. Stanley: —some two-thirds of which, although I do not think the right hon. Gentleman knows it yet, are down in his name. We feel that on this occasion, as on the occasion of the new motor tax, when we deliberately postponed discussion at one stage, we are entitled to rather special consideration when it comes to the Report stage. On that understanding, I shall postpone any remarks I have to make.
    Mr. O'Brien: My right hon. Friend will help the Committee by elucidating one or two points on this Motion. I have not a lot to say about the merits of the decision, but I would ask the Chancellor whether he has considered the serious damage which the timing of this Motion, and the way it has been put forward, has done, is doing, and will do to the British film industry, and particularly to its workers? A point which has occurred to me is that in 1939, when the Treasury were faced with a similar difficulty, they sent for the principals of the American film interests represented over here, the exhibiting interests, and also organised labour, and we had discussions at the beginning of the war with regard to the dollar remittances then due to the United States. The present situation is probably a little different and more serious in its implications. Did my right hon. Friend consult those bodies and, if he did not, why could he not have delayed this action until he had done so? He could then probably have secured the co-operation of the various interests involved as that co-operation was obtained in 1939, had he gone about it in the proper way. I am afraid that his method of dealing with this will be regarded as high-handed, and I would like to know whether my right hon. Friend, having been advised about this, could not have taken steps to remove the unfortunate and damaging effect which has now been created by the procedure adopted.
    Mr. J. Langford-Holt: I do not want at this time to keep the Committee any longer, nor do I wish to discuss the merits of this matter, but I would like the Chancellor to answer one question; that is, whether newsreels are included within the scope of this Motion. I believe I am right in saying that when the previous Act was passed, newsreels were included, and for many weeks, if not months, negotiations took place, and eventually newsreels were excluded from the scope of the final Act. I ask the Chancellor if he will definitely make a point, either now or when the matter is discussed again, of excluding newsreels from the scope of this Motion.
    Mr. Charles Williams: I do not wish in the least to disturb the harmony of the proceedings at this time of night, but I think it has been admitted by both Front Benches that we are branching out into a rather new form of procedure in this Motion. It is very difficult and complicated, and one which I think is justified because of the difficulties with which we are faced. I think that that is the only justification for dealing with the matter in this way now. I hope that this will not be taken as a precedent for using this procedure on other occasions.
    Mr. Dalton Mr. Dalton indicated assent.
    Mr. Williams: I am glad the Chancellor gives his consent to that. I think it valuable that a private Member should put this point as well as right hon. Members on the Front Benches, because we may be missing an opportunity to make sure that it is admitted that this is a precedent which should not be made the usual Parliamentary procedure.
    Mr. Dalton: I will briefly respond to the points which have been put. Taking them in reverse order, of course this is not a precedent for any other action. We have had to bring this forward rather late in the day, and it seemed to us that it would be a mistake to miss an opportunity of embodying this power in the Finance Bill. It is a power only. In answer to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) newsreels
    1454
    would be technically within the power to impose the duty, but I can at once tell the hon. Member that we do not intend in fact to apply any duty under this power on newsreels.
    Mr. Follick: Does it apply to educational films?
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. Dalton: The hon. Member for Shrewsbury asked the question, and I have checked up and have given the answer; but I cannot give snap replies in regard to educational films. My hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. O'Brien) is very closely associated with the film industry and he need not feel that there will not be an opportunity for this matter to be fully discussed. He and I are old friends and there was a time when I was at the Board of Trade, when we discussed matters of this kind. He will have plenty of opportunity, and he will be able to discuss with me whatever he wishes to say before this power is taken. I must emphasise to the Committee that it is only the taking of a power; it is nothing more than that, but I will consult with him. At the same time, I must make this point, and I do so in a most friendly spirit. His Majesty's Government and any succeeding Government in this country, must be very careful not to get committed to elaborate consultations before consulting this sovereign assembly. That is not the way to govern this country. But to my hon. Friend I say that I am perfectly willing to receive any representation, and to enter into discussions between the taking of this power and the exercising of it should we desire to exercise it. I repeat that this is only the taking of a power and it is that for which I seek the approval of the Committee.
    Resolved,
    "That the Treasury shall have power by order to alter or add to section ten of the Finance Act, 1935, so as to secure that the value of exposed cinematograph film shall for the purpose of customs duties be determined in such manner as may be provided by the order."
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  PURCHASE TAX ORDER (SHOOTING BRAKES, ETC.)
  10.32 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I beg to move,
  "That the Purchase Tax (Charges) (No. 1) Order, 1947 (S.R. & O., 1947, No. 1182), dated 16th June, 1947, made by the Treasury under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, a copy of which order was presented on 18th June, be approved."
  Although the time is getting on, I think that hon. Members would like me to say a few words about this Purchase Tax Order for which we seek assent tonight. All road vehicles designed to carry passengers, with certain exceptions, were made subject to the incidence of Purchase Tax at the basic rate under Schedule 7 of the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1940. Trams were exempted, and so were buses and trolley-buses, perambulators, ambulances, char-a-bancs, and invalid carriages. Goods vehicles, as distinct from passenger-carrying vehicles have always been exempt from the charge, and the difficulty has always been to know exactly what came under the definitions laid down by the Act to which I have referred. There is the vehicle which can be described as a goods vehicle, wholly or mainly used for the carriage of goods. There is the vehicle of another type, wholly or mainly used for the carriage of passengers; and the estate vehicle, or shooting brake, springs immediately to mind as one which is difficult to describe either as a passenger vehicle or a goods vehicle.
  Such vehicles are at present free of the tax, but I think that the Committee will agree that to ride in a shooting brake, although not technically a passenger vehicle, is to ride as comfortably as one would travel in some passenger cars. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Anyway, the fact remains that there is a gap, and it is the intention of this Order to close that gap, because the incidence or non-incidence of Purchase Tax on a vehicle amounts to some hundreds of pounds. That being so, it is desirable that where you have a vehicle which is—I will not say evading the law, because that would be incorrect—but which, though it is described as a goods vehicle, is used almost entirely as a passenger vehicle, it should be liable to Purchase Tax. At present it escapes that tax because of the law as it stands.
  1456
  Since notice was given that we intended to present this Order to the House for approval, certain representations have been made to the Treasury by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. They have pointed out to us, and we agree with them, that the definition in the Order may catch a type of vehicle, or types of vehicles, which frankly we do not want to catch. The Order applies to vehicles which have, behind the driver, roofed-in space and side windows, and can seat passengers. Quite a number of vehicles —for instance hearses—can be described as roofed vehicles which have side windows. Therefore, there are vehicles other than shooting brakes which might be caught by this definition.
  We are fully alive to the fact that this definition may not be quite watertight. It may be necessary, in order to exempt vehicles which properly should be exempted as goods vehicles, to make Orders subsequently which will name and define them. We are fully alive to the fact that there are certain types of vehicle which may be caught; I do not say they will be caught, but experience may show that they are caught under Schedule I giving of the definition in this Order. If this proves to be so, the Government are willing to come back at some future time and ask for the approval of a subsequent Order which will say that a certain type of vehicle which should properly be excluded is excluded. Finally, I should say that this Order has been before the Select Committee, and that they have no adverse comment to make upon it.
  10.39 P.m.
  Mr. Osbert Peake: The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing this Order, seemed in his closing observations to admit that the wording of it is faulty, and to indicate that if it is accepted by the House now it cannot be many weeks before amending Orders have to be introduced. The first point I want to make is that the Motion on the Order Paper is entitled "Purchase Tax (Charges) (Shooting brakes and similar vehicles)." Then the Motion goes on that the Purchase Tax Order made by the Treasury "be approved." I must confess that I do not understand how these words, "shooting brakes and similar vehicles," come to be in the title. There is no reference to shooting brakes in the Order before the House, and these words are of no

  1457
  validity whatever. There are simply put on the Order Paper, I imagine, to give the House some enlightenment as to the matter which is going to be discussed. But when one comes to look at the Order one finds that shooting brakes are, in fact, not mentioned and that the proposal before the House is to tax what are known in the trade, and to the public, as utility vehicles. I must confess that I begin to wonder why the phrase "shooting brakes" has been introduced into our proceedings at all.
  I imagine that it is just an attempt on the part of the right hon. Gentleman or his advisers to have a pot shot at "the squire and his relations." That is all it amounts to, because anyone who is familiar with the use to which these utility vehicles are put knows perfectly well, that not I per cent. of these so-called utility vehicles are used as shooting brakes at all. There are very few citizens left in this country today who can afford shooting brakes, in any event, and if a vehicle is used as a shooting brake, it is only used, at the maximum, for 10 or 20 per cent. of its time in that capacity. These vehicles are, in fact, used as to 90 per cent. of the whole of their time in carrying commercial goods. These are, so far as user is concerned, commercial vehicles. The right hon. Gentleman said, explaining the principle of the Finance Act, 1940, which introduced the Purchase Tax upon passenger vehicles, that the whole purpose of the Act was to exempt from the scope of the tax commercial and goods vehicles
  The old definition on which the law has been founded hitherto is that vehicles are taxed if they are constructed or adapted solely or mainly for the carriage of passengers. It is quite proper that the test in this matter should be the purpose for which the vehicle is constructed. You obviously cannot apply the test of what the vehicle is used for, because all sorts of vehicles today, in the present shortage of motor vehicles, are used for all kinds of purposes. The test must obviously be the purpose for which the vehicle has been constructed, and that under which we have worked for the last seven years has been, was the vehicle constructed or adapted solely or mainly for the carriage of passengers? That test obviously hits the London taxicab, for example. It is constructed mainly, although it has a platform for the carriage of goods, for the
  1458
  carriage of passengers. It is quite clear that the main purpose of these utility vehicles is commercial and the carriage of goods. They are, for example, limited by the Road Traffic Act to a speed of 30 m.p.h. The courts have held time and time again that these are, in fact, goods vehicles, and that anybody who exceeds 30 m.p.h. in one of them is breaking the law. Therefore, so far as the Road Traffic Act is concerned, these are goods vehicles. There is no doubt about that at all.
  Now the right hon. Gentleman comes forward and says he wishes to impose a Purchase Tax of 33⅓ per cent. upon them from 30th June. We think that it is a bad proposal for a variety of reasons For one thing, it plays ducks and drakes with the motor industry. Our motor industry does a big export trade in vehicles of this character. It is a growing trade which ought to be encouraged. It is perfectly true that vehicles for the export trade do not carry Purchase Tax, but any effort in the export trade must be based upon a sound home market. There is an immense demand for this type of vehicle in the home market at the present time. Its principal use, I believe, is upon the farm. This tax, therefore, is not only a blow to the motor industry but a blow to the agricultural interests. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the hearse would come under this definition, as I understood him—
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I believe I said that while it would be suggested perhaps that the definition would cover a hearse as having side windows, but a hearse is not constructed for the carriage of passengers.
  Mr. Peake: That is precisely the purpose for which a hearse has been designed. Let me read the new definition which the right hon. Gentleman proposes should be substituted for the old. The old one was really quite simple: "Is the vehicle constructed solely or mainly for the purpose of carrying passengers?" It was not very difficult for anyone to decide that. The new definition is:
  "Road vehicles (whether mechanically propelled or not) having, to the rear of the driver's seat, roofed accommodation lit by-side windows."
  That is the first part of the definition. But there is a further condition:
  "and fitted with, or constructed or adapted for, the fitting of, seating for passengers."

  1459
  The right hon. Gentleman would say that people travelling in hearses do not sit. But who knows, or who can say, whether the roofed accommodation—these are words which the following words qualify —is to be fitted or constructed or adapted for the seating of passengers. It seems very funny to me that roofed accommodation should be adapted for seating, but all that appears to be affected by the definition here provided. Let me take another example. Take the Black Maria, used by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, for the conveyance of passengers—
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Used on behalf of—not by.
  Mr. Peake:—in a seated position, about various parts of the Metropolis. How is the Black Maria affected by this new definition? It all seems to turn upon whether or not it has side windows to the rear of the driver's seat. The right hon. Gentleman's Black Maria may have a window at the back. It can have a window at the front, but if it has windows on the side, Purchase Tax is forthwith payable. This Order is ridiculous in itself and in so far as the right hon. Gentleman is able to make it achieve anything, it will deal a blow to the motor industry, to the agricultural industry, and to a great many small commercial people who make use of these vehicles for the conveyance of goods. For those reasons we shall oppose this Order.
  10.49 p.m.
  Mr. David Eccles: I hope that the House will reject this Order. I suppose I ought to declare my interest. I possess one of these vehicles and when it wears out I must acquire another.
  Mr. William Wells: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would clarify the point. One of what does he possess— Black Maria, hearse, or shooting brake?
  Mr. Eccles: I possess a utility van which is occasionally used as a shooting brake. The main use of such vehicles, so far as the agricultural industry is concerned, is to go to the station and collect things that have come down quickly or—which is a growing use—to carry men about from one holding to another on a farm. In our
  1460
  county the weather is very patchy, and when one has to stop work on a field of hay in one part, one can get on with it elsewhere. These vehicles are a godsend to the farmer. I am told by the Rootes Group—and I think it is correct—that they have 3,000 such vehicles on order from farmers. If that is correct, and I am sure it is, the right hon. Gentleman must see that they are in a large measure an instrument for the production of food.
  We began the Finance Bill in Committee by removing the tax on kerosene because it was an impediment to the production of food. Now we are putting a tax on another instrument of food production. I agree that these vehicles are sometimes used as passenger vehicles. Mine has been seen in Palace Yard, but that is because my car had broken down. I came to London in it and used it as a passenger vehicle, but only because I could not get another car. When I can, I certainly will not bring a Ford V.8 from Wiltshire to the House of Commons because it is most expensive in petrol. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to weigh this thing up. How much does he consider this type of vehicle is used in substitution for the passenger car, and how much does he think it is used as an instrument of production? It is mainly used, to my knowledge, as an instrument for the production of food. We shall have plenty of opportunity of speaking on this next week.
  In the situation in which we find ourselves, when our imports are in danger, is it really sensible to put a tax on the one kind of vehicle which is of immense use in economising labour on the farm? That is what these vehicles are used for. I cannot think the Chancellor of the Exchequer really has taken the food situation into consideration. I cannot believe that he has gone to the manufacturers and asked them who are the people who have their names on their orders. If he had I believe he would have the same information as I have, namely, that it is the farmer who is largely interested in the use of these vehicles.
  In conclusion I want to emphasise what my right hon. Friend said. This is rather a new kind of vehicle. When one goes abroad, especially in the European countries—and I am here thinking particularly of Portugal—it is obvious that this is the sort of vehicle which will sell

  1461
  very readily abroad. If it is to be developed in competition with the Ford station wagon that is being pushed over from America all the time, we must have good production lines at home. Otherwise, our prices will not be in competition with the Ford. It is fair to say that our manufacturers realise that this is a new and expanding market. That being so, I consider it a second and powerful reason for rejecting this order. I hope the right hon. Gentleman has got permission from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the order away so that it does not hit the agricultural industry here or the export trade. I hope he will do this. This is not a question of foreign politics. It is a silly thing that the Government are trying to do, and they ought not to do it.
  10.55 p.m.
  Sir Peter Bennett: I would like also to urge the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to go into this question again with his right hon. Friend. It is not really worthy of him to introduce prejudice in this way by putting shooting brakes on the Order Paper when the order does not mention them at all. To find the reason why these things are called shooting brakes we have to go back many years. They are not mainly used for that purpose at all. The word has become used in a similar way to which "Gouties" is used for goloshes. When I went into a' shop the other day for overshoes I asked for "gouties" which is now a word in our language. "Shooting brakes" has become a sort of phrase in the language, but 90 per cent. of them are not used for that purpose at all. They are utility vehicles, and I cannot see why the Government should depart from the usual practice of making utility goods available to the public free of Purchase Tax.
  These vehicles are not passenger vehicles at all. The Financial Secretary said that people could drive about in them. I suggest to him that he comes along and tries to drive about in one of them with a farmer the way that I have. They have very hard seats and are most uncomfortable. They go into all sorts of queer places and I am quite certain that he would not drive about in one for very long. They are used in the capacity of emergency vehicles on the farms and farmers are very concerned about this proposed move by the Government. In
  1462
  the old days when a second-hand car could be bought for a few pounds, the farmer bought one to do all these odd jobs and go into all these queer places. Today the farmer cannot buy a cheap second-hand car, for we all know the price of second-hand cars. The farmers are ordering these utility vehicles in large numbers for general farm work, and they use them for, amongst other things, carrying men about from one place to another. They are utility vehicles, and moving men about from one place to another is part of the daily work.
  To suggest that there is no market for these vehicles overseas is quite wrong. At the present moment, one of the larger manufacturers is making tools for a special steel body to be produced in large quantities with a view to making a big effort to get into the market which has been referred to as the Ford station wagon market. Manufacturers are seriously concerned at the moment—and I have no doubt they told this to the Chancellor when they saw him and put their case before him—as to whether they dare go on with it under these conditions, because, as I have already pointed out, we have to ensure our overseas market by having a model we can sell at home. I suggest that not only will this Order do harm to overseas trade, but it will be a great hardship to, and to the disadvantage of, the farming community. The people who use these vehicles are those who cannot get other vehicles, and I think we should. consider them in this matter when we remember that 60 per cent. of the vehicles which we are producing are going overseas. Naturally people travel about in these vehicles, but I have explained the reasons why. This Order is unworthy of the Chancellor, apart altogether from the fact that it is badly worded. For instance, an ambulance cannot be used under this order. True,-sometimes there are stretchers in them, but on other occasions the stretchers are taken out of them and nurses are carried in them. I hope the Order will be withdrawn and that we shall never hear of it again.
  10.59 p.m.
  Mr. Asterley Jones: I was rather disappointed at the explanation which the Financial Secretary gave of the necessity for this Order. I imagined that he would tell the House that there had been widespread abuse of this ex-

  1463
  emption of utility vehicles from Purchase Tax through people buying them and using them purely and simply as private vehicles. He has not told us so, and I should like to know if there is any evidence that there is widespread misuse of vehicles by people who have no connection with farming, any other industry or any trade at all. If, in point of fact, these vehicles are being used by farmers and by business people for carrying their goods, there seems to be no case for subjecting them to Purchase Tax. There is one further point I would like to make. The Financial Secretary said that he was aware of the fact that there were other vehicles which might be caught under the language of this Order, but which the Treasury did not intend to catch. I would like to impress on him that there are certain types of refuse collectors which have a small compartment behind the driver's seat, and lit by windows at the side, for the men to travel in as they go from one street to another. On this Order, as worded, these refuse collectors, to the great detriment of local authorities, would also become liable to tax.
  11.2 p.m.
  Brigadier Mackeson: I happen to have one of these vehicles outside.
  Mr. W. Wells: Refuse collectors?
  Brigadier Mackeson: I happen to have a utility vehicle outside. I happen also to be a farmer. These vehicles happen to be made in my constituency. Therefore I am very interested in this matter and I am a little surprised that the courtesy has not been extended to me by the Chancellor of being asked to put forward the case for the company concerned. This particular vehicle, which is called a utility vehicle, is a most practical vehicle. I have myself in the last few days carried oats and furniture in one, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is a most uncomfortable vehicle to use for passengers. I have been using one for the past two or three days because my car has been out of action. I had the impertinence, quite inadvertently, to take this vehicle into Hyde Park, and was turned out by a policeman and told that it was a trade vehicle. I have also been stopped when travelling at 30 m.p.h. because, I was told, the back of the vehicle was not sealed. This type of vehicle can be very
  1464
  useful for export. I consider the solution would be to charge half the Purchase Tax on them. I feel that this order has been rather bounced upon us, and that we have not had time to consider its implications. I hope very much the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider it. These vehicles are being ordered in very large numbers. His Majesty has ordered three, and a very large number are going overseas to the Colonies and Dominions. They certainly cannot be called passenger vehicles.
  11.5 p.m.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I listened carefully to what has been said on both sides of the House, and the more I listened the more my feeling grew that in presenting this Order my right hon. Friend was doing the right thing. Nothing that has been said in the course of this short Debate has shaken the view of the Treasury that this Order should be made. It is true that a number of speeches were directed to the fact that many of these vehicles are used on farms and for agricultural purposes. There is nothing in this Order to prevent that use. It is easy for this type of vehicle not to have side windows, and if it has not, it will not attract the tax. Two hon. Members have admitted that when their own cars were out of order, they used these vehicles as passenger vehicles, and, frankly, it is unfair to the motor vehicle industry that people—and I can assure my hon. Friend behind me who spoke a few minutes ago that this is a growing practice—should buy these vehicles and save several hundreds of pounds, and then at their own expense transmute them into fairly comfortable passenger vehicles. It is true that the normal shooting brake is pretty hard to sit in on rough roads on an estate, but these "utility" vehicles can be made fairly comfortable vehicles, and I am sure the House will agree that this evasion should be prevented. That is all we want to do here.
  I would now like to say something on the fact that on the Order Paper the words "shooting brake" were put in brackets in the title. Now right hon. Gentlemen opposite will bear me out—and one of them occupied the position I now hold— that this is quite a usual thing. It is not done to excite prejudice, but simply to explain to the House the main type of vehicle, goods or materials to which the Order in question is directed, and "shooting brake" does mean in the minds of

  1465
  almost everyone a particular type of vehicle. They are not thinking of "the squire" or of someone going shooting, but of a particular type of vehicle, and the purpose of the wording was no other than to explain briefly to the House the type of vehicle we had in mind when we put down this order. A friend of mine further along the Front Bench, when he heard the right hon. Gentleman opposite talking about "the squire," and saying this was an effort to prejudice him, composed the following couplet:
  "God bless the squire and his relations, And let us away to our railway stations."
  And if the inclusion of the term "shooting brake" has kept them away from their railway stations, I am sorry. Nevertheless, that was the reason. Black Marias do attract Purchase Tax, but they are vehicles produced solely and mainly for the carriage of passengers, and therefore my right hon. Friend—if ever he has the bad luck—will find himself riding in a vehicle subject to Purchase Tax.
  Mr. Peake: Have they got side windows?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I believe they have not. I have never ridden in one myself. I would also say to the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) that ambulances are now, in fact, exempt.
  Therefore, I must ask the House to accept this because though, as the House will recollect, all taxation is obnoxious— there is no need for me to argue that— yet taxation has to be borne by individuals and levied in certain directions. At the moment one of the directions is on certain classes of motor vehicles. By general consent of the House over a large number of years, goods vehicles have been exempt, and with the approval of the House we propose to continue this exemption. Certain other types, such as ambulances and invalid carriages, are also exempt, but passenger-carrying vehicles
  have borne Purchase Tax of 33⅓ per cent. What we are doing in this Order is to close—as I have tried to explain—a gap which is undoubtedly there, of which certain people have taken advantage, but we are very anxious to exclude the bona fide goods-carrying vehicle. As I said frankly in my opening speech, we have great difficulty in finding a definition. We shall possibly find, in spite of trying to choose words, that certain types of utility vehicles which it is desired to exempt will be caught up. If that is so, I have to tell the House that later on we will very willingly, after consultation with the trade association concerned, come to the House and ask it to agree to another Order which will let out the particular vehicles, which we are all agreed should not be covered by this Order.
  Brigadier Mackeson: I would ask the Financial Secretary to consider my suggestion that half the Purchase Tax should be charged on these vehicles. I quite realise that these borderline cases are very difficult to decide. I should be obliged if the Financial Secretary would consider this, because it would help both the trade and the farmers concerned.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Most certainly, but the House must remember that the mere fact that people are carrying on a farm and using that particular type of vehicle should not exempt them. They could use an ordinary motor car for work on a farm and might claim that because it is used on agricultural work, it should be exempted.
  Mr. Mitchison: I have a constituent who is a rural dentist, and he proposes to use one of these vehicles to carry about a dental machine and a dental mechanic. Is that an ambulance?
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes, 151; Noes, 52.

  Division No. 293.]

  AYES.

  [11.13 p.m

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Brook, D (Halifax)

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Brown, George (Belper)

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

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Brown, T J. (Ince)

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Buchanan, G

  Crossman, R. H. S

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs B

  Burden, T. W

  Daggar, G.

  Baird, J.

  Burke, W. A.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

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

  Diamond, J.

  Beswick, F.

  Callaghan, james

  Dodds, N. N.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Champion, A. J

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Blyton, W. R

  Coldrick, W.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

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

  Collindridge, F.

  Durbin, E. F. M.

  Braddock, T. (Milcham)

  Collins, V. J.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Lang, G.

  Robens, A.

  Fairhurst, F.

  Lavers, S.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Follick, M.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Soollan, T.

  Foot, M. M.

  Leonard, W.

  Sharp, Granville

  Forman, J. C.

  Lyne, A. W.

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Foster, W. (Wigan)

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Shawcross, Rt. Hr Sir H. (St. Helens)

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  McLeavy, F.

  Smith, S. H. (Hu'l S.W.)

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Mathers, G.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Gibbins, J.

  Middieton, Mrs. L.

  Steele, T.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Taylor, R, J. (Morpeth)

  Gunter, R. J.

  Monslow, W.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Guy, W. H.

  Moody, A. S.

  Thomas, IO. (Wrekin)

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  Morley, R,

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

  Hall, W. G.

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

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Nally, W.

  Usborne, Henry

  Hardy, E A.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

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

  Weitzman, D.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwiok)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Herbison, Miss M.

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

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  O'Brien, T.

  West, D. G.

  Holman, P.

  Oliver, G. H.

  WhiteIey, Rt. Hon. W.

  Hoy, J.

  Orbach, M.

  Wilkes, L.

  hubbard, T.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Wilkins, W. A.

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

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)

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

  Pearson, A.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Peart, Thomas F.

  Willis, E.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Popplewell, E.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Janner, B.

  Price, M. Philips

  Woods, G. S.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Yates, V. F.

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Ranger, J,

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Kenyon, C.

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Mr. Michael Stewart and

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

  Rhodes, H.

  Mr. Simmons.

  Kinley, J.

  Richards, R

  NOES.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

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

  Nield, B. (Chester)

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Hogg, Hon. (J.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

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

  Hollis, M. C.

  Prescott, Stanley

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Hope, Lord J.

  Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.

  Braithwaite, Lt-Comdr. J. G.

  Jennings, R

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. O

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col M

  Crowder, Capt. John E.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Darling, Sir W. Y.

  Lucas, Major Sir J.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Teeling, William

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Riohmond)

  Mackeson, Brig. H R.

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

  Eccles, D. M.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Touche, G. C.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon, Walte:

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Wheatley, Colonel M J

  Gage, C.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D

  Maude, J. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Grimston, R. V.

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Mr. Studholme and

  Hannan, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Neven-Spence, Sir B,

  Major Ramsay.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Resolved:
  "That the Purchase Tax (Charges) (No. 1) Order, 1947 (S.R. & O., 1947, No. 1182), dated 16th June, 1947, made by the Treasury under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, a copy of which Order was presented on 18th June, be approved."

  PURCHASE TAX ORDER (SHOOTING BRAKES, ETC.)

    SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
    Resolved:
    That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Altrincham, a copy of which Order was presented on 30th June, be approved
    1468
    That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of East Dean, a copy of which Order was presented on 30th June, be approved.
    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 Kidderminster, a copy of which Order was presented on 30th June, be approved.
    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 Stretford, a copy of which Order was presented on 30th June, be approved.

    1469
    That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the County Borough of Wallasey, a copy of which Order was presented on 30th June, be approved.
    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 Wallsend, a copy of which Order was presented on 30th June, be approved.—[Mr. Oliver.]

  EX-SERVICE TRAINEES (EMPLOYMENT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pearson.]
  11.21 p.m.
  Mr. Drayson: The subject I wish to raise tonight is that of the employment and experiences of ex-Service men after they have received training at Ministry of Labour training centres. I have been particularly interested in this problem, not only while I was in the Forces, but since I left them. I had the opportunity prior to demobilisation of studying the general demobilisation plans, and I took the opportunity of visiting not only the centres but the appointment hoards to see how they work. The principal centre which I visited was the Ministry of Labour Centre at Leeds, and I was impressed there by the training being given to the ex-Service men, particularly the great assistance being given to those who had been disabled I was impressed by the special tools which had been adapted to assist them to earn their livelihood. A complete set of these, I was informed, was presented to them when they had completed their courses.
  I would like to make it clear that, in raising this matter, I imply no criticism of anyone in my own constituency. In the Skipton Division they are both industrially progressive and politically enlightened. But I have had letters from constituents in which they have said that whenever they have gone to seek employment elsewhere in the country, having done this necessary training, they have come up against many difficulties. Since it was known that I was raising this matter on the Adjournment in the House of Commons, I have had a large correspondence from all over the country dealing with the experience of other ex-Service men After this evening I propose to send the
  1470
  letters to the hon. Members for the constituencies from which the letters come, so that they can deal with them.
  More recently my attention has been focused on the training of trainees by a report in the "Daily Despatch" of 29th April of the experience which building trainees were having at Bolton on the Bolton Corporation's housing scheme.
  The reference is as follows:
  "Faced with the sack because Bolton Corporation workers will not work with them, two ex-Service men were 'sent to Coventry.' One of them, who had been a prisoner of war since Calais, said he did not receive less comradeship from the Germans when he was a prisoner than he has from the men he is. now working with. Similar experiences were mentioned by another ex-Service man,"
  and so on. The ex-Service men say that if the other workers would only consider what they have lost by their service in the war, they would not act as they do. It was mooted that the local council were about to pass a resolution that they would not continue to employ ex-Service men trainees on their building projects because it was holding up the housing programme, but I was glad to learn at a later stage that they had settled differences with workers on the site and had agreed to stand by the agreement made previously with the union to the effect that a certain number of trainees should be employed.
  This matter has also been raised in the House by the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard) and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), but I would like to draw the attention of the House to one of the many pamphlets which were issued to ex-Service men on their demobilisation. There is one called "For Your Guidance," and it says there, under the heading "Vocational training schemes,"
  "If you need to be trained for a new job, or to resume training interrupted by your war service, intensive courses of training are available in a wide variety of occupations. On completion of training you will be accepted fully as craftsmen by both employers and trades unions in their particular industry."
  I draw the attention of the House to that last line which says that they would be accepted fully as craftsmen by both employers and trades unions in their particular industry. This whole project had the full co-operation of all parties in this House when it was first envisaged, and, of course, at the General Election, all

  1471
  Members realised, if they were elected, the responsibilities they would owe to the returning ex-Service man. I could quote a number of promises made by Members of the party opposite, but I confine myself to a few remarks made by the present Home Secretary in saying that he pledged himself, as a member of the Labour Party, to work unceasingly to secure for ex-Service men full employment in happiness and prosperity and all the liberty they had won, and, again, the Secretary of State for Air said:
  "You will be given every assistance to reinstate yourselves in civil life after demobilisation."
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply was even more bold in his statement and he said:
  "The Labour Party will guarantee jobs for all ex-Service men and women"
  a guarantee in that case, and not merely the expression of a promise or a hope. These promises make rather pathetic reading when we consider the position at the present time. My main remarks tonight will be confined to the building trade because my experience in the Forces was that we all realised the tremendous amount of damage that had been done to the houses in the country, and we felt that in the building trade at least there would be steady employment for many many years to come. Therefore, many men decided that they wanted to change their occupation and become employed in the building trade. The Minister told me the other day that there are in fact, approximately 20,000 men in training and 12,000 waiting to take part in this course.
  One of the questions I want to put to the Minister tonight is whether he is intending to close down the building trade training centres. I have here a report from the newspaper "Reveille" which says that the closing down of the Government bricklaying training centres is being requested by the Amalgamated Union of Building Trade Workers. A representative of that union said to the newspaper concerned that there are now so many bricklayers that, with the present crisis, and what with the brick and timber famine, it is ridiculous to turn out trainees to thrust them on the dole. That was very disquieting news to any ex-Service man who wanted to take up training in the building trade. I ask the Minister
  1472
  whether he intends to close down these centres set up for the building trade! I understand that it was a promise made by the unions during the war that they would accept 200,000 trainees into the building trade. How many have they accepted so far? The real trouble is the fact that the Government Ministers responsible for building materials and building programme have completely slipped up on their job. There are not the materials to build the houses, but it is up to the Government to fulfil the pledges they gave during and since the war to the returning ex-Service men.
  Under the Control of Engagement Order, a business is only allowed to get operatives between the ages of fifteen and eighteen after obtaining the written consent of the Minister, and when they apply to the Minister they say that they have no building operatives available and if they say that they will submit trainees, they are told that the Building Advisory Committee will not permit trainees to be employed, I understand unless there is one qualified craftsman for each trainee. If the craftsmen are not there, you cannot employ apprentices. Would the Minister say whether it is possible, without infringing existing rules, that building firms could employ trainees when craftsmen are not available? It is possible, I am told, for the employers to train these men in gangs under a competent craftsman. I am told that barely half the types of training set out as available in the Government pamphlets are, in fact, available for the ex-Service men. Commanding officers, when discussing the problems of demobilisation with the men, tell them that these courses will be available on demobilisation within a very short time, but they find, after a very considerable wait, that the fact that they are on the list and waiting to go on a course prevents them from obtaining suitable employment in the meantime. Any criticism of the trainees and the work they do must ultimately reflect on the training which they get at these training centres. There are picked instructors and craftsmen taken from the industry who are acceptable to the unions concerned.
  As regards membership of a union, which is a sore point, I suggest that a representative of the union should be present when the men take their final passing-out test, and they should be given their

  1473
  union cards equivalent to the grade on which they have passed out. That would save a lot of trouble later on when they take a job. Could there be a separate register which classified those men who are ex-Service men and not those who had come from some other industry, and who were going through a training centre to be rehabilitated for another job? Ex-Service men feel that they would like to have some special priority and not merely be regarded along with the other trainees.
  The House and the country owe a debt to these ex-Service men. They have missed six years during the war, when they could have been bettering themselves in industry, and it is distressing to hear of the difficulties which they experience when, having passed a course, they try to take their place among the labour forces of the country. I thank the Minister for coming here tonight to answer this adjournment. I was afraid the Parliamentary Secretary might be here; if he used once more the phrase he used previously in answer to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), that people were trying to gate-crash into industry, it would be unfortunate in this respect. I am glad I have had the opportunity of focusing the attention of the House on the problem of ex-Service men's training, because I know they are having difficulties in finding suitable employment when they have done their courses.
  11.35 P.m.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I am a little disappointed that the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) did not make a little more clear his notice of the subject he intended to raise on this Motion. He gave notice that he would raise the question of the employment of ex-Service men, and I have applied myself to get all the information about the employment of ex-Service men.
  Mr. Drayson: Trainees.
  Mr. Isaacs: Trainees, yes. In his initial remarks, he said he was going to deal with the employment and the experience of trainees. Until he began to talk about experience, I had no idea what his case was going to be. He has mentioned other matters on which I am informed and about which I have some knowledge. In general we are in complete agreement with his point, and we are anxious to carry out the pledges
  1474
  given, not only by my party but by everyone in the House, on the question of training facilities for ex-Service men. It was agreed by the Coalition Government that preference must be given to the ex-Service men and I think the House can be proud of the way in which we are carrying that out.
  First of all, may I thank the non Member for what he said about the training provided in his own city. Let me assure him that what he saw in Leeds was typical of what is being done everywhere else.' We are doing—only with the co-operation of industry—a first class job, and we hope we turn out good workmen. The hon. Member then referred to an article in the "Daily Despatch" referring to the treatment of some men in Bolton. We know about that, and we know the steps that were taken to break down that position. I know of no other case in which that kind of thing has occurred. It must be borne in mind, how ever, that the existence there of some men on the job who declined to work with ex-Service trainees was broken down by the insistence of the men's own union that they must honour the pledges that had been given. In that respect, may I deal with a point the hon. Member raised towards the end of his speech. He suggested that membership of unions should be provided for the men as they leave the training centres. In fact, they take up membership of unions before they leave the training centres, and are admitted to the unions before they leave that place and go to a job.
  There are other problems that trouble us, such as providing a follow-up of training. The House must bear in mind that if I restrict myself to a particular trade, it will save time—for instance, the building trade. A man who goes out after six months' training is not a finished workman. He is a well-informed man with the rudiments of the trade in his fingers, but he has not yet sufficient experience. Therefore, he has to go to a firm after his six months as—what we used to call him—an improver: no longer an apprentice, not yet a craftsman, but halfway between the two. Care must be taken that he goes to a firm that can complete his training, and that is why we must insist that when he goes to another place, it must be a place where they can train him. There are some employers who will take men half-trained and get

  1475
  them no further, using them only as cheap labour and not giving them the training they require. Therefore, in the interests of ex-Service men, we insist—the Government, the employers and the workers— that there must be someone who can give them adequate training.
  There are one or two other points I should like to mention. First, there is the query about the closing down of the training centres. We do not intend to close down any of our training centres until we have satisfied the needs of the country. It is true that at the moment, owing to the fuel shortage, the crisis in the early part of the year, and the slowing-up of materials, some ex-Service trainees are unemployed. Therefore, it would be folly while we are turning out 950 men a week—which is roughly the intake and output each week from our centres—to take in more men and find that in a few months' time there is no work for them. If I have enough time, I should like to give some figures to show what the position is, and I am sure they will be of interest to the hon. Gentleman who raised this matter. We do not take the credit for this as a Government or a Ministry, because it is what the country generally is doing.
  In our training centres there are 23,000 ex-Service men at the present moment. There is a waiting list of 9,500 for the building trade, and we will have adequate opportunities of taking them in as soon as materials justify us doing so. The over-all picture in regard to trainees might be given in this way. Up to now there have been 33,500 in Government centres for the building trade and 4,000 for other trades, while in technical colleges there have been 2,800. There are 37,500 already actually at the trade, and 23,000 others in the training centres. We have taken care to provide facilities for em-
  1476
  ployment in the building trade for about 66,000 up to the present moment.
  I think that shows that every effort is being made to carry out the promise which has been given by the Government. Training will be proceeded with. There are little difficulties about placing men at the moment. Those difficulties are because of several matters. First, men are trained in a certain trade, but there are no vacancies for that trade in the man's town, although there are vacancies in another town. Because of family responsibilities, or for some such reason, the trained man is unable to go to the nearby town, or if he does go there are no lodgings available for him. Thus it is that in many cases we find trained men unwilling to leave home. There is also the matter of the shortage of raw materials. Strangely enough, some of our training is held up through shortage of tools, but those things are getting a move on now. That is not so much directly related to the building industry, but it has reference to other industries.
  I can assure the hon. Member for Skipton and the House that we wish to proceed with this matter. We do not intend to allow difficulties to deflect us from our course. Of the people who are going into our training centres, over 90 per cent. are ex-Service men and a number of those have been unable to find work because of the circumstances which I have mentioned. We shall resist attempts by anybody to put obstacles in the way of those men we are training from taking up the work for which we have trained them. I think the hon. Member for Skipton will now see that the Government are doing everything possible in the circumstances.
  Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.

ROYAL NAVY
  Proposed Rifle Range, Sandwich
  Proposed Rifle Range, Sandwich
  N.A.A.F.I. Stocks, Greece
  N.A.A.F.I. Stocks, Greece
POST OFFICE
  Dismissals and Recruitment, Glasgow
  Dismissals and Recruitment, Glasgow
  Deliveries, Cleethorpes
  Deliveries, Cleethorpes
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Stores Maintenance Costs
  Stores Maintenance Costs
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Sweets and Chocolate (Profit Margin)
  Sweets and Chocolate (Profit Margin)
  World Situation (Survey)
  World Situation (Survey)
  Fat Cattle, Norfolk (Slaughter)
  Fat Cattle, Norfolk (Slaughter)
  Cheese Ration, Somerset
  Cheese Ration, Somerset
GERMANY
  Cigarettes (Private Importation Ban)
  Cigarettes (Private Importation Ban)
  Control Commission Staff (Engagements)
  Control Commission Staff (Engagements)
  Public Officials, Hamburg
  Public Officials, Hamburg
  Ex-Nazi Police Generals
  Ex-Nazi Police Generals
  JAPAN (BRITISH INTERESTS)
  JAPAN (BRITISH INTERESTS)
  RUSSIANS, ITALY (ALLEGED FORCIBLE REPATRIATION)
  RUSSIANS, ITALY (ALLEGED FORCIBLE REPATRIATION)
  INDONESIA (NEGOTIATIONS)
  INDONESIA (NEGOTIATIONS)
  FOREIGN SERVICE (INDIAN CIVIL SERVANTS)
  FOREIGN SERVICE (INDIAN CIVIL SERVANTS)
POLAND
  Arrests and Imprisonment
  Arrests and Imprisonment
  Monsieur Zaleski (Polish Government's Representations)
  Monsieur Zaleski (Polish Government's Representations)
MALAYAN UNION
  Colonial Pensioners
  Colonial Pensioners
  Tin-Mining Machinery
  Tin-Mining Machinery
WEST INDIES
  Special Constables, Jamaica
  Special Constables, Jamaica
  Broadcasting, Jamaica and Trinidad
  Broadcasting, Jamaica and Trinidad
  Mental Hospital, Jamaica (Nurses)
  Mental Hospital, Jamaica (Nurses)
  Barbados (Finance)
  Barbados (Finance)
AFRICAN COLONIES
  Rinderpest (East Africa)
  Rinderpest (East Africa)
  Cost of Living Commission, Northern Rhodesia
  Cost of Living Commission, Northern Rhodesia
  Hardwood Exports, West Africa
  Hardwood Exports, West Africa
  United Kingdom Floods (Relief Donations)
  United Kingdom Floods (Relief Donations)
PALESTINE
  Terrorists (U.N.O. Commission's Resolution)
  Terrorists (U.N.O. Commission's Resolution)
  Major Farran (Arrest)
  Major Farran (Arrest)
  Dead Sea (Minerals)
  Dead Sea (Minerals)
COLONIAL EMPIRE
  Development Corporation
  Development Corporation
  Sedition (Prosecutions)
  Sedition (Prosecutions)
  KENYA (EDUCATION)
  KENYA (EDUCATION)
  CEYLON (STRIKES)
  CEYLON (STRIKES)
  BRITISH GUIANA (STRIKE)
  BRITISH GUIANA (STRIKE)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Retailers (Price and Weight Marking)
  Retailers (Price and Weight Marking)
  Textile Machinery Exports (Japan)
  Textile Machinery Exports (Japan)
  SCIENCE GRADUATES (ALLOCATION)
  SCIENCE GRADUATES (ALLOCATION)
  COAL PRODUCTION (MINISTRY'S STAFF)
  COAL PRODUCTION (MINISTRY'S STAFF)
CIVIL AVIATION
  Operations Officers
  Operations Officers
  Scottish Airports (Booking Offices)
  Scottish Airports (Booking Offices)
EDUCATION
  Special Posts (Allowances)
  Special Posts (Allowances)
  School Milk
  School Milk
  METAL RAILINGS (REPLACEMENT)
  METAL RAILINGS (REPLACEMENT)
  HEALTH INSURANCE (DOCTORS' PANELS)
  HEALTH INSURANCE (DOCTORS' PANELS)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the Clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Earl Cairns—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

TIMBER HOUSES.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether it is possible to make use of approximately three thousand timber houses now on offer from the Ministry of Commerce of the Austrian Government; whether they are aware that some of these are of the two-story chalet type and come within the cost of the same type of house under construction in this country; and whether these timber houses could be made available to public authorities and suitable priorities given to import the houses from Austria.]
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, no Austrian timber houses have been offered to this country since last year. The investigation of costs then made showed that the cost of the houses would be approximately £500 more than a brick house of similar size and the offer was not accepted. If the noble Lord will give me details of the houses to which he is referring I will make further inquiries.
LORD CALVERLEY: I should be only too glad to do so. I would like to ask my noble friend whether he is aware that a certain number of houses are now on firm offer and if we do not accept them they are going to the Argentine.
LORD HENDERSON: I have no knowledge of the offer to which my noble friend has referred, but, as I say, if he will give me full details I will have the matter looked into.

DEFENCE AND WAR MEDALS.
LORD MANCROFT: I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, how soon it will be possible to issue the Defence Medal and the War Medal?]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, the striking of the Defence Medal will start very soon. Progress is being made with the design of the War Medal. It is hoped that issues may begin within the next twelve months.
LORD MANCROFT: Whilst thanking the noble Viscount for that information may I ask His Majesty's Government whether they will bear in mind the desirability in alloting priority to the issue to those members of the Imperial and Allied Forces who may be entitled to these medals?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I know that that point is being kept in mind.

INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION BILL.
2.45 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.—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power to establish development councils, and purposes thereof.
(3) Before making a development council order the Board or Minister concerned shall consult any organization appearing to them or him to be representative of substantial numbers of persons carrying on business in the industry and such organizations representative of persons employed in the industry as appear to the Board or Minister concerned to be appropriate.
LORD CHERWELL LORD CHERWELL had given Notice of an Amendment to add the following paragraph to subsection (3):

769
"A Development Council order shall not be made unless the Board or Minister concerned is satisfied that the establishment of a Development Council for the industry is desired by a substantial number of the persons engaged in the industry."
The noble Lord said: I trust that I am right in assuming that orders under this Bill will be laid in draft and that there will be an opportunity of debating them and possibly amending them before they come up finally. Some of us feel that there are a good many difficulties about the procedure by affirmative Resolution when the whole order must be thrown out or accepted as it stands. I would be very glad if we could have an assurance on that point. Another point which I think arises here is this. I believe assurances have been given, or something like assurances, but it would relieve our minds if they could be given specifically, that these development councils are not intended to duplicate and overlay existing organizations which are functioning satisfactorily. I have in mind for instance organizations such as the research associations. There is a certain anxiety amongst the staff with regard to the possibility that the whole thing will be reorganized and that they will be thrown out of work. It would be very helpful if the Government spokesman could give an assurance on that point.
LORD CHORLEY: I expected the noble Lord to move his Amendment first, and possibly when the clause was put to raise these rather more general points, but if it be your Lordships' wish that I should deal with them now I am content to do so. The first matter which the noble Lord raised was the question of the draft order which will deal with the scope of the functions conferred upon the development councils being published in advance of the time when they are laid before Parliament, in order that they may be confirmed or reversed as Parliament thinks fit. My right honourable and learned friend, during the discussion in another place, gave an undertaking which, with your Lordships' permission, I will read. He said:
"As the matter is experimental and as I am anxious to get the best possible results, I propose in the initial cases to take the somewhat exceptional step of publishing, in advance, a summary of what we propose should be inserted in the order before it is made, so that there will be time and opportunity for interested persons to let me have
770
their views upon it which can then be considered before the order is passed. I hope that that procedure will assist in getting the co-operation not only of those in the industry but of interested members of Parliament as well."
I understand that it is the intention that the draft shall in fact be laid in each House of Parliament in order that members may be particularly well placed, so to speak, to have the opportunity of getting it and studying it.
The other point which was raised by the noble Lord was in regard to the activities of existing organizations. We all know that in a number of industries very valuable work has been in the past and is now being done by existing organizations, trade organizations, research institutes and other bodies of that type. I am very glad to be able to assure the noble Lord that the development councils will not duplicate work which is already being satisfactorily done by such existing industrial research organizations as I think the noble Lord has particularly in mind. It is my right honourable friend's intention that the development councils shall in fact work through, and in very close co-operation with, existing research institutions of this kind. They may, and I have no doubt in a number of cases will, be able to give them backing of a very valuable character, both financially and morally.
If I may just take the instance of the Cotton Board. The Cotton Board, of course, has been in existence now for a period of something like seven years. It has never made any sort of attempt to interfere with the valuable activities of the Shirley Institute, and has given it from time to time financial and moral support. It is intended that the development councils shall co-operate in the same sort of way. I trust the noble Lord will be satisfied with these assurances.
LORD CHERWELL: I thank the Minister for his assurance. It will give a great deal of satisfaction to many people.
I beg now to move my Amendment. It seems to me perfectly clear that these development councils can only succeed if they are desired by a substantial number of persons engaged in the industry. I think that the Minister will agree. I think therefore it would be very helpful if this Amendment were inserted, and I hope the Government will see their way

771
to accept it. No Minister would wish to override any overwhelming opinion against forming a development council; that would foredoom it to failure. I would also like to ask two other questions. Firstly, we are told that before making a development council order the Board or Minister concerned shall consult any organization "being representative of a substantial number of persons carrying on business in the industry, and such organizations of persons employed in the industry as shall appear to him to be appropriate." I trust that will include consultation respecting the functions of the development council which is to be formed. We can scarcely say: "We are going to form a development council but we cannot say what it is going to do." In the second place I trust he will consult them also as to the delimitation of the industry, because of course it would be very difficult to make orders of this sort unless one knew what was meant by "industry." It would be helpful if the Minister could give assurances in that sense. The Amendment which stands in my name is intended to indicate that these development councils should not be formed unless they have behind them a substantial measure of opinion in the industry. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 22, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Cherwell.)
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Might I ask the noble Lord who moved this Amendment what he means by the words "a substantial number of the persons engaged in the industry"? The illustration which springs to one's mind is this: suppose all the representatives of organized labour required a development council, and all the representatives of organized employers did not want a development council, and the employees outnumbered the employers by 100 to one, would the noble Lord call that "a substantial number" although it was representative of one side only? Again, you may have a very small number of employers controlling the vast bulk of the output of an industry, whereas a multitude of small employers only control a very small output. What would the noble Lord call a "substantial number?"
I would, with respect, point out that I think this Amendment will worsen the
772
position the noble Lord seeks to safeguard, because the Minister under subsection (3) of Clause 1 is obliged to consult any organization appearing to him "to be representative of substantial numbers of persons carrying on business in the industry and such organizations representative of persons employed in the industry …" The term used in the Amendment is "desired by a substantial number of the persons engaged in the industry." I cannot conceive that the Minister, after consulting the two sides of industry as enumerated in subsection (3) of Clause 1 would do anything that would be against the wishes of the bulk of all sections of the industry; but I am afraid that the Minister would find himself in an embarrassing position if he took the noble Lord's Amendment literally and was influenced by a substantial number of persons engaged in the industry, but representative of one side only.
LORD CHERWELL: I think it is clear that the word "substantial" means a reasonable proportion of the people engaged in business in the industry, or better a reasonable proportion of the output capacity and of the people employed in the industry. It is because it is impossible to define these things exactly that these general words are inserted. I cannot conceive of the extreme cases that the noble Lord put forward ever happening. If they did, and this were reported when the draft order was made, that would be the time when we could discuss these points and the draft order might be refused.
LORD CHORLEY: I am very glad to say that we accept the Amendment moved by the noble Lord. I do not think there is anything I need add in reply to the noble Lord, in view of the answer given by the noble Lord opposite. Every case must be judged on its merits in relation to the situation with which the Minister or the Board has to deal. The noble Lord asked for an assurance with regard to the scope of the constitutions of the development councils. I am very glad to be able to reassure him on that point. The order, will of course, deal with functions, and the consultations with the representative organizations in industry will deal with the very matters which the noble Lord has in mind, in particular with the functions and what those functions should be, how large, how the levy should

773
be raised, how the industry should be defined for the purpose of the order, and matters of that kind. All these matters will then be set out in the draft order, and if members of either House feel that something has been left out which ought to be in, there will be ample opportunity to raise the matter.
LORD CHERWELL: I take it that the upshot of the consultations will be made known forthwith, or when the Minister moves for the affirmative Resolutions on the order.
LORD CHORLEY: Yes, certainly.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
2.47 p.m.
Clause 2:
Constitution, etc., of development councils.
(4) A development council order shall specify the number, or to a maximum or minimum number, of persons of each of the said categories of be included.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, at the end of subsection (4), to insert:
"and shall contain provision for securing that the persons who are included as being of the categories specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the last preceding subsection shall together be of a number constituting a majority of the members of the council."
The noble Lord said: I rise to move the Amendment standing in my name. The object of this Government Amendment is to ensure that the members appointed as representing the interest of the employers and of the workpeople in the industry will constitute a majority over the independent members and the other members. Considerable apprehension was expressed in the debate in another place, and also in the debate in your Lordships' House, lest the independent members might be regarded, so to speak, as under the control of the Minister, and that other members, more particularly those representative of the industry, would be swamped. My right honourable and learned friend gave an assurance in another place that a Government Amendment would be tabled in order to secure that this matter might be safe from that point of view. This is the Amendment, and I hope your Lordships will accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 11, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD CHERWELL: I should like to welcome this Amendment. It is most important that there should be no question or idea that the Government nominees might swamp the others. I hope it is, in general, not intended that the so-called independent members should even reach the number of the other members. We do not want to tie the Government down specifically. This Amendment does safeguard us against the alternative that they should form the majority.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Before this clause is put, might I ask my noble friend one question? If the Minister exercises his powers under subsection (5) of Clause 2 and does appoint to one of these development councils persons having special knowledge of matters relating to the marketing or distribution of products, into which category will these people fall? Will they fall into the category (a) representing the interests of persons carrying on business in the industry, or will they fall into category (c) of other persons, being persons as to whom the Board or Minister is satisfied that they have no financial or industrial interest—in other words, independent members? If the dice is going to be loaded I would agree that it should be loaded in the way the Amendment sets out—it will mean that the loading will have to be somewhat greater if those representatives of the distributive trades are treated as independent members. If they are to be treated as members of the industry, as of course they are, then it might tend to defeat the object of the Amendment. I would like to ask my noble friend how they will be treated.
LORD CHORLEY: I think it is impossible to give a categorical answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, because it might be that in a certain industry there was a distribution side which could properly fall into category (a). But I think, generally speaking, my right honourable and learned friend had in view persons appointed to represent marketing quite apart from the industry as such, and, in that event, in those cases where

775
he makes appointments it is his intention to include them among the independent members. I think that is quite clear.
LORD CHERWELL: With reference to that, perhaps I might raise a point on subsection (5) of Clause 2 concerning the appointment of the persons representing those engaged in business or those employed in the industry. As I read the clause, it says that the order may specify requirements and also may specify what bodies or persons the Board or Minister may consult before appointing persons to be members. Development councils have enormous powers. They can levy contributions from the industry, and in order to maintain some sort of semblance of the theory that there shall be no taxation without representation I hope that the persons appointed to represent either category (a) or category (b) will be appointed after consultation with the proper bodies. As I quite see, it is a very difficult thing to lay down in the Bill exactly who should be consulted and to give some definite wording which will indicate that the Minister shall consult an organization and not merely that he may do so, but I hope the noble Lord will be able to consider this matter and will, on Report, be able to find words that will indicate that persons representing these categories shall be appointed after consultation with the proper organizations and not without any reference to them.
LORD CHORLEY: Very explicit assurances have been given both in another place and in this House on the Second Reading of this Bill. I quite understand the noble Lord wishing to have something in the Bill itself as opposed to assurances. I am happy to say that we will consider his suggestion and, if it is reasonably practicable to introduce a wording which will deal with the point which he has in mind between now and the Report stage and put it down, we shall be very pleased to do so.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
3.55 p.m.
Clause 5 [Restriction on disclosure of information]:
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved to insert at the end of the clause:
"(4) A development council order shall make provision for ensuring that, where under
776
powers conferred by virtue of either of the two last preceding sections a requirement is imposed to furnish returns or other information relating to an individual business or to produce for examination books or other documents or records, and the person on whom the requirement is made uses in his business what he claims to be a secret process that ought not to be disclosed on the ground of risk of prejudice to his business, he shall not be subject to any liability for withholding disclosure of any particulars relating to the process unless the form of the requirement and the making of it in that form have been approved by the Board or Minister concerned after consideration of his claim."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is, as far as is practicable, to protect trade secrets. Your Lordships will remember that a certain amount of misgiving was expressed by some noble Lords on the Second Reading lest the powers conferred by this clause on the development councils to call for statistics and other material from the industry might conceivably be wrongly used, in such a way as to reveal the trade secrets and other secrets of a very valuable character to other firms and companies in the industry. My right honourable and learned friend did give an assurance in another place that the clause would be tightened up in order to prevent that sort of thing happening, and this Amendment has been tabled with that object in view. I hope that your Lordships will think it satisfactory. It is rather difficult to frame a clause which will completely meet the difficulty, but I hope that your Lordships will think that this new subsection is satisfactory. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 41, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD CHERWELL: We recognize the great difficulty of framing a clause to safeguard this point absolutely, but I think this subsection as proposed is going to do a great deal towards that end. Certainly it proves the intention. If anyone should find himself in any way jeopardized he will always be able to go to the Minister.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
2.58 p.m.
Clause 8 [Amendment or termination of provision for a development council]:
LORD CHERWELL: Subsection (2) in Clause 8 is drafted in an extremely vague

777
and general manner. For instance, "functions of a kind similar to those specified in the First Schedule" can be added to the work of the development council, or functions "such as appear to the Board or Minister concerned to be capable of being conveniently exercised in association with functions of a kind specified in that Schedule." Of course, that might mean anything. I take it that the intention is merely to deal with new points, which may arise in the course of time, that have not been foreseen; that it is not intended to use those provisions in order to extend the activities or powers of the development council excessively, so that for instance they could start manufacture on a large scale, or anything like that, but that it is merely meant to deal with minor and ancillary activities that have not been foreseen. We would welcome an assurance that that is the meaning of the clause, if the Minister will give it.
LORD CHORLEY: It is, of course, true that this clause is drafted in rather general terms. In an experimental Bill of this kind it is exceedingly difficult in all cases to make the drafting as tight as one would like. The object is exactly the object which has been explained by the noble Lord; that is to say, that a development council, finding that something has been left out or that some new function has come to light over the course of years, may be in a position to get the necessary further powers in order to add this new function to those which it already discharges. There is no sort of intention that the Minister should, so to speak, step in and nationalize an industry by a side wind, or something of that kind, which, I believe, has been suggested as a possibility. I think your Lordships will realize that there are all sorts of safeguards. There is the safeguard that the matter must come from the industry itself, which, after all, a development council represents, that it must then be put into a new draft amendment order, upon which the industry has to be consulted, just in the same way as in the case of the original order. That, again, has to be laid before Parliament and there is the opportunity of challenging anything which may appear to be wrong. So I hope that the noble Lord will be content with my assurance and with the very real safeguards which do in fact exist.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Ascertainment of activities to be treated as comprised in an industry]:
LORD HAWKE: The boundaries of an industry are most nebulous, and under Clause 14 (1) it is stated that the Board or the Minister concerned has the power to designate the activities that are to be treated as constituting an industry for the purpose of this Bill. I should like an assurance that in drawing those bounds certain ancillaries will not be included within an industry—namely, the importers of food and raw materials. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give an assurance on those lines.
LORD CHORLEY: I am advised that in the context of this Bill industry is to be interpreted as covering the field of production only. The activities of importers, merchants and distributors generally may not, therefore, be treated as part of the industry and, accordingly, will not be covered by the powers and functions of the councils which relate to the activities of persons carrying on business in the industry—for example, the compulsory collection of statistics.
LORD HAWKE: I thank the noble Lord.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule [Functions which may be assigned to development councils]:
LORD CHERWELL: I had intended to ask a question regarding the phrase "tests on a commercial scale," and to suggest that these, or rather the establishments where these were carried out, should not degenerate into model factories. However, in view of the assurance which the noble Lord gave me on Clause 8, I think that I need scarcely ask for any further assurance. It seems plain, from what he said, that the intention is merely for full-scale experimental tests which we all recognize are necessary before it can be said that a process is really useful in industry.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I notice that the words "promoting or undertaking" occur a great many times in this First Schedule. I think that "undertaking" occurs no fewer than eight times. Does each of these objects require a separate

779
assignment to development councils in the eight cases where the word "undertaking" comes in?
LORD CHORLEY: This is another of those rather hypothetical questions which it is exceedingly difficult to deal with except in the context of some particular industry. Of course, these are cases where the matter is left to the discretion of the development council. It does not follow in any particular case that the council will themselves undertake. In most cases, I imagine that the undertaking side of the matter will be left to the industry itself, in which, as the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, has pointed out, there are a number of trade associations or institutions engaged in this very sort of thing. It will only be in the sort of case where there is no suitable body in the industry, and where the efforts of the development council have failed to promote such a body, to undertake the actual job of carrying out the work of an experimental factory, or whatever it may be, that the development council will themselves have to undertake the work at all. No doubt, in those circumstances an ad hoc organization will have to be built up. As at present advised, I cannot see that the development council will have, so to speak, a permanent staff on its organization for the purpose of carrying out undertakings of this kind. I think that this is to be regarded rather as an exceptional function than as one that will operate in every case.
First Schedule agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.

STATISTICS OF TRADE BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 3 [Returns for the purposes of census]:
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. It is purely a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 36, leave out ("functions under that subsection") and insert ("those functions").—(Viscount Hall)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

NATIONAL SERVICE BILL.
3.12 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
VISCOUNT HALL: I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Hall.)
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, I appreciate that on this occasion it is not in order for me to go at any length into certain things that are happening in the Territorial Army at the present time. Had not the situation been so grave, I would not have ventured to rise this afternoon and say, as I am going to say, a few things that I think His Majesty's Government should know. I do not believe for one moment that the senior officers at the War Office are in the least to blame for the position in which the Territorial Army finds itself to-day. These are questions which can be settled by His Majesty's Government, and by His Majesty's Government only. I have had correspondence sent to me from no less than three Territorial Associations all speaking of the same thing—the complete lack of readiness from the top; that is, from the Prime Minister and the Government.
The success of this Bill depends entirely upon the foundations of the Territorial Army in years to come. If these foundations are not truly laid, then no matter how good a training the national service man will have received in the Army, it will all go for naught after he leaves it, and this Bill will be so much waste paper. I had some hard things to say, as many of my noble friends had, on March 26, when I thought this was an ill-advised question to be brought forward at the time; but none of your Lordships, let alone the Government, can accuse any of us old Territorial officers and young ones of not having responded to the call and done all we can to make it a success. Unfortunately, we have had no leadership from the Government on all the vital questions which must be settled immediately. I am not going into details, this is not the time, but I mention the question of holidays and of pay without Income Tax. Unless the foundations are cemented together now, I can assure the Government, as I did on March 26, that this Bill will be fatal and the results will be chaotic. I

781
hope that from to-day onwards the Territorial Army will get a real lead from the Prime Minister, and that the Government will show the country they really mean business, and are not just playing with this, as I think they have been for the last three months.
LORD CROFT: My Lords, before we part with this very vital measure I would make one or two comments, and I hope my brevity will not detract from the vital importance, as I consider it, of this Bill to the country. I hope the noble Viscount, who has been conducting this Bill with such ability and courtesy, will admit that on this side we have intervened with one object and one object only—namely, that of seeing that the defence of our country on sea, land, and in the air is made as efficient as possible. If there are weaknesses in the Bill—and I agree with my noble friend who has just spoken that we need a lead on this subject—I trust that those weaknesses will never emerge in any hour of tragedy. We give our full support to this measure, attenuated as it is, and although it does not fulfil the great expectations we had when the Bill was introduced by the Government in another place. I want to offer one word of warning with regard to refresher courses—so-called—of part-time soldiers who have passed out of the Army into the Territorial Army. I urge the Government to be ready to watch events very carefully and if they see the necessity to make a change, to have the courage to make it, because they will have the assent of all Parties if we can only make this measure workable. What alarmed me, I confess, was the proposal of sixty days' training for part-time Territorials after the full-time service in the Army was cut down from eighteen months to a year. It occurred to me at the time, and I feel now more strongly on the subject, that the machinery might not be adequate.
I hope I may be forgiven if I say I do not speak without experience. I have now served for forty-nine years in the Territorial Army at home in peace and in war, and on a Territorial Association, and even in my old age I had the honour to be a commanding officer in the Home Guard —and we were not only armed with pikes. As one who has built up two different battalions from zero, I am convinced it is not the best method of getting efficiency by asking men to do sixty days spread
782
over so many years. How much more wise is what I understand to be the suggestion of the Royal Navy, to get the men together and train them for two or three weeks, on ships if possible. If men in the Territorial Army just drop into a drill hall once a fortnight—" I have come to do my couple of hours to-day" —in the middle of a training course, it is almost impossible for the commanding officer to get an efficient force. On the other hand, if he has all his men under his command for a fortnight in camp, even if only in odd years, he can masse an efficient unit. Had I been asked for my advice, I would have said that that is a sound thing to do. Give these men to the commanding officers in such a manner that they really can give refresher courses. I offer this comment in no spirit of hostility. If the Government find that the present plan after a few years is not working, then I hope they will be ready to reconsider the method of training. My own view is that after a man has done his year's service in the Army and comes into the Territorial Army he would rather not be messed about for so many day s a year. It would be better for his general happiness and outlook if he were to get a fortnight's training which made him feel he was keeping up to date with modern requirements. With these few words, I wish to support the Third Reading.
LORD HUTCHISON OF MONTROSE: My Lords, I cannot allow this Bill to become an Act without making one or two remarks to reinforce what the noble Lord has just said. I wish this Bill to work well, but I am perfectly certain it will not, unless it is accepted by the young fellows who are called up for the year's training and they find they are really doing a real training job, and not menial duties. I think it will be of great benefit not only to the Army but to the nation as well. This year's training—I am talking especially from the Army point of view—requires a great deal of preparation beforehand to see that these men really do get trained, that they have the necessary paraphernalia, the machines, and everything else which a modern army requires. Unless they have those things, they will feel that their time is wasted; and once the young men of this country begin to feel that their time is being wasted, then all that is laid down in this Bill for their training for the defence of this country will be lost.

783
The second point I wish to make is this. Once these young fellows have done their year's training, and come to do their part-time training in future years, I hope they will not be put back to do what they have already learnt. This will depend very largely upon the quality of the officers who carry out the training in the various Territorial units. I think the War Office ought to be very careful in selecting officers who are able to continue the training which the men have done in the year in the Forces. This is an experiment in peace-time which we all hope will work well; but it will only work well with very careful arrangements beforehand, and if it becomes a really popular service. If it becomes a popular service, I think it will do the very greatest good, but as my noble friend Lord Croft said, the continuation in the Territorial units will be most difficult to arrange, unless you have suitable officers there who are able to continue the training. I can only say to His Majesty's Government that I wish them well in carrying out this measure, and I hope it will be the success which they think it will be.
3.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, in this the closing phase of this very important Bill, the speeches of noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate have been—as, indeed, they have been throughout all its stages—very helpful. I would like to take this opportunity of expressing not only my own appreciation, but that of His Majesty's Government, for the assistance which we have received from noble Lords opposite in relation to the passage of this Bill.
This is a very important Bill—a Bill which interferes not only with the life of the individual and the domestic circumstances of the home, but with industry and our national life. It is remarkable that a Bill of this magnitude has been able to pass through all its stages in both Houses with so little controversy in regard to its main principles. It is true that there has been some controversy as to changes but, on the whole, I think noble Lords opposite, and members of the Opposition in another place, will readily give to the Government a meed of praise for the courage which they have indicated and expressed in introducing a Bill of this kind in peace-time. It is not
784
easy for this nation to settle down to compulsory military service in peace-time, with the exception, of course, of a period when the ugly shadow of war overhangs the lives of the people of the country. The Government have faced up to the situation and introduced this Bill.
I want to assure my noble friend Lord Croft that in the event of any changes being necessary in the future with regard to any aspect of this Bill, he can rely upon it that the present Government, no less than any future Government, will do all that is necessary to see that this nation is able to defend itself, and make its contribution in the interest of the great international organization for the maintenance of peace. As to the course of the debates in your Lordships' House, I think that in the main it is the organization of the Territorial Army which has taken up a large amount of time. I am not complaining of that; it was very necessary for noble Lords to put their points of view. His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the importance of the Territorial Army, and, indeed, to the importance of reserves generally in the three Services.
I would like to assure the noble Viscount, Lord Long, that what he has stated to-day will certainly be brought to the notice of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War. I think it can be said that we are doing all that we possibly can. The Prime Minister himself has taken a very active part, as one who knows not only what the Army is from the theoretical angle, but also from the practical point of view, and how important it is that we shall, between now and the date when this Bill becomes an Act and comes into operation fully, realize the importance of the Territorial Army. I agree with the remarks which fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchison. Not only must this Act operate, but those who are called up under it must realize that they are rendering a useful service to the State. I am not pessimistic in this connexion. Who are in charge of the Services at the present time? None other than those who rendered such valiant service during the period of the war. There are no officers more fitted to build up the new forces which this Act will provide than those men who rendered that valiant service. Not only must we make it popular to the men who serve, but we must make the people of this country fully understand the purpose

785
of this legislation. I am convinced that it will work and work successfully, and that it will be of lasting benefit to this nation.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS OFFICE.
3.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I think perhaps it would be convenient at this stage, before we pass on to the next business, if I take the opportunity of making a short statement. It has for some time past been clear that in certain quarters, both here and overseas, the view has been taken that the titles of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and the Dominions Office are no longer entirely appropriate and are liable to convey a misleading impression of the relations between the United Kingdom and the other members of the Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have accordingly reached the conclusion that it is desirable that these titles should now be changed and steps are accordingly being taken for the issue of an Order in Council under the Ministers (Transfer of Functions) Act to alter the titles to Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and Commonwealth Relations Office respectively.
LIE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to say a few word of welcome on the announcement of the change in the title of the Dominions Office which has been made by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House. I know from my own experience when I was at that office that the present title of "Dominions Office" has been open to the objection that it may be interpreted as implying that the Governments of the Commonwealth are Dominions of Great Britain, and to that extent are of inferior status; whereas, as your Lordships know, the real position under the Statute of Westminster is that they are Overseas Dominions of His Majesty The King, and of exactly the same status as Great Britain, which is the Metropolitan Dominion of His Majesty The King. I hope that the new title will avoid such a misunderstanding in the future. There is only one question I would like to ask: I suppose
786
there has been some communication, at any rate, with the Prime Ministers of the other members of the Commonwealth.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I should like to add a word of welcome to this statement, which I am sure will be generally approved throughout the whole of the Commonwealth. The term "Colonies," which was in use within the memory of the older among us for a very long period, became entirely out of date in respect of the great territories that are now being considered and was superseded by the word "Dominions." Similarly, the time has come now for another change, and I would ask the Secretary of State whether it is intended that the term "Dominion" should disappear from our ordinary political and constitutional vocabulary and whether, now that the Dominions Office is to be called the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Secretary of State is to include the name "Commonwealth" instead of "Dominions," each of these territories and the United Kingdom itself will be referred to officially in future as "members of the Commonwealth."
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I think that the reasons for the change were admirably stated by the noble Marquess who, as we all know, has had first-hand experience in these matters. With regard to the question asked by the noble Viscount, I should I should think that we may look, at all events, for the title, "Dominion" to be used in certain contexts; it may be used in a descriptive title; but officially I think we may take it that the use of the word "Dominions" in a collective sense will disappear. As to the other question asked by the noble Marquess, the decision as to the titles of the offices of the United Kingdom is a matter for the United Kingdom Government, but the Prime Minister, I can assure him, has been personally in touch with the Prime Ministers of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa on this matter, and it is clear that they welcome it.
LORD BROUGHSHANE: My Lords, I have no doubt that this matter has been thoroughly thought out, but personally I have only just heard of it, and I must say I do not like the word "Relations." It signifies, it seems to me, poor relations or smaller relations. I think the term "Commonwealth Affairs" would be more appro-

787
priate. I have no doubt your Lordships will be in favour of the Government proposal in this matter, but I do not like the word "Relations." I think the word "Relations" has become associated in the minds of most of us with the terms "poor relations" or "inferior relations." I like the word "Affairs"; as in the expression "Foreign Affairs," we should have "Commonwealth Affairs."
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I can say that that matter has been present in our minds and that that particular choice has been mentioned but that the balance of opinion was a preference for the term "Relations" instead of "Affairs."

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.
3.34 p.m.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
[The EARL. OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 58:
Ascertainment of development values of land.
(5) For the purposes of this section, the restricted and the unrestricted values of interests in land shall be calculated by reference to prices current immediately before the seventh day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, and for that purpose any such interest shall be treated as if it had been subsisting on that date with all incidents to which it is subject on the appointed day (being incidents which are relevant to the calculation of the restricted or unrestricted value of that interest, as the case may be), and the land shall be treated as having been on that date in the same state as it is on the appointed day:
Provided that in computing the restricted value of an interest in land, no account shall be taken of the provisions of this Act except in their application to that land.
(6) In computing the unrestricted value of the interest of any person in land which, on the appointed day, was held by him with other land, there shall be deducted—
(b) in so far as the unrestricted value of the land depends on the prospect of development which would injuriously affect that other land, an amount equal to the compensation (if any) to which that person would be entitled for such injurious affection if the first-mentioned land were compulsorily acquired as aforesaid for the purpose of that development.
LORD CHORLEY: The first is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 39, leave out ("on") and insert ("immediately before").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: The next is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 43, leave out ("on") and insert ("immediately before").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER moved, in subsection (5), at the end to insert:
"and the development value of any interest in land upon which Estate Duty has been paid on the excess principal value thereof as defined in the Finance Act, 1925, shall be assumed to be not less than the amount of the excess principal value of such land upon which duty has been paid."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment covers a point which I hope is a simple one and can be shortly put, and in regard to which I hope to convince your Lordships that it is not without substance. I would like to say that I personally am not in any way affected by this Amendment; it does not touch me personally at all. I would like further to say that the Amendment does not touch or affect taxation in any way. Although Estate Duty is referred to, there is no suggestion that the incidence of Estate Duty should be in any way affected. The purpose of this Amendment is perfectly plain. It is to ensure that, if in regard to the development value of land, taxation is paid on one basis, then the Government should not be allowed to assess the basis for compensation on any lower value. It is a perfectly simple and plain point. Estate Duty has been paid on development value as one value, and I say that the Government should not base compensation for the development value which they take away on any lower figure.
This point really arises through the Finance Act of 1925 which increased the Estate Duty payable where there was a development value. By that Act development value was called the excess principal value, which is in fact the same thing as the development value under this Bill. When that Act of 1925 provided that the excess principal value—the development value, that is—on agricultural land should carry a higher rate of duty, I suggest to your Lordships that it

789
did another thing: it made it plain that in this development value the owner had a right of property. He had an asset and, if he is to be deprived of that asset, then I say he is entitled to compensation on a basis which is just.
As the Bill stands, the owner has no protection at all. There is nothing to provide that the basis for compensation will not be a lower value than the basis on which Estate Duty was paid. One can readily see what great hardship may result. On Second Reading I brought to your Lordships' notice an actual case in which—I need not quote the exact figures—the agricultural value of the land was in the neighbourhood of £40,000 and Estate Duty was paid on approximately £500,000 on excess principal value. Supposing the heir in such a case had no other assets, supposing he is wedded to his land—and why should he not be?—and he borrows money in order to pay these duties, a very unfortunate position he will find himself in when the Bill is passed. Not only will he be deprived of his development value, but he will be left with a security worth approximately £40,000 and he has no protection, as the Bill now stands, against the contingency that the basis of his scanty compensation may be lower than the basis on which the Government mulcted him by way of tax.
I have sought to see whether any cogent argument can be adduced against this point, and the only one which I can see—no doubt the noble and learned Viscount may have others—is to say that the value of the land may fall and therefore may ensure that the owner shall not have a lower basis than the Estate Duty basis, 'but may secure an advantage. I believe that to be an entirely nugatory idea. The fact is that over the last twenty years the values of land have risen and it is most unlikely that this would be the case. But that is not, I suggest, the real point. The real point is that you are taking away from a man against his will that which belongs to him, and you are giving him by way of compensation a promise of what? Of a participation in a fund which in my view is, as I have endeavoured to show your Lordships, totally inadequate. You are not even promising him that he will receive any compensation at all. You take away what he has on the one hand and on the other hand you promise him nothing certain in return. You do not
790
even promise that if he receives anything it will be adequate to the value of that of which he has been deprived. I suggest to your Lordships that the least we can do in a case of this kind is to say that the basis upon which this compensation is to be fixed, the basis for this man's claim, shall not be lower than the basis upon which he paid tax. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 47, at end, insert the said words,—(Viscount Buckmaster.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I rise only to say that having considerable knowledge of matters of Estate Duty, I fully support the argument which has been put before your Lordships, and I do so on the plain simple argument that it is a just proposal.
LORD LLEWELLIN: This seems to be quite a fair proposal and at the same time a moderate one. It does not go so far as to ensure that the man will get by way of compensation part of what he paid in estate duties. It does not go so far as that. It merely says that if, since 1925, when this excess principal value assessment has been made on estates passing upon death, the value has been made at so many pounds for the purpose of Estate Duty, it shall not be taken to be less than that for the purposes of this Bill. That is clearly fair. In most cases I fancy it will be put at about the same, and as the value of land has increased, it is very unlikely that it will be put above what it was five or ten years ago. The value of the land has not increased so much because there is a shortage of land —because the amount is the same—but by reason of the unfortunate decline in the value of the pound. This is surely an eminently fair provision. It would go against all ideas of conscience if one department under the Treasury—which is what the Central Land Board are to be—were to take a different view from another department under the Treasury which had done the same thing perhaps only two or three years ago. This seems to me a very fair Amendment, and one that has justice in its support. That is why I wish to add my words to the words of my noble friend who so ably moved this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry to tell your Lordships that I cannot accept this Amendment. Frankly, I do

791
not feel disposed to quarrel with the statement that this is a moderate Amendment, and at first blush I think that what is here proposed is fair. But, having ascertained the views of the valuers about this, I am assured that it is really quite impracticable. If, as the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, said, the excess principal value was the same thing as the development value, the difficulties would in part be surmounted. Unfortunately they are not the same thing. If you look at the matter at all technically you find that they are arrived at on two different bases. For instance, take agricultural land. The Estate Duty formula—that is in the Act of 1925—is this:
"The value which the property would bear if it were subject to a perpetual covenant prohibiting its use otherwise than as agricultural property decreased by the value of any timber, trees, wood, or underwood growing there."
"Agriculture" is defined quite differently from the definition in this Bill. This Bill, on the other hand, contains the formula in Clause 54 which imports the assumption that planning permission will be granted for what I may call Third Schedule development. Further deductions for possible severance and injurious affection are also, as we pointed out yesterday, provided for in Clause 54 (4). Moreover, the value of the timber in this case has to be included, and I am assured by the valuers that to ask them to accept as the basis a figure which is arrived at on what is really quite a different set of assumptions, and translate the figures so arrived at from those assumptions to the present assumptions, is to ask them to do an impossible task.
Assuming that that difficulty could be surmounted—and they assure me as valuers that they cannot do it—there is, to my uninstructed mind, a much greater difficulty. It is this difficulty which leads me to think that the proposition which, as I have said before, has much to commend it, is not practicable. The unit for the purposes of a claim under Part IV of the Bill may be, and in most cases will be, quite different from the unit valued for Death Duty purposes, so that the two values would not be capable of comparison. Let me give a few illustrations. Take part of an area which was agricultural at the time of the death—and this relates to any town since 1925.
792
It has by now been developed, and the claim under the Bill may, and generally will be, confined to a particular area of the land. Whereas for Death Duty purposes you look at the land as a whole, and without allocating a value to any particular piece of land, consider what is comprised in that estate of excess development value, when you are claiming under this Bill you will confine yourself to a particular strip of land—a strip of land for instance adjoining a road or something of that sort—and make your claim in respect of that strip of land. It is, therefore, impracticable and impossible, I am assured, to identify the unit in the one case with the unit in the other. I submit to the noble Viscount that if he comes to think it out, that is really a very great practical difficulty.
There is this further difficulty. How would the noble Viscount deal with the situation if the estate, as would often be the case, has been divided up? The father died and the property was divided between his two sons, each of whom is going to make his claim. How can you make this work in relation to an undivided share of the duty which was paid under the 1925 Act? It cannot, I am assured, be done. When the Treasury scheme for the distribution of the £300,000,000 is drawn up it is quite certain that we shall have to consider this type of case very carefully. The noble Earl, Lord Munster, moved an Amendment yesterday which rather suggested that everybody was to be on the basis of what I call for short "ordinary shareholders." I pointed out that I thought there may be a case for having some "preference shareholders" for the £300,000,000. It is, I think, a fact that the Minister has suggested that it should be so with regard to builders and their land. There may be a case—I put it no higher than that—with regard to minerals which are being worked; and I think there may a case for saying here that when you come to work out your scheme there might be some sort of preference claim against the fund in cases such as the noble Viscount has in mind. But I do not think that the noble Viscount's Amendment, which I frankly agree is moderate and on the face of it quite fair, is practicable. That is the view which I hold, and I have taken some trouble about this. I have taken

793
the advice I am given by those skilled persons who have advised me; and I regret to say that I cannot accept this Amendment because I do not believe it to be practicable.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is no doubt that the object which the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, sought to achieve is one with which nobody could quarrel. It is perfectly simple. It is that a man should not be taxed at one value for Death Duties and then be compensated at a lower value for the same article if and when that article comes to be compulsorily acquired. A man may have two fields; for the purposes of Death Duties those fields may be valued at x pounds; then when he comes to be compensated the value suddenly turns to x minus ten pounds—for exactly the same article. That is repugnant to the principles of justice in this country.
The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has put forward with great force and persuasive power certain extremely intricate technical arguments which are the result of consultations he has had with valuers. I feel that those arguments ought to be carefully considered. There ought to be some way by which what the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, sought to achieve can be achieved. Some method ought to be evolved. But at any rate the noble and learned Viscount's arguments, which are extremely intricate, do deserve consideration; and I suggest to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, that his wisest course would be to consider them with those who are interested in these questions and who have expert knowledge of them, and then if he feels unconvinced he can put forward proposals in an Amendment which would get over the Lord Chancellor's difficulties.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, takes that course, I shall be very glad to put him in touch with the experts who advised me in order that he can find out for himself.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: For my part I am more impressed with the arguments that the noble arid learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has invented for himself than those for which he depended on the valuers, because I am not sure that I take the same view of what the Amend-
794
ment means that the valuers seem to have taken. I can quite understand that there is considerable difficulty in getting over the noble and learned Viscount's second point as to the units not being the same. With regard to that, I would suggest that in many cases you may not be able to establish the proposition on which the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, depends. I think, however, that that clause might be so amended as to make provision that if it can be established that the development value of any interest in land upon which Estate Duty has been paid is less than the amount of the excess principal value of such land, the consequences mentioned in the Amendment shall follow. I do not know how often that could be done, but there are a number of cases where it would be quite a simple proposition and where difficulties of the sort which have been so ably urged upon this Committee would not arise.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: As to that part of the argument of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, regarding the impossibility, owing to the method of valuation, of separating individual parcels of land, it is quite true that the valuer generally values the land and at the end of his valuation will give you a figure to cover the whole of the land which he is valuing. On the other hand, I know perfectly well that they have in the process of arriving at that figure made an individual valuation of every piece of land concerned in the total. They have notes of those individual pieces of land and those notes, generally speaking, are available. After all, a valuer's valuation figure is rather like a solicitor's bill, or even a lawyer's bill. I have no doubt that the noble and learned Viscount in his early days has submitted such bills —a foolscap sheet of writing which could be reduced to "For services rendered" and the figure at the end; he has totted the various items of work he has done to arrive at the figure at the end. So does a valuer. It is, I think, not desirable to concede in an Act of Parliament the fact that the valuer does not value individually.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I am sorry I did not clearly understand whether the Government fully accepts the principle of this Amendment, and in view of the anxiety

795
which many people feel on this point I think we deserve to know how far they do accept the principle. I hope that they do really accept it. Surely there must be a great many cases known to the Chancellor of the Exchequer where large sums in Estate Duty have been paid in the excess values on different subjects over agricultural value. I understand that the Treasury were always very particular about fairness in taxation and the avoidance of double taxation on the same subjects. It does seem that the Government might consider going further, and that any repayment or payment when the time comes ought to be entirely outside the global figure.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I do not feel that it would be treating your Lordships fairly to press this matter to a Division, as I must confess it is my instinct to do. I explained to your Lordships that I have no personal interest in the matter and, therefore, it is right, of course, to say that I have no technical knowledge of valuation. I am not competent to deal with the technical points which the noble and learned Viscount, with great courtesy and in a most helpful way, if he will allow me to say so, put before your Lordships. I confess that until the noble and learned Viscount spoke I had supposed that the prime mover in resisting this matter was not the Valuation Department but possibly the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I cannot altogether divest my mind of an uneasy feeling that he, at least, will be happy to see the Amendment defeated. However, be that as it may, the noble and learned Viscount was good enough to say that in principle it was not an unfair Amendment. As when I first spoke on this Bill, I cannot weigh my powers of persuasion against his, and I will end this matter by asking leave to withdraw the Amendment. At the same time, I would like to reserve my right to consider whether some appropriate Amendment, meeting the noble and learned Viscount's difficulties, can be put down on the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.3 p.m.
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON moved, in subsection (6), at the end of paragraph (b), to insert:
796
"provided that where the payment to be made in respect of the development value of an interest in land to which this subsection applies is less than the amount of the development value as ascertained in accordance with this part of this Act, the deduction to be under this subsection shall be decreased proportionately to the amount by which the said payment is less than the amount of the development value and the payment to be made shall be increased in the same proportion of the amount of such decrease."
The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Saltoun, I am moving this Amendment in his name. The effect of this Amendment is, I think, quite simple, and it is as follows: If the amount of the compensation to be paid should be scaled down from the amount of the claim, that is to say the whole of the amount of the claim, then the deductions in subsection 6 (a) and (b) should be scaled down in equal proportion.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 16, at end insert said new proviso.—(Lord Hylton.)
LORD CHORLEY: This is an exceedingly technical and complicated Amendment, and I regret that we are not able to accept it. The Amendment is wrong in principle; it is also quite impracticable to work. It is wrong in principle for the reason that we are, of course, dealing with a situation, where this particular subsection of the clause applies, in cases where the development value is, so to speak, broken down for the reason that, in order to claim it, the claimant would first of all have to spend a certain amount of money, possibly on the removal of a house or something of that kind. In those circumstances, to take a concrete example, if we are dealing with a figure of £1,000, some amount has to be taken off, and the proposal in the Amendment is that that amount to be taken off should be dealt with in such a way as to reduce the amount of the deduction. If that were done over the whole field, of course, it would mean that all the claims on the £300,000,000 would be equally increased and that the £300,000,000 would be to that extent less adequate, and therefore you get into a sort of vicious circle, a sort of Achilles and the tortoise system. Therefore, on that basis, it really could not be accepted.
But from the practical point of view the proposal is also not feasible, for the reason that until the scheme has been worked out it is not possible to ascertain the amounts in question, and the scheme

797
of payment, of course, depends on the first fixing of all the individual development values. It is extraordinarily difficult to deal with this complicated question without taking a rather elaborate example and pursuing it right through. Mr. W. S. Morrison, in the Committee in another place, on this particular Amendment said that it is one of the difficulties of using human speech that it is too difficult to express in statutory language what is often quite a simple idea. If your Lordships would like me to do so, I can take a concrete example, and show how the thing works out in detail. In that way I am quite sure that your Lordships would, in fact, be convinced that not only is this matter not reasonably right from the point of view of principle, but also when it comes to be dealt with on a practical basis it is not really possible to put it into practice.
LORD LLEWELLIN: On the whole perhaps the noble Lord is right. It would get into a very complicated formula, and it would lead us into all sorts of things, even making comparisons, if it is done, between Achilles and the tortoise. I must say that I have not heard of Achilles and the tortoise. Achilles I have heard of in connexion with a heel, and I know that the hare had the heels of the tortoise, but I think I follow the allusion from what my noble friend has said. I think that this Amendment would make the matter too complicated, and for that reason I should advise my noble friend not to press it further.
LORD HYLTON: May I thank the noble Lord for his answer. Although I, too, like my noble friend Lord Llewellin am not familiar with Achilles and the tortoise, perhaps at another stage the noble Lord will let me know about it. Perhaps when my noble friend Lord Saltoun returns from the north he may wish to have a word about this with the noble Lord, but in the meantime I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
4.9 p.m.
Clause 59:
Supplementary provisions as to development values.
(3) The restricted and the unrestricted values of an interest in land which is subject
798
to a mortgage shall be computed as if the mortgage had been discharged.
(4) It is hereby declared that the restricted or the unrestricted value or both the restricted and the unrestricted values, of an interest in land may be a minus quantity.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"(3) Where land in respect of an interest in which a claim for a payment under the scheme made under this part of this Act is made, would, but for the provisions of the Tenth Schedule to this Act, be subject to an agreement for restricting the planning, development or use of that land under Section 34 of the Act of 1932, or to an agreement with any such authority a is mentioned in subsection (2) of that section, the unrestricted value of that interest shall be treated as if such agreement had not been subsisting immediately before the appointed day, excepting in so far as any consideration has been paid or made to the owner thereof in respect of that agreement."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is designed to remove what I think is a genuine grievance from a small but deserving class of owner. In the past some owners have come to agreements with local planning authorities whereby they have voluntarily giver up a lot of their development value for reasons of local patriotism. Other owners have not done that; they have claimed compensation in respect of those agreements; and have either got compensation or have got some corresponding advantage. Those who did forgo their compensation seem to be really badly treated by this Bill because, though the Bill may bring these agreements to an end for purposes of planning, when we come to compensation they are assumed not to have come to an end. I think that subsection (6) (b) of Clause 58 says that the value of land shall be what it would have been if this Bill had not been passed. In other words, the value shall be calculated as if the restrictions of this agreement remained in force. It seems to me that if for planning purposes the agreement comes to an end and the planning authorities can deal with the land how they like, while for compensation purposes it is to be assumed that the agreement is still in force, then the owner loses on both the swings and the roundabouts. It is only just that if you are going to scrap an agreement you should scrap the whole thing. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 39, at end insert the said new subsection. —(Viscount Gage.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a complicated little matter, and may I at once, before I come to the details of it, remind the Committee of this fact? It arises really out of something which the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, said in his short reply on the last Amendment but one. It is a complete fallacy to suppose that it matters to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether that Amendment is accepted or not. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has to reconcile himself to the fact that he has got to pay£300,000,000, and the question as to how that £300,000,000 is divided among the various claimants is not a matter that affects him. What affects him is whether that figure of £300,000,000 is going to be increased directly or indirectly; directly, for instance, by moving that for the figure "3" you should read "4," or, indirectly, by reducing the number of claimants on the fund, and resolving that claimants left out of a claim on the fund are compensated before the fund operates.
I think it is essential that this point should be borne in mind. It has some relevance to the Amendment. The effect of this Amendment is to ensure that the special restrictions on land resulting from agreements made under Section 34 of the Act of 1932, shall be ignored in calculating the development value of the land. My noble friend put the Amendment on the Paper before I had put down an Amendment to the Tenth Schedule. He will now see that by my Amendment all subsisting agreements of this kind are kept in force after the appointed day, subject, of course, to the Minister's power to revise them. That, of course, does affect the Amendment, and makes the necessity for it very much less than it was before my Amendment was put down. The noble Viscount's Amendment is confined to those cases in which no consideration was received by the owner either in malt or meal, that is to say, putting it another way, either in money or in alternative covenants, for the restrictions or obligation under which he voluntarily put him-self. Doubtless it was done—as many landowners have done it—in a public-spirited way, to preserve the public interest, and no consideration was received.
800
The case for the Amendment is that in those circumstances the effects of the agreement on the development value of the land ought to be disregarded whether or not the agreement remains in force. That is an attractive argument, but I submit that it does not stand examination. The true position is this: if the landowner, albeit for public-spirited reasons, has already deprived himself of some part of the development value of his land, the loss of that development value is not due to this Bill at all. He has given it up. He has consented to restrict himself in the way in which he is going to deal in land. He has, to use a piece of jargon which is now popular, voluntarily sterilized a piece of land. That land is not sterilized by this Bill but by the voluntary act of the man which, no doubt, as I have said, is a public-spirited act. The question therefore is whether some part of the £300,000,000 fund which is provided for the owners of land who are damaged by the Bill ought to be utilized to compensate those owners of land who are not damaged by the Bill, but who are already affected because they have made this covenant. That is the question we have to consider. I emphasize that this is not a matter that affects the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I cannot think it right to withdraw or diminish that fund which is available for those owners of land affected by the Bill to compensate those owners who, ex hypothesi, are not affected but have already before the time of the Bill, voluntarily restricted their rights. Therefore, though the Treasury have no sort of interest in this matter, it does seem to me that it would be wrong to diminish the fund available for those who have suffered by allowing some part of the fund to be expended to compensate those who have—voluntarily no doubt and for public-spirited reasons —already, quite apart from the Bill, entered into a covenant restricting the user of the land.
VISCOUNT GAGE: It may be due to my stupidity, but I do not think that the noble and learned Viscount dealt with the case which I really have in mind. That is the case where an agreement is brought to an end by reason of a Ministerial decision. It seems to be quite plain that if an agreement is brought to an end by Ministerial action, the value of that agreement to the owner is lost, and he is deprived of the opportunity of taking his

801
chance with other owners of getting compensation. I should have thought that that would have been an argument which the noble and learned Viscount would have thought might possibly be taken into account by the Central Land Board when assessing a claim under hardship provisions. I do not wish to press this matter. These individuals gave their land freely, and I do not suppose that they would wish to make a fuss about it now. But I must confess that I think they have had shabby treatment, and I feel that it may lend some colour and force to an expression which is sometimes used by cynics to the effect that "it is no use doing anything to help the Government unless you have to." In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.19 p.m.
LORD SAVILE LORD SAVILE moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I discuss the two Amendments which stand in my name together. They arc to leave out subsections (3) and (4). My only purpose in moving them is to try to get a little information from the Government about some rather weird legal phraseology. As regards subsection (3), I do not quite see what the existence of a mortgage has got to do with this Bill at all. Surely the restricted and the unrestricted values are quite independent of the existence of a mortgage, and so I think it would be very much better if that subsection were deleted from the Bill.
As regards my second Amendment, I am bound to confess that the wording of subsection (4) is absolutely beyond my understanding. This is how it reads:
"It is hereby declared that the restricted or the unrestricted value, or both the restricted and the unrestricted values, of an interest in land may be a minus quantity."
It might be a minus quantity. What is the meaning of that? Surely if it is a minus quantity, it cannot have any value. Again, I submit very humbly that it would be very much better if this subsection were left out altogether. I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 40, leave out subsection (3).
The EARL OF RADNOR: May I adduce, as a further argument for leaving out the absurd subsection (4), that the
802
Forestry Commission, when they purchase land which comprises plantable and unplantable land, do not put down the unplantable land, which is of no value to them whatever, as a minus quantity, but leave it at nought, which is neither minus nor plus.
LORD CHORLEY: I regret that I cannot accept this Amendment, although I am really not in a position to give the noble Lord any reasons which he will regard as satisfactory, or I myself regard as very satisfactory. I frankly admit that I thought this Amendment was consequential on the Amendment moved by Lord Llewellin yesterday in relation to Clause 57, in which he dealt with the question of mortgages. In the circumstances, I feel just as baffled as the noble Lord. What I should like to do, if he will agree, is to discuss it with him after I had an opportunity of advising myself further. Perhaps he would be prepared to withdraw his Amendment this afternoon and submit it at a later stage if, after discussion, he is still unable to appreciate the exact meaning of the subsection.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am sorry my Amendment evidently appears to have led those who provide information to my noble friend to put down against this Amendment that it was consequential, but we really do want to know the effects of the existence of a mortgage. That might be extremely relevant, and that was the point which the noble and learned Viscount dealt with yesterday when he referred me to the provisions of another Act which are to be incorporated, but I do not see why either the restricted or unrestricted value of any piece of land valued under the terms of this Bill is affected one way or another by a mortgage. That is why we wondered how this subsection had got in here at all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Let me have a try. Just ignore the mortgage. The first part of the clause says it is to be treated as if it were not there. The second part is this. Perhaps the noble Lord is a tenant at the tail-end of a lease which. has heavy repairing costs. The tenancy might be worth nothing at all; it might even involve a big minus quantity. The restricted value might be minus two and the unrestricted value minus one. Where that happens the owner of that interest is given the right to

803
claim the difference between the minus quantities.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am beginning to wonder whether the reply from the Government is not a minus quantity.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not see why the noble Lord says that. This is to extend the clause to cover further claims on the fund.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Now for the first time I understand it, and I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for telling us why it is in. I think subsection (3) is put in out of excessive caution, because I do not see that anybody would ever think the mortgage would be included. The other reason is the exceptional cases which the Lord Chancellor has explained.
LORD SAVILE: I have asked a great number of people in the last few weeks what is the meaning of this subsection, and now I understand I am very ready to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 agreed to.
4.27 p.m.
Clause 60:
Exclusion of small claims.
60.—(1) Without prejudice to any provisions which may be included in a scheme made under Section fifty-five of this Act for prescribing the cases in which payments are to be made thereunder, no such payment shall be made in respect of an interest in land unless—

(a) the development value of that interest, when averaged over the area of the land, exceeds the rate of twenty pounds per acre; and

(b) the development value of that interest also exceeds one tenth of its restricted value.

(2) In determining for the purposes of paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection whether the development value of an interest in land exceeds one tenth of its restricted value, those values shall be calculated—

(a) in the case of a leasehold interest, as if the rent payable under the lease were a rent of a peppercorn;

(b) in the case of an interest which is subject to a rent-charge, as if the interest were not subject thereto.

LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON moved, in subsection (1) after "land" to insert "in respect of which a claim is made." The noble Lord said: As the Bill now stands,
804
no payment will be made under Clause 55 unless "the development value of that interest, when averaged over the area of the land, exceeds the rate of £20 per acre." I agree that the object of this is to prevent petty claims, but on larger properties where a claim is made in respect of a comparatively small amount of land, although it may be that quite a large sum is at stake, the development value averaged out over the whole estate may be much less than £20 an acre. I do not think that is fair, and I do not believe it is the intention of the Government, because the clause is headed "Exclusion of small claims." Therefore to safeguard this position it is proposed that subsection (a) shall apply only in respect of land about which the claim is made. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 5, after ("land") insert the said words.—(Lord Carrington.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think this is reasonable and I accept it.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Before that happens, I suppose it is in the right place. Perhaps it ought to be in paragraph (a) of subsection (1).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will look at that, and if I am told it should be in another place I will make the Amendment on the Report stage. One place or another, I will give the noble Lord the Amendment he wants.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved, in subsection (1), at the end to insert:
"Provided that this subsection shall Lot apply to any interest in land upon which Estate Duty has been paid in respect of the excess principal value thereof under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1925."
The noble Duke said: The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that the Government cannot take money for values on the one hand, and on the other hand say they are too small to bother about. Even if it is a great convenience not to overload the machinery with a mass of small claims, surely there is no justification for not meeting the small claims as fairly as the larger ones. What may seem to be a very small claim may be much more to one person than to another. If these principles are disregarded when assessing Estate Duty, it at

805
least should be acknowledged that an owner of values upon whom the State has levied duties should be eligible to make a claim for payment under this part of the Bill. It seems unfair if in the course of elimination of small claims for payment the loss of values is not there to balance on the other side. I am not sure what the effect of the clause is. I do not know whether anxiety is groundless, or whether the owners of farms and land with small excess difference in value have cause for feeling that they may suffer loss without having a claim for compensation. If possible, I would like an assurance on these matters. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 10, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is very much the same sort of point that I was discussing with your Lordships in regard to the first Amendment to-day which was moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster. The real difficulty which prevents me from accepting this proposal is the difficulty of the unit. That presents an insoluble problem. The noble Duke will appreciate that when you are comparing valuations made at different times, all sorts of changes may have taken place in the interval: buildings may have been put up, plots may have been sold off, values generally may have gone up, or gone down, leases may partly or wholly have run out, and new leases may have been granted. Those factors make it virtually impossible to provide a statutory comparison of the two things, which in their essence, if your Lordships will look at them—I will not repeat what I said to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster—are essentially somewhat different.
A further difficulty is that the assessment of excess principal value for Death Duty purposes, so I am informed by the valuers, is frequently not related to a particular plot of land at all. Suppose you had a large estate of, say, 2,000 acres. The normal valuation process will be this. You have to estimate the demand for building land in the area, and the part of the 2,000 acres likely to be realized for building purposes in the near future. So you estimate the amount likely to be realized. It is really a sort of microcosm of the national scheme. It is a problem of -floating value on a small scale. I am told
806
it is in practice impracticable to specify the particular plots that are likely to be sold for development and to attach to them the excess principal value.
I am advised that this Amendment would only work given two circumstances: first, that the unit of claim under Part VI of the Bill was identical with the unit of land that had been valued for Estate Duty; and, secondly, that with regard to that unit there had been no relevant change—that is to say, no building land had been sold, no leases had expired, no new leases had been granted, no new agricultural building had been erected, and so on. It is only in those cases—and they would be very rare cases —that this Amendment would be practicable. I suggest to the noble Duke that the real answer to the problem, and, I think I may say, the real safeguard to the owner, rests in this: that for the purposes of his claim under Part VI he need not claim in respect of the whole of his estate, but he can choose what particular part of his estate he wants to claim for. Much of his estate would obviously be of only agricultural value, but he can select and put forward parcels of his land and say that he wants to claim in respect of those particular parcels, and so build up his claim.
If, of course, he included large virgin agricultural land with no possible development value, then the percentage calculated under Clause 60 might exclude his claim. The purpose of leaving him to choose his own unit is to enable him to avoid doing this, and also to avoid imposing on the valuers the task of valuing much more land than is necessary. In these circumstances, it is highly improbable that any land in respect of which a development value had been claimed by the Board of Inland Revenue for death duty purposes would be less than 10 per cent. of the agricultural value, for, after all, valuation is not an exact science. If the point of principle raised by this Amendment were to be met, it would have to be conditional on the Unit of land being the same for both purposes (and, therefore, for this purpose, including far more land than is really necessary, which might have a prejudicial effect if you are considering whether it exceeds the 10 per cent.); and it would have to be hedged around with so many qualifications and exceptions that most cases would in reality be ruled out. In the result I do not think the pro-

807
vision would be of any practical value. To embark on this wider and further task might be to rule out a good many cases which otherwise would come in. For those reasons, I am unable to accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I gather from what the noble and learned Viscount has said that he is not unsympathetic to the principle that anyone who has paid Death Duties on an area of land should get back, through the compensation, the amount he has paid. But he has made very clear on this Amendment the difficulty the valuer is in. This Amendment, of course, deals only with small claims, but I can envisage a case of an area of land, say, 100 acres in extent, which at the time of the death was suitable for development of a particular type involving a sale in quarter acre plots. By the time this Bill comes along, half that area may have been sold. The 100 acres originally would have been valued as a whole, and it would present an impossible task, with all those imponderable, and, to my mind, very indefinite and unreal factors, such as shift and float. In the light of that, while I feel that we want the same treatment for the man who has been charged Death Duties, and he should get 'back that value when he has it removed from him compulsorily by His Majesty's Government, I appreciate, equally, that, certainly so far as the small plots of land are concerned, there are serious physical difficulties in the way.
LORD HYLTON: I think we all see the difficulty to which the noble and learned Viscount has referred, but, although the problem is difficult, surely it is not impossible. Those of your Lordships who know these skilled valuers will know that they can undoubtedly find, and have found, methods of assessing questions of this kind. I do not think it is impossible to apportion the amount among the units, even if the whole estate has been broken up. It is well known that these valuers do value each unit separately, and, although the noble and learned Viscount tells us that the floating value is apportioned over maybe a considerable area, yet they know very well where that shifting value will sink, or where it will fix. Therefore, I suggest that, in justice to these small claimants—
808
we are dealing with small claims now—who have already paid excess principal value to the Treasury, they should not be excluded from receiving compensation under this scheme.
LORD HARLECH: I would like to say a few words on this matter. I do not think we can do much about this point in this Bill. The real grievance arises under the Finance Act. I only hope that when this Bill is an Act attention will be paid to this particular point in some Finance Bill of the future. I remember my own extreme personal grievance when I had to pay Death Duties in respect of a portion of my property in North Wales, which matter, incidentally has been raised in this House in other connexions —namely, military occupation round Harlech. For years past, my predecessors, the local authority, local societies, and the National Trust have all been concerned with preserving the amenities of that part of the Welsh coast, and I remember being particularly aggrieved at having excess value to pay for Death Duties on areas which we particularly wished to prevent being built over. It is quite true that the bulk of the Royal St. Davids golf course is on my property, and no doubt the whole of that golf course would be extremely valuable building land. There is all that to be considered, I agree. I only hope that when this Town and Country Planning Bill has become an Act the future owners will not have some of these arbitrary excess duties to pay on land which obviously ought to be planned and preserved for public amenity.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his statement, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Lord said: To the layman, and I understand not to the layman alone, this subsection seems slightly obscure. It is difficult to see how a leasehold interest is to be valued without regard to rent, and this would seem to apply also in the case of a rentcharge. I would be grateful if the noble and learned Viscount could give me an explanation of the exact meaning of this subsection and also whether it would be possible to devise words to make it a little clearer to those who will have to operate the subsection. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 11, leave out subsection (2). —(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has my sympathy if he has been trying to understand this matter. I have a completely unfair advantage over him in that I have expert advisers to tell me what it means, and I confess that, if I had not had those expert advisers, I should be in a sorry plight at the present moment. This is the position: You are endeavouring, under this clause, with all due regard to fairness, to rule out small claims on the de minimis principle, and to say that you must have a difference as between restricted and unrestricted value of at least ten per cent. before you can have a claim. Of course, if the restricted value is nil—and I can assure your Lordship that it may be nil —then sixpence is more than ten per cent. of nil, and, therefore, you must, if you are dealing with it at all, try to presuppose that there is some value in the restricted value. Of course, as we said just now, if you have a leasehold interest and the leasehold interest has a number of onerous covenants—it may be particularly when the leasehold is coming to an end—it is very often in those cases that the leasehold is not only a nil value, but a minus value. Where you have a leasehold interest which is let at a very full rack rent, there you would say that the value of the leasehold is nil, and then, to guard against that sort of case, you disregarded the rent in valuing both the unrestricted and the restricted values.
I am told, further, that the valuers take the view that, whether you are dealing with the purchase of an estate for a capital sum, or with an estate where you have paid a premium and then got your leasehold interest at a very low rate, or whether you are dealing with a case where you have paid a rack rent for your lease, you are valuing the land, and all the valuations should be made on the same basis. I am assured that the only practical way to make that operate and to eliminate those very small claims which may arise because they exceed ten per cent. of nil, small though they are, is to adopt the scheme which we have here adopted. I hope that this explanation has made it plain to the noble Lord. I confess I was in exactly the same difficulty until I had this explanation.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for his statement.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I think the ruling may be convenient. It also seems to me that it is purely artificial. I do not think any principle of justice is at the bottom of it. I conceive, as I have said, that it would be convenient, and I am not quite sure that there is anything but a very difficult and troublesome alternative to the view of the Government that the subsection must remain where it is.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his reply. I think I understand it better than I did, but I shall study Hansard with great care to-morrow. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 61 to 65 agreed to.
4.47 p.m.
Clause 66:
Levy of development charge in respect of certain development
(2) This Part of this Act applies to all operations for the carrying out of which planning permission under Part III of this Act is required, and to all uses of land for the institution or continuance of which such permission is so required:
Provided that—

(a) this Part of this Act does not (except as hereinafter provided), apply to operations of any description specified in the Third Schedule to this Act or to any use of land so specified:

(b) regulations made under this Act with the consent of the Treasury may provide for exempting from the provisions of this Part of this Act operations or uses of any description specified in the regulations.

THE EARL OF RADNOR: I hope that this Amendment will be accepted. It is quite a small Amendment which offers a certain amount of flexibility; that is to say, it leaves it to the discretion of the Central Land Board to allow a house to be started or continued without the payment of the relevant charges. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 35, alter ("continued") insert ("except with the consent in writing of the Central Laud Board")—(The Earl of Radnor.)
LORD HENDERSON: I am very glad to accept this Amendment.
On question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN had given notice of two Amendments to insert new paragraphs in subsection (2), after paragraph (a)—namely:
"(b) This Part of this Act does not apply to the use as two or more separate dwelling houses of any building previously used as a single dwelling house."
"(b) This Part of this Act does not apply to operations for the development or use of land for educational purposes."
The noble Lord said: I am not going to move these Amendments. With regard to the first, I have since been convinced that Clause 83 covers the kind of institution that I had in mind when I put the Amendment down. I was not quite clear how far this charitable clause covered these educational establishments, but I have ascertained that it does, and, therefore, I do not move.
Since I put the second Amendment down I see that the noble and learned Viscount has put down an almost identical Amendment in the Third Schedule. It is obviously the better place for it to be in the Third Schedule, and all I rise to say is that I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for thus accepting my Amendment, which I shall not move here.
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON moved, after paragraph (a) in subsection (2) to insert:
"(b) This Part of this Act does not apply to the use of any buildings or other land or the erection of any buildings within the curtilage of a dwelling house for any purpose not incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such, where the cubic content of any such building does not exceed 1,000 cubic feet."
The noble Lord said: This is another Amendment that my noble friend Lord Saltoun has asked me to move, in his absence. It is perfectly simple and merely asks that the Bill shall say that a small building used, for instance, for the storage of bicycles, or a small house used for keeping prams or coal in and so on, shall not be deemed to be subject to development charge if it does not exceed one thousand cubic feet in size.
This is such common sense that I cannot believe it will not be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 5, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Hylton.)
LORD HENDERSON: This Amendment would allow a man to use his garage as a workshop or, provided he could get planning permission, to put up a kiosk for the sale of tobacco or ice-cream in his front garden and pay no development charge, however profitable those operations might be. It is unlikely that the local planning authorities would encourage haphazard development of this kind, but if in any case permission is granted and the development is such as to enhance the value of the land, there is no reason why it should be exempt from development charge simply because it happens to be within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse. The reason for exempting from development charge the operations and uses of land specified in the Third Schedule is that these are regarded as falling within the general category of existing use, but it can hardly be maintained that the existing use of a dwelling-house includes the right to use is as a shop or place of manufacture.
If a case could be made out for exempting the small home trader from development charge, I suggest that the proper place for such an exemption would be the regulations which can be made under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of this clause. As the noble Lord is aware, these regulations are subject to Parliamentary approval. I hope, therefore, that he will not press his Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I know that the only case which was of great concern to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, was the case of a small man who had a little tool shop in his garden. It may well be that that kind of thing can be dealt with in the regulations. In fact, it is not the kind of thing which would in any event attract a large development charge. It was just the case of a little man doing a little bit of repairing in a tool shop at the back of his garden that my noble friend had in mind. I think if this point could be remembered when the regulations are being drawn up, that would probably satisfy my noble friend.
LORD HYLTON: I thank the noble Lord for the information. All the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, was thinking about was a bicycle shed, and he was not think-

813
ing of putting up kiosks and other trading concerns. If the noble Lord will consider this, then I should be pleased to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN had given notice that he would move in subsection (2), at the end to insert:
"(c) This Part of this Act does not apply to the winning and working of minerals."
The noble Lord said: I believe it would be for the convenience of your Lordships that we should discuss this minerals question on the Minerals Clause, Clause 79. If, of course anything were to happen to Clause 79, there might have to be a consequential Amendment. But as this Amendment is purely consequential to the main clause, I do not propose to move it now.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that would be a more convenient course.
4.55 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (2), at the end to insert:
"(c) this Part of this Act does not apply to the winning and working on land forming part of an agricultural estate of minerals required and used on any land forming part of that estate for the purposes of that estate.
For the purposes of this sub-paragraph the expression agricultural estate means an estate consisting of agricultural land and agricultural buildings, as defined in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, together with any lands on which minerals are for the time being worked as aforesaid and land occupied together with a house as a park which is used for grazing, and includes dwelling houses used as the dwelling house of a person who is primarily engaged in carrying on managing or directing agricultural operations on the estate or any part thereof, or is employed in agricultural operations on the estate or in the upkeep thereof, in the service of the owner thereof or of any tenant of the owner."
The noble Lord said: The point of this Amendment is to bring any question of development charges on small mineral workings connected with agricultural estates into the same category as agricultural land in the Third Schedule. The idea of this is that if a man is digging chalk out of some field on his farm, no development charge should be levied for his continuing to dig that chalk and spread it over his arable fields or grass fields. Similarly, with regard to gravel and things ordinarily used on farms, where there is no question of sale, I think it is quite in accord with the general principles of the
814
Bill in regard to agriculture that these should be excluded, as other things have been. Therefore, I beg leave formally to move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 9, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Llewellin.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I should like in one sentence to support this proposal, which does not seem to me in any way to affect the provisions of the later sections which are of a serious character.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am going to accept this Amendment in principle. It seems to me a reasonable Amendment and one we ought to accept, but I am a little inclined to think, as I think the noble Lord is inclined to think, that is probably finds its place better in one of the schedules—Part II of the Third Schedule—and we think that the phraseology of it needs redrafting. What I am going to ask the noble Lord to do is to withdraw the Amendment now. I do not promise that I shall be able to put it down by the time we get to the Schedule—which I hope will be fairly soon—but I do promise that I will introduce some Amendment to meet this point on the Report stage. If the noble Lord will be good enough to accept that suggestion of mine and withdraw the Amendment as it stands, I will give him the undertaking that I will deal with the matter on the Report stage, it being understood, of course, that the concession which I shall make must be strictly limited to materials necessary for the day-to-day work connected with the farm. I hope the noble Lord will accept my offer.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I would like to ask if, at a later stage, the definition might be considered to include the getting of road metal from quarries, hillsides, or streams, as otherwise it might mean that in order to make a road to an outlying Shepherd's cottage on a hill farm, a permit would be necessary. I would also like to ask if the limestone quarries and the making of tiled bricks would be considered.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I shall certainly see that both the matters which the noble Duke has mentioned are con-

815
sidered. I have not considered them heretofore, and what the result will be I cannot promise. I can promise that I will bring it to the notice of those who advise me and see that they are both considered.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I fancy that the first point the noble Duke mentioned is included both in my Amendment and in the one which the noble and learned Viscount accepted, because it will be stone for agricultural work which, no doubt, will include sheep farms. I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for the attitude he has taken upon this Amendment. I certainly would like to see it drawn as widely in the definition as possible because in quite a lot of these small gravel pits nothing is for sale. They are merely used for the purposes of an estate and it is just as well that they should go on being used for the purposes of the estate. It is a very reasonable thing. I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount and with that assurance I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HENDERSON: This is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 12, leave out ("Part II") and insert ("Part III").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved, in subsection (3), at the end, to insert:
"Provided that where the refusal of planning permission for development of any class specified in the said Third Schedule to this Act, or the granting of such permission subject to conditions was made or given in consequence of a direction by the Minister, the Central Land Board shall pay to the local planning authority by whom the permission was refused or granted subject to conditions as aforesaid, the amount of the development charge payable upon the granting of the planning permission, or so much thereof as will reimburse the local planning authority for the compensation paid by them."
The noble Lord said: Subsection (3) of this clause provides that the Central Land Board may make a contribution towards the compensation paid by a local authority under Clauses 19 and 25 of the Bill. That is to say, it is entirely for the Central Land Board to determine whether, or not, they make the contribution, and also to decide the proportion of the compensation
816
paid which they might contribute. It occurs where the action giving rise to liability for compensation has been directed by the Minister; and it is only right that the local authorities should be compensated in full for the moneys they have had to disburse on his instructions. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 35, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Addington.)
LORD HENDERSON: I am afraid I must resist this Amendment. Clause 66 (3) is concerned with the levying of development charge on Third Schedule development. Development in this category is normally exempt from development charge. Development charge is, however, payable where permission for the development is first refused or revoked (and compensation paid under Clause 19 or 25) but is subsequently granted. Clause 66 (3) provides that in such a case the Central Land Board may pay to the local planning authority by whom compensation has been paid a contribution not exceeding the amount of the development charge. That is a simple and readily understandable provision. The effect of the original refusal was to reduce the value of the land below its normal existing use value, and the owner therefore received compensation equal to 100 per cent. of the reduction. On the subsequent permission to carry out the development for which permission had been withheld he will be charged a development charge taxed on the potential increase in value above the present reduced existing use value. As a result of the original refusal the Board will collect more than they would otherwise have been able to collect, and it is therefore fair that some or all of this excess should be handed over to the local authority which has paid the compensation.
The Amendment would do something quite different. It would insert in the Bill the principle that where a local authority has to pay compensation because of something done by the Minister it should be reimbursed in full. The Bill meets this point in a different way, by enabling the local authority to claim grant under Clause 92, under which the cost of compensation will be shared wth the Exchequer. No distinction is drawn or thought to be necessary between cases

817
where the compensation becomes payable as a result of action by the local authority or those where action by the Minister is responsible. I think the noble Lord will probably recognize that action by the Minister may be taken in the interest of local planning. In other cases it may be taken in the interest of national planning. Provision is also made for other local authorities and statutory undertakers for the Minister to contribute in suitable cases; so that there is provision for the local authority to be substantially reimbursed. I am unable to accept the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, which lays it down that the Board shall reimburse the local planning authority to the full amount of the development charge payable on the granting of the planning permission.
LORD ADDINGTON: I should have thought that the fairest way would have been this. These restrictions imposed by the Minister are mainly for the advantage of national planning and for the advantage of the Ministry concerned—often the Ministry of Transport. Individual local authorities pay directly, and therefore since the payment has been made in the interests of the Minister, that payment should be reimbursed as such, rather than left to be shared or treated in some other way. I think my principles are right but am unable to press the Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
5.8 p.m.
Clause 67:
Determination of development charge by Central Land Board.
67.—(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, the Central Land Board shall, on application being made to them in the manner prescribed by regulations under this Act by a person having an interest in land sufficient to enable him to carry out any such operations as aforesaid or to make any such use as aforesaid, or by a person who satisfies them that he is able to obtain such an interest, determine whether any and if so what development charge is to be paid in respect of those operations or that use:
Provided that—
(a) where planning permission under Part III of this Act has not been granted for the carrying out of the said operations or for the institution or continuance of the said use, the Board may postpone the determination of the development charge to be paid
818
in respect thereof until such permission has been granted;
(2) In determining whether any and if so what development charge is to be paid under this Part of this Act in respect of any operations or any use of land, the Board shall have regard to the amount by which the value of the land with the benefit of planning permission for those operations or that use (calculated without regard to any charge payable in respect thereof under this Part of this Act and on the assumption that the operation or use can lawfully be carried out or made apart from the provisions of this Act) exceeds the value which it would have without the benefit of such permission.
(3) Subject to the provisions of the last foregoing subsection, regulations made under this Act with the consent of the Treasury may prescribe general principles to be followed by the Central Land Board in determining under this Part of this Act whether any and if so what development charge is to be paid there-under in respect of any operations or use of land, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, such regulations may in particular provide for securing that the amount of the said charge shall be determined on different principles in relation to operations or uses of different classes, or in relation to operations or uses carried out or begun at different periods.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved, in subsection (1), at the end, to insert:
"(d) It shall not be necessary in making an application under this section to furnish plans and drawings other than a site plan in any case where the proposed development is sufficiently described by the particulars together with the site plan."
The noble Lord said: I have several Amendments on this subject but I do not think I need move them if they are all covered by regulations. In order to get that assurance I beg formally to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 37, at end add the said new paragraph.—(Lord Addington.)
LORD HENDERSON: I think that the position as stated by the noble Lord is correct. He can take it that the Board will not call for more details than they really need in making proper determinations of the development charge.
LORD ADDINGTON: In view of what the noble Lord says, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (3), at the end, to insert:
"and such regulations shall provide that the amount of the said charge shall be determined

819
without discrimination or preference as between applicants for the same class of development."
The noble Earl said: All I wish to ensure by this Amendment is that powers should not be used to favour one claimant as against another when both are undertaking the same type of development in the same or similar localities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 12, at end insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD HENDERSON: I can assure the noble Earl that there will be no such discrimination as he seems to fear and against which he seeks to secure a safeguard.
LORD LLEWELLIN: One quite realizes that for different classes of development there will have to be different scales of charges. One also realizes that for different areas there should be different scales, because it is obvious that this is going to be used in the case at any rate of factories, to try to encourage the putting up of a new factory where otherwise there might be a very large number of unemployed; and to discourage it where there is not sufficient labour available. That is clearly one of the purposes of the Bill. What we seek to do here is to prevent any discrimination between the same kinds of traders dealing in the same kind of goods. One does not want to see any difference of that sort. I should like to see an instruction in the Bill that "such regulations shall provide that the amount of the said charge shall be determined without discrimination or preference as between applicants for the same class of development"; and, for myself, I would add "in the same area." We shall probably find that is what we should all like.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have been asking my advisers, and I have been asking myself, whether I could devise a form of words to meet this point. I think I know what the noble Lord has in mind, and if he has this in mind I agree with him. It would obviously be grossly improper for this Central Land Board to take a prejudice against some people and, because they took that prejudice, charge them more. A classical instance is the case of the red-haired man. Supposing you were to charge more to a red-haired
820
man than to a black-haired man, that would be grossly improper. On the other hand, if I were to use the words "no discrimination or preference," it seems to me I might be using words which would make it impossible for the Board to do the very thing they are expected to do.
One of the things they have got to do is to get the best price they can having regard to all the circumstances, including the owner's ability to pay. Supposing a man comes along and says: "I want to build a factory. What is the development charge?" and the Central Land Board say: "It is x," and the owner comes and says: "I think that is too much. I will give up my factory rather than pay x, but I will pay you x minus one hundred." Then the Central Land Board, if they think that is the best price they can get, may say that it is a deal. It is very difficult not to apply the principle which the good estate owner today applies to his own estate, because the Central Land Board are in that sort of position. The good estate owner does not of course dislike the red-haired man, or put difficulties in his way particularly, but, on the other hand, he does exact from his estate the best price he can, bearing in mind that he wants a desirable class of tenant. And that is the sort of thing the Central Land Board have got to do. If I succeed in finding a form of words which satisfies me that they must not show discrimination in regard to preference of the first class without prejudice to their being duty-bound to observe the preference of the second class, I will put it in the Bill, but at the present moment I say quite frankly that I and, what is much more significant, the very ingenious people who advise me in this matter, have so far failed to find any form of words which bring this about. If they do I will put it in the Bill.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I would remind the noble Viscount that these were the words that we all agreed upon to put in the Coal Act, and he will find that we did so so that they could not discriminate between persons. They are words that we have already considered in this House and put into the Coal Act, and so they are not just new words. At any rate, perhaps the point could be looked at again, bearing in mind the fact that we did insert these words in this House when the Coal Act was passing through.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly consider that. I was myself responsible for the suggestion that these words should go into the Coal Act, or I accepted the suggestion made from the other side. I do feel, however, that the functions of the Central Land Board are, in essence, so different from the functions of the Coal Board that it is very difficult to apply them here, but if I can do that I will.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If I may say a word, I quite agree with the Lord Chancellor that you cannot have an absolutely rigid standard of charges, because clearly any landlord would do exactly the same thing. He finds a desirable tenant, the sort of man he wants to Occupy a particular position, and then, if he puts his price up too high, he loses that man to the estate, and the Central Land Board I quite understand would not do that. But you may conceivably have a Minister—I do not say in this Government—who has a passionate affection for co-operative societies to the exclusion of other people. That is the sort of case I have in mind. He might say: "I will let these co-operative societies, who are better members of society, and so on, take this land at a cheaper price than the others will pay." I am not saying that this Government or that Minister would do it, but that is a type of discrimination which is undesirable. I have not discussed this matter with my noble friend, but it is to avoid that type of thing—which is not a justifiable method of land management—with which we are concerned.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Perhaps I may say that I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount and, on the assurance which he gave that he will look for words between now and some stage of the Bill, I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER moved to add to subsection (3) the words "and that the amount of the said charge shall have relation to the cost of, and the need for, the provision of housing accommodation in any area." The noble Viscount said: The purpose of this Amendment is to avoid as far as possible restriction on development. The noble and learned Viscount on the Second Reading, I think, took the view that this Bill would tend to encourage developers. I am afraid I take an entirely converse view. If I may
822
put this to your Lordships—and those of you who are experts in this matter will correct me if I am at fault—the normal process in the development of land is that the developer makes his profit out of the land; he creates a ground rent, and by such means he is able to sell the building at little more than cost. If you are going to fine him heavy development charges it follows, ipso facto, that you reduce his profit, and it follows also that you increase the cost of the building, and automatically increase the rent that you charge the tenant. That is one of the features of this Bill which I dislike. I am of opinion that the Bill tends to increase the cost of housing, and the purpose of this Amendment is not to eliminate but to reduce that probability by ensuring that where there is a real shortage of houses the development charge should bear some relation to the need of the community. In other words, if houses are badly needed the developer should not be tined a heavy development charge, but should be assessed on a lower basis, so that development may be encouraged and the cost of housing may not rise. The Amendment appears to me to be not unreasonable, to be moderate, and I hope it may commend itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 12, at end insert the said new words.—(Viscount Buckmaster.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: For myself I think that this Amendment indicates one of the matters—and I think the noble Viscount will agree only one of the matters—to which the Central Land Board should have regard. Obviously if the Central Land Board were to have no regard to the cost of housing, and were to regard themselves as a mere instrument of taxation, to get as much as they possibly could, that would depress the building of houses and would defeat one of the objects of the whole Bill. But there are many other things which I think they should also take into consideration. I give your Lordships an illustration. I think they should take into consideration the existence of either boom or slump conditions. If there are slump conditions they would probably be wise to cut their development charge right down to the bone so as to do everything they can to encourage building of all sorts; and if there are boom conditions, they would probably be wise to put their development

823
charge up. They should also consider certain areas particularly—I think you now call them development areas. They may well take a different line, and exact a much lower charge in those particular areas where they want housing to go. I think they may well have regard to such things as the level of wages and the cost of building materials. Both of those matters obviously affect the building of houses. But you do not want to pile Pelion on Ossa by adding still further costs to the already severe costs of these things.
All these factors would be taken into consideration by a good landlord of a large estate. My conception is that the Central Land Board, which, as I have said before, must be a very powerful body and in regard to which we must be careful in selecting a personnel that commands confidence in all quarters, would consider all such matters My objection to the Amendment is this. It is unwise to single out one particular factor. I agree that it is an important factor but there are many other factors equally important. I think it is unwise to single out one because to do so often has the effect of making people who have to consider that one matter think that others need not be considered. Although they obviously should have regard to the cost of and the need for housing, I feel it is unwise to single out one consideration like this from all the other matters to which the Board should have regard.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: The noble and learned Viscount, by his answer, appeared to me to be supporting my Amendment, if he will allow me to say so. Indeed, he was so convincing that I was more that ever persuaded that I was right, and I hoped that he had convinced himself in that regard. I must say—I do not know what the feeling of other members of the Committee is—that I myself have not such complete and absolute confidence in the Central Land Board. I am not satisfied that they will at all times and in all ways do the best thing. I cannot see any objection to putting a moderate restriction or restraint of this kind upon them. The Amendment seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable and moderate one, calculated to achieve the very purpose which the noble and learned Viscount has intimated that he feels to be desirable. That being so, I
824
find myself in some difficulty as to what to do. I do not wish to press the Amendment to a Division, but on the other hand, I feel scarcely justified in withdrawing an Amendment to which there seems to be so little objection.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will the Government agree to consider this further? I must say that I listened carefully to the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, and it did seem to me that the Amendment expressed very much what he said. The Amendment states:
"and that the amount of the said charge shall have relation to the cost of, and the need for, the provision of housing accommodation in any area."
The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, I think, mentioned the position in boom periods and slump Periods. Clearly, I should have thought "the need for" would take account of both those considerations. After all, if there were a need for the provision of building and there were a slump period, that would go against the normal course. The need would counterbalance the normal course. I should have thought that those two balancing considerations gave a possibility of taking into account any considerations whatever, at any particular period. I do not think that they are limited to two considerations. I think that between them they cover any conceivable situation that might arise.
One would have hoped that the Government might be willing to consider the matter a little further before coming to a definite decision. I rather share the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster about the Central Land Board. It is no criticism of them to say that they are not perfect. No one is perfect in this world, and they have to do what is, after all, a new job, a job of which they have no previous experience. The average landlord is probably more experienced than the members of the Board will be to begin with, and one would think that to give them a little guidance would not do them much harm.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There would be no objection to accepting the Amendment if at the end were added something like: "and all other relevant considerations."
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I am quite willing to accept that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps I may be allowed to finish. I was going to say that I could not possibly agree to such an Amendment because it seems to me that it would have no effect whatever. It seems to me that it is quite obvious that the Board would have regard to all relevant considerations, and to single out one and then to add some words covering all the others, just as a matter of drafting would, I think, have no meaning at all. If you say that regard shall be had to A, and to all the other letters, you are including the whole alphabet; there is no point in singling out A as a matter of drafting. It seems to me that it would have no effect at all. But as I have been asked to do so I will gladly look at this and see whether there is anything that can be done on those lines. At the present moment I do not think that there is.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: Will the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, tell us whether it is the intention of the Government to issue regulations to the Land Board, more or less laying down the policy which they are to follow? If so, would he undertake that a provision like this will be included in their instructions?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would refer the noble Marquess to Clause 3 (1) of the Bill. This states:
"The Central Land Board shall, in the performance of their functions under this Act, comply with such directions of a general character as may be given to them by the Minister."
I should think that the Minister, if he considered it was necessary to do such an obvious thing, would certainly say that the Central Land Board must consider these and all the other factors which I have mentioned in fixing the amount of charge.
THE EARL OF PERTH: Would the noble Viscount's case be met if some such words as "among other considerations" were put into the proposed Amendment? The Lord Chancellor said that if we mention one particular point it is apt to exclude the others. I believe that to be good law, if I may say so with respect. If you put in something like "shall have relation among other considerations to the cost of …" perhaps that would meet the case.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will consider it.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I would like to ensure that there is included and remembered among other considerations the fact that houses do have to be built by certain industries and employers—particularly such industries as agriculture and forestry at the present time. That building of houses will have to be continued for many years in order to make good requirements which local authorities will not be able to make good. These houses are not built for profit but to make good a need. I hope that this is a matter which will be considered amongst any other considerations.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I am much obliged for the various suggestions which have been made by noble Lords. I am sorry that I was once more at fault in thinking that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, had accepted my point of view. In the light of the assurances that he has given I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.29 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"(4) Any person by whom an application for a determination as to whether, and if so what, development charge is to be paid in respect of any operations on or use of land shall, if required by the Central Land Board, furnish to the Central Land Board a statement setting out such particulars as the Central Land Board may require in order to assist them in the determination of the amount of the charge and any facts and contentions relevant thereto, and the Central Land Board shall, at the request of such person, furnish to him a statement setting out particulars of the grounds upon which they propose to assess a development charge, and of the grounds upon which the amount of such development charge is assessed by them, together with any facts and contentions relevant thereto."
The noble Lord said: In a way this and the succeeding Amendment hang together, and perhaps I had better address my remarks to both. The first lays down that
"any person by whom an application for a determination as to whether, and if so what, development charge is to be paid in respect of any operations on or use of land shall, if required by the Central Land Board, furnish to the Central Land Board a statement setting out such particulars as the Central Land Board may require. …"
On the other hand, by the terms of the Amendment,

827
"the Central Land Board shall, at the request of such person, furnish to him a statement setting out particulars of the grounds upon which they propose to assess a development charge, and of the grounds upon which the amount of such development charge is assessed by them, together with any facts and contentions relevant thereto."
In another place the Minister intimated that it was his desire that the Central Land Board and members of the public should deal with each other fairly and openly. He agreed that each side should put its cards on the table. The purpose of my Amendment is to give statutory effect to that. The provisions I have put down are based on paragraph 9 of the War Damage Valuation Appeals and Results Rules, 1946. They are rules which the present Government have laid down in practically similar circumstances to this. It is no good having all this paraphernalia, if I may term my Amendment that, if it does not lead to something else. My second Amendment provides that an aggrieved person may go to a tribunal. It may be said there is no such tribunal in the case of a man trying to rent a bit of land from an existing landowner and that is true, but in the future we have all to realize that there is to be a monopoly. There may be some extremely hard cases.
If my Amendment on Clause 79 is not accepted or at any rate does not find its way into the Bill, even an existing person who has put up a very large amount of machinery to get iron ore or gravel out of his land will in future have to pay a development charge on any iron ore or gravel he gets out. There he will be, with his machinery, which may have cost him hundreds or thousands of pounds and a great deal to take down and erect somewhere else. He is the only person who can usefully use these minerals. At the same time it is known by the Central Land Board that this man cannot move his works. That man before he put up his machinery was fully secure because he had, in nearly every case, a long lease. These leases now are all going into the melting pot and he does not know what he may have to pay in future.
The second kind of case is where the owner of a factory has bought an adjacent piece of ground on which he has always intended to put up an extension. Here also the Central Land Board can easily get out of a man more than they ought because he wants to remain there.
828
If he goes anywhere else, he will have to provide additional offices or canteens or other facilities, so the contiguous site has all the greater value to him. When he bought that piece of ground for an extension very likely he erected his own factory and paid the full development rights when he bought it. Now he will be able to claim some part of this £300,000,000 but in future any sort of development charge may be levied on him and levied without any sort of appeal.
The more I listen to these debates, the more I come to the conclusion that this is not a Planning Bill but a Bill which is largely backed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bolster up his revenue. When we discussed yesterday the Amendment providing that the Central Land Board could use its own freehold land for its own building, Lord Henderson said there will be no need for this; it will be a Government Department and the Ministry of Works will provide the building. He is quite right. This in fact is going to be another Department working under the Treasury, exactly in the same way as the Board of Inland Revenue to-day. So far as I can see the two things are completely similar, the one assessing development charge and the other assessing Income Tax. For years and years anyone aggrieved at the assessment put on him by the Inland Revenue has been allowed to appeal to the Special Commissioners. In future, if one is aggrieved with the decision of the Central Land Board he should have a similar tribunal to which he can appeal. I hope that principle will be accepted.
I am not sure that in my Amendment I have adopted the right tribunal. I am being frank, as I usually am with the House. But I think I have adopted one which has the merit of being set up by the present Government, and this is some advantage when putting a case. It was set up largely by the noble and learned Viscount opposite and I am told it is doing extremely satisfactory work. I think he selected, as one would have expected him to do, a very able tribunal and it is dealing with exactly the same class of cases, assessment for compensation for war damage. I am throwing bouquets to the noble and learned Viscount for his tribunal and that is the one I have put in my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 12, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Llewellin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Here we come right up against a real collision of principle. The view I commend to your Lordships is that the Central Land Board—I have used the analogy often before—is like a large landlord who has something to sell, and they have not infrequently to arrive at the price they are going to charge for what they have to sell, the right to develop, by the process commonly known as the higgling of the market. It is quite different and quite fallacious to compare this case with a case of Income Tax payment, where you have statutory rules which lay down that if you have received a certain amount of income, you have got to pay a certain amount of tax. It is quite fallacious to compare it with the war damage, where equally it is laid down that you receive certain rates of payment, depending on the amount of damage you have sustained, and there is involved an ascertainment of the damage. This, to my mind, is wholly and fundamentally different. This is a question of the ordinary negotiations between a willing buyer and a willing seller, the seller concerned to get as much as he can, just as a landlord is, not completely disregarding other factors. He wants to get desirable tenants, and all that sort of thing, but he does not want to exploit the situation. It is the case of the ordinary good landlord, which is what I want the Central Land Board to be. In those circumstances, it is quite impossible for me to accept any scheme of arbitration.
Having said that, I make this qualification. I want the noble Lord's very careful attention to this, because I am now telling him as far as I can go. It may be no good to him, but it may be some good. Where a man has a factory with some vacant land alongside it, and he wants to utilize part of that vacant land to develop his factory in a way which is really essential for the continuance of his business, it may be said that the Central Land Board are in a position where they can literally blackmail that man, because there is no other potential user of that land. The man has to go and say: "Please may I use this vacant piece of land for building a new wing to my factory? What will the development charge be?" He may be in such a position that he will have to pay almost anything.
830
Plainly, that would be wrong. In cases of that nature, where there is substantially only one applicant for the land, I am prepared to concede that there may be an appeal to the Minister. I am not suggesting a tribunal, but an appeal to the Minister.
I will tell your Lordships at once why I do not suggest a tribunal. If you have any question as to the ascertainment of facts, then I believe a judicial tribunal is the finest tribunal you could have in the world. But if you have got to ascertain something which is not regulated or canalized by definite rules of that sort, then the more the Judges are kept away from it, the better I like it. If you have got some decision which, for instance, borders on politics—politics in the best sense of the word; politics about the desirability of developing this area at the expense of that—those do not seem to be questions upon which we ought to ask the Judges to embark. They are not in such a good position to embark upon questions of that nature as a Minister, who has available to him all the trends which, unfortunately, we do have to consider. That is why I am not willing to have any arbitration at all in the present case. I am, however, willing to grant an appeal to the Minister, if the noble Lord is willing to accept that solution, broadly speaking—I am not able to define it with precision at the moment—in those cases where by reason of the circumstances there is only one potential person who can own the land.
The noble Lord has conveniently talked of the two Amendments as if they were one. Turning to the first Amendment, which is the one now actually under consideration, the first part provides that the Central Land Board may request that they shall be furnished with a statement setting out particulars such "as the Central Land Board may require in order to assist them in the determination of the amount of the charge and any facts and contentions relevant thereto." That, the noble Lord will find, is now put in the Amendment which I am proposing to move. After Clause 99 I am moving to insert a new clause, which takes the place of the present Clause 72. Embedded in that clause the noble Lord will find that the Central Land Board have that right to demand such facts and particulars as they want to enable them to assess the charge.

831
When we come to the latter part of the noble Lord's Amendment, I think that is objectionable. That Amendment says that the Central Land Board shall furnish a statement setting out particulars of the grounds upon which they propose to assess a development charge, and the grounds upon which the amount is assessed. That seems to be quite inappropriate, where you are selling something and arriving at a figure by the "higgling" of the market. It would be very difficult to say on what grounds you assess the charge if the conversation were something like this: "We think you ought to pay something like £500." "No," says the fellow, "I think that is far too much. Make it £200." Then the landlords say: "Tell you what, we will make it £350." That is rather a caricature of the thing, but if it is anything on those lines, it would be quite inappropriate thereafter to say: "On what grounds did you arrive at 350?" I object to arbitration, and I object to having to state the grounds, for the sole and simple reason that it makes the whole proceedings much too rigid, and prevents that sort of give and take, and meeting half way, which is the essence, I understand, of the dealings of a good landowner. I am certainly not one myself, but I understand that is what they do, generally through their agents. That is as far as I can go.
I am not prepared to accept the Amendment we are discussing, because the first part is already in the Bill, and the last part seems to me to be wrong. I am not prepared to accept the Amendment which follows it, although I am grateful that the noble Lord has paid his tribute to the way in which the particular tribunals are working. I am quite satisfied that what he says is true. They are doing their work very well, but their work, after all, has nothing to do with selling. I do not think that tribunal, or another tribunal, could possibly cope with the situation. I do not think they should be asked to, when what is being considered is: "How much will you pay me for something I have to sell?" I do not think that is a matter for a legal tribunal at all. Therefore, I am not prepared to accept any form of tribunal, except in those limited cases which I have indicated, where a man is really in a position where if he does not develop no one else can, and where it may
832
be vital to him that he should have the right to develop. In cases of that sort, I think there should be the right of appeal to the Minister from the decision of the Central Land Board, and the Minister, of course, is exposed to control by all those Parliamentary sanctions which do operate upon Ministers. I have dealt with the two Amendments as though they were one, which is what the noble Lord did, and I hope I have been able to show your Lordships exactly where the Government stand.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The noble and learned Viscount has on one or two occasions now referred to the position of the Central Land Board as being analogous to that of a good landlord. I must confess that I have some difficulty in understanding that analogy, in that at no time do the Central Land Board ever hold the freehold of land. They have one function which is that of dealing in land. It seems to me that the instincts of a good dealer are not always the same as those of a good owner. One of the things that my noble friends are afraid of is that these deals will be conducted for the benefit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather than for the benefit of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. Regulations may, of course, help to put that right, but I really think they will have to be very remarkable regulations.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: The noble and learned Viscount who rose to speak on this Amendment said that we should come up against a question of principle. I agree with him on that. We are in the process of setting up a great monopoly in land development, and I would say that it does not seem to me a justifiable analogy to speak of the Central Land Board as an estate owner; it is only an estate owner in development rights.
In creating a monopoly, I should have thought we might have turned a little to precedent and seen what Parliament in its wisdom has done in the past when it has created a monopoly. Surely, these considerations were in the mind of Parliament in the days when railway companies were being floated and they provided appeals to the Railway Rates Tribunal against railway rates. There was an element of monopoly there. There was not this higgling about the market, about the maximum amount

833
which they would like to spend. There was a safeguard for the consumer, and there should be a safeguard to the consumer of land in the same way. There can hardly be a market when a monopoly is one set up. It is not a market in that way; it is an entirely different state of affairs when you have several buyers and several sellers. In this case, the Central Land Board is armed with very extensive powers. The use of land is restricted by local planning authorities and in my submission the price which will be extracted from the buyer does not represent, and in many cases will not represent, a market price. If Parliament is agreeing to set up a monopoly, it should also at the same time, in my view, see that it sets up suitable machinery to prevent the abuse of that monopoly.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: It seems to me that it would be curious if the Central Land Board, who are to determine the development charge which is to be paid to that Board, should have an exclusive right to fix the amount of the charge without appeal and, if that is a question of principle, I am glad to think that the noble Lord who sits on the Woolsack does no longer contend that the very Board who are going to get the money—it is true, for different purposes—should be the only people to have a voice in the amount which the developer has to pay if he wants to be allowed to make his development. Therefore, I think there is an overwhelming case for some form of appeal, though I agree there may be the greatest difference of opinion as to who are the best people to determine a question that arises as to the amount of the charge.
I follow quite readily that the first part of the first Amendment is no longer necessary because of the new Amendment after. Clause 99, and I think perhaps there is a strong case for an alteration of the second part of the first Amendment, because it might be too much to expect from the Central Land Board that they should give a long account of the grounds upon which the amount of the development charge was assessed, together with any facts and contentions relevant thereto. That might perhaps be amended. But, when we come to the question whether there should be an appeal or not by any person aggrieved by an assessment, I confess I think the ground for an appeal in such
834
a case is perfectly overwhelming. In a case like this, we have to consider the question not only whether the Land Board will exercise their powers in a judicial and kindly spirit. We have also to consider whether the general public, consisting of people who are seeking leave to develop a particular piece of land, are going to be fairly treated by disinterested people in fixing the charge. You cannot pretend to me that any members of the public who desire to develop will regard the Land Board as people who are disinterested in the matter. Prima jacie they are interested in getting as much as possible and, although for my part I would trust the Land Board to act perfectly fairly in the matter according to their lights, it seems to me that the Land Board must be advised as to the proper procedure. I do not know that they are going themselves to be expert valuers. They will be people who will take advice from people they employ, and they may very possibly get wrong advice. It may very likely be only reasonable that there should be somebody to check the views which they have exposed in connexion with the matter. Accordingly, I think there should be an arbitration tribunal.
Now comes a point on which, like the question of principle that I mentioned at first, I am entirely at one with the noble and learned Viscount who replies for the Government. I would strongly object to a Judge having anything to do with the appeal that the person aggrieved ought, as I think, to have. There are the strongest possible objections, and I always held them when I occupied a post of importance; I have the strongest objection to Judges, whether of the High Court or of County Courts, being roped in to determine a question of values. It is quite out of their ordinary line. Some of them have, or have had in their youth, experience of valuation. Some of them have never been concerned with a question of valuation in their lives. Moreover, it is not their function to determine a matter of that sort. I would say no more than that I entirely agree with the noble Viscount on that point. There are many other forms of tribunal that can be suggested other than the Minister.
I only object to the Minister—not, I may add, the Minister who is now the Minister within the meaning of this subsection—as a person to go on being the tribunal to whom such a question as this

835
should be submitted on the ground that he is tarred with the same brush, if I may use the ordinary cliché in that matter, as the Central Land Board themselves. He is a person whom the public will regard as there naturally to support the conclusions of the Land Board. It should be somebody who is really perfectly disinterested and independent. Accordingly, if I may venture to express my opinion on the matter, I think the right course would be to reconsider this clause. The question of whether there should be an appeal is one of vital importance, and one upon which the House is entitled to its opinion. I would add that the precise form of the tribunal is one which the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, would do well to consider and one upon which it might be possible to come to an arrangement. For these reasons I very warmly support the present Amendment, with the possible modifications that I have suggested.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I do not want to deal in detail with these two Amendments but would prefer to deal more particularly with the second, because the central core of the two Amendments, and the matter upon which there is a genuine and fundamental difference of opinion, is the question of whether there should or should not be an appeal against any suggested charge by the Central Land Board. The noble and learned Viscount has made a small concession with an appeal to the Minister in certain circumstances. If I understood him aright, the circumstances were those in which there was virtually only one applicant for a piece of land and therefore there might be an appeal against the Central Land Board to the Minister.
The noble and learned Viscount has said, on more than one occasion, that he hoped that the Central Land Board would behave like a good landlord. The cases upon which he is offering an appeal—although I am grateful for that small concession—are those two cases where there could be no appeal if the Central Land Board behave like a good landlord and not like a rapacious dealer. So it is a very small concession. With regard to appeals generally, it is true, as has been said, that the Central Land Board virtually have a monopoly, and if I understand the intentions of the Government aright it is their intention through varia-
836
tions in these charges to encourage or discourage development in this place or that. That is to say, where they want to encourage development the charge will be lower, and where they want to discourage it the charge will be higher—possibly even prohibitive. That is a very powerful weapon which, in the hands of the Central Land Board, will be subject to the general directions of the Minister.
We have seen something of that sort through the necessity there is in these days to obtain licences for any building put up. At different times I have had brought to my attention two cases—and I have no doubt there are a number of other cases—where a factory has been desired or an extension planned in order to increase the production of a particular form of agricultural machinery which was necessary and in fairly common use then, and which is in increasingly common use now. The original factory, which was quite small, was in the Eastern Counties; the authorities, through the licensing authorities, were anxious that that development should take place not in the Eastern Counties but in South Wales. The whole scheme very nearly foundered because the man who was going to produce that particular agriculture implement said, "I will produce it in the Eastern Counties or I will not produce it at all." He had a patent so that it would not have been produced had he not been allowed to expand in his own district.
In other cases you may well find that the factory owner will say, "Well, I am not going into that part of the world, not because there is not enough labour but because there is not the kind of labour that I require." General directions will not cover this kind of case: they cannot. They will be directions more of a social nature than anything else. They will not cover those cases, but the Central Land Board will be bound by them. It is in those cases more particularly that there is a genuine need for an appeal to a tribunal. I personally do not mind what kind of tribunal it is. I was rather interested to notice that both the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, had grave objections to Judges being involved in this. As a layman I have not quite the same sort of objection, because I have a considerable respect for His Majesty's Judges.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope the noble Earl does not mean that I have not respect for Judges. It is because I have such a profound respect—and I know the public have a profound respect—that I am so anxious the Judges should not find themselves in a position where they might lose that public respect.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am quite certain that the noble and learned Viscount has a respect for thorn even greater than I have, because of his greater knowledge. But so far as the constitution of the tribunal is concerned, that is a matter of detail which can be settled subsequently. I hope most sincerely that His Majesty's Government will agree to there being an appeal against undue charges or unfair charges which may affect more particularly cases such as I have mentioned. There must be many other instances where an appeal against the Central Land Board's charges is clearly necessary, because the Central Land Board will be guided by general directions and therefore will not be able to deal with the particular circumstances of the case.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The House has no doubt listened to this debate with very great interest, and I think in one respect it has been slightly different from those which have gone before. As I listened to these other debates I thought that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, if I may say so with all deference, had Shown such extraordinary skill in selling this Bill to your Lordships that he almost qualifies for the Central Land Board himself. I thought that there was evidence from his last speech that he realized that the Government refusal to grant the right of appeal to a tribunal in this particular case was something that even he could not sell, because really he said quite straight out at the beginning of his speech, "We are up against a direct principle." He did, it is true, try to persuade your Lordships that the Central Land Board were analogous to a good landlord. I am getting almost embarrassed by the fulsome praise which is being showered from the Government side of the House upon good landlords. It appears that they are to be the model upon which the Central Land Board are to operate and upon which this great tradition is to be
838
carried on. One almost wonders why they are making all these changes!
As a matter of fact. I thought it was fairly easy for noble Lords who followed the Lord Chancellor to show that there really is no true analogy between the Central Land Board and an ordinary landlord, because as we all know the ordinary landlord is open to competition. He has a commodity to sell, and if he asks too much for that commodity the buyer can always go elsewhere, and there are plenty of other places for him to go. The Central Land Board will have a monopoly, not merely in those cases which the noble and learned Viscount has mentioned, where a man wishes to extend a factory, but anywhere, because it is always open to them, if a buyer comes along, to put on exactly the same development charge for that man wherever he wants to go.
They have absolute control of his action, and that is a completely different position from that which the buyers of land have had to face in the past. Moreover, in any case, as we have explained on this side of your Lordships' House ever since the Second Reading, we frankly do not believe that the Central Land Board will always be actuated by exactly the same considerations as a landlord, because they will be the agents, not only of the Minister, but of the Chancellar of the Exchequer. He will have behind him the tax collector, anxious to extract the utmost he can. If that is not true, if I am libelling the Government, it is easy for them to prove it by agreeing to an independent tribunal. If I have been misinterpreting them, let them take that way, and reassure your Lordships and the country.
The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, said a tribunal would be inappropriate because it would not have to deal with questions of fact but of opinion. Surely that is equally true of the war damage tribunal. The question of site value is not a matter of fact but of opinion and assessment and expert knowledge; it is a question on which people can differ. That would be equally true about a cost of works payment at the present time. Surely if a tribunal were fair in the case of war damage it would be equally fair here. It is true that the noble and learned Viscount did go so far as to offer an appeal to the Minister in special cases; but that is

839
something we really cannot regard as adequate. The Minister is not the actual master in this case; he has to negotiate and discuss with his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If it were really the Minister it might be an easier matter; but we know something about this dual control. The only way to give people a sense that justice is being done is to have an appeal to an independent tribunal.
It is a great mistake, from their own point of view, for the Government to try to grab too much power in their own hands. If they want to give that confidence which has always been enjoyed by Governments in the past they must allow the independent judgment of experts to be called into play. That is all we ask for in this Amendment, and the Amendment is one we shall press to a Division.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: On the first Amendment or the second?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: On the second; the first is unimportant from this point of view.
LORD LLEWELLIN: In view of the discussion I wish to say only one or two words. I am about to withdraw the first Amendment, which is consequential on the main point of principle. In regard to that, for long centuries now this country has disliked bodies working behind closed doors. The Board are not even going to issue a statement setting out particulars of the grounds upon which they propose to assess a development charge. What you are in effect doing is to set up a tribunal which, just like the Star Chamber, will act behind closed doors, without giving any reasons for any of its decisions. That I believe to be wrong and contrary to the whole tendency of our people.
In regard to the particular tribunal, we have had a discussion in which the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, took part, saying that he did not like a tribunal of Judges for this particular matter. The tribunal for which I am asking is not a tribunal of Judges; it is a tribunal set up by the Lord Chancellor, of which only
the President has to be a barrister of seven years' or more standing. It is within the discretion of the Lord Chancellor how many of the others are barristers. They are to be appointed, in the words of the Bill, "after consultation with the President of the Chartered Surveyors' Institution. "The people whom the President of that Institution is likely to appoint are, it seems to me, the best experts on every matter of this sort. I say these things only because we were getting slightly away from my Amendment when we discussed whether it was to be composed of Judges or not.
We do lay considerable emphasis here in not having the tax-gatherer—for that is what the Central Land Board are going to be—also the assessor, also the Judge, as the final Court of Appeal. That is what the Board are, as set up in the Bill; that is what we object to, and that is why, in withdrawing my first Amendment I think I must press the second one to a Division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LLEWELLIN: The next Amendment is the one which we have already debated and on which I propose to divide the Committee.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 22, at end insert—
("(5) Any person aggrieved by any assessment or determination of the amount of a development charge may appeal to a Tribunal consisting of a member or members of the panel constituted under Part I of the Schedule to the War Damage (Valuation Appeals) Act, 1945, selected in accordance with the provisions of Part II of that Schedule, and the provisions of Part III of that Schedule shall in so far as they relate to appeals to a Tribunal have effect in relation to appeals under this Act as if for any reference to the War Damage Commission there were substituted a reference to the Central Land Board and as if for any reference to the War Damage Act, 1943, there were substituted a reference to this Act and the Lord Chancellor shall make rules for regulating, subject to the provisions of that Schedule appeals to a tribunal under this Act.").—(Lord Llewellin.)
On Question, Whether the said subsection shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 22.

CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Abingdon, E.

Drogheda, E.

Cholmondeley, M.

Craven, E.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Reading, M.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Iddesleigh, E.

Salisbury, M.

Lucan, E.

Macclesfield, E.

Addington, L.

Hatherton, L. [Teller.]

Munster, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Hawke, L.

Radnor, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Hylton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Bingley, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Brand, L.

Llewellin, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Broadbridge, L.

Lloyd, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Carrington, L.

Luke, L.

Chaplin, V.

Cherwell, L.

Mancroft, L.

Falmouth, V.

Croft, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Hailsham, V.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Lambert, V.

Denham, L.

Rea, L.

Maugham, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Rochdale, L.

Ridley, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Roche, L

Samuel, V.

Grenfell, L.

Savile, L.

Simon, V.

Greville, L.

Teynham, L.

Templewood, V.

Hampton, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Chorley, L.

Morrison, L. [Teller.]

Dukeston, L.

Mountevans, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Foley, L.

Nathan, L.

Addison, V.

Henderson, L.

Piercy, L.

Hall, V.

Holden, L.

Rusholme, L.

St. Davids, V.

Kershaw, L.

Shepherd, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Ammon, L.

Marley, L.

Walkden, L. [Teller.]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 68:
Payment and security for payment of development charges.
68.—(1) The amount of the development charge payable under this Part of this Act in respect of the carrying out of any operations or in respect of any use of land may be determined either as a single capital payment or as a series of instalments of capital, or of capital and interest combined, or as a series of other annual or periodical payments, of such amounts, and payable at such times, as the Central Land Board may determine.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved in subsection (1) to leave out "capital" where that word first occurs. The noble Earl said: This Amendment is quite a short Amendment. I think its purpose and that of the next Amendment is quite clear. It is to take the word "capital" out of the way in which charges may be assessed, without in any way preventing the Central Land Board from choosing the way in which they assess their charges, whether it be by single payments, a series of payments, or annual payments. The purpose of deleting the word "capital" is quite clear. It is to enable Income Tax to be recovered in some cases on the payments so made. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 29, leave out ("capital"). —(The Earl of Radnor.)
LORD HENDERSON: I am advised that if the charge took the form of a capital payment it would normally rank as capital outgoing on Income Tax principles and would not be deductible in computing the profits chargeable to Income Tax. If the charge took the form of other annual or periodical payments, it would depend on the facts whether they would form payments from which Income Tax would be entitled to be deducted. These are matters which really affect the Finance Bill. I do not think there is anything that I can add at this stage, except to express the hope that, in the light of the explanation I have given, the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am afraid that I did not anticipate very much help on this question from the noble Lord, though I must say that when one realizes that the Treasury are to a very considerable extent behind this Bill one is a little apprehensive that, perhaps, all payments may be levied in the form of capital payments rather than income payments. In view of that fact that this is a matter rather more for the Finance Bill than for this Bill perhaps the noble Lord would draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the point and see whether he can do anything. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved, after the last "may" in subsection (1), to insert "at the request of the applicant." The noble Lord said: I think this Amendment is quite simple. Its purpose is merely to allow the applicant the choice of which method of payment is adopted. I do not think anybody would dispute that he should have that choice. To some extent, but I am advised not completely the point is covered by the provisions of subsection (2) of this clause. But I do not think it is completely covered because, under the proviso, the applicant may
"discharge any outstanding liability for sums payable by virtue of the determination by the payment of such amount as may be determined by the Board to represent the value of those sums subject to such discount as they consider appropriate."
This means, surely, not that the applicant can pay off the outstanding balance of the development charge, but that he can pay back the outstanding sums, that is the balance of the development charge plus interest thereon but that the Board can accept a smaller amount than this because they will be receiving the payments at an earlier date and, therefore, it is only fair that the amount of the interest which will be payable over the whole period of the instalments should be discounted. But supposing the Board decided that this sum should be paid in ten equal instalments of capital and interest? The applicant then decides that he wishes to pay off the sum outstanding. What would, in fact, be the sum outstanding? It would be the remaining instalments which had been decided by the Board comprising both capital and interest. I agree that the Board can make deductions. But I think that it must be ensured that the man has the right to choose the method of payment, as it seems possible that the man might be called upon to pay a sum in addition to the development charge. Even if he wanted to pay it straight away, the Board might decide that it should be paid in instalments. He might want to pay it straight away, and he might be saddled with the payment of an extra sum, which would obviously be unfair. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 33, after ("may") insert ("at the request of the applicant").—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
LORD HENDERSON: The Amendment as I understand it means that the method of payment of the development charge is to be decided by the applicant himself in every case. This would be inconsistent with the obligation placed upon the Central Land Board to collect development charge revenue for the State. As drafted, the clause leaves it to the Board to decide what is the best method of collection after taking into account not only the interests of the State but also the method most appropriate to the development carried out and also to the convenience of the applicant. I can assure the noble Lord that the Board will have regard to the wishes of the applicant in these matters, but it would be most undesirable to place on the Board a statutory obligation to comply with them in every case.
For example, as the Amendment stands, it would be left to the applicant to apply for periodical payments of whatever amounts he chose, payable at whatever times he cared to select—no matter how far in the future—and the Board would have to determine accordingly. This clearly cannot be admitted. Indeed I do not think that that is what the noble Lord has in mind. As he has rightly said, the point is partly met by subsection (2) of Clause 68, so I think that I should be right in saying that taking the case which he refers to—the case of ten instalments—the ten instalments would be arranged in lieu of a capital payment. If at some stage, the developer wanted to pay up at once the remaining instalments, they would be looked at by the Land Board in order to reduce whatever amount of interest had been included in the instalments, because it was an instalment payment and not a single capital payment. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I do not think that the reply is completely satisfactory. I noticed that the noble Lord when he spoke of the various reasons which might make the Land Board decide as to how the payment was to be made, mentioned the convenience of the applicant last. It was for the Central Land Board, he said, to collect development charge revenue for the State. Would it be possible for the noble Lord to try to put in something to strengthen the proviso in subsection (2) to give a little more freedom of choice to the applicant?
VISCOUNT SIMON: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two upon this. I appreciate the explanation which has been given by the noble Lord opposite, but I cannot help thinking that my noble friend Lord Amherst has really got a point which is not completely met by what the noble Lord said. Lord Henderson assures us that the Central Land Board, in determining how these payments are to be made, will have consideration for various things. I think he gave a list of those things. I do not see anything in the Bill which says that when the Central Land Board may determine, they shall have regard so far as may be to the interests or the desires of the man who is going to pay. It is very reassuring to be told that the Central Land Board will look at this thing all round, and I am not doubting the sincerity with which that is said, but there is nothing whatever—is there? —in Clause 68 (1) which says that the determination of the Central Land Board will be made after considering, let us say, the representations of the individual. As it stands, the matter is simply like this: "I decide; you may not like it but that has got nothing to do with you."
I am wondering whether, consistently with what the noble Lord has said, and in sympathy with what the noble Lord has put in moving this, it may not be possible to consider—not now perhaps but maybe when we reach the Report stage—adding some words after the word "determine." We might perhaps add some such words as: "having regard to the representations or requests made by the landowner." The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, I know, does not profess to be in these matters a lawyer, but perhaps I may be allowed to say that if you put in a phrase like "having regard to" that does not mean that you have got to follow it either 100 per cent. or at all. In fact, here, in this House, a decision has been given that when you are satisfied that real regard has been had to something or other you are in your rights in saying: "I have regarded it, and the answer is nought." That is a point which, to my knowledge, was decided here. It is not as though we were to say "according to" the request, but merely "having regard to." I cannot help thinking that my noble friend is right in saying that this does in terms say the Central Land Board decide and that is all
846
there is to it. I am sure what Lord Henderson said was not said in that spirit and I think my suggestion is on the lines of what my noble friend has said. Perhaps the Government will consider adding after "the Central Land Board may determine" such words as "having regard to representations made by the applicant."
LORD HENDERSON: I am always very glad to consider any suggestion made. I thought the matter was covered—
VISCOUNT SIMON: By the language of the Bill?
LORD HENDERSON: Yes, by the language of the Bill as it is at present. But in the event of it not being covered I am very willing to look into the suggestion made by the noble and learned Viscount.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. Perhaps my Amendment did go rather further than I originally intended, and I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.42 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
"(3) The amount of the development charge payable under this part of this Act may, at the option of the applicant, be satisfied in whole or in part by the transfer to the Central Land Board of stock issued in accordance with the provision of Section 62 of this Act of a nominal value equal to the amount of the development charge or the part thereof a the case may be."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is self-explanatory, and I cannot see that there can be any objection to it by the Government. All I am asking is that a man who has had development rights taken from him and has been compensated with Government stock under Clause 62 should, if he has to pay a development charge on another property, be allowed to use that stock with which he has been compensated, at its nominal value. If he has not received cash from the Government for his development rights, it seems to be a little unfair that the Government should demand cash from him for his development charge. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 5, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Carrington.)
LORD HENDERSON: I regret that I cannot accept this Amendment. It seeks to enable developers to pay development charges by surrendering at par any stock they receive on the distribution of the £300,000,000. There are two important issues of principle involved. The first is that charges due from citizens to the State are payable in cash. The second is that the Government cannot agree to a system which, if operated at all, must always be operated to the detriment of the Exchequer. If stock stands at a discount it will always be tendered; if at a premium, never. The market value of the stock may, of course, fluctuate after issue. There is no particular reason for making up any nominal capital loss to the holder at the expense of the State at the time when he develops his land. It would be at least logical for the State to demand payment in stock to the profit of the Exchequer if the stock stands at a premium. The citizen may withhold his stock, or may sell it, and may sell it at a high or at a low price. If he chooses to hold it until development, there is no reason for any adjustment of the financial effects to him of that choice. In the light of that explanation I am unable to accept the Amendment and I hope it will not be pressed.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Just one comment on what the noble Lord has said. He said it was a question of principle that charges on citizens should be paid in cash. The corresponding position in this Bill is that compensation paid by the State is paid in stock which may vary quite considerably.
LORD HENDERSON: May I say that the ·300,000,000 is not compensation but hardship payment. I think there is a distinction between compensation in the ordinary sense and payments for hardship.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Use whatever word you like. If it is a hardship payment surely it ought to be even more secure than compensation. I think it ought to be compensation because I have always thought the policy of all political Parties, except one or two Communists that we have, was compensation and not confiscation; but I do not mind what word we use to describe this payment. The principle seems to be that payments by individuals must be in cash, while payments for hardship can be paid in variable
848
stocks. If the Government had real confidence that the stock would remain at par, they would have no hesitation in accepting this Amendment, but as they have not that confidence and think they might have to accept some stock at below par, they oppose this Amendment. From that point of view I think they may well be wise.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I would like to support my noble friend. I confess I am rather shocked, if that is not too strong a word to use, at the point of view taken up by Lord Henderson. I do not wish to introduce extraneous matters but what seems to have escaped his attention is the extremely uncertain position in which home railway stockholders find themselves. They were promised stock, the interest rates of which are uncertain and which may or may not have a redemption date. Already the Government's promise to redeem these unhappy stockholders stands at 8 to 9 points discount, if I may so express it. If the unfortunate landowner is to be foisted off with some stock of uncertain interest and uncertain date of redemption which will stand at a discount in the opinion of the City before it is ever issued, I do not think it is unreasonable to say the noble Lord's proposal is a fair one. The position as it now stands is a most unhappy and unfortunate one, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will address his mind to it, because the depreciation, to which I have referred, is very substantial. There is no reason to think that in this Bill that depreciation will be any less, and it might be greater than in the case of home railway stocks. What will happen on January 1 when the railway compensation stock is issued I cannot tell; I can only say what common opinion is. In the light of that opinion this Amendment is far from being unreasonable.
LORD CARRINGTON: I must confess I find it all very odd. Lord Henderson really said he thought it quite probable that Government stock would depreciate in value.
LORD HENDERSON: No.
LORD CARRINGTON: He thought it possible.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON indicated dissent.
LORD CARRINGTON: Well, I thought he did say that. I should have thought

849
the Government's credit was the Government's concern and it is a little hard on an unfortunate man given the stock that he should suffer for the Government. It must also be remembered that if the man had still got his land it would not have depreciated in value as the stocks would have done. I do not wish to press this Amendment, and beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 agreed to.
6.49 p.m.
Clause 69:
Scope and effect of determinations of Central Land Board.
69.—(1) Subject as hereinafter provided, a determination of the Central Land Board under this Part of this Act in respect of any operations or use of land shall have effect in relation to the carrying out of those operations, or, as the case may be, in relation to that use of the land, by any person for the time being interested therein and the question whether any and if so what development charge is to be paid under this Part of this Act in respect of any such operations or use shall be determined accordingly:
Provided that the Board may, if they think fit, direct that any such determination as aforesaid shall cease to have effect if, before the operations to which the determination relates are carried out or completed, or, as the case may be, before the use to which it relates is instituted, any interest in the land is transferred or created (otherwise than by operation of law), unless the determination is confirmed by the Board with or without modifications, on a subsequent application made to them in that behalf.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to leave out the proviso in subsection (1). The noble Earl said: This Amendment is one which has a certain amount of substance, although it is not easy to explain. Under the first subsection of Clause 69 if, before the works for which permission had been given had either been begun or before they have been completed, the land on which they are being carried out is sold, a fresh application has to be made in respect of development, except in those cases where the land has changed hands by the operation of the law, which I understand to mean by a testamentary disposition—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Or bankruptcy.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: That means to say that in the event of land on which works are proposed, or have been begun, that land, if it is sold for any other
850
reason, is sold with the burden upon it of having to make a fresh application for an assessment of the development charge. It will be a deterrent to a prospective purchaser that that should be so, and there will be many cases where, for one reason or another, the owner of the land will have to sell before he has completed the work. I can quite imagine that the idea is to prevent a certain amount of speculation but there will be a lot of genuine cases where a man, for one reason or another, possibly to avoid a bankruptcy, may have to sell.
It will be very hard on him that he should have to sell his land with the burden of having to apply for a fresh assessment of the development charge, which might well go up, because we have to remember that nobody knows what the development charge is going to be until the Central Land Board have assessed it. When a man has got his assessment, he knows what it is, and if he has to sell the land in the meanwhile, for some reason or other, he will be able to sell it to somebody and will be in a position to tell that person what the development charge is; whereas, as it stands at the moment, he will not be able to do so. I should very much like to know what the Government view is on that particular aspect of this rather difficult and important point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 40, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 3 on page 79.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
LORD HENDERSON: The noble Earl has put his finger right on the purpose of the provision. It is there to prevent speculation in development rights. That is the real object we have in mind. On occasions a development charge may be fixed on the low side, for special reasons. Where this is done, the developer, if he is left free to dispose of the land with an irrevocable determination attached, could get a proportionately higher price than an ordinary seller could expect. In effect, he will be able to sell the right to develop at a price higher than that fixed by the State, whereas the principle on which the Bill is based is that State has a monopoly of development values and the price is fixed by reference to the public interest.
I would only add—and I think this is important—that the power of the Central Land Board to rescind a determination is

851
discretionary, and there is no reason to expect them to use it in an unreasonable manner. In the case the noble Earl mentioned, where there is a genuine sale of the land and a new determination has to be made, I think he can take it that it would be part of what I might call the routine of the Board to renew that determination without any change, because the only change in the circumstances would be a change of owner, and that change would be due to some very proper motive, and not to any intention of selling in order to exploit the lower development charge that might have been fixed, or of putting the land in the hands of a speculator. I think that case would be adequately safeguarded and, in the circumstances, I hope the noble Earl will not press the Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. It does not, of course, really get over the difficulty that I see, which is that a man who has to sell for some very good reason still has to sell subject to a possible increase in the development charge. I do not think the renewed assessment of the development charge can take place until the sale is completed, and the new owner has a sufficient interest in the land to be able to go to the Central Land Board and ask for the development charge to be assessed. There is that difficulty about it. There is one other point that I want to make before I withdraw the Amendment. It is one that has struck me more than once throughout the discussions on this Bill. It is that the unfortunate law-abiding citizen is going to be somewhat bewildered and regimented in order that the few who are not so law-abiding may be roped into the Treasury net. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 69 agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended at two minutes before seven o'clock and resumed at half past eight.]
Clause 70:
Variation of determinations and repayment of development charges in certain cases.
70.—(1) The Central Land Board may at any time, on application made to them in that behalf in accordance with regulations under this Act by the person entitled to an interest
852
in land to which a determination under this Part of this Act relates, vary their determination in such manner as appears to them to be appropriate having regard to any change of circumstances since the determination was made, and may amend, discharge or release any covenants or charges made or given in respect of the determination, or repay any sums previously paid thereunder, so far as may be required in order to give effect to the variation:
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON moved in subsection (1) after "made" where that word occurs a second time to insert "or if for any other reason the development in respect of which the determination was made is not carried out." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to provide that if, for any other reason, the development in respect of which the determination is made is not carried out, there shall be a repayment of the development charge. Although in Clause 70 the Board has power to remit development charges for certain purposes, it is not clear to my mind whether the payer of the development charge can withdraw from carrying out the development and, at the same time, be refunded the development charge. I think it is an important point, because there may be a variety of reasons why a developer should cease or give up his project and therefore if, for certain reasons—and of course there may be a very great number of reasons—he determines not to carry out the development, then this Amendment provides that the development charge should be repaid to him. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, line 37, after ("made") insert ("or if for any other reason the development in respect of which the determination was made is not carried out.")—(Lord Hylton.)
LORD HENDERSON: I think the Amendment is unnecessary since it is already covered by the wording of the clause which provides that the Board shall exercise their power having regard to any change of circumstances since the determination was made. In fact the change which was chiefly in mind when these words were included was the change in the circumstances of the applicant which made it no longer possible for him to carry out the development. But since it may sometimes be necessary to vary the determination for other reasons, the clause has been drawn in terms wide enough to cover any change of circumstances.
LORD HYLTON: I thank the noble Lord for his explanation, and so long as the developer is covered by the words "to any change of circumstances" and these circumstances apply to the developer, I shall be very glad to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to omit subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) and insert:
"(2) Where, after the amount of the development charge has been determined under this Part of this Act in respect of any operations or in respect of any use of land, and before the amount so determined has been fully discharged—

(a) planning permission for the carrying out of those operations or for the institution or continuance of that use is revoked by an order made under Section twenty of this Act; or

(b) an order is made under Section twenty-four of this Act requiring the removal of any buildings or works erected or constructed in carrying out those operations, or requiring the discontinuance of that use; or

(c) the whole of the land to which the determination relates is compulsorily acquired under this or any other Act,

the determination, and any covenants or charges made or given in respect thereof, shall thereupon cease to have effect, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
(3) Where, after the amount of the development charge has been determined as aforesaid, and before the amount so determined has been fully discharged,—

(a) planning permission for the carrying out of the operations, or for the institution or continuance of the use, to which the determination relates, is modified by an order made under the said Section twenty; or

(b) an order is made under the said Section twenty-four requiring the alteration of any buildings or works erected or constructed in the carrying out of those operations, or imposing conditions of the continuance of that use; or

(c) any part of the land to which the determination relates is compulsorily acquired under this or any other Act,

the Board shall, on application made to them in accordance with regulations under this Act, vary the determination and amend, discharge or release any covenants or charges made or given in respect thereof, so far as may be just in consequence of the modification, order or purchase, as the case may be.
(4) Where compensation is payable under Part III of this Act in consequence of any such order as mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (2) or subsection (3) of this section, then in calculating for the purposes of the compensation any depreciation in the value of the land to which the order relates, or any other loss or damage sustained by a person interested in that land,
854
regard shall be had to the foregoing provisions of this section and to anything done by the Board thereunder.
(5) Where compensation is payable under the said Part III in consequence of any such order as aforesaid, or where land is compulsorily acquired as mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (2) or subsection (3) of this section, then if any sums have been paid to the Central Land Board by way of development charge in accordance with the determination referred to in those subsections, the Board may pay to the authority or person by whom compensation is payable in consequence of the order or, as the case may be, in respect of the compulsory acquisition, a contribution towards that compensation not exceeding the sums so paid by way of development charge.
(6) Subsection (3) of Section twenty-one of this Act shall apply for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section, and shall accordingly have effect as if the reference therein to the foregoing provisions of that section included a reference to the foregoing provisions of this section; and any reference in this section to the compulsory acquisition of land shall be construed as including a reference to the acquisition of land by agreement by any authority or person who has power or can be authorised to acquire it compulsorily."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This looks a very formidable Amendment but, as a matter of fact, the wolf is dressed in sheep's clothing—or the reverse; I am not quite sure which. It really is not formidable at all. Indeed it is mainly drafting. I will indicate to your Lordships the real points in the Amendment, which are as follows. Subsections (2) and (4) of the clause as it now stands, apart from the Amendment, deal with a case where after a development charge has been determined in respect of any development, either planning permission for that development is revoked or modified under Clause 20 of the Bill or steps are taken under Clause 24 for the removal of the development in question. The effect of these provisions is, in substance, this, that in so far as any of the development charge still remains to be paid, it is automatically cancelled and, in so far as the development charge already has been paid, the Central Land Board contribute towards the compensation which is payable under Part III by the local authority in respect of the action which is taken by them.
So much for the clause as it stands. The clause as revised extends the same principle to another case: that is to say, the case where land is compulsorily acquired. Any future payments in respect

855
of development charge are therefore cancelled in this case also, and the Central Land Board are authorized to contribute towards the compensation payable on the compulsory purchase in so far as that compensation in effect represents a development charge already paid. Therefore, to put it in simple English, it means in so far as subsections (2) and (4) are concerned, we are extending the provisions of the clause relating to the Board to another case—namely, the compulsory acquisition of land.
So far as subsection (3) of Clause 70 as it stands is concerned, it provides expressly that on the revocation of planning permission the owner can recover anything which is previously claimed by way of development charge as abortive expenditure under Clause 21. This proviso is no longer required, because Clause 21, as amended by us, now gives the owner the right to compensation for depreciation in the value of his land where he has paid the development charge in respect of a planning permission which is subsequently revoked. Your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin's, Amendment to our Amendment in Clause 21 was withdrawn, subject to the noble Lord being satisfied that the point was covered by the Government Amendment. This is dealt with under this new clause and I accordingly beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 on page 81 and insert the said new subsections.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I thought that my noble friend Lord Addington, who has Amendments down to the original clause but which equally fit into this, was going to take this opportunity of moving them.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in subsection (5), to leave out "may" where that word first occurs, and insert "shall." The noble Lord said: I was not certain whether the noble and learned Viscount wanted to refer to the whole clause before I asked leave to move this Amendment. Page 80 having been deleted, my Amendments can now refer to the clause as now moved. Therefore the word "may" referred to in my Amendment will now be the word
856
"may" in the seventh line of subsection (5), for which I want to insert "shall." In the last line but one I shall move another Amendment to leave out after "compensation" and add "a sum equal to the amount of such compensation."
The point of this is that where permission has been revoked the local planning authority must pay compensation under Clause 21, as now amended, which will include any sum paid by the person to whom permission was given by way of development charge. The local planning authority, therefore, has to pay out the same amount as the Central Land Board have received by way of development charge. The original clause and the Amendment now moved by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, merely state that the Central Land Board may refund a contribution to the local planning authority which may be less than the amount they have had to pay out. I think this is a little stronger case than the previous one, but it does seem reasonable and fair to provide under this clause that it is the Board who shall make the payment, and that the payment they shall make shall be the full amount the local authority has had to pay out. I hope I have made that clear. It is a little difficult owing to it being an Amendment to an Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
In the proposed new subsection (5), line 7, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").(Lord Addington.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I confess that we are in a slight muddle about this, but so far as the first Amendment is concerned I think I had better accept it on the principle which I apply; if in doubt, always accept Amendments. But having applied that principle once I cannot be asked to apply it twice. What I will do about the second Amendment is to look into it, and I will let the noble Lord know, in due course, whether I accept it or not. I am a little hopeful that I may be able to do what he wants, but I do not promise. The position is that I understand that the Scottish Office are putting down Amendments to the comparable Scottish Bill which will probably be on the lines that the noble Lord wants; and in order to avoid an injustice to England I will see that we correspond with the Scottish

857
position. Therefore, whilst I make no promise about the second Amendment, I will accept the first, and with that, having got a deal, the noble Lord must rest content!
LORD ADDINGTON: I am very grateful to the Lord Chancellor.
LORD LLEWELLIN: We are indebted to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, for accepting this Amendment. I think that the word "may" may have crept in in error. The word probably appropriate in the case of the Board is "shall." In regard to the second Amendment, I hope the Lord Chancellor will be able to accept that too, because these local planning authorities incurred this expense only on the orders of some higher authority who ought, in justice, to pay them. That perhaps has appeared more quickly in the Scottish Bill than in the English. At any rate, we are indebted to the noble and learned Viscount for his partial promise as to the Second Amendment. In regard to the Lord Chancellor's Amendment we have no objection to it on this side. I think it does cover the point I wished it to cover when. I was discussing my previous Amendment to one of the Lord Chancellor's Amendments.
Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 71 agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out Clause 72. The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is preliminary to a new clause to be inserted after Clause 99. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 72.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I have had a communication recently—I have not had time to give warning to the Lord Chancellor—from the docks and harbour authorities who are rather exercised in their minds as to the effect of this Bill upon docks and harbour undertakings. There are a number of cases to which my attention has been drawn; and some of them, from my own knowledge are developed areas adjacent to docks and areas. In such cases the development
858
value is undoubtedly due solely and entirely to the presence of the docks or harbours—and, more particularly, to the enterprise of the docks and harbour board concerned in making that land suitable for development. And that development is likely to be quite a long-term business.
There is a certain development of which I know, which does not strictly come within this because it is a railway undertaking—the Southampton Docks—where there is a matter of 400 acres reclaimed front the sea at the expense of the railway company. That area is now available for development for industrial purposes. I am not taking that as an actual case which is concerned in this Bill, but it is that type of point that is concerned. I think the docks and harbour people feel that they may well not come within the terms of ripe land, and yet they feel that their enterprise which they have undertaken is solely the reason for the value which attaches to this land. And they are somewhat exercised in their minds, not over Clause 72 but over the whole Part of this Bill; that is to say, development charges. I do not know whether the noble Lord is in a position to give any reply to this but, if not, I might perhaps take the opportunity of raising it more clearly on the next stage.
LORD HENDERSON: I think it would be better if the noble Earl would defer the matter to the next stage. I am not in a position to give an answer off the bat to that point, upon which I have not had previous notice.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I see an Amendment by the Lord Chancellor to omit this clause. If it is to stand, I should have thought the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Addington was a very suitable one. Do I understand that the Government will vote against this clause standing part of the Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is so.
Clause 73:
Exiting development contravening previous planning control.
(2) Where any such works as aforesaid were carried out or any such use as aforesaid was begun, during the war period as defined by the Buildings Restrictions (War-Time Contraventions) Act, 1946, then—
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to add at the end of subsection (2):
"(c) Where the works were carried out or the use begun either by or on behalf of the Crown or of a local authority and the compensation payable in respect thereof, or the claim for such compensation was assessed or considered without regard to any requirement that the land would be required to be restored to its condition before such works were carried out, or that further works would be required to be carried out in order that the works would conform with planning provisions, any person who carries out works in compliance with an enforcement notice in respect thereto shall be entitled, on a claim made to the local planning authority within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations under this Act, to recover from the local authority compensation in respect of any expenses reasonably incurred by him on that behalf."
The noble Earl said: This again is rather a difficult point of detail. There are a number of cases in this country where buildings have been erected during the war by various public bodies—they may have been Government bodies in their various forms or even a local authority—and which remain in situ and have been taken over by the owner of the land on which those buildings stand. But those buildings are contrary to planning permission, and the man who owns the land may be compelled by the planning authority to remove them. I seek to ensure in this Amendment that any loss incurred through such an order for removal will be reimbursed to the owner of the land. I think the Amendment says what I want it to say, but it is somewhat involved, and I would not be quite sure. It is rather a difficult problem, but probably the noble and learned Viscount knows the point at which I am driving and understands it. There are, or will be, cases where buildings have been erected during the war, and which are contrary to planning permission, which the planning authority wishes removed. The removal will involve the owner of the land in expenditure, and it is an expenditure which ought to be reimbursed to him. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 4, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is a rash assumption that I understand the point of all these Amendments; however, I believe in this case I do, and I will explain in a few moments what I think is the point the noble Lord has in mind. If my description is right, it is a point
860
that I ought to try and meet, and, though I am not satisfied with his wording, I will, if I state the point rightly, undertake to try to concoct a clause for the Report stage. I think his point is this. It frequently happens that a piece of land—usually a piece of land of rather low value—has been requisitioned by a Government Department, and there has been placed upon that land a building which was not removed when the land was handed back to the owner. No doubt, the owner has received the appropriate compensation under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, and has been content for his part to let the work remain where it is.
Now suppose that at a later stage the planning authority come along and require the building to be removed. What the noble Earl wants to secure is that the owner, who has thrown upon him the obligation to remove this offending work, should be entitled to recover, over and above any compensation which he may have received, the expense to which he is put in so doing. Probably some of these works can be dealt with in other ways. If they are temporary defence works they can be removed probably by the Ministry of Works, if it is in the public interest that they should be. But I feel that there may be a residuum of cases which cannot be so dealt with, and it is to meet those cases that, I understand, the noble Earl has put down this Amendment. I shall have to consider very carefully the wording of the Amendment which I propose to move in the light of the existing legislation. The noble Earl's wording, quite frankly, will not do, if only because it makes no provision for the deduction from the "expenses reasonably incurred" of any compensation which may already have been paid in respect of the diminution in the value of the land by reason of the continued presence of the offending work or building. So I cannot accept his wording. But if he is content to withdraw his Amendment and leave it to me to do what I can between now and the Report stage to find a proper form of words, I am willing to meet him.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. I indicated I was not too satisfied with the wording of my Amendment. It is a rather involved question. I would like to ask for enlightenment on one point.

861
There may be such things as concrete roads—a great many were made in remote places—and it may be that these are required to be removed in order to avoid unnecessary access by motor cars, and so on. I do not know whether that kind of thing could be included in any Amendment which the noble and learned Viscount may propose?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope and believe that such a thing might be included. I remember addressing your Lordships a year or so ago on the question of the removal of concrete runways on aerodromes. I pointed out that the cost involved was prohibitive, and I said that I hoped that the authorities would have the good sense not to require removal. But if it should be that a man is placed in the position of having to incur the expense of removing them, I am inclined to think, speaking off-hand, that that ought also to be provided for. At any rate, I will consider it.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I again thank the noble and learned Viscount, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 73 agreed to.
Clauses 74 and 75 agreed to.
8.55 p.m.
Clause 76 [Unfinished Buildings]:
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "those works, so far as carried out before that day, were carried out" and insert "immediately before that day those works could have been completed." The noble Lord said: This is really one of a number of drafting Amendments which I hope the Committee will agree to consider together. The other related Amendments are at page 88, lines 22, 24, 29 and 31. As the Committee are aware, this clause deals with the position of buildings which are already in process of erection, and provided that they fall within the limits of a plan, the erection is allowed to go on without any further consent being necessary. This is one of the concessional parts of the scheme. As the Bill is at present drafted, there are certain weaknesses. Although it envisages that there should have been a planning consent it does not consider planning under the Ribbon Development Act, 1935, which clearly
862
ought to be brought in. Therefore these next Amendments have been tabled to get over that difficulty by framing a rather more suitable form of words. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 88, line 21, leave out from beginning to ("in") in line 22 and insert ("immediately before that day those works could have been completed").—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: As I understand it, this Amendment widens the clause to include work to be done under the Ribbon Development Act and certainly we have no objection on this side of the House.
Amendments moved—
Page 88, line 22 at end insert ("or of permission granted thereunder")
Page 88, line 24, after ("order") insert ("and if any permission required under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, for the carrying out of those works was granted ")
Page 88, line 29, after ("thereto") insert ("by or")
Page 88, line 31, after ("be") insert ("and to any conditions imposed by the permission granted under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935").—(Lord Chorley.)
Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after Clause 76, to insert the following new clause:
Road and oilier works.
".—(1) Where any works for the making or laying out of roads or the laying of sewers and drains in connection therewith have been begun or carried out before the appointed day, then if those works were carried out in conformity with the provisions of a planning scheme, or in accordance with permission granted by or under an interim development order, planning permission shall, by virtue of this section, be deemed do be granted under Part III of this Act in respect of the completion of those works.
(2) For the purpose of calculating the restricted and the unrestricted value of any interest in that land the works referred to in the preceding subsection shall be deemed to have been completed immediately before the seventh day of January nineteen hundred and forty-seven, and no development charge shall be payable under Part VI of this Act in respect of those works."
The noble Lord said: This is much on the same lines as the Amendments which the noble Lord has just moved. My Amendment is to continue roads for which permission has been granted and where the work has been begun.
Under Clause 76, where works for the erection or alteration of a building, begun but not completed before the appointed day, have been carried out in conformity with the provisions or a planning scheme or in accordance with planning permission, the permission is deemed to have been granted under the Bill. No compensation then will be received nor will any development charge be payable. I am suggesting that the same situation arises where estate developers have laid out roads on an estate, with a view to selling off the land on either side to persons building for their own occupation or for sale. This type of development is quite common and has proved of great assistance to builders who have not had the necessary capital to sink in the building of roads and laying down of sewers. It is far better to have these roads developed than have houses springing up, as we have often seen in country towns, with unmade roads between the houses which later have to be paved and sewered by the local authority and taken over under the Private Street Works Act.
The question of development charge in cases of this sort is one of difficulty, because one of the most expensive parts of development is the laying down of roads and sewers and a considerable amount of capital normally laid out in that is recouped by the person developing the road by selling adjoining land which has increased in value because of the road works. One of the bases of this Bill is that the landowner, when he is fortunate in having a public authority make a road through his land, shall not be able to recoup the whole of the development value. In this case the value has been created by the man who has made the road.
My Amendment merely says this:
"Where any works for the making or laying out of roads or the laying of sewers and drains in connection therewith have been begun or carried out before the appointed day,"—
that excludes anything afterwards—
"then if those works were carried out in conformity with the provisions of a planning scheme, or in accordance with permission granted by or under an interim development order, planning permission shall, by virtue of this section, be deemed to be granted under Part III of this Act in respect of the completion of those works."
The Amendment then goes on:
"For the purpose of calculating the restricted and the unrestricted value of any
864
interest in that land the works referred to in the preceding subsection shall be deemed to have been completed immediately before the seventh day of January …"
So that it has the same effect as with the building works and other works referred to in Clause 76. I do not see a great distinction between building work and the making of roads and sewers to service the buildings. I think these people, when their works have been begun before the appointed day, and when they have the planning permission for them, ought to be allowed to go on and complete those works without being charged any development charge on them. Otherwise I think we shall be hampering developments which have been very valuable to the building of houses up and down this country. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 76, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD CHORLEY: With all due deference to the noble Lord, I do not think the problem raised by this Amendment is quite so simple as the problem of the uncompleted house. I think there is no doubt that there is a case here in relation to these uncompleted roads and sewers. It is an exceedingly difficult problem, and perhaps one of the most difficult of the transitional problems involved, at any rate in this particular Part of the Bill. I would submit to your Lordships that it is more satisfactorily dealt with by means of regulations. The Minister intends to cover it by a set of regulations, or an appropriate regulation, in the first general development order, which will be issued, of course, shortly after the Bill becomes law. On the other hand, a great deal of thought has been given to this problem, and it has been elucidated to some extent, if I may say so, by the remarks of the noble Lord in moving his Amendment. We are very anxious, if possible, to meet this difficulty, and if in the light of what the noble Lord has said, and on further consideration, we are able to find between now and the Report stage a form of words which can meet the difficulty, without, of course, going too far, we shall be pleased to do so.
I do not know that it is necessary at this stage to go into some of the obvious difficulties between a case of a building in process of erection, and where just a part

865
of a road has been laid down, or a sewer commenced. Obviously there is all the difference in the world between completing the building and carrying sewers and roads over a substantial area of land. I think the noble Lord will see that there is considerable difficulty. It may be almost impossible to deal with that difficulty in an Act of Parliament, whereas it may be possible to deal with it by regulations. Perhaps the noble Lord will accept my assurance that we will do our best to deal with this in the Bill itself, and any assistance which he can give us in so doing we shall be glad to have. If, on that assurance, he will withdraw his Amendment, I shall be obliged.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I say this? I hope it will be possible to frame a proper clause and insert it in the Bill. I have several times stated the very great objections which there are to leaving a matter of importance like this to be dealt with by regulations, because of the different results which follow. There are certain difficulties, I agree, but I cannot help thinking that with the ingenuity which has been displayed by the people concerned in drafting this Bill it should be possible to put in a clause which will substantially carry out the designs of this Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord opposite for the way he has replied to my Amendment. I think we both agree, at any rate, that here is a problem to meet, if we can meet it. I am not asking that people who are making roads and have started to make them should be allowed to continue them, in one way to Land's End and in the other way to John o' Groats, or anything like that. It would, of course be only a continuation for which planning permission has been granted, and on which this whole thing is based; in the normal way, only another couple of small streets on a small estate. I think the Amendment can limit it in that way as you can limit the building of a particular house. I do not want it to go one whit beyond the planning permission which has been granted, and that is the limit in every case. I feel that there is a problem to be met here because the unfinished house and the unfinished road fall roughly into the same category. I am much obliged to the noble Lord and I will certainly consult with him or with anybody else to see if we can do anything
866
to meet this on the Report stage. On that assurance, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD BRAND: May I point out that there is under my name, and under the name of my noble and learned friend Viscount Simon, an Amendment on the next page, Page 90, line 35, the object of which I think is the same as that of the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Llewellin:—namely, to insert:
"that roads or sewers had been constructed or were in course of construction at the expense of the owner before, the appointed day."
We proposed to put it in the clause dealing with land ripe for development. Our object was to extend that clause—we thought it was extremely narrow—by including land developed in this way. If our object is met by Lord Llewellin's Amendment, I could, when the other Amendment comes to be moved, ask leave to withdraw it, but I am not absolutely sure about the matter. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount can tell me whether it is covered by Lord Llewellin's Amendment or whether it is best left for the later clause to which I have referred.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is certainly better left because it deals with a wholly different topic. Lord Llewellin's Amendment deals with the planning permission; the noble Lord's Amendment deals with an explanation of dead ripe land. Nothing that my noble friend Lord Chorley has said about his willingness to look into Lord Llewellin's point must be taken as any concession to the noble Lord because, if and when he does move his Amendment, it will regretfully be my duty, to the best of my ability, to oppose it.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I was in the course of asking leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 77 agreed to.
Clause 78:
Land ripe for development before the appointed day.
78.—(1) Where planning permission is granted under Part III of this Act in respect of any development consisting of the erection, extension or alteration of buildings, or is deemed by virtue of Section seventy-six of this Act to be so granted, then if the Minister is satisfied, at any time before payments have

867
been made under Part VI of this Act in respect of any interest in the land—

(a) that the development values of interests in the land, as ascertained in accordance with the provisions of the said Part VI, were wholly or mainly attributable to the prospects of that development at the appointed day; and

(b)that a building contract made in relation to that development within the period of ten years before the seventh day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, was in force on the appointed day, or that a byelaw submission or a building application had been made in respect thereof within that period,

he may direct that no payment shall be made under the said Part VI in respect of any interest in the land, and that no development charge shall be payable under Part VII of this Act in respect of the said development.
(3)For the purposes of this section the expression "building contract," in relation to any development, means a contract made between a person for the time being interested in the land and any other person, under which that other person undertakes to carry out the whole or substantially the whole of the building operations to be carried out in the course of that development.
(4)For the purposes of this section—

(a) the expression "byelaw submission," in relation to any development, means the submission by a person for the time being interested in the land of plans of the buildings proposed to be erected, extended or altered in the course of the development to the proper local or other authority in order to comply with the requirements of any byelaws or other enactment requiring plans to be so submitted, and

(b)the expression "building application" means an application including such plans as aforesaid and made by any such person as aforesaid to a local or other authority under the Town and Country Planning Acts, 1932 and 1943, or under any byelaws or other enactment requiring the consent of that authority to be obtained for the construction, extension or alteration of buildings.

LORD CHORLEY: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment intended to correct a wrong reference. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 21, leave out ("seventy-six") and insert ("seventy-five").—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved to leave out "at any time before payments have been made under Part VI of this Act in respect of any interest in the land—", and insert:
"on application made to him within one year after the appointed day or within such extended period as the Minister may in any particular case allow."
The noble Lord said: This is the first of a number of Amendments which I think your Lordships will wish to take together. The others are in lines 26, 27 and 36 of page 90. As your Lordships are aware, this is the clause dealing with land dead ripe for development. It has been considered that a more satisfactory method of dealing with the situation is to enable the Minister to issue a certificate that the specified land is within the clause, and the main object of this series of Amendments is, so to speak, to change it over in that way so that in fact the Minister will, provided the necessary conditions in the clause are satisfied, be able to issue his certificate that the land is within the clause.
There are various subsidiary matters, and perhaps I might just mention very shortly to your Lordships the most important of them, which is that before issuing a certificate in this way the Minister may decide to review the whole planning position in relation to the particular piece of land. Normally speaking there will be no need for such review and the position will remain, but there are occasional cases where consents have been given to developments. A good example is in areas which have become Green Belt areas under later arrangements, and where obviously it would be very useful that the Minister should look at the problem and see whether, in the light of the general requirements for a Green Belt around a particular town or urban district, a consent given in the past should be revoked. Of course, if such a revocation takes place, the land which previously had the permission will immediately qualify to apply for an award, and it is important that the owner of the land should know as quickly as possible which type of condition is going to apply. Those, I think, are the main matters which arise in connexion with this series of Amendments, and I think your Lordships will probably agree that the present method of dealing with the problem is a more satisfactory one than that which is contained in the clause as it at present stands. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 22, leave out from ("satisfied") to end of line 24 and insert ("on application made to him within one year after the appointed day or within such extended period as the Minister may in any particular case allow").—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I would like to know the effect of this Amendment. Is this period of a year likely to cut down the time, or does it enlarge it? When is it that payments might start to be made under Part VI?
LORD CHORLEY: I think the one year is inserted as the normal period, in order to enable the owner to know his position as quickly as possible. It was really to that point that my remarks were addressed. It seems a reasonable period in which the matter should be settled. But, of course, it may happen that an occasional case will be satisfactorily dealt with within a period of a year, and that is obviously the reason why a little latitude is granted.
LORD LLEWELLIN: That was not quite the point to which I addressed my remarks. I asked the noble Lord whether it was thought that Part VI would begin to come into operation before the year, and whether the period of a year was cutting down, or enlarging, the time that a man has within which to make a claim for inclusion in this category.
LORD CHORLEY: I cannot give a categorical answer. It may well be so, but I do not think there will be a great deal, one way or the other.
LORD LLEWELLIN: It is a pity, but I do not very much mind. I think they ought to make their claims within a year, or in exceptional cases longer.
LORD CHORLEY: It would obviously be dangerous for me to try to tie my right honourable friend down.
LORD CHORLEY: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 26, after ("as") insert ("required to be.")—(Lord Charley.)
LORD CHORLEY: This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 90. line 27, leave out ("the said Part VI were") and insert ("Part VI of this Act and without regard to the provisions of this section would be.")—(Lord Charley.)
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved in subsection (1) (b) after "application," to insert "or a licensing application." The
870
noble Lord said: Before I discuss the actual Amendment, I should like to say that it is interesting to see what is going to happen to licensed houses under this Bill. Many of them, at the behest of the licensing justices, have to make alterations to their premises when the accommodation is not large enough to put on an extra lavatory, or something like that. Quite a number of the alterations that have to be made to a licensed house are done at the behest of the licensing justices. Another point which it is just as well to remember is that in each case, if you enlarge a house and make it better, or if you get a new licence, you pay what is called a monopoly value. That goes into what I may perhaps be allowed to refer to as the "kitty," and is taken out when some other licensed house has its licence extinguished and receives compensation from that fund. If we are not very careful, we shall be making these people pay in two ways, perhaps compelling them to pay a development charge in cases where they are bound to do the work at the behest of the licensing bench.
I am asking for the words "or a licensing application," to be inserted in this clause, but indeed, I do not mind adding the words "or a licensing application that has been granted", where the building is not completed. I am quite prepared to put in those extra words because I see the force of the argument with which I may well be met: that brewers apply for a licensing application some years before they expect to get it. By that method they get a kind of lien (if that be the right word) on the site, and a kind of prior claim in the queue before the licensing justices of that area to be considered for a house when it is thought right that a new house should be erected. I may well be met with that point, so I am quite prepared, if it will meet the case, to put in the words "or a licensing application that has been granted"; that is to say they have then got what amounts to planning permission to come from the licensing justices.
It is just as much an earnest (if that be the test) of doing the work, as any of the other things which I see in this clause, such as a by-law submission or a building application. This is a licensing application which has been granted. Perhaps it is only because of the circumstances

871
arising out of the war that they have not been able to complete the work, but it is dead ripe. In fact, once a licensing application has been granted by a bench of licensing justices, the brewers will have to be summoned and asked why they have not carried out the work. As your Lordships will know, when a licensing application of this sort has been granted, then the licensing justices can properly inspect to see if the work they have approved has been properly carried out. I am quite prepared to put in "or a licensing application that has been granted," which seems to me to put them in an exactly similar position to that of a person to whom a building application has been granted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 34, after ("application") insert ("or a licensing application").—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD CHORLEY: The suggested Amendment to the Amendment which the noble Lord has put forward is, of course, as he appreciates, a very different kettle of fish from the one which appears on the Order Paper, and he has himself indicated, perhaps not quite so forcibly as I should have attempted to do, the objection to the words as they at present stand. I quite agree that if the application has actually been granted by the Bench, it might well be of equal value with other licences, but I am not prepared to commit myself upon that point. Clearly, on that basis, this point will have to be looked into very carefully. If, on an assurance that that will be done, the noble Lord will consent to withdraw his Amendment, I will gladly give him such an assurance.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am much obliged. I think the most convenient course will be for me to put the Amendment down at the Report stage in the form which I have indicated. I appreciate that I have altered my Amendment substantially while standing on my feet. There may well be a case to be looked into here, and I am much obliged to the noble Lord for the way in which he has received this matter. I now beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.26 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved at the end of subsection (1) (b) to insert "or that an
872
application under section ten of the Act of 1932 for permission to develop land had been made within the period of ten years before the seventh day of January nineteen hundred and forty-seven." The noble Lord said: In the regrettable absence of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, it falls to me to try to put before you the case for this Amendment. This is an effort to deal with the border-line cases where steps were taken before January 7, 1947, in connexion with contemplated industrial development, but no actual building application has been made. In the case of new works, such as a cement works, their siting is controlled by the availability of the necessary raw materials. Having secured ownership of the minerals, the first step is to obtain planning consent to the working of the minerals. As the method of working is to be by surface operation there are inevitably very material questions of amenity to be settled before plans for the utilization of any site can be considered in detail. Only after determination of the amenity issues are detailed plans prepared showing the lay-out of the industrial buildings within which manufacturing operations will be conducted.
Following upon the preparation of layout plans of a works, a further planning application is lodged for consent to the proposed lay-out. This two-stage procedure is understandable when it is realized that a modern works may cost up to £2,000,000. There is a very heavy burden of work and expense involved in the preparation of detailed plans for industrial developments of this magnitude. It is accordingly desired in the first instance to establish the right to the user of the land for mineral extractive purposes before proceeding to the second stage of obtaining approval to a proposed lay-out plan of the industrial buildings. In addition, as a result of the application in relation to the user of the land, restrictions on the working areas may be imposed which affect this lay-out of the plant.
Of necessity, consideration of much potential industrial development had to be postponed until after the termination of hostilities. Industries linked to quarrying for the sources of their raw material supplies have had, therefore, only limited opportunity to complete their plans, and there may be many cases where a proposed development has reached only the first stage of seeking,

873
or having obtained, consent to the potential quarrying operations. It appears reasonable, therefore, that where an application to develop land has been made before the publication of the Bill, the Minister should also be given power to exercise his discretion in relation to compensation and development charges. I have endeavoured to put the case for this Amendment before the Committee. I frankly confess that I am not an expert on this matter, which is a very complicated and difficult matter, But, in any case, I have felt it my duty to make the case as it has been presented to me, and I hope that it will receive careful consideration by His Majesty's Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 35, at end insert the said words.—(Lord O'Hagan.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can only assure the noble Lord that anybody listening to him would have thought he had spent a lifetime in studying this particular problem, but all the same I am sorry I cannot accept his Amendment. Perhaps I may make a few general observations about this. The noble Lord realizes, of course, that he is seeking to make an addition to the category of land which is dead ripe and your Lordships will realize the importance of this. We are contemplating that there should be a fund of £300,000,000 to compensate those who are affected by this Bill, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone further than that, and has said that the people who own dead ripe land shall be dealt with altogether outside the £300,000,000. And although they have no cut of the fund they have a corresponding advantage in that they do not have to pay any development charge.
You can deal with this problem in one of two ways. You can either move to increase the £300,000,000 or to reduce the number of participants in the fund. Any extension of the dead ripe principle is in effect the same as moving to increase the £300,000,000. What you are doing is reducing the amount of development charge, which is the somewhat inadequate quid pro quo the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to get in return for contributing this. £300,000,000. That being so, it is quite right to say we have quite deliberately drawn strictly and narrowly our test of dead ripe land. Not so strictly,
874
be it observed however, as it was drawn in the Uthwatt Report. Your Lordships will remember that the Report said this, I am quoting from paragraph 90:
" We recommend that no land or interest in land should be considered as 'dead ripe' land unless either plans for its development had been deposited with the local or town planning authority before 1st September, 1939, or it had been part of land for development shortly before the outbreak of the present war."
That was the Uthwatt test. The noble Lord's test of dead ripe land is, in my submission, quite inadequate. To enable a direction of the Minister to be given where the only qualification was, in the words of the Amendment, "that an application under Section ten of the Act of 1932 for permission to develop land had been made within the period of ten years before January 7, 1947," would be inconsistent with the whole principle of the clause. The clause limits its application to cases where the development value of the land at the appointed day is wholly or mainly attributable to the prospect of the particular development being carried out. Subsection (4) (b) admits a planning application if it is a "building application"; that is, one that includes plans of the buildings. We consider that nothing wider than that would be consistent with the conception of dead ripe land. A planning application, as opposed to a building application, is much wider and much more vague, and might be submitted long before land is even beginning to ripen.
This clause is based substantially on the Uthwatt Committee's recommendations, although not quite so strictly, with the object of giving special treatment to land on the point of being developed when the Bill was published. We have a series of Amendments on this. I cannot help feeling that this one is most important, with the exception of that moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brand, which is the most extreme illustration of them all. But in order of demerit, if I may say so with due respect, I would put Lord Brand's first, Lord O'Hagan's second, while Lord Llewellin's would be placed third in the "rogues' gallery." It is not to be thought, however, that I am approving even of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. That is the

875
position I am bound to take in regard to this consideration of dead ripe land.
LORD O'HAGAN: I only trust that the order of winning may bring my noble friend Lord Llewellin's Amendment past the post first, and that it will remain there! However that may be, I do not feel that I can press this Amendment on the House at the present time and, with the permission of the House, I will withdraw the Amendment for the time being.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.37 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after subsection (1) (b), to insert:
or,
(c)that the land together with any land contiguous or adjacent to such land was on the seventh day of January nineteen hundred and forty-seven, or would then have been but for circumstances arising out of the emergency which was the occasion of the passing of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1939, in the course of development as a residential commercial or industrial estate and that the proposed development is or would be immediately practicable but for such circumstances as aforesaid and that there is a demand for such development."
The noble Lord said: One of the principles of Clause 78, as I understand it, is to exclude dead ripe land from paying the development charge, and from obtaining anything from the fund. This Amendment does not in any way seek to contravene that principle.
It all depends what we mean by "dead ripe" land. According to the draft in the Bill, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, dead ripe land has been drawn very narrowly:
"that a building contract made in relation to that development…was in force on the appointed day, or that a byelaw submission or a building application had been made in respect thereof within that period."
I submit that the words of the Amendment which I am now moving are more apt. I am moving it quite frankly, intending to extend, though not very widely and in my usual reasonable style, the area of dead ripe land. That is why I suppose I was termed the lesser rogue—if that is what I was termed.
Let us see what my Amendment says. First, it comes in this clause as paragraph (c) and is preceded by the words, "if the Minister is satisfied" so the subsection would read:
876
"If the Minister is satisfied…that the land together with any land contiguous or adjacent to such land was on the seventh day of January nineteen hundred and forty-seven"—
I pause there—
"in the course of development."
Can anything be riper than that? I do not think you can get any definition of ripe land that is more clear than that. I have a second category to deal with: the people who would have developed but for the war—
"or would then have been"—
and if I may leave out the next words, because I prefer to say "but for the war" rather than "but for circumstances arising out of the emergency"—
"in the course of development as a residential commercial or industrial estate."
That is the first test—that the proposed development is or would be immediately practicable but for circumstances arising from the war. The second test is that such development, either started or which would have started but for the war, would be immediately practicable now, but for the war and circumstances arising out of the war—for instance, a shortage of bricks or timber or whatever it may be. Thirdly, the test is that there is a demand for such development.
Those are the three tests. I think they are all quite reasonable. The Minister has to be satisfied on all three and then, having been satisfied on all three, that land is considered ripe land. If that is not ripe land, I do not know what the word "ripe" means. If I may reply in the same strain to the "rogues' gallery," I think the Government's provision is a rotten provision. What they consider is ripe is so ripe that it is rotten, and rotten from our point of view. I am quite certain that we ought to consider this ripe land. Reasonable men would, and do not let us try to alter the definition just to save the Chancellor of the Exchequer or somebody else a mere few thousand pounds. The Budget is unfortunately far too big for that at the present moment, and I do not suppose, when this is worked out, that it will cost much to the Exchequer in extra development charges. On the other hand, it is quite clearly ripe land, in my submission. I think, as most reasonable men do, that, if we had been unhampered by the fact that this had gone through another place,

877
perhaps we in this House could all have sat down and said, "Perhaps that has provided quite a good definition of what really is ripe land; and in our heart of hearts we all know what it is." With these words, I hope that the Government will be able to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 35, insert the said paragraph. —(Lord Llewellin.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I would like to support my noble friend, Lord Llewellin, in this Amendment, which I think even the noble and learned Viscount admits is, in the circumstances, an extremely moderate one. My own preference some time back on this particular point was to have a much simpler Amendment, to Clause 78—namely, in subsection (1), between paragraphs (a) and (b), to substitute the word "or" for the word "and"; because that subsection of Clause 78 gave a very narrow definition of what is ripe land. It seems to me that His Majesty's Government have somewhat reluctantly conceded that there is such a thing as ripe land, and it is under the stimulus presumably of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they have narrowed it down within these limits so as to get as much revenue as possible, or, conversely, to save that inadequate sum of £300,000,000, from as many claims in this way as can be saved. That is the feeling that I have about it, and from what the noble and learned Viscount says, I think that is virtually what went on in the course of discussions behind the scenes with his own colleagues. In drafting the clause as it now stands, they have already narrowed down the definition as much as possible
They have conceded the principle of ripe land, and although the noble Lord may say that it is wrong to make inroads upon the £300,000,000 by a side road—if I may so put it—I do not think it is. After all, the £300,000,000, as I have said more than once in the course of the passage of this Bill, is a guess, and the submission of Amendments whose effect will be to make fair inroads on it, or additions to it, in this way, shows that in my opinion, and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, the guess of the Government as to the value which they are expropriating is wrong, and we think the figure ought to be more. The objection of His Majesty's Government to this
878
Amendment and similar Amendments is probably a Revenue one and not one based upon fairness, rightness and justice.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: From all parts of the country we receive disturbing reports of the loss of confidence and the grave uncertainties which this clause has created in the minds of builders and others to whom we look to provide us with the new houses, the new offices and the new factories which are so urgently required. Only this morning one of the most prominent builders in Scotland, a man whose firm have provided many thousands of houses, told me that under the terms of this clause he did not know how he would stand in relation to the land he already owns as his stock-in-trade, both in the heart of our big towns as well as in the outer ring, and that the uncertainties created in his mind by the clause were so many that he could attempt neither to build nor to formulate any programme of operations.
It is timely to remember what happened in 1910 and succeeding years, after the introduction of the Lloyd George Land Taxes. During the six years 1904 to 1910, the average increase in the number of new houses built for the poorer members of the community was 115,260 a year, but during the four following years, 1910 to 1914, the average increase in the number of those houses had dropped by over 53,000 a year to 61,850. These figures are revealed in the annual reports of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. I am sure it is correct to say that that drop was due to uncertainty and lack of confidence, and that it was those two factors, even more than the war of 1914–1918, which created the housing shortage from which this country has never really recovered. The same conditions are forecast again, only even more so, by the most knowledgeable men in the building and development world. Now, when housing needs are so desperate, the owners of building land and the builders themselves are being thrown into complete confusion, and unless the Government do something at the eleventh hour to widen the definition of ripe land, forecasts in the building world are to the effect that private building will stop. I am sure noble Lords on all sides of the House do not contemplate such a position with complacency. I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would lose

879
very little indeed in the long run by so relaxing the development charge that all land that has clearly been bought for development purposes in the reasonably near future would escape its incidence. Would not some action of that kind help the housing programme, and would it not be worth the small cost?
I would like to say one other word about vacant sites in our big towns, and to ask about sites, even such sites in London, which are empty not only because of war damage but because of demolition that took place, before the war. I would like to inquire how the Government will regard the existing use value of those sites. Does it mean that such sites may not be classed as ripe land for development unless the two or three conditions in the clause as it stands have been fulfilled? Consequently, will the owners' plans, which have been held up by the war and subsequent shortages, now be thrown into the melting pot? It seems strange that any land in the, heart of London can fail to be regarded as land ripe for development, and I hope, in the interests of providing houses, office, and other accommodation so badly needed in our big towns, that the scope of this clause will be so amended as to remove this damaging uncertainty and anomaly.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I should like to point out that there can be no answer to the contention of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, that the land pointed at by his Amendment is in truth ripe land within the meaning of the word as known in the English language; and there is, in my opinion, no doubt that paragraph (a) in Clause 78 covers the land to which Lord Llewellin is referring. Paragraph (a) says:
"that the development values of interests in the land, as ascertained in accordance with the provisions of the said Part VI, were wholly or mainly attributable to prospects of that development at the appointed day."
Here we are dealing with land which, together with land contiguous or adjacent thereto, on January 7, 1947, was or would have been, but for the war, in the course of development as a residential, commercial or industrial estate, and where the proposed development is immediately practicable. To my mind it is certain in that case that the development values of interests in the land are wholly or mainly attributable to the prospects of
880
that development. But that is not enough, because the Minister has to be satisfied that there has been a building contract or a bye-law or a building application made in respect of that land. The question whether such an order has been made is simply and purely a question of accident. Some buildings would be much farther advanced really than those in respect of which one of those three conditions of a building contract, bye-law or building application, applied.
What the Amendment seeks mainly to do is this: instead of those accidental things having happened, in addition to the fact that the development values of interests being wholly or mainly attributable to the prospects of development, there should be another factor taken into consideration, namely—and this is the principal part of the Amendment—that the war intervened and prevented those things being carried out. I have known cases where developments of this sort were stopped because it was impossible to get the necessary labour as the men had been called up, or something else happened, which made it perfectly impossible, during the events of this war in which we were fighting for our lives, to carry out these things. I most strongly submit to this Committee that the accident of war stopping such developments is just as strong a ground for the Minister to exercise his power as the three events which I have already referred to.
I would add this: that the alteration of the word "satisfied" makes it still less a thing to which the Minister should object, because, instead of the word "satisfied," we now have the words "on application made to him within one year after the appointed day, or within such extended period as the Minister may in any case allow;" he "may" do these things. It is permissive, and why the Minister should not be allowed to do something which is obviously in favour of justice to respectable people who were starting to make what might be great or expensive alterations or improvements in the development of land I do not see. Such a man should be regarded with great leniency, and in every case where the Minister thinks fit to allow this concession, it should be allowed.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I feel bound to rise and say something in support of the Amendment of my noble

881
friend, Lord Llewellin, as this is one of the points to which I addressed myself on the Second Reading of the Bill. To my mind, not only is this a sound Amendment, but it is in the interests of the community that this land on which development has begun should be fully developed. With the housing situation as it is, it is essential that everything that can be done should be done to stimulate the solution of the problem, and this Amendment clearly tends towards that end. It is reasonable and I feel it is just, and therefore I have pleasure in supporting it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I, before I answer the main point of the Amendment, answer the two questions which were asked by the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, with regard to the bomb damaged sites in London? He will find that the first paragraph of the Third Schedule enables those buildings to be reconstructed without any question of a development charge; so those are expressly dealt with. I am surprised to hear of the uncertainty which the very experienced Scottish builder expressed about the position, because I should have thought that such an experienced builder would have followed rather closely what the Minister had been saying on this topic in another place. If he referred to the Report of the Nineteenth Sitting of the Commons Committee he would find at column 806 what the Minister said. Putting it quite broadly, it was this. The Minister pointed out that there was a narrow definition of dead ripe land, but he was proposing also to deal with what he called near ripe land. He proposed to deal with near ripe land in this way. Near ripe land should get a preferential claim on the £300,000,000, and be entitled to 100 per cent. of its claim. With regard to land owned by a builder, he said that that would be limited to land required for a planned area programme at the firm's pre-war rate of building.
Of course this proposal about near ripe land is a matter which is not in the Bill; it is a matter for the scheme. I do not conceal from the Committee that the more you give preferential claims on the £300,000,000 and say that they are to be satisfied in full, the less there is left for the other claimants. So far as the noble Duke's builder is concerned, I should have thought he ought to have been comparatively happy, though I can understand
882
that other people who have claims would probably be less happy. That is the position with regard to near ripe land and that is the proposal of the Minister. It will be for either House of Parliament to approve or not the scheme when it is promulgated. The Minister has made it plain that so far as he is concerned that is what he proposes to put into the scheme. That is the way he proposes to deal with these places that do not come into the category of dead ripe land but at the same time need some preferential treatment.
To come to the Amendment itself. I am not at all surprised to find that this is the Amendment which the noble Lord has preferred to move, because this is manifestly the better of the Amendments. It is not like the next one. It would not be sufficient at any time, even to-morrow, if anyone were to start digging a hole for a drain, to say that the whole of the building estate concerned qualified as dead ripe land. This is a much more severe test. Even so, it really does not do. We have all known building estates, and have known people who have started developing estates hoping that their various plots would go like hot cakes, and as a matter of fact they have hung fire very badly. They sell one plot and get building permission for one plot, hoping that someone will come along for the next plot. But he never comes. It is a complete fallacy, I submit, to say that because any particular piece of land forms part of a building estate, therefore all the plots on that estate are dead ripe.
What we want and have tried to get is a real test of dead ripeness. It is notorious that development of an estate may be spread over many years. I submit that it is a complete fallacy to say that because the land is part of an estate which is in course of development, therefore the whole of the land on that estate is dead ripe land. That is the fallacy which I submit underlies this Amendment. For the rest, the other test which the noble Lord propounds is that but for the war it would already have been developed. It is of course the fact that the Minister has to be satisfied, and I frankly admit that that is so. But even so, the test that is propounded is not sufficient. The Minister will have quite honestly to make up his mind as best he may. But is it a really feasible proposition to say that but for the war this, that or the other would have

883
been done? It is something which it is quite impossible to say. That is why we want a concrete, definite and simple factual test, and an answer of "Yes" or "No" to the question: Does this building position or by-law position actually demonstrate that land is really dead ripe? It is no use concealing that here again we have come to a conflict of principle on an Amendment which is as well drafted as it could have been. I am not being critical of the Amendment as such. It is not unreasonable, but it does substantially extend the definition of dead ripe land, and we must decide to stand definitely on the clause and leave it to your Lordships to test the feeling of the Committee.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I listened with great attention to what the noble and learned Viscount said and I would like to say one or two things in reference to his speech. He said it was idle to suppose that because an estate had been started the development was going on. There I agree with him. But he completely overlooked the last words of my Amendment, that the Minister has to be satisfied "that there is a demand for such development." So, if I may say so with respect, the first argument of the Lord Chancellor does not carry a great deal of weight. The second point is whether it is within the power and
capacity of the Minister to decide whether, but for the war, something would have happened. I should not have thought that was too difficult a test. Where there is an application from a builder who normally was building houses before the war, you can easily suppose that but for the war he might have gone on developing the estate he had started. If he is just an upstart who has never built a house in his life, of course the Minister could say that he would never have completed anything, whether the war had happened or not. But I am talking about the regular man who was building houses at a regular rate before the war. Noble Lords on this side think it is a very fair test of what really is ripe land. We think it is the kind of thing that the Government and, if necessary, another place, should be asked to think over again. It is a function of this House occasionally to send things back for another place to look at again and see whether, in the light of a new Amendment, they are able to alter the previous form. It is only with that view that I ask the Committee to support me in the Lobby on this Amendment.
On Question, Whether the said paragraph shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 25.

CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Maugham, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L. [Teller.]

Reading, M.

Ridley, V.

Salisbury, M.

Samuel, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Swinton, V.

Grenfell, L.

Abingdon, E.

Wimborne, V.

Hampton, L.

Craven, E.

Hatherton, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Addington, L.

Hylton, L.

Altrincham, L.

Llewellin, L.

Dundonald, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Lloyd, L.

Fortesoue, E. [Teller.]

Bingley, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Brand, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Munster, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Rochdale, L.

Perth, E.

Carrington, L.

Roche, L.

Radnor, E.

Cherwell, L.

Savile, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Teynham, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Chaplin, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Waleran, L.

Falmouth, V.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Wardington, L.

Harcourt, V.

Denham, L.

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Chorley, L.

Mountevans, L.

Foley, L.

Nathan, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Henderson, L.

Pakenham, L.

Addison, V.

Holden, L.

Quibell, L.

Hall, V.

Kershaw, L.

Rochester, L.

St. Davids, V.

Latham, L.

Rusholme, L.

Stansgate, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Marley, L.

Uvedale of North End, L.

Ammon, L.

Morrison, L. [Teller.]

Walkden, L. [Teller.]

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD BRAND LORD BRAND had given notice to move at the end of subsection (1) (b) to insert:
"or
(c) that roads or sewers had been constructed or were in course of construction at the expense of the owner before the appointed day."
The noble Lord said: Perhaps you would allow me to say one word with regard to my Amendment. I know that my noble friend, Viscount Simon, would be perfectly prepared to see included in the Amendment instead of the words "before the appointed day" the words, "on January 1, 1947." That being so, I think my Amendment is now covered by my noble friend, Lord Llewellin's, Amendment that has just been carried. Therefore, I am perfectly satisfied, and do not move my Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: This is the last of the group of Amendments moved a minute or two ago, and it is merely a consequential drafting Amendment on the first of those Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 44 and insert ("he shall certify accordingly:
Provided that if it appears to the Minister that proceedings should be taken with a view to the revocation of the permission granted or deemed to be granted as aforesaid, he may postpone the issue of a certificate pending the taking of such proceedings, and if the permission is revoked he shall not be required to issue the certificate.
(2)Where a certificate is issued under this section, then—

(a)in calculating for the purpose of Part VI of this Act the development value of any interest in the land to which the certificate relates, no account shall be taken of any Value attributable to the prospects of the development specified in the certificate; and

(b)no development charge shall be payable under Part VII of this Act in respect of that development if carried out within such period, if any, as may be prescribed by the certificate."—(Lord Chorley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: This Amendment and the next in the name of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, are drafting Amendments with the object of simply rearranging the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 91, line 1, after ("section") insert ("(a)").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved in subsection (3), after "means," to insert "a building lease or an agreement for such a lease or." The noble Lord said: As subsection (3) now stands, it is doubtful whether a building contract would include a building lease or agreement for such a lease, but the fact that such a lease or agreement has been entered into is, of itself, real evidence of ripeness, because such a lease or agreement usually provides that the development must be carried out within a specified time, otherwise the lease would lapse. A person would not enter into such an agreement unless there was an immediate possibility of development. With those words I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 91, line 2, at end insert ("a building lease or an agreement for such a lease or").—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
LORD CHORLEY: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. It falls within the mischief which my noble and learned friend has described to your Lordships. It is intended, of course, to widen the definition of ripe land. As my noble and learned friend has explained, the object of this clause is to get at a perfectly definite fact, such as a building contract, an application, a by-law submission or something of that kind The Amendment falls very much short of that. It might easily be that a man might be a building lessee for a very substantial period of time —there are numerous cases of that sort—and if he has not come to the point of either letting a building contract or making his application under the by-law scheme, or as the case may be, then really, according to the position which the Government have taken up on this matter, the land cannot be regarded as ripe. The noble Lord's Amendment falls within the mischief which we have already described.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I am sorry that the Government will not accept this Amendment, but I shall not press it. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHORLEY: This Amendment is the second of the drafting Amendments to which I referred a moment ago. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 91, line 8, leave out line 8.—(Lord Charley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: This Amendment is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 91, line 18, after ("application") insert ("in relation to any development").(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
10.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (4) (b), to leave out "means an application including such plans as aforesaid and." The noble Earl said: This Amendment does not widen the definition of "ripe land"; or if it does I should be grateful if the noble Lord would explain to me where. This Amendment and the next are designed to improve an Amendment which was moved by the Minister of Town and Country Planning to this clause in another place, by which he introduced the making of a building application as evidence of ripeness. But the definition which is contained in paragraph (b) of Subsection 4 removes all the advantage which it was thought was given when the right honourable gentleman introduced his Amendment.
As it stands now, it provides that an application must include plans which would have had to be submitted under she by-laws or Buildings Act. This is a somewhat technical point, but I am advised that in the past hardly anyone ever submitted such a plan without applying for building permission. These Amendments, therefore, are designed to bring the Minister's Amendment into line with what has always been the case in the past. The actual facts of the case are, as the noble Lord will see in my second Amendment, that I lay down that such plans will have to be furnished if they are required under the Acts mentioned in subsection (4) (b). That is all my Amendments seek to do—to restore what was intended, as I understand it, by the Minister. I sincerely hope that if the noble Lord cannot accept my Amendment he
888
will look into it between now and the next stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 91, line 18, leave out from ("application") to ("made") in line 20.—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD CHORLEY: I regret that I cannot accept the assumption as to what was in the mind of my right honourable friend in another place. The Amendment which the noble Earl has moved quite clearly extends the definition of conception of ripe land within the terms of the clause as drafted in the Bill. It is quite common to find a man who is proposing to develop an estate presenting to the planning authority, so to speak, a block or layout plan which simply deals with the siting of roads, sewers, and matters of that kind. This type of application must obviously be passed at an early stage, before any of the practical side of the matter is undertaken; and it may well be a purely speculative process intended simply to provide a basis for all sorts of things that might happen over months or years, before the actual concrete step of making an application—whether a building application, a submission, or letting contract for the building of houses and other works on the estate—takes place. Obviously the difference between the two takes the noble Earl's Amendment quite outside the conception of ripe land within the meaning of this clause. In these circumstances, I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: This is not a very large Amendment, and I think it is designed to bring the terms of the Bill within the compass of the ordinary practice of the submission of plans. The noble Lord, however, is so obsessed with what he chooses to call "the mischief referred to by the noble and learned Viscount" that he cannot see beyond that point. I think it is quite clear that this is within the ordinary practice and the plan as suggested to be defined by my noble friend the Earl of Munster would, in almost every case if not every case, come well within the category of dead ripe land. I feel rather strongly on this point, because it has been made abundantly clear on more than one occasion that His Majesty's Government look at the possibility of adding to ripe land as though it were stealing from the Treasury money

889
which they ought to have. That is practically what has been the argument all through the discussion on the question of dead ripe land, the argument that it is taking from the Treasury land which they ought to have.
Nothing in any of the Amendments, first of all, will increase the sum of £300,000,000 which the Treasury have to find. All that will happen is that there may possibly be an addition to the amount of land which will not attract a development charge. I have never been brought up to believe that you can steal from anybody, even the Treasury, something which they have never had. It may merely reduce to some extent the income that they will derive from development charges. This Amendment, in my view, will probably not do even that small thing; but surely in the interests of fairness, there should be some extension, even if minor, in the definition of dead ripe land.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I venture to suggest that you should just consider this matter, which is largely one, I think, of drafting. The expression in the Bill is "building application means an application including such plans as aforesaid." When you look at what the aforesaid plans are, you find these words in lines 10 and 11—
"the submission by a person for the time being interested in the land of plans of the buildings proposed to be erected, extended or altered in the course of the development."
So far as I know—and I think my noble friend the Earl of Radnor is much of the same opinion—when you merely make a building application, you do not necessarily make plans of the buildings proposed to be erected, which are details required for the purposes of by-laws. The Amendment does not in the least say that there need be no plans at all, because if you look at the end of the Amendment you see that my noble friend the Earl of Munster says, in regard to the application—
"which has been supported by such plans or particulars as were required to be furnished under the said Acts or the said bye-laws, or other enactments as the case may be."
Accordingly, all he is seeking to say is that the requirement that buildings are proposed to be erected need not necessarily accompany the building application. I
890
do not suppose the provisions as to building applications are all the same in all the districts concerned; but I do strongly believe that a great many of the building applications, though they may require plans of the lay-out, do not require plans of the building. All I would suggest is that the Government should reconsider that, and see if they are not here giving to building applications a meaning which they really ought not to bear.
LORD LLEWELLIN: May I add just one word? It seems to me that if a man has put in an application, supported by such plans as the local by-laws or the local authority call for, he has indicated quite as clearly as anyone can that he intends to build. That is what this building application means—that he intends to build. The fact that he has not the whole plans of his building prepared and that that is not the normal procedure in that particular place may be a good reason why at that stage he does not submit those plans. I suggest that the noble Lord might look at this again. It is meant only to try to bring a building application into line with the facts of what happens in ordinary day to day life, and not, if I may say so, what is thought in Whitehall to happen. I ask the noble Lord if he will be so good as to look at this before the next stage, and to see if we cannot bring this more into line with the facts of ordinary life.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I would like to add just a word on the question of plans. As the Committee are doubtless well aware by-law applications, as a rule, concern sanitary matters and things of that sort, and the plans in such matters are usually drawn up with a certain amount of detail. They have to show the proposed sanitary arrangements, drains and so on. On the other hand, in. practice, plans which are submitted for planning development are plans showing the outside and the general appearance of the building, (which, in fact, is what is required for planning purposes). Often they are of a much more sketchy nature even than that, merely showing the site plan with, let us say, a proposed block upon it. I can assure, the Committee that in certain parts of the country that has been the usual practice for some time. Indeed, often the plans have not shown enough to satisfy thug proper demand of the planning authority for sufficient material on which

891
to form a judgment as to whether or not a building looks right in the place in which it is proposed to be put. I mention that just to show that there is a great difference between these two kinds of plans. I think that it is certainly enough to justify an alteration in the wording here.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: Anyone who has served on the Committee of the London County Council, dealing with applications under the Building Act, as I did for a number of years, realizes that applications which come before that Committee are real applications, live applications. If they were not they would not come before the Committee, because the Committee would not pass them. That does mean that an application under the London Building Act has to be a real application and has to show that the land is ripe. People who come before the Committee submit their applications in a form indicating that they do mean to have them passed if possible.
LORD CHORLEY: The noble Lord has asked me to look at this again in the light of the discussion. I shall be very glad to do so, but I cannot hold out any hope to him. I must say that as the result of the discussion which has taken place, the view I have endeavoured to put before your Lordships has been reinforced. The form of words in the noble Earl's Amendment does not in fact cover evidence of actual intention to start building. If it did I should be much more likely to be able to accept Lord Llewellin's suggestion. These are the sketchy type of plans to which the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has referred. They are sketchy plans which give just the site and the roads and that sort of thing. It is not until a later stage that more detailed matters are dealt with, and that is really what we are concerned with. I shall be very glad to look at the matter again as the noble Lord has suggested, and if I am convinced that the noble Earl's Amendment does in fact deal with the case, then no doubt we shall be able to put something down.
The EARL OF MUNSTER: I am obliged to the noble Lord for his remarks in concluding
892
the discussion. It is true, as I said at the beginning, that this deals with a somewhat different point and I do not know a great deal about it. I feel sure, however, that the noble Lord and myself have learned much more from the debate, and I hope that between now and the next stage we may have some discussion together to see whether the remarks which I made in point of fact represent a general practice. Perhaps the noble Lord will take it to the Minister to see if he can put in an Amendment somewhat on the lines of mine. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
SWINDON CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
LUTON CORPORATION BILL.
Reported without amendment.
PRESTON CORPORATION BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Orders made on June 12 and June 24 last, discharged, and Bill committed.

AGRICULTURE (EMERGENCY PAYMENTS) BILL.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Bill had been endorsed with a Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before eleven o'clock.