Sitting of 14 July 1947

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

  JAPANESE PHOSPHATE INDUSTRY, ANGAUR ISLAND
  Mr. Thomas Reidasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if the Far Eastern Commission sanctioned the scheme allowing the Japanese to develop a phosphate industry at Angaur Island in the Palau Group, near New Guinea; and if the Australian or British Government representatives objected to this scheme.
  The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): The subject has not been discussed in the Far Eastern Commission. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

  GERMANY

    Malnutrition, Deaths
    Mr. Wilson Harrisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the estimated number of deaths directly attributable to malnutrition in the British zone of Germany since June, 1945.
    Mr. McNeil: No estimate is possible of the total number of deaths directly attributable to malnutrition since no scientific records exist.

    Textile Industry
    Mr. Stanley Prescottasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, how many textile firms, spinning, weaving, bleaching, dyeing and finishing, respectively, exist in the British zone of Germany: how many spindles and looms are involved; of such firms how many, in each category, are operating; and how many spindles and looms, respectively, are idle.
    Mr. McNeill: As the reply can be most clearly given in tabular form, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Prescott: Will the Minister give an assurance that all the facts asked for in the Question will be supplied?
    Mr. McNeil: I am doing so to the best of my ability. I can assure the hon. Member that it is a long and comprehensive reply.
    Following is the reply:

    Industry.

    Firms operating.

    Firms idle.

    Capacity available.

    Capacity operating.

    Capacity idle.

    Spinning

    …

    …

    248

    14

    2,504,683 Spindles.

    1,399,813 Spindles.

    1,104,870 Spindles.

    Weaving

    …

    …

    887

    152

    93,313 Looms.

    28,857 Looms.

    64,465 Looms.

    Narrow Weaving

    …

    …

    498

    51

    6,424 Looms.

    2,749 Looms.

    3,675 Looms.

    Yarn Processing

    …

    …

    210

    80

    16,875,000 Kgs. per annum.

    3,600,000 Kgs. per annum.

    13,275,000 Kgs. per annum.

    Cloth Bleaching

    …

    …

    95,635,000 sq. m. per annum.

    16,000,000 sq. m. per annum.

    79,625,000 sq. m. per annum

    Cloth Dyeing

    …

    …

    111,250,000 sq. m. per annum.

    30,000,000 sq. m. per annum.

    80,250,000 sq. m. per annum

    Cloth Printing

    …

    …

    87,500,000 sq. m. per annum.

    17,000,000 sq. m. per annum.

    70,500,000 sq. m. per annum.

    Cloth Finishing

    …

    …

    96,000,000 sq. m. per annum.

    15,000,000 sq. m. per annum.

    81,000,000 sq. m. per annum.

    Whaling Fleet (Decision)
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what grounds the application of the Bizonal Economic Office at Minden for permission to prepare a whaling fleet has been turned down; and whether, in the light of the acute food shortage in Germany, he will reconsider this decision with the object of reversing it.
    Mr. McNeil: For security reasons, the Potsdam protocol prohibits the construction in Germany of sea-going ships; the considerations which led to this decision still hold good. The British authorities in Germany and their American colleagues accordingly agreed to reject this German proposal. The answer to the second part of the Question is. "No, Sir."
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that it is inconsistent to allow Japan to operate a whaling fleet and to deny, at the same time, similar facilities to Germany?
    Mr. Stokes: Is it not quite absurd to continue wallowing in the Potsdam Agreement in view of the attitude recently adopted in Paris by one of the signatories to it?

    Interned Officers, Allendort
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
    4
    when Colonel General Halder and Colonel von Bonin, at present in the internment camp of Allendorf, will either have charges preferred against them and be tried or be released.
    Mr. McNeil: Since these Germans are in the hands of the United States authorities in Germany, my right hon. Friend has no responsibility in this matter, nor has he the information asked for.
    Colonel Hutchison: My Question may not apply to these two individuals, but will the right hon. Gentleman see that individuals in this category are in fact brought to trial as quickly as possible, so that they can play a useful part, if they are innocent, in the reconstitution of Germany?
    Mr. McNeil: There is great difficulty in moving the judicial machine along as quickly as we would like, but we are actively studying this matter.

    Rolling Stock
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about the increasingly serious position regarding rolling stock in Western Germany; and whether he will explain the reasons for this and say what steps are being taken to improve it.
    Mr. McNeil: The present shortage of rolling stock in Western Germany has

    5
    come about because German industry cannot provide the materials necessary for current repairs. It is even less able to deal with war damaged rolling stock still awaiting repair. Stocks of materials and of equipment which could be used for cannibalisation are now exhausted and the railways are dependent on current production of materials, so that there has been a decline in the numbers of serviceable rolling stock. There has also been a fall in the number of wagons available in consequence of the restitution of rolling stock to Allied owners. Military Government are fully aware of the urgent necessity for improving the supplies of materials for repairs.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that Czechoslovakia particularly hangs on to the wagons which go over the border, and will he make representations to them that we want these wagons sent back to Germany to ease the position there?
    Mr. McNeil: While we have a difficulty with certain Powers, I must say that we have found the behaviour of Czechoslovakia in this matter to be exemplary.
    Sir Waldron Smithers: Is not the shortage of rolling stock due to the fact that there is a pool agreement, and that Russia has failed to keep her agreement to return the empty wagons?
    Mr. McNeil: The primary reason for the shortage I have already given in a rather long reply.

    Belgian Artillery Range, Westphalia
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that approximately 20,000 acres of arable land in Kreis Brilon in Southern Westphalia have been requisitioned for an. artillery range for the Belgian army, which will result in the loss in production of 10,000 tons of potatoes and 1,000 tons of grain, as well as other animal fodder; and whether he will take steps to have this requisitioning cancelled.
    Mr. McNeil: I greatly regret that I am not yet in a position to answer this Question. I will, of course, communicate with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Stokes: When considering this matter, is it not a fact that the Belgians
    6
    have quite adequate artillery ranges at home without occupying foreign territories like Kreis Brilon, and why cannot they go home to practice instead of destroying valuable arable land?
    Mr. McNeil: I will consider the matter when I have all the facts. I apologise to my hon. Friend for not having them.

    Krupps Works, Essen
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that no part of Krupps' works normally engaged on locomotive production will be blown up, even though part of such works may have from time to time been engaged on armament production.
    Mr. McNeil: No part of Krupps Gusstahlfabrik at Essen which was normally engaged on locomotive production and which is required for the locomotive repair programme or which ultimately may be required for building locomotives has been scheduled for demolition at present. Other sections of the factory which were normally engaged on locomotive work and which are required for locomotive repairs are also exempted from the present demolition and reparatior programme.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend quite sure about this because some of us have information which is to the contrary? Would he be of the opinion that this is the wrong moment to blow up anything? What purpose can be served two years after the war in indulging in this belated bombardment?
    Mr. McNeil: If my hon. Friend has any information on the subject I will be glad to consider it, because I am most anxious to ensure that there is no loss of potential plant for locomotive production, but I should not like to commit myself to the general statement that this is not the moment to blow up anything.
    Mr. Hobson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large part of these works are capable of use in the construction and repair of locomotives for which there is such an urgent need in Germany, and, indeed, in Europe, and why cannot construction and repair of locomotives take place where the rails are already laid dawn and where the lathes and milling machines are?
    Mr. Heathcoat Amory: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that almost any war plant can be converted to peacetime uses and that efforts should be concentrated on such conversion rather than on further blowing up.
    Mr. McNeil: I was asked about locomotive production plants, and I do not think any plant in Germany could be adapted for this purpose. The plants available for the purpose are being used.
    Mr. Stokes: In view of the importance of the matter will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is no more blowing up until really competent people with practical experience review the whole situation. I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    Dutch Vegetables (Delivery)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Holland can deliver 200,000 tons of vegetables to Germany between the beginning of this month and next February; and what arrangements have been made for their exchange for German industrial products.
    Mr. McNeil: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to his similar Question on 11th June. Negotiations are progressing, but are not yet concluded.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is precisely the answer which I received about a year ago and that after that answer nothing happened, so that vast quantities of vegetables were lost? Is he further aware that vegetables rot if they are not dealt with at once, and will he get a move on in his Department?
    Mr. McNeil: I promise my hon. Friend that, so far as my Department is concerned, I will see that something is done.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable scope exists for trading between Holland and Germany, and that if it is allowed it will save the British taxpayers' money?

    H.M. AMBASSADOR, GREECE (DIPLOMATIC UNIFORM)
    Mr. William Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
    8
    whether he is aware that the British Ambassador, Sir Clifford Norton, wore evening dress at the presentation of his credentials to His Majesty the King of the Hellenes; whether it is now the custom for His Majesty's Ambassadors to dispense with diplomatic uniform on such occasions; and since when has this been the rule.
    Mr. McNeil: His Majesty's Ambassador to Greece wore evening dress because he had been unable to replace his diplomatic uniform, lost through an accident of war.
    Mr. Teeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman really feel that it is not possible to provide diplomatic uniforms fairly quickly for our ambassadors? The war has been over for some time, and is it not, after all, slightly insulting to courts abroad not to provide uniforms when other countries can do so?
    Mr. McNeil: At the risk of seeming to be offensive to the hon. Gentleman, whom I usually find most reasonable, I feel inclined to say that I have to occupy myself with more important matters than this, and I hope and believe our Ambassador is similarly occupied.

    BRITISH LEGATION, FINLAND (STAFF SALARIES)
    Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which members of the British Legation, Helsinki, and those working under the Minister in Finland have had increases in salary and/or allowances since 1st January, 1947; how many have not had such an increase; and why have they not received such an increase.
    Mr. McNeil: All the official-paid staff working under the Minister who were at the post on 1st January last have been granted increases, with the exception of one officer who had not furnished the report for which he had been asked. The post was visited by inspectors last month, and their recommendations covering all staff are now under examination and will be put into effect shortly.
    Mr. Teeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that these increases are satisfactory in view of the recent rise in the cost of living in that country?
    Mr. McNeil: I am glad of the opportunity of saying that I am indebted to the

    9
    hon. Gentleman for the help and interest which he has given in connection with this question, and I think that our adjustments are rather satisfactory.

    SYRIA (GOVERNMENT ATTITUDE)
    Dr. Segalasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the "Greater Syria" movement.
    Mr. McNeil: My attention has been called to the spreading of reports that His Majesty's Government favour the "Greater Syria" movement, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity to affirm most strongly that these reports are quite unfounded. His Majesty's Government consider that this subject is one which essentially and exclusively concerns the inhabitants of Syria and of the other States in that area. British officials in Middle Eastern countries have definite instructions that the attitude of His Majesty's Government on the subject is, therefore, one of strict neutrality. His Majesty's Government's one desire is the maintenance of stable and tranquil conditions in the Middle East.
    Dr. Segal: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask of he is aware that the terms of his statement should have a very reassuring effect throughout the Middle East?

    BULGARIA (GENERAL STANCHEV AND M. PETKOV, TRIAL)
    Major Mott-Radclyffeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Bulgarian Government has been able to give to His Majesty's political representative on the Control Commission in Sofia any further indication as to how soon the necessary investigations will be completed in order to bring to trial General Stanchev and M. Petkov. respectively.
    Mr. McNeil: The British political representative has received no information about the date of either of these trials.
    Major Mott-Radclyffe: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the
    10
    case of General Stanchev, 13 months should be sufficient time to formulate charges in order to bring him to trial, and that in the case of M. Petkov the longer the trial is postponed, the greater the growth of suspicion of the circumstances in which he was arrested?
    Mr. McNeil: I do not disagree for a second. My conclusion is that no civilised country behaves as this country behaves towards both of these men, against neither of whom a charge is being prepared.
    Professor Savory: Is it not possible to call the attention of this Government to Article 3 of the Treaty which it has signed, for this is a flagrant violation of that Treaty?
    Mr. McNeil: That is so, but, unfortunately, the Treaty is not yet ratified and, therefore, not operative.
    Mr. Mack: In view of the assurance given by the Foreign Minister of Bulgaria that this trial will be a free and open one and will be open to inspection by outside journalists and other interests, is it not a piece of unwarrantable presumption on the part of my right hon. Friend to infer in his remarks that this is an uncivilised country?
    Mr. McNeil: The point is not whether the trial is open or not, but whether there should be a trial or not, and until we have the charge it will make it impossible to come to any conclusion on that subject.

    SPAIN (U.N.O. MEMBERSHIP)
    Sir Patrick Hannonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what negotiations are in process for the inclusion of Spain in U.N.O. at an early date.
    Mr. McNeil: None, Sir.
    Sir P. Hannon: How long is this state of affairs going to continue? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Spain has been fighting for 10 years to keep back Bolshevism, and why exclude it now?
    Mr. McNeil: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that if he is referring to membership of the United Nations, no discussion can take place until Spain itself has initiated such a discussion by making application? She has not yet done so.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Foreign Office, in discussing the standard of civilisation, applies the same standard in Eastern as in Western Europe.
    Mr. McNeil: Precisely, and if Spain should make such an application His Majesty's Government will oppose it.
    Mr. Anthony Nutting: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what possible economic or political gain this or any other country gets by ostracising Spain in this direction.
    Mr. McNeil: I think the answer is that His Majesty's Government, as a member of the United Nations, continues to be bound by the resolution passed by the Assembly of the United Nations against the Franco regime last December.
    Major Legge-Bourke: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will bear in mind the evidence given in Count Ciano's diaries in view of his having made such an astonishing statement?
    Mr. McNeil: There was a great variation of evidence in that remarkable book.
    Sir P. Hannon: In view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that His Majesty's Government will oppose any application from Spain for membership of the United Nations, I will take the earliest opportunity of raising this matter.

    BRITISH GOODS, PORT SAID (TRANSIT DELAY)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that British goods being unloaded at the present time at Port Said for transshipment are being held up on the Customs shed for periods of up to 18 months; and whether, in view of the shortage of shipping and the need for stimulating the movement of goods in world markets, he will make representations to the Egyptian Government about this matter.
    Mr. McNeil: The fact that certain British firms are meeting with difficulties in this respect has already been brought to my notice. All such cases have been referred to the British Embassy in Cairo and are already being discussed with the Egyptian authorities.
    Mr. Janner: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he made representations to see if the arrangements which prevailed before the war with regard to transshipment might be brought into effect and so considerably shorten this delay?
    Mr. McNeil: I think the difficulty has mainly arisen from the fact that there has been a change of regulations in relation to unsold goods in transit. I would prefer to confine myself to saying that these specific goods and any further specific goods will be dealt with in time.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Tomatoes (Wholesalers' Margins)
    Mr. Bramallasked the Minister of Food what function is performed by first-hand salesmen which entitles them to a margin of 1s. 6d. per package on imported tomatoes; and what proportion of these first-hand salesmen are also wholesalers or importers.
    The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): The first-hand margin on a 26 lb. package of imported outdoor tomatoes was reduced from 1s. 6d. to 1s. 1½d. on 10th July. First-hand salesmen are entitled to the full margin only if they are also the importers. By arrangement they share it with importers who are not first-hand salesmen. Their function is to sort the packages according to condition and arrange for their distribution to wholesalers all over the country. A survey made about a year ago showed that 15·3 per cent, of the total imports were handled by first-hand salesmen who also acted as wholesalers.
    Mr. Bramall: Can my right hon. Friend say whether in fact this duty of sorting the packages is done by the first-hand salesman individually or by the association?
    Mr. Strachey: I think in some cases by one, and in some by the other.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is it not a fact that when tomatoes are imported the dealer who imports them has to hand them over to control and has no responsibility for their distribution?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, I cannot accept that.
    Mr. Bramallasked the Minister of Food what functions are performed by primary wholesalers, secondary wholesalers and wholesale depot-holders in the marketing of home-grown tomatoes which entitle them to margins of 1s., 1s. 3d. and 2d. per package, respectively.
    Mr. Strachey: The margins prescribed by the Tomatoes Order for primary and secondary wholesalers were 11d. and 1s. 4d. per 12 lb. respectively until 13th July and are 9d. and 1s. 1d. per 12 lb. from today, out of which the primary wholesaler has to pay 4d. for the use of the container. There is no provision in the Order for a margin of 2d. to wholesale depot-holders. The primary wholesaler buys tomatoes from the grower and usually sells in bulk to a secondary wholesaler whose position is too remote or his trade too small and fluctuating to justify direct connections with growers. A secondary wholesaler, therefore, buys from a primary wholesaler for re-sale in small parcels to retailers. Both types of wholesaler have to bear the ordinary risks which occur in the normal course of trade, including loss of weight by evaporation, wastage and pilferage.
    Mr. Walkden: Is it not the case that a good time is being had by all who are handling tomatoes, and is it not time that we took a risk in view of the excellent supplies of tomatoes and demobilised this out-worn machinery altogether to the benefit of the Minister and of the country?
    Mr. Strachey: As the House knows, I am, on the whole, sympathetic to the decontrol and the opening up of trade in vegetables to newcomers, but whether we are in a position to do that now is doubtful.
    Mr. Walken: Will not the Minister take the risk during the next six months?

    Olympic Games (Competitors' Rations)
    Mr. Gerald Williamsasked the Minister of Food if foreign countries who are taking part in the Olympic games next year will be allowed to bring foodstuffs to this country for their competitors or if all competitors will be limited to the scale of British rations.
    Mr. Strachey: All travellers entering this country are allowed to bring with them 25 lb. of food of which not more
    14
    than 5 lb. may be of any one kind. I see no reason to vary this concession for Olympic competitors.
    Mr. Williams: If Olympic competitors coming from foreign countries are allowed to bring in food will not the Minister seriously consider giving our own athletes extra rations in order that they may justify themselves?
    Mr. Strachey: Like anyone else, our own athletes can go to a restaurant as often as they wish.

    Grocery Trade (Profit Levels)
    Mr. Digbyasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that whilst the cost of wages, overhead expenses and rates, lighting and heating charges to the grocery trade have greatly increased during recent months, the increase in the price of various commodities has resulted in a reduced percentage of profit on turnover; and if he will review the margins of profit laid down for the grocery trade.
    Mr. Strachey: We do not fix margins on a percentage basis, since this would give a disproportionate increase in net profits when prices have to be raised. Our policy is to adjust prewar margins to allow for changes in costs, including any expenses which vary with the price of the goods. I have no reason to doubt that the average grocer is at least as prosperous now as before the war, but we are, of course, always ready to consider any representations from the trade on the adequacy of margins or profit levels.
    Mr. Digby: Is the Minister aware that in the case of dried eggs, whereas the price has doubled, the margin has gone up by only 2d. on 3s., and as this involves very much more capital being laid out by the grocer will he consider the matter again?
    Mr. Strachey: As I say, we are always open to representations on this matter, but we are also open to representations as to the great need for minimising distribution costs.
    Mr. Amory: Will the Minister bear in mind in this connection the position of the trader in a small way of business who often has to cover a large area and on whom these rising costs bear very hardly?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir.

    Lettuce (Distribution)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that a lorry load of lettuce on 4th July and 300 boxes on 7th July were returned from Covent Garden, there being no sale for them; and, in view of the retail prices of lettuce, what steps is he taking to remedy this breakdown in distribution.
    Mr. Strachey: I control neither the price nor the marketing of lettuce. I am, of course, concerned at any breakdown in the distribution of lettuce by private enterprise which the hon. Member has, he believes, detected. From the beginning of July, very heavy supplies of lettuce have reached Covent Garden. I am glad to say that these heavy supplies have caused an appreciable drop in retail prices. The average retail price for round lettuce in London during the week ended 28th June was 8d., and this fell to 5d. in the following week, while in the Westminster area prices of 2d. and 3d. have been offered by retailers.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that in the case of the returned lorry loads referred to in the Question, the farmers were willing to agree to a price of one penny a lettuce; and is he not also aware that, whether this comes within his purview or not, every time he pokes his nose into the distribution of food there is the inevitable result of shortages and increased prices?
    Mr. Strachey: I was endeavouring to explain to the hon. Member—
    Sir W. Smithers: The right hon. Gentleman cannot.
    Mr. Strachey: I know, but I was endeavouring to explain that if there is anything wrong here it is an example of the effects of non-interference with the ordinary channels of trade.

    Isolated Areas (Emergency Winter Stocks)
    Mr. David Rentonasked the Minister of Food whether he will take steps before next winter to install emergency food supply dumps in isolated districts in order to prevent a recurrence of the difficulties created through severe winter weather in the past.
    Mr. Strachey: I am afraid that the maintenance of a number of small dumps would be wasteful in both food and manpower.
    16
    My local officers already have discretion to allow people who live in isolated areas to lay in a month's stock of food in advance during the winter months, in addition to the normal four weeks' supply—thus they would have eight weeks' supply of food in the house at the beginning of each rationing period. This scheme will be well publicised later in the year to give householders in isolated areas ample time to prepare themselves against hard weather.
    Mr. Renton: Would the Minister amplify his statement by making it clear whether it is shops and stores which will be allowed to carry these stocks or individual farmers and householders?
    Mr. Strachey: The Question refers to individuals.

    Dried Fruits (Allocation)
    Mr. Rentonasked the Minister al Food if he will make a statement as to the system of allocation of dried fruits, with particular reference to what percentage thereof is issued to multiple shops as compared with the small individual grocers; and what conditions are attached by his Department to the sale of such fruits.
    Mr. Strachey: Allocations to grocers, whatever the number of shops they control, are based on sugar registrations; and to other retailers on their prewar trade. We do not know what percentages of each allocation go to the various classes of traders, and to extract this information would, I am afraid, take too much time and labour. Dried fruits are subject to maximum prices and Points rationing.

    Channel Islands Produce (Cargo Space)
    Colonel Ropnerasked the Minister of Food why cargo space on the ships of the British Channel Islands Steamship Company is not being used for bringing potatoes to this country during the present shortage.
    Mr. Strachey: Whenever possible, cargo space on the ships of the British Channel Islands Steamship Company has been used to bring potatoes to this country, but the Channel Islands crop is now finished, and so I am glad to say, is the shortage.
    Colonel Ropner: Is the Minister aware of the general belief in the Channel

    17
    Islands that the arrangements made by the agents for the stevedoring and chartering of ships from the Channel Islands were far from satisfactory? As this is a matter which affects other markets, will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries to satisfy himself that everything is in order?
    Mr. Strachey: Certainly, Sir, but I would point out that we succeeded in moving the whole crop.
    Mr. Beechman: Is the Minister aware that considerable quantities of potatoes are now rotting in the ground in West Cornwall?

    Ceylon Tea (Purchase)
    Mr. Tiffanyasked the Minister of Food to what extent have estates owned by the English and Scottish Joint Cooperative Wholesale Society supported his Department's purchase of Ceylon tea this year.
    Mr. J. Strachey: I am glad to say that the English and Scottish Joint Co-operative Wholesale Society have offered, and I have accepted, the whole exportable production of their tea estates in Ceylon.

    Milk, Catering Establishments
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Food (1) if he will give figures of the total amount of milk allowed to restaurants and caterers; and whether the sale of liquid milk as a beverage is permitted in catering establishments;
    (2) whether the sale in catering establishments of milk-shakes containing fresh milk is permitted by his Department.
    Mr. Strachey: Milk is allowed to catering establishments at the rate of 7½ pints per 100 hot beverages served, or, if they prefer, 5 pints per hundred hot beverages, main meals and breakfasts. Fresh milk may be served alone or in a milk shake, but no special supplies are allowed for this purpose.
    Mr. Beswick: Can my right hon. Friend give the total amount of milk supplied?
    Mr. Strachey: Not without notice.
    Mr. Beswick: That is the Question which I asked my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Strachey: I can give my hon. Friend some information. The approxi-
    18
    mate weekly consumption of milk in all catering establishments is 1,760,000 gallons.
    Mr. Beswick: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it is a much more satisfactory way to distribute milk to individual householders? Would he consider cutting off milk supplies for such things as milk shakes and allowing householders a little extra?
    Mr. Strachey: Only 750,000 gallons of that total is taken by restaurants and hotels. The rest goes to canteens and for purposes which we should be most unwilling to cut off.

    Percentage Distribution
    Mr. Symondsasked the Minister of Food if he will give an estimate, as at the most recent date, of the percentage distribution of the nation's total food supplies, including unrationed as well as rationed foods, as between civilian ration-card holders, the Armed Forces in the United Kingdom, schools, works canteens and catering establishments, respectively.
    Mr. Strachey: I regret that this information is not available, as unrationed food can be purchased freely in the markets and shops and its precise destination is unknown.
    Mr. Symondsasked the Minister of Food if he will give, as at the most recent date, the percentage distribution of rationed meat as between civilian ration-card holders, the Armed Forces in the United Kingdom, schools, works canteens and other catering establishments, respectively.
    Mr. Strachey: The distribution of rationed meat expressed in terms of percentages is as follows:

    Per Cent.

    Domestic consumers

    …

    84·9

    Armed Forces in the United Kingdom

    …

    2·3

    School Canteens, Boarding Schools, Colleges

    …

    3·5

    Works Canteens

    …

    3·6

    Hotels restaurants, cafes, etc

    …

    3·0

    Other catering establishments

    …

    1·1

    Institutions other than Boarding Schools and Colleges

    …

    1·6

    …

    100·0

    A*

    Mr. Symondsasked the Minister of Food if he will give, as at the most recent date, the percentage distribution of rationed foodstuffs as a whole, as between civilian ration-card holders, the Armed Forces in the United Kingdom, schools, works canteens and catering establishments, respectively.
    Mr. Strachey: The hon. Member will appreciate that the Question involves adding together the tonnage of such different foods as tea and meat and the answer must to this extent be unreal. But if this is done the approximate percentage distribution of straight rationed foods taken together is:

    Per Cent.

    Domestic consumers

    84·1

    School canteens, boarding schools and colleges

    2·2

    Works canteens

    3·5

    Hotels, restaurants, cafes, etc.

    3·4

    Other catering establishments

    1·0

    Institutions, other than boarding schools and colleges

    1·8

    Armed Forces in the United Kingdom

    4·0

    100·0

    Fruit and Vegetables (Controls)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Food if in view of the price anomalies which exist and of the inability of certain producers to sell their produce, he will remove all controls from the more perishable fruits and vegetables and allow the law of supply and demand freely to operate.
    Mr. Strachey: Within the last 18 months the great majority of home grown fruits and vegetables have been freed from price control. As I recently informed the House I am also considering whether we cannot now usefully open up both the wholesale and retail trade in fruit and vegetables to new entrants. On the other hand, I am still concerned at vegetable prices and if these do not come down and stay down now that main crop supplies are coming in, I may have to re-impose price control.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that the release from control of soft fruits is entirely due to my influence? [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh but is that not true? Does the Minister realise the elementary principle that when we restrict consumption we automatically and inevitably restrict production?
    Mrs. Ayrton Gould: Is my right hon. Friend aware that vegetables from the very small producers never get to the stands in Covent Garden Market at all, so that retailers do not have a chance of buying them cheap? Will he see to it that everything that goes to Covent Garden Market is put up, so that retailers get a chance of buying them as cheaply as possible and selling them?
    Mr. Strachey: I am far from supposing that everything is well in the retail and wholesale distribution of fruit and vegetables.

    U.S.A. Canned Shrimps
    Mr. Bramallasked the Minister of Food why dollars are expended on tinned shrimps from the U.S.A.
    Mr. Strachey: Canned shrimps began to be imported privately from the U.S.A. under an open general licence. As soon as it became evident that a small but appreciable amount of dollars were being expended in tills way the open general licence was withdrawn as from 14th May.
    Mr. Bramal: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him why, in view of the fact that any purchases from the United States must mean the spending of dollars, a licence was granted?
    Mr. Strachey: The answer is that it was done under a general licence which covered a lot of other things as well, and included a few canned shrimps.

    Fried Fish Shop Licence, Muskham
    Mr. Sidney Shephardasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the villages of North and South Muskham have been denied a fried fish shop; and, since the population of the area is approximately 900, if he will consider giving these rural people the same treatment as people living in towns, and grant the necessary licence.
    Mr. Strachey: I am aware of the facts but very much regret that, owing to the acute shortage of oils and fats, I cannot grant this licence.
    Mr. Shephard: Is the Minister aware that I sent him a protest signed by a large number of the adult population of these villages, which he refused? What is his policy with regard to the rural areas in this respect?
    Mr. Strachey: We have to restrict fried fish shops to those which serve an area of 3,000 population, or something in that neighbourhood. In this case the figure was only about 900, and I am afraid a licence was impossible.
    Mr. Shephard: In that case, will the Minister give a licence to a travelling fish shop?
    Mr. Strachey: That is another possibility. I am extremely keen to increase to the maximum possible degree the sale points of fried fish. We are limited by fats, but I will certainly consider the suggestion.

    Home-killed Meat (Distribution)
    Mr. Royleasked the Minister of Food if he will arrange for a more even distribution of home produced meat, as between productive and non-productive areas.
    Mr. Strachey: Although during the war, in the interests of transport economy, home-killed meat was largely used in the producing areas, my Department has since tried to make distribution increasingly fairer. This policy will be pursued so long as it does not involve any unreasonable movements of livestock or meat.
    Mr. Royle: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that there is a very great disparity among these areas, particularly with large industrial districts?
    Mr. Strachey: I think the tendency is decreasing, but we will do our best to make it decrease still further.

    Imported Meat
    Mr. Royleasked the Minister of Food if he will make arrangements that all imported quarters of beef shall arrive in this country bone-in; and that the system of telescoping imported sheep and lamb shall cease.
    Mr. Strachey: We shall do both these things as soon as we have sufficient refrigerated tonnage.
    Mr. Royle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this position is frightfully uneconomical and wasteful? Will he try as quickly as possible to put it right?
    Mr. George Wallace: Is my right hon. Friend aware that lack of this food is a severe handicap to mothers?
    Mr. Strachey: We are well aware of the desirability of this form of importation, but we cannot consider it until we have considerably better supplies of the appropriate tonnage.

    Canned Corned Beet
    Mr. Royleasked the Minister of Food if the reduction in the ration of canned corned beef entails any cut in the permits of catering establishments from 13th July.
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. Changes in the allowances to catering establishments are always made in parity with changes in the domestic ration.

    Allocations, Seaside Resorts
    Mr. Teeingasked the Minister of Food whether he will give the percentages of all rationed foods allocated to, and consumed in, catering establishments throughout the country; and whether in seaside resorts the amount consumed is greater than the national average and during which months and by how much.
    Mr. Strachey: The proportion of the civilian consumption of rationed foods consumed in catering establishments varies from one food to another but overall is about 10 per cent., of which about one-third is used in hotels, cafes and restaurants. I regret that I have no information on the relative amounts going to catering establishments in seaside resorts.
    Mr. Teeling: In view of the feeling among many housewives that too much is being consumed in these catering establishments, and the fact that the catering establishments themselves do not consider that they are consuming too much, would the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in his opinion, at the present moment catering establishments are taking a reasonable and not too great an amount of the rations?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, I am very willing to say that I consider 10 per cent. is a reasonable figure. It would be hard not only on the catering establishments, but on the population generally to cut down the allowances given to catering establishments in seaside resorts

    Food Offices, Posters
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Food if it is proposed to continue the issue of posters published by

    23
    the Bureau of Current Affairs to local food offices; what has been the cost of such issues in the last year; and what instructions have been issued to local food officers regarding the use to which these posters should be put.
    Mr. Strachey: I cannot yet say what we shall do next year, but this year we have ordered 1,300 sets at 15s. per set of 26 copies. The posters are intended to make food offices and waiting roams more interesting to visitors.
    Major Legge-Bourke: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, does he consider that it is advisable in a Government-run establishment to exhibit posters saying, "How right is Bevin?"—[An HON. MEMBER: "Telling the truth."]—and "Bevin's Foreign 'Affaires,'" and does he not consider that that would only tend to cause dissatisfaction with His Majesty's Government's foreign policy?
    Mr. Strachey: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member dislikes these posters because they are critical of the Government, or too favourable to the Government. I think it shows that they are very impartial.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Would my right hon. Friend send two copies to each food office so that the public can see both sides of the posters at the same time?
    Mr. Beswick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although there may be hon. Members opposite who do not wish for thought to be provoked by these posters, most people will appreciate the stand my right hon. Friend has taken in refusing to be panicked by questioning from the other side in the same way as the Secretary of State for War?
    Mr. Eden: May we have an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman is in agreement with what the Prime Minister told us a short time ago?
    Mr. Strachey: Certainly, the right hon. Gentleman can have that assurance.
    Mr. Eden: Then why did he not say so?
    Mr. Strachey: The Prime Minister accepted the criticism of one particular poster in this series.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to look at Poster
    24
    No. 17 which gave some figures and pictures bearing on rationing that are statistically inaccurate and definitely misleading?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, I passed the poster most carefully myself. It is statistically correct.

    Brewing Barley (Exports)
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Food how much grain suitable for brewing was exported and diverted from this country to Germany, Holland, Denmark and Czechoslovakia during 1946 and the first six months of 1947; how much beer was imported from these countries in the same periods; and what was the net trading result of such exports and imports.
    Mr. Strachey: I assume the hon. and gallant Member is referring to exports and diversions of barley. During 1946 and the first five months of 1947, 141,165 tons of barley were provided for use as bread grain in the British zone of Germany and 2,912 tons were sent to Denmark to replace some malt which we borrowed for brewing beer for British troops on the Continent. No beer was imported from the countries concerned during the same period, so the third part of the Question does not arise.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this does not tally with the answer which his Parliamentary Secretary gave me last week?
    Mr. Walkden: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not time we killed this fairy tale altogether, since it has been trotted round by Members of the Opposition for months past, including the Housewives' League, and it has got whiskers on?

    Foods and Beer (Permitted Exports)
    Mr. Joynson-Hicksasked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the need for promoting exports and in order that markets should not be captured by foreign competitors, he will allow the export of beer to be revived.
    Mr. Strachey: On 16th April, 1946, my predecessor made a statement in this House in which he said that because of the serious food situation it had been decided to prohibit, with certain exceptions, the export of manufactured foods and

    25
    drinks containing scarce ingredients, such as sugar, fats and cereals.
    Our food situation remains difficult but, as I endeavoured to explain when I had the honour to address the Cornmittee of Supply on 1st July last, our difficulties are changing in character. Apart from the difficulty of finding the actual food to buy we must now seek to maximise in every possible way the amount of foreign currency at our disposal with which to buy it. It is increasingly to this "double problem," as I venture to call it, that we must address ourselves. Therefore, everything which increases our exports is of direct assistance to us in obtaining essential food imports. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government have decided to allow the export of certain carefully selected manufactured foods—such as beer, biscuits and chocolates—which are of very high money value in relation to the quantities of foodstuffs which they contain.
    We shall aim at selling—as much as possible in hard currency areas—£10 million worth of these specialities a year. In order to do this we shall have to use about one half of one per cent. of our total supplies of sugar and about ·4; of one per cent. of our supplies of fats, and a still smaller percentage of our cereals. But with the foreign currency which we hope to receive from these exports we should be able to buy, when they are available, nearly half a million tons of additional feedingstuffs, for example.
    I feel sure that the House will agree that in these circumstances this, at first sight paradoxical decision, is correct. I therefore appeal confidently to the Members on all sides of the House to help to explain it. What it amounts to is that we are going to use our processing and manufacturing facilities and skill, plus a very little of our sugar, fats and cereals in order to earn foreign currency which will pay for much bigger quantities of basic foods. I ask our friends overseas to realise this when they see small supplies of foods from Britain, such as high-quality biscuits, jams, etc., in their shops and not to slacken their efforts—efforts which we greatly appreciate—to sell us the maximum quantities of meat, dairy produce and the like—which we need.
    26
    The full details of this policy, for example, the foods to which it will apply and the administrative arrangements will be announced after consultations with the food industries concerned, by my Department at an early date.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: While acknowledging with thanks the right hon. Gentleman's reply, which seems to be the longest answer I have ever had to a Question, may I ask when this new arrangement is to come into effect, and when exports will be permitted?
    Mr. Strachey: As soon as we can make administrative arrangements.
    Mr. Bowles: Will my right hon. Friend make sure that we sell these exports at the highest possible prices?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Eden: We were interested in the right hon. Gentleman's long answer, which seems to be a maximising of "Yes, Sir," but, in view of its importance, could he not have told us this last week in the Food Debate?
    Mr. Strachey: The matter has only just been decided, and administrative details are not yet arranged.
    Mr. James Hudson: Does my right hon. Friend realise the well-known fact that good food is destroyed in all the beer that is produced, and that there cannot be any compensation in the form of dollars for the deliberate destruction of food in order to secure this thing, which is not necessary?
    Mr. Strachey: My hon. Friend can, at any rate, be assured that this particular beer will be drunk outside this country.
    Brigadier Peto: The right hon. Gentleman referred to this as a "double problem," and is he not aware that as he has failed in almost every single problem with which he has dealt he will certainly be unable to deal with a double one?
    Mr. J. Hudson: While almost all the beer might be used outside the United Kingdom, is it not a fact that good food materials which will be wasted by this policy, are produced in this country?
    Mr. Strachey: Some of the materials are, and some are not. Barley is, and sugar is not.
    Mr. Hudson: But we need the sugar.
    Mr. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that drinking beer is a very valuable aid to good work at harvest time, and will he ensure that no austerity is imposed at harvest time?
    Mr. Strachey: Certainly.
    Mr. Walkden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is nothing very new in this policy, that Lord Woolton did this when we were fighting for our life in 1942, and that, therefore, it is quite sensible to do it now?

    Tea Ration (Temporary' Reduction)
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Major WISE:
    67. To ask the Minister of Food if he will make a statement on the future level of the tea ration.
    At the end of Questions—
    Mr. Strachey: The House will recollect that on 3rd April I warned hon. Members that, mainly owing to a dock strike in Calcutta, our stocks of tea were decreasing. The Calcutta strike ended after twelve weeks on 3rd May, but a subsequent strike in Colombo which lasted four weeks and ended on 20th June meant that for a whole month no shipments of tea from Ceylon were possible.
    The Ministry loyally assisted by the trade, have done everything humanly possible to maintain our supplies, but these two consecutive interruptions in shipments have now reduced our stocks to a point at which we must take action in order to safeguard orderly distribution.
    As the House knows, we distribute the tea ration at the rate of 2 ozs. and 3 ozs. per week in alternate months. I regret to say that the above two interruptions in our supplies will mean that we cannot make the usual increase for the next 3 oz. month, namely 20th July to 16th August. The ration will, therefore, remain at the rate of 2 ozs. a week over the next two months. I cannot yet definitely say whether we can ship, sort, blend and distribute sufficient tea to make the increase to 3 ozs. in the next due month, namely, September. But it should be definitely possible—if there are no further strikes or interruptions of shipments—,to rebuild our stocks to a level which will
    28
    permit us to make the usual increase to the 3 oz. rate in the next due month after that, namely November. I am glad to say that it will not be necessary to make this temporary reduction in the case of people of 70 and over and seamen
    Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that this statement will be a disappointment to a great many people? When was the right hon. Gentleman in a position to make this decision? Was it really not possible to tell the House about it so that it could be discussed last week in the Food Debate?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, it was only made a few days ago—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—when shipments were resumed, I am glad to say, after the strikes.
    Mr. Eden: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what was the determining factor? It is rather inconvenient to the House to have these sudden statements of further reductions just after we have concluded a Food Debate.
    Mr. Strachey: It is not the case that the tea is not available. It is available, but it cannot be blended, sorted and distributed, in time to make the usual increase in the ration at the moment, without risk of distribution difficulties and shortages in the shops, which we think is worse than not increasing the ration.
    Mr. Eden: Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean that he could not have told us this last Tuesday?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, because now the strikes have ended we have made the very greatest efforts to pre-ship supplies to this country, and only in the last day or two did we come to the conclusion that we cannot risk it during the next month. There would be disappointment to housewives in the shops, which I think much worse than reducing the ration at the present moment.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Is it not a fact that the Government have allowed reserves of tea to fall to a dangerously low level?
    Mr. Strachey: It is true that these long strikes in Calcutta and Colombo much reduced the stocks so that this action became necessary.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Is it not a little odd that in the Food Debate last week

    29
    when the Minister made a long statement of an hour and 20 minutes, going over many future arrangements, he was unable to give an indication that he would have to reduce the ration?
    Mr. Strachey: The House will recollect that I gave the House a clear warning as long ago as 3rd April, that we might have to reduce the ration.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am not asking about 3rd April, but about last week?
    Mr. Strachey: The right hon. and gallant Member was asking about an indication.

    SOAP RATION (CHILDREN)
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Minister of Food whether he will consider extending the extra soap ration for babies to children up to the age of two years.
    Mr. Strachey: I am afraid that, with the present shortage of fats, I am unable to adopt my hon. Friend's proposal.
    Mr. Skinnard: Is the Minister aware that mothers find it at least as difficult to keep their children clean in the early walking stage as in the earlier napkin and crawling stage?
    Mr. Strachey: It is a concession I would very much like to make.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Since I asked this Question just a year ago and received precisely the same answer, would the right hon. Gentleman say whether in the meantime he has taken any steps to discover what is the dirtiest age of a child?

    ART GALLERY TRUSTEES
    Mr. Jannerasked the Prime Minister whether, when appointing new trustees for the National Gallery, National Portrait Gallery and Tate Gallery, he will consider the desirability of ensuring that the trustees as a whole will represent the views on art of all classes of the population of this country.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I do not quite understand what my hon. Friend has in mind. It is, of course, desirable that the trustees of these bodies
    30
    should be composed of persons who are acquainted with the various trends of opinion on art. I feel sure they are conscious of their duty in this respect and also of their duty to make the best use of the national heritage entrusted to them for the advantage of the community in general.
    Mr. Janner: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask whether he would appreciate that there has been a certain amount of dissatisfaction in respect of art opinion, and if that is brought to his notice, will he look into it?
    The Prime Minister: I am not quite sure. In art matters there seem to be a great many opinions and a great deal of feeling. I cannot exactly say the strength of any one case or whether it belongs to any particular class of the community.

  AGRICULTURE

    Dairy Farming
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Minister of Agriculture how many fat-stock farmers have changed over to dairy farming during the five years ended 31st March, 1947.
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I regret that the information is not available.
    Sir T. Moore: I would like to ask the question, "Why?" Another question I would like to ask is: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the serious effect of this switch-over on the home grown beef supplies of this country, which is obvious to everyone who knows anything about the countryside?
    Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be aware that the switch-over affects farms in different degrees. It would be quite impossible to reply to the hon. and gallant Member's Question as it is on the Order Paper.

    Tractor Tyres and Spare Parts
    Mr. T. Reidasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will secure delivery of tyres for tractors and spare parts for agricultural machinery in Wiltshire, where the Wiltshire branch of the National Farmers Union assert that orders for tyres have been held up for periods exceeding six months.
    Mr. T. Williams: As I informed the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) on 7th July, tyre manufacturers are endeavouring to increase their output to meet the greatly increased demand and available supplies are being distributed as fairly as possible. As regards spare parts, agricultural machinery manufacturers have been asked to give priority to them and, although some individual parts are in short supply, I am not aware of any general shortage of parts for British-made machines. There is rather more difficulty over spare parts for machinery of American make, but all possible steps are taken to expedite shipment of parts from the United States.

    Barley Disease, East Anglia
    Mr. J. H. Hareasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make a statement on the hitherto unknown disease affecting barley in East Anglia; and whether any steps can be taken to counter the disease either for this harvest crop or in future years.
    Mr. T. Williams: The condition to which the hon. Member refers has appeared only this month and its cause and extent are now being actively investigated. I cannot usefully make a statement at present.
    Mr. Hare: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that early steps are taken to deal with this disease because what is happening is causing great uncertainty in East Anglia? The right hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be wise to allay the fears in the minds of many farmers.
    Mr. Williams: I can assure the hon. Member that the problem is being actively investigated by the National Agricultural Advisory Service.

    Feedingstuffs
    Mr. Rentonasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider using a more up-to-date and more equitable method of allocating supplies of feedingstuffs for pigs and poultry than the 1939–40 figures of consumption, especially when ex-Service men are claiming allocations.
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Minister of Agriculture what action he is taking to issue new permits for feedingstuffs for poultry to enable individuals to start keeping chickens before the winter sets in.
    Mr. T. Williams: I recognise the need for a change in the present basis of pig and poultry rationing and although plans are being prepared I am not yet satisfied that supplies of feedingstuffs will be sufficient to enable such a change to be made in the near future. Ex-Service men who were keeping pigs or poultry before joining up are eligible for rations on the same scale as they would have received had they remained on their holdings.
    Mr. Renton: Is the Minister aware that this failure to recognise that there is a constant change going on—it has been going on for the past eight years—has caused a very great deal of injustice to people who have tried to settle in farming since the war? Will he recognise that fact and not let the grass grow under his feet any longer than is necessary?
    Mr. Williams: I can assure the hon. Member that we are fully aware of the demand on the part of certain people to become poultry keepers, but I am also aware that the commercial poultry keepers, whose rations were reduced down to one-eighth of those required to maintain their 1938 numbers, must have first consideration as and when increased feedingstuffs supplies are available.
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will now give some guidance to farmers on the supplies of feedingstuffs that will be available for pigs and poultry; and if he has formed an estimate of the increase in the home production of bacon and eggs which should be attained in 1947.
    Mr. T. Williams: I am not yet in a position to announce the scale of rations for livestock, including pigs and poultry, for the forthcoming winter rationing period, but the subject is under active consideration and I hope to make an announcement before the end of this month. It is unlikely that there will be any material increase in the output of bacon and eggs in 1947, but I cannot form a reliable estimate of production in the latter half of the year until the results of the June census become available.
    Mr. Hurd: Does the Minister's statement mean that the British housewife must now abandon all hope of getting additional bacon and eggs from home sources next year?
    Mr. Williams: No, Sir.

    Colorado Beetle, Bedfordshire
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that holiday campers in Bedfordshire recently found a number of Colorado beetle larvae on some self-sown potatoes in a cabbage field at Cotton End; and whether, in view of the importance of this area for potato growing, he will make a statement as to the action taken by his Department to deal with the pest and prevent its spreading in this predominantly horticultural district.
    Mr. T. Williams: Yes, Sir. A small number of Colorado beetle grubs was found on two potato plants in a cabbage field. The remainder of the field and neighbouring potato fields have been thoroughly searched without any further discovery. The grubs and the plants on which they were found have been destroyed and the surrounding soil injected. These measures should result in the extermination of the colony, but the district will be kept under close observation.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Does the right hon. Gentleman think the colony is descended from beetles that wintered in this country?

    Farms (Acreages)
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will give the approximate percentage of farms throughout the country the size of which is 150 acres or less and the percentage of farms of 1,000 acres or over.
    Mr. T. Williams: The percentages for agricultural holdings in England and Wales are 87·3 and 0.1 respectively. A substantial proportion of the smaller holdings are not farms.
    Mr. Dc la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those figures as regards farms of 150 acres or less not only support, but confirm the very figures I gave him last Monday which he would not accept?
    Mr. Williams: If the hon. Member accepts 87·3 as being as accurate as 80 per cent., and it gives him any satisfaction, I shall not disagree.

    1948 Harvest (Cropping Programmes)
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture if farmers have now been notified of the acreages of tillage crops, par-
    34
    ticularly wheat and potatoes, which they are expected to grow next year.
    Mr. T. Williams: In most counties the agricultural executive committees are now obtaining from farmers their proposed cropping programmes for the 1948 harvest. These will be considered in the light of the county targets for the more important crops, which are being sent to committees today. Where necessary farmers will be asked to modify their programmes accordingly.
    Mr. Hurd: Will every farmer know by the end of this month what is expected of him in the way of wheat to be sown during the coming autumn?
    Mr. Williams: That is, of course, a matter between the county executive committees and each farmer, and since county programmes are being dispatched today, I hope they will be in time to enable all farmers, if not by the end of July, certainly at a very early date, to know exactly what will he expected of them.
    Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware that if he wants an increased production of wheat from the English farmer the best way of getting it is a fair price comparable to that which the Ministry of Food are paying to the dollar countries, and that the price incentive—
    Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with this Question, which concerns acreage.

    Fowl Pest
    Lord Willoughby de Eresbyasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give the latest figures of the number of cases of fowl pest notified and the number of fowls ordered to be slaughtered.
    Mr. T. Williams: Up to 9th July there have been 571 outbreaks of fowl pest in Great Britain and about 35,000 birds have been slaughtered.
    Lord Willoughby de Eresby: In view of the fact that these figures go up every time I ask this Question and the fact that the adverse balance of our overseas payments also rises, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the moment has come when the Government might well prohibit the import of poultry from countries where fowl pest is known to exist, in order to save dollar exchange and to wipe out fowl pest in this country?
    Mr. Williams: Perhaps the hon. Member will be happy to know that the number of outbreaks is going down and down instead of up and up. The numbers of outbreaks in the last four weeks were 65, 40, 30 and 17 respectively. There is reason to hope that we are overcoming this problem.

    Embankment Works, Fen Rivers
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Agriculture what estimates of work, excluding long-term schemes, have been submitted to his Department by catchment boards of those rivers discharging into the Wash; if he has approved this expenditure; and if he will make a statement on the progress of the work, with particular reference to manpower and materials involved.
    Mr. T. Williams: Repair and reconstruction works on Fen river embankments are being pressed forward energetically in all areas and schemes for different sections are being approved as details are submitted. Full estimates of cost are not available, but expenditure on urgent works scheduled for completion before next winter in the areas of the four boards whose rivers discharge into the Wash may amount to some £750,000. The work is being done partly by contract and partly by direct labour, and some 750 men, including prisoner labour made specially available, are employed on it. My Department is giving all possible assistance with supplies of materials and equipment.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is satisfied that in the North Level Board's area sufficient labour and materials are available, and is he aware that there are considerable complaints in that district? Is he further aware that there are considerable complaints that the work is not being done nearly fast enough in the other areas, especially the South?
    Mr. Williams: I am not aware of those facts, but if the hon. and gallant Member will be good enough to send me any information on the point, I will look into it.

    Credit Facilities
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will now have inquiries made in order to inform the House what is the general interest rate
    36
    charged by the banks throughout the country to farmers who have need of an overdraft.
    Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir. An inquiry is unnecessary since it is well known that the rate of interest charged to farmers by the banks varies between 4 and 5 per cent., most small overdrafts being charged at the higher figure.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in almost every instance 5 per cent. is charged? Is he further aware that it is impossible to increase production when so many farmers are living on permanent bank overdrafts at 5 per cent? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, it is true. Cannot he do something about it?
    Mr. Williams: I do not accept the statement that most farmers are living on loans.
    Mr. De la Bère: In view of the tact that the right hon. Gentleman is not seriously trying to assist farmers, I will raise the matter at the earliest moment—I am in deadly earnest—supported by really sound figures, which I can give the right hon. Gentleman.

    Bovine Tuberculosis
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture if he has now reached agreement with the veterinary profession and the N.F.U. on a national plan for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis; and when he expects that a start will be made.
    Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir. Discussions with farming interests on a plan for establishing attested areas have not yet been concluded. Some difficult questions are involved and at the moment I cannot say when it will be possible to introduce such a plan. Noteworthy progress in the eradication of bovine tuberculosis is, nevertheless, already being made under the voluntary Tuberculosis (Attested Herds) Scheme which now includes well over a million cattle.

    Flood Prevention, Thames Valley
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps are being taken to prevent a recurrence of flooding this winter in the Thames Valley area.
    Mr. T. Williams: A detailed report on the recent floods has been received from

    37
    and discussed with the Thames Conservancy. In general, when the flow of the river at Teddington is 5,000 million gallons per day, the river is bank-high throughout its length. The rate of flow exceeded this figure for 29 successive days, from 11th March, and 10,000 million gallons per day for nine successive days, rising to a peak flow of 13,600 million gallons per day. No reasonably practical scheme of works could avert flooding in such circumstances.
    Mr. Berry: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this flood has only been equalled twice in the last 75 years?
    Mr. Williams: Yes, I am satisfied from information handed on to me that if the Thames had been completely empty when the floods commenced, there still would have been flooding.

    ORDNANCE SURVEY DEPARTMENT (PERMANENT LOCATION)
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the permanent location of the Ordnance Survey Department has yet been decided; and what progress has been made in the transference of the staff from Chessington back to Southampton.
    Mr. T. Williams: The permanent location of the Ordnance Survey Department has not yet been decided. Since my hon. Friend last made inquiries a small number of evacuated staff have been transferred to Southampton, but the moves already planned may not be completed until the end of next year owing to the shortage of office accommodation.
    Mr. Jeger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the distress, hardship and expense occasioned to the families of the staff still living in Southampton while the staff are mainly resident in lodgings in Surrey?
    Mr. Williams: I am aware of this unfortunate fact, and my sympathy is with them. If office accommodation could be found for the staff, no one would be happier than I.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Austin: Without reflecting on the Table, but with a view to eliciting your guidance and a Ruling, I wish to put a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Following on the reports of a birching case in my Division last Friday, I put a Question down to the Home Secretary—a factual Question—which was rejected on the ground that it implied criticism of magistrates' voting, and that the decision arrived at was not in the competence of the Home Secretary's Department. If that is so, how are hon. Members to ventilate an injustice of this nature?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not say "an injustice of this nature." One may not criticise the courts.
Mr. Austin: How is an hon. Member, not permitted to raise a case, to ventilate this matter?
Mr. Speaker: I do not see any way in which an hon. Member can raise it because it would be criticising the courts of law. We may not criticise the conduct of a judge or magistrate. One may afterwards ask for a sentence to be made more lenient, but in this case that would be no good because the sentence has been carried out. In these cases a Question cannot be put down to the Home Secretary as he is not responsible for any decision that judges and magistrates may take. If the House came to the conclusion that magistrates or judges were not carrying out their duties properly, a Motion must be put down on the Paper.
Mr. Austin: I respectfully accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but how is an hon. Member to raise such a matter?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think it is within the competence of hon. Members to raise a matter of this kind, because one can only raise matters for which a Minister is responsible. Things for which a Minister is not responsible cannot be raised on the Floor of the House, and I am afraid there is no remedy for the hon. Member on the Floor of the House, except, of course, a Motion.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  INDIAN INDEPENDENCE BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  INDIAN INDEPENDENCE BILL

    CLAUSE 1.—(The new Dominions.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    3.42 p.m.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: There are one or two points on this Clause about which we should like to have a little further elucidation. It may be convenient if, with your permission Major Milner, I simply say that we have not put down any Amendments on this Bill, but we expect to he able to elucidate many of its contents during the short time provided for doing so in only one day's proceedings. Therefore, we shall adopt the procedure of rising on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," for the purpose of asking the Government questions. May I add, in regard to the spirit of our approach to the Bill, that if we ask a great many questions I hope it will be understood that it is not in a factious spirit, but with a desire, many of us having been brought up on the constitutional law of India, to elucidate what precisely is the position under this Bill, and that nothing we say will mean that we wish to derogate in any way from our realisation that the Indians are seeking self-government and are to get it.
    As to the points which arise on this Clause—my hon. Friends may have other ones—I wish to confine myself chiefly to asking why 15th August has been chosen as the appointed day. There has necessarily been a great deal of detail to be worked out in the preparation of this Bill, and there will be a great deal of detailed work to undertake before that date. To our untutored eyes it would appear that the matter is being very much rushed and that to get everything ready by this appointed day, being,
    40
    as we are, at the middle of July already, will be a Herculean task for the authorities in India. It will appear, as we further discuss the details of this Measure, that there is a great amount of business to be done of a controversial character, in particular in relation to the partition of India into two pieces, and it would seem almost impossible to complete this by 15th August. I do not want to give only my own reasons why that date was chosen. I would rather that the Government gave their own reasons, but it will be satisfactory to us to know that that date was requested by both sides.
    I would only make the further observation that we have generally supported this Bill on the understanding that this is to be a lasting settlement. If it is a lasting settlement, and is worked out by the Viceroy and those on the spot as a lasting settlement, I cannot quite see why there need have been this great sense of rush. I hope that in reply the Government will be able to reassure us in this opinion that this date has nothing to do with any particular instability in the settlement or the decision which they are pressing.
    One could animadvert at length on the words "two independent Dominions" and the word "India" in the Clause. I have received explanations of those words and I am ready to accept them. I would only say that I presume that the word "Dominions" has been included as being on the same lines as the Statute of Westminster, and that any proposal to amend the Statute of Westminster would carry with it a proposal to amend such a term as this. I am not suggesting that any immediate amendment of that Statute is likely. I do not wish to say anything further about the word "India." Perhaps we might be given a little explanation as to what "India" means here, and what it means under the new connotation. I understand that it has been arranged with the parties concerned as an agreed matter. Therefore, I shall confine myself to these observations.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I should like to associate myself with what my right hon. Friend said about the entirely helpful spirit of our intentions on this and other Clauses. I should like to say a few words about the words "independent Dominions" and I hope that the Prime Minister will be able to say that "Dominion," as used in this Clause, is

    41
    a temporary appellation. I believe that the word "Dominions" is subject to several misconceptions, and I do not think it is suitable in this case. I should have liked to see the words:
    "Two sovereign States within the British Commonwealth of Nations hereinafter to he known for the purpose of this Act as the new Dominions"
    I still wonder whether it is not too late to use words like that in the Clause. I believe that would have a good effect in India. My right hon. Friend has said everything I wish to say on the other question.
    Brigadier Low: In regard to the use of the word "India," I entirely understand the situation as my right hon. Friend put it. I have heard it argued by friends of the Congress Party in England that the use of the word "India" in this Bill is a proof that His Majesty's Government take the view that Pakistan has seceded from the whole of India. I have always taken the view, which I believe is right, that there has been no secession but that this is the result of an agreement which has been approved by His Majesty's Government, and that the Government do not favour one State or the other in the partition of India. I would like confirmation of that.
    Mr. Molson: Like other hon. Members who have spoken on this side of the Committee, in anything I am about to say about the word "India" I shall not press the point because obviously the Government have obtained the agreement of the parties to this word, and one might do a great deal of harm if one pressed any criticisms one wishes to make. At the same time, I am surprised that the word "India" should have been used in this Bill. It is ordinarily a cause of confusion in the drafting of any Statute if a word is used in two entirely different senses. India has, in the past, included the whole of British India and Indian India. In this case one of the two Dominions into which the old British India is being broken up is to be referred to as "India." In point of fact, Pakistan and such Indian States as do not accede to the Dominion of Pakistan or the Dominion of Hindustan will remain part of the geographical expression "India," and I do not doubt that for certain international purposes, it will continue to be necessary for the whole of that geographical area to be treated as a single
    42
    India. I am referring more to technical than to political matters. It seems to be most unfortunate and likely to cause confusion when one part of what has been India in the past is to be known as the Dominion of India in the future. There are political arguments which might he advanced, but I especially abstain from referring to them. I think that in the long run it is likely to cause confusion.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: I would like to support in part what has been said by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) in respect of the term "independent Dominions." I think that we need the word "Dominion" here, and that it was a stroke of genius on the part of Lord Mountbatten to apply the possibility of Dominion status to the two halves of India. I cannot help thinking, however, that the term "independent Dominions" involves a certain contradiction. Dominions as between themselves are interdependent, not independent. I would very much prefer the use of the words "autonomous Dominions." In the famous langage of 1926, the Dominions are not subject one to another in any internal or external affairs, but they are not entirely independent. They do not stand completely apart from one another. Indeed, they have the right to secede from the Commonwealth, in which case they would achieve complete independence. It seems to me the word "independent" ought to be used for that status. It would be more desirable to speak of "autonomous" in this case and to use the words "autonomous Dominions" rather than "independent Dominions."
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) for the spirit in which he has approached this matter in the Committee stage. I would assure him that it is the Government's intention and desire to give every possible information and not to attempt any scoring points. Let me say a word, first of all, with regard to timing. We adopted this timing on the advice of the Viceroy. The right hon. Gentleman will realise how difficult the situation is in which we have an interim Government in which two separate communities are trying to work in a unitary Government. I think there

    43
    is a great deal to be said for getting them launched and started with their work. The longer we keep it hanging about in an indeterminate way, the greater the difficulties which arise. That has been done not from any ulterior motive but on the advice we have had from India.
    With regard to the words "independent Dominions," I think we need the word "Dominion" here just for the reason the right hon. Gentleman gave, that we understand what Dominion status means under the Statute of Westminster. Whatever alteration of the Statute of Westminster there may be in the future, the Statute today does define this position. As the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) said, it means a complete autonomy. With regard to the word "independent," that again one may quarrel over, but I think that one has to consider both history and psychology in these matters. It is a fact that is not generally realised throughout the world that, although it is quite properly said that there is interdependence, there is complete independence in the Dominions from any control, whether from Whitehall or from Parliament. That is the important point that needs to be stressed. It is not, perhaps, quite the same as if this was being formed from some country which had never been in the position of being under this Parliament and Whitehall. I think that is the point that Indians really want to have emphasised; they quite accept the position and they know the advantages of being in the Dominions. The point is that people who have been long, so to speak, under the tutelage of Whitehall and under the control of this Parliament feel, "Now, at last, we are independent of that control."
    Mr. Wilson Harris: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said on the importance of the word "independent" in this context, but is allegiance to the Crown, which is inherent in the position of any Dominion, really consistent with the use of this term?
    The Prime Minister: I think so, because the King is King of Great Britain, King of Canada and of any Dominion. It does not alter the fact that they are independent of any control by any other member of the Commonwealth. I think that is the point. In reference to the
    44
    question whether we should call the Dominions "India" and "Pakistan," that is largely a choice of names decided by the Indians themselves. As the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) pointed out, it is a fact that we get a constant difficulty over one name going for a geographical expression and also for a State. We are awfully apt to talk of "Americans" when we do not mean the people of North and South America. We often talk of "Americans" and do not mean the people of the whole of North America. In the same way, I have no doubt that we shall continue to talk of "Indians" although one part is particularly called India. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden will remember that we had a good deal of talk on this when the 1935 Act was discussed. We always had to distinguish between British India and Indian India. I do not think that this will cause great difficulty in practice.
    An hon. Gentleman opposite raised a point with regard to the status of these two Dominions. The names are not meant to make any difference between them. They are two successor States. They are separate and both of them will be Dominions in the full effect of the term.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any information about the attitude of the inhabitants of Pakistan towards the other half of India, the Hindu side of India, having as one might say "snaffled" the name "India." Are they satisfied, or is it possible that it will lead to trouble?
    The Prime Minister: I should hesitate to speak for all the inhabitants of any area, but this was accepted by their leaders.
    Mr. Nicholson: I have no desire to delay the proceedings, but I feel that what we are doing at this minute may be of immense consequence to the future development of the British Commonwealth. The other day we changed the name of the office of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. It seems to me rather paradoxical that we should invite perpetuity for the name "Dominion" when we are

    45
    launching two large new parts of the Empire which, whatever happens, will be on a slightly different footing from the other Dominions. Another point occurs to me, and I must step warily in what I say. I do not know whether every party in India interprets the word "Dominion" in the way in which we interpret it. I think that it needs a good deal of explanation. Perhaps that is the justification for the use of the word "independent" before the word "Dominions." Thirdly, I cannot help feeling that a revision of the Statute of Westminster must be overdue as soon as there is any retreating from or turning against the use of the word "Dominion." I should like to know from the Prime Minister that this aspect will have the attention of His Majesty's Government in the future. I know that:
    "A rose, by any other name would smell as sweet."
    But there is a very great deal in the names of the British Commonwealth.
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. As a matter of fact, there is a great deal in nomenclature. "Dominion" is the term used in the Statute of Westminster. It may well be that in the future we may consider some other different term. The word "Dominion" is not always frightfully popular with our own Dominions. It may be that in the course of time we will have that matter under consideration. Obviously, it is a matter which we should have to take up with the Dominions at some future conference. I quite appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point.
    Brigadier Low: In dealing with the relationship of the Dominions one to another, we are always referring to the Statute of Westminster. Am I right in saying that the relationships are also governed by a series of decisions reached at Imperial Conferences? If I am right in saying that, to what extent do these decisions apply to the new Dominions? Will they have to accede to them, or do they automatically apply?
    4.0 p.m.
    The Prime Minister: It is difficult to answer that question straight off. We are dealing here with a particular status, not with agreements made by those enjoying that status. Whether the new Dominions
    46
    accede to those agreements would be a matter for their consideration.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Territories of the new Dominions.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Following upon the procedure adopted on the first Clause, there are several points to raise on this Clause. It deals with the subject of the territories of the new Dominions, but I suggest that we should not go into detail on the division of Bengal and the Punjab, until we come to Clauses 3 and 4, which deal with their division and on which we shall have a good deal to say. I will not go into these points in detail now, although, of course, they are mentioned in Subsection (2, a) of this Clause, but I want to ask some questions about certain places and areas which do not appear specifically to be mentioned and the future position of which appears uncertain.
    The general division of India is clear—that is, the territories which are to be under Pakistan, subject to the Boundary Commission's findings, and the territories which are to be in India—but it is not clear what is to be the position of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and what is to be their future. These islands are situated well out in the ocean, and have had a varied history. They assume a certain importance in present circumstances, not least from the angle of defence, and I would like to ask, first, whether the wording in the Clause:
    "territories … which, immediately before the appointed day, were included in British India"
    —will cover the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. If it does not, what is suggested should be the future disposal of these islands, and is there any question of their coming to the one or the other part of India? What is it proposed to do with them?
    I will not go into the question of defence, beyond mentioning that it is obvious that, with the passing of this Bill, nobody will be more interested in the defence of the Indian Ocean than Indians themselves, whether in India or Pakistan, and the question of Imperial defence will assume just as great an importance in

    47
    future, as it rightly did in the past, not only during the two great wars, but in the preceding period and since. It is an open fact that the future of these islands and other islands, to which my hon. Friends may refer, may be very interesting from the point of view of Imperial defence, and I would like to know whether the Government have any statement to make on that aspect of the matter.
    I would also like to ask a constitutional question about the inhabitants of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Are they, in fact, represented in the Constituent Assembly. If they are included in the definition of British India in this Clause, they would be represented in the Constituent Assembly, but, if they are not included in that definition, they would not be included in the Constituent Assembly, and I should like to ask why, if the latter is the case, they have been left out of this Bill. I think there is an answer which the Government has to make here on the subject of whether the inhabitants of these islands are in any way represented in the Constituent Assembly, and, if not, what their future is to be.
    There is another very important matter to which I would make reference and that concerns Berar, which is at present administered under the Government of the Central Provinces. The Governor is called the Governor of the Central Provinces and Berar, but Berar is under the sovereignty of the Nizam of Hyderabad. I will not detain the Committee with a long history of Berar, because I do not think it would enlighten anybody present, as they are already familiar with it. This is that rich part of India whose soil is largely the very rich cotton producing soil, and its capital and other towns are no doubt well known to hon. Members. It has always been an important area of India. It has fallen readily, and I think easily, into the administration of the Central Provinces Government, and has brought to the councils of that Government much of the talent of the Provinces. It would appear that Berar is under the sovereighty of the Nizam of Hyderabad, and would not, therefore, fall within the definition included in this Bill, but would, presumably, remain under the Nizam and within the territory of Hyderabad. I do not know whether any conversations have been proceeding on this subject, but, if they have, it would
    48
    be interesting if the Government would enlighten us on the subject. It would be interesting to know if there is any up-to-date information on these issues, which we hope may be settled satisfactorily, so that this area may have a happy future in India.
    The next question I want to ask is about the North-West Frontier Province. I noticed that, in the rush with which we are passing this Bill, the final information on the result of the referendum has not been made available to the Committee, but I should value very much the latest news of the North-West Frontier position, and would like to know whether there is any news of which I am not yet in possession. I should like to make the observation that, in considering areas like the North-West Frontier Province and other areas which form part of the future mosaic of one or other part of divided India, the most absolute care has been taken to consider the wishes of the inhabitants of the areas in question. That would appear to be the case in regard to the North-West Frontier Province, because anyone looking at the map would really form the view that it should be included in the Northern division of India.
    The point I want to make is that, it such areas, and other small areas, are to be given the opportunity of what may be described as self-determination, it is particularly important that the Indian States, which are also mentioned in this Clause, should, individually, be given the opportunity of seeking their own salvation in their own way and of finding themselves, ultimately, in the future of India, in the situation which they desire for themselves. There is a strong case put to us from India that several States desire themselves to seek a state of independence in relation to British India, and not to join either one or other of the divided parts of India. I would suggest that we might consider the States in detail on Clause 7, because I think that we could then divide up the subject more satisfactorily than by going into detail now and having to return to the question of the States when we come to Clause 7, I think it deals most aptly with the States, and we may best discuss the question on it both in fairness to them and ourselves. I would mention also that the tribal areas will come within the scope of Clause 7.
    There are some points on Subsection (3) of this Clause which I will leave for other

    49
    hon. Members speaking from this side of the Committee, but it is, I think, necessary to get the right approach to this Clause on the question of the territories of the new Dominions. I think it is satisfactory that we have been able to get so easily in the Bill the general definitions, and that is all I will say on the general point, though, when we come to the detailed points of the Provinces, I would like to discuss these questions, together with those of the Punjab and Bengal, and that of the States.
    Mr. Driberg: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to give some assurance in response to the reference to Berar made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), and that he will be able to tell us that this territory is among those territories which will form part of the new Dominion of India. This point was raised in last Thursday's Debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Hutchinson), but my right hon. and learned Friend who replied to the Debate did not deal with that particular point. It is of some importance. There are, I think, some 4 million people concerned, the overwhelming majority of whom are Hindus, who, for a great many years, have been accustomed to a certain measure of democratic representative government. It would seem undesirable that they should be handed back to the Nizam of Hyderabad, even though he has technically retained an ultimate jurisdiction over them. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to meet us on that point.
    Commander Noble: I want to say a word or two about the islands of India which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A Butler) has said, are not mentioned in this Clause, and some of which are of very great importance. Are we to infer that, as they are not mentioned in the Clause, they are to go to the new Dominion of India? First, I will deal with those on the West coast. In the South, there are the Maldive Islands, which I do not think concern this Bill as they are administered by Ceylon. But the Laccadive Islands to the North are now administered by India, and will have to be administered by either one or both of the two new Dominions. I understand
    50
    that, at the moment, about half of the Laccadives are administered by British India and half by an Indian State? I feel that these islands must have a certain strategic importance, both from the sea and from the air aspect. I would like to ask the Under-Secretary of State whether he has any information to give us as to their future, and whether he can give us an assurance that our position is being considered with regard to those islands.
    I would also like to say a few words about the Andamans and the Nicobars. My right hon. Friend has said that these islands too are not referred to in this Clause. Can the Under-Secretary of State say whether, in fact, they come within the provisions of the Bill at all? Can he also say what is the present constitution of the administration of those islands? I understand that, at present, they are administered by the Governor General through a Chief Commissioner. I should like to know whether, in the past, they have actually formed part of the Indian Empire, and also whether, in fact, it is now legal even to consider their division between the two Dominions? As my right hon. Friend has said, they are a long way from India; I can speak of that from personal experience, having done the distance in a small ship in bad weather. They are, of course, very much nearer to Malaya, and they have a great strategic importance. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will give us an assurance that the matter is being fully considered, and will also tell us what is the legal position at the moment.
    4.15 p.m.
    Earl Winterton: I very much hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to give us a satisfactory answer to the question about the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, because a question of some importance arises in regard to them. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), with whom I am in entire agreement, I am not trying to make it harder for the Under-Secretary of State. We want the Bill to go through, but I hope that some hon. Members opposite will support the point I am going to put. So far as I know, speaking from my long recollection, these islands have no elected representative in the

    51
    that a large proportion of their inhabitants are of very primitive race indeed. As the Committee will be aware, one of these islands has been for many years the place where convicts are sent from India. Some of them have settled in those islands. I think I am right in saying, although I speak with some hesitation, because I am not quite sure, that both islands were added to India by the action of the British Navy. I do not think that, historically, they form part of India.
    Even in a Bill of this magnitude—and say this in all sincerity, and with no wish to score a party point—I hope that hon. Members opposite, as well as those on this side of the Committee, will have some regard for the wishes and the welfare of the peoples of those islands. If they are to be added to India, what safeguards have they, from either of the potential Indian Governments, that they will have an eventual chance of being included in the Constituent Assembly? In the course of many years, very little has been done for the welfare of these people, but that in no way absolves us from responsibility for what their future shall be. The other point which my right hon. Friend made—with, if I may say so, great discretion, as we all would wish to do when speaking of defence measures—was with regard to the strategic value of these islands.
    With regard to the question of Berar, the situation is not quite as simple as the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) seemed to think, it is not a question of what he or, indeed, this Committee considers to be the best, but a question of a treaty. Under the treaty with the Nizam, Berar was leased in perpetuity to the British. The sovereignty of the Nizam continues to be recognized. When we cease to have responsibility for the Government of India, neither this House nor the Government can calmly say to any State that, though the lease which we had of their territory has now ceased to exist, we propose to hand it over, without permission, to our successors. We could not do that; it would be considered as something slightly dishonest. I very much hope that conversations on the subject have taken place with the Nizam, and that we can have a definite assurance on these points to
    52
    which, I hope, the whole Committee attach considerable importance.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: Like the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), I feel that some consideration must be given to the Andaman Islands. I understand that those islands became a penal settlement when Penang ceased to be a penal settlement. At that time, Penang was under the East India Company, and later became a Crown Colony. What are the views of the inhabitants of the Andaman Islands? I should have thought that, in many ways, they would be best placed under the Malayan or Burma Governments. At all events, I think that the people who should decide this question are the inhabitants of those islands themselves. I have no doubt that the Government have been able to obtain some information on this point. If so, we shall be very glad to hear it.
    With regard to the question of Berar, I had the opportunity of discussing this subject in India a month or two ago with one of the chief officers of the Nizam, and I think it has many complications. I believe that it would be best for this Committee to let the matter be decided between the Nizam and the Government of India because, at this stage, I do not think that we can decide a matter which is primarily a legal one. We cannot suddenly hand over areas to either one or the other of the new Dominions. I have no doubt that the Nizam, on the one hand, and the Government of India on the other, are perfectly competent to settle this question for themselves. I see nothing in this Clause which decides the fate of Berar.
    Mr. Driberg: May I interrupt my hon. Friend? Would he not agree that, as in the case of the islands, this is a matter on which the wishes of the inhabitants could well be consulted?
    Mr. Rees-Williams: There is a slight difference. So far as the islands are concerned, the British Government have full authority and, therefore, we can decide their future. With regard to Berar, that is a matter with which another party is concerned, and that is the original sovereign. We want to ensure the happiness of India and we want the Nizam to be perfectly satisfied that the future of his State shall be assured and that nothing is done to which he can legally object. We are not likely to have that satisfactory

    53
    state of affairs if, without his consent, we take away from him a part of his dominion.
    Brigadier Low: I agree with some of the things which have been said by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams), but surely the point concerning Berar is settled by the Bill. The Bill definitely states that
    "the territories of India shall he the territories under the sovereignty of His Majesty."
    I understand that Berar has never been under the sovereignty of His Majesty. The Nizam has always maintained and retained his sovereignty over Berar; I believe that is expressly provided in the 1935 Act, and certainly, if not there, in the treaty made under the 1935 Act. I agree with some of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for South Croydon and others, but surely, so far as this point is concerned, it is already settled in the Bill, unless, of course, His Majesty's Government intend to amend the relevant Clause.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: What I said was that this Pill does not interfere with the legal position and, therefore, there is no point in raising the question of Berar on this Clause. The hon. Gentleman appears to agree with me.
    Brigadier Low: One of the hon. Member's hon. Friends was not making that point. I now come to a new point in connection with Subsection (3). Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State would say whether it will be more convenient to him if I leave this point until after he has replied to the main points which have already been made, or whether I should introduce it now. Should I continue?
    The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Arthur Henderson)indicated assent.
    Brigadier Low: Subsection (3) seems to me to raise matters of general principle concerning the right of accession to the Commonwealth and the right of secession from the Commonwealth. Both are very important points, and I do not feel that I am worthy to go into them, but I would like to make the following comments: first, in connection with the right of accession. It appears that it is open to areas which are not now in the Commonwealth to come into the Commonwealth solely on the vote of the
    54
    Dominion whom they are joining. That may be a general principle which the Commonwealth has always adopted Certainly if one looks at other parts of the Commonwealth, one can see the advantage of that principle. All I am asking is whether or not this is established as a precedent of Commonwealth law, or whether it is peculiar to this case. I feel that when pushing through Bills as quickly as this, it is dangerous if we make precedents for the future, but if it is quite clear that it is special to this case I am content, because I realise that from the point of view of the Commonwealth and of India, it is most desirable that there should be as much accession as possible. Before leaving that point, I would like the right hon. Gentleman to confirm that it is open not only to the States but also to tribal areas, if they so wish and if the Dominion so wishes, to accede to the Dominion.
    So much for accession. I now wish to deal with secession. As I understand it. paragraph (b) of Subsection (3) states the present position as to the right of secession from any part of the British Commonwealth. But it is directly contrary to the provisions of paragraph 15 of the Cabinet Mission's original plan, which allowed for Provinces seceding not by the vote of the whole of the Union but only on the vote of the whole of that Province. As a result of the provisions of paragraph (b), it is going to be very difficult in the future to get the unity of Bengal or of the Punjab. When I say it is going to very difficult, perhaps I should say that it might be made more difficult than it would otherwise be, because there is this limit on the power of any Province in either of the two Dominions to join another Province or another Dominion against the wish of its own Dominion. That seems to me of some importance and, no doubt, it has been taken into account by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who may have a good answer to the point, but I thought it right to mention it.
    Mr. Wyatt: I would like to refer to the question of Berar. In view of the negotiations at present going on between the representatives of Hyderabad and British India, it seems that, to a large extent, we in this Committee are talking

    55
    academically about the future of Berar. On the other hand, I think we have definite function in those negotations. Obviously, the leaders of the new India will not support the movement of Berar from the present jurisdiction of British India, to the jurisdiction of Hyderabad, and I think they would be right in that contention. In a dispute of that kind it is our function to urge upon both parties that it is right that it should remain in British India, with which it has had long associations for many years, as was said by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton)—
    Earl Winterton: No, the hon. Member should not quote me as having suggested that it should remain in British India. I said it was so determined by a treaty, which is quite a different thing.
    Mr. Wyatt: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I mean that he said it had had long associations with British India. If, however, the dispute is found to be too difficult, it should be our duty to recommend to both parties that a referendum should be held there to decide which way the inhabitants want to go. If it is possible to have a referendum in Sylhet and in the North-West Frontier Province, then it is possible to hold one in Berar.
    Mr. Nicholson: I was interested in what the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) has just said. There is this difficulty in connection with Berar. We are not here to decide what is desirable or what we should recommend, because we are bound by definite treaties. There is another fact. It is all very well to refer to possible negotiations between the Nizam and the Government of India, but do not let us forget that all scales are weighted in favour of the new Dominion of India. If the Government of India put their foot down and say that they will not give up their jurisdiction over Berar, there will be absolutely nothing for the Nizam to do. He cannot enforce his legally just claims by force of arms, because he has a very small army compared with the new Indian Army. There will even be a garrison of Indian Army troops in the middle of his dominions. That should be remembered. It may be highly desirable that we should recommend a referendum, but the scales are definitely weighted in favour of the Government of India, and I ask the Com-
    56
    mittee to bear that in mind. This is a legal matter, a matter of treaties.
    4.30 p.m.
    As far as the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are concerned, that seems to me to link up with Subsection (3). I cannot very well see how we can encourage referenda in some parts of India and not in other parts. I thought that the original Cabinet Mission plan was that there should be no accession to a new Dominion without the direct assent or request of the various Provinces. If Baluchistan does not wish to join Pakistan, nothing in the world can save it from being forced to join Pakistan if the Bill passes in its present form; and that is a serious matter. I believe that this Clause is one of the most important in the Bill, and I do not think the Committee ought to leave it without very careful consideration of the several very significant points involved.
    Sir Stanley Reed: I do not want to anticipate what the Under-Secretary of State has to say about Berar, except to say that anybody who can reconcile the technicalities with the actualities, is a far greater man than anyone I have come across in my life. I happen to know the inner history of the negotiations that lead to the perpetual lease, and it will not be found in the official records. I want only to add this. I understood my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) to say that the natural association of the Berars is with the Central Provinces. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider that, because all the natural affinities, commercial, social, and cultural are with the Maharashtra, and through the Maharashtra with the Bombay Presidency. I thought a great opportunity was lost when, with the conclusion of the perpetual lease the Berars, ceasing to be a separate administration, were not linked with Bombay. I have never wavered in that decision. Regarding the Andaman and Nicobars, I leave that to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble), and would only say that I do not envy the man who is going to go to Nicobars to try to find out what the wishes of the people there are. I doubt whether he will find half a dozen in both islands put together who know where Malaya of Burma are.
    The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Arthur Henderson): A number of points have been raised, and it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I deal, first, with the position of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) referred, in passing to the historical background. I should like to remind the Committee that, whatever may have been the origin of the connection of those islands with India, it is a connection that goes back for a good many years. I think it was in 1872 that the first Chief Commissioner was appointed by the then Government of India. Since that time those islands have been recognised as part of the territories of India, and, as I say, have been administered by a Commissioner.
    Earl Winterton: I do not want to interrupt—I know I have a bad habit of interrupting—nor do I wish to delay the Committee; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman is underlining my point. But for the presence of the—British in India, whatever we may like to say about it, those islands would never have been part of India. It was the British who made them part of India. That was my whole point.
    Mr. Henderson: That is true. A good many things would not have happened if the British had not taken power in India. Indeed we should not be engaged, as we are tonight, in dealing with this Bill if we had not gone there. But that is the historical background. The position is that for the last 70 years those islands have been recognised by all Governments as forming part of India
    Mr. Thomas Reid: Of British India.
    Mr. Henderson: Of British India. The population, it may interest the Committee to know, is composed as follows. The total population of the Andaman Islands is 14,500, of whom about 12,000 are Indians, and about 2,440 Burmans; and the great majority of this section of the population are those who have been sent to penal servitude or their descendants.
    Mr. Nicholson: What about the aboriginals?
    Mr. Henderson: In the Andamans, I am afraid, there are no aboriginals. In the Nicobar Islands the position is just the opposite.
    Mr. Nicholson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman really saying that there are no Andaman aboriginals? I can assure him he is wrong. They are one of the most interesting anthropological groups in the world. That is a very bad performance on his part.
    Mr. Henderson: Well, there may be: but very few.
    Mr. Nicholson: No.
    Mr. Henderson: Certainly less than 100.
    Mr. Nicholson: I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman he is making a very great mistake. They are most interesting anthropologically and in many other ways. They may not have been included in the census. I should not like to make a guess about how many there are, but there are many thousands.
    Mr. Wyatt: Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman not say in answer to me once that there are 65 aboriginals in the Andaman Islands?
    Mr. Nicholson: 65,000.
    Mr. Henderson: Any information I have given to the Committee is information received from the Government of India, and is certainly based on the census—the last census. It may well be that there are a number of aboriginals in the islands, but certainly the Government of India have no knowlege of their numbers. But in the Nicobar Islands it is entirely the other way. Out of a total population of 14,900, over 14,000 are Nicobarees. They are the aboriginal section of the populations. There are just a few Indians and I think, in fact, four Europeans. So that there the ratio is very different from that in the Andamans.
    The position of the Government with regard to the disposal of these islands under this Bill is quite clear. Attention has already been drawn to the fact that what are passing to the new India are all those territories which, immediately before the appointed day, with the exception of those that are to be transferred to Pakistan, were under the sovereignty of His Majesty; and they include not only the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, but also the Laccadive Islands, to which reference was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble). The position with regard to the Laccadive Islands is that they are not under the

    59
    sovereignty of any State, but form part of the Province of Madras. They also come under this formula, and will remain with the new India.
    A question was asked as to the future policy of His Majesty's Government, looking at these islands from the point of view of defence. I should like to say that we are well aware of the strategic importance of these Islands. This is one of the matters which we propose to discuss with the future Government of India, in the general context of the defence matters which will come up for discussion in due course. I was asked whether the inhabitants were represented in the Constituent Assembly. Well, they are not so represented. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) asked me if I had any information about the progress of the referendum in the North-West Frontier Province. Voting is already in progress between 6th July and 17th July, and the result is to be known on 20th July.
    I should like to make the position of the Government clear with regard to Berar. Section 47 of the Government of India Act, 1935, does, in terms, recognise the sovereignty of the Nizam of Hyderabad, and says:
    "Whereas certain territory (in this Act referred to as Berar) is under the sovereignty of His Exalted Highness the Nizam of Hyderabad, but is at the date of the passing of this Act, by virtue of certain agreements subsisting between His Majesty and His Exalted Highness, administered together with the Central Provinces."
    Following the passage of the 1935 Act, the necessary agreement was entered into with the Nizam in 1936. The effect of Clause 7 (1, b) of this Bill is to terminate the 1936 Agreement. There can be no doubt that it does remove the legal basis for Berar's administration, as if it were part of British India. In other words, Berar will undoubtedly, de jure, revert to Hyderabad. That is the legal position. But we have to face the realities of the position. This Province of three or four million inhabitants, is administered entirely by officials of the Government of India, and of the Provincial Government of the Central Provinces and Berar, and it would be quite impossible for any change to take place, in a matter of days, involving the taking away of the administrative machine and its replacement
    60
    by the officials of the Nizam. Therefore, it will obviously be necessary for the Government of India to enter into discussions with the Nizam, either to continue the existing arrangements or to replace the present set-up in the light of the legal position. As I informed the House during Second Reading a conference commenced last Friday between the new States Department of the Government of India en the one hand and the representatives of Hyderabad, Mysore and Travancore on the other, and we can only await the outcom of those discussions.
    The hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low) asked one or two questions with regard to Clause 2 (3). He desired to know why Subsections (3, a) and (3, b) were necessary. I would remind him that Clause 2 (1), as well as Clause 2 (2), uses the words "shall be." It provides:
    "Subject to the provisions of Subsections (3) and (4) … the territories … shall be …"
    then the territories are specified. The object of inserting Subsection (3) was to put beyond any argument that those boundaries can be altered, but they can be altered only with the agreement of the Government of India, or the Government of Pakistan.
    The hon. and gallant Member then said that a new position regarding the possibility of secession from the Commonwealth resulted from this provision, and he wanted to know whether it would be possible for Provinces now forming part of India or of Pakistan to secede if they so desired. There is certainly nothing in the Bill which, in terms, lays it down that it shall be within the power of a Province in the new Dominions to secede. The question how they work out their own salvation in the future, even on a matter like that, will be entirely one for them, and will depend upon the constitutions which their respective Constituent Assemblies draw up.
    4.45 p.m.
    Sir Ralph Glyn: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman say, in regard to the defence aspect of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, that it is one of the matters to be discussed by the United Defence Council of India in the immediate future?
    Mr. Henderson: It would be a matter to be discussed between the various Governments of the British Commonwealth who are interested in those islands.
    Mr. Harold Macmillan (Bannley): We are very much indebted to the Under-Secretary for his explanation. There are one or two points which I should like to try to underline. I agree with him on the last point with which he dealt. The right of secession of Provinces was, after all, based upon a wholly different plan from that on which we are now proceeding. It was based upon the plan of the Cabinet, which contemplated a united India and not a partitioned India; and the right of secession of Provinces, was, as it were, put in as a safeguard which would enable—as it was then hoped—the Cabinet plan to become effective. But since the Cabinet plan has been wholly abandoned and we are now on the basis of the partition of India, we have a very different set of circumstances from that first contemplated for the secession of Provinces. I think that the Government are right not to introduce it again in the partitioning of India.
    At I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he said that these islands which we have been discussing, to the extent that they have achieved importance will be subject to direct negotiations between His Majesty's Government in Great Britain and the Government of the Dominions of India in connection with any other defence matters which may come up in the normal way to be discussed between His Majesty's Government in this country and any other Dominion. I hope he will not turn his mind altogether against the possibility of some arrangement which, as I understand it, is to be discussed. Some final decision would necessarily be taken whether these islands would pass wholly under the power of the Dominion of India, or might pass, to some extent, to the Dominion of Pakistan.
    I think the Under-Secretary has cleared our minds very much on the question of Berar. I understand he now tells us there is no doubt at all, from a legal point of view, that the lease comes to an end on the appointed day, and therefore the territory in question reverts to the Nizam, and the successor Government has no right of any sort or kind to extend the lease. The final arrangement will have to be
    62
    made at the conference which is now going on. From the legal point of view, and from the point of view of right, justice and honesty, the Nizam is in the position of being, I trust, a free negotiator of any fresh arrangement which he may choose to make, or which may be made by good will, either for some continuation of this system or for its reverting in due course, and in an orderly manner, to his own territory. This is of some importance, because under the right of paramountcy, which will also lapse under this Bill, we are maintaining large bodies of troops in the territories of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, and there is a certain feeling that it would be proper for these troops, which exist there only under the rights of paramountcy now lapsing, to be removed before the appointed day; otherwise, the discussions may be somewhat prejudiced. I hope that that matter may also be cleared up as soon as possible, as I understand it is causing a certain amount of anxiety.
    Earl Winterton: I rise only to say that I have heard, on authority, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Under-Secretary is wrong in saying that there are no aboriginals in the Andaman Islands. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has either been sent a wrong cable, or his Department do not know the situation. There are thousands of these people, and I hope that their future will be considered, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will ask for sympathetic treatment towards them.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Bengal and Assam.)
    Mr. A. Henderson: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, to leave out "awards of boundary commissions," and to insert:
    "the award of a boundary commission."
    I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we discussed together the two Amendments to this Clause and the two Amendments to Clause 4. Two of the Amendments are formal, and the only difference between the other two is that one applies to the boundary commission in Bengal, and the other to the boundary commission in the Punjab. These Amendments have been put down at the request of the Partition Council, which, as the Committee knows,

    63
    is a body set up to settle matters arising out of the transfer of power. The object of the Amendments is to ensure that the reports of the chairman of the commissions, who, as the Committee knows, is Sir Cyril Radcliffe, shall have the force of an award.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: We consider that these Amendments are improvements on the Bill. I understand that they have the approval of the chairman of the boundary commissions. The Amendments tie up the Bill, and the matter is not left so vague as it was before. We are now certain that when the boundary commission in either Province makes an award, it will become final, and no further legislation of this sort will be necessary. The Amendments, therefore, are clear and satisfactory. I think it might be convenient to make the observations I wish to make in regard to Bengal at this stage, rather than on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): It would be more advantageous if we first dealt with the Amendment now before the Committee.
    Mr. Butler: I have no more to say on the Amendment, which I consider to be a technical matter. Would I be in Order in referring to the terms of reference?
    The Deputy-Chairman: It would be better to deal with that on the Motion that the Clause stand part.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 3 line 19 at end, add:
    "(4) In this section, the expression 'award' means, in relation to a boundary commission, the decisions of the chairman of that commission contained in his report to the Governor-General at the conclusion of the commission's proceedings."—[Mr. A. Henderson.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. R. A. Butler: This is a very, important Clause. It refers, for the first time in our detailed discussions, to the partition of Bengal. Some of us in the past have spoken in favour of Indian self-government, and have said that even
    64
    if Indian self-government meant giving self-government to a divided India, we should still be in favour of it. I have said, in previous speeches, that it might be necessary to give self-government to "parts of India," which is an expression used in one of the Government's own statements. None of us has as yet spoken in favour of or against the division of major Provinces such as Bengal or the Punjab. At first sight, it is repugnant for a great Province like Bengal to be divided up. Bengal has a great history, and a history which involves the, question of partition. Anyone who has discussed or considered the history of Bengal will know of Lord Curzon's proposals to this end, which created the utmost commotion; they have now taken their place in the written history of India as being a troubled matter.
    We now come to the very great problem which faces the Government and their representatives in India, namely, if there is to be a divided India, how the boundaries are to be arranged so that in the Muslim areas there is a Muslim majority. It can be seen that without some such scheme as this, there is in fact no suitable line which can be drawn to divide the Muslim majority area from a non-Muslim majority area. We therefore come up sharply against the fact that two major provinces of India, with their proud history, have, to the regret of many—it will break the hearts of many, including those who have devoted their lives to the administration of these Provinces—to be divided. If that has to be the case, in order to achieve settlement, all the Opposition can do is to put forward certain considerations, and trust that the boundary commissions, to whom this very difficult task is confided, will be able to do their work with the utmost success and dispatch.
    Under the terms of reference for the boundary commission with regard to Bengal, the commission are instructed to demarcate the boundary of the two parts of Bengal on the basis of ascertaining contiguous areas of Muslims and non-Muslims, and in doing so to take into account other factors. I can only wish the new chairman of the boundary commission, whom we all respect, the utmost success in his very difficult task. It is a task of a most complicated character, and it is bound to involve him and the other members in the

    65
    utmost difficulty of mind. It will draw from them all qualities of judgment with which we trust they are fully endowed.
    5.0 p.m.
    I wish to refer, not to the comparatively clear mathematical question of ascertaining contiguous majority areas of Muslims and non-Muslims, but to the next phase, namely, that the commission, in doing so, will take into account "all other factors." These factors are very considerable. When we examine this question of the division of Bengal as we have known it—that is, the great Province of Bengal—we see that it will lose, under the broad demarcation of this Bill, some one-third of its inhabitants, including Calcutta. Even with the Sylhel district, Eastern Bengal will have only 44 million inhabitants—that is, on the 1941 census—and what is more striking is the fact that besides this loss of inhabitants in this, the largest, part of Pakistan, which will be the largest single unit of Pakistan, the majority of the basic industries will be on the Western side of the frontier, in the new India, and the main sources of wealth left to this vast population will be the raw jute itself. The majority of the processing mills for the jute will be across the border, in the outskirts of Calcutta. That means that the basic wealth, including what coal and steel there is, will be across the border. Therefore, I would like to ask the Government how, broadly, they mean to interpret the terms of reference to the boundary commission, and whether there is any opportunity of so allocating the boundary that some of the basic sources of wealth may be found in this the largest single unit of Pakistan?
    I would like to make it clear that I am not taking sides in this matter, that I am not trying to advocate that one side of India should be stronger than the other; I am trying to make sure that the economy of the area to be set up shall be viable, that it will be able to pay its way. If I want any justification for my remarks, I would refer the Committee to the extensive White Paper published at the time of the Cabinet Mission, in which a divided India was dismissed as impossible owing to the great difficulties it would have to face. But now that we are to face, inevitably, that divided India, let us see that the parts of it have as good a future as we can make for them.
    66
    Now I come to the question of a port. This vast area of Eastern Bengal, which is known best to my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), is to depend, so far as we can see, on the port of Chittagong. This is an adequate port in the proper sense of that word, and is situated somewhat far to the East. But whether Chittagong is adequate or not, it is clear that the major portion of the trade and communications will filter down to Calcutta, as they have done throughout history and as they are likely to do in the future. I want, therefore, to ask the Government whether any proposal has been put forward, in the course of the suggested partition of Bengal for an international—if I may so describe it—or impartial port arrangement to be made for Calcutta? Has there been any discussion that Calcutta shall offer facilities, under all circumstances, to the trade of Eastern Bengal, and can we be assured that the raw jute, which is so much a part of the wealth of Eastern Bengal, will find its way to the processing mills of the West?
    I know that I have put on the shoulders of the Under-Secretary a question which it is impossible for him to answer now, but I would ask whether there has been any consideration given to this matter, whether the freeing of the port of Calcutta for the merchandise of the East has been arranged or discussed? If so, I am sure the Committee will he glad to hear it, for it is with great anxiety and a sense of sorrow that we come, on this occasion, to the question of the division of a major Province which has given so much to India in the past and which I hope will, in its new form, give a great deal to the future of both India and Pakistan.
    Sir S. Reed: I hope I shall be in Order in offering a little footnote to history in connection with the partition of Bengal. Everybody who has served in India must share in the regret which my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) has expressed at the splitting up of a great historical Province which, even though it has been amorphous in its boundaries, nevertheless has acquired a historical tradition. This is not, of course, the first time partition has been established in Bengal. When Lord Curzon was Viceroy of India he found that the Province of Bengal was so bloated that he came to the conclusion

    67
    that it was impossible for any single Administration to conduct its affairs with efficiency. If my memory serves me right, I think the population of Bengal was then about 70 millions. What is now Eastern Bengal was grossly and scandalously neglected. The new province of Eastern Bengal and Assam was created to give that huge area a corporate and provincial existence, detached from the main, provincial Government in Calcutta. That induced an unreasoning agitation which swept the whole of Bengal from end to end year after year until, in 1911, it was agreed that what was called the great Bengali nation should be reunited and the new province of Bihar and Orissa was created. There is an interesting story attached to this. In the Bar Library of Calcutta after the Revocation of Partition an eminent advocate said, "You have been crying for the moon, for a united Bengal. Now you have got the moon, but you have lost the great and glorious sun, in the transfer of the capital from Calcutta to Delhi." Now we see a division which was so violently opposed when imposed from without, accepted as essential because it comes from within.
    There is only one further point I want to make. My right hon. Friend expressed doubts as to whether Chittagong can really serve the interests of Eastern Bengal. My engineering friends tell me that the port is capable of great development, but that development has been held back by the centralising influence of Calcutta. There is this flow of raw jute from the producing areas of East Bengal to the mills of Calcutta. This is a serious matter for those connected with the jute interests, and if any assurance can be given on that subject it will be welcomed by those who founded and developed this great source of prosperity to Calcutta and India.
    Sir John Anderson: I had not intended to intervene at this stage, but in view of what has been said about the situation in my old Province of Bengal I feel I must say just a few words. I do not think it is profitable to go back, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) has gone back, for present purposes, over old history, interesting though it is. It is not a question today of merely reversing any process through which Bengal has
    68
    gone in the past. The boundaries will be essentially different from any provincial boundaries hitherto recognised. For example, when the old Province of Eastern Bengal was established with its capital at Dacca, Assam was an integral part of that Province. Assam is now being taken away, though Sylket and possibly certain small portions of the adjacent area may or may not be included. The portion of Pakistan which will comprise the new Eastern Bengal will be smaller in area and, I think, probably larger relatively in population than the old Province of Eastern Bengal. There has been a very considerable increase of population in the portion of Bengal which will he included in Pakistan and that, in itself, taken in conjunction with the lack of heavy industries, constitutes a very serious economic problem. A large part of the population of these areas is definitely on the margin of subsistence.
    Something has been said about the possibility of developing Chittagong. Do not let us blind ourselves to the actual facts of the situation. In the territory of Bengal, as we know it today, there are two great river systems dependent upon the Ganges and the Brahtnaputra. Both these rivers flow into the Bay of Bengal, and there is a confluence at the mouths of these rivers. Neither river gives ready access to Chittagong. Chittagong is served by a comparatively small river of which few have ever heard. Its name is Karnafuli, or, in the local dialect, Kynso-Kyoung. It is a very small river navigatable only for a very short distance, and if one goes up it in a launch in dry weather one is likely to stick only a few miles above the port of Chittagong. The river system of Bengal is connected with a network of minor waterways all giving access to the port of Calcutta. Chittagong is served by a railway from Chandpur, which is a narrow gauge railway not capable of carrying very much traffic. I do not say that the new Pakistan or the Eastern portion of Pakistan with a portion of Assam is not capable of development, but any economic development on a considerable scale must certainly take a very long time. There is as far as I am aware no mineral wealth; there certainly cannot be a lot because there are hundreds of feet of alluvium over the whole area. Not only has if no industries to speak of, but most of

    69
    the forest wealth of Bengal will be on the other side of the boundary.
    All I can say is that—and I join with my hon. Friend when he said he was not taking sides, for I also am not taking sides—I hope in the financial and economic adjustments that are made very special consideration will be given to the backward condition of the portion of Bengal which will go into Pakistan and the need for development. There is no doubt whatever that in the past from the common revenues of India development has taken place outside what will be the eastern portion of Pakistan on a greater scale than within that area. These are matters which certainly deserve the most careful consideration. Do not either let us accept too readily anything that may he said about the rosy prospects of the development of the harbour of Chittagong or anything else, whatever it may he.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Molson: I am sure that the Committee will have listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) with the greatest interest. He has drawn attention to one of the immensely difficult problems which is likely to arise out of the partitioning of the existing Provinces of India. I ask the Government to deal on more general lines with one of the difficulties to which my right hon. Friend has drawn special attention. There is a very great temptation to politicians when they come up against some political difficulty to think that if they refer it to an arbitral tribunal, with a highly respected lawyer as chairman, that, in some way, that will enable the political difficulties to be got round. As a matter of fact the whole question will depend perhaps in the first place, in some degree, on the membership of the tribunal. I would ask for some information about that, because we have obviously to contemplate in a matter of this kind which will be regarded as almost life and death to some of these Provinces, whether the terms of reference will provide that if there is a difference of opinion between the representatives of the Hindus and of the Muslims the decision of the chairman is to be final and conclusive. I cannot find anything in the Bill dealing with that matter or anything on the subject in the statement of 3rd June.
    70
    I pass over that to what I feel is a much more fundamental difficulty. If the Parliamentary Secretary will turn to the statement of 3rd June, 1947, Paragraph 9, he will find that this is said about the Boundaries Commission:
    "A Boundary Commission will be set up by the Governor-General, the membership and terms of which will be settled in consultation with those concerned. It will be instructed to demarcate the boundaries of the two parts of the Punjab on a basis of ascertaining the contiguous majority areas of Muslims and non-Muslims. It will also be instructed to take into account other factors."
    There is a long and vast history of disputes of this kind ever since 1919. If we draw a line clearly on grounds of race, we find that in almost every case we divide the agricultural hinterland from the towns that they feed, and we may very well have a division between for example, coal and iron. In this case, the most outstanding difference which it will make is between the jute which is grown in the Eastern area and manufactured in the Western area. When the White Paper of 3rd June was made, it was, I think, contemplated that the same individual was to be Governor-General of both of the Dominions. Under this Bill, it says that the
    "boundary commissions appointed or to be appointed by the Governor-General in that behalf."
    I take it that the terms of reference of these boundary commissions will have to be created between—
    Mr. A. Henderson: The boundary commissions personnel have been appointed and the terms of reference have been accepted.
    Mr. Molson: Have the terms of reference been published?
    Mr. A. Henderson: Yes.
    Mr. Molson: I apologise. Obviously this will be an immensely difficult problem because, if other matters are to he taken into account in addition to race and religion, this will make the task of the boundary commissions more difficult, and we can only hope that they will have the wisdom of Solomon in order to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Those of us who know India view with great regret that Bengal itself should have to be divided up again. We are not going to

    71
    dispute at the moment the fact that this is going to happen, because it is agreed on this Bill that certain things are necessary in order to get a working plan at all. I feel when these two Provinces of Eastern and Western Bengal are demarcated, provision must be made for facilities which have existed in the past; and one of those to which I should like to draw the Committee's attention is the free passage and communication between the Kingdom of Nepal and India as we have known it. The normal line of communication to the capital, Khatmandu, is through what will be Western Bengal, but there are other more difficult ways of getting to it, and they are through some of the centres of population of Nepal and through the United Provinces. It should be clearly stated in this Bill that whatever Government takes over this particular area should give full agreement to free access to and from Nepal for any purposes which either Great Britain or Nepal may require in friendly relationships with each other. This ought to be mentioned in particular in this Bill so that there can be no argument about it afterwards. I cannot believe that the new Government of these new Provinces will object in any way, but we ought to have the safeguard in the Bill from the point of view of our own interests and in view of our old relationships with the Maharajah of Nepal and his people. When the Parliamentary Secretary replies I hope he will give us some assurance on this point, because I feel it is one of great importance.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) has told us, this is a most important Clause. I have been connected with this particular corner of India since 1904, and even before that there were considerable arguments as to which Province Sylhet should belong to, either Assam or Bengal. I remember when the railway was opened first over the hilly section, it took the longer route from Chittagong to Upper Assam, and certainly it developed Chittagong as a port. It was said then that the railway took the long routes because the engineer in charge of the Assam and Bengal railway would not build it upon the easiest and most profitable line. He said there would be no
    72
    distinction in that for him. Instead of building it through the black country and the populous districts, he took it over the most difficult hill section where no population exists, and owing to landslides, disease, and no population, that section of the Assam—Bengal railway has never paid. Despite that handicap, the port of Chittagong did develop, and before this war had a very big export and import trade both ways, most of which was going to upper Burma.
    I can remember in the Assam Legislative Council about the year 1924 a resolution was passed that the Province of Sylhet should be incorporated in Bengal and excluded from Assam, but at that same time an amendment was moved that Cachar should also be included in the Province of Bengal. There is no doubt that in the district of Sylhet people are Bengalese speaking and not Assamese speaking, and as for religion, I understand that the Muslim religion is that of the majority. I look at this Clause with some fear as, later on, there may be some agitation to include Cachar also in Bengal, and that would lead to certain trouble for the two new Provinces, at any rate for Assam and for Pakistan. When the Parliamentary Secretary replies I wonder if he would give the Committee information about Cachar and whether it is likely to be included in the instructions to the Boundary Commission.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I wanted to say, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, a word about Sylhet. In view of the fact that the hon. and gallant Member for Down (Sir W. Smiles) who has a close knowledge of Assam, has dealt with the question, I do not think it is necessary to refer further to the matter, except to ask when we will get news of the result of the referendum in regard to that place.
    Mr. A. Henderson: The result of the referendum in Sylhet has been received today and is as follows: Voters for joining East Bengal, 239,619; For remaining in Assam, 184,041; Percentage of valid voters of the total electorates entitled to vote, 77·33 per cent.
    The right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) referred to the economic problem that will face the two new Provinces of East and West Bengal, and it would not be very fitting on my part to attempt to deal with the points

    73
    that he and other hon. Members have made, more especially as the right hon. Gentleman has a much greater knowledge of that part of India than I have. However, I know sufficient about the situation in that part of India to agree with him whole-heartedly as to the very difficult problem that will face both these new Provinces. It is also quite fair to remind the Committee of the views that were expressed in the Report of the Indian Cabinet Commission last year, when they said, in terms that the right hon. Gentleman has quoted this afternoon, that there were great doubts as to whether these partitioned areas of India would be viable.
    The existence of this problem today and in the future is also well known to those who have accepted the responsibility. The national leaders in India as well as the provincial leaders in Bengal and in Assam and the representatives of the communities have expressed themselves as being in favour of the partition of these two Provinces. We can only express the hope and the belief that they will realise that what is essential in the interests of both the Muslim and the Hindu populations in the two Punjabs and in the two Bengals is the need for co-operation if they are to be able to emerge successfully front those difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the hemp was in Eastern Bengal and the factories in Western Bengal, and unless they avoid following the policy of cutting of their noses to spite their faces it may well be that on an economic basis they will not be able to make both these new Provinces viable.
    5.30 p.m.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A Butler) asked about the terms of reference of the boundary commissions. I would admit at once that the terms of reference are not very precise and, from that point of view perhaps, not as satisfactory as they might be. I would remind the Committee, however, they they have the merit that they are based on the agreement of the Indian leaders of the majority parties. It is made quite clear that the function of the boundary commission is to demarcate boundaries between the two parts, and to do so on the basis of ascertaining contiguous majority areas of Muslims and non-Muslims. That is the fundamental basis of the plan, but the commission will also take other factors into account. A
    74
    question has been asked as to what is meant by other factors. It surely waist mean that the primary basis is to be whether the majority of the population is Muslim or non-Muslim, but that in certain cases there may be special factors of a different kind which would justify a departure from this principle.
    The provision that other factors will be taken into account has been made primarily to enable the commission to have regard to the special circumstances of the Sikh community in the Punjab, where considerations such as the location of their religious shrines can reasonably be taken into account up to a point. I would, however, emphasise to the Committee that it is for the commission itself to decide what are other factors and how much importance should be attached to all or any of them. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Down (Sir W. Smiles) I would say that the terms of reference have been published and that I am afraid that it is not possible or practicable at this stage to alter them. The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of Calcutta and asked whether any consideration had been given to the possibility of making in international or a free port. All I can say in regard to that is that we ourselves have not given consideration to that possibility in working out this plan because, as the Bill indicates, we have taken the line as being one that must be drawn on the basis of majority populations, and Calcutta, rightly or wrongly, is to be found within that section of the existing Bengal which contains a majority of Hindu population.
    The hon. and gallant Member tom Perth and Kinross, Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) asked about the communications between Nepal and the outside world, and suggested that provision should he made in the Bill for safeguarding them. I suggest to him that it would be far better for such matters to be dealt with by mutual agreement rather than by inserting a provision in a Bill which, incidentally, can be altered or modified by either of the new Dominions at a later stage, because their constituent assemblies, as we know, are to be sovereign bodies There is a treaty of 1923 providing for the free transit of goods imported through India to Nepal, and I should certainly not late to think that the Governments of the new Dominions would wish to do other than

    75
    implement that treaty. I think I have covered the points that have been raised on this Clause.
    Mr. Molson: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong in saying that the terms of reference as to boundaries have been published in this country.
    Mr. A. Henderson: I did not say that.
    Mr. Molson: They have been published in India but not here, and I now find that they are almost exactly a reproduction of paragraph 9 of the White Paper on Home Rule. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did give a certain explanation of the other factors to be taken into account, and he referred to matters like the location of the shrines of the Sikhs and so on, but I did not hear any reference to purely economic considerations. There may very well be cases where it is extremely undesirable that a boundary between the two Dominions should be drawn in that way, even though it may be fairly clearly the line of demarcation between the two religions. May we have an assurance that one of the matters that can he taken into account is such a problem, for example, as separating the agricultural hinterland from a town, or something of that kind? Also, if a railway were to follow exactly what were the religious lines of demarcation, it might he going perpetually in and out from one Dominion to the other.
    Mr. A. Henderson: I am afraid that I cannot give any such assurance. I can only remind the hon. Gentleman that I indicated a few moments ago that it is for the commission itself to decide what the other factors are that they may wish to take into consideration. I would also remind him that the terms of reference have been approved by the leaders of the major parties.
    Mr. Nicholson: Before we part from this Clause, I wish to express my personal regret that it is necessary. It sets up what can only amount to the reductio ad absurdum of communal feeling From that point of view, there may be something to be said for it, for I cannot see this partition of Bengal working. I think that all this Committee can do is to register their deep regret that this Clause should have been thought necessary by the
    76
    peoples of India, and to assure them that any good service that we in this country, either as a nation or as individuals, can afford towards what one can only call the rehabilitation of Bengal will be freely placed at the disposal of Bengal, and, at the same time, beseech the two communities of Bengal to think again in a spirit of human charity. I feel that this Parliament can seldom have passed a more deplorable Clause.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered no stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 4.—(The Punjab.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 3, line 27, leave out "awards of boundary commissions," and insert:
    "the award of a boundary commission."
    In line 36, at the end, add:
    "(3) In this section, the expression 'award,' means, in relation to a boundary commission, the decisions of the chairman of that commission contained in his report to the Governor-General at the conclusion of the commission's proceedings."—[Mr. A. Henderson.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. R. A. Butler: When we come to the question of the division of the Punjab there is none of us who has known the Punjab intimately who can but express his deepest regret that this decision was necessary in order to make the general all-India settlement which is before us. As Punjabi-born, and knowing most of the districts intimately, with other members of my family and friends, I feel myself quite heartbroken at this decision. The Punjab has one of the greatest traditions of any country, or any part of the world I know. Its reputation in the major wars through which this country has passed has been quite unequalled by almost any other part of those areas which came into contact with the British. Its loyalty has been unquestioned, and we now come to the sad parting of the ways which I think has broken the hearts of many of those associated with its administration, not least its most able Governor to whom I should like to pay a tribute. We now come to the parting of the ways, when the expressions "East Punjab" and "West Punjab" are to be brought into the language of the law.

    77
    I have said that it appears that this decision was necessary in order to make a general settlement possible, but I would like the Committee to consider for a moment, when dealing with the terms of reference of the boundary commission, what this decision will mean. I would take this opportunity, the last opportunity that Parliament will have, to make a special appeal for the Sikh community. Almost exactly too years have passed since the most difficult of all our Indian wars, in which the British and the Sikhs were on opposite sides. Those 100 years have seen the advent of the happiest possible relations between the Sikh community and the British. Of all races in the world, the Sikhs have probably the greatest reputation. Now we find, as was partially the case in the communal award when Mr. Ramsey Macdonald was Prime Minister, that the Sikhs come under the hammer. We find in this decision that the Sikh nation are divided approximately into two parts, a slightly greater part going to the East, that is into India, and the slightly lesser part going to the west, that is into Pakistan.
    I do not think that any words should be used here which will make this situation more difficult. I feel quite certain that those who have been responsible for this decision feel it as deeply as we do in this Committee. I can only make this appeal—and I would then be taking up some words used by the Under-Secretary of State—that in the demarcation of the boundary all proper regard should be had to the feelings of the Sikh community, in regard to their shrines, their property and their lands. I will say this: I have noticed that the community have asked that the boundary be pushed back to the River Chenab. It that were possible, it would make it possible to include the Sikh community in one part of India and not in Pakistan, but then the division of the Punjab would be made to look ridiculous, from the point of view of the Muslims. It has been to them a very great source of difficulty to divide this Province, as between East and West. It means that the whole of the Ambala and the Julandar divisions of the Punjab are to be transferred to India, and that a large proportion of Muslims are to be passed into India. I know that certain matters are rather beyond the power of Parliament already. That is why some of us feel that we have not very much power in our
    78
    hands when we talk here this evening. I would therefore like to make an appeal that the Sikh problem be met by the provision of separate electorates.
    5.45 P.m.
    I know that if that appeal were conceded by the authorities-to-be—it has now no longer anything to do with me—it would have to be conceded to the Muslims as well. I see the difficulties of that position, but I must come back to the only solution which, in my view, can mitigate the plight of the Sikhs. It is that the boundary commission should, in its wisdom, so define the boundary that the maximum portion of the Sikhs should be included in one area, without doing damage to the balance which has been struck in the suggestion contained in the Bill for the division of the Muslim and the non-Muslim areas. Later, it will be possible to look back, in regard to some of these decisions, and say, "What a pity that such and such a community did not make an agreement." Such a looking back could take place in regard to the Sikhs. It was not done. We are now facing the division. I hope the Committee and the country will realise the consequences of that division when they are assessing the position that is likely to exist in India now. I hope that the Sikh community and other similarly placed communities do realise that, wherever we sit in this Committee or whatever our point of view, we understand the difficulties that they have to face. I hope that they will also realise that a general settlement which will give India peace could not have been achieved unless some difficulties had beer faced in particular areas.
    Speaking for my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, I cannot express satisfaction that this community should have been so divided, and I should like to express our regret that such should be the case. I will conclude my reference to the problem of the Punjab by wishing the boundary commission the wisdom which I hope it may have, and by wishing this area of Pakistan, which will amount to some 25 million inhabitants in the North-Western area, the happiest possible future. I trust that in this new period these portions of the Punjab will find in their future something of the glory and of the stability which the old Punjab found in the past. I hope

    79
    that we may look to the name "Punjab," whether it be West or East, for something of the tradition which has been so intimately connected with this area and which we so bitterly regret in the passing of the Bill.
    Colonel Gomme-Dunean: I wish to associate myself with what my right hon. Friend has just said, about the splitting up of the Punjab. The matters which we are discussing on this Clause make even more clear the immense difficulties which will lie before those who are concerned with this division, whether military or civil. The division of the Punjab, which has had a long and glorious history in war and in peace, requires that the British Government should assure to the Sikh community that that division is brought about with the greatest possible regret and at the request of the Indian people as a whole. Secondly, the Government should ask the Boundary Commission to make the best possible arrangements for the Sikhs that they possibly can. It is clear that no actual division of the ground will ever solve the Sikh problem unless there is a united Punjab. As we are not to have a united Punjab, the Sikh really finds himself sold in every direction. The Sikhs are a martial race with a very great record. They are not likely to take things too calmly when things do not go the way they have had reason to think they would go. I hope that the Government will make it clear that they wish the very best possible to be done for the Sikhs and that they regret that the division should be necessary.
    Sir S. Reed: In two or three sentences wish to endorse the point of view which has been expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). I cannot speak as he did, as an old Punjabi and son of a distinguished member of the Civil Service, but I can look back to the history of the Punjab for the last 50 years When first I knew the Punjab, it was a backward province with a poor and congested agricultural population. Then the engineers got to work and by the mercy of Providence those who were digging the Chenab Canal were forgotten for eight or 10 years and so they could carry on the work without obstruction. They laid out the irrigation system with such skill and so transformed that Province, that today
    80
    the cultivator who secures a holding in one of the canal colonies has relatively made a fortune. All this progress has been built up under a unified administration. The irrigation starts on the Upper Jhelum in the North and the waters go down to the Lower Bari Doab in the South. The Punjab has an electrical grid as large as the grid for the whole of Great Britain, which is supplied by the works on the Uhl River on the outskirts of the Kangra Valley. Moreover, under the Act of 1919 under the leadership of Sir Fasli Hussain and under the Act of 1935 and the United Party that province has made these very rapid strides.
    It would be true to say that relatively more progress has been made in the Punjab than in any other part of India, and the Punjabis—Sikhs, Muslims Jats and others—have penetrated to every part of India by virtue of their strength of character, their virility and their energy. The majority of the early recruits in the Royal Indian Navy were Punjabi Mussulmans coming from families who had never seen the sea. It is with bitter regret that we have to accept partition now. We accept it with feelings of intense sympathy towards those who have to carry on the work. Although our task is ended, and influence has passed to other hands, all will hope that if humanly possible the progress and the peace of this great province and these very remarkable people, will not be impaired by the imperative necessity of partition.
    Sir W. Smiles: I hesitate to disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). My experience of the Sikh community is confined to Mesopotamia in the last war and to several clever mechanical engineers of the Sikh community the right hon. Gentleman hoped that separate electorates for the Sikh community would be considered. From my small knowledge of Indian political affairs, separate electorates have been a curse on the efforts towards a united India. I found it was always the most bigoted and most vociferous Muslim who became elected, and it was the same with the Hindus. If they gave way to a second's tolerance for the people who were not voting for them, they would not be elected. I can only say that I hope that these two Dominions will have a complete electorate and not separate electorates in the future
    Mr. Nicholson: If I thought the division of Bengal was fantastical, I think that the division of the Punjab is nothing less than tragic. It is possible to mourn at great length at this disruption of a noble Province with a noble history. We should remember that the forces of unity and of reunion may be even stronger than the forces of partition which are today in the ascendant. It is a remarkable fact, whether in this country or in other parts of India, a Muslim and a Hindu from the Punjab will cling together and proclaim themselves brother Punjabis much more than they will adhere to their co-religionists from other parts of India. I believe this cannot work. I believe it is, relatively speaking, a short-term problem. I believe that the Punjab—the country of the five rivers, as its name means—will be reunited within a few years. As for our friend the Sikhs, I rather suspect that they can look after themselves and I rather suspect that they will take steps to do so. It is really a waste of time to talk very much on this Bill. I content myself with registering my great sense of tragedy and my hope and belief that a sense of unity and common fortune and common history will once again triumph.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 5.—(The Governor-General of the new Dominions.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. H. Macmillan: On a point of Order, Major Milner. Clause 5 was no doubt drafted with somewhat different considerations in view than have, in fact, emerged. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to take on Clause 9, rather than Clause 5, the major results of the somewhat changed condition of affairs. My hon. Friends and I feel that even in this changed situation it would be an advantage to leave Clause 5 as it is. One does not know—it might not be compatible to have these powers. Therefore, there seems to us to be no reason why the proviso should not stand. It is not going to be used, but we do not see why it should not stand. It might be useful in some cir-
    cumstances. One cannot tell. Subject to your Ruling, Major Milner, we would rather have on Clause 9 a general dis-
    82
    cussion as to the powers of the two Governors-General in regard to the transitional problem that may arise.
    The Chairman: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and I agree, subject to the agreement of the Committee, that it would be advantageous to take that course.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Legislation for the new Dominions.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Brigadier Low: I want to raise two points which might interest the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General. The first is in connection with Subsection (1) which gives the Legislature of each of the new Dominions:
    "power to make laws for that Dominion, including laws having extra-territorial operations."
    That is familiar to the Committee as corning from the Statute of Westminster. I should like to ask the Attorney-General whether he thinks this power also extends to the Provinces of the Dominions. I understand there has been some doubt in the past as to whether the States of Australia, for instance, have the power to make laws having extra-territorial operation. The question might arise in the case of India or Pakistan whether the Provinces have the power. I believe I am right in saying that at the moment it is within the sphere of the Provinces to make criminal laws, and it is criminal laws particularly which require to have extra-territorial operation. The second point is about Subsection (6). I do not quite understand the need for that Subsection. I understood that the Legislature had full power to make laws limiting its own powers absolutely or for a time. I should like some explanation of the reason for or the background of Subsection (6).
    The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I am afraid that I cannot answer the first question put to me by the hon and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low) because it is one which depends entirely on the ultimate form of the Constitution which is established by the Constituent Assernblies for the various Provinces. I should

    83
    think they might follow what is the more usual coarse of not giving extra-territorial powers to the Provinces, but that is entirely a matter for them, and in that they are left complete discretion under this Bill. The position in regard to Subsection (6) is that it will be open to the Legislature to provide for a federal form of constitution under which the powers of the different Legislatures are limited, certain subjects being assigned to the one and certain subjects to the other. If it did that, it would need to make provision that the powers of the particular provincial Legislatures should be limited That is the object of the Subsection.
    6.0 p.m.
    Brigadier Low: I really raised the point on Subsection (1) on the present situation. Supposing the Provinces were left as they are now; have they the power to make laws in respect of extra-territorial operation or not?
    The Attorney-General: The answer is "No."
    Colonel Gomme-Dunean: Speaking as a complete ignoramus in regard to the law may I ask is there any limit to extraterritorial operation in the law?
    The Attorney-General: There is no limit so far as the country itself which passes the extra-territorial legislation is concerned. The United Kingdom Parliament, for instance, can pass legislation having extra-territorial effect to any limit which seems proper to this Parliament, but whether that legislation will receive any recognition internationally by other countries is an entirely different matter. The general rule in international law is that countries are not recognised as possessing any powers of extra-territorial legislation at all, and there is a presumption, which our courts apply to our own legislation, that the Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament are not intended to have extra-territorial application unless the contrary so appears.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Before this Clause goes, we ought to take note of Subsection (4), as follows:
    "(4) No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed on or after the appointed day shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to either of the new Dominions as part of the law of that Dominion unless it is extended thereto by a law of the Legislature of the Dominion."
    84
    It is by this Subsection that Parliament is definitely taking the step of removing from itself power to make laws for India in the future. It is only right of us on this occasion to draw the attention of the Committee to that Subsection and to say What an honour we have regarded it, in what we have described as the Imperial Parliament, to take an interest in legislation affecting India in the past, and what good fortune we wish to those on whom this duty will fall in years to come.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Consequences of the setting up of the new Dominions.)
    Sir Patrick Hannon: I hope I am in Order in raising now a matter of importance to the Christian community in India. This Clause relates to the consequences of the setting up of the new Dominions, and I want to call the attention of the Under-Secretary of State to the large Christian community in India, and to get some assurance that it will be adequately protected under the new Dominion arrangements. I would particularly call attention to the position of the Christian community in the State of Travancore which is one of the largest of the Indian States, with a population of 6 million, 2 million of whom are Christians. In that State Christianity was to be found almost as early as the Christian Church itself, and it was known as far back as A.D. 64 The Christian community in Travancore includes both Catholics and Anglicans, and I am anxious that in the new Constitution in India the Christian community should have adequate protection in whatever administration obtains.
    I want an assurance from the Under-Secretary of State that representations will be made, or appropriate instructions introduced in one of the new Constitutions, that the Christian community will be adequately safeguarded. In "Travancore 70 per cent. of the schools are owned, directed, and largely under the care of Christians, and of the 320 English schools in that State, only 40 are run by the State, 72 per cent. of the 3,000 primary schools there being generally in the hands of English people and under English traditions and English principles. Small as is the Christian population, I am anxious

    85
    that in the new Constitution of India every precaution should be taken by the House to protect their interests, and particularly to safeguard the schools of the Christian communities which have for so long been in India, naturally making a substantial contribution to the economic welfare of Travancore itself. I do not want to prejudice the future of good relations in India, but there is a danger that some discrimination will enter into the administration of the Indian Constitution in relation to the Christian communities. It should be widely known that the House intends to protect by every means possible Christians who are of the Anglican, Catholic or Dutch Churches, or whatever Christian community it is to which they may belong. I hope the Under-Secretary of State will be able to give some assurance to that effect.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I suggested earlier that the important question of the States should be considered under Clause 7. First, I would say that the remarks which have fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) are very important, and I hope they will have the attention of the Government.
    Coming to the question of the Indian States, this is a matter which has not so far been satisfactorily regulated and, in that respect, differs from many of the other aspects of the matters we have been discussing. When we look back to the elaborate arrangements offered to the States under the Government of India Act, 1935, the method by which they were to accede under Clause 6, and the various other powers included in that Act to look after their interests, we find the most sharp and radical difference between those elaborate arrangements for safeguarding their position and fulfilling our treaties and obligations and those under the present circumstances. I dust—and I believe this to be the case—that the position of the States can be remedied if properly handled at the present time. It is in that spirit that I approach the Government, but I repeat that the position at present cannot be regarded as satisfactory, either in regard to the treaty position or the method by which the Princes have been brought into consultation with the Viceroy and his advisers, or the solution evolved in this general Constitution for the Princes who do not desire to accede to either Dominion.
    86
    I am rather encouraged that the position can still be handled—and that is certainly the spirit in which we should approach this—by one of those telegrams which some of us know so well, and which come from no less a man than Sir C. P. Ramaswami Ayer, the Diwan of Travancore, a man after my own heart, because he finds it easier to do his correspondence by telegram—obviously not a cheaper method but a very attractive one. In the last telegram I have received from him—and I have been the proud recipient of many—he refers, after a somewhat pessimistic tone in the opening, to the
    "reasoned, statesmanlike utterances of Sirdah Patel the President of the All India Stales' Peoples Conference, who"
    he said,
    "has partially realised certain aspects"—
    which he brings to my attention—
    "and are in refreshing contrast to previous bellicose statements "
    If it be the case that so intelligent a Diwan of so prominent a State can refer to the "refreshing contrast to previous bellicose statements," I feel there may be some hope that the discussions between the new Dominions and their leaders and the Indian States may be conducted in a satisfactory way. Therefore, I am interested in how His Majesty's Government will address themselves to the problem of that State or States—there may very likely be more than one—which will desire to retain independence and to enter into relations with His Majesty's Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) referred to this, in language which cannot possibly be bettered, in his speech on Second Reading, and I only wish that the assurance that we have had from the Government had been more satisfactory than it has been so far. So far, the Government have not been able to lift the curtain from their minds and to say more than the Prime Minister said:
    "Take your time"—
    —that is to the ruler of any State contemplating independence—
    "and think again. I hope no irrevocable decision to stay out will be taken prematurely."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1947: Vol. 439, c. 2464.]
    Those are amiable sentiments, and it will naturally be convenient for many States to join one or other Dominion, and we on this side of the Committee have not

    87
    desired to take sides: but I. am sure there will be States which will desire to retain independence, and to establish relations with us in one form or another. What are the consequences of the Government not having evolved any plan to meet the latter contingency? On 16th August do members of the independent States, who have not seceded, become foreigners, that is, non-British? I would like the Government to answer that. Secondly, on 16th August, do independent States who have not acceded to either Dominion, or made an agreement, fall outside the sterling area? If so, presumably they can do what they wish with their dollars without falling foul of the currency restrictions which govern them.
    Those are two practical examples of the need for an early decision, but there are many other matters which need to be resolved. The Indian State which finds itself desiring to be independent after the appointed day is particularly anxious about the status of its own nationals. If they wish to travel abroad, under what passport will they travel? These are important questions which are indicative only of the general desire of these States to be given an opportunity to negotiate a future for themselves as dignified as we desire to make for the other parts of India, over which we have taken so much trouble in the discussions we have had hitherto Hon. Members may feel that this question of treaties and States is a matter of little importance, but I must remind the Committee that the very name of Britain and of the Crown is involved in the treaties which have been concluded with these States in the past. In the case, for example, of Hyderabad, a treaty of mutual assistance was started in the 18th century, and consolidated in the 19th century. Reading from the treaty of 1800, we find the words:
    "The peace, union, and friendship, so long subsisting shall he perpetual. The friends and enemies of either, shall be the friends and enemies of both."
    That sort of treaty has been carried on, and was taken a stage further by the treaty of 1853, whereby the British Government undertook specific military guarantees to maintain particular bodies for the State's protection. Territory was leased in perpetuity to the British Government as a consideration for these guarantees. Then we have had a series of com-
    88
    mercial treaties, starting with the major one in 1802. There have been others dealing with posts, telegraphs, railways and other matters. So it will be seen that these treaties, terminated under this Clause, are not just formal and interesting documents, but enshrine in their language and meaning the whole friendship which has persisted through two major wars and many anxieties, large and small—
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Wyatt: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that these treaties are being terminated against the will of the States?
    Mr. Butler: There is no other inference I can draw, but I shall be glad to hear the answer from the Government, and I shall be perfectly content to be contradicted by the Government. What I am saying is that there are moral ties between this country and many of these States, and it is desirable that the whole picture we have of the Indian scene should be improved by the satisfactory termination of the States problem. As I said, it can be done, and I believe that if the Government go a little further, it will be done. In the view of one diwan the future rulers of India are realising the position, and the whole basis of settlement in India is one of self-determination, and that is giving an opportunity to each Dominion to find R future most satisfactory to itself. As will be gathered from my language on other Clauses, we think this settlement is the most satisfactory that can be made under extremely difficult circumstances. What we press on the Government—and we desire to use this Committee stage to achieve it—is to get a more satisfactory solution, and a more defined decision, for those States, few though they may be in number, who do not wish to join one or other Dominion. If the Government can help us in the light of the rather improving position in this matter, we shall feel we have done some good in putting forward these important moral considerations which lie in the power of the British Parliament which we still have time to remedy and which I hope the Government will use.
    Mr. Henry Strauss: I have never previously intervened in a discussion on India, and I would not do so now, if I did not think that the matters raised by the language of this Clause and possibly by the substance are of the greatest possible importance.

    89
    I share the hope of my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) that the Government may be able to use this Committee stage in order to get more appropriate language in this Clause and to avoid what I believe to be a great danger to the international reputation of this country. Of the importance of the Slates and their magnitude I shall say little, because I think the facts are very well known to both sides of the Committee. They cover a third of the area of India and have a quarter of the population. One at least of the States has a population greater than that of any British Dominion. Those are facts which I think hon. Members ought to hear in mind. The treaties which they have with this country are numerous, ancient and have been observed faithfully by the other party to them. In quite recent years those treaties have been declared inviolate and inviolable. To mention two recent declarations to that effect—they were so declared by the President of the Board of Trade in 1942 and by the former Viceroy, Lord Wavell in 1943. On those facts let us look 41 the language of the Clause.
    "As from the appointed day … the suzerainty of His Majesty over the Indian States lapses,"
    Then come these extraordinary words:
    "and with it, all treaties and agreements in force at the date of the passing of this Act between His Majesty and the rulers of Indian States, all functions exercisable by His Majesty at that date with respect to Indian States, all obligations of His Majesty existing at that date towards Indian States or the rulers thereof, and all powers, rights, authority or jurisdiction exercisable by His Majesty at that date in or in relation to Indian States by treaty, grant, usage, sufferance or otherwise;"
    My right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), dealing with this matter on Second Reading, mentioned, quite rightly, and I know that the Government would not for one moment deny it, our moral obligation. I am concerned, as I am sure the Committee will be, with our legal obligation The only reason given from the Government Bench in justification of the words contained in this Clause was given by the Prime Minister in his opening speech in the Second Reading Debate and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State could not, in his concluding speech, add materially to what the Prime Minister said.
    90
    What is it, in fact, that the words of this Clause do? They constitute a unilateral repudiation of internationl agreements, without prior discussion or prior negotiation. Do not let us think that that is unimportant. It is setting a precedent which may be most important unless, as my right hon. Friend has just suggested, the Government find it possible, at some stage during the passage of this Bill through Parliament, so to alter the Clause as to do something which is less shocking, and something which I feel quite certain must be nearer to their real intention. In winding up for the Government in the Second Reading Debate the right hon. and learned Gentleman used language, which I think was welcome to the House, about certain discussions which are now taking place in a conference under the presidency of the Viceroy. The real complaint here is that those discussions ought not to take place under the shadow of the pressure exerted by this Clause in its present form. One does not first unilaterally repudiate a legal obligation and then discuss what is to take its place. One has discussions with one's friends before one alters the agreement. It seems to me that there is no certainty that, had there been such negotiations or discussions, agreement could not have been reached. As I say, in recent years a Member of the Government and the late Viceroy both declared these treaties to be inviolate and inviolable.
    As my right hon. Friend has just pointed out, relying on these agreements, which they have so faithfully kept, the States gave up their means and their right to arrange for their own defence They worsened their position in a number of ways if they are now to be left without the protection of those agreements. I do not intend to say one word against the fulfilment of the wish which was expressed both by the Prime Minister and by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities. It may well be that what the Prime Minister desires ultimately to happen to the States is what would be the most desirable result in the interests of themselves and of the world. I do not intend to argue that at present, but surely the best prospect of securing that result is by seeing that when they become free, as they will become free, and legally independent, they should discuss that with all other parties as equals, and not under pressure. What seems to me

    91
    to be intolerable is that they should be put under pressure by a repudiation, by us, of our engagements.
    I share the view which has been expressed on this side of the Committee and, I think, elsewhere, that the Government have the chance and, I hope, the intention of improving the language of this Clause. I feel certain that the Government do not wish to pass through Parliament a Clause which is certainly capable of the interpretation I have given. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in dealing with this matter, explained that with the lapsing of Paramountcy all these treaties must necessarily go. As to that, I am sure that the Attorney-General would agree, that whether that is right or wrong is a matter for argument. What I think must be wrong is to declare, as we declare in the language of this Clause, for which I have been unable to find any parallel, without any suggestion of prior agreement, or even prior discussion or negotiation, that certain treaties lapse. I believe that that, as it stands, does the reputation of this country a great injury. I certainly do not, for one moment, accuse the Government of having an improper intention. I believe, if I may suggest such a thing, that the extremity of the language of this Clause has got into the Bill per incuriam.
    I do not believe that, if sufficient attention had been paid to the matter, the Government could not have devised both language and procedure more appropriate to the great step which they are now endeavouring to take. I share many of the hopes that have been raised on both sides of the Committee and of the House, and I only raise this point, first, because I believe that the words of this Clause are actually internationally improper; and secondly, because I do not believe that the pressure which appears to be brought to bear upon the States by the language of this Clause will help the Government to bring about the very result they desire. I hope that some of these matters will receive the careful attention of the Government and their legal advisers, and that they will be able to devise some alterations in the language and substance of this Clause in order to meet the objections which I have raised.
    Mr. Wyatt: I feel that the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) and
    92
    the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) are suffering from a grave misapprehension if they believe that these Treaties have been unilaterally abrogated by us without prior consultation with the Indian States. It is within my recollection that just over a year ago, at the time of the Cabinet Mission, the States had it fully explained to them that in the event of the British quitting India, as was our intention, we would not be able any longer to fulfil our treaty obligations. They quite appreciated and understood that position. Some of them may not have liked it; some of them, might have liked us to remain in India indefinitely, but that we could not do. They accepted the position that the treaties would have to be abrogated, or at any rate that we should not be able to fulfil our obligations to defend them. One of the difficulties is that not all the States, by any means, have treaties with us, and the treaties in existence have, as a whole, gradually been covered in a broad way by the doctrine of paramountcy, which has roughly treated all the States on the same level and in the same respect in relation to the Government of India. The main thing is that paramountcy, which was based upon the orginal treaties, goes, and the treaties consequently must go too. I do not think that the States have had a "fast one" put across them in finding their treaties abrogated without consultation with them.
    The only way we could safeguard their defence is by maintaining troops in India. That is not the object of this Bill. There was no other way in which such obligations could be fulfilled when we withdrew from India. If the central power is no longer held by us, the States can no longer be controlled by us nor can they be defended by us; so they must fall in with the rest of India. That position is quite clearly appreciated by the States even though, in some cases, they may not like it.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The correspondence with the Nawab of Bhopal on 19th June, 1946, showed that he accepted the position about paramountcy but said that the final decision would have to be taken by the States when they saw the completed picture. A point I should like to add is that that refers to those who were members of the Chamber of Princes.
    Mr. Wyatt: I appreciate the point which the right hon. Gentleman is making. But, surely, the final decision referred to, which must depend on the completed picture, depended on what the States themselves were to decide to do in the new India and whether they were to attempt to form a federation of their own like Rajistan, and perhaps, apply for some kind of separate Dominion status or whether they were going in with the remainder of India. That final decision was nothing to do with whether or not the treaty obligations were to be abrogated. That matter was already settled. I do not think the States could have been in any doubt about that for some 14 months.
    I think it is improper to suggest at this late stage that in some curious way, the Government are suddenly coming down this afternoon and surprising the States by discontinuing all their treaty obligations. It is true that arising out of the cessation of paramountcy, there is a desire in some of these States to be associated neither with India nor Pakistan. They wish to find for themselves a separate existence in India. I think it is most unfortunate, however, that there should be any feeling amongst those States that there is support in this country or in this Committee for them doing such a thing as attempting to be independent and on their own in India. The whole object of his Bill, as I am sure hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree, is to try to retain as far as possible the unity of India. If we encourage people like the rulers of Travancore and Hyderabad, to set up for themselves a separate rule, we are encouraging the growth of disunity in India as a whole.
    The message which should go from this Committee this afternoon is one quite to the reverse. The message should be that their place is with the rest of India, and that they have been done no harm whatever by the removal of these treaty obligations. Another thing which should be made quite clear is that people in this country recognise that there may be a distinction between the wishes of the ruler of the State and the wishes of the people who live inside that State. Very frequently we hear from hon. Gentlemen opposite that the wishes of the people who live in such and such an area, wherever it may be, in Europe or in some part of India, ought to be considered. I agree with that very strongly. No one can say that the peoples
    94
    of the States as a whole wish for secession from the rest of India. In fact, the people of the State from whose Prime Minister the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) received a telegram this afternoon are really not pleased with the Prime Minister's declaration about independence, nor are the people of Hyderabad pleased with the declaration of the Nizam that they are to be an independent State. We should encourage the tendency towards cohesion and not towards disunity and disruption.
    Mr. Molson: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) should have taken the line he did in the concluding remarks of his speech. He is one of those who has been most anxious that we should withdraw from India and not seek to influence the people after our withdrawal. What he said might equally apply in the case of the Indian States. This Clause deals with one of the most difficult matters which arises from our withdrawal from India. I am bound to say that I hardly think that the Government could have taken any line very different from what they have done. In one important matter, this follows the recommendations of the committee which was appointed some years ago to consider the relationship between the paramount Power and the Indian Princes. They had to consider whether in the event of responsible Government being given to a British Indian Government, paramountcy could be, and should be, transferred from this country to that Government. That, of course, is a thing which conceivably might have been done. That committee came to the conclusion that it would be completely improper for paramountcy to be transferred from a Government responsible to this Parliament, to one that was responsible to British India. Therefore, I feel that in this Clause the Government have followed one of the two main recommendations of the committee which was set up to deal with the problem.
    It is obvious that if, in fact, we are to withdraw from British India, it is impossible for us to carry out the obligations which we owe to the States. There were two main obligations. One was to defend the Princes against internal and external aggression. It followed logically that we were entitled to insist upon a certain standard of administration. I very

    95
    much regretted that in the Debate on the Second Reading an hon. Member opposite—I rather think it was the hon. Member for Aston—said that we had not insisted upon a certain standard of administration in the Indian States. No one will claim in that respect, or in any other respect, that a British administration has never made a mistake, that it has never overlooked any case of mis-government or inefficient government. There were two famous examples quite recently—those of Nabha and Alwar. In both these cases the Political Department of the Government of India insisted upon a certain standard of administration being maintained. It has always been the doctrine of the Political Department that so long as we guarantee the Princes, that carries with it a certain responsibility on the other side. If, then, we are to withdraw from India in August, it will neither be possible for us to give the military defence which we have given to the States in the past, nor shall we have the Political Department responsible to the Secretary of State which has insisted upon a certain standard of administration.
    Therefore, I feel that probably there vas nothing else to be done except to nit the knot rather boldly and to restore to the Indian States their full independence, while at the same time saying that for the future we could not continue to accept the responsibilities previously undertaken. I fully appreciate the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss), but I think if, in the course of a major change of policy, it becomes impossible for this country to carry out its obligations, then in those circumstances it is better and more honourable to say frankly in advance that it will be impossible for us to do so and to leave it to the parties concerned to make the best arrangements that they can. Certainly, it would be far worse for us to continue obligations which we could not fully carry out.
    Nearly all the speeches made today have referred to the Indian States as if they were all of one kind, but, in fact, they vary from the mighty State of Hyderabad, with 18 million inhabitants, down to small States, like Kathiawar. I would like to ask the Government to explain how they contemplate that this great range of States is going to carry
    96
    on negotiations with the succession States in the case of Hyderabad and Travancore, because there we have a Ruler, with a Government, who is in a position effectively to negotiate with the succession Governments of India on all these important matters like customs and police and so on. On the other hand, in a case like Kathiawar, for example, the jurisdiction exercised by the British Resident very often has been of a very wide kind. In many of these States there has been a kind of criminal and revenue appeal from the Rulers of these States to the British official who has been responsible to the Political Department of the Government of India for the good administration of these small States. I think the Government ought to tell us what kind of arrangements have been made to enable this rather painful transition on 15th August to take place. The circumstances vary so much that I feel that we have a special responsibility in the case of those States which have been most directly under the Political Department of the Government of India, which, in turn has been more directly under the Secretary of State than most of the other Departments.
    Finally, I would ask a question about personnel. What exactly is likely to happen in the case of the large number of officers of the Political Department, who, at the present time, occupy a position of special trust as between the Rulers and the people of these States and the Political Department? It would be fair neither to the States nor the Rulers, nor, I think, would it be fair to the succession Governments of India, for us merely to wind up the whole of that administration. It must be remembered also that, right down to the present time, a very much larger proportion of the personnel of the Political Department came from this country than in the case of other parts of the Indian Civil Service. A considerable number of the political officers have been drawn from the Indian Army.
    I hope that the Government will be able to tell us something about the actual machinery by which this transfer is going to take place. I am not quite clear, but I take it that, as far as this Clause is concerned, none of the provisions of the 1935 Act will continue to apply. So far as this Bill is concerned, generally speaking, in all cases where the provisions of the 1935 Act are applicable, they will

    97
    continue to exist, but the Under-Secretary will remember that there are very elaborate provisions for instruments of accession by the Indian States to the Federation, and Schedule II of the 1935 Act deals with the extent to which modifications may be made. I assume, but I would like confirmation of this, that the whole question of instruments of accession by the States to the new succession Governments of India is now tabula rasa.
    6.45 p.m.
    Sir R. Glyn: I am not very clear regarding the question of the actual status of the people in the States themselves. According to the Prime Minister's own words, it will take time for them to find their position. I wonder if the Government would help us, and the people of the Indian States themselves, by giving a clear definition as to what exactly their position will be. I have assumed that they are not in the same position as Nepal, but in a quite different position. We are now told that Nepal will be represented here by an an Ambassador and that our present Minister to Nepal will become an Ambassador. Quite clearly, we cannot have Ambassadors from all the Indian States here, but there must be some sort of machinery in the interval, because it is not the intention of the Government to coerce these States to join either of these two Dominions.
    There are a great many British interests involved here, and I think that, if there is some clear definition as to what the period of the interregnum will be for these States to decide to join one or other of the Dominions, it would allay a great many fears. I think most people have assumed from the words which the Prime Minister used on Second Reading that it is not the intention of the Government and the Viceroy to exert any pressure at all upon the Indian States, but, at the same time, there is nothing, so far as I have been able to discover, which states what their position will be. Will they be British subjects, or Indians without attachment? I think that, if we could have a clear statement on the question of the status of the individuals in these States, it would allay a great many fears.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I agree with the hon Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) when he said that this was the only honourable thing to do, but I did
    98
    not follow his argument from then onward. I did not understand what he was asking the Government to do in the near future. If the object of his intervention was to try to persuade the Government to take any action with regard to these States, I think that advice was definitely bad.
    Mr. Molson: I was not asking for anything, but merely trying to elucidate what was the Government's intention.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I understood that the hon. Member was giving some advice on the subject to the Government, because he certainly took quite a long time to ask questions and the advice which I understood him to offer was that we should do something with regard to the States. I would say that it would be a fatal mistake to interfere in the future of these States. From now on, it is a matter between the Government of India, or of Pakistan, and the Governments of these various individual States. I am perfectly certain that they will come to an amicable agreement, and one which will suit both parties. Hon. Members opposite must not think that because we have difficulty in agreeing in the West, that they also have like difficulty in agreeing in the East. As a matter of fact, that is not so. Orientals are very well able to size these things up for themselves. They are realistic, and they come to a conclusion satisfactory to both parties. At least, that is my experience.
    With regard to Subsection (1 c) of this Clause, I would like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend what it is intended to do with the large tribal area to the east of Assam, which is unadministered by anybody, and where, at the moment, there is considerable trouble. In that area, tribes are coming down from the hills and raiding the Assam territory It has been suggested that the Government of Burma and the Government of that area should get together and try to work out a satisfactory system for handling these wild tribes. This matter does not come under the Clause because it only deals with tribal areas where there has been some jurisdiction exercisable up to this date. Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether there has been any suggestion as to who, when this Bill has been passed, is to exercise the authority which we would have exercised had there been no such Bill?
    Sir W. Smiles: My approach to this Clause is different from that of some other hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon. The Government of India are certainly very keenly concerned with what goes on in the Indian States. Only last cold weather, one very prominent Indian statesman, speaking at a commercial gathering, suggested that whereas the British commercial community paid their Income Tax and Surtax promptly, that was not the case among some of the Indian commercial community. I admit that the British commercial community have to pay because the laws in British India are just as strict with regard to the payment of Income Tax as they are in this country. But some of the principal bankers of India come from the native States, and are inclined to take a very small house in British India and a very large one in the Indian States. I am quite sure that the new Indian Governments, whether of Pakistan or India, will be very keenly alive to some commercial arrangement in the collection of Income Tax from those particular bankers, who at this moment are not subjects of British India.
    The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) mentioned the tribes on the Eastern Frontier of India. He is perfectly right when he says that there is a large section of unadministered territory lying between British India, Tibet, Nepal, Burma and even up to China, and whereas those hill tribes—Nagas, Lushais, Abors, Mishmis-Mikirs, etc.—are administered only by British political officers, their old traditions date back to the 1830's, or so, and their customs still persist today almost as they were then. There is no doubt that no Naga boy can get married unless he brings in a head. Some of them still hop across to that unadministered territory and come back with a head. Of course, it is not always as young a specimen as one would imagine. Sometimes, they wait by a well for an octogenarian woman to Come there to get water, when off comes her head, and away they go to the hills, 10 miles or more back to their own village. I do not think that the political officer minds very much, so long as they do not collect the heads within British territory.
    Among the Khasias, again, there are different customs, because they do not in-
    100
    herit property from father to son, but on the distaff side, from the mother or the grandmother. All those old customs have been kept alive by the British political officers. I well remember a friend of mine who took a few yards of land for a tea garden on the wrong side of the boundary. He was very heavily fined, because no one, whether a British Indian or a European, dared trespass and take land one yard over the line that belonged to any of those tribal areas.
    What is going to happen to these people now? One cannot help fearing a little for them. There is no doubt that they have been protected for the last century by the British political officers. Now they are to come under a different Government altogether. It seems certain to me that with a famine in Bengal and a shortage of rice and cereals all over the East, and with no protection for those people, there will be an invasion of their land. The possibility of serious trouble cannot be evaded, because, in the Japanese retreat, thousands of rifles were left in the hills, and I am sure that they are in working order today. Only time will show what harm is going to be done. Although we are giving up our responsibility to those people, I am quite sure that if we could, by agreement either with Pakistan or India, appoint for a few years to come British political officers to look after them during the transition years, it would be for the betterment, the comfort and the health of those tribes which the hon. Member for South Croydon has just mentioned.
    The Attorney-General: May I first make one or two observations about the general position? As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, and as, indeed, was made clear over a year ago by the Cabinet Mission, it is the hope of His Majesty's Government that all States will, in due course, find their appropriate place within one or other of the new Dominions inside the British Commonwealth. P We hope that no irrevocable decision to stay out will be taken prematurely7C On the other hand, we realise that it is bound to be some time before the States will have all the information before them to enable them to take their final decision. Indeed, the Constitutions of the new Dominions will have to be altered so as to permit, and to provide for, the accession of the States, and to

    101
    define the terms on which that accession may take place. The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), who raised the question, will recall that Part 11 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which would have enabled States to accede to a federation, has never been brought into effect, and, of course, the provisions of this Clause completely override those provisions.
    7.0 p.m.
    We believe that the future of the States inevitably lies in association with British India with whose territories their own are inextricably intertwined but we regard the decision which the States have to take as being their decision and we do not intend to bring any pressure of any kind to bear upon them. Mr. Jinnah has made it clear that, so far as he is concerned he would wish the States to make a free choice. Mr. Patel, speaking from the newly constituted States Department, has dismissed the idea of coercion and has invited representatives of the States to discuss with him in a friendly way the terms of their association with British India, and he has said that he asks of them no mom than accession for defence, foreign affairs and communications.
    It was stated by the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) that this Clause gives rise to a unilateral repudiation of the agreements. Technically that may or may not be the case, but it is inevitable, in the nature of the situation, that these agreements should be brought to an end. These agreements with the Princes were all based upon the assumption that there would be a continuance of British rule, in one form or another, in India, and, as must have been recognised at the time, they were entered into between the States and ourselves, their continuance would be wholly inconsistent with the situation which is arising now, in which India will become completely independent. The solution to the major Indian problem, which we hope we have now found, largely, if not entirely, puts it out of our power to continue these treaties in operation, and all that we are doing in this Clause is to give legal effect to a state of affairs which obviously arises from the general solution of the Indian problem.
    Mr. H. Strauss: May I raise one point with the right hon. and learned Gentle-
    102
    man? For how long does he say this must have been clear to the States? The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recollect that in 1942 and 1943 declarations were made by the President of the Board of Trade and the late Viceroy respectively, to the effect that these treaties were inviolate and inviolable.
    The Attorney-General: I think it must have been implicit in what was said, that if the time ever came when complete independence was given to India and British troops were withdrawn from India, it would be impossible for His Majesty's Government to fulfil the obligations which they had undertaken under these treaties. I would ask the Committee to say that that was obvious from the circumstances of the case.
    Having said that with regard to the position generally, may I now try to take up some of the points which were raised by hon. Members opposite? The subjects of the native States were, of course. never British subjects in the full sense. Their rulers owed allegiance to the King, and they themselves possessed the status which was described in international law and, indeed, in our law as that of British protected persons—a status which was never very exactly defined either for the purposes of our own law or, still less, for the purposes of international law. However, as hon. Members have pointed out, they did travel under British passports which were issued to them as protected persons, and, no doubt, in general, in international affairs, they were treated as if they were British subjects. After the termination of paramountcy the status of a British protected person will technically go, so far as they are concerned. We have, of course, fully recognised that that gives rise to a number of difficulties, including the difficulty as to foreign representation and passports. Existing passports will continue during their currency until the date at which they will expire in the normal course, but a question will arise as to what will happen in regard to the issue of passports subsequently.
    One suggestion which has been made—and all these matters are receiving careful consideration—is that, pending some final decision as to accession, one or other of the Dominions might assume, as a matter of international law, some of the duties of protection, such as the issue of passports, which have hitherto been borne

    103
    by the United Kingdom. Another suggestion, which is also under consideration, is that there should be, for the moment, a kind of standstill arrangement under which we should continue to issue passports, and, of course, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are entitled to issue passports to anyone they choose, whether they are persons who enjoy the full status of a British subject or not. Solutions of that kind may be found.
    As a matter of international practice, so far as one can see, and as a matter of practical international recognition, the position will probably remain very much as it is until the States have decided whether or not to accede to a Dominion, and, if they do not decide to accede to a Dominion, until the sovereign States have decided whether or not to recognise them as enjoying the status of independent States. But this, at least, can be said with certainty, that we do not propose to recognise the States as separate international entities on 15th August, when the Bill comes into operation. We hope, as I have said, that the States will associate themselves with one or other of the new Dominions in a federal or treaty relationship on fair terms, fairly and amicably negotiated. If they do that, their relations with the outside world will be with the Dominion with which they become associated.
    Negotiations with the States as to the terms of their association and their accession to one or other of the Dominions are starting at Delhi on 25th July. If, as we hope, these negotiations prove to be successful, all these problems relating to the international position of the States after 15th August will automatically be solved, and I should prefer now not to discuss the hypothetical question of what our attitude might be in the event of these negotiations failing. So to do might prejudice their successful conclusion We hope that they will be concluded successfully and that these difficult legal problems will not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I would like to thank the Attorney-General for his very clear and comprehensive statement of the legal and practical position. If I may say so, I think he a little over-simplified some of these problems in practice. I
    104
    wish they were all quite as easy as he made them appear in his very nice and clear statement. The truth, of course, is that naturally—and I think this is understood by the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt)—the passage of a Clause in a Bill of this kind is an occasion which raises great thoughts of the past, and, from a sentimental point of view—for sentiment still means something to the people of this island—it cannot be allowed to go by almost as an unimportant stage of mechanics in this Bill. More than that, I do not think it is true to say—and I certainly do not think it—that there has been a breach of faith between the British Government and the Princes. But I do think there has been something in the nature of a breach of decorum, because events have moved very fast, and it has not been possible from a practical point of view, to take all those steps which most of us would like to see taken on the occasion of what the Attorney-General has admitted to be a unilateral ending of so long a friendship and alliance.
    Of course, the truth is the Attorney rather skated over the fact that, in all the prior schemes which have been before us all these years, there would have been, of course, no need for a Clause of this kind, and that is why the Viceroy and the President of the Board of Trade, as late as 1943, proclaimed once more an absolute, firm decision that the treaties and alliances between the Crown and the States would remain as before; because, of course, it was not until the decision of 1944, the l0th February decision, that we would quit India anyway, whatever happened that it became necessary, since we did not intend to retain any kind of responsibility, to denounce the treaties which we would have no methods of maintaining. In the 1935 Act, for instance, there were great reserve powers to the Viceroy. Therefore, these treaties would not have been improper to maintain—under the schemes it would not have been necessary—and that is why, in fact, they were retained by the Viceroy and the Cabinet until the decision was made It has been clear and should have been clear to us that since that decision, of course, a Clause of this kind would have to be introduced into any Bill. That decision settled the matter.
    There are one or two points I should like still to press upon His Majesty's

    105
    Government. I see the Prime Minister is here. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are very glad that the Government —as I ventured to say on Second Reading and I repeat it—have resisted the claim so long made in India, that paramountcy must automatically pass to the successor Government of British India; and I think it is a very hopeful augury for any arrangements to be made between the new Dominions and the States—as we all hope there will be—that the leaders of Indian thought, in the very statements which the Attorney-General has quoted, have taken such a different attitude from that which has been current in India for many years past; because it is on that basis of equality that agreeable arrangements may well be made for an association of the States with one or other of the two Dominions. I think His Majesty's Government are to be congratulated on having resisted that claim; and, if I may be allowed to say so, the leaders of Indian opinion are also to be congratulated on having thought fit not to revive that past attitude, but to enter these negotiations on a basis of equality.
    Secondly, of course, these difficulties of the States—I must repeat it—arise from the character of this scheme in particular, because it is the partition of India not upon a geographical basis, not upon an economical basis—
    Mr. Wyatt: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me? I do think he has got that quite wrong. There was always the intention of this Government to leave India entirely, and have no responsibility there, and as long ago as the Cabinet Mission's arrival in India it was foreseen that some such Clause as this would have to be inserted.
    Mr. Macmillan: If that is so, I do not understand why the Government—the Viceroy and the President of the Board of Trade—made this declaration. If the President of the Board of Trade repudiates this, I understand the change of view. I say that it is only since the last declaration that this point arose. I am not trying to make a party point of it. But I say that is why in the last year or 18 months this has been a great practical matter. Secondly, it is only since the decision to have the partition of India and not a united India, a British India, that the problem has become so very pressing, and
    106
    I think the hon. Gentleman will admit that that decision was only taken last Easter —a few weeks ago. Why is that? There was the problem of the States to get into relations with a united British India—or ex-British India, as we must call it—as was contemplated under the Act of 1935; but now that India is to be partitioned on a purely religious basis, it does very much add to the difficulties of the States; because, as everyone knows, they have so long tried—and naturally, from the very character of their position—to avoid the raising of the religious division, and have been on the whole very successful—more successful than British India—in avoiding that great division. Therefore, that puts a fresh difficulty in their way.
    7.15 p.m.
    I welcome very much what the AttorneyGeneral—repeating what the Prime Minister said—nas said that the Government would like to see the States associate themselves through negotiation with one or other of the great Dominions that are coming into being, and that no pressure of any kind will be put on them; and, indeed, that any pressure that may exist, physical or moral, will be removed, so far as His Majesty's Government are responsible up to 15th August. I refer once more to the troops at Secunderabad. There is no greater pressure than to keep troops in somebody else's territory. But I also hope there is not to be a kind of negative pressure. The Attorney-General rather contemplated there could be no alternative—I do not think he meant to give that passage the weight he seemed to, in the second part of his remarks—for a large State—of course, we are speaking of the great States, not small "landlord properties"—no alternative but to join one or other of the Dominions, or to be a free and independent country, completely unattached to any organisation at all. I think and hope that that is not so.
    I quite see that what was once talked of as the Dominion of "Rajistan" is not contemplated now, but I hope we shall not end this long connection and get this nominal freedom by saying to the States that, unless they join one or other of the Dominions, they are to have no relations with His Majesty's Government. I hope that is not so because—I will not go into detail, and I do not think it would help

    107
    the position to do so—it would be easy to see that there could be a relation between a very large State and His Majesty's Government in some form or another. And so I hope that there will not be any negative pressure, that if they should fail to reach proper arrangements there will be no hope for them at ail, except to be cast into the kind of limbo where they have no friends or alliances or regularised relations with a powerful body. I should hope that they could in some form or another—for we have a very flexible Constitution—remain in connection with the British Commonwealth of Nations.
    I think that that is a point of importance. I will not pursue it. These negotiations will continue, and they will go through a quite long period, because there is first the Constitution-making, of course, and then there is that period in which the States will be in touch with the Dominion Parliaments, and then there is question of the interim arrangements. It is a practical and sensible arrangement to carry on as they were and hope for the best. I still think that the phrase that the Prime Minister used—I know he thought it out carefully—and the rather clear-cut phrase of the Attorney sounded a little too impartial. I want impartiality, but I do not want it to lean so far as almost to force the States into a partition they may not wish to take. I should like it to be absolutely open, and that is, I think, what all Members of this Committee would like. Obviously, if in this changed mood—and it is a very changed mood, as indicated by the quotations from the Indian leaders which we must welcome: a very changed mood from that of the last 20 years' agitation —if in this changed mood, this atmosphere, there can be arrangements by which the States range themselves into one or other of the great groups, obviously that must be to the general advantage of India as a whole.
    I trust that.the negotiations will be successful, but I would still like to feel a little warmer attitude than that shown up to now, and possibly—I do not wish to do any harm; goodness knows, this problem is difficult enough—a message might go out of this Committee which would give the right balance from both sides of the Committee of the good will and wishes of the British people as a whole towards
    108
    this delicate and difficult problem. I have not spoken on the question of the tribal area, to which some of my hon. Friends wish to address themselves. I thought it more convenient to deal with the problem of the great States, and to leave the other questions to my hon. Friends.
    Mr. Nicholson: I want: to leave the question of the States about which, as far as I am concerned, my right hon. Friend has said the last word, and to take advantage of the presence of the Prime Minister by reverting for a few minutes to the question with which this interesting Debate was opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon), who spoke about the position of the Christians in India. I was wondering how we could bring that question within the scope of this Clause, but I think we can. My own view, of course, and that of the Christian community in India, is that their future lies in India, and that they must identify themselves with India. I hope that whoever replies for the Government will make a reference to future treaties to be negotiated, or some other means, so that we do indicate to the Governments of the new Dominions our intense interest in our co-religionists in India, and our devout hope that freedom of religion will be dealt with in the new Constitution.
    My hon. Friend spoke particularly of the State of Travancore. I know the Christian community in India has shown some anxiety over a certain bias—I do not use the word "persecution"—which has been shown against Christians in Travancore; surprisingly so, because it is a singularly enlightened State. I rise now to express this hope, and to impress upon the Prime Minister my keen desire that we should indicate to the Dominion Governments the very bad effect it would have upon relations with this country if it were to be shown that there was not freedom of religion under the new dispensation.
    Mr. Sorensen: Has the hon. Member any complaint regarding the treatment of Christians outside Travancore?
    Mr. Nicholson: Yes, I have, but I will not go into that, because I do not want to make bad blood.
    Earl Winterton: I also wish to take advantage of the presence of the Prime Minister, and to revert to another matter of

    109
    immense importance in this Bill. I cannot imagine anything more pregnant with good or evil for the future of India than the question of the tribal areas, and the general position of the North-West Provinces. Those hon. Members like myself—and, I think, the Prime Minister; certainly the Under-Secretary—who have visited those areas in the past know that this great red, raw territory is more a part of Asia—one might almost say it is more a part of the Middle East—than of India. Immediately across the great river one gets into the North-West Frontier tribal territory, and the impression is that of meeting with an entirely different type of person, and an entirely different mentality. In fact, when I was there in 1922 I almost thought I was back in the first desert war, because of the terrain, and the intense and fervent belief of the inhabitants—a belief which must be honoured for its fervency in the great cause of Islam.
    The reference which Clause 7 makes to this matter is as follows, in Subsection (1, c):
    "there lapse also any treaties or agreements in force at the date of the passing of this Act between His Majesty and any persons having authority in the tribal areas, any obligations of his Majesty existing at that date to any such persons or with respect to the tribal areas, and all powers, rights, authority or jurisdiction exercisable at that date by His Majesty in or in relation to the tribal areas by treaty, grant, usage, sufferance or otherwise."
    I cannot quarrel with those words, but I do want to ask one or two questions which I think are in Order on this Clause. If they are not they can be answered on Clause 11, on which they would certainly be in Order. The first observation is almost, to use a vulgarism, a bromide for hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. The territory in question is one of the greatest historic battle terrains and strategic points of the whole world. Throughout the history of Asia and of the relationship between Britain and Asia, no point, not even the Alps, can be found which has been the scene of such a great historic battle. I would urge that it does not jeopardise but rather safeguards world peace to ensure that such a territory is properly defended. If it is left in a vacuum it is bound to be a danger point to the peace of the world. Therefore, I hope that His Majesty's Government and the Pakistan Government will act in the closest consultation to secure if necessary
    110
    —one hopes the contingency will not arise —the joint use of British and Commonwealth troops in any major emergency. I put those views on record, and I think no sensible person could dispute them. It may not be possible for the Government to give an answer, but I hope these views will reach the ears of my friend, Mr. Jinnah, and I have a feeling that he would be very friendly to them.
    At the same time—and this is a point of equal importance—it is necessary to draw a very clear line of demareation between such a major emergency and ordinary measures to secure law and order, including the dispersing of tribal forays, for it would be in the interests of neither Britain nor Pakistan to use British troops in the latter case; that is to say, if British troops were used for what may be described as an ordinary purpose in that part of the world, in securing law and order. Perhaps I might here make a personal reference, having made certain visits there; few people have had better opportunity of seeing conditions there. The maintenance of law and order, unfortunately, always depends upon the use of troops not in the ultimate but in the immediate background—that fortified area which, incidentally, affords an instance of the admirable strategy adopted by the Government in India, who realised that at the time. If these British troops were to be used for the ordinary maintenance of law and order, as opposed to—I use a very euphemistic term which everyone will understand—a major emergency, I think it would affront an important major constitutional principle. His Majesty's Forces in Great Britain—by which I mean the British Army and Air Force; not necessarily stationed in Great Britain—are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for War, who is answerable to this Committee for their welfare, and so on. It would be a grave departure from constitutional principles for them to be at the disposal of any Government in the Empire, however friendly, except in a major emergency.
    The Prime Minister indicated assent.
    7.30 p.m.
    Earl Winterton: I am glad to see that I have the assent of the Prime Minister, because I do not think there has ever been any case in which they have been so used. Therefore, I put forward these two

    111
    propositions. I do not necessarily press for an immediate answer. It may be better to give an answer at a later stage, or it may not be desirable to answer them clearly or definitely. However, I think it is useful to put them on record. I am certain that they will not be unpalatable to Pakistan, and I hope that they will not be unpalatable to His Majesty's Government.
    It used to be said in the old days that if you wanted to have an absolutely bare House of Commons, you had only to discuss Indian affairs. Some intelligent person computed, in the 1890's, that the average number of Members present, when Indian affairs were discussed, was about 15. Slightly more interest is taken in the subject today. I am not complaining of the smallness of the attendance on this occasion, but I do want to make this observation: whether we like it or not, whether we are Socialists, Tories or Independents, this question of the defence of the North-West frontier and of the tribal areas is the very fibre of this Bill, and without an adequate defence system for the tribal areas and for the North-West and North-East Frontiers, the whole structure of this Bill and everything we have been talking about on Second Reading, during the Committee stage, and everything we shall talk about on Third Reading will be splinters and match-wood. Vast possibilities for good or evil —I hope that they are for good—exist in the strategic areas in the world, and I need only ask everyone to look at the districts surrounding the North-East and North-West Frontiers.
    Sir P. Hannon: I rise to put to the Under-Secretary of State a question which I have put to the Government before. I am making no complaint to the Under-Secretary of State. Earlier on, I submitted certain considerations affecting the safety and security of the Christian population in India, and particularly in Travancore, but the Attorney-General made no reference to what I said, in making a very comprehensive speech dealing with the points raised during the Debate. I am seeking clarification from the Under-Secretary of State. Will he give an assurance that some representations will be made by His Majesty's Government in regard to that particular State. and, indeed, in regard to India
    112
    generally, that Christian safety and security will be preserved, and that there will be the fullest freedom for them to practise and carry on with their educational work, and so on?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon), clearly all these matters of religious toleration pass now to the Dominion Governments. They have, in the Constituent Assembly in India, passed resolutions which lay down the security of religion, and I hope that it will be carried out. It is quite impossible for us, as I am sure he realises, to put in a Statute anything that in any way restricts the position of a Dominion Government in that matter. In the same way, it is not possible to do it with the State of Travancore, of which, I think, something like one-third of the population are Christians.
    Sir P. Hannon: Exactly one-third.
    The Prime Minister: It has been a very enlightened State, and we all hope that it will set a great example of toleration in this matter. I should like now to deal with one point made by the.right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan). It is quite clear, I think, that as soon as one gets into the role of talking about Dominion status, the question of what should happen to the Princes is bound to come up. It was quite clear that paramountcy would have to go when we ceased to rule India. There have been conversations going on for a long time with the Chamber of Princes, and with individual Princes, on these matters. I wish that agreement with the Princes had been come to rather earlier. I do not want to go into details, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that at times there have been differences of opinion amongst the Princes themselves. It is awfully difficult when you talk of Princes, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to remember that in one case there is a huge country with 18 million, and in another case there is a Prince with only a few acres, where absolutely different considerations apply.
    I do not think it would be wise for me to add anything to what I said on Second Reading, which was to the effect that we did not want to bring pressure either way. I wanted to keep a level course, because negotiations are going forward with, I believe, good hopes of

    113
    success. The hon. and gallant Member for Down (Sir W. Smiles) raised a point about troops on the Eastern Frontier, and spoke of the Nagas and so forth, whom I have had much pleasure in visiting. In these unadministered tracts, we hope that agreement will be made, and we must all be anxious about these people, who are extremely primitive. I hope that full advantage will be taken of the very experienced officials we have working in that area. The suggestion put forward that there might be some talks with the Government of Burma is a very wise one, because some of these tribes live on both sides of the boundary line.
    The noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) raised the important matter of the North-West Frontier and its defence. He knows as well as I do that the defence of the North-West Frontier has been entrusted to the Indian troops for a very long time; and, of course, there have always been forces in reserve. This is a matter that is very much in the minds of the Members of both successor Governments, and there is a Joint Defence Council to consider it. I should not like to go further than to say that the Government would be perfectly willing to enter into discussions with the successor Government on any matter of common defence. I do not think I had better say more than that. I am sure everyone understands how vital to the whole of India and the East is the preservation of peace on the North-West Frontier.
    Earl Winterton: I do not press for an answer to my second point, but will the right hon. Gentleman give a general assurance that it would be wrong, in normal circumstances, for British troops to be used for maintaining law and order unless asked for by the Secretary of State.
    The Prime Minister: I agree. We have always laid that down with regard to other Dominions. British troops would be under command here. With regard to Secunderabad, I understand that discussions are now proceeding on that very question.
    Brigadier Low: I was very glad to hear what the Prime Minister said about the North-West Frontier. I noticed that at the end of his remarks, he referred to the Joint Defence Council, which has just
    114
    been set up. The Prime Minister said, on Second Reading, that this Council dealt only with administrative matters, and that the Commander-in-Chief whom I imagine to be the executive authority, would have no responsibility for law and order and no operational control. I wonder whether such matters as the defence of the North-West Frontier ought not to come within the purview of such a Council, at any rate during the transition period.
    The Prime Minister: I did not want to suggest anything, except that we have a Defence Council which will obviously bring up these questions; we can, therefore, expect that they will be discussed. I did not want to suggest that everything had been laid down already.
    Brigadier Low: I am much obliged for that answer. The other point I want to refer to is in connection with the Clause itself, which refers to the words "or other like matters appear." I. am always suspicious when I see the words "other like matters" in any Bill, but I am particularly suspicious of them in this Bill, which cannot be construed by any court of law in any country. I would like some information as to what these words mean. I am in doubt as to whether they might not be construed as indicating that troops might be left in the particular area. When dealing with the States such a construction might not be placed on the words, but when dealing with the tribal areas it might.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: I desire elucidation on one point. I listened to the Attorney-General's explanation of the position of the States if they join one of the Dominions. I can conceive that a State might desire to be identified fully with Pakistan or India if it was convinced that the Dominion would remain permanently within the British Commonwealth. But what would be the position of a State which identified itself with a Dominion, if that Dominion subsequently decided to secede from the Commonwealth? Would the State be carried, against its will, outside the orbit of the Commonwealth?
    Sir S. Reed: I would like to echo the words spoken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) a few moments ago, when he

    115
    asked for a little more warmth to be enthused into our discussion about future relations with the Indian States. It has often been said that India is a land of regrets. I have never been quite clear about what was meant by it. If it is said that it means regret at going into India, I do not think that anybody who went to India and tried to identify himself with the country and her peoples has regretted it. If the regret is at leaving India, then that is indeed a regret on the part of those who have tried to serve and love that land. That is a painful thought at this last stage of what I would call the fulfilment of our pledge to India, which is bringing with it partition in a united India, partition in two of the Provinces of India, and now the severance of our historic treaty relations with the Indian States.
    Those relations go back to the days of Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan. I do not know which is the oldest, but I have delved many times into the Malcolm Treaties which arrested the march of the Mahrattas into Rajputana. Those treaties lapsed through the unilateral repudiation of paramountcy. We regret it; on the other hand this day ought to have been foreseen, on the day we accepted the principle of self-government for India, so long ago as 1917. Now that these contractual relations are lapsing, we must not let them go without some reiteration of the immense debt we owe to the Princes and States of India, and to the part they have played in the governance of India.
    7.45 p.m.
    There are many Members of this House who, speaking seriously, are rather prone to recall the autocratic tone of the Indian States, and to cry that they do not stand for democracy. I am getting tired of the word "democracy," because I am reminded of what the Roman Catholic Archbishop said in the newspapers this morning, that "democracy" is a word which can be used to cover up the most hideous and oppressive forms of autocracy. I remember one of the leading Indian Princes once saying to me: "Who is the more responsible in India—the Indian ruling Prince, or the Viceroy?" Answering his own question, he said, It is the Indian ruling Prince. The Viceroy passes his five years and goes. The Indian Prince remains the trustee for his State, his House
    116
    and his successors." We must not forget the great debt we owe to the States through two great wars, when they were pillars of the Commonwealth and Empire, nor that they took part in half a dozen minor campaigns in China and in Somaliland, and elsewhere when their resources and support were given, without stint or hesitation, to the Commonwealth Nor must we forget the testimony borne by many independent visitors to India—that on passing the borders they found the people happier than in British Territories.
    Now paramountcy is passing; we look forward to the future. Those who suggest that we should have special contractual relations with the States outside the ambit of one or both of the two new Dominions should surely inform us what the nature of those contractual relations should be, and how they can be discharged. However that may be, I do not think we should let the occasion pass without expressing our warmest thanks and gratitude to the Princes and the States which have had this intimate association with us for a century and a half, and paying a tribute to those whose hospitality, generosity, and support have always been extended in unstinted measure to the British Commonwealth and Empire. Although our contractual relations may pass with time, we shall always keep our memories green and be grateful to them from the very depths of our hearts.
    The Attorney-General: I do not rise to follow the striking and eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed), but to answer two points specifically put to me. First, I would remind the hon and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low) that the proviso to Clause 7 (I) does not contemplate military arrangements of any kind. The words "other like matters" have to be construed, ejusdem generis, as the lawyers say, in relation to the words coming before, and they contemplate economic and financial matters. Civil aviation may be one, roads may be another, but certainly matters of a military nature are not contemplated.
    Now I come to the second point, raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris). The position of States which have acceded to a Dominion which subsequently decides

    117
    to secede from the British Commonwealth is a matter on which it would be impossible to make a definite statement now, since it depends entirely on the terms on which the State has acceded to the Dominion. That will be a matter dependent in part on the Constitution of the Dominion concerned, and in part on any agreement that (nay be negotiated between it and a particular State. I do not doubt that a State, in negotiating terms on which it could accede to the Dominion, may make it a condition that the accession should be conditional on the Dominion concerned remaining within the Commonwealth.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: There are two points to which I would like to refer. One was raised by the noble Lord in the matter of the tribal areas and the defence of the North-West Frontier of India. The Prime Minister gave an interesting account of what was going on, but I feel that emphasis should be laid on this colossal problem of the defence of the North-West Frontier of India. I am perfectly convinced—if I may say so with great modesty because of a good deal of experience which I have had—that the Pakistan Army on whom the defence of the North-West Frontier will lie under the set-up in the Bill, unless other negotiations to the contrary are brought about, will, by itself, be quite unable to defend the North-West Frontier of India. Therefore, we have to realise that something else has to be put in the place of what is at present the British Army in India if that Frontier is to be properly defended. A great danger on the North-West Frontier in relation to Pakistan are the co-religionists of the tribes of the Frontier. There lies a danger which I hope will not be overlooked. The title of this Clause is:
    "Consequences of the setting up of the new Dominions"
    I wish that these were all the consequences mentioned in this Clause, but I feel that, whereas we have spoken about the Indian States and the tribal areas, and made clear that transit, communications and so on with these places will be maintained, we ought to have some proviso at the end of this Clause stating precisely that agreements and treaties existing at present with countries outwith India—Afghanistan, Nepal, French India and Portuguese India—which will be still in existance after this Bill goes through, will not be affected
    118
    by this Bill without prior negotiations with the States and interests concerned. I feel that should be added in some way or another to make it clear that this Bill will not automatically wipe out anything which we have agreed to do with any of these States.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Temporary provision as to government of each of the new Dominions.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. H. Macmillan: This Clause is rather difficult to follow, and I think that the Committee would be grateful if we could have a further explanation from the Attorney-General as to its precise effect.
    The Attorney-General: This is an important Clause making provision in the main for the transitional period while the Constituent Assemblies are still working and before the Legislatures have had time to consider whether or to what extent they wish to modify the general law and government of the Dominions. In the meantime, law and government must he carried on, and the broad scheme of the Bill as expressed in this Clause and Clause 18 is to provide for a temporary Constitution and maintenace of the general law until such time as they may be altered. Subsection (1) gives the necessary legislative power to a Constituent Assembly and attracts the provisions of Clause 6. Subsection (2) deals with the constitutional position until and unless some other provision is made by the Constituent Assembly, and it provides, broadly speaking, that the Government of each of the Dominions is to be carried on as if the Government of India Act, 1935, was as nearly as may be applied to each of them separately. I say "as nearly as may be" because in practice the Act will require very considerable modification. The provisions of the Act which involve central control, directed from London, go.
    Similarly, the provisions in the Act as to the precise constitution of the different legislative assemblies go. There are, on the other hand, a number of matters in which the 1935 Act may continue in operation unless and until the Constituent Assemblies

    119
    decide to alter them. In substance—I do not say in every detail because it would be impossible and I think not useful to attempt to go through every Section of the Act at this stage—the existing powers of the constitution of the Provincial Legislatures will remain in being, and so may the powers, as distinct from the constitution, of the Central Legislature. What I have in mind particularly there is that what are called the "legislative lists" set out in Schedule 7 of the 1935 Act, which allocate certain subjects as being for the Central Legislature and assign others to the Provincial ones, would continue until one or other of the Constituent Assemblies decides to alter them. So should also the provision with regard to the constitution and jurisdiction of the High Courts. This will go on and the courts will continue to function until a Constituent Assembly or Legislature decides to alter them. Some of the modifications and adaptations of the 1935 Act are obvious and some are not. The more obvious ones are the subject of express provision in Subsection (2) of the Clause, and, for the rest, the necessary modifications will be made by order of the Governor-General under the powers which are vested in the Governor-General under the subsequent Clauses of the Bill. That is the broad purpose of this Clause, and one has to read it in relation to the next Clause and in relation to Clause 18.
    Mr. Molson: There are two or three questions which I would like the Attorney-General to answer He has said that the provisions of the 1935 Act will continue in force in so far as they are applicable to the new circumstances. He has mentioned a number of respects in which, owing to the partition of India and also the partition of the Provinces, a number of the provisions of the Act will cease to be applicable. There may be a difference of opinion as to what has ceased to apply. Is there any court through which application can be made in order to determine a question of that kind, or is it to be determined by some other machinery? The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the High Courts He did not say any thing about the Federal Court. Under the 1935 Act, the Federal Court was set up for three purposes, one of the most important being to define the Constitution.
    120
    That, I take it, will not continue to apply. Suppose there is a perfectly genuine doubt as to the extent to which some provision of the 1935 Act is by implication being made inapplicable as a result of changes that have taken place, how is it to be decided what the true view is?
    8.0 p.m.
    The other question I should like to ask is with regard to Subsection (2, d) which says:
    "as from the appointed day, no Provincial Bill shall be reserved under the Government of India Act, 1935, for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure. and no Provincial Act shall be disallowed by His Majesty there under"
    The real purpose of that provision under the Act of 1935 was to enable the Central Government to exercise a certain jurisdiction over the Provincial Legislature and, in particular, if I remember aright, to make certain there was not a conflict of jurisdiction between two adjoining Provinces. One recognises that under this new legislation, instead of His Majesty disallowing legislation on the advice of the Secretary of State for India, it would be done by the Governor-General. If paragraph (d) were not incorporated the natural development would be that the Government of India under the new Bill would be able to prevent a Provincial Legislature from legislating in a way which a Dominion Government disapproved, and the Minister of the Dominion Government would recommend the Governor-General to disallow that Bill. I do not understand why that rather important piece of machinery is being done away with under this Bill. It is true we are going to have two federations instead of one, but I should have thought that it was as important as ever to enable the Government of the Dominions to exercise some measure of control over the Provincial Legislatures.
    The Attorney-General: I will deal with the two points raised by the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr Molson) in the order in which he raised them the existing Federal Court cannot function in future but some corresponding court may arise under Clause 6 (2) unless the Dominion or Governor-General decides otherwise. That will be a matter for the Dominion concerned.
    Mr.H. Maemillan: Under both Dominions?
    The Attorney-General: Under the new constitution for both Dominions, but a Federal Court is established—.
    Mr. Macmillan: For both?
    The Attorney-General: —for each Dominion separately—the existing Federal Court established under the 1935 Act will not continue to function. The High Court will continue to operate in each Dominion until they have had an opportunity of deciding to what extent any particular provision of the 1935 Act in these regards should be altered.
    Mr. Molson: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for saying that the Federal Court will cease to exist. I do not think that that is actually provided for in this Bill.
    The Attorney-General: No.
    Mr. Molson: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would permit me, I would like to develop this argument. He has made an extremely important statement, and it is an example of the way important changes are being made in the Constitution of India which are not explicit in the words of this enabling Act but are implicit because it is assumed that these provisions cease to be valid on the principle cessante ratione, cessat lex. If that is so, it is vitally important that from the beginning either a court or a tribunal or the Governor-General shall be able to decide what are the ultimate consequences of the provisions of this Bill.
    The Attorney-General: I quite agree with the hon. Member, but the Governor-General has those powers under the succeeding Clause. He has an order-making right to make whatever adaptation he thinks necessary in the 1935 Act The existing Federal Court, of course, cannot function because the circumstances in respect of which it was functioning under the i935 Act will not continue New Federal Courts may be set up for each Dominion. As far as the High Court is concerned, I was saying that it might have occasion incidentally to consider whether any particular provisions of the 1935 Act are still in operation providing that the Governor-General had not already dealt with the matter by Order in Council, the normal way in which these matters will be dealt with and will be made clear, and those orders made by
    122
    the Governor-General will be made under the succeeding Clause.
    The second point raised by the hon. Member was in regard to the provision in Clause 8 (2, d) as to reservation. That corresponds in the case of the Provincial Legislature with the provisions under Clause 6 (3) with regard to the reservation of laws passed by the Central Legislature. That was dealing with reservation until His Majesty's pleasure was known and that was a form of reservation which enabled the Governor-General to withhold assent to a Bill until His Majesty could be advised by the Government of the United Kingdom about the matter. That provision would have been a wholly inappropriate one to retain and obviously would have involved a derogation from the sovereignty we are now giving to the Dominions. No doubt, the Governors-General will provide immediately, as the eventual Constitution will have to provide, that there will be some sort of power of that kind vested in the Governors-General or provided for in the provisions of the new Constitution, but that will be a matter for the new Constituent Assembly.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 9.—(Orders for bringing this Act into force.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. H. Macmillan: Like Clause 8, this Clause covers the interregnum between one system and another, and it is, of course, inherent in the whole scheme of the Bill that there should be rather a difficult period which has to be overcome. Neither I nor My friends are in any way complaining of that. That is the part of the scheme for which we are passing an enabling Act in order to give a Constitution for the Dominions of India. However, there are one or two points on which I am sure the Attorney-General or the Under-Secretary of State will help us, particularly where this scheme has appeared to change since the period of its birth.
    I cannot help thinking that this Clause—although I am aware of the Interpretation Clause—was drawn with the earlier plain in view, that was with one Governor-General in mind, who

    123
    during this interregnum period would act as a link between the two parts of British India which are now being created. Had that been so, there would have been some great disadvantages involved with equal advantages in the scheme, and it is quite right that the appointment of a Governor-General of Pakistan should be made to suit the wishes of the Muslim League or the parties to that appointment. I am not objecting to that, but it seems to me to complicate what was bound to be a difficult process, because as I understand it—and I am speaking with great diffidence because it is difficult to follow what is likely to happen under Clause 9 now that we have got two Governor-Generals —there was to be one Governor-General, but now there is a Governor-General for Pakistan and one for India. The difficulty is to bring into operation the arrangement between both Dominions to deal with matters which are now common matters.
    Subsection (1) provides for the dividing of various problems between the two Dominions and the powers, rights, property, duties and liabilities of the Governor-General in Council, which, I presume, covers a period, between the passing of the Bill and the appointed day. That we assume refers to the person we knew as the Viceroy. Also under this Clause, each of the Governors-General has to divide the authority of the Central Indian Government; and, secondly, to arrange to carry on the function of the present united Governor-General in Council. The Clause also provides for the removing of difficulties in regard to the new monetary system, dealing with the Reserve Bank of India and a variety of other matters which cover a pretty wide field. I think it is clear—and I am not trying to make the thing more difficult, for we all hope and pray it will succeed—that when the plan was originally drawn, it was hoped that one Governor-General would act as a kind of independent umpire. Now there will be two Governors-General and two sets of Ministers advising them.
    Therefore, as I understand Clause 9, it is really a legal instrument for making effective agreements by goodwill between the two Dominions. If the two Governments of the Dominions reach an arrangemen+ in regard to monetary matters or
    124
    the Bank of India or some such matter, this provides the instrument by which such an arrangement can be made effective. It does not, however, provide the instrument by which the negotiations are carried on. As I understand it, each Governor-General will act constitutionally on the advice of his Ministers, and not in the sense of Subsection (2) of this Clause, namely:
    "to exercise their individual judgment "
    Therefore, we have to contemplate these two Governors trying to secure negotiations with each other about matters which are now matters of joint concern to the whole of British India with their Legislatures carrying on legislation at the same time. A very heavy task lies upon all those who are concerned in this plan, and it makes it more pleasing that the present Viceroy has consented to remain as Governor-General of India, because I feel his presence will be of considerable value apart from being the legal instrument of carrying out this Clause. Certainly, his presence will be of great value in helping to reach an accommodation and a settlement upon a number of problems which are immense and because of whose immensity it has been necessary to draft this Clause in very wide terms.
    8.15 p.m.
    There is just one further point. understand from the Second Reading Debate that there was likely to be an Arbitral Tribunal of some kind not unlike the boundary commission. I think it was understood that a Hindu lawyer and a Muslim lawyer would probably be appointed, and perhaps a third lawyer as chairman. I should he very glad if we could have a little more information about what is happening regarding this Arbitral Tribunal. So far as I can see, it will be the only body yet devised to deal with the situation if, the parties cannot reach agreement. If the two do not agree about the monetary system, or upon the assets of the Central Government, or about how the railways should go, or about aviation, this tribunal will be the only appeal body in existence. It will be valuable if we can hear more about it. Moreover, since the boundary commission has been written into the Bill, and we have amended it here today in order to make it effective, the Arbitral Tribunal might also be written into the Act in the same way, as it appears to

    125
    be the peg upon which the whole prospect of a final settlement is likely to depend. I would be grateful if we could have some more information.
    We do not raise these matters in a cavilling spirit. They are inherent in the handling of the problem. I wonder whether His Majesty's Government would, between now and the final stages of the Bill, look rather carefully at Clause 9, which was clearly drawn with a somewhat different plan in mind, and decide whether any change is necessary, similar to the Amendment they have introduced today on the boundary question. Otherwise, all one can say is that an immense burden will be thrown upon the two Governments to reach these rapid conclusions. I am sure one hopes that they will take the advice of the British officials who we know are readily working with them for a solution of these great problems. A great deal will depend on the personalities of the leaders themselves, and of the Governors-General of the new Dominions. If there is an absolute impasse there is apparently no machinery for its resolution since I gather that the Arbitral Tribunal merely an arrangement reached between the leaders.
    Therefore, we part from the Clause in the knowledge that it is a very vague and generalised instrument, but in the hope that the general sense of the immensity of the problems and of the vast issues which hang upon their solution will result in satisfactory arrangements and that an agreeable accommodation will be made. I hope that we can have a statement from the Government on the matter. I ask that the questions which I have mentioned should be dealt with before we pass this Clause in Committee, and that we might have more information about the Clause.
    Lord John Hope: I would ask the Attorney-General to give us information about the Arbitral Tribunal because upon it will depend much of the success of this tremendous experiment. When a disagreement between two communities comes up before the tribunal and the tribunal gives its decision, what sanction is there for the acceptance of that decision? Is the decision to be in the nature of an award? I am left in the air about the use of the tribunal on the one hand, while, on the other hand, I see that the tribunal will be the linch-pin of the whole future set-up.
    Dr. Haden Guest: This is a very important Clause. As far as I can judge, there has never before been an Act of Parliament containing a Clause conferring such gigantic powers on one man, except perhaps in time of war. When one contemplates the vast power which there will be in the hands of the Governor-General between now and the appointed day, one wants to take the opportunity of making quite sure that he has the power in his hands to remove some of the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) said might arise. It is a good augury of the possibilities of action in other spheres, that this Parliament can, through an Act of Parliament, confer on one man powers of such immense importance and magnitude and bring to a happy ending a dispute which, in other circumstances, might have led to war and revolution. It is a most astonishing triumph that that should be possible, but we should be sure that the powers of the Governor-General are so used that we do not have any constitutional impasse as was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley. We should he quite sure that the Governor-General has sufficient power in his hands, as he has so much other power, to avoid anything unfortunate of that kind.
    The Attorney-General: As the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Haden Guest) has indicated, this is a very important Clause. It confers very wide but temporary powers of legislation by Order. As I indicated when speaking on the last Clause, this is really the necessary corollary to Clause 8. It provides for the machinery for adaptation of the 1935 Act, by which transitional difficulties can, so far, at least, as their legal aspects are concerned, be overcome. It is a wide Clause. It is inevitable in the circumstances of the case that the powers which are vested in the Governors-General should be very wide powers. Even if it had been politically expedient, it would have been quite impracticable to attempt to deal by express provision in the body of the Statute itself with the various matters which the Clause will bring within the scope of the Governors' order-making powers.
    The Governors-General have, in effect, under this Clause to bring the Act into practical operation and to provide by law

    127
    for all the manifold and difficult practical matters, such as how certain matters under the central control can be dealt with, how assets and liabilities are to be dealt with, and how the properties of India as a whole are to be divided up, and so on. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) said, these are all matters which, before they can be the subject of legislation, must be the subject of examination and negotiation on the spot. It is hardly necessary to go into all the different classes of matter which will have to be the subject of Order eventually under Clause 8. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned some of them, such as the currency system and the central banking arrangements; and one might add the whole question of the division of the existing central administrative organisation. All these matters, before being embodied in a Bill, would have to be the subject of negotiation and agreement. As they have not yet been the subject of negotiation and agreement —or not complete agreement—they are matters which, inevitably, have to be left to the powers of the Governors-General.
    That leads me to say a word about the position of the Governors-General. After the appointed day they will act constitutionally on the advice of the Ministers in each separate Dominion. Quite clearly, there will be many difficult and complicated matters arising out of the division of India, in regard to which they will have to seek accommodation and agreement with each other, and with the respective Governments of the two Dominions. This Bill does not attempt to lay clown how such differences shall be resolved, if unhappily, they arise and, of course, this Bill could not attempt to lay down how such differences should be resolved if they did arise consistently with giving complete sovereignty to each of the Dominions.
    In regard to some matters it may be that an Arbitral Tribunal should be set up, and discussions have taken place already in regard to that. I am told by the Under-Secretary of State that the Chief Justice has been invited to be president of such a tribunal, but I do not know whether he has yet accepted. I make that reference to show that such arrangements have gone some way.
    128
    However, there is no provision in the Bill for such a tribunal, nor does the Bill contain any sanction to ensure that the award of such a tribunal must be carried out. That is a matter which, in the last resort, will depend upon the goodwill of the Dominions concerned, although, of course, if they both enter, as they are entitled to do, into a freely-negotiated treaty to establish an Arbitral Tribunal to deal with particular matters, that would become a binding agreement under the ordinary rules of international law.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that of necessity there could not be introduced an Arbitral Tribunal into the Bill. How does it differ from the conception of the boundary commission?
    The Attorney-General: There is, in my view, a fundamental distinction between the two. The boundary commissions are laying down in advance the boundaries of what are to be the two new Dominions; the Arbitral Tribunal will continue in existence after the Governments of those Dominions—their boundaries once settled and defined—are themselves functioning. If one had provided for by Statute for an Arbitral Tribunal the awards of which had to be obeyed by each Dominion, one would, to that extent, be derogating from the sovereign powers conferred on each Dominion. That is a distinction in principle between the two. The boundary commission comes into operation now, before the Legislature of each Dominion can exercise sovereign power over the whole of its territory, because ex hypothesi,the boundary of the territory has not yet been settled. Once the boundary is settled, then the Legislatures, under the scheme of this Blil, are to have sovereign powers within their Dominions and within the Commonwealth. It would be a detraction from those powers to say, "If you do not agree with another Dominion, then you must abide by the award of some outside Arbitral Tribunal."
    Brigadier Low: Does that mean, supposing for example, Mr. Jinnah now consents to the Arbitral Tribunal, and therefore gives it some foundation, and after 15th August is advised by his Ministers

    129
    to disregard the award of the tribunal, that the Arbitral Tribunal's award is of no validity?
    The Attorney-General: The impelling necessity of reaching agreement will, no doubt, result in agreement being reached. That is the real sanction. These two Dominions will not be able to deal with many of these matters, which have hitherto been of central concern, unless they can reach agreement as to their division and as to their future administration. One cannot deal with problems of that kind by legislative enactments, one must rely on the common sense and good will of the two Governments to reach agreement and to find some solution of their problems. I have been mentioning the matter now only in order to emphasise the fact that, great though these powers are which are vested in the Governors-General, they are powers which will be exercised on the advice of the Ministers concerned. They are also powers which are temporary in their nature. They come to an end at the end of March next year unless, indeed, the Legislatures terminate them earlier, and the Orders that they make in the exercise of their powers are subject to repeal by the Legislatures of the Dominions.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: We are grateful to the Attorney-General for explaining this. As he has rightly said, it is part of the structure of this Bill not to try to lay down a solution of all these problems. I think I am right in saying that the powers of the Governors-General are really given them in order that there may be some legal method of making fixed agreements, freely entered into, between the Governments of the two Dominions. We provide them with the instrument to carry out their agreements during this preliminary period, and that being inherent in the plan, it would be foolish for us to attempt to do more. That is why we have not asked for more than elucidation. We must trust that they will succeed because, to use the Attorney-General's words, the impelling necessity of reaching agreement will result in agreement being reached.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Secretary of State's Services, etc.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Earl Winterton: In the absence, owing to another engagement, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), I want to raise a very important question about the position of these Services. There is, as I shall endeavour to show in the course of my remarks, an apparent discrepancy—and I am confident that the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us why—between the satisfactory statement made by the Prime Minister upon the subject of the Services, and the statement the right hon. and learned Gentleman made in his reply in the Debate on Second Reading. I regret that my right hon. Friend is not able to be present, because he has had more recent experience of the Services than I have, but I had a very long experience, nearly seven official years so to speak. To open a bit of what has hitherto been secret history, there was a period when it was almost impossible to recruit members —that was nearly a quarter of a century ago—to either the Secretary of State's Service, or the other Services. People would not come in because of the uncertainty of the situation and the lowness of the salaries paid. From this long distance of time, perhaps I may now say that I was sent out on an unofficial mission in 1902 to the Viceroy, to induce the Government to agree to such conditions of service as would make it possible to recruit the same splendid type of young Indian who had been recruited in the past, and that equally applied to young Britons. It was very desirable to get young Indians in as well.
    To cut short my little piece of history, they were recruited, and as a result, in the 1920's there was a very good intake of Indians, and people from this country. I feel as we all do, including Members of the Government who were in office at the time, that we all have a great responsibility towards these men, Indian and British, who were encouraged by the efforts of hon. Members on both sides of the House to enter these services. Nor is it possible to ignore the fact that, at any rate until the announcement by the Under-Secretary of State in the Second Reading Debate, there was serious concern on the part of many members of the Services.

    131
    Some of my right hon. Friends on these benches have received a large number of telegrams and letters from India. I have received a good many letters. I will read extracts from a typical letter of concern—it cannot be described as complaint—very proper concern, by a man in the Ordnance Services and Departments, which is a very important body in the Civil Service structure of India. He says:
    "Since this was written."
    he encloses a memorandum which I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has seen—
    "we have been instructed to decide whether we elect to serve in Pakistan or in the rest of India. We may make a provisional choice (for six months) and either Government will guarantee us our existing conditions of service."
    Then follows something to which I wish to call particular attention. The letter says:
    "We have had bitter experience of the way in which regulations have been read at various times. Members of our service, recruited during the war for the duration of the war, returned to England bitterly disappointed with the attitude of the Indian Government who in effect attempted to repudiate the terms of their agreement which was signed in England."
    A statement of that kind must cause concern to every Member of the Committee, because there is no party division of opinion between the two sides of the Committee about it being the duty, in the case of ex-Service men, and these are British ex-Service men, to do everything we can to help them. The writer continues:
    "We have been unable to obtain any information from the Defence Department as to what are the 'existing conditions of service.' We are credibly informed that, instead of a man being allowed to take all the leave to which he is entitled pending termination of service, should he not elect to serve under either of the two Governments, he will be treated as having served notice on the Government of India. This means that service terminates six months after the service of such notice.
    It may be that the Government will take advantage of the Clause that 'leave is a privilege and not a right,' in which case the officer will have to continue working right up to the end of this notice period. With transport in its present state, this would perhaps mean a further three months to remain in India without pay. In any case, if leave were granted it would mean spending this leave in India until a passage could be arranged."
    The writer goes on to make a number of other complaints. I will hand the letter to the right hon. and learned Gentleman
    132
    privately. I quote it as symptomatic of a feeling of concern which existed until the Under-Secretary of State's announcement. My correspondent writes:
    "…the position of the Europeans of the Ordnance Services is very obscure."
    I have had a number of letters from other members of the Services.
    What we are concerned with, as I have already said, is to reconcile what was stated by the Prime Minister with what was said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I particularly make no party point. I think everyone will agree that it is necessary in a matter of this kind, which affects a large number of people, Europeans and Indians—because I do not want to get on to a controversial point—to make clear that not every Indian in the Services is particularly anxious to serve under India or Pakistan. They may enter under different conditions. It is not a racial question, but a question of the position of these men. What did the Prime Minister say? He said:
    "As regard persons who have been in Government service, whether Central or Provincial, but whose service has not. been specifically under the Secretary of State, I am happy to be able to announce now that the leaders of the Indian parties have guaranteed the existing terms and conditions of service to all their employees, including Europeans. This guarantee covers pensionary and provident fund liabilities, and excludes any question of discrimination between Indian and non-Indian. But it cannot, of course, be regarded as an abandonment of the general right of any Government to revise the salaries of their servants from time to time. It is, however, recognised that, among the liabilities to which I have referred above, there is one category for which His Majesty's Government have a special responsibility, namely, towards Europeans who served in the Secretary of State's and analogous Services. We intend to invite the new authorities to negotiate, in due course, an agreement whereby a capital sum in sterling will be set aside to cover this liability. Meanwhile, those concerned have the assurance of His Majesty's Government that they will receive the pensions to which they are entitled."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, l0th July, 1947; Vol.439, c. 2470.]
    Then, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State when replying, said this:
    "The right hon. Gentleman's next question"—
    he was referring to my right hon. Friend the Member for Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson)—
    "was with regard to the Services. He asked what was meant by the term ' analogous service.' Analogous service means officers of

    133
    the various defence forces. The statement of policy which was made by the Prime Minister on 30th April with regard to pensions covers the members of the Secretary of State's Services and the various members of the Defence Services and for these purposes they are considered to be and are described as analogous services.
    Mr. H. MACMILLAN: This is rather an important point. Does that include what are called the uncovenanted services?
    Mr. HENDERSON: No, and I am coming to deal with that now. It does not cover Europeans who are in the service of the various Provincial Governments and ho are not members of the Secretary of State's Services; nor does it cover such personnel as are in the employment, for example, of the Railway Department of the Central Government."
    That, of course, will include persons in the category described in the letter which I have quoted. The Under-Secretary of State continued:
    "They have their contracts direct with the Government of India or the Governor-General in Council on the one hand, in the case of the Railway Service, and with the Provincial Governments in the other cases. The most we can do is to have got the leaders of the major parties of India to accept the responsibility for pensions and proportionate pensions. Any question of safeguarding their interests under their contracts must be done in another way." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, l0th July, 1947; Vol.439, c. 2556.]
    I think that is in conflict with the words I have previously quoted of the Prime Minister who said:
    "I am happy to be able to announce now that the leaders of the Indian parties have guaranteed the existing terms and conditions of service to all their employees, including Europeans."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, l0th July, 1947; Vol. 439, C. 2470.]
    We want to get that matter cleared up by, I hope, a further statement from the right hon. and learned Gentleman which may be sent out to India in order to reassure these people. I do not want to pursue the matter further at this stage because probably my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden, who has now returned, may have something to say later. I think I have succeeded in my task of not making this in any sense a party question. I am particularly anxious that we should not do that. All that I and all of us on either side of the Committee are concerned with, is to see that these admirable people, both Britons and Indians, of the various grades of the Services are given reasonable assurances about their future.
    134
    Following the quotation which I have just read from the speech of the Under-Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden said:
    "What does that mean?"
    Obviously, he was surprised, like the rest of us, at what appeared to be a deviation from what the Prime Minister has said. The Under-Secretary of State replied:
    "What we intend to do is to cover such matters in the treaty that we intend to negotiate with the successor Governments…[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1947; Vol. 439, c. 2556.]
    I gather from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attitude that he is going to clear up this dubiety which exists as a result of what appears to be a difference between the statement made by the Prime Minister and the one made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I end by saying that we on this side of the Committee, and hon. Gentlemen opposite, attach immense importance to this matter.
    8.45 p.m.
    Brigadier Low: I only want to add one small point to the case which my right hon. Friend has put so fully and forcibly, and that is in connection with the servants of the Government of India. I understand that these include some covenanted and uncovenanted servants. who, as public servants of the Government of India, have a right to pension. They all have the same right to pension, although the pension itself may be of different amount, and whether they are the Secretary of State's servants or not. In either case, the pension is a charge upon the public revenues of the Government of India. His Majesty's Government have chosen to distinguish between the pensions payable to the Secretary of State's servants and the pensions payable to other servants, and there has always been a distinction between the responsibility of this House and the Government towards the Secretary of State's servants and to the other servants of the Government of India.
    It seems to me that we can carry this distinction a little too far, bearing in mind that the pensions scheme, in either case, comes from the same revenues, and that the right of pension is a right against the same revenue. It has been, and it will remain until 15th August, the ultimate responsibility of His Majesty's

    135
    Government to see that these pensions are paid. On 15th August, we cease to be responsible for anything like that, but, under the guarantee which the Prime Minister gave us on l0th July, we remain responsible for the payment of pensions to the Secretary of State's servants. Could not the Government reconsider the position of these covenanted servants of the Government of India who, though under contract with the Government of India and having a right to pensions, are now the Secretary of State's servants? That is the point I wish to put, and it is one which really carries one step further the argument put by my right hon. Friend. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not had time to consider the point tonight, I hope he will read what I have said and think it over.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: May I put one other point of detail before the right hon. and learned Gentleman replies, and also reserve the right to make further observations when we have heard his no doubt entirely satisfactory reply? I want to ask about a certain category, that is, officials who serve in the Central Government and belong to the railway service. Almost all these officials were recruited by the company-managed railways which have subsequently been acquired by the Government of India. When they became State railway officials, some of them executed agreements with the Secretary of State and some with the Governor-General in Council to serve His Majesty. The only factor determining whether the agreement was with the Secretary of State or with the Governor-General in Council was, in fact, the date of acquisition by the State of the railway in question, those acquired before 1935 being acquired by the Secretary of State and those later by the Governor-General in Council. I have figures to show that some 95 European officials have contracts with the Secretary of State and some 338 with the Governor-General in Council. We want to be quite sure that there is no discrimination between these two types of officials.
    I have chosen that particular case in order to get down to details to show some of the borderline cases that appear to exist, and this is a particularly difficult case because the officers of the Secretary of State have their pensions fully guaranteed, and if they are not required to stay
    136
    or are unwilling to continue in the service, they are guaranteed compensation for loss, or are offered alternative employment. I want to ask how the latter cases—those who negotiated agreements with the Governor-General in Council, and who are, in fact, the same type of official as the former category—are to be situated in future. What we want to know is whether the Prime Minister's phrase used during the Second Reading Debate, as to the Indian parties "guaranteeing conditions to Europeans" applies in these cases, and whether the further statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the arrangements to be made financially for the guaranteeing of pensions will apply to the latter category.
    I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is being asked to deal with such a technical point without proper notice; but, all the time we are receiving the most personal and poignant letters from these types of officials. Here is a difficult point, about a class of persons serving the Central Government and the railways. How does the term "Indian parties," for example, apply to those serving centrally, because they have not a contract direct with a Provincial Government? I should be very grateful if that sort of point could be elucidated, and I hope that, on the main issue, the right hon. and learned Gentleman may be able to give us a satisfactory reply. If he can, it will be very satisfactory to the services concerned.
    Mr. A. Henderson: I am grateful to to noble Lord for allowing me to remove any doubts that may exist on this question of the position of servants of the Government of India, or of the Provincial Governments of India. Perhaps it would be convenient if I were to put the facts, starting with the statement that was made on 30th April by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I would say, in passing, to the hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low), that there is, apparently, a misconception as to the use of the term "uncovenanted service." I think that the noble Lord will agree, from his previous experience, that the term "covenanted service" applies only to the I.C.S. How the abuse of this phrase has crept in I aril not able to say; but, in fact, the technical position is that the covenanted service is really the I.C.S.

    137
    On 30th April, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated the views of His Majesty's Government with regard to the premature termination of the engagements of members of the Secretary of State's services. The White Paper, which was subsequently published, makes it quite clear what categories were included in that statement. They are the members of the I.C.S., the Indian Police, the Ecclesiastical Establishment. and a number of others that can be found in the document—those who belong to the Secretary of State's Services. In addition, there were those who belonged to what have been described as the "analogous services." They are the officers serving in the Defence Services. Those various categories are to receive such compensation as may be payable under the terms of the announcement made on 30th April. In addition, it was stated that the Indian leaders were prepared to accept liability for the payment of pensions and proportionate pensions. Up to that point, we are dealing with members of the Secretary of State's Services and analogous services.
    The next stage is the reference, to which the noble Lord has drawn attention tonight, contained in the Second Reading speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He was then dealing with those who are not members of the Secretary of State's Services or of the analogous services. We have had examples of the categories which are covered—for example, those who are employed under contracts with the Governor-General in Council. Such people include those serving on the Indian railways. Then there are those who are employed under contracts with a particular Provincial Government. As regards those officers, whether European or Indian, the Prime Minister made a firm statement which said of persons who had been in Government service, whether Central or Provincial, but not specifically under the Secretary of State:
    "I am happy to be able to announce now that the leaders of the Indian parties have guaranteed the existing terms and conditions of service to all their employees. including Europeans."
    He went on to say:
    "This guarantee covers pensionary and provident fund liabilities, and excludes any question of discrimination between Indian and non-Indian."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July. 1947; Vol. 439, C. 2470.]
    138
    The noble Lord drew attention to remarks that I made towards the end of that Debate, and suggested that it might cause doubt in the minds of those who were interested in this matter because there appeared to be some discrepancy between what the Prime Minister said and what I said. Perhaps it will save the time of the Committee if I do not analyse what I said, but if I state what I intended to say. This was that, as far as the members of the non-Secretary of State's Services are concerned, they are not included within the ambit of the statement that was made on 30th April. When the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) asked:
    "Does that include what are called the uncovenanted services,"
    I understood him to refer to the statement of 30th April. Therefore, my answer was that that was not the case, because the statement of policy as regards compensation applies only to members of the Secretary of State's Services and analogous services. Therefore. I said that the statement of 30th April
    "does not cover Europeans who are in the service of the various Provincial Governments and who are not members of the Secretary of State's services."
    I went to say, as I have indicated:
    "They have their contracts direct with the Government of India or the Governor-General in Council on the one hand…and with the Provincial Governments in the other cases The most we can do "—
    and this is consistent with the statement which the Prime Minister made so far as pensions are concerned—
    "is to have got the leaders of the major parties of India to accept the responsibility for pensions and proportionate pensions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 10th July, 1947; Vol. 439. c. 2556.]
    I ought to express my regret to the Committee because, technically speaking, it was not correct for me to use the term "proportionate pensions," since, under their contracts, members of the Provincial services do not qualify for proportionate pensions. They have to serve out their contracts and then they get their pensions. But we are hoping, at any rate in the case of those who, as a result of what is to take place—the transfer of power—will not be able to complete their contracts, that the Governments of India and Pakistan will see their way to granting proportionate pensions to those officers who, at the moment, are not en-

    139
    titled to them. To that extent, I may have misled hon. Members, and I am glad to have this opportunity of putting the matter right.
    With regard to the question of the agreements or treaties, whichever one may call them—there is some doubt as to whether they are treaties or agreements which are made between two Dominions —we are seeking to discuss in these agreements or treaties negotiated with the successor authorities, a good many matters, one of which is the possibility of the payment of proportionate pensions to those who today, under their contracts, are not entitled to them but who, for various reasons, may be unable to stay on for their terms—
    Earl Winterton: If I may interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he will appreciate in that regard that the reason why proportionate pensions were given, in the first instance, in the case of the Secretary of State's services, was because the conditions of service were completely changed; that is to say, as a result of the Government of India Act, 1919, and the greater Indianisation, it was thought right to give proportionate pensions. If that was true then, it would a fortiori, apply today.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Henderson: What the noble Lord says is absolutely right. That is the background explanation of why the proportionate pensions were given to members of the Secretary of State's Services. I do not know whether what I have said has cleared up the dubiety, but that is the position with regard to the pensions rights of the members of the Secretary of State's Services, and the terms of their contracts, as regards those of them who continue in their posts following the appointed day. 15th August.
    Brigadier Low: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was talking a moment ago about treaty discussions and a treaty in connection with proportionate pensions for these servants of the Government of India. Will he not also enter into negotiations to try to get a pensions fund set up, at least for the European members of those services for whom we have a little responsibility—we have no legal responsibility, but we have a little responsibility —in the same way as he hopes to nego-
    140
    tiate for a pensions fund to be set up for the members of the Secretary of State's Services.
    Mr. Henderson: I think it would be wrong for me to attempt to give any commitments because, indeed, I am not authorised, and I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not expect me, to do so. On the other hand, although the position of those for whom he speaks is entirely different from that of the members of the Secretary of State's Services, owing to the very special protection that was afforded by the Government of India Act, 1935, to members of the Secretary of State's Services, I certainly will take steps to ensure that his suggestion is, at any rate, given consideration.
    Mr. Nicholson: I cannot help feeling a little dissatisfaction with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. I think if he would put himself in the position of people employed in these Services, who, after reading the Debate today, will say to themselves, "What really is our measure of security?" he will see that it is comprised in a statement by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons and a statement made by himself, both of which boil down to a statement of good intentions, and a report by the right hon. Gentleman that the major parties—presumably, the two major parties—in India have in some unknown way, on some unknown occasion, in some unknown document, made themselves answerable for the continuance of the salaries, pensions and conditions of service. They will ask themselves, what remedy have they if these conditions are infringed? The answer is that they will have no remedy against anybody. All they have got is a statement of good intentions.
    Not for one moment do I impugn the good intentions and sincerity of His Majesty's Government in these matters. Of all the people in the world in this connection, the last person whose sincerity I would impugn would be the Prime Minister. Nor do I impugn the good intentions and the sincerity of the two major parties in India. But times change and people change. What guarantee, what reasonable hope have those men got that the successors to the present Indian leaders will honour this obligation? They do not even know if it is an oral undertaking or a written undertaking.

    141
    There has been no White Paper issued, no document published. Was it given just in the course of casual conversation between the Viceroy and Mr. Jinnah and Mr. Nehru? These are questions people will ask. "What remedy have we if our conditions of service are infringed?" I know quite well that is the way they are looking at it. We on this side of the Committee, and, probably, hon. Members on the other side, too, have had many letters outlining these reasonable questions and anxieties. They are not unreasonable but natural anxieties, reasonable anxieties. I feel we must demand something more definite from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. May we see the documents and know who signed them; and will he at any rate indicate what remedy these people may have if things turn out badly against the expressed wishes of the Government?
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I do not think the Under-Secretary has completely cleared up the situation yet, in answer to the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). We have had this assurance from the Prime Minister—I need not read it all—to the effect that
    "the leaders of the Indian parties have guaranteed the existing terms and conditions of service to all their employees, including Europeans."
    That is a very satisfactory statement. We would like as authentic information about it as can be given, as has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson). But then during Second Reading the Under-Secretary himself said:
    "The most we can do is to have got the leaders of the major parties of India to accept the responsibility for pensions and proportionate pensions."
    That is a statement less than the Prime Minister's, because that includes pensions and proportionate pensions. The Prime Minister's phrase includes the existing terms and conditions of service. The Under-Secretary then went on to widen the gap still further by saying:
    "Any question of safeguarding their interests under their contracts must be done in another way."
    Yet the Prime Minister had already said that the existing terms and conditions were guaranteed, including pensionary and provident fund liabilities.
    142
    There is a distinct gap between the statement of the Prime Minister, which covers all Europeans, and the statement by the Under-Secretary, because the Under-Secretary went on to say that the safeguarding of the interests—which the Prime Minister had already said were covered—must be done in another way. I then asked the Under-Secretary what that meant, and he said:
    "What we intend to do is to cover such matters 'in the treaty that we intend to negotiate with the successor Governments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 10th July, 1947; Vol. 439, c. 2470, 2556.]
    I think there is a wide statement and a narrow statement, and into that narrow statement comes a treaty reference which does not come in the Prime Minister's statement. I think it would be advisable for that to be cleared up.
    The next point about which I wish to ask is the future of the judiciary. The judiciary in India cover a very wide range, ranging from the High Court down to the subordinate judiciary of the Provinces—criminal judiciary, various subordinate judges, and so on. I do not want to go into the details, though prior to this Debate I did look up the voluminous paperswhich I had filed away after our very lengthy discussions on this matter in the Joint Select Committee and on the Government of India Act, 1935. In that Act, of course, all these matters were most carefully regulated. All questions of postings, the different opportunites in the service, discrimination against members of the service and any sort of bullying or anything of that description, were all provided for. I do not think anybody could now reasonably claim that we could enact to include all such provisions, because the situation has changed so radically, and we are indeed thankful that the Indian parties—to use the words of the Prime Minister—have guaranteed as much as they have done. I think we should know to what extent this assurance covers the judiciary. We have had many representations from members of the judiciary, and, if we can, we should like to obtain from the Under-Secretary, on this important occasion, a statement which gives some satisfaction to them that they are covered in much the same way as the other people are covered.
    I also wish to make some reference to a very important class of persons in

    143
    India, who in moments of crisis have very often been the nerve centre of our communications during our period in India, and who will, I think, have a great future in the country. I refer to the AngloIndians. They are widely included in the Services, especially on the railways, where, as we know, they are among the most reliable engineers. They are included in many other important posts, and we should like to know whether, in the reference to European and Indians, there is any rememberance of the Anglo-Indian community. It may not be possible, on another occasion, to call attention to the definite part played by the Anglo-Indian community, or to ask to what extent the Government and the new successor authorities are remembering them. We feel that we owe them a special debt in a special way. That is one of the many duties we cannot literally carry out, owing to the fact that the transfer of power is absolute and definite. Many of us who have talked about minorities, realise that in the transfer of power goes the responsibility for the Anglo-Indian minorities and the others. It would be satisfactory to know, in regard to the Services covered by Clause 10, that there is an opportunity for the Anglo-Indians to be considered in general terms.
    I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman apprehended my short intervention in the case of those officers under contract with the railways. Some 95 had contracts with the Secretary of State, and some 338 with the Governor-General in Council. The 95 have issued a document from New Delhi, dated 16th June, and they get the whole of the cover from the undertaking given on 30th April. The rest, although they now have a happier time owing to the statement made by the Prime Minister during the Second Reading, do not get exactly the same range of assurance. It is really a case of differential treatment between those who had contracts initiated before 1935, and those who had contracts after that date. It seems rather awkward that exactly the same type of railway official should be treated in two different ways. What I have done is to put again the question of the apparent gap between the right hon. Gentleman's words and those of the Prime Minister in regard to the Services in general, and then dealt with the ques-
    144
    tions of the judiciary, the Anglo-Indians and the railway service men.
    I should like to conclude, on this subject of the Services, by saying that there are many people here and elsewhere who have retired from India, and there are, of course, those who have died and have widows in this country who depend upon widow and family funds, who are looking to the Government to carry out the undertakings which the Prime Minister gave in the Second Reading Debate. Any statement that the Government can make to reassure them will be warmly welcomed. It is right to acknowledge the distinct advance made by the Government in the recent statement. I hope that when the time comes to initiate the treaty, about which we have heard a little, we shall have an opportunity to make some inquiries on what is likely to be included.
    Dr. Haden Guest: While agreeing that we must discharge our duties in a way that has been suggested, I should like to ask if the right hon. and learned Gentleman can give us some information on how many of those employed in these various services in India are likely to stay on. When I was in India recently I had the opportunity of meeting a great many of these people, some of whom expressed a desire to stay on, but who were not at all sure about the terms and conditions they would get. If they were to get the same terms and conditions as they obtained previously, it would make a great deal of difference to them and to the future of India. These people are well known and trusted by the Indians and the British community, and if they did stay on I am sure that they would render as valuable service in the future as they have done in the past.
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. Molson: I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to respond to the appeal of the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest), and tell us how many civil servants are likely to remain in India. I rise, however, to make a point which I mentioned on Clause 7, when I asked the Attorney-General whether he could give any information as to what was likely to be the future of the officers of the political Department of the Government of India. In the White Paper dealing with compensation for the services, which

    145
    was issued in April this year, the Government of India and His Majesty's Government both make it plain that, so far as the services are concerned, inside what is now British India, it is hoped that as large a number of officers as possible will remain, if financial inducements are given, in order to make the transition to self-government in India as easy as possible. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not answer the point I made.
    It is logical that if paramountcy comes to an end on 15th August, all those officers of the Political Department, some recruited from the Indian Civil Service and some from the Indian Army, who have been responsible in one way or the other for the administration of the powers of paramountcy, will cease to have any reason to continue to work. When I spoke about the end of paramountcy, I said that in the case of large parts of India the work of the residents in close touch with the Political Department had had much to do with the good administration of those parts of India, especially in States like Kathiawar. I am still wondering whether, in the negotiations which have taken place, any provision has been made for the officers who have been in the Political Department being employed by the new Political Department which will be under the Governments of the two new Dominions. I think it would make a great deal of difference to the ease of transition. If the long tradition of wise, diplomatic, and administrative energy is to be brought to an end at about eight weeks' notice, I believe there is great danger that in many parts of the Indian States chaos will supervene.
    Mr. A. Henderson: I can say at once that the future employment of Political Officers is a matter for either or both of the new Dominion Governments, and that it will be impossible for His Majesty's Government in any way to bring pressure to bear on either Government, or both, to employ these officers. But as has been said, these men have great experience and ability, and on the basis that they would be willing to serve, I have no doubt the matter will he noted by the Governments concerned. I cannot say at this stage that any steps can he taken by His Majesty's Government to bring this about. I would, of course, remind the hon. Member that political officers are entitled to compensation in the event of premature
    146
    termination of their engagements. I am sorry if I have failed to clarify the position with regard to compensation. I can only say that whatever omissions there were in my own remarks, the statement that was made by the Prime Minister is the one to be taken as authoritative. Although one reference that I omitted was to the guarantee which has been given by the Indian leaders on conditions of service for those who stay on, both Indian and European, that is of course a very important guarantee, and I for one would be the last to seek to minimise its importance. Therefore, I can only say that whatever hiatus there was in my treatment of the compensation position, the position as stated by the Prime Minister is the one upon which we should work. In regard to whether Anglo-Indians come within the guarantee as to terms of service, the guarantee of the pensions and provident funds includes no discrimination between Indian and non-Indians. It is obvious, therefore, that it covers the Anglo-Indian members of the services.
    I was asked about the position of the judges. They are getting the guarantee which is set out in Clause 10 (2). As regards those who serve on, they are to enjoy the same terms of service and pension as nearly as may be in the changed circumstances. The case for compensating the European judges, which is at present receiving consideration, is not quite the same as that for the members of the Secretary of State's services. The judges are independent of control by the Executive, and it is necessary, among other factors, to take into account the argument that, so long as this independence is safeguarded and their appointments and emoluments are preserved, their position is not fundamentally altered by the forthcoming constitutional changes. As I said, the question of compensation for these judges is at present receiving consideration.
    The right hon. Gentleman raised a question with regard to two categories of railway officials. He will remember, having played a distinguished part in the passing of the 1935 Act, that one thing that the Act ended was the appointment by the Secretary of State of officials to the service of the Railway Board in India. The 1935 Act took away that power of appointment. Subsequent to the passing of the Act, the contracts of those thereafter taken into the employment of the Indian

    147
    Government railways had to be made with the Governor-General in Council. That is the explanation of the difference between the treatment of the 35, or whatever the number was, prior to 1935 who came within the statement of 30th April because they are technically members of the Secretary of State's Services and the others who are excluded from the statement.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I realise that might have been an omission in the Act of 1935, but will the Government consider extending the statement of 30th April to cover these latter people who are doing the same service as the men covered by the statement and who have, therefore, greater security?
    Mr. Henderson: I do not want to enter into the technical side of it or shelter behind the fact that the contract in fact and in law was made with the Governor-General in Council and not with the Secretary of State. At the same time, I think it would be wrong for me to suggest that there is any likelihood of a change being made, but on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have pressed the case of those in this particular category, and I will certainly bring the representation to the notice of my noble Friend.
    Mr. Nicholson: I am sorry to be so persistent. I fully realise the delicacy of the position, and I do not demand a categorical statement tonight. I want to know what the exact position is. Do I understand that the position of these people, who are not in the Secretary of State's Services, is that they are only covered by the statement of the Prime Minister that an agreement has been made either orally or in writing with the leaders of the two principal Indian parties? Is that as far as the Government can go, or can they say that there will be anything in the treaty or agreement which, of course, the House will not have an opportunity of debating or amending later on? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give me a direct answer as to whether this is all that these people have to be content with?
    Mr. Henderson: I am afraid it is. Until we get responsible Governments established in the two Dominions, we have to negotiate with the recognised leaders of the major parties, and I should have
    148
    thought that the moral obligation that they are incurring in accepting the liability and giving this guarantee is such that it is inconceivable that successor Governments, which will be in commission after 15th August, would repudiate the undertaking that has been given by their national leaders.
    Mr. Nicholson: I entirely accept that, but the people whose pensions and livelihood depend on agreements of this sort would feel happier if they had something in writing. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman publish the agreement signed by the leaders of the parties?
    Mr. Henderson: I want to be frank with the Committee. I am not in a position to give the terms of the agreement; the information I have given to the Committee was contained in a telegram from the Viceroy.
    Earl Winterton: I opened the Debate and I do not want to make a second speech. I want to say, however, that I hope the whole Committee feel a particular responsibility in this matter because, apart from the two Members of the Government, there are few who have had more responsibility in this place for speaking for the Secretary of State than I and my right hon. Friend, both of whom represented him in this House. I do not want to carry on a detailed discussion, but I would make a most earnest appeal to the Government to accept as the highest moral responsibility which could possibly rest upon them, the obligation to see that after this Bill comes into effect, representations are made to the two Governments in India to see that these people, including particularly the Anglo-Indians, are given a fair deal; because I can assure the Committee it is an historical fact that we have not always in the past in this country and in this House shown that regard for devoted loyalty which we should have shown.
    9.30 p.m.
    There was in the Nova Scotia Legislature, after the Maine Agreement had been reached, a Debate in which several people objected most strongly to the fact that splendid people, who had chosen to give up what was secure in order to come into Canada, had reason to be afraid that they would be deprived of their property and that no safeguards had been given to them of any kind. The Government's

    149
    answer, which was rather like the answer given tonight by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, was that they would give no specific guarantee but that they must rely upon the good will of the Government. An old member got up and said, "I have never been ashamed to be patriotic and it is 40 years ago since I left the land of the almighty dollar to come again under the British flag. I do not know why hon. Gentlemen should suppose that the Government would do anything of the kind, because it happens that British Governments everywhere pay more attention to successful rebels than they do to devoted loyalty."
    I am afraid that that is what has happened in more than one instance, as for example, in the Irish settlement. I do not want to get on to a wider aspect of this problem, but I know that there is an analogy there, as everyone will agree who has had letters from former members of the Royal Irish Constabulary. I would only say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we on this side of the Committee, and I hope everyone in all parts of the Committee who attach importance to this, will use moral suasion to see that these conditions which have been promised are fulfilled to the letter, and that all these men will have an opportunity of an honourable career under the new Governments equal in opportunity to that which they enjoyed before.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill

    CLAUSE 11.—(Indian Armed Forces.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Brigadier Low: I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman a few questions on this Clause and I shall group them under three main heads, firstly, under British personnel in the Indian Armed Forces, officers and other ranks; secondly, a few points under Partition forces; and, thirdly, one or two points about the Gurkhas, who may or may not be covered by the phrase. "His Majesty's Indian forces."
    In regard to British officers and other ranks serving with the Indian Armed Forces, as a result of a question which I put to the Under-Secretary of State a few weeks ago, it appears that there are something over 22,500 officers and men
    150
    at present serving with the Royal Indian Navy, the Indian Army, and Royal Indian Air Force. It appears from Clause 11 (2,b), that after 15th August they will not be under the law governing the Indian Forces for Pakistan or India, but will be, I imagine, under the law and rules governing the British Forces. The men serving with the Indian Army, Navy or Air Force will, I imagine, be transferred by a stroke of the pen to equivalent service in the British Forces so that from 15th August it appears that in the British Army—I will omit the other two Services for the time being—they will come under the Secretary of State for War, who will be responsible for their pay and for laying down terms of service.
    If that be so, I imagine that an arrangement will be made whereby this country can recoup the sum of money expended on these men serving with the Indian Army by treaty or some other agreement between the Governments concerned. In particular I imagine that special arrangements will have to be made to cover payments on leave, and any special payments that are made to British serving personnel that are not made to Indian serving personnel. I would like some confirmation on that point. I imagine that the present procedure will continue whereby men and officers can be posted from here to India without their consent. I see that under Section 179 (b) of the Army Act, no citizen of this country can be posted during a war to serve in the Dominion Forces without his consent, but the consent is not required in time of peace. I do not know the intention of the Government on that point.
    Now I come to the question of partition. In "The Times" this morning, I see the proposals for the allocation of existing Indian regiments and Indian ships between the Dominion of India and the Dominion of Pakistan. I draw the attention of the Committee to a point which becomes clear when one reads those proposals. It is that because Pakistan will be much smaller in population and much poorer in economic and financial resources than the Dominion of India, it will not be able to maintain forces of the same size as the Dominion of India. At the same tin-Pc, the Dominion of Pakistan is faced with very much larger defence responsibilities, for the reasons which my noble Friend has already explained to the Committee, from the external point of view,

    151
    than the Dominion of India will be. That is an example, if one is needed, of the wounding gash which the partition of India has made in the defence of India and in the defensive arrangements for the British Commonwealth as a whole.
    Now I come to the third point, about the Gurkhas. I should like to know at once from the Minister whether the Gurkha soldiers are included in the term "His Majesty's Indian Forces"? It may be that the Gurkha regiments are at present part of the Indian Army. What the Gurkha soldiers are really doing is to serve His Majesty. Assurances have been given in the past that they will serve His Majesty only under British officers. I do not think the Government can deny those assurances. I have heard the claim put to the Government frequently across the Floor of the House that such assurances have been made, and the Government have never denied that the assurances have been given.
    The position is that the existing Gurkha regiments are under an obligation to serve His Majesty, on the assurance that they are officered by British officers. I know that the whole future of this Gurkha regiment, as well as the future of the recruiting of Gurkha soldiers after 15th August—which I admit is another question altogether—is sub judice at the present moment. I believe that the Under-Secretary of State has told us that an emissary has gone out from the British Government to discuss this matter with the Ruler of Nepal and with the present Government of India.
    I would like the Minister who is to reply for His Majesty's Government to give us some assurance that we will not force the Gurkha soldiers, who have enlisted in the service of His Majesty on the assurance that they will serve under British officers, to serve in future under Indian officers if they do not want to do so. I am making absolutely no comment on the relative merits of the two, but an assurance has been given, and if Gurkha soldiers do not wish to change their service and to serve under Indian officers, we have no right to force them to do so. If we are not prepared to have Gurkha regiments in the British Army, we should not force the Gurkhas to go into the Indian Army or the Pakistan Army if they do not wish to do so, but should allow them to return to their own country. These
    152
    matters have been ventilated very frequently, but there is an opportunity here for the Government to give the assurance for which I have asked, and I hope they will be able to do so.
    Commander Noble: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low) has already referred to the division of the Armed Forces. I have one short question to ask about the Royal Indian Navy. We were told by the Prime Minister on 3rd April, 1946, in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) and also in answer to a question in another place, that three cruisers of the Leander class were to be transferred to the Royal Indian Navy, the first probably in March of this year. I would like to know whether these three transfers have taken place or will take place, as no mention of them is made so far in the division of forces.
    Mr. Wyatt: I would like to add one word to what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low) about the Gurkhas. It would seem at the moment to be a problem which ought to be left for those on the spot to solve. There are some very delicate balances to be struck as to whether Gurkhas want to serve under Indian officers as much as they want to serve under British officers, but this is one of the problems with which the Viceroy, as Chairman of the Defence Committee, will have to deal with Nepal and the appropiate Indian representatives on the spot. There can be no question of compelling the Gurkhas to serve under Indian officers if they do not want to do so. It would be quite impossible to make them do anything they did not want to do, as the hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool well knows. If it comes out at the end of the negotiations—I hope it does not—that the Gurkhas as a whole do not wish to serve in the Indian Army, I do not think it would be at all improper for His Majesty's Government to consider, at some time in the future at any rate, embodying them in the British Army. I do not think that would give any offence to India, and it would be a very great help to us overseas.
    9.45 p.m.
    Brigadier Mackeson: The Prime Minister was very wise in his

    153
    Second Reading speech when he suggested that the subject of defence should be left till the Committee stage. None of us would wish to make any remarks on the Second Reading or in the Committee stage which would give offence in India. However, I personally regard this division of the Armed Forces of India with very great sadness, and I believe it is one of the most unfortunate things that has happened, although in the circumstances it is inevitable.
    I regard Dominion status as exactly equivalent to full independence and, therefore, I fully accept the fact that both India and Pakistan want their own Armed Forces, but in neither India nor Pakistan will efficiency be improved by dividing the Army, Navy and Air Force. The first thing needed is to defend the sub-continent as a whole; the second is the prevention of communal strife; the third is other incidental work in connection with duties in aid of the civil power. One of the great unifying things we have done has been to build up an Army in India with the assistance not only of British officers, but of Indian officers holding the King's commission. I know how sad many of them are that this decision has been made. One of the great efforts being made by U.N.O. is to try to get internationalism, and now, just two years after the war, we are to see one of the really successful inter-racial Forces split in two. But that is to be, and I want only to say how sad I am that it is to happen.
    One question which will arise quickly is that of the supply of technical equipment and advice and the use of bases on the sub-continent of India. I do not think it would be fair to ask any Member of the Front Bench opposite to answer now, but I hope the leaders of India will realise that they are definitely not in a position to defend their country without assistance from someone, and I hope that the other Dominions, including this country, will be allowed to help, as we can produce the technical equipment and arms. There is one small point which perhaps the Minister who is to reply can answer, and that is whether any of the equipment, military, naval or air force, in Indian now is the property of His Majesty's Government or of the Indian Government. If any of it is the
    154
    property of His Majesty's Government, presumably what shall be paid for it will be subject to negotiation. I believe that one of the great examples we have set in India is in keeping politics out of the Armed Forces. I hope and pray that our friends in India and Pakistan will be successful in keeping politics out of their Armed Forces.
    Sir W. Smiles: Up to now on this Bill I have supported the Government, because I realise that conditions in India are very different today from what they were after the last war, but I believe that lines 20 to 22 in this Clause, providing for the division of the Indian Army, would mean murder and bloodshed in India. First, let us consider for a moment the composition of the Indian Army. I do not think anybody can be certain in which Army the Sikhs will be in the future, though I think the majority of them will be in the Indian Army. The Gurkhas have all been in the service of the British Crown, some of them from father to son, some from grandfather to grandson, or even from grandfather to great grandson. It is suggested now that they are not likely to serve under Indian officers. Perhaps as the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) has suggested, they may and I hope they will be incorporated in the Imperial Armed Forces, but still I believe that with that tradition the Gurkhas will join in one of the new Dominion armies, either in Pakistan or India. They have the Rajputs., on the left, and they are certain to join the Indian Army. However, as well as internal order we have to consider invasion. I have read articles about Afghanistan joining up with the North-West Frontier Provinces. We had a war with Afghanistan as recently as 1919. I can remember when, about 1906, China went into a place called Rima, and we had to make strong threats to deter her, because at that time China was a united nation, and very different from what she is today. After all, if Alexander the Great was able to invade India without modern transport, others who wish to do so might do the same today.
    U.N.O. has been mentioned, and I can remember the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) in an earlier Debate, talking about U.N.O. in regard to India. All of us who were in Parliament before the war remember the efforts which were made for an international

    155
    police force, and for amalgamation. It is certainly a tragedy that this Army is to be split in India. This opinion is my own, but curiously enough, it is exactly the same as that held by Mr. Gandhi. I have never before found myself holding the same opinion as Mr. Gandhi. should not have thought that in the war with Japan the best way to defeat them was non-co-operation, retiring to an Asram, manufacturing salt on the shore at Bombay, or working with a handloom. But I agree with him in this, that it is a tragedy that the Indian Army should be split. When in the past we were told that Singapore was impregnable, or that aeroplanes could not sink a battleship, one felt diffident about putting one's opinion against the experts on both sides of the House, but I believe that this Clause, particularly lines 20, 21 and 22 are going to wreck the whole Measure, and that within 20 years we shall see the greatest tragedy that has ever been seen in India's long history.
    Colonel Clarke: I wish to ask what I believe is a fairly simple question about our regular serving Forces in India at present. I understand that they will shortly be transferred back to home establishment—
    Earl Winterton: That is dealt with in the next Clause.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) should raise that matter on the next Clause.
    The Prime Minister: In regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Down (Sir W. Smiles) I think everyone regrets the division of the Indian Army which has had a magnificent record in both great wars, and between the wars. Everyone regrets it; nevertheless, it is a necessary consequence of the setting up of two Dominions in India that there should be a division of the Armed Forces. I am afraid we cannot get over that. It is an inevitable incident of Dominion status. We all hope, of course, that there will be the greatest possible agreement between the two Dominions on defence matters.
    The question about the Gurkhas has been raised. Gurkhas are recruited from the independent State of Nepal, and so far as we are concerned, negotiations have
    156
    been taking place with authorities in Nepal, with the agreement of the Indian Government, because, of course, Nepal being inland, we need that agreement. The negotiations have been going extremely well. There is no attempt on our part to put Gurkhas under anyone whom they do not wish to serve, but I can assure the Committee that negotiations are proceeding, and officers are shortly going out from here to try to fix up the whole matter, because I think it is important that we should still have the use of Gurkha troops as in the past. In reply to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Hythe (Brigadier Mackeson), some equipment will be taken back with our troops when they evacuate, and other equipment will remain within India. It depends upon to whom the equipment belongs.
    With regard to the position of European officers who remain with the Indian forces after the appointed day, it must be understood that there is no compulsion whatever in this. They will be serving as volunteers, but the Commander-in-Chief considers it essential for the successful accomplishment of the difficult and delicate task of dividing up the Indian Navy and Army that the process of Indianisation, which has been going on at a great pace, should be slowed down to a certain extent, and that a proportion of British officers should be invited to stay on after 15th August. The terms of that service have been or will shortly be announced. During this continued period of service the officers will be formally transferred to the corresponding British Service, subject to British discipline Acts, but it is hoped that a goodly proportion of these officers will respond to the invitation and will help to steer India through this critical period of its history, and that they will have the powers of command of officers of their rank when they are serving with the Indian Forces. I hope that a great many officers will stay on, because the Indian Army has a great tradition. A tradition takes years to build up; it can be destroyed in a very short time. We hope that a good proportion of British officers will stay both with the Forces of Pakistan and the Forces of India, and help them during this difficult period of transition.
    Brigadier Low: Is it not the case that on transfer from the Indian establishment

    157
    to the home establishment these officers will lose their full rights to compensation under the terms of the White Paper which the Government published in April? Is it not possible that because more officers will be kept on now in order to fill the extra gaps there are, because we are now finding more officers in the Indian Army, some officers will become redundant after a given period with the progress of Indianisation, and will therefore be discharged from the British Army without compensation? Will the Prime Minister bear that in mind?
    Sir R. Glyn: Will the Prime Minister say whether arrangements are being made by General Auchinleck in regard to assisting Pakistan with the establishments which the Dominion of India will possess, staff colleges, etc.? Will any assistance be rendered by His Majesty's Government in that way, and are there to be staff attaches, as in the case of the other Dominions, starting immediately with the Forces of the two Indian Dominions?
    The Prime Minister: We shall give every assistance we can to the two Dominions, and will do everything we can to assist them in staff and other matters. In regard to the query by the hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low), my impression is that we have safeguarded the position of all those officers who are staying on. Obviously, they ought to he indemnified if they stay.
    Commander Noble: Will the Prime Minister answer my question about the cruisers?
    The Prime Minister: The matter of the three cruisers was held up owing to the difficult position. Negotiations are now proceeding with regard to the Royal Indian Navy. I will let the hon. and gallant Member know when anything turther has been decided. Negotiations are proceeding with regard to the allocation of warships.
    10. 0 p.m.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: We should like to thank the Prime Minister for his statement on this subject. There is perhaps no other subject which is of so much importance at this time as this decision which, we agree must follow automatically upon the decision to divide India into two different parts. I seldom agree with Mr. Gandhi, and I do not appear to have the
    158
    good fortune very often to agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Down (Sir W. Smiles). In this case I again disagree with him, so we all seem to be following our true and typical form. I should like to make the general observation that the fact that these two new Dominions are to be Dominions within the British Commonwealth of Nations is, I hope, a good augury for the obvious need which they will have to enter into understandings one with another on this vital question of defence. I trust that will be the implication of the fundamentals of this Bill which will come about in due course.
    I do not want to press the Prime Minister or the Government tonight, but I presume that at a later stage the whole question of Imperial defence as such, which will be a matter of even more interest to the new Dominions than it is to us—even though it is a vital matter to us—will be considered and that it will form part of the general negotiations and talks which will precede the formulation of a treaty. I presume that to be the case but, whether it is or not, I want to mention that the general question of Imperial defence is one which will arise in due course and which must be ever in the mind of the Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: That is very much in our minds. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that that must wait until the Governments are fully formed.
    Mr. Michael Astor: I have been talking to two officers in the Indian Army and I believe that what is happening is that if they wish to continue service in the British Army, they lose three-quarters of the compensation which is paid out by the Indian Government; also they forfeit their pension until such time as they qualify for it in the British Army. I think the tendency as a result of that is for the British Army to lose the officer altogether. I know that the view they take is that the risk was theirs in joining the Indian Army, but the compensation is the Government's.
    Mr. A. Henderson: In the case of an officer of less than 20 years' service, which is the category eligible for transfer to the British Army, the emoluments, including pension rights, which they will receive as from the date upon which they join the British Army, have been worked out on an actuarial basis which results in

    159
    their qualifying only for one quarter of the compensation of a man who leaves the Indian Army and does not enter the British service. One must take the overall result of that transfer.
    Mr. Astor: Of course. They would be better off financially if they lived in "Civvy street" altogether.
    Mr. Henderson: It is very difficult to know how well off they would be then because it depends upon the work they get and the emoluments they receive. As I have said, this has been worked out taking into account the pay and pension rights they will have as from the date upon which they transfer to the British Army. Under the scale which has been worked out, they are entitled to only one quarter of the compensation.
    Mr. Astor: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure me that they will be no worse off than the civil servants who are in a similar position? The compensation made in their case is slightly different and the Army feel that they are worse off than the civil servants.
    Mr. Henderson: A difficulty arises there because the scale of emoluments paid, for example, to a member of the I.C.S. is pro rata higher than that paid to other categories
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 12.—(British Forces in India.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Earl Winterton: Perhaps it will curtail GI truncate, if that be the appropriate word, our discussion on this Clause, if I observe that Subsection (1) very clearly expresses the constitutional position. One of my hon. and gallant Friends has one or two important questions to ask concerning certain operational matters, but I think that it will make it easier to get the Clause through in reasonable time if I say that, so far as we are concerned, we are satisfied with the constitutional position. We could not be anything less, as it is expressed in the first Subsection, but I will take advantage of the opportunity to say that it raises a rather interesting point.
    It will be easier, through the medium of Questions and speeches in the House to
    160
    question Ministers on the subject of the Army than it is today. Questions in respect of the British Army in India are answered by the India Office. [Laughter.] My hon. Friends find the subject of the India Office one for a great joke. The result of that arrangement has sometimes been that we have been unable in past years to get the information which we required. Frankly, I think a much more satisfactory position will arise in future, when the Secretary of State will be constitutionally responsible for the conduct of British troops in India, and any question may be addressed to him as to their use on the smallest as well as on the most important matters. There can be no question of a double constitutional allegiance —and I am glad to have the assent of the Prime Minister to this—and the Government of India cannot use British troops in any circumstances without the permission of the Government of this country, which is answerable to this House for such use. That we regard as a very satisfactory position.
    Brigadier Low: I want to refer the Committee back to a point I raised on Second Reading, when I asked the Under-Secretary under whose operational command British troops in India would be between 15th August and the time when they left India, because an interim period will arise. In reply, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said they would be under British command, and he went on to say that, for administrative purposes, they would be under the Commander-in-Chief. I should like to know whether it is the intention of the Government to send out a special British commander, or whether they will be under the operational command of the present Commander-in-Chief who will become Supreme Commander? I would like to know which of the two courses the Government are adopting.
    There are a number of small matters which arise under the Army Act, and with which I hope we shall be able to deal on the Schedule, but there is one other matter which cannot be dealt with there to which I would refer. When British forces are leaving India, and when British personnel serving with the Indian Army are in India, they are under the Army Act for discipline and other matters. Who is the Commander-in-Chief, within the terms of the Army Act, for a soldier in Pakistan and a soldier in India? Is he

    161
    the same man, who will be Commanderin-Chief of the Pakistan forces or the Indian forces, and who, after all, is responsible entirely, not to His Majesty's Government, but to another Dominion Government, or is there to be a special disciplinary Commander-in-Chief, who may "vet" court-martial proceedings and carry out certain other duties which are laid upon the Commander-in-Chief under the Army Act? I would have liked to raise certain matters on Imperial defence, but I rather agree, having heard what my right hon. Friend said, that perhaps it would be better not to talk about them now.
    Brigadier Mackeson: I want to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is to reply, a question which I think is consequential upon the Prime Minister's remarks about officers at present in the Indian Army who continue to serve in the Armies of India or Pakistan, which, of course, is desirable. I understand that, at the moment, the British officer of the regular Army and Air Force is not allowed to resign his commission if he wishes to do so. Those officers now in the Indian Army who are under 40 years of age have two courses open to them; one is to transfer to the British Army, and the other is to serve in the Armies of Pakistan or India. It seems to me to be only reasonable that those who desire not to transfer to the British Army should have the right to retire if they so wish, without being forcibly transferred to the British Army.
    The other question is one, I believe, of very great operational importance—the operational movement of troops in India. I hope we are not going to have British troops deployed in putting down internal disorders on orders from Indian Ministers. This is my personal view, and one which may not be shared by other hon. Members on these benches. I want to see British troops concentrated at the ports at once. Finally, I would like to know what is going to happen to the middle-aged officers, those between 40 and 50 years of age? I understand that the more elderly officers are being retired on retired pay. I do not think that we have had any announcement from the Government about the middle-aged categories. I presume that the passing of this Act will affect their future.
    Lord John Hope: I do not think that this Clause ought to be passed by the
    162
    Committee without a specific assurance from the Government on the lines asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hythe (Brigadier Mackeson). I suppose it will be generally agreed that at no time in the history of our connection with India has it been more essential than it will be during the transition period for absolute impartiality to be shown between Hindus and Muslims. Therefore, the assurance which I think the Government could give with great advantage should be that, in no circumstances, during that time, while the presence of British troops in India is being brought to an end, will a situation be allowed to arise in which they can be employed in any way on behalf of one side against the other. I think, if that happened, it would be a most disastrous event politically in India, and, equally importantly, I think it would have a very bad effect on public opinion in this country, which would not tolerate such a thing happening, with its resultant loss of life or injury.
    Mr. A. Henderson: I think I can assure the hon. and gallant Member for Hythe (Brigadier Mackeson) that there is not the slightest intention on the part of His Majesty's Government of permitting British troops to be used, following the appointed day, on the side of one Dominion, or of one party to a dispute in India against the other party.
    Earl Winterton: What my hon. and gallant Friend asked for, and what we on this side ask for is that, in no circumstances, shall British troops, after the appointed day, be used for purposes of putting down internal disorder. We want to go much further than the intention; we want an undertaking given to the Committee that in such circumstances British troops will not be used.
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. A. Henderson: The assurance has already been given, and I would repeat it. To do otherwise would be quite inconsistent with the stated intentions of His Majesty's Government. A number of other points were raised. The hon. and gallant Member for Hythe asked whether the Commander-in-Chief would have any responsibility for law and order. The Prime Minister, in the Second Reading Debate, said that the Commander-in-Chief will have no responsibility for law and order. The hon. and gallant Member

    163
    also asked for an assurance that there would be no question of officers with more than 20 years' service being required to stay on and serve either of the Dominion Governments.
    Brigadier Mackeson: I was making the point that, presumably, there will now be some such requirement. The point which I may not have made quite clear was that if these officers under 40 years of age are required to serve in India, and transfer at a later date to the British Army, presumably their career in the British Army may suffer because their colleagues who may have transferred earlier will have been in the British Army longer. For that reason, I suggest for the consideration of the Government that it may be a good thing to have the condition that any Indian Army officers who continue to serve under the Government of India or Pakistan should, when they finish their service, be allowed to retire and go into what we call "Civvy street" if they wish to do so.
    Mr. Henderson: I could not give any assurance on that point, but I would be glad to have the suggestion examined. I would emphasise that, of course, there is no question of compelling any British officer to serve with Indian Forces. It may be that if an officer is serving with a British formation he will have to go wherever that formation is sent, but there is no question of compelling a British officer to serve with the Indian Forces.
    The hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low) asked a question with regard to the statement which I made during the Second Reading Debate concerning the command of the British Forces now in India. The position is this, and I am sorry if I have slightly misled hon. Members. A British commander has been appointed to command the British Forces in India. There is to be a Commander-in-Chief of the Forces of Pakistan and of the Forces of India. Over those two Commanders-in-Chief there will be a Supreme Commander-in-Chief, and he will have operational control of, and administrative responsibility for, the British Forces under a British general. He, in turn, as far as the British Forces in India are
    164
    concerned, will be directly responsible to the Chiefs of Staff in London.
    The hon. and gallant Member asked a question about personnel who at this moment are attached to Indian establishments. Their position is that a certain number of them—mostly technical personnel, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows—will be invited to volunteer to serve on attachment to Indian establishments, but I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it is expressly provided in Clause 11 (2, b) that
    "nothing in any enactment in force at the date of the passing of this Act shall render him subject in any way to the law governing the Indian Forces,"
    to which he is attached.
    Brigadier Low: The point I was trying to make is this. Under the Army Act certain duties and powers are given to Commanders-in-Chief in territories in which British officers and other ranks are serving. In particular, those powers concern the review of courts martial, for instance. Taking the case of Pakistan, for example, a number of British officers and other ranks will be serving with the Pakistanian Forces. They will be seconded from the British Service. It is purely a technical point—from their point of view, who will be Commander-in-Chief for the purposes of the Army Act? Will it be the man who is Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistanian Forces, who is not responsible to His Majesty's Government, and over whom, therefore, nobody has any control in the way in which he interprets the Army Act? Or will some other suitable man be sent out?
    Mr. Henderson: So far as British officers in India are concerned, the reviewing authority will be the general officer commanding British troops.
    Brigadier Low: When they have all gone?
    Mr. Henderson: As regards British officers attached, it will be a special officer to be appointed for the purpose of reviewing their case.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 14.—(Provisions as to the Secretary of State and the Auditor of Indian Home Accounts.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I should like to ask a question about this Clause in general, which is designed, so far as I can see, to ensure the making of certain payments to officers; and if I can have an answer about the general purpose of it, I would refer in particular to Subsection (3), on the subject of advisers to the Secretary of State. As from the appointed day—that means, from 15th August—the advisers to the Secretary of State will terminate their appointments; and in future, of course, there will not be a Secretary of State for India and, presumably, therefore, there will be no advisers to any new Minister of the type to whom the Prime Minister referred, when the new Minister works in the Department of Commonwealth Relations. That is all quite clear. I should like to ask a question about the future of the advisers. I do not know on what terms and conditions they accepted their appointments, or whether any question of compensation arises in the officers' appointments being terminated abruptly on 15th August.
    The Committee will remember that at the time of the 1935 Act the old Council of India came to an end. I had the honour of attending its last meeting, at which a photograph was taken which I still treasure and preserve. After that some advisers were appointed to assist the Secretary of State, and I believe they have rendered useful service ever since. I know that when I was in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's position, I used to hurry to them and obtain secret information so as to appear wiser than I really was. Some of these gentlemen are of great eminence. In fact, they all are. They have served the State and India, many of them, for many years in a variety of capacities. Some of them have had special financial knowledge, like Sir Henry Strakosch, and others have had special administrative knowledge; and they are men of great standing. I do not think it would be right to let the Clause go by without a tribute to the work of the advisers and the services they have rendered in the past, and I am sure the
    166
    Committee will be glad to know of any arrangements the Government have in mind for concluding their appointments in an honourable and dignified way, and in completely satisfying the Committee as to the nature of their services. I hope that before we let the Clause go, the Committee will join with me in paying tribute to these distinguished persons and the services they have rendered.
    Mr. A. Henderson: I should certainly like to associate myself with the tribute which has been paid by the right hon. Gentleman to these distinguished men who have been acting as the Secretary of State's Advisers. I would, of course, remind him—no doubt, he knows full well—that many of those at present in office have already reached their maximum rates of pension; and that, therefore, there can be no question of payment of compensation. But I think that the right hon. Gentleman can leave it to His Majesty's Government to ensure that their engagements are brought to an end in the proper manner. I could not enter into any commitments as regards payment of compensation.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I do not want to press this, because I am quite sure that these distinguished persons would not desire this to be a matter of very great moment. I would only like to say, it must be obvious that they are performing their services on certain terms and that, to put it bluntly, those terms will come to an end. If His Majesty's Government could look into this matter in a favourable light, I am sure we would all feel very happy.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 15.—(Legal proceedings by and against the Secretary of State.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, ''That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The main subject which I wish to raise on this Clause, after my study of this Bill, is the question of the High Commissioner. It will be noticed that in Subsection (2) the High Commissioner is brought in in the case of proceedings, and in Subsection (3) the High Commissioner is referred to in relation to each of the new Dominions We know already that there is a High Commissioner appointed for India as a whole,

    167
    and I presume that either he or another officer will continue to serve India as defined in this Bill. I wanted to have any information the Government could give us about the possible appointment of a High Commissioner for the purpose of serving in Pakistan, or in whichever Dominion the present High Commissioner does or does not continue to serve.
    I do not know whether at this hour the Government can give any information on this matter, but it is quite clear that in future the High Commissioner will have a very important part to play. We have always attempted to choose, in the service of the Commonwealth, men of high quality; and many of them have rendered very distinguished service. It will be particularly important in the early days of the new Dominions that the right man be chosen for each Dominion; one who has knowledge of the trade, who has knowledge of the various matters which are likely to arise in any treaty which may develop, and who is inspired with the proper conception of the British Commonwealth in its finest operation. I feel certain the Government have that in mind, and perhaps they will be able to enlighten us.
    Mr. A. Henderson: I could not go beyond saying that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to appoint a High Commissioner to Pakistan, and also one to India. I have no doubt that High Commissioners will be appointed by both the new Dominion Governments in London.
    Mr. Wyatt: Is it also intended to appoint High Commissioners in both India and Pakistan; and could my right hon. and learned Friend give us any details of the type of staff the High Commissioners to India and Pakistan will have? I should like to reinforce what the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) has said on this matter, because it is obviously of great importance to us that, in the initial stages at any rate, we should have a first class trade and technical organisation attached to both High Commissioners. If the Under-Secretary could give any information on that point we should be grateful.
    Mr. A. Henderson: All I can say is that steps are being taken on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend. If he will put
    168
    down a Question I will try to deal with it more fully.
    Mr. Nicholson: This Clause ties up a little with Clause 10. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that those who write to hon. Members of this Committee are uneasy about their terms of future service. They are always asking: "If the Secretary of State is done away with, against whom will our remedy lie, when before we had a remedy against the Secretary of State?" If they are referred to this Clause the answer, presumably, is: The High Commissioner. Then they ask: "Yes, but what if no High Commissioner is appointed?" Can the Under-Secretary enlighten me at all on that point? Can he give some assurance that in the absence of the Secretary of State there will always be somebody who can be sued in court in place of the Secretary of State?
    Mr. A. Henderson: I could not give a guarantee that it will always be possible to sue somebody in this country. But if there is no right to sue in this country under a contract made in India, it would be possible to sue in the Indian courts.
    Mr. Nicholson: The Secretary of State was originally automatically represented in this country, and suable in this country. Is the Secretary of State saying that by this Bill that remedy is to be taken away from people?
    10.30 p.m.
    Brigadier Low: Before the hon. Gentleman answers that point, I would like to ask whether it is possible to sue the High Commissioner. It obviously is possible if the High Commissioner enters an appearance and consents to be sued; but can he be forced to come to court?
    Mr. A. Henderson: This Bill provides for that.
    Brigadier Low: Surely that abrogates diplomatic privilege. I would like the hon. Gentleman to consider that.
    The Attorney-General: There is no difficulty about this. In about half a dozen cases it has in the past been possible to sue the Secretary of State. This Bill provides that in future this right of action shall be against the High Commissioner according to the contract made.
    Mr. Molson: Does the learned Attorney-General state that there are six cases in which action can be brought against the Secretary of State?
    The Attorney-General: There is that right of action in the six cases. I do not think the hon. Member will want me to enumerate them, although I am in a position to do so. That right will in future lie against the High Commissioner, according to whether it relates to the High Commissioner of Pakistan, or the High Commissioner of India. This Bill transfers the right from the Secretary of State, and creates a new liability on the part of the High Commissioners. If there is no High Commissioner the answer will then be that no action can be brought. That is one of the attributes of the sovereign powers of a Dominion, or of a foreign country for that matter. If they choose to break contracts and to withdraw representation, there would be no remedy against them in this country.
    Mr. Nicholson: Can we be assured that in the new Dominions, it is agreed that the High Commissioners will be willing to accept that liability?
    The Attorney-General: They have made it clear that both High Commissioners will accept this liability.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 16.—(Aden.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The Committee will remember that under Section 288 (1) of the 1935 Act Aden was separated from India at that date. Now it is proposed, according to this Clause, that Subsections (2) to (4) of that Section should be repealed. I should like to ask one or two questions now as to what the future type of government for Aden is likely to be. It will be known that the government of Aden developed gradually and firmly in a more and more efficient manner, and that the situation there, in relation to the hinterland in particular, latterly appeared to be very satisfactory. It would, therefore, be of interest to the Committee to know what the position will be; to know to what office of government Aden will go, and who will be the Minister or Secretary or State responsible for the future administration of Aden under the British Settlements Acts? I presume that it will be the Colonial Office.
    170
    I want to be quite clear about the question of appeals under the general constitution of Aden to courts in the Indian Peninsula. It would appear from Subsection (3) that unless and until provision to the contrary is made under the British Settlements Acts of 1887 and 1945, of a new law for the new Dominions is made, they will continue to go both to Aden and to the Dominions. I want to be quite clear on this, because it does look rather muddling. In which particular one of the new Dominions will appeals from Aden be heard? It will be somewhat difficult for a British subject living in Aden to choose whether an appeal shall go to one or the other. I do not know whether any arrangement has been made designating with which particular courts appeals should lie in the interim period
    Is it the intention that appeals shall still lie under the Act of 1935? If so, why has trouble been taken to repeal the Subsections concerned? I refer to Section 288 (2) to (4). I take it that the ultimate desire is that appeals shall not necessarily lie to India, and Subsection (3) is retained for an indefinite interim period pending powers being taken under the Settlement Acts or by the new Legislature. From the administrative point of view, it appears that Aden will be administered under the Colonial Office, and I should be very much obliged if the Attorney-General, with his clarity and wit, could clarify the position for us.
    The Attorney-General: The intention is that appeals shall go to the High Court in Bombay, and whether the Settlement Acts shall apply, will be a matter for consideration hereafter.
    Mr. Molson: I would like to point out that, years ago, it was decided to separate Aden from India, and it was only as a matter of convenience that appeals continue to lie with the High Court of Bombay. Now this very fundamental change is being made, with Dominion status being given to the two parts of India, and I should have thought that appeals from this Colonial possession should lie with the Privy Council. I am surprised to hear the explanation given by the Attorney-General.
    The Attorney-General: I thought the point had been made quite clear. It is that the alteration of the existing machinery is a matter for consideration, and a new

    171
    Order-in-Council will be made transferring the appeals to another court. It is a matter of convenience for the interim period.
    Mr. Molson: I can well understand that during the interim period it may be necessary to do this, but I must say that it appears very odd. I can think of no parallel case. The responsibility for Aden will lie with Ministers in Great Britain, and surely these appeals must go to the Privy Council, and not to the courts of one Dominion. Surely, a statement should be made at an early date—even if, for the sake of convenience for a few weeks or months this arrangement has to be followed—that these appeals will come to this country.
    The Attorney-General: I do not doubt that that is what will happen. I cannot say when it will happen, but we are trying to use the best method of meeting the convenience of those concerned.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 18.—(Provisions as to existing laws, etc.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I should like to draw the attention of the Committee, even at this late hour, to the omnibus provisions of this Clause. The whole drafting of this Bill appears to consist of Clauses which, at one moment, leave large sections of the law in being, and at another moment remove large portions, thus leaving in a most indeterminate state that amount of law in existence. The proviso to Subsection (1) is the first example of that and Sub-section (3) is a further example. I presume that the reason the Government have had to adopt this very general form of drafting which really does not define the position to us, is because of the hurry and rush which has had to prevail in the drafting period. I would like to ask about Sub-section (4) which deals with the Instruments of Instruction. I was looking through the Bill and trying to find where the Instruments of Instruction were referred to. They were not referred to in Clause 9, and we find them tucked away here. The Instruments of Instruction
    172
    were a vital feature breathing life into the bones of the 1935 Act, in certain of its most important respects. As I understand it, these Instruments will not lapse until 15th August, and I want to know whether there is any further form of instrument or communication to which the Government would like to make reference which would operate for the purpose of assisting in the transitional period which will exist, for certain matters, up to next March. If there is not, I think it would be valuable to know. It is quite clear that the Instruments under the 1935 Act would continue to operate.
    Mr. Molson: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), in the Debate on India some nine months ago, criticised the policy of the Government for having, in fact, made the Viceroy into the constitutional head of the State acting upon the advice of Ministers, who were Members of the Council, as they technically were, but who were, in fact, nominated beforehand by the Congress Party. In this matter of the Instruments of Instruction, I should like to inquire, for the sake of information whether any change was made in the Instruments of Instruction which were approved by the House and issued to the Governor-General under the provisions of the 1935 Act. It is quite obvious that for the last twelve months the Governor-General has not been acting upon the Instruments of Instruction which were issued under the terms, and in accordance with, the general policy of the 1935 Act. Was that done simply as a result of instructions being given by the Secretary of State or has any modification been made of the Instruments of Instruction?
    The Attorney-General: I will deal first with the point raised by the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson). I understand that the answer is that no change was made in the form of instructions, and that Subsection (4) of Clause 18 provides that the existing Instruments of Instruction to Governors and Governors-General—which deal almost entirely, I think, with the manner in which the Governors should discharge those of their functions on which they are not advised by their Ministers—will lapse and the power under the 1935 Act, under which these Instruments were issued, will come to an end. It would, of course, be quite improper for any Instrument of In-

    173
    struction to be issued to Governors or Governors-General in future, because they will be acting on the advice of their Ministers in India or Pakistan, and will have no responsibility to the Government in the United Kingdom.
    So far as the Clause in general is concerned, it deals with various consequential matters of a legal nature and it is largely, I think, self-explanatory. It raises no question of principle. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) will realise, there is a considerable body of statute law, or law arising from Orders-in-Council, which is not confined in its operation to India and which might, indeed, operate altogether outside India, although it contains reference to India. With the establishment of the two new Dominions, this reference would not remain in all circumstances apt or exact, and these provisions are consequently required.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    10.45 p.m.

    CLAUSE 19.—(Interpretation, etc.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I cannot quite understand the manner in which Subsection (2) of this Clause is drafted. The object is to remove, as far as I can see, all references to the Governor-General and references to the Governor-General in Council, and this Subsection decrees that they shall not apply in references to the Governor-General under this Measure. Under Clause 9 (1,e), the Governor-General has power
    "for authorising the carrying on of the business of the Governor-General in Council between the passing of this Act and the appointed day otherwise than in accordance with the provisions in that behalf of the Ninth Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935."
    It will be remembered that the Ninth Schedule was put in for the interim period before the full Act of 1935 came into operation, and if reference is made to the Ninth Schedule it will be found that it does refer to the Governor-General in Council. I think that it was originally designed to remove if the Governor-General so desired, the Executive Council which, in modern times, was anachronis-
    174
    tic. I now find that it is doubly covered by another reference to the Governor-General in Council. I think that somewhat modifies the previous power given to the Governor-General. I want to ask why there should appear to be some overlapping in the drafting, although, no doubt, there must be some legal reason for this being included in the Interpretation Clause; otherwise, I cannot see anything in the Interpretation Clause that I myself wish to raise.
    The Attorney-General: The Interpretation Clause goes rather further than Clause 9 (1,e), which, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, merely gives to the Governor-General the power to make certain orders during the interim period without the assistance of the Council. The purpose of the provision in the Interpretation Clause is that in the Interpretation Clause of 1899, provision was contained to the effect that references in the Statutes generally to the Governor-General were to be taken to mean reference to the Governor-General in Council, and the effect of the Interpretation Clause, therefore, is that in future, so far as these Acts have to be applied at all during the interim period, they will apply by reference to the Governor-General and not to the Governor-General in Council.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 20.—(Short title.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Nicholson: I think it would be proper for me to express my opinion that it is a great pity that there is no Preamble to the Bill. I think a Preamble would be a graceful act on the part of the Government.
    The Chairman: I do not think that question arises here.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    First Schedule agreed to.

    SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Districts provisionally included in the new Province of West Punjab.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill."
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I should like to ask what will be the position when the boundary commissions have reported now that the Government have introduced their Amendment making an award by the boundary commissions the law of the land? Is it because this Bill is amended that the new First and Second Schedules are introduced giving us the exact boundaries. Will there be any method by which we can have indicated to us in statutory form what actually constitutes the boundaries between the two divided parts of India? This is a very big Bill, a great deal of which is provisional and some of it is dependent on referendums, the result of one of which we had earlier today. This is a provisional Schedule for the provisional West Punjab Province. It would be helpful if, in some way or other, we could have an Amendment to this Bill, or have indicated to us in Parliament what the official boundaries are as a result of the boundary commissions' work.
    Mr. A. Henderson: It will not be possible to put words in statutory form, but it will be possible—and the intention is that it will be done—to report the results of the boundary commissions to Parliament.
    Mr. Butler: I would like to ask what will the position of the Schedule be then. It will, in fact, be inoperative. It will be a provisional Schedule, and, although the main districts will be there, the exact boundaries will not be there, and at the same time the boundary commissions might recommend the exclusion of a district, and we would have an inaccurate Statute.
    Mr. A. Henderson: The point is that these two Schedules are provisional for the purpose of the division, and are themselves governed by Clauses 3 and 4, which provide for the setting up of boundary commissions for the Punjab and Bengal, and provide that the awards or the reports of these boundary commissions shall be taken as the new boundaries of these Provinces.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Modifications of Army Act and Air Force Act in relation to British forces.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule be the Third Schedule to the Bill."
    Brigadier Low: It is extremely difficult to follow the provisions of the Third Schedule and make quite certain whether or not one understands them. I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions. If hon. Members turn to Paragraph (8) of Part I of the Schedule, they will see that the whole of Subsection (2) of Section 136 of the Army Act is to be omitted. Previously in that paragraph, only the words "India or" were omitted. The Section of the Army Act referred to deals with India and Burma. Why is it that the provisions of Subsection (2) which are designed to affect both India and Pakistan should now be cancelled in reference to Burma as well as to India? That is the first point.
    The second point really comes up on Paragraph 10 of Part 1 of the Schedule, and concerns Subsection 11 of Section 175 and Subsection (8, a) of Section 176 of the Army Act, which make members of the Indian Forces, while serving with the U.K. Forces, subject to the Army Act. That is done in accordance with usual procedure; it means they are Dominion Forces. Do we take it that the Indians have agreed to that? The last point arises on Paragraph 11, and concerns Subsection (2) of Section 180 of the Army Act, which appears to legislate for the Indian Forces, and is not covered by provisions in the Third Schedule at all. Amongst other things, it states that members of the Indian Forces, wherever they are serving, are subject to Indian military law. How can they be subject to Indian military law and the Army Act at the same time? Those are the points I wish to make. I may have been guilty of misunderstanding the whole matter.
    The Attorney-General: I am guilty of misunderstanding the hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low). I am not sure I shall be able to answer the last question, because I do not think I followed him. With regard to the point he raised on Paragraph 8, it was felt that, having regard to the existing situation in Burma, as well as in India, it would be more convenient to make this question of deduction of pay subject to United Kingdom law. In regard to Paragraph 10, which makes it clear that the British Army Act does not apply to forces raised in India, that is a provision which is inserted in agreement with the authorities in India. I am not

    177
    sure I am clear as to the last point put by the hon. and gallant Member. The effect of the paragraph as it stands is to repeal the power in British courts-martial to punish civilians for perjury.
    Brigadier Low: I think I was trying to rush my fences at this hour of the night on both points. I was not referring to what was in the paragraph but the next Subsection. These points were brought to my notice by reading the surrounding provisions of the Bill. If I may take the Attorney-General back to Paragraph 10, I was asking him why that provision was still retained in the Army Act and not repealed or omitted. The same applied to Subsection (8, a) of Section 176. I was asking him, not about something which

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE
Considered in Committee
[Major Milner in the Chair]
" I. Whereas it appears by the Navy Services Appropriation Account lor the year ended the 31st day of March 1946, that, as shown in the Schedule hereunto appended, the total surpluses and deficits on Navy Votes for that year are as follows:—

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses, viz.;—

Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated receipts (Vote 2–6 and –16)

—

55,106,623

12

4

Deduct — Sum to be surrendered to the Exchequer in respect of the Excess of receipt over the total of Appropriations-in-Aid authorised by Parliament

—

8,215,984

15

7

46,890,638

16

9

Total Deficits, viz.:—

Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated receipts (Votes 1 and 7)

46,890,638

16

9

—

Excusses of acutal over estimated gross expenditure

721,843,260

15

11

—

768,733,899

12

8

Net Deficit charged to Vote of Credit

£721,843,260

15

11

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of that part of the surplus receipts relaised under votes 2 to 6 and 8 to 6 which is required to make good the defict in receipts under Votes 1 and 7.

is in the paragraph, but something which is not, and I think might be. Why is that Section retained and not omitted. The same applies really to my last point—why Subsection (1) of Section 118 was not omitted.
The Attorney-General: I do not think I can answer without guessing, and my guess might be wrong. I will read in the OFFICIAL REPORT what the hon. and gallant Member has said, and I may be able to tell him tomorrow.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

SCHEDULE.

No. of Vote

Navy Services, 1945–46, Votes

Deficits

Surpluses

Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure

Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts

Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1

Wages, &c., of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and of certain other Personnel serving with the Fleet

141,425,864

18

11

46,890,628

16

9

—

2

Victualling and Clothing for the Navy

69,900,922

8

2

—

11,914,474

10

0

3

Medical Establishments and Services

4,550,488

18

6

—

251,317

13

3

4

Civilians employed on Fleet Services

4,729,656

11

9

—

3,502

18

0

5

Educational Services

264,761

8

0

—

95,543

12

11

6

Scientific Services

4,639,451

18

1

—

135,079

3

7

7

Royal Naval Reserves

64,648

3

4

10

0

0

—

8

Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.:

Section I—Personnel

35,051,894

9

5

—

446,642

14

1

Section II—Matériel

127,005,042

10

8

—

17,926,911

0

8

Section III—Contract Work

173,575,450

16

2

—

5,385,827

8

0

9

Naval Armaments

46,625,495

10

2

—

7,264,463

18

9

10

Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad

26,413,858

8

7

—

630,004

17

9

11

Miscellaneous Effective Services

48,006,007

4

5

—

9,083,379

17

4

12

Admiralty Office

6,976,456

2

2

—

1,855

19

1

13

Non-effective Services (Naval and Marine)—Officers

2,155,298

7

9

—

5,064

6

5

14

Non-effective Services (Naval and Marine)—Men

5,957,511

9

8

—

16,770

14

11

15

Civil Superannuation, Allowances and Gratuities

2,203,728

6

4

—

6,752

16

2

16

Merchant Shipbuilding

22,220,455

15

1

—

1,939,032

1

5

—

Balances Irrecoverable and Claims Abandoned

76,267

8

9

—

—

55,106,623

12

4

Deduct—Sum to be surrendered to the Exchequer in respect of the Excess of Receipts over the total of Appropriations-in-Aid authorised by Parliament

—

—

8,215,984

15

7

721,843,260

15

11

46,890,638

16

9

Total Surpluses available

Total Deficits £768,733,899 12 8

£46,890,638

16

9

Net Deficit met from Vote of Credit £721,843,260 15 11"

Resolved: "That the application of such surpluses be sanctioned."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

"II. Whereas it appears by the Army Services Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March 1946 that, as shown in the Schedule hereunto appended, the total surpluses and deficits on Army Votes for that year are as follows:—

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses, viz.:—

Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated receipts (Votes 2–15)

…

…

…

—

30,250,475

17

9

Total Deficits, viz.:—

Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated receipts (Vote 1)

…

…

…

188,365,139

3

11

—

Excesses of actual over estimated gross expenditure

…

…

…

1,309,873,523

17

2

—

1,498,238,663

1

1

Net Deficit charged to the Vote of Credit

£1,467,988,187

3

4

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of surplus receipts realised under Votes 2 to 15 towards making good the deficit in receipts under Vote 1.

SCHEDULE.

Deficits.

Surpluses.

No. of Vote

Army Services, 1945–46, Votes

Excesses of Actual over estimated gross Expenditure

Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts

Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1

Pay, &c., of the Army

570,436,884

8

2

188,365,139

3

11

—

2

Territorial Army and Reserve Forces

1,554.569

6

1

—

397,373

11

7

3

Medical Services

6,147,310

14

1

—

202,758

2

3

4

Educational Establishments

1,536,644

4

0

—

46,328

17

11

5

Quartering and Movements

135,324,127

17

1

—

5,347,496

18

11

6

Supplies, Road Transport and Remounts

310,111,770

7

2

—

13,306,390

14

4

7

Clothing

5,119,266

9

2

—

92,989

7

11

8

General Stores

43,179,430

19

0

—

728,155

19

10

9

Warlike Stores

3,736,078

6

7

—

771,101

6

8

10

Works, Buildings and Lands

73,983,901

15

9

—

5,275,600

13

4

11

Miscellaneous Effective Services

107,688,552

8

0

—

3,089,694

17

1

12

War Office

3,667,951

2

9

—

589

4

5

13

Half-pay, Retired Pay and other Non-effective Charges for Officers

4,039,507

5

7

—

395,858

13

0

14

Pensions and other Non-effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-commissioned Officers, men and others

1,932,012

6

11

—

595,373

6

1

15

Civil Superannuation, Compensation and Gratuities

536,608

0

2

—

764

4

5

—

Balances Irrecoverable and Claims Abandoned

40,878,908

6

8

—

—

1,309,873,523

17

2

188,365,139

3

11

Total Surpluses

Total Deficits £1,498,238,663 1 1

£30,250,475

17

9

Net Deficit met from Vote of Credit £1,467,988,187 3 4"

Resolved: "That the application of such surpluses be sanctioned."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]
"III. Whereas it appears by the Air Services Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March 1946 that, as shown in the Schedule hereunto appended, the total surpluses and deficits on Air Votes for that year are as follows:—

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

Total Surpluses, viz.:—

Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated receipts (Votes 2–11)

…

…

…

…

—

54,669,692

11

2

Total Deficits, viz.:—

Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated receipts (Vote 1)

…

…

…

…

65,540,918

17

5

—

Excesses of actual over estimated gross expenditure

…

…

…

…

510,859,611

19

1

—

576,400,530

16

6

Net Deficit (charged to the Vote of Credit)

…

£521,730,838

5

4

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of surplus receipts realised under Votes 2 to 11 towards making good the deficit in receipts under Vote 1.

SCHEDULE.

Deficits.

Surpluses.

No. of Vote

Army Services, 1945–46, Votes

Excesses of Actual over estimated gross Expenditure

Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts

Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

1

Pay, &.c, of the Air Force

268,070,249

6

1

65,540,918

17

5

—

2

Quartering Non-Technical Stores, Supplies and Transportation

56,177,732

13

5

—

3,786,452

14

10

3

Technical and Warlike Stores

91,504,150

17

4

—

48,410,094

7

0

4

Works, Buildings and Lands

63,196,497

1

2

—

1,940,584

10

0

5

Medical Services

845,275

13

6

—

16,179

6

7

6

Educational Services

1,116,327

8

2

—

10,691

7

3

7

Reserve and Auxiliary Forces

114,030

16

0

—

511

8

0

8

Civil Aviation

63,113

14

3

—

9,941

5

4

9

Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services

24,151,757

9

7

—

467,622

15

7

10

Air Ministry

3,970,101

1

7

—

18,257

5

11

11

Half-Pay, Pensions and other Non-effective Services

1,588,847

15

3

—

9,357

10

8

—

Balances Irrecoverable and Claims Abandoned

61,528

2

9

—

—

510,859,611

19

1

65,540,918

17

5

Total Surpluses

Total Deficits £576,400,530 16 6

£54,669,692

11

2

Net Deficit met from Vote of Credit £521,730,838 5 4"

Resolved: "That the application of such surpluses be sanctioned."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]
Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow.

NATIONALISED UNDERTAKINGS (SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES)
"Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn:"—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]
11.1 p.m.
Wing-Commander Hulbert: I am raising a matter which is causing no little public disquiet throughout the country. I do so following questions I have put to the Lord President of the Council. He is not here tonight, but has very courteously sent me a message that the state of his health and public business prevent him from being here. I refer to the appointment and remuneration of members of national boards, and the corporations set up to nationalise the great industries. The Lord President of the Council, in his previous answers to me, has stated that he sees no reason for disclosing to Parliament and to the public the salaries paid to the executives of these organisations, because in his view no public funds are involved. If ever there was a misleading answer given to this House, that is one. The Government of the day might equally well decline to disclose the salaries of civil servants and other employees of His Majesty's Government. Certainly one result of the attitude of the Government can be seen in the claims which are being made by the Civil Service today for increased remuneration, commensurate with the salaries paid to those who have so recently joined the Government service in these nationalised bodies.
Never before has any Government refused to disclose the salaries they paid to public servants. As the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) said a few days ago, until this Government came into office it was only the Secret Service which had immunity for the payments made to them, and rightly so. Today we find that the Coal Board, the Electricity Board, and the proposed Transport Board, are being created, and a great number of appointments are being made. In "The Times" a few days ago, there was an advertisement for an educational officer for the Coal Board. The first and foremost education of the Coal Board should be to see that more coal is produced. These boards would rover had come into existence except for the money voted by Parliament to acquire
186
undertakings which had previously been conducted very efficiently, and which today, from what one hears—and certainly in the case of the Air Boards—are being conducted with little regard for economy or efficiency. Today, no one knows the losses which are being incurred by the Government-owned airways corporations. We know nothing of the activities of the National Coal Board, except that we see a large number of motor-cars running round London bearing the insignia of the National Coal Board. We know little or nothing of the passenger miles flown today by the aircraft of the Government-owned airways corporations as compared with the corporations which were run by private enterprise. But, alas, we know that under the National Coal Board, coal production is slowly going down, and down and down. But it is to the salaries, and the remuneration in other ways, of the senior executives of these Boards to which I would like tonight to draw the attention of the House.
On 12th June, the Lord President of the Council, replying to a Question of mine, stated that these Boards should have the same functions and the same freedom of management as other commercial organisations; but here I would like to emphasise that if I were a shareholder of a public company and I inquired of the chairman what was the remuneration of the executives of that particular company, he would be an unwise and stupid chairman if he refused to disclose that information; and especially would that apply if the company were not doing well, as is a very well-known fact in regard to our nationalised industries today—and which will get worse and worse as more and more industries are taken over by this doctrinaire Government with which this country is saddled today.
I would like to remind the Paymaster-General, who is to reply, that under the Companies Bill, which is based on the report of the Cohen Committee, which the Government have more or less wholeheartedly accepted, a very full and complete disclosure is required. So, as this Government so often prides itself on giving a lead in so many things, despite the fact that most of the good things it has done were initiated by the Coalition Government, surely it will take a lead in this matter, and be a model of clarity, and in that belief make a full disclosure

187
to the shareholders in these corporations. The shareholders in these cases are the British public and British taxpayers who have become shareholders willy-nilly, not through any desire of their own, but through its being forced upon them by the Government. If the Government will make this disclosure, they will at least show to the public that they are not afraid to reveal the success or otherwise of the undertakings which they have taken over. The air of secrecy and the hush-hush policy which the Government are adopting today naturally give rise to some kind of suspicion. Ministers often take refuge in saying that they cannot interfere with, or are not responsible for, statutory undertakings; but the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport has said in the House that if one has responsibility for a job, one must see that that responsibility is carried out. Ministers have said from time to time that they do not think it right to disclose certain information to Parliament, or, alternatively, they have said that they cannot obtain that information.
My right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House seek only that a Minister who has statutory powers to acquire certain information from undertakings, should certainly disclose that information to the House unless, of course, it is against the public interest to do so. In the Transport and Electricity Bills, Ministers concerned have taken unto themselves power to appoint members of the executives. As we see it, this clearly means that they have taken power to appoint executive officials at such salaries, and with such fees and allowances as the Ministers may, with the approval of the Treasury, agree. If this is not an expenditure of public money for which there is Ministerial responsibility, I do not know what is.
The creation of these Boards has given the greatest power of patronage that any Government has ever had in this country. We know that two or more jobs in the National Coal Board have been given to members of the party which forms the Government of today. We now know that one is in receipt of a salary equal to, or even more than, the income of a Cabinet Minister. In addition, there are expenses paid; motor-cars are provided. We also know that one of these jobs is held by a former right hon. Member of this House
188
whose conduct as Minister of Food was certainly not all that could have been desired. We even know that houses are provided, and, what is more, we know that one has been burned down. The Lord President of the Council has said that he could not give the information we seek. I would only remind hon. Members that Section 3 (4) of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act states that:
"The Board shall afford to the Minister facilities for obtaining information with respect to the activities of the Board, and shall furnish him with returns, amounts and other information with respect thereto, and afford him facilities for obtaining information.…"
in certain detailed requirements, etc. If a Minister, by an Act of Parliament, is to be provided with this information, then why on earth cannot that Minister give the information to the House and the country? I would like to suggest to the Prime Minister, through the hon. Gentleman who is going to reply, that, in order to avoid suspicion which Ministers have attracted to themselves by this policy of hush-hush and secrecy, he should make a clear disclosure to this House, and to the country, of the salaries and other emoluments paid to members of these nationalised boards, and when future appointments are made that full details should be given, terms of employment, remuneration and the other emoluments by way of houses and motor cars and all the rest of it, because by doing that, the Government will be doing no less than is expected of commercial undertakings in future and by so doing they will convince the public that there is no hush-hush patronage in these strange methods of appointment.
11.16 p.m.
Colonel Clarke: I wish to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Stockport (Wing-Commander Hulbert) and to make these two brief observations. First, if it is not possible to give the individual salaries of these members of the boards, can we be given the total of all the salaries, as is done in the case of limited companies where one knows how much money is voted? Secondly, is the Minister of Mines really satisfied with what has been done in the appointments and in the salaries of the divisional boards under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, and, if so, why is he taking powers under the Electricity Bill to choose members of these boards himself?
The Paymaster-General (Mr. Marquand): The hon. and gallant Member for Stockport (Wing-Commander Hulbert) spoke in successive sentences about members of the boards and about the executives of the boards. I can hardly imagine that he himself is in doubt about the difference between these two, but perhaps I had better make it clear, for the sake of record, that there is a significant difference between members of the board and the employees of the board. Where the Minister appoints, there is no question at all that he is responsible for the salary paid and the information as to the salaries has been, and will be given, to this House. The salaries paid to the boards of the three air corporations and to the Board of the Bank of England and the National Coal Board have been given, and it is the full intention of my right hon. Friend, who will be responsible when the other legislation is passed, to give similar information about the members of the British Electricity Authority, the Transport Commission and the transport executives which are to be appointed by the Minister. I think, perhaps, for the sake of clearing up exactly what he did say, I should quote what the Lord President of the Council sad in the exchange of Questions and supplementaries on Thursday, 12th June, which have been referred to. He said
"It is clear that if public money—I am talking about money voted by Parliament—becomes involved, then Parliamentary accountability arises."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, I2th June, 1947; Vol. 438; c. 1339.]
He went on to say that in the case of employees of the boards, the question of public money did not arise. All these are corporations carrying on business. They are public corporations, but they are business corporations, and in creating them we have sought to impose public control in the public interest without rigidity or bureaucracy. We feel that these corporations are less likely to act with vision and enterprise if the staff and the directors are to be constantly subject to inquiry. We have been told on other occasions that we have not gone far enough in releasing these corporations from detailed control by Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), on 18th December, said:
"I warn the right hon. Gentleman that, by reason of Parliamentary and Ministerial
190
control, he will have just the same over-elaboration, the same multiplication of crosschecks, the same tendency to curb enterprise and deaden initiative as has been so often charged against that admirable body of men who constitute the Civil Service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th Dec. 1947; Vol. 431; c. 2003.]
Having been told by the right hon. Gentleman that we have not gone far enough in this direction, we have been told tonight that we have gone too far. The boards must be answerable to Parliament for their policies. They must be run in a way which is compatible with national economic policy, and they must be subject to direction by the appropriate Minister as to their policy. This is not the same thing as laying it down that the Minister must prescribe, or that the House of Commons should demand to know, all the details of their management. The choice, promotion, dismissal and payment of employees, are responsibilities of management. Those are things which management have to do in carrying on their undertaking.
Wing-Commander Hulbert: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it proper that a Minister should appoint a colleague to a highly-paid job with all sorts of other emoluments, and not be responsible to Parliament for that?
Mr. Marquand: That is a highly hypothetical question.
Wing-Commander Hulbert: No.
Mr. Marquand: —because I know of no occasion when that has been done.
Wing-Commander Hulbert: In the case of Sir Ben Smith.
Mr. Marquand: He was appointed by the Coal Board, and not by the Minister of Fuel and Power. As I was saying when I was interrupted by the hon. and gallant Member, we feel that this business of choosing employees, of deciding exactly how much should be paid to a given individual, are matters appropriate to the responsibility of management. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that if he went to a meeting of a company of which he was a shareholder and asked deliberately for information as to the salary of some executive of the company, he would get it. Well, suppose he did get it; how often can he go to meetings of a company and ask for details of that kind?
Colonel Clarke: In fact, one can get the information from the balance-sheet without anyone asking.
Mr. Marquand: I will come to that point in a moment. What I am suggesting is that, to subject a national board to day-to-day interrogation four days a week—how much it pays to this or that person, what house he lives in, and so on—is not on all fours with a shareholders' meeting and asking for information which you might or might not get.
Wing-Commander Hulbert: Under the new Companies Bill—
Mr. Marquand: I wish the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not interrupt me all the time. I will say something about the new Companies Bill. We feel that if we were to publish all the salaries paid by all these boards to all their employees above a certain income, we should almost certainly, in the nature of Parliament, because of what it is, be discussing personalities before we knew where we were. The boards would be subject to argument, such as whether this or that person was a fit and proper person to receive a certain sum of money. They would be continually subjected to that sort of thing. Either that, or we should tend towards rigidity of salary. There is no alternative. Either we have a rigid salary scale—for example, a salary scale for a particular grade as we have for the Civil Service—or, in seeking freedom from a rigidity of bureaucratic control, we depart from a salary scale if the circumstances make it reasonable so to do. Alternatively, we would tend to lay down standard scales which would apply to the electricity industry, the Coal Board, and other industries to be nationalised.
You cannot run a trading concern from Whitehall; that is, on the whole, the assumption on which new legislation has
192
been brought in. It is not desirable to try to run more industries than we are running already, namely, the Post Office. If you cannot run industry from Whitehall, you cannot run it from the House of Commons. Salaries will be laid before Parliament in bulk, in group form, when the accounts of these boards are placed before Parliament. The exact form of accounts prescribed must be laid down by the Minister in consultation with the Treasury. The exact form for each of them has not yet been decided, but it is certainly not designed to show the salaries of individuals.
I turn to the third point made, that it we prescribe for private industry the exact disclosure of payments, surely we should impose the same obligation on publicly-owned concerns and corporations. There is some substance in that argument, but I would like to point out to the House and the hon. and gallant Member for Stockport exactly what is provided so far in the Companies Bill. All that would have to be disclosed under Clause 36 of that Bill as it now stands is the aggregate salaries of those executives who are also directors. There are members of the air corporations, as the hon. Member knows, who are directors of the corporation and at the same time are employees of the corporation. In their case, all that would be disclosed would be the aggregate salaries of all those executives who were also directors. I have some sympathy with the plea that what is prescribed for private industry might be gratuitously prescribed for public industry, and I will undertake that that point will be carefully considered if and when the Companies Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Seven Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.

  GERMANY (BI-ZONAL ADMINISTRATION)
  GERMANY (BI-ZONAL ADMINISTRATION)
  BRITISH COMPANIES RUMANIA (EMPLOYEES)
  BRITISH COMPANIES RUMANIA (EMPLOYEES)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Cheese Ration (Agriculture)
  Cheese Ration (Agriculture)
  Ration Books (Widnes)
  Ration Books (Widnes)
  Bread Rationing
  Bread Rationing
AGRICULTURE
  Nursery Stocks
  Nursery Stocks
  Tractor Power-Lifts
  Tractor Power-Lifts
  SEVERN BRIDGE (CONSTRUCTION)
  SEVERN BRIDGE (CONSTRUCTION)
ROADS
  Accidents, Glasgow Area
  Accidents, Glasgow Area
  Accidents (Great West Road)
  Accidents (Great West Road)
  RAILWAYS (CHEAP DAY FARES)
  RAILWAYS (CHEAP DAY FARES)
  TROOPSHIPS (CONDITIONS)
  TROOPSHIPS (CONDITIONS)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Scrap Iron Collection
  Scrap Iron Collection
  Motor Cars (Government Purchases)
  Motor Cars (Government Purchases)
  Electrical Equipment Output (Allocation)
  Electrical Equipment Output (Allocation)
  Surplus Stores (Disposal)
  Surplus Stores (Disposal)
  Factory, Hapton (Use)
  Factory, Hapton (Use)
  Factory, Cheltenham (Production Embargo)
  Factory, Cheltenham (Production Embargo)
  Steel Poles (Disposal)
  Steel Poles (Disposal)
  Depot, Rotherwas
  Depot, Rotherwas
  Bombing Range, Odstone Down
  Bombing Range, Odstone Down
  Vehicles Auction Visitors (Searches)
  Vehicles Auction Visitors (Searches)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  London Museum (Accommodation)
  London Museum (Accommodation)
  Tattershall Castle (Lavatories)
  Tattershall Castle (Lavatories)
  Temporary Houses, Edinburgh (Sites)
  Temporary Houses, Edinburgh (Sites)
  Cement Supplies
  Cement Supplies
  Bishop's Palace, Gloucester
  Bishop's Palace, Gloucester
  Building and Civil Engineering Workers
  Building and Civil Engineering Workers
  GURKHA BRIGADF (FUTURE)
  GURKHA BRIGADF (FUTURE)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Japanese Cotton Industry
  Japanese Cotton Industry
  Film Industry (Timber)
  Film Industry (Timber)
  Hardware Goods (Shortage)
  Hardware Goods (Shortage)
  Factory, Stockton-on-Tees
  Factory, Stockton-on-Tees
  DETENTION (FRANCE)
  DETENTION (FRANCE)
  REQUISITIONED HOUSES (RENTS)
  REQUISITIONED HOUSES (RENTS)
  NATURALISATION (CONDITIONS)
  NATURALISATION (CONDITIONS)
COAL INDUSTRY
  Lancashire Textile Mills (Allocation)
  Lancashire Textile Mills (Allocation)
  Powneley Pit, Burnley
  Powneley Pit, Burnley
  Deliveries, Banbridge
  Deliveries, Banbridge
  DOLLAR EXPENDITURE (U.S. PUBLICATIONS)
  DOLLAR EXPENDITURE (U.S. PUBLICATIONS)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

NEWHAVEN AND SEAFORD SEA DEFENCES BILL.
Read 2ª, and committed.
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BELL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2ª and reported from the Committee.

FELINSTOWE PIER BILL.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL [MONEY] BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; and referred to the Examiners.
BOROUGH OF CROYDON (RATING) BILL. [H.L.]
Committed: The Committee to meet forthwith.
BOROUGH OF CROYDON (RATING) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn. The Orders made on June 23rd and 26th last, discharged and Bill committed.
SCOTTISH REPRESENTATIVE PEER.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had received (by post) from the Lord Clerk Register of Scotland, and had laid upon the Table, Minutes of the election of the Earl of Lindsay as one of the sixteen Peers of Scotland, 1st of this instant July, in room of the Earl of Leven and Melville, deceased; and separate return by the Lord Clerk Register of certain Titles of Peerages called at the said election, in right of which respectively no vote had been received and counted at any election for fifty years then last past (pursuant to Act; 14 and 15 Vict., Chap. 87). Ordered, That the said Minutes of election, &c., be printed.

AGRICULTURE BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Provisions for securing efficient agricultural production and proper agricultural conditions.
1.—(1) The following provisions of this Part of this Act shall have effect for the purpose of promoting and maintaining, by the provision of guaranteed prices and assured markets for the produce mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act, a stable and efficient agricultural industry capable of producing such part of the nation is food and other agricultural produce as in the national interest it is desirable to produce in the United Kingdom, and of producing it at minimum prices consistently with proper remuneration and living conditions for farmers and workers in agriculture and an adequate return on capital invested.
(2) This Part of this Act shall extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
2.37 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "by the provision of guaranteed prices and assured markets for the produce mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act." The noble Earl said: This is a poor Amendment really, but I think that it is of some importance. It is quite true that it does not seriously alter the intention expressed in the Bill, but it does alter the emphasis. The Committee will notice that it has got to be read in conjunction with the fifth Amendment on the Marshalled List which is at page 1, line 17, proposing a new subsection. The Committee will realize that Part I really balances against the rest of this Bill. The Bill is in effect a series of balances. Therefore, I think that we can agree that the question of emphasis is of importance.
The purpose of the Amendment is to bring a power that is admittedly given in Clause 6 to the Minister—that is the power to add to the First Schedule—right to the forefront of the Bill. Members of the Committee are aware that there is a good deal of concern in the farming industry at the incompleteness of the First Schedule. Desire has frequently been expressed in another place, and in the country that horticultural products, wool and other commodities should be added to the First Schedule. These proposals have not been agreed to, and I think it would be some comfort to the industry if we could alter the emphasis here and bring the power to add to the First Schedule into the first clause of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("maintaining") to ("a") in line 10.—(Earl De La Warr.)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): I hope that the noble Earl will not press this Amendment too far. The intention of the Amendment, as he admitted himself, so far as granting the Minister power to put further products into the First Schedule, is already met by Clause 6 (1). His Majesty's Government understand that some concern is felt in the various sections of the industry, particularly the horticultural section, because they have not been mentioned in the Bill. As members of the Committee will understand, it is very difficult, owing to their extreme
496
perishability and the quickly changing fluctuations of the market, to include these other products and to give to them the same treatment as is given to wheat and other products mentioned in the First Schedule. But I can assure the Committee that we are giving very careful consideration to horticulture, and we are trying to work out some method which will satisfy those engaged in that branch of the industry and give them some security. In view of the fact that the substance is already in the Bill I suggest that it would be unwise and unnecessary to alter the Bill and put in a long subsection for what is already quite adequately covered by Clause 6 (1). Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl will not press this Amendment.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I would like to support my noble friend Lord De La Warr in this Amendment. I quite see the arguments brought forward by the noble Earl who has just sat down, but when he talked about the efforts of the Government at the moment to see what could be done in ensuring a stable market for agriculture, he made what was, to my mind, a very serious omission. Although the Third Schedule covers 70 per cent. of our production it is vitally important, for the balance of agriculture, that other major products are included.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: In regard to the question of wool there is a further Amendment about that by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. On the general point, I may say that we do intend to examine this further. The wording of this introductory paragraph has been very carefully thought out and I think it adequately explains the intentions of the Government. I would strongly suggest to your Lordships that it would not be wise or necessary to alter it as the noble Earl suggests.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think it would have been wise from the Government's point of view to have accepted this as a better bit of drafting, but I am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "desirable" and insert "most essential." The noble Viscount said: Your Lordships will see that the object of this clause is to

497
guarantee prices and assured markets for produce that is capable of being produced in this country, and deemed desirable to be produced in the United Kingdom. I suggest that there is great weakness in that word "desirable." If the Government really intend to carry out their professed intentions, the word "desirable" should be replaced with "most essential"—that is, essential from the standpoint of feeding the nation and at the same time promoting and perpetuating the stability of our British husbandry.
I am tempted to ask when I see the word "desirable," who is to decide what is desirable in this connexion, and from what standpoint is the desirability to be gauged. I suggest that under temporary diplomatic pressure in pursuance of some foreign policy objective, possibly with a view to appeasement of some foreign country, the two-fold aim of adequate food supply and the confident stability of British husbandry might be frustrated and possibly defeated by obtaining from abroad excessive supplies of food that can quite well be raised on our own British soil. I give 'by way of illustration, wheat from Russia or the United States, to the detriment of wheat growers in Scotland and in the eastern counties of England. Or barley from Czechoslovakia, where some of the most famous barley in the world is grown, hanna barley, producing the malt for lager and other light beers. Or beef from Argentina. I think I am right in saying that before the war seventy-five per cent. of all the beef consumed in London came from Argentina. But I hope that in days to come the graziers in Scotland and the English Midlands will provide a large portion of what in the old days came from overseas countries, with an element of considerable instability to the peace of this country. Or cheese from Holland, to the possible detriment of those who produce cheese in Cheshire and Somerset and other parts of Western England. Or bacon, eggs and butter from Denmark.
I only give these by way of illustration, but this does raise the question, about which I hope the Government will tell us, of the extent to which they do look to the soil of this country to provide more of the essential foods the nation requires. Before the war four-fifths of our breadstuffs and half of our meat came from abroad. Is that to continue in days to come; or is the stability of our
498
own home husbandry to be brought up to supply a preponderance at least of breadstuffs and possibly also of meat from our own soil? Some of us have a lively and unfortunately unhappy recollection of what happened after the First World War. I was one of those who were instrumental for getting the Government to pass the Corn Production Act. Within a year that was scrapped, to the great disheartenment of the agricultural community, and to a reduction in the sense of security and stability on the part of the whole nation. Put quite shortly, the object of my Amendment is to prevent agricultural stability being sacrificed to temporary political expediency. I do not for a moment doubt the good faith of the Government in seeing that no harm occurs to our most vital industry in their operation of this measure, but after all, as we have been frequently reminded, this is, or is alleged to be, a charter of stability for British husbandry and as such will be operated by other Governments than the Government now in Office, who have shown themselves markedly sympathetic with agricultural production in this country. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("desirable") and insert ("most essential").—(Viscount Bledisloe.)
LORD HASTINGS: I would like to support the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, in a few words. There is no great importance, we might agree between one word and another, but "desirable" is a poor word. It really implies that in the opinion of somebody in some office such and such should be done. If you have "essential," that is a commanding word with emphasis behind it. If you tell the people that it is essential to do so and so, they have the immediate feeling that, unless they do it, something is going to happen to them. But if it is merely "desirable," people might be excused for not taking very much interest in the matter. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, is right in wishing to put in "essential" rather than "desirable," and I beg to support the Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I would like in a few words to support this Amendment. Clause 1 is a clause which is not at all satisfactory in general to the agriculturists of this country. It is very

499
vaguely worded, and does not seem to give the idea of any real intention on the part of His Majesty's Government to ensure that our agriculture shall prosper. In the wording of the clause, "desirable" is the word which, more than any other word, contributes to that vagueness and insecurity.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: We sympathize with the intention of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, in this matter. Naturally the Government wish to produce all the food that can be reasonably and satisfactorily produced in this country. In fact, your Lordships will remember the statement made by my right honourable friend, the Minister, on the Third Reading of the Bill in another place when he gave an assurance that we should need the maximum amount of produce. As regards the two words "desirable" and "essential," while seeing the point of the noble Viscount, there is a certain limitation which I think will be appreciated in the use of the word "essential." I think, if the noble Viscount would consent to withdraw this Amendment, he will find that "desirable" does cover the general intentions of His Majesty's Government in the matter.
LORD ROCHE: I never would have expected to find myself not agreeing with anything which my noble friend Viscount Bledisloe said, but I do suggest, as a lawyer, that his proposal cuts down the powers rather than extends them, and is really contrary to the cause he has advocated with so much success.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: After such a powerful legal advocacy of the Government's standpoint, I feel that I have no option but to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.54 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1), before "capital," to insert "all." The noble Earl said: If your Lordships will agree, I should like to take the next two Amendments together, because they really go together. Their purpose is really quite simple. That part of Clause 1 which deals with return on capital reads:
"proper remuneration and living conditions for farmers and workers in agriculture and an adequate return on capital invested."
500
My two Amendments seek to make the last few words read in this way: "an adequate return on all capital invested in the industry." I think it is quite possible to interpret the words "capital invested" in this case, as applying only to the farmers' capital invested. It should be made quite clear that it applies to all capital invested in the industry. Goodness knows, little enough attention has been paid to the unfortunate landowners' economic circumstances throughout the Bill. I hope that I may have the assurance that His Majesty's Government do mean that it should apply to the landowners' capital as well as to the farmers, and perhaps they will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1. line 17, after ("on") insert ("all").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: May I be allowed to support very warmly this particular Amendment, on the footing, which many of the British public do not realize, that at least two-thirds of the whole of the capital invested in the agricultural industry, where the landlord and tenant system exists, belongs to the landlord. If I may say so, you do want now more than ever every incentive for landowners to bring their equipment up to date if you are going to have the maximum output of essential foods from the soil of this country.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I would like to support this Amendment. It seems to me that the present system of the review of prices taking into account all the expenditure in production of crops does and should include a factor for rents paid, which itself is a reflection of the capital invested in the industry. If it should turn out, as a result of this Bill or for other reasons, that there is an increase in capital investment, in the way of farm buildings, and so on, that will lead to a return.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: In the first place, I would like to give an assurance to the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, that rents will be taken into account. There is no question of that.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Amendment is directed to capital, not rent.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: The actual wording of the subsection is "return on capital invested," and what the

501
noble Earl proposes is that "all capital invested in the industry" should be substituted. I should have thought that "all capital invested in the industry" is implied. The capital could not be invested anywhere else, having regard to the terms of this Bill. But the phrase "all capital," raises a rather difficult point, because it might be argued that if an individual farmer or landowner invested a small amount of money in a construction of some kind, and did not get a return on the small amount of capital invested, he might say that the intentions of the Bill had not been fulfilled. What we are trying to do is to guarantee an income to the whole industry. We cannot guarantee a return on each amount to each farmer in each case, but we can give an adequate return on the capital to the industry as a whole. If, however, it would meet the noble Earl's point, I think we would be happy to accept the words "in the industry" in the second Amendment, if he would be prepared to withdraw the first Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am very glad to accept that proposal, and beg leave to withdraw the first Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I beg leave to move the second Amendment to insert words at the end of subsection (1).
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, at end insert ("in the industry").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Annual and special reviews of condition of agricultural industry.
(3) In holding any review under this section the Ministers shall consult with such bodies of persons as appear to them to represent the interests of producers in the agricultural industry.
2.59 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to add to subsection (3):
"and where any substantial difference arises between the Ministers and the said bodies as to whether there has been or is likely to be such a change in the economic condition of the agricultural industry or any section thereof as is mentioned in the last foregoing subsection or as to the effects thereof upon the industry or any section of it, the Ministers
502
may, and if so required by the said bodies, shall, submit the difference to such independent person or persons as the Ministers may appoint who shall within a reasonable time report to them thereon and copies of such report shall be made available to the said bodies upon payment of a reasonable charge therefor."
The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to try to ensure that farmers in any economic change of prices, etc., should get a fair share of what is going. I think it is fair to say that very often in the past other industries, that are possibly more noisy and more excitable, have got quite a bit out of the Treasury, and what was left over has been given to the farmers, who have had to be content with what they got. The object of this Amendment is that if there is any dispute—not on the facts, but on the result of the facts—there should be an inquiry, conducted by independent people other than the Ministry, who can advise, and that their advice should be published. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, at end, insert the said words.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I am afraid this Amendment is one which we cannot accept. The reason for that is that the ultimate responsibility for policy must remain with the Minister. When we get our reports on the industry we have figures and facts supplied by various economists which have been accepted without any possible question by both sides. Therefore, the only question which remains to be discussed and decided is what sort of price should be paid. The final decision must be left to the Minister, who will have to answer to Parliament for it. The effect of giving these separate and outside bodies further powers to examine and issue reports on the subject —which I think is what is proposed by the noble Earl—would merely delay the proceedings and would in fact put the Minister in rather a difficult position because he himself must be answerable to Parliament in respect of those matters. In regard to the question of facts—that is to say, actual figures which come to be decided—they are generally accepted by both sides and so far as I know there has never been any dispute.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: If I might interrupt the noble Earl, it is the result of the facts that I am speaking about.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: That is the point I was trying to make. The facts are not in dispute, but it is on the result of the facts that the noble Earl wishes further considerations and advice. I do not think there is anyone to state the case better than such bodies as the National Farmers' Union who know the conditions of the industry. Therefore, if it is in regard to getting information the information is there. If it is with regard to deciding on what should be done that, I submit, must be a responsibility of the Minister and His Majesty's Government. For that reason I am afraid we cannot accept this Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am not sure that the noble Earl has quite interpreted the real meaning of the Amendment. As I see it, it does not in any way affect or call in question the responsibility of the Minister for giving a final decision. I think there was an Amendment in another place which did in fact do so but which was not very well supported on either side of the House. But in questions like this there is always room for disagreement, not only about the possible results, but on the facts themselves. It is true, as the noble Earl says, that there has hitherto been no great dispute as to the facts on costings. But this system has not been operating very long and my experience of costings, and particularly farm costings, is that there is a vast amount of room for disagreement.
Further than that, I think we are gradually drifting along a road where we cannot quite see where we are going. We have these periodic increases in agricultural wages and everybody is very pleased to see those increases made in so far as the Ministry is going to be in a position to pay them. But the general assumption seems to be that all that has to be done when an increase is made, is to see exactly how much more will have to be paid out directly in wages and then compensate the industry more or less to that extent. What I believe nobody sufficiently realizes is the indirect effect of these increases in wages, and the fact that every other price goes up when the agricultural wages go up. Inevitably that that has an effect upon the price of every single thing the farmer buys, and the farmer is receiving no compensation for that whatsoever. I am speaking purely out of my head and without reference to
504
facts and figures, but I think I am safe in saying that the price of tractors in the last six or nine months has gone up by something over 29 per cent. If you go and buy a spade or anything else you will find the price has increased, and that results indirectly from the increase in wages. I think the time has come when that sort of fact should be examined, and possibly examined by an outside disinterested expert. I should have thought it was not really unreasonable to ask the noble Earl seriously to consider this Amendment, which does not in any way impinge upon the unquestionable ultimate responsibility of His Majesty's Ministers for giving a final decision.
EARL STANHOPE: Might I make a further point on this? The Government say that they are eventually bringing in horticulture. There was a case not many years ago during the war period when a question arose about the price of strawberries. It was brought up to the Ministry of Agriculture, who pointed out to these farmers that they were getting a very good price for the early strawberries on the market and therefore should be content with the lower price afterwards. They were quite ignorant at the Ministry of Agriculture that those strawberries only came from one part of England, and that the strawberries grown elsewhere had not had that higher price. If that had been put before an independent body the matter would have been made clear to them and would have been put straight. That is exactly the kind of case which might happen in regard to agriculture, and still more with regard to horticulture. Therefore, I suggest that this Amendment is a safeguard to seeing that the whole thing is considered from both sides. In that way the facts will be put before the public who will be able to judge whether the Minister has been fair to the industry and whether the Ministry had had pressure brought to bear upon them by the Treasury and thus been induced to give way more than they should. I think there are cases where the Ministry of Agriculture would be glad to get a report of that kind in order to support the case they would like to make.
LORD O'HAGAN: I would like the noble Earl to reconsider this Amendment. If the Amendment is agreed upon I think it is one which would go a long way to help the successful working of this

505
measure. There is undoubtedly a feeling, as has been described by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, of the sort of occurrences which have occurred and are more likely to occur in the future as the scheme is developed. In view of the satisfactory work which they have embodied in this Bill, I earnestly appeal to the Government that the measure should be more carefully looked into with a view to seeing if this Amendment, or something on these lines, could not be inserted.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: May I add just one very short plea in support of this Amendment? The noble Earl, when replying from the Front Bench, said that quite naturally a body such as the National Farmers' Union were the people to put their case with the greatest eloquence and force. That is obviously true, but in the eyes of the public the body that is going to get the increased prices may thus be suspected of arguing an ex parte case. In the case of a real dispute everybody would be far more satisfied if there was an independent body who could be expected to argue the case on its own merits.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I do not think noble Lords quite realize our full intentions. To take first the point of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, respecting the consideration of other things besides the increase in wages, that is already done, and I can assure him that as negotiations go on all the considerations which have been mentioned, such as the price of tractors, will be taken into account. In regard to the point concerning the price of strawberries, that seemed to imply a criticism of the National Farmers' Union for not putting their case with sufficient force. As a rule their horticultural experts take a great interest in these matters. But the fundamental point is the position in which the Minister would find himself. Here we have reviews going on, discussions between the experts, the Ministry of Agriculture, and other interested bodies. The results of the discussions are fully considered and it remains for the Government to decide upon the extent to which they shall act upon them.
Under this Amendment there would be an extra body which would have the right of reporting on these discussions. Either the Minister or that body would thereby be placed in a very difficult position. Suppose the report was adverse and said
506
that so many more millions ought to be given, and that our decision was wrong. Then either that body is put in the position of being an arbitrator and the Minister has to submit, or the Minister would have to overrule them, which would make his position very difficult. He would have to justify himself, not only before Parliament, but before the public Press and a sort of public inquiry. I think it would lead to most difficult complications. For that reason I beg the noble Earl to withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I can hardly say that I am at all satisfied with what the noble Earl has said. I cannot see that his argument is as good as anything that has been produced from this side of the House. I cannot see the point about the Minister being put in a difficult position. He can justify his reasons for any acts to independent boards. He would realize that the original calculations were not quite right and would accept that. However, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
3.12 p.m.
Clause 4 [Power to supplement arrangements]:
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, after Subsection (1), to insert:
"(2) Arrangements such as are mentioned in subsection (1) of the last foregoing section shall not be deemed to be well adapted for securing their object unless they shall operate to secure that a producer who has, in pursuance of any direction under Part II of this Act or of any direction given in pursuance of an order made under Section ninety-five of this Act, produced any of the produce mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act is able to effect a sale thereof at the price specified in respect of such produce and where such a producer has failed to effect a sale thereof at such price through the ordinary means of trading in the said produce the appropriate Minister shall by order secure, that such producer shall be enabled to sell all the said produce so directed to be produce without limitation of quantity at the specified price to such person as may be so specified."
The noble Earl said: This is a comparatively small point, and I hope the Government will look into it. Under the Bill directions may be give to a farmer to grow a certain crop—either because he is under supervision or because of the provisions of a later clause. On the

507
other hand, under Clause (4) (1) (b) your Lordships will see that the Minister is given power to secure specified prices, subject to no specified limits of quantity, but it may well be that in the future we may find that there will not be a payment made for wheat above a certain tonnage, or for oats or potatoes and so on.
On the other hand, the Government may say that that is not likely to happen for some years to come. That is quite true. But this Bill—and there may not be anything else for a very long period, for it is being looked upon as the Charter of farming—provides that where the farmer is told that he must grow a certain acreage of crops, and he carries that order out, he may not get the specified price for the whole of the crop he is ordered to grow. In the case of potatoes you may get an enormous surplus and if you submit the matter to the Minister of Agriculture, he may say that he will pay the specified price for a certain tonnage only. It may be unfortunate for the farmer if he is told to grow a certain acreage and then finds he cannot sell all he has grown. Therefore, it is only fair that when the Government give an order to a farmer to grow a certain crop, the farmer should get the specified price for the whole of the crop he has been ordered to grow. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 5, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD CARRINGTON: I should like to support the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope. It may have happened that a farmer has been told to grow a certain crop of produce for which he finds the land unsuitable. The noble Lord, Lord Quibell, mentioned in the debate on the Second Reading that that was usually so in fact. Then, having grown it, the farmer may find that he must get rid of it, and it is only fair that he should be given the guaranteed price for what he has been ordered to grow.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: This Amendment would only have effect in two different sets of circumstances. As your Lordships are aware, when this Bill becomes an Act no more directions will be served on any farmer except on farmers under supervision, or under Clause 95 in case of emergency. In regard
508
to Clause 95, if the Minister does serve directions in a national emergency and requires certain foods to be grown, it is unthinkable that having served those directions he should then refuse to buy the produce which has been grown. I honestly think that there can be no reason for this Amendment. As regards the other question of the man under supervision a very difficult point arises. If this were inserted in the Bill and a farmer under supervision received a guarantee that his whole crop would be bought at a guaranteed price you would put him in a very favourable position in relation to all the farmers roundabout who are not under supervision.
EARL STANHOPE: A farmer under supervision would not necessarily get orders to grow a certain crop. But I say that if he is ordered to grow a certain crop he should get the guaranteed price for it.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: If he is ordered to grow a crop he can only be ordered to do so if he is under supervision; and if you guarantee him a certain price that puts him in a favourable position as compared with other farmers growing that crop who have no guarantee whatsoever. That is one of the difficulties of accepting such an Amendment as this. There is the other general point that in cases of farmers under supervision any directions which were served on them would be issued through the agency of the county committees which include very practical farmers, and it is unlikely that they would give directions to a man to grow any crop for which there was not a reasonable price. Your Lordships will remember that we are guaranteeing prices for the main crops for a considerable period ahead. I hope in these circumstances that the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I hope the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, will give further consideration to this matter. I am not suggesting that he should accept this Amendment now in its present form, but I hope that between now and the Report stage he will be able to give further consideration to the points that have been made by my noble friends. It seems to me that the machinery of this Bill does not provide for the case of a glut, which is always liable to occur in agriculture. It is possible—I do not

509
say it will occur often—that farmers may be ordered to grow a particular crop, whether under Clause 95 or under the supervision clause is immaterial, and that there may be over-production, which is always liable to occur, when these farmers who have been so ordered will be involved in very great loss indeed. That is particularly liable to occur in the case of potatoes where, if you get all the favourable circumstances, the potato price may very seriously slump.
My noble friend would say, of course, that that is inconceivable in the year 1948, or even in 1949, but I do not think it is at all inconceivable a few years hence. It does seem to me that, if Parliament is going to take powers permanently to order farmers to grow certain crops, then Parliament at the same time ought to guarantee to those farmers the stipulated price. In so far as I do not think it will often occur, it does not seem to me to be a great concession to ask of the Government, because I would point out to noble Lords opposite that, though the actual sums involved may really be comparatively small, a crop of this sort which is unsaleable or can only be sold at a very low price may mean absolute ruination to individual farmers. It is extremely important to get confidence into the agricultural industry, and therefore I suggest that if my noble friend, between now and Report, could think of some other way, if necessary, whereby this principle could be given effect to, I believe it would be a gesture that would be a great deal appreciated by the agricultural industry.
LORD HASTINGS: I wonder if Lord Huntingdon realized when referring to Clause 95 that he spoke of it only being there in case of emergency. I do not see anything about emergency in Clause 95.
EARL STANHOPE: I should like to controvert what the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill has said. He says that it is most improbable that a farmer will not get a guarantee and a good price from crops grown in times of emergency. What about cabbage? I can tell him of farmers who during the war grew cabbage which did not pay the cost of transport to the market, because there was a glut. My noble friends know that cabbage was grown, and the only thing they could do with it was to feed it to cattle, if they had
510
any, or throw it away. Therefore, so far as that being true is concerned, I think the facts that we already know controvert the argument. As regards the farmer who is under supervision being put in a better position than the farmers round about, surely that is exactly what we want to do. You want to get this man up to a high standard; you want to build him up again, to give him confidence, and make him realize that good farming pays. Therefore, if you put him ahead of the others, is there very great harm in that? It is going to make agricultural committees much more careful that the orders they would give to a farmer under supervision are the right orders, and that they realize that they have got to pay if they make a mistake.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I would like to make this comment on the two points that were raised. In practice the committees will be instructed as to what they will be required to do, and their function when a man is put under supervision will be to ensure that his farm shall be farmed according to the rules of good husbandry. It is very unlikely that he will be directed to grow a crop that would not command a reasonable price. Although you say when you put a farmer under supervision, you wish to make him feel that it is worth while improving his farm, and so forth, I imagine there will be a certain amount of disgruntlement among other farmers if they see a man who has fallen to C3 farming, being given this help. It may be that the others have had to work hard to keep their farms in A1 condition, and it would not be encouraging to them to see the C3 farmer being given a very favourable deal. I would like the noble Lord to consider those two points. Of course, it does raise certain administrative difficulties of extra grants and subsidies for these crops. I do not think they are insuperable, but they would make for great difficulty in working.
LORD CARRINGTON: The noble Earl has said that the other farmers will be disgruntled. Does the noble Lore visualize that the other farmers will not be able to get rid of their crop? In fact, it will only affect a very few cases, and it is a very small concession.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Listening to the arguments of the noble Earl opposite, it struck me that if he wanted to avoid

511
giving what he called a cause of disgruntlement, the right course would be never to give a direction except for the crops which had a guaranteed price. It was not clear whether that was the intention of the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: It is not laid down in the Bill, but I should think that would be the course followed by the committee.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: By the Minister, of course; the committee is only his agent.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Yes.
EARL STANHOPE: I do not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Good estate management.
10.—(I) For the purposes of this Act an owner of agricultural land shall be deemed to fulfil his responsibilities to manage it in accordance with the rules of good estate management in so far as his management of the land and (so far as it affects the management of that land) of other land managed by him is such as to be reasonably adequate, having regard to the character and situation of the land and other relevant circumstances, to enable an occupier of the land reasonably skilled in, husbandry to maintain efficient production as respects both the kind of produce and the quality and quantity thereof.
3.27 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1), before "other relevant circumstances," to insert "economic and". The noble Earl said: This Amendment is small in size, but it is one which is very considerable in importance. Clause 10 deals with the rules of good estate management and, as your Lordships see, it defines good estate management as being "reasonably adequate having regard to the character and situation of the land, and other relevant circumstances." I want to dispose of one small point first of all, and that is the question of "relevant circumstances." As I understand it, those words were inserted in another place, and they are designed largely to cover such circumstances as shortages of material, inability to get a licence to do
512
the work, or something of that sort; but they do not, I think, specifically cover economic circumstances, that is to say, the economic circumstances of the landowner himself.
Right through this Bill many burdens are put upon the landowner and, indeed, it is not going too far to say that there are plenty of ways by which the ordinary individual landowner, who is dependent upon the income from his land for his living, can be made bankrupt by order. He can be made to spend money in this or that direction at the behest of the Minister, without any regard anywhere in the Bill to his own personal economic circumstances. He has only one remedy, and the remedy is, presumably, to raise his rents so as to make his estate economical; but he cannot just raise his rents like that. The only way in which a man can raise his rents under this Bill is by going to arbitration. He has no other way. He cannot get rid of his tenant without the permission of the Minister and farm the land himself. He can only go to arbitration in order to improve the economic position of his estate, either as it is now or in the face of orders to spend money by the Minister. So he has only got arbitration as a means of saving himself from financial ruin. Possibly this is a small irrelevant point, but if the noble Lord has knowledge of eminent land agents who are experienced in land, they may well have told him, as they have told me, that arbitration is a very chancy thing, particularly with regard to a remedy.
There have been many, apparently, on the face of it, excellent cases put up to arbitration for the raising of rent where it either has not been raised or it has even been lowered, and the more experienced land agents are extremely shy of going to arbitration. As the noble Lord knows perfectly well, the arbitrator rather takes upon himself something in the nature of a Government Department: he gives decisions and does not give his reasons. Nobody knows what he bases his decisions on and he does sometimes produce rather curious results. It is no use blinking at the fact that 60 per cent. of the land of this country is still farmed by the landlord-and-tenant system. The days when a country estate could be financed, and was very often financed, from other sources are gone. We have

513
very nearly finished with a Bill which has dealt the final death blow to those extra sums of money brought from the towns to the country to help our country estates, and, therefore, a landed estate has to be on an economic basis.
I want to get the word "economic" into this Bill as some sort of safeguard to the owner of land. Not only is 60 per cent. of this country still being managed under the landlord-and-tenant system, but every acre of agricultural land is owned by somebody, and the man who owns that land is a landowner who will be susceptible to this. If His Majesty's Government at some future date as they think fit do nationalize the agricultural land of this country, they will have to run it on economic lines, too. I think the arguments for putting the word "economic" in here are absolutely overwhelming, and I hope that His Majesty's Government will feel disposed to accept this small but very important Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 8, after the second ("and") insert ("economic and").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
LORD HASTINGS: I would like to support the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, in his Amendment which he rightly describes as small but extraordinarily important. We did in some degree debate this matter on Second Reading, and it was then I think explained to the House by more than one speaker that the objective is not to bankrupt landowners but to discover means whereby defective maintenance can be made good. That surely must be at the back of everybody's mind in this matter. It is a fact that maintenance can be made good out of borrowed money; there is not really any shortage of available funds, provided always that the rent which either the sitting or the new tenant is prepared to pay will cover the loan charges. That is, after all, what every local authority always has to deal with; it is the basis on which they have to deal with these matters. If this particular word "economic" is accepted and is inserted in the Bill, it provides a standard whereby the agricultural land tribunal may gauge the capacity of the landowner to meet the charge which this new or improved maintenance is to impose upon him. It immediately gives to the arbitrator, who will be called in to deter-
514
mine the question of rent arising out of the determination of the Minister, a standard by which to gauge the rent.
I am certain that the noble Earl has not in his mind, any more than I have in my mind, any idea of giving the land-owner a method of escape from a reasonable and proper obligation, but a means of enabling him indirectly to accept that obligation and to recover the cost thereof. It actually goes considerably deeper than might appear superficially. That is the objective which we have in mind: to provide standards for land tribunals and arbitrators and others who have got to determine these things when they come to determine them and to endeavour, as well as they may, to achieve the objects of the Bill. I greatly hope that the Government will see their way open to accept this Amendment, which is of tremendous importance and will make for efficiency. I beg to support the Amendment.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: With regard to this Amendment, I think that the principle which we have adopted all through is not that we can decide—at least in cases of this kind—on the merits of the actual financial capabilities of the individual owners. I do not know if I quite understood the Earl of Radnor aright on this point; if I have not I hope he will correct me. The reason for the insertion of the word "economic" is that he wishes to take into consideration, I think, the personal financial position of the landowner in question. We have taken in "other relevant circumstances" which covers increased expenses or difficulty all round. We do not think we can go into the status of his finances and say "It is a great pity that this particular man has no money; he is bankrupt; therefore, we cannot expect him to pay so much money now." We cut out the individual, but by putting in "relevant circumstances" we have embraced all the relevant factors which will come into play.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: "Economic circumstances of the land concerned": I do not mean to say that you are to take into account the fact that the landowner has spent his money on riotous living and is therefore bankrupt. It is simply the "economic circumstances of the land concerned," that is to say, the rent of the land in relation to the outgoings on that land. In my own case, my rents are less than my outgoings anyhow.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: In support of this Amendment may I point out that the Amendment says nothing at all about "economic circumstances" of the landowner? It is relating the standard of maintenance to the economic circumstances of the land. That surely is of fundamental importance. I cannot conceive that there can be any objection to this Amendment.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: If the noble Earl feels strongly about this, without in any way committing the Government to accept his Amendment, I will examine it again before the Report stage.
EARL DE LA WARR: Did I understand the noble Earl to say he would reconsider this matter?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Yes, without committing ourselves in any way to accepting the Amendment, I will look at it again. If the noble Earl would accept that from me perhaps he would withdraw his Amendment now.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: With that assurance I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment, and I will put it down again on Report in order to give the noble Earl an opportunity of giving us the result of his reconsideration, unless of course he puts down the Amendment himself. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Good husbandry.
(2) In determining whether the manner in which a unit is being farmed is such as aforesaid regard shall be had, but without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of the last foregoing subsection, to the extent to which—

(e) the necessary steps are being taken for the protection and preservation of crops harvested or lifted, or in course of being harvested or lifted;

(f) the necessary work of maintenance and repair is being carried out.

LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON had given Notice of two manuscript Amendments to paragraph (f) of subsection (2)—namely, after "(f)" to insert "every effort is being made to carry out" and to leave out "is being carried out." The noble Lord said: This is a very modest
516
Amendment. The object is that paragraph (f) should read "every effort is being made to carry out the work of maintenance and repair" instead of "the necessary work of maintenance and repair is being carried out." At the present time when it is very hard indeed to get a building licence and when building materials and labour are very short, it is quite proper that the necessary work of maintenance and repair should be carried out. I feel therefore that it would be just and it would possibly make misunderstanding less easy, to say that "every effort is being made" and not that "the necessary work…is being carried out."
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: May I ask on a point of order what exactly the terms of this Amendment are?
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: It is a manuscript Amendment to page 8, line 16, after "(f)" insert the words "every effort is being made to carry out" and leave out the words "is being carried out."
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 16, after ("(f)") insert ("every effort is being made to carry out"). —(Lord Carrington.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I do not really think that this is quite as necessary as the noble Lord seems to think, because I would draw his notice again to the phrase "relevant circumstances." In this respect everything would be considered. "Relevant cirsumstances," after all, has an exceedingly wide meaning. I think that the noble Earl's point is thoroughly covered, and I hope, therefore, that he will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: It undoubtedly is true that what the noble Earl has said should be so. But surely the wording in the Bill does impose the obligation to see that the work that is necessary is being carried out, and not simply work which is desirable in the circumstances. It seems to me that the words of the Bill impose the obligation to see that the work which is being carried out is necessary. What the noble Earl has said, I think, is quite right, but it is not what the Bill says in fact. We all know, and I need not labour the point, that it is extremely difficult to get building materials to do maintenance repairs

517
whether necessary or not. There is bound to be a time lag of months or even longer during which it would be true to say that necessary work, maintenance, repair work and so on, is not being carried out, not because anyone thinks that it is unnecessary, but because it is not possible to do it. I think, therefore, that there is rather more point in what my noble friend Lord Carrington has urged than might appear at first sight.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I appreciate what the noble Viscount has said, but I do submit that when you have, as we have in this clause, the words "reasonable" and "relevant circumstances," in this connexion, then this point is covered. No one could reasonably expect someone to carry out repairs when he could not get the necessary material, labour or licences or whatever it may be. I repeat that in my view the words to which I have referred cover this very fully.
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON. Although he says that my point is covered, the noble Earl does not seem to have any great objection to the words which I want to insert. Therefore, I should have thought that he could have accepted the Amendment. I will have this considered again and see whether, in fact, my point is covered. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:
"(3) The Minister shall use his best endeavours to secure the production or importation of such supplies of phosphates and potash as are essential to the maintenance of soil fertility."
The noble Viscount said: Clause 11 (2) provides that in determining the manner in which a unit is being farmed, regard shall be had inter alia to the extent to which—
"(a) permanent pasture is being properly mown or grazed and maintained in a good state of cultivation and fertility and in good condition."
I hope that the noble Earl will do me the courtesy of listening to this carefully, as it is rather a precise point which I wish to put to him.
Members of the Committee probably know that there are three manurial ingredients which are essential fertilizers in agriculture in this country. They are nitrogen, phosphoric acid, which is sometimes called phosphates, and potash. So far as nitrogen is concerned we have, fortunately, at Billingham, in the hands of Imperial Chemical Industries, provision for the manufacture from the air, with the help of electricity, of abundant supplies of nitrates; but that does not apply to either phosphates or potash. As matters stand, and as your Lordships probably know, the bulk of the permanent pasture in this country to-day, to which we shall in the future again have to look to provide to the fullest extent for the output of milk and meat, is suffering from phosphate starvation. As matters stand, the farming community are unable to get anything like adequate supplies of phosphates to maintain fertility in this regard. A year ago, and so far as I know it is true to-day, a very large proportion of the North African rock phosphates upon which we depend, after treatment with sulphuric acid, for the supply of our phosphates, was sent by Government edict to Central Europe. That may or may not be a desirable thing to do; but it is not providing the farmers of this country, especially those who have permanent pasture, with the requisites to enable them to maintain the fertility of their land.
The same thing applies more or less to potash. The bulk of the potash hitherto employed upon agricultural land in Europe has come from Germany, something like 80 per cent. coming from Stassfurt and other neighbouring deposits. There, again, the supplies are not obtainable within the borders of this country; they have to come from abroad. Anyone who crossed a good part of England in attending the Royal Show the week before last will have realized what a serious deficiency of potash is obvious in the crops that are to be found, at any rate, in the East Midlands to-day. It was evident in the shortage of straw which results more from lack of potash than from anything else, and the very poor crops of potatoes—for which potash is so eminently an essential fertilizer.
That being so, the matter is very much in the hands of the Government, and I ask in this Amendment—and I do not think it is asking too much—that:

519
"The Minister shall use his best endeavours to secure the production or importation of such supplies of phosphates and potash as are essential to the maintenance of soil fertility."
I would remind the Committee that where there is a phosphate deficiency there will be a serious hampering of the output of milk as well as of meat. Phosphates are essential to the supply of milk, and they are essential to the bones and the formative structure of every animal upon a farm. Speaking, if I may say so, to some extent as an agricultural scientist and one who has presided in his day over the chief agricultural research station in this country (an office which my noble friend the Earl of Radnor now occupies), I do hope the Government will be good enough to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 17, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Bledisloe.)
LORD MORRISON: I have been asked to reply to this Amendment, and I hope that the noble Viscount will not think it is presumptuous of me to reply to him upon a subject upon which he is so well recognized as an authority. As the noble Viscount knows, I have been interested in this subject for some time, albeit not to the extent to which he has. I agree almost entirely with what he has said as to the shortage of phosphates and potash and the evil results arising therefrom. My difficulty is that I cannot see how the adoption of the noble Viscount's Amendment would make any difference. If I may say so—and I am sure the noble Viscount will recognize that I am not seeking to be disrespectful—it is a declaration and not an Amendment. He asks that the Minister shall use his best endeavours to secure the production or importation of supplies of these fertilizers. I think it would be somewhat novel in an Act of Parliament—and it is questionable if it would be setting a good example—that we should select certain things in the Act and state that in respect to them the Minister should use his best endeavours. That, I am afraid, would be interpreted as meaning that in other parts he should not use his best endeavours. All I can say is that it is expected that the Minister will use his best endeavours to increase the supplies of these much needed articles, but it is also expected he will use his best endeavours in all other direc-
520
tions as well, and if he does not he ought not to remain Minister much longer. I hope the noble Lord will realize that his Amendment does not meet what he and the Minister and the Government are anxious to do, and I regret I am unable to accept it.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I am not altogether convinced by the logic of my noble friend's reply. I would point out that here you have an obligation laid upon every farmer to maintain his grassland in a good state of fertility. If the poor man cannot maintain it in a good state of fertility owing to the action of the Government, surely it is not illogical or indeed unusual to insert a declaration that to protect the interests of those who have permanent pasture the Government should do their best to see that supplies of these essential fertilizers are forthcoming. I appear to be wholly unsupported in regard to this Amendment and I feel I have no option but to ask leave to withdraw it, but I want to express the earnest hope that what has been happening during this last year will not continue in years to come. It is really quite impossible to carry on when supplies of raw materials are not forthcoming although it is in the power of the Government to see that they are.
Amendment, by leave, with drawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Power of Minister to supervise estate management and husbandry.
12.—(I) Where the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (hereafter in this Act referred to as "the Minister") is satisfied that the owner of agricultural land is not fulfilling his responsibilities to manage the land in accordance with the rules of good estate management, or that the occupier of an agricultural unit is not fulfilling his responsibilities to farm the unit in accordance with the rules of good husbandry, the Minister, after affording to the owner or occupier, as the case may be, an opportunity of making representations to the Minister, whether in writing or on being heard by a person appointed by the Minister, may by order (hereafter in this Part of this Act referred to as a "supervision order") place the owner under the Minister's supervision so far as relates to his management of the land, or the occupier under the Minister's supervision so far as relates to his farming of the unit, as the case may be; and while such an order is in force—

(a) any person authorised by the Minister in that behalf may at all reasonable times enter upon the land to which the order relates for the purpose of inspecting the way in which it is being managed or farmed, as the case may be;

521

(b) the Minister shall have the powers of direction and dispossession conferred by the following provisions of this Part of this Act.

THE DUKE OF RUTLAND THE DUKE OF RUTLAND moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), after "times," to insert "after due notice." The noble Duke said: The object of this Amendment is to require the Minister's servants to give notice of entry when they propose to inspect. It is unreasonable to expect notice in ordinary cases of inspection, such as, for instance, those for subsidy payment, but it is of vital importance that notice of entry should be given when the inspection may ultimately lead to a supervision order or the dispossession of a farmer or landowner. It is largely a matter of common courtesy that the servants of the Minister in cases of inspection should be obliged to give due notice. I understand that that is being done by a large number of agricultural committees at the present time, so it will merely be incorporating in the Bill what is already a prevalent practice. Another point is that if the owner or farmer is present when the inspection is about to take place, he can be asked questions directly and a great deal of time and paper can be saved. We ought to deplore the tendency to perpetuate in permanent legislation the wide powers of entry which were granted during the war and the emergency period, and I can see no reason why the Government should not accept this perfectly simple Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 43, after ("times") insert ("after due notice").—(The Duke of Rutland.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I hope the Government will be able to meet us on this Amendment. It is quite true, as the noble Duke said, that this is not a tremendous question, of policy, but it is a matter of courtesy that before you go on a man's land, particularly with a view to examining it for a supervision order, you should give him notice. When an officer of a committee or a member of a district committee inspects land, it might, occasionally, be somewhat embarrassing for him to feel that he had not given notice and ought not to go on that land. It will create a great deal of trouble if we break up what has hitherto been an excellent relationship. The Amendment does not necessarily mean that a committee man passing by a farm
522
and noticing something he thinks he should inspect, is prevented from going upon the land if he has not given notice. He can quite easily go on and ask the farmer if he can look round, and in 95 per cent. of cases that would be perfectly all right. What we want to see in the Bill is that the occupier should have notice before anyone comes prying on his land. The noble Earl opposite has tried to help us on many points and we are anxious not to get into the spirit which arises out of a number of divisions. We are having a very useful discussion, and I ask him seriously to consider this Amendment. I suggest that it might possibly help him if the Amendment were to read "either in company with the occupier or after due notice"—it would loosen it up a good deal from his point of view, and I think he should give consideration to some such words.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I hope the Minister will be able to meet the noble Duke's Amendment. I do not see how an inspection can be officially carried out unless there is somebody there to answer questions. There are reasons for everything that is to be seen, and the real question is whether it is a good reason or a bad. All sorts of unnecessary trouble might be caused if a Government official can go wandering over people's land and form his own deductions without first ascertaining all the relevant facts. The noble Earl stressed the importance a few moments ago of taking the relevant facts into consideration. I think the relevant facts are very germane to an inspection of this sort, and there may be a perfectly simple, good explanation why a certain thing is in the condition it is, which would satisfy the inspector at once. I suggest he should be under the obligation to try to secure the presence and co-operation of the owner or occupier when he makes an inspection. If he is to be encouraged to come in secretly, all sorts of bad feeling, misunderstanding and perfectly unnecessary friction might be caused. It seems to me also an opportunity for other people to enter upon land, claiming to be representatives of the Ministry, and that means a great deal of unnecessary trouble. I hope the noble Earl will be able to give this matter his sympathetic consideration.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I venture to hope that the noble Earl will see what he

523
can do to meet what seems to be reasonable criticism of this clause as it stands. After all, when someone suddenly appears on a farm, it is going to be very difficult to know whether that person is really authorized by the Government, or whether he is a suitable person to express an opinion upon the matter upon which he has been commissioned. I cannot help thinking, for the sake of peace and harmony as between the agricultural populalation and the Government and their officials, that it would be worth while for the Government to accept such an Amendment as this. My only doubt is as to whether the word "due" is sufficiently precise. I cannot help thinking, if you were to indicate the minimum notice that would be fair and proper—say, after at least forty-eight hours' notice, or words to that effect—there might be no quibble hereafter as to what constituted "due notice."
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I would like to support this Amendment. As I understand it, the Amendment applies to a case where a supervision order is in force. One can well imagine that an owner or occupier who knows that he is under a supervision order would be very nervous and bothered in not knowing when somebody might turn up; and he might misunderstand what is being done to carry out the supervision order. I do think it is important for the committees, on behalf of the Minister, to have the enthusiastic co-operation and friendliness of the farmers and landowners. If people are afraid of sudden invasion by an official, or by one of their friends or neighbours as a member of the district committee, they would not feel that they were being treated with the confidence which is needed in order to get them to co-operate. For those reasons, I hope that something on the lines suggested by the Amendment may be included in the Bill.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I appreciate the point of view of the noble Duke who moved this Amendment. As the noble Viscount who has just sat down suggested, our whole object is to get accord and good feeling between the county committees and the landlords. We intend to use the committees as the linchpin of the whole policy, and every effort will be made to get them to work in the best possible relations with the farmers,
524
the landowners, or whoever it may be with whom they have to deal. At the same time, we are anxious to avoid too much "red tape," which has often been criticized by noble Lords on the Benches opposite. The case might arise where an officer was out in the country visiting farms, and he might find that his journey had taken a little shorter time than he expected, or that there was less to see. He might then have time to go and look at an extra farm, but he would not be able to do so because of the limitation put down by this Amendment.
The answer to that—no doubt the noble Duke has thought of it—would be that one could send out several notices, and then go and see farm after farm. But then would arise the difficult position of farmers being kept waiting to see the man who may never turn up, and they would probably get extremely irritated. In practice, we always instruct committees to give reasonable notice and, whenever possible, they do so. However, I must say I have been impressed by the feeling which noble Lords have shown on this matter, in suggesting that it would not work, or that it would be better to amend the clause. If the noble Duke would withdraw the Amendment, we would be glad to consider this matter between now and Report stage, and see if we can agree on some Amendment to suit the case.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Before the noble Duke withdraws the Amendment, I would like to say in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, that I do not think that in his example he really visualizes the situation correctly. The example he gave was that one of these inspectors might find he had more time than he expected, and would want to go on to another farm, and that he could not do so unless he had given due notice. That, surely, would be solved by the inspector going to the farmhouse and asking for permission as a matter of courtesy, as was suggested by my noble friend Earl De La Warr. At the present moment I have not the right to go walking over the noble Earl's land without saying a word to him, but I would hope that if I called at his house and asked if I might go into a field he would not be unreasonable.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Delighted at any time.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. The point is that the Government are taking statutory power for these inspectors to walk about these fields as much as they like, and that is a different position from that obtaining to-day. If you are going to take statutory power—which I agree is necessary—then you must surely take trouble to ensure that the common courtesies of life are observed.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am very glad that the noble Earl is prepared to reconsider his decision. I am only wondering what sort of position the House is getting into, because, so far, the noble Earl has not accepted any Amendment. He is virtually postponing the whole of the Committee stage to Report. I would suggest to the noble Earl that it is time he accepted an Amendment, with the full understanding that the Government will examine it between now and Report stage, and see whether they have any suggestions to make as to its redrafting. Whether we should move it in the form I have suggested, of a manuscript Amendment, or in its original form, I really do not mind. I leave that to the noble Earl to say. I do think the time has come when perhaps, in addition to all his beneficence, the noble Earl might actually accept an Amendment.
THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: I thank the noble Earl for his assurances, but I feel that this is one of the few nonpolitical Amendments which the noble Earl could accept without getting into trouble in another place.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I very much regret that this position should have arisen. We now have the original Amendment, and there have been further words suggested by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. Obviously I cannot accept these new words without examining them more fully. I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that one word out of place in a Bill may produce endless complications. I will gladly look at it again, and discuss the matter before Report stage, but I cannot commit myself to accepting the Amendment straight away.
EARL DE LA WARR: I realize that what the noble Earl says is right; that a word wrong in a Bill might do permanent harm; but he will appreciate that that is really the purpose of having a Report
526
stage after Committee. If, therefore, he will be good enough to accept this Amendment, we shall appreciate that he does so on the full understanding that he is free to redraft it for Report stage.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I do not pretend to lay down the law constitutionally, as there are many noble and learned Lords here who know better. I do not think that I can accept an Amendment which would need redrafting, but we do intend to look into this and be as helpful as we can.
THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: I thank the noble Earl, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH moved, after subsection (4) to insert:
"(5) A supervision order shall not take effect until the expiration of a period of one month after the date upon which notices thereof have been served as provided in the last foregoing subsection and if within the said period either the owner or the occupier of the land in question so required the matter shall be referred to the Agricultural Land Tribunal established under Part V of this Act, and the provisions in that behalf of the said Part V shall apply accordingly."
The noble Earl said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend, Lord Savile. I think that all your Lordships will recognize that supervision is a very serious first step in control of the owner or the farmer. In fact one might also say that supervision is the first banana peel on the path to dispossession. Because it is so serious I feel certain that your Lordships will agree that it should not be entered into without the individual concerned having the fullest opportunity to seek justice on his case at this stage.
It is perfectly true that 999 times out of 1,000 no committee—in this case the Minister's agent—would put a man under supervision without very serious reasons. On the other hand, there may be that odd case. Apart from that, there is quite another side to be looked at. The owner or occupier, the man who is going to be put under supervision, will probably receive orders which will involve him in the expenditure of money. That will mean that his credit will be most searchingly looked into by the bank, the mortgage corporation, the merchants and everybody with whom he may have an account. It is going to place him in an

527
exceedingly difficult position unless the supervision order can be shown to his own satisfaction to be justice, with the possibility of an appeal to a tribunal if necessary. Of course, one can see the difficulties. First of all, there is quite clearly the difficulty of the committee not wanting to be passed over at this stage. There is also a danger—though I think it would vanish very quickly—of the overloading of the appeal tribunals themselves. But consider the very serious position in which the owner-occupier is placed. If he receives a supervision order as a farmer his credit will be looked into as an owner, and if he receives a supervision order as an owner his credit will be looked into as a farmer. With all those difficulties in view, I think it would be only common justice to allow to the person affected the chance of an appeal to a tribunal.
LORD SAVILE: I should like very briefly to support what my noble friend the Earl of Portsmouth has said. I do not see any reason why under this clause a farmer under supervision should not have power to appeal to the land tribunal. After all, the county agricultural executive committee are a very able body, but they are not judges as well as assessors. They are not trained legal people, and I think it is only right that if this supervision order should eventually lead to dispossession, the man concerned should straight away have an appeal to the land tribunal. In Clauses 17 and 19, the farmer is able to do this. But there are no provisions at all under the clause we are now discussing, and I do hope that this will be looked into.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: May I add a word upon this, because I think it is important that we should get this question of supervision in its right perspective? I know, of course, that the intention of supervision is that either a farm or estate placed under supervision should be guided back into the paths of either proper estate management or proper husbandry. That is all very laudable and an excellent intention, and one hopes it will take place. But there is another intention inherent in supervision. It is the first step to dispossession. You cannot dispossess a man of his farm or estate until he has been under supervision. The noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, too, has
528
explained what effect it may have upon their credit.
I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to another point—that of the man who is vis-à-vis a tenant who is put under supervision. Once that tenant is under supervision he is completely out of the control of his landlord for so long as he remains under supervision. That landlord cannot give notice under any circumstances whatsover; therefore, from the point of view of the owner of land who lets his land to other people, it is a very important step to take, and one in which I think he should have the right of appeal to a more impartial tribunal than the Minister. After all, an appeal to the Minister is making him judge in his own case, as has so often been said in this Rouse in other connexions.
I would put it is high as this: Appeal against supervision orders is more important than appeal against disposssession orders. Supervision comes first, and every effort will be made, presumably by the county committees, to ensure that the man under supervision will be made a better man. It will be only after the most tremendous efforts, and in the clearest possible cases, that a man will be dispossessed of either his farm or his estate. They are cases which are not really very susceptible to appeal because they are generally so clear, whereas in the case of supervision it is much more shady; it is much more a matter of opinion. In the case of supervision, I think that it is very important that there should be an appeal to some impartial body. I do not want unnecessarily to overload the land tribunal —or whatever body is responsible—but I do think that this question of appeal against supervision is one of the vital points.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: There is another point I would like to add on this. We speak about the county agricultural executive committee, but we must remember that there is always a danger of certain county agricultural executive committees being in the hands of their permanent officials. It is a danger attaching to all such committees—a danger against which the committee have to guard, and against which everybody concerned has to guard. We all know from our experience in public life, however, that it does from time to time happen. Therefore, if you have a weak or over-worked committee it may

529
quite well be that decisions of this sort pass too much into the hands of their permanent officials, especially if those officials happen to be of a masterful character. Under those circumstances, an individual error of judgment by one official might bring about the most serious consequences, such as the noble Earl who has moved this Amendment has described. It does seem to me of very great importance indeed that there should be a right of appeal at this stage.
I do not know how many of your Lordships read the judgment of Mr. Justice Wrottesley in the Odlam case. That occurred during the war. I do not profess to know anything about the facts of this case, except what I read in the long and detailed judgment of which I received a verbatim copy, but certainly the impression conveyed to the impartial lay mind was that a very great error of judgment had been made. In view of the extremely serious results it may have to individual farmers I think we should not be safeguarding the liberties of the subject properly unless there were a right of appeal at this particular stage.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: This question of impartial tribunals has been raised on other Bills recently before your Lordships' House. The impartiality of a tribunal depends to a large extent upon its remoteness from the scene of the dispossession or supervision. The further away it is, the more likely are its results to be received in good part by everybody concerned. One of the difficulties of the proposed procedure is that the authority is too close to the person who is supervized. The further the decision is taken away from the county the more likely is it to be well received. If we are to have this procedure let us try to arrange matters so that everybody will feel that they have had a square deal. I believe that this Amendment is one way to make people feel that.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: It has been a great satisfaction to me that we have had so much accord on this Bill; but this is one of the questions on which there is a serious division of opinion. I should like to make this point: that supervision should be looked upon as a helpful action. It is not a punishment or a penal or frightening gesture. This is a question of a had "C/" farmer, who should be dispossessed of his land unless he can
530
improve it, but in order to mitigate the sudden blow this procedure will help him by providing a stage during which we can give assistance. It will help the farmer on the road to recovery. It will show him how he can be a better farmer, how he can manage his estate, if it is an estate, or grow his crops better if it is a farm. Therefore, I do not want, and I do not wish your Lordships, to look on this supervision as anything but an intermediate stage in which we try to rescue what appears to be an extremely bad, or possibly a hopeless case.
EARL STANHOPE: You would not be helping the farmer if he is not given a guaranteed price for what he is ordered to grow.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I admit the noble Lord's point, but it would be very unlikely that any committee would in practice order him to grow anything for which he would not receive a reasonable return. We must remember that the order to appear before the Minister's representative will not be a sudden blow. He will be warned, and he will have the right to be heard. But if in spite of this representation, the committee were still of the opinion that it was necessary to put a man under supervision, it would be done. It has been said that there should be a further appeal. It was suggested, I think, by the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, that a farmer's credit or landowner's credit might suffer through supervision. That is possibly true; on the other hand, it is possibly true that it might increase the man's credit. If people can see that a man is being helped and guided, his credit might improve.
I said on the Second Reading of this Bill that our criterion was efficient production, and that land should be properly managed and farmed. That is what we set out to do in this Bill, particularly in this Part of it. It is a final step to turn a man out from his holding or his estate or farm, and it is obviously an important and serious step—although in practice during the war I do not think we ever had or at any rate, we very rarely had—any suggestion made that dispossessed farmers were wrongly dispossessed. In fact, if anything the criticism has been rather the other way. Yet, in order to ensure that no injustice can possibly be done we are providing this final appeal to a Tribunal.

531
It would be a great mistake to pile appeal on appeal. In the first place it would interfere enormously with the machinery of the Bill so far as the tribunal were concerned, and it would not do very much good. I think that in questions of fact it would be quite undesirable. Therefore, I do earnestly suggest, although I know there is feeling on this subject, that in view of the final appeal to the tribunal, supervision should be allowed to take place without appeal. If we do not allow this I feel that the responsibility of the committees will be seriously impaired. We must have the very best men we can get on these committees, and if at different stages they are not allowed to exert their authority we shall find we shall not get them at all.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: In view of what the noble Earl has said, I should like to withdraw the Amendment, not with a very happy heart or a very good grace. The argument which my noble friend has put forward is an argument on workability rather than on reasoned principle. On the justice side I do not think that perhaps the matter is so arguable; but on the workable side there is a very strong argument in its favour. This is just one of those times when it may be necessary, though against one's sense of just values, to withdraw. I should have thought that committees which had been backed up once or twice by the land tribunal as having given just decisions would be in a much stronger position in the future. Be that as it may, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
Directions to secure good estate management and good husbandry.
(3) Any direction requiring only the doing of one or more of the following things, that is to say, the provision, improvement, maintenance or repair of fixed equipment, which could be given under subsection (1) of this section while a supervision order is in force may be given notwithstanding that no such order is in force.
4.2q p.m.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection (3), at the end, to insert:
532
"Provided that no direction shall be given either while a supervision order is in force or otherwise which shall alter the character of a holding from that which existed when the contract or tenancy agreement was made."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with what I think is a rather important point. It is in regard to the erection of buildings which may change the character of a holding altogether. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, may say that it is essential to keep this power; if so, I must ask the noble Earl why it was not found essential to have the power during the whole of the war period, when it was vital that we should grow every scrap of food we could.
I think a good many people do not realize that a tenancy agreement is a contract between two parties. I know of no industry in which the State takes power to break a contract for the benefit of one of the partners; yet that is what is being proposed under this clause. You may take the case of a mixed farm where, after some years, the farmer says: "I wish to go in for pig breeding," and he applies to his landlord to put up the necessary buildings for pig breeding. That is supported by the officials of the Ministry, including the agricultural committee who are also agents for the Ministry, who may be pressed very hard to increase our supply of fats in this country. Very well then, the landowner is compelled to put up these buildings. After a year or two the tenant fails, he gives one year's notice, which he is entitled to do at any time, and out he goes at the end of the year. He finds that, as probably a good many people might have told him, there is no bacon factory near at hand, and therefore he cannot rear pigs at a profit, the profit being swallowed up in transport charges.
You may take a man who has a mixed farm, and has decided to go in for milk entirely. Then he asks for a very large increase in cattle sheds, a very expensive building to put up in these days under the health regulations. He finds after a period that milk production is not quite so simple as he thought it was and out he goes, having failed to make good at it. Then the next tenant, who comes along recommended by the Minister, says that he thinks that the character of the land, and so on, is such that it ought to go back to being a mixed farm, as it was before. Meanwhile, the unfortunate

533
landowner has been called upon to erect these expensive buildings, and he cannot get any return on his capital because the tenants who then come into the farm say that they do not require those buildings, that they do not think them necessary or desirable and, therefore, they refuse to pay any interest on them. I suggest that where a farm is let as a particular kind of farm, whether milk or mixed, or whatever it may be, the contract shall not be altered by order of the Minister unless the landowner approves and give his consent. Therefore, I suggest that it is right to put into the Bill that you cannot give an order to erect buildings which shall alter the character of the farm. It seems to me that it is only a fair provision to put in, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 6, at end insert the said proviso.—(Earl Stanhope.)
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I would like to take this opportunity of supporting the Amendment. This is a thing which may well arise very often in practice. I refer back to Clause 10, which specifies the rules of good estate management, and deals with the providing, improving, maintaining and repairing of fixed equipment, and so on, so that the occupier may maintain efficient production. That I understand to mean that he may continue to farm the land in the same way as it was when he took it over; whereas, if it was possible to make an order specifying an entirely different type of building, it would be not a question of maintaining the production as it was, but of altering it.
This question of alteration in buildings can frequently arise, as in the case mentioned by the noble Earl who has just sat down. There are many cases where it is decided between the parties to the contract that it is a wise and sensible thing to do, farms are altered and additional buildings are built, and so it goes on. Even in these cases there is, of course, the risk that the tenant may decide to give up whatever he is doing and the buildings may be wasted. It is his fault if he has agreed to pay so much extra rent on account of getting extra buildings. The next tenant also may very well take the farm on and say that he will not pay so much rent for it, because the buildings are not suitable to what he thinks is the right kind of farming to be carried out on this land. So, in relation to that, a
534
direction to alter the type of land in that way without the agreement of the two primary parties is a thing which may very well be quite wrong, and do a lot of harm. Of course, if this Amendment were adopted it would be perfectly possible for the thing to go on as it does at present. Additional buildings can be put up in cases where it is agreed by all parties that it is a wise and proper thing to do.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I should like very briefly to support my noble friend, especially from the point of view of one particular aspect, and that is beef versus milk. I ought to say that I come from a milk-producing county, where I have some farm land and I manage my own property. There is all the difference in the world, as the noble Earl who sits opposite knows, between the fixed equipment of a stock-rearing farm and that of a dairy farm. In the last ten years the tendency has been all towards dairy farming, and landlords have had to do everything they can in order to provide the very much more expensive equipment to produce milk. It is thought now that the milk policy will go on for some time; but one never knows, there may be a sudden swing back towards beef, and these directions will have to have a background in the Government agricultural policy at any given time.
One is very likely to be faced with directions of this sort which will be in conformity with the agricultural doctrine of a particular person, but which will represent a dead loss to the landowner who puts up these buildings. Are we altogether free from the possibility that we may get two directions one alter another in a relatively short space of time compared to the life of the buildings, as for instance to fit the buildings up for milk and then to fit them up for beef? It does seem to me, for all those reasons, that some sort of precaution is needed more than is given in the Bill for that, and in fact that is provided for in this Amendment.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: May I support this Amendment and put a point which might arise, to take the case of the cowshed in particular? If a landlord and tenant between them agree, then it is their joint responsibility, but it is quite possible to visualize a situation where, owing to modern developments, in a couple

535
of years these expensive cowsheds will be quite redundant and unnecessary, and that is a very unfair thing if there is no agreement.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: This Amendment has been put very forcibly by many noble Lords, but there are certain difficulties which I should like to try to explain. In the first place it has been suggested that these buildings might be put up at a great expense, and that the landlord would not be able to recover compensation or, at least, the equivalent in rent; in other words that he would not be able to get increased rent for the extra value of his holding. That particular point is covered by Clause 35, which is an arbitration clause. The landlord can increase the rent of his holding and, should the tenant object to that, he can go to arbitration, and the arbitrator must take such things into account as would give the landlord the remuneration for the extra improvements.
However, there is the question which is a much more fundamental one: the possibilities of the committees, who would be the actual people in these cases, trying to put over an individual opinion; that is to say, if they believed for the time being in dairy cattle, or in beef cattle, they might swing on to that side, and try to give permission to the tenant to erect a very expensive building which, in later years, would not have quite the same value. But we must consider this point, that if the Amendment were accepted it would put the committees in an extremely difficult position, because in many cases the character of a holding would have to be altered. It might be that there was an excessive amount of permanent pasture which had been laid down and which was quite unwarranted in the circumstances. If this Amendment were passed it would put them in a position where they could not place a farmer under supervision or issue directions at all. Alternatively they could not, even if the farm was not under supervision, make any suggestions to a landlord or give consent to a tenant in respect of something that was obviously important and wanted, perhaps quite reasonably, by the tenant.
I think that the noble Lords have rather taken the attitude that the committee will consist of very unreasonable people and, although we cannot
536
guarantee that every member of a committee will be reasonable, the committees do, on the whole, act with a certain amount of reason and consideration. In this case—that of altering the character of a holding—I cannot conceive of a committee taking the responsibility of the Minister or the Minister actually taking the responsibility of ordering a man to alter the whole character of his holding at enormous expense, unless it was a very reasonable thing to do. They must err on the side of conservatism in that respect. I think for that reason it would be such a limiting force to alter the character of the holding that we could not accept the Amendment as it stands.
EARL STANHOPE: I am afraid I do not accept the noble Earl's argument in reply. Of course, the landowner can get interest from the sitting tenant for an improvement to his buildings. The important point is that when the sitting tenant, having given a year's notice, leaves the farm, the new tenant says: "This landowner was perfectly right. This farm is not fitted to be a dairy farm and it ought to go back as an arable farm. Therefore I am not prepared to pay interest on those buildings because they are perfectly useless to me." The noble Earl says that one must expect agricultural committees to be reasonable. Of course we do, but there are people who are unreasonable in all walks of life and in all sorts of professions, and we shall not find exceptions amongst agricultural committees. Sometimes they will be unreasonable, and an Amendment of this kind will secure that they cannot do the unreasonable thing. It seems to me that it is only fair and just to the landowner. In regard to any improvement of the buildings, that, of course, is already provided for in Part III, under which a farmer can make improvements to his buildings and can get compensation for them. If he fails and goes out he will have to pay for compensation in addition to dilapidations.
EARL DE LA WARR: The only thing I really liked about the noble Earl's reply when he said that he could not accept this Amendment were the words "as it stands." Those words offer us just a small crumb of comfort, and if the noble Earl will say he will consider the point again before Report, he will give a great

537
deal of comfort to your Lordships, because I do not suppose there is really one of us who has not been caught on this point at some time in his own individual estate management. I do ask the noble Earl to believe me that it is not merely a question of submitting that the committees are going to be unreasonable; there are times, when the case for an agricultural development looks absolutely unanswerable, when the very best committee might be tempted to order some developments. In a few years' time, maybe five years or maybe as long as ten years' time, that particular development may be found to be utterly out of date and not wanted.
The noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, mentioned cowsheds; he was thinking of the modern development of cowshed construction now. Some other noble Lord mentioned the question of possibly the whole development in increased milk production not going on for ever. My own personal view is that, with the very slight increase in the cow population at present going on, if our present cows were free from disease and had plenty of feeding-stuffs and the management were all the better, we could have all the milk needed in this country. Before that takes place, some landowners might have been asked to put in a new cowshed at immense expense. They cannot get out of their interest charges by giving a year's notice, as the tenant can. Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl in using those words that he could not accept the Amendment "as it stands" really meant what he implied, that there was some other form that we might perhaps be able to discuss. I quite recognize that there are two or three points that are quite valid which will have to be met; it might be possible to come to some agreed Amendment at a later stage of the Bill.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I earnestly hope that before the Report stage is reached, the noble Earl and his advisers will give very serious consideration to the arguments which have been adduced in support of this particular Amendment. It may be that the Amendment is not framed in such words as would be acceptable to the noble Earl, but speaking quite frankly, there is no provision in the whole of this Bill that I regard with more alarm than that which would encourage or induce or permit a farmer to alter the whole character of his
538
land at the ultimate expense of his landlord. The same difficulty, as it seems to me, arises over Part II of the Third Schedule. There the Minister apparently, on his own motion, can authorize buildings and equipment to be provided, altering, possibly, the whole character of the farm, with the ultimate detriment to the landowner, as is quite possible, the successor of the farmer may decide to revert to that system of agriculture which tradition has proved to be most suitable to the area and which probably, in accordance with much sound agricultural tradition, is the best mode of management or cultivation. I was very much impressed by the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Bridgeman, and indeed I do not quite see what answer can be given to the submissions which be has made except by accepting at least the principle of the Amendment moved by the noble Earl.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, used an argument, in rebutting the Amendment, which I thought was a very remarkable one. He suggested that it might be necessary to convert a part of an arable farm and, therefore, obviously the character of the holding would require to be changed; the buildings required for that holding would have to be put up, and it would be wrong so to limit the power of the Minister as the Amendment proposes. He forgets that we are dealing with men who are under supervision. Is it seriously suggested that a man who is under supervision has been put under supervision because his farm is a pastoral farm and ought to be arable? If he has been put under supervision as a pastoral farmer and has been found to be inadequate as a pastoral farmer, he would have been put under a supervision order with the intention of making him a better pastoral farmer. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, quoted a very curious analogy in that respect. The noble Earl has already mentioned it twice, and it really is the crux of this matter. The tenant farmer is under no obligation to do more than one years' notice. He is a free agent; the landowner is not. The tenant farmer, under the new Bill and under the present law, is entitled to give his year's notice and get out. The landowner stands an enormous risk of being left with a converted holding at his expense and

539
against his judgment when that particular tenant for whom the conversion was made has gone, and the new tenant finds that the buildings required by his predecessor are not suitable for his purpose.
I suppose that every landowner has had the same experience as I have had. At this present moment, I have two farms both converted at my personal expense into dairy farms. Both have been deserted by the dairy farmers, and they are now occupied by stock farmers. The whole of the money spent on those two dairy farms has, therefore, been completely wasted. It is true that part of the dairy buildings still stand, and it may be that in course of time they will be again occupied by dairy farmers, but not without rehabilitation, and not without practically as much money being spent on them again as was spent on them originally. I have not only these two farms, but also two others which were converted at great expense into pig farms. Now the piggeries are nothing but great heaps of rubble. Considerable sums were spent on adapting those places for pig-keeping, but pig-keeping became impossible, and the buildings fell into a derelict state.
Those creations, of course, were of my own folly, and I have to bear the penalty. It would be a different thing, however, if I had to bear that penalty at the behest of the Minister. What would I be saying about that Minister? Something very different to what I am saying about myself. It would be a gross hardship if the Minister could do this sort of thing and I hope that my noble friend Earl Stanhope will press his Amendment. It will certainly not do any harm if he does. It will certainly not hurt any tenant farmer, and it will not have an adverse effect on efficiency. I think that it would be likely to save many an unfortunate landowner from grave and unwarrantable expense, and I trust that the noble Earl will press this to a Division if need be.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I recognize that a very strong case has been put up on this. But there might reasonably be a case where, say, a Welsh hill sheep farmer, thinking that milk production was profitable, had converted his farm, had got himself into serious financial difficulties and the whole farm had gone down until it became quite uneconomic to work. Would anybody, I ask, suggest
540
putting that farm as it stood under supervision? It might well be that the county committee would say that they must get this man to take either to rearing beef cattle or to some other form of farming which they deemed suitable. That might mean scrapping the dairy equipment, and installing fresh equipment. That would be completely prohibited by the Amendment, for the Amendment would not allow the committee to order anything which would alter the character of the holding. Your Lordships will therefore see that the Amendment could work in a way opposite to that already suggested. It would impose far too serious a limitation on the activities of the committee, and might well result in their not being able properly to carry out their duties of advising farmers under supervision. In certain circumstances they could not adequately carry out their duties unless there were an alteration in the character of the holding.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I have listened to the noble Earl's argument and it seems to me that he is not going to make a farmer into a good farmer that way. The noble Earl proposes to alter the landowner's property in order to make the farm into a good farm, but of another kind. That is what the noble Earl's argument amounts to. I think that is entirely wrong. I think the purpose of supervision is to make the farmer farm that land in accordance with what that land requires, and not to some other purpose.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Would the noble Earl suggest that where a farmer had taken on a completely impossible undertaking he should be allowed to stick to it? How could a committee, by directing or giving instructions under the provision, encourage the man to continue a form of farming which would be absolutely uneconomic to him?
EARL DE LA WARR: I think we have had a useful discussion on this Amendment. I did at one time make an offer which I thought might afford the Minister an opportunity of giving us some assurance on this, being encouraged by some words which he had used either advertently or inadvertently. This is a point on which the Committee feel extremely strongly. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, feels now that it is impossible to meet us on this point. It

541
is a point on which there is genuine disagreement in the Committee, and I think that the best thing would now be to submit it to a vote.
EARL STANHOPE: I feel that this is a matter of principle. It is a question of the Government interfering in a contract accepted readily between a landlord and a tenant and saying that they are justified—at any rate, in their own
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15:
Supplementary provisions as to directions.
15.—(1) The Minister shall not give to the owner of land consisting of or comprised in any agricultural unit a direction under the last foregoing section to provide fixed equipment on that land until, after affording to the owner an opportunity of making representations to the Minister, as required by subsection (1) thereof, the Minister has given to the owner notice in writing of the proposal to give the direction, specifying the nature of the direction which the Minister proposes to give. The references in this and the next following subsection to the provision of fixed equipment include references to any improvement of fixed equipment by the enlargement of buildings.
(2) An owner to whom notice of a proposal is given under the last foregoing subsection may require that the proposal shall be referred to the Agricultural Land Tribunal established under Part V of this Act, and the provisions of the said Part V shall apply accordingly, in any case in which the owner proves to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that—
view—in tearing up the contract. I am not prepared to submit to that kind of thing so long as this is a free country. Therefore, if your Lordships' will support me, I am going to press this Amendment.
On Question, Whether the said proviso shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 7.

CONTENTS.

Rutland, D.

Stanhope, E.

Grenfell, L.

Hastings, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Bledisloe, V.

Hatherton, L. [Teller.]

Reading, M.

Bridgeman, V.

Hazlerigg, L.

Salisbury, M.

Cowdray, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Townshend, M.

Elibank, V.

Mancroft, L.

Lambert, V.

Middleton, L.

Beatty, E.

Ridley, V.

Oaksey, L.

De La Warr, E.

Wimborne, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Rea, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Roche, L.

Howe, E.

Ashburton, L.

Rochester, L.

Lucan, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Savile, L.

Munster, E.

Bingley, L.

Sinha, L.

Onslow, E.

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Carrington, L.

Teynham, L.

Radnor, E.

Courthorpe, L.

Trevethin, L.

Selborne, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Selkirk, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Jowitt, V. (L.Chancellor.)

Holden, L.

Rusholme, L. [Teller.]

Kershaw, L.

Walkden, L. [Teller.]

Huntingdon, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

(b) the cost borne by the owner of any other work for providing fixed equipment on the agricultural unit carried out within the two years immediately preceding the service of the notice, being work requisite for compliance with the owner's responsibilities to manage in accordance with the rules of good estate management,
together exceed the annual value of the land owned by him and comprised in the agricultural unit.
5.5 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON moved, in subsection (1) after "provide" to insert "or improve." The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, the Earl of Portsmouth, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in his name. The purpose of the Amendment is that the Minister shall not serve direction upon a landowner to provide fixed equipment or improve fixed equipment without there being an opportunity of making representations to the Minister. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 39, after ("provide") insert ("or improve").—(Lord Carrington.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I realize that this is another matter upon which your Lordships feel very strongly. We have considered it carefully and I think in principle we could accept the Amendment, but the words need to be altered. I propose, if the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment, to move the following Amendment:
Clause 15, page 13, line 4, leave out from "to" to "by" in line 5 and insert "the provision thereof by conversion of existing equipment and improvement thereof."
I do not know if that would satisfy the noble Lord, but, if so, I would be pleased to move it.
LORD CARRINGTON: I am very grateful to the noble Earl. I cannot say at such short notice whether these words will or will not cover the point, but I beg leave to withdraw the original Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 4, leave out from ("to") to ("by") in line 5, and insert ("the provision thereof by conversion of existing equipment and improvement thereof").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR had given Notice of two Amendments to paragraph (b) of subsection (2), the first being to insert at the beginning "one third of" and the second to substitute "six" for "two." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is designed to spread somewhat the period during which there may be judgment as to the capital expenditure incurred by landowners. It stands together with the next Amendment. In order to get a fair idea of capital expenditure, it is desirable that the period of time over which you can judge should be spread to this extent. The effect in cases where capital expenditure is going on year by year might not be very great, but in some estates where expenditure is rather spasmodic the effect might be very important. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 15, at beginning insert ("one-third of").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I should like to support my noble friend on this Amendment. I should like to thank the
544
noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, for the last Amendment; I had not the opportunity of thanking him before. It is important that, in the ordinary course of events, expenditure should be taken over a period of years, and not over the first two. On the other hand, I quite realize that, from the landowners' short-term point of view, the last two years might be more important than the last six, owing to the shortage of material. But, on the whole, I think the period of six years is better than the period of two.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: As the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said, this is a small point. It seems to me that what is spent on the swings is gained on the roundabouts! I think the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, indicated that it was more or less evenly balanced. There is, however this point. It would be more difficult to go back and take into consideration accounts for the longer period than for the shorter period, and it would quite possibly increase the number of appeals. In view of that, and as it is not really a vital point, I hope the noble Earl will not press the Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I think it is a very narrow point. It is only a question of which is the best way of doing it, and if the Government are not disposed to accept the Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HAZLERIGG LORD HAZLERIGG moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2) of this section where the Minister has given to the owner notice of a proposal to give a direction under subsection (1) of this section the effect of the carrying out of which will be to alter the character of a holding the owner may require that the proposal shall be referred to the Agricultural Land Tribunal established under Part V of this Act and the provisions of the said Part V shall apply accordingly and the said Tribunal shall determine any question as to whether or not the effect of the carrying out of proposed direction will be to alter the character of the holding."
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, which stands in the name of myself and my noble friend Lord Savile, I would like, if I may, to refer for one moment to the debate on the Second Reading, when I could not be in attendance owing to pressure of business. I would like to add my thanks and congratulations to those of other noble Lords,

545
to the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, for the way in which he moved the Second Reading of this Bill. It is very pleasing for anyone coming from Leicestershire to find someone, even on the Government Benches, who takes such an interest in agriculture. The noble Earl's name is very well known and respected. I gather that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, says that Lord Huntingdon now lives in the south, but I can assure him that if he is ever placed under supervision and dispossessed there will be a very warm welcome for him in Leicestershire. We have another member of this House who is a very great friend of agriculture—the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, who is not here to-day. When I was reading the debate which took place in your Lordships' House the other day, however, I was very much shocked to see that he said that he thought the Bill had done a lot for good landowners. It appears to me that it has not only done nothing for good landowners but that the whole Bill has been drafted with the idea that most landowners are bad.
In this Amendment there again arises the question of the alteration of the character of a holding. The object of the Amendment is to secure that, in any case in which the character of the farm will be altered, there should be a right of appeal to the agricultural land tribunal. I gather from what the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, says that he thinks there will be a great amount of work for the agricultural appeal tribunals. I take the opposite view—and I hope I may be right—that there will be extremely little work for them, because the county agricultural committees, having found their way about when they were war agricultural committees, will not have to do a great deal of supervision, dispossession, or anything else. Therefore, I feel that we are justified, in this case of the alteration of the character of the holding, which is of fundamental interest to the landowner, in asking that there should be an appeal to the land agricultural tribunal. That appears to me to be far better than to let it go through the county agricultural committee only.
I hope that neither the noble Earl nor anyone else will think that when I propose this I am showing any mistrust of the Minister in this matter, because I respect and admire him very much indeed, as I do
546
all the servants in the Ministry. I have known a great many Ministers of Agriculture in the last forty years—I think I may go back to the Flood (not Noah's flood, but Sir Francis Flood), one of the best Permanent Secretaries we ever had. I think we have at present an admirable set of officials at the Ministry. However, we must realize that no Minister is permanent, and there may be other Ministers in the future. It might be much better, on all sides, if when the character of the holding is going to be altered there can be this appeal to the agricultural land tribunal, rather than that it should be settled by the Minister. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 31, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Hazlerigg.)
LORD SAVILE: I would like to support this Amendment. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hazlerigg. I, too, have found creeping into these debates a certain tendency on the part of the Government to regard the agricultural land tribunal as being cluttered up. I do not think it is being cluttered up at all. However, I do think that the work of the committee is going to be cluttered up, if we do not watch it. No farmer wants to go to a tribunal just for the sake of going. Farmers do not like litigation, and it is going to cost them a good deal of money. At times the committees are very over-worked, and that may have some effect on the advice given to the farmer about the general policy of the farm itself.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I should like to preface my remarks by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hazlerigg, very much for the kind words which he said, and by assuring him that, should I be put under supervision and turned out, I will take him at his word and retire to Leicestershire. However, I hope that will not happen. With regard to the Amendment, I should like to point out to the noble Lord that there is already very considerable machinery for the landlord to appeal against a direction to provide expensive equipment for buildings. In Clause 15 (2) the noble Lord will see that the owner is given the right to appeal to the tribunal, in certain circumstances. Those circumstances are that:

"(a) the estimated reasonable cost of the work involved in the proposal, and

(b) the cost borne by the owner of any other work for providing fixed equipment on

547
the agricultural unit carried out within the two years immediately preceding the service of the notice…
together exceed the annual value of the land owned by him and comprised in the agricultural unit."

The point of those two paragraphs is to limit the amount that can be put on an owner in regard to buildings or fixed equipment. I have here one or two figures which we have collected which illustrate the point that it is unlikely to be a very considerable amount. According to the Farm Survey for 1941, the average rent of a holding from 5 to 25 acres was 52s. an acre; and of a holding of 100 to 300 acres, 25s. an acre. This means that the rental value of a small farm of say, 25 acres would be about £65, while in the case of a larger farm of, say, 300 acres it would be about £375. Having regard to the costs at the present time of providing any buildings or equipment, it is very unlikely that anything would come within that figure at all—it would be much greater. What we have tried to do is to base the criterion of the appeals so that there will never be a crippling amount forced on the landlord. Therefore, we have on the whole, as your Lordships will have noticed, arranged that whenever the amount can be considerable there is the right of appeal. I suggest to your Lordships that that is a better criterion than the one of altering, the character of the holding. I hope that in those circumstances the noble Lord may think fit to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD HAZLERIGG: Of course, I was well aware of those two provisos in subsection (2) (a) and (2) (b), but I see the noble Earl's point, and I am perfectly willing to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2) of this section where notice of a proposal to give a direction has been given to any person under subsection (1) of this section and the land in respect of which such notice is given is land which is designated under any public general or local Act as land subject to compulsory acquisition the owner of the land may require that the proposal shall be referred to the Agricultural Land Tribunal established under Part V of this Act, and the provisions of the said Part V shall apply accordingly."
The noble Lord said: I think this is a very important Amendment. When,
548
during the Committee stage of the Town and Country Planning Bill, your Lordships were discussing the designation of land for compulsory purchase, the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, admitted that he thought designation would adversely affect agricultural land. Under this Bill the county committees have powers to serve orders for the maintenance and provision of fixed equipment on farms, and it is their duty to see that the land is farmed according to the rules of good husbandry and that the estate is managed according to the rules of good estate management.
If they do that job properly they will undoubtedly serve orders for all these things. It can hardly be said that there is much incentive for the owner whose land is designated to carry out very expensive repairs or to provide fixed equipment when he knows that ultimately—in fact, within a period of seven years—his land will be purchased compulsorily. If, however, he does not carry out the orders served upon him he can be dispossessed within a period of one year. If he does carry out the order it is unlikely that he will get back his capital outlay when his land is compulsorily purchased at its existing user value. Therefore, I recommend this Amendment. We are not proposing that no directions should be served upon designated land; only that if the owner thinks that the orders are too severe he should have a right of appeal to the agricultural land tribunal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 31, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Carrington.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: This is a very involved question, and I congratulate the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment on the extreme clarity with which he has explained it. We have examined this carefully and I am pleased to be able to say that we can accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD CARRINGTON: I am very grateful to the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16:
Dispossession on grounds of bad estate management.
16.—(1) Where a supervision order is in force in relation to the management of land, and the Minister is satisfied that the manage-

549
ment thereof does not while the order is in force show satisfactory improvement, and certifies accordingly, the Minister shall subject to the provisions of this section have power to purchase compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of this Act in that behalf the land to which the order relates or any part of that land.
(2) Where the Minister proposes to purchase any land under the last foregoing subsection and is satisfied that it is necessary for the purpose of securing the proper management thereof that he should acquire any other land which is being managed by the same person, and certifies accordingly, the Minister shall subject to the provisions of this section have power to purchase that other land compulsorily in accordance with the provisions aforesaid.
(3) Where any person having an interest in land, by notice in writing served on the Minister within six months of the giving by the Minister of a certificate under the foregoing provisions of this section relating to any other land, represents to the Minister that the first-mentioned land was at the time when the certificate was given being managed in conjunction with that other land and that it is not reasonably practicable to manage it except in conjunction therewith, and requires that the Minister shall purchase the said interest, then unless the Minister is satisfied that the representation is not justified and certifies accordingly before the expiration of the prescribed period, the Minister shall be deemed on the date on which the said period expires to have been authorised to purchase the interest compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of this Act in that behalf and to have served a notice to treat in respect of the interest on that date.
(4) The Minister shall not give any certificate under subsection (1), (2) or (3) of this section until, after affording to any such person as is specified in subsection (6) of this section an opportunity of making representations to the Minister, whether in writing or on being heard by a person appointed by the Minister, the Minister has given to any such person as is so specified notice in writing of the proposal to give the certificate.
(7) No certificate under subsection (1) or (2) of this section shall be given before the expiration of twelve months from the coming into operation of the supervision order in question, except where the person who for the time being is the owner to whom the order relates has failed to comply with any direction under the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act given to him as the owner—
5.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1) after "behalf" to insert: "the interest in that land of the person managing." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is a series of four all directed to the same point. There is this Amend-
550
ment on page 15, line 18, and three other Amendments on the same page at lines 23, 24 and 26. They are all directed to the same end and if your Lordships agree I will speak to all four. The point is that during the Report stage in another place there was a discussion as to the position of a man who was in the position of managing the land to the extent that he might be considered the owner. I would like to quote from the Solicitor-General's speech on that occasion. He said:
"In order to manage land within the meaning of the words I have quoted, a person need not actually be the owner. He may be a long leaseholder. He has to be a person whose relationship to that land is such that one can fairly say of him that he is managing it; that is to say, his relationship is that of a landlord to the land. That would obviously include the case of a freeholder, but it also includes a long leaseholder."
Then a little later on he said this:
"For the purpose of Clause 16 (2) we want the word 'owner' to apply automatically to a long leaseholder."
In this connexion that means that the land can be taken over by the Government. The argument I would put forward to His Majesty's Government is that there will be a certain number of cases where you have a long lease of agricultural land which will come within the meaning of this clause. In that case, supposing that it is badly managed, the owner of the land, the leaseholder, can be dispossessed, and at the same time the man from whom he leases his land is deprived of his land without having had any say in the matter. In fact, what His Majesty's Government propose to do is to take over something which they are not really entitled to take over. The so-called manager of the land—that is to say the leaseholder—has complete control, and the owner will have no control over him so long as the lease lasts. But he is still the freeholder of that land, and if he is dispossessed of it he is dispossessed without a chance or right to say or do anything. That does not seem right, and the words that I propose should be inserted in the Bill make it quite clear that His Majesty's Government cannot take over more than that interest on which there has been default—that is what it amounts to—and of which they are complaining. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 18, after ("behalf") insert ("the interest in that land of the person managing").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: This again is a difficult point which the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has raised. I think the point of principle at issue here is that you have the owner in fee simple, or the complete owner of the land who lets that land out to a long leaseholder. By doing that he temporarily gives away, until the lease is over, his right in the land, usually without any right of interference whatsoever. The problem we are up against is that here the long leaseholder is de facto the owner of the land for temporary purposes and is mismanaging to a considerable degree. Can we limit those powers of supervision and of ultimate dispossession because of the final interest of the original owner? I must say that His Majesty's Government are inclined to take the view that if an owner lets his land for an indefinite period completely to a long leaseholder he is really getting out of his responsibilities, and does not deserve to be considered on the basis that he cannot control the estate. He has no say in it, and, therefore, if the land is so badly managed that it has to be taken over and the owner dispossessed, we do not see why he should be considered.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I would like to ask the noble Earl a question before he sits down. First of all, does he realize that a leasehold is not for an indefinite period? The second point is this: What objection is there to His Majesty's Government taking over the remainder of the lease and managing the property?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: That is a point I have not considered, and if the noble Earl feels very strongly about it we will look at it again, but we cannot commit ourselves in any way. If he would like us to examine it again and put another Amendment down in the Report stage I will consider it.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I hope the noble Earl will reconsider this very carefully, because it is an important point. Nobody is going to give a lease in the future if this sort of thing is going to happen. In the past leases have been given in good faith because a man had every promise of being a good manager of land. He may have turned into a bad manager after a period of years, or perhaps the property was situated at a distance. Anybody whose land was cut off by distance but who was not trying to
552
get out of his responsibilities might be in a very difficult position.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: As a matter of fact this is an entirely reasonable Amendment. I hope the noble Earl will examine it rather more carefully before the Report stage, and that he may find it in his heart to give us something on these lines. I feel strongly that it is a question of justice that you should not take away from the land a greater interest than that which the defaulting individual has at the time. I am quite certain that His Majesty's Government do not mean to do injustice to the freeholders of the land; and if they will look at it in that way and possibly put down an Amendment of their own on the Report stage to make the matter clear, I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I will certainly give an undertaking to examine it, but I cannot commit the Government to acceptance of it or even to move another Amendment. But we will certainly look at it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.33 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved to insert, after subsection (1):
"(2) Where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister in relation to any land to which the foregoing subsection applies, or to the owner thereof that the circumstances hereinafter set out prevail, the Minister shall before exercising the powers conferred by the last foregoing subsection, afford to the persons hereinafter described in relation to each of the said circumstances, the opportunity, if they so elect, of assuming the management of the said land, and if they do so elect, the Minister shall entrust the management thereof to them.
The circumstances and persons hereinbefore referred to are:—

(a) where the land is settled land within the meaning of the Settled Land Act, 1925, the trustees of the settlement;

(b) where any child of the owner of the age of twenty-one years or over notifies the Minister of his desire to avail himself of the provisions of this subsection such child, or, if more than one, children, or, where there is no child surviving to such grandchild, or grandchildren being of the age of twenty-one years or over, as shall notify the Minister as aforesaid;

(c) where there is no child of the age of twenty-one years or over or, there being no child whether of that age or less, there is no grandchild of the age of twenty-one years or over, to such persons as may on an application to the Minister for the purpose satisfy the Minister that they are fit

553
and proper persons to be entrusted with the management of the said land for and on behalf of any child who has not attained the age of twenty-one years or, if there is no such child, of any grandchild who has not attained the age of twenty-one years.

For the purposes of this subsection a person's step-child, adopted child (whether adopted in pursuance of any enactment or otherwise) or illegitimate child shall be treated as a child of his."
The noble Earl said: This is a matter of vital importance. I assure the noble Earl who speaks for the Government that it does not raise the general principle of heredity—a principle on which, I have no doubt, he has his own views. This Bill does not in any way touch that principle. I say that in the sense that the vast amount of estates in this country, which I think it is agreed are well managed, are left untouched as regards inheritance. Where an estate is well managed, it is left under this Bill that the son or the natural heir inherits. But the Bill as it stands does this; it lays down that an heir can be disinherited by virtue of the action or inaction of his father or whomever he is going to succeed. I think we shall all agree that that is really a monstrous injustice, and I cannot believe that the Government have really given full consideration to the principle that they are laying down.
Take a case that any of us can easily call to our imagination. The case is of an old estate, possibly very well run up to a certain time; the owner may have a stroke, or he may lose his interest and enthusiasm, and the estate may for the time being go back. But there may be a young man coming on who is just living for the day when he has an opportunity to put that estate straight. He may be training himself in methods of farming and estate management, he may have gone to the city and made some money with which to recoup his family fortunes. And then the estate is put under supervision. According to the operation of the Bill, within twelve months—I do not myself think it likely within the period of twelve months—of the application of the supervision order, the family can be permanently dispossessed.
The Amendment that I have put down attempts to correct this injustice. There are two points, which are related but distinct. One is the right of the father—there may be some awkward family relationship—who is not willing to hand
554
over to the son; and this Amendment attempts to deal with that point. There is a further point which to my mind is much more important, and that is the portion of the Amendment that makes it mandatory on the Minister to give the heir an opportunity of putting that estate right before his family is dispossessed. If your Lordships will turn to Clause 13, dealing with changes of ownership, you will see that there can be no question of this Amendment being used as a means of evading a great purpose of the Bill which is to dispossess a landowner who is not managing his estate as it should be managed. Your Lordships will see that the heir to whom the estate is handed over will be laid under supervision and if he does not put the estate right, then he will be turned out.
I have put the matter as briefly as I can, because the case is, I think, so clear. I do hope that the noble Earl will consider this Amendment really seriously, and that he will be able to give us a favourable answer. The drafting of an Amendment of this character is exceedingly difficult, raising as it does very difficult technical and legal issues, and needless to say we shall be quite happy to discuss the matter of drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 19, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)
EARL BEATTY: I wish very briefly to support the Amendment, because I think this is a most important and almost vital Amendment to the Bill—which on the whole has been accepted very favourably throughout the country. But I feel that if people realized what this clause means without the insertion of this Amendment, many of them would receive quite a shock. As the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said, this really affects the small landowner more than the large landowner; and for that reason alone I should have thought that it might commend itself to noble Lords opposite. When one reads, as I have, the debate on the Report stage in another place, one finds that the basis of the Government's reason for not accepting this Amendment was entirely that of efficiency in farming. In fact, it was said that there was no guarantee that the heir or the trustee could manage the estate better than the father or the previous owner who was dispossessed.

555
But surely it is a fundamental basis of law and justice in this country that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty, and therefore he should at least be given the opportunity. That is my first point. The second point is: what positive guarantee is there that the Land Commission would be any more efficient than the heir in this case, who, as Lord De La Warr has said, might be a man who had his interests in this estate for a long tiny, but was not able to be there, and who worked in another place, perhaps in the City, looking forward to the day when he could return to that farm? What guarantee is there—which is the argument of noble Lords opposite—that the Land Commission will do it any batter than this man? Surely, he should be given an opportunity. With those few remarks I beg to support this Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS: I feel that this clause has probably given a greater shock to the agricultural community generally than anything else to be found in the Bill, because of its lack of necessity. There would be, if not universal, at any rate very general, opinion that a landowner who has proved himself conclusively to be unfitted to manage his estate should, in the general interest, be removed. That is quite a large statement to make, but I believe it to be true. But on what conceivable grounds of justice or of expediency can it be proposed that, because an individual landowner has proved himself to be inadequate to his job, the succeeding member of his family, whether it be a son, a nephew, a brother or whoever it may be, is also going to be inadequate to his job? It does not make sense. The probabilities are exactly the contrary. Lord De La Warr has explained that in all probability, in such circumstances as those, the heir is merely awaiting the happy day when he can step into his defaulting parent's shoes and rectify the default of that defaulting parent. That would be quite natural.
During the Second Reading debate, both Lord De La Warr and I held that there was no provision in the Bill whereby the heir could enter, or retain possession of the property of a dispossessed parent or relative. Both the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and Lord Huntingdon referred us to a clause in the Bill, not in regard to dispossession but in reference
556
to supervision. There is nothing in the Bill whatsoever to protect the heir from dispossession unless an Amendment of this character is included. I purposely use the words "of this character," because I put down an Amendment of an exceedingly simple kind, which, when I came to see Lord De La Warr's Amendment, seemed to be inadequate to meet the case. And, now that I look at Lord De La Warr's, I am not sure that that is entirely adequate to meet the case. It is an exceedingly difficult thing to draft an Amendment which does implement the intention, and yet does not vitiate in some way or other the other intentions of the Bill. It really is a matter for a Government draftsman, and not for a private member of the House to do.
But I cannot bring myself to believe that this, or any other, Government can seriously desire to break a link in a long and well forged chain, and break it permanently, because one of those links has proved to be a weak one and has failed, where a long line of predecessors have succeeded, and where it is reasonable to suppose that a long line of successors may also succeed, because they have a greater incentive. Anybody who has association with the love of the land, and is imbued with the traditions and sense of duty which attach to love of the land, must know perfectly well that the man who is in default in his ownership is a rarity, and that the more common case is the one where a man wishes to do his best by it. One can see the anger of the family whose head at the moment well deserved the dispossession which would fall on him almost certainly justly under this Bill, because it really is inconceivable that a man should be dispossessed unless he thoroughly deserved it. It is really quite incredible that any agricultural committee should recommend such a thing to the Land Tribunal unless it was deserved.
I greatly hope that the noble Earl will be able to give us some encouragement in this matter. Something clearly has got to be done. We do not necessarily desire to press this particular Amendment to a Division, and force it upon the Government. We would infinitely prefer an assurance that they would look into this matter, with the idea of drafting it in a form which will fit into the Bill, and a categorical assurance that the heir shall be protected. I take encouragement from

557
the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, Lord Addison, who said "We do intend to protect the heir." I brought a copy of Hansard with me, but somebody has taken it away and I am not able to quote from it, but I am very conscious of what was said. The noble Viscount said "We have taken careful steps to protect the heir." That, presumably, means that the Government really do mean to protect the heir, and do not mean to expose him to this order of dispossession. So, I think that the noble Lord will surely have very little difficulty in giving us an assurance that something in the nature of this Amendment will be accepted and embodied in the Bill. I beg to support Lord De La Warr.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I earnestly hope that the noble Earl and His Majesty's Government will do something to respond to this appeal on behalf of the heirs to agricultural landed estates, because I am perfectly certain that it will be in the public interest so to do. The old land-owning families of this country are proud of their traditions. They are intensely fond of their family estates. As the noble Lord who has just sat down has said, they are deeply imbued with a sense of public duty, and, if I may say so, never more than they are to-day, realizing as they do that there is a great responsibility now resting upon their shoulders to do all in their power to increase the output of essential food from the land of this country.
I would add one other point, and that is this. To my knowledge there are quite a considerable number of what are described as heirs to landed estates who are, at the present time, receiving education at one or other of our agricultural colleges, thereby, of course, making themselves fit to carry out the duties which they expect will devolve upon them. Surely it would be unfair to displace them because their father, let us say, turned out to be an unsatisfactory person, by not pulling his weight, as we all hope that landowners now will do. In carrying out the objects of the Bill, surely it is not only unfair, but it is not in in the best interests of the country, that in such circumstances an heir should be displaced. I would only add this. I am not myself satisfied with the actual wording of this Amendment, and noble Lords
558
on all sides of this House are anxious that nobody but competent landowners and competent farmers should own and occupy the agricultural land of this country. I for my part should like to see, at the end of that first paragraph, words which appear later on: "The Minister shall entrust to them if, in the opinion of the Minister, they are fit and proper persons to be entrusted with the management of the said land." I think that proviso ought to be inserted, if only to carry out the alleged objects of the Bill.
VISCOUNT WIMBORNE: I do not mean to repeat the arguments that have been adduced in favour of this Amendment; I think they speak for themselves, Personally I think it is a matter of common justice. I would like to associate myself with the noble Lords who have supported this Amendment.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I should like to add a few more words in support of the Amendment, but only on the points mainly not touched upon. The first thing is that if an owner—through old age, or disease, or failure, is a weak link in the chain, as Lord Hastings has described it—is liable to be dispossessed, the effect of the insecurity that will come to all the people who dwell on the estate should be considered. The other side of it, as the noble Earl, Lord Beatty, touched on at the beginning, is the fact that we are trying to legislate not only for the heirs of broad acres whose fathers may in the popular imagination have their feet up with gout wrapping round them, but also for the very small man. I have been many times to farmers' meetings on general farming policy and I have got myself into hot water, because the truth of the barbs has gone home, urging farmers who are getting on in years to "give the boy a chance." How many times one has said that even to one's own tenants!
The desire among the people who serve the land is always to hang on too long and not give a competent younger man a chance. That is a very frequent failing, and it can so easily prevail to the extent of not seeing the red light until the dispossession has actually taken place. I think that is a very great danger which we have to face, especially with the owner-occupier who may have had just as long a line behind him of successes in owner-

559
ship and farming of the land. If the principle of this Amendment was incorporated into the Bill, I feel certain it would be very much more easy to deal with a recalcitrant owner who would not listen. If he knew it was possible for his son to take over by law, he would be much more amenable to argument in the first place.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: The case, as I understand it, put up by the noble Lords who have spoken is that, in the case of an owner of an estate or farm or whatever it may be being put under supervision and coming to the point of being dispossessed, his heir should be given by the Minister the right of taking over and managing that property with a chance to see if he can pull it round and so get the land out of the danger of acquisition. I say at once that His Majesty's Government have a great deal of sympathy with that point of view but, when we come to look at the problem, certain difficulties arise. In the first case, you have the ordinary heir of the man who has just willed his estate to his son or brother or whoever it may be. This man gets put under supervision. There is nothing to stop that man handing over or selling his estate to his heir. Further, while he is under supervision, it is possible under Clause 14 for the Minister to require the man under supervision to appoint a manager to look after the property. The intention of that clause is that the owner actually under supervision should appoint his heir to look after the property.
LORD HASTINGS: May I interrupt for a moment? The weak part of that argument is that the kind of owner who is qualified for dispossession is just the kind of owner who would have fallen out long since with his heirs; it is the heir we want to protect.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I recognize the point raised by the noble Lord, and I am coming to it later on in the course of the discussion. That is one question which might arise. Then, we come to the question of the settled estate, the estate that is settled from one man to his son or to his next-of-kin, or whoever it may be. There again, should the owner be a reasonable sort of person, he can either hand it over to his heir or the Minister can again require him to
560
appoint a manager who, presumably, would be the heir. As Lord Hastings has pointed out, there are men who would not be reasonable and who might be quarrelling with the heir. This is not only an extremely unpleasant but also a difficult situation in regard to the settled estates because, while His Majesty's Government have every sympathy with the thesis that you should allow the heir to be appointed, the solution to the problem is not so easy as it looks.
Supposing that under the Bill the Minister required the owner to hand over to his heir for management, and that this was a settled estate which had been handed down from father to son or brother, as the case may be.The heir, or it might be the trustees acting against the owner's wishes, takes on the estate. Who actually will be responsible for providing money for running the estate? Will it be the owner? If the owner is of the unreasonable type, he will be the last person to provide the funds. Who can borrow money from the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation or raise mortgages? The owner has the right, but he will be averse from doing it. Once one gets down, to the complicated question of investing for temporary rights of the heir, one gets into difficulties of legal procedure, and they form one of the big problems facing us on this particular issue.
However, we want to meet the noble Lord's point, if we possibly can, and I would like to suggest that we meet it with something on these lines. In an Amendment which could be discussed we would be prepared to give to the trustees and to the heirs (either or both) the right to appeal to the Tribunal at the same time as the owner appeals. If we allowed this appeal to the Tribunal at the same time as the owner, the Tribunal would be enabled to take in all relevant circumstances —which presumably would involve the question of the entail of the estate as much as anything else—and help them to decide whether in all those circumstances the Minister should dispossess the man or take other action. I appreciate that that does not go to meet the whole point of noble Lords, but it is an extremely difficult point. We are prepared to discuss it and to do what we can to meet it. So far we have not seen any further than we can go in that we can give an appeal to

561
the heir and the trustees against the dispossession order as well as to the original owner. Would that meet with the noble Lord's approval?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I intervene only for a moment on this question. I think it is one of those cases where there really is no difference between the two sides of the House as to the object which it is desired to achieve. Obviously, if a firm or an estate—because this applies equally to landowners and farmers —has been the property of a single family for a considerable time there would be likely to be great advantage, if it is in any way possible, in its remaining in the ownership of that family. They would clearly have greater interest in the land than anyone else, and could be expected to go to greater lengths to keep it in the best possible condition. But it is true that in the best regulated families you get, I am sorry to say, a generation now and then in which there is a representative who is not so good as his forbears or, perhaps, as his successors. You have to get over that very awkward period, and the question is how is it going to be done. That is the purpose of this Amendment.
We feel that at any rate the heir ought to be offered a chance; that he ought to be offered a chance, if necessary, let us say, of pulling round an estate with which perhaps his father has not done very well. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, clearly was anxious to help, but, if I may say so with respect, he made rather heavy weather of it. He adduced a number of examples of extremely awkward situations which might conceivably arise; he spoke of cases of settled estates where the heir had no money and might find it difficult to get any. He said that in such cases it would be no good offering the estate to an heir, as he would not be in a position to deal with the property if he got it. Now that seems to be a case in which the heir must be allowed to judge. As the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said, he must be a fit and proper person. That means that he must be mentally equipped to take on the task and he must also be financially equipped for it. If the position were that there was an heir who was offered the estate and he had to say to the authority: "I am very well equipped mentally, but unfortunately I have no capital," that would
562
be very bad luck. It might, probably, mean that his father had behaved extremely badly. But I am afraid the estate or the farm would have to pass. That would be a very unhappy situation that could not be dealt with at all.
Our point is simply that the heir ought to have the offer. It is a simple proposition, and we are not unreasonable about it. We most certainly do not want to do anything which would be to the detriment of farming or to the detriment of estate management. We think that the heir should have the offer and that it should then be for him to prove that he is a fit and proper person. I know that the Government are sympathetic on this, and I suggest that in the light of the discussion which we have had they might think the matter over a little further. It is possible that, in the light of that consideration, they might find themselves able to go a little further than the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, did and that in that case we should be very near together and might even get an agreed solution.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): I think that I can respond to that suggestion. I am sure that we should all like to see an heir given a chance, always provided that he was a fit and proper person in every sense of that term. That I gather is what is wanted on all sides of the Committee. I will not make any promise now, but I will look at this again, and, if necessary, have discussions with noble Lords opposite, in order to see if there is anything we can do. I must point out, though, that the offer which the noble Earl has made giving an heir a separate right of appeal does go some way towards meeting the difficulty.
EARL DE LA WARR: May I just ask this question? Am I right in thinking, in view of what the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, said, that this only applies to heirs under the Settled Land Act?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Yes, I think perhaps that is so.
EARL DE LA WARR: Then I think it would be useful to enter a caveat at this point. A great deal of the land of this county is not settled. Some of the best and oldest estates are not settled. There is also an immense class, a very valuable class—indeed I might call them the salt of the earth—the yeomen who own their

563
land, but whose land is not settled. I really do not think that we could contract out on the basis of settled land only and leave these other men completely alone. In view of the assurance of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.6 p.m.
LORD SAVILE LORD SAVILE moved, in subsection (2), after "managed" to insert "and is owned." The noble Lord said: I feel that this is a very important Amendment. Its purpose is to ensure that land which is occupied by a lessee cannot be compulsorily acquired from the owner because of defaults of the lessee when the owner is unable to prevent him from committing those defaults. I think that I can best illustrate this by taking an example. Supposing, for instance, that I am an absentee landowner for five years. The reason is unimportant—perhaps I may be in London doing too much work in your Lordships' House, or it may be that I have to be abroad for five years on some job. But I have a group of farm properties in Yorkshire, and I entrust that group to someone, a qualified agent, or an owner-agent, who is also the occupier of land which is very adjacent to this particular group. The man to whom I have entrusted it manages it badly. I am unable to prevent him from doing so and to make him do it better. The Minister comes along and acquires the piece of land which has been managed badly, including land of which I am the legal owner but which is being managed by this man. That, I think, does seem rather unfair on an owner who has had absolutely nothing to do with the way in which it has been managed, having been precluded from having a say in it by quite reasonable absence.
I have no doubt that when I sit down I shall be referred to a further Amendment which is being moved by the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, himself, to Clause 21. I may be told that this will cover my point and that it should give me complete satisfaction. As a matter of fact, it does not cover my point at all, it really confirms my worst fear, which is that acquisition can take place of any piece of land which has been owned by me but managed by someone else. I think that I
564
must be right in assuming that and that the noble Earl's Amendment would still enable an owner's land to be compulsorily acquired when managed by a lessee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 24, after ("managed") insert ("and is owned").—(Lord Savile.)
LORD HASTINGS: It very often happens that an owner with a rather scattered property is under the practical necessity of letting two, three or four fields to an owner of adjoining property, in order that his few fields may be efficiently farmed in connexion with the buildings of his neighbour. It was rather assumed both by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and by the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, when Lord Radnor was moving his series of Amendments, that this particular matter would be in all probability governed by lease. I agree that there is reasonable inference in that regard. But, of course, it is by no means necessary that it should be governed by a lease. It would be more usual for the owner of the detached fields to let them year by year to the owner of the farm with which they could be most conveniently farmed. He would be just an annual tenant of these few fields.
There are four or five cases of this nature that come to my mind, and no doubt others will readily occur to the minds of other noble Lords. The owner of the property who has hired from, shall we say, myself, these three or four fields, defaults, and he quite properly goes into the bad books of the local county committee. Matters go from bad to worse and he qualifies for dispossession. Of course the owner of the three or four fields is aware of what is going on. He would like to take away these fields, but how is he to get them away? Both under existing law and under this Bill he cannot get these lands away unless he is able to persuade the Minister to act through the county agricultural executive committee, and the land tribunal release his land. He is unable to extract that land from the tenant who is rapidly going into default. And so he has to put up with the inconvenience and humiliation, and also the loss of a piece of land to the ownership of which he attaches value, perhaps not by reason of any fault of his own but by reason of the fault of another. That is really not justice. The matter

565
was being dealt with as if these lands were always leasehold. It was pointed out, I think by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, that there could be no obstacle to the Minister, implementing his powers in respect of a defaulting owner continuing a lease which had been given the defaulting owner or, failing a lease, from continuing the annual tenancy.
Under the existing law he might be enabled to do that; in fact unless the owner gave him notice to quit, he would be entitled to remain as tenant of those lands. Why should he not be allowed to remain either leasehold or annual tenant of these lands? There is nothing which makes for efficiency in this clause which we are endeavouring to amend. If there were anything in it which aided better farming, then we would have a difficult case to make. In the clause the Minister has taken arbitrary power, which is not in the least necessary, in order to improve farming; but it will not be improved. My noble friend Lord Savile has moved the inclusion of the words "and is owned." If the Government would agree to that, they would not be the loser thereby, and efficient farming would not be the loser thereby, and owners would be protected from the default of others which they had been unable to stop. I support the noble Lord, Lord Savile, and hope that the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, will be able to accept this.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have been asked to deal with this Amendment. The noble Lord who just sat down said in a very clear speech that if this were a question of efficient farming he would not have so much to say. I think we all agree that our first aim in this Bill is efficient farming. The national interest demands this, and all sides agree that it is necessary. I agree that our first aim is efficient farming, and our second is: the less we interfere with existing ownership the better. I think, therefore, we approach this problem from the same angle. I resist the Amendment simply because it seems to me that it is a plain question of efficient farming.
May I point out what subsection (2) is doing? It is rather a narrow scheme. There is a composite farm being managed as a whole, one part being owned by a man and the other part being managed by him. You have a farm whose owner has
566
immediate use of one portion, of which he is the owner, and use of the other part of which he is not the owner but not a mere manager or agent or factor; he is farming it on his own behalf as a lessee or tenant. The provision can operate only if it can be predicated that the use of one part, of which he is lessee, is essential for the proper farming of the other, of which he is the owner. It applies only in that case:
"where the Minister proposes to acquire land under the last foregoing subsection and is satisfied that it is necessary for the purposes of securing the proper management thereof that he should acquire any other land which is being managed by the same person.…"
The only case in which this subsection comes into play, in my opinion, would be the case where by reason of acquisition or drainage, or considerations of that sort, the tenant really cannot run one half of his land without the other. If that is the case, and the Minister has the right to acquire one half, is it not absolutely essential that he should have the right to acquire the other half, since we started from the proposition that you cannot manage one half without the other? That is a rare and exceptional case, however.
If you have to acquire a holding because it is badly farmed, it is important to make sense of the whole thing by having the right to acquire the other half. That is the case. I stress the importance of the word "necessary," in contradiction to the next clause, line 35, where you find "it is not reasonably practicable to manage it" without other land. Here you have a stronger word, "necessary." It is not a case which need alarm your Lordships unduly; it is not a common case. Although it may be frequently convenient to have adjoining lands thrown together, it is not often that you can really say it is necessary to do it. Where the rare case does come, and it is established that it is necessary, then it seems to me that you cannot ask the Minister to buy something which is no good by itself. You must give him the right to buy part two. That is why it is impossible to accept the words "and is owned."
The noble Lord, Lord Savile, will find, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has found from his experience, that he will frequently meet this sort of case. A man owns some land. He rents other land adjoining; and you have got to acquire the land which he owns, although it by no means follows that you cart acquire the

567
land which he rents. The only case in which you can acquire the land which he rents is if it can be certified that it is necessary in order to make possible the farming of the part which he owns. In that somewhat rare event, we maintain that the Minister must have the power to acquire both. There may be hard luck in certain cases, but if we accept—as I think we all do accept—the criterion with which I started, that efficient farming must come first, and that everything must be subordinate to that, then the very hypothesis is that this is necessary for efficient farming. That being so, I hope that I have made it plain to the noble Lord why I cannot accept the words "and is owned."
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I would like to say a few words on this. The noble and learned Viscount, in his extremely persuasive and logical explanation of this Amendment and the clause to which it relates, talked about it being absolutely necessary to farm the land in question with the other land. I think he ought to have qualified that remark by adding "the land in the condition in which it was then placed." There are plenty of possibilities. When you have land at present worked with another farm, and while that land is worked with the other farm, it is necessary that it should be worked with the other farm because it cannot be farmed in any other way. But given the time, possibly by the building of roads or drains, or something of that sort, the owner could marry it up to a farm other than the one which is in default. I still do not see why in a case like this the Government cannot content themselves with taking over such rights as the defaulting occupant has, and not taking over the rights of the free farm.
LORD HASTINGS: There is one other point to which the noble and learned Viscount might turn his mind. "Acquisition," as he said, means buying. The owner who has let these lands to the defaulter will have to be bought out. But why? I would agree that, if it is absolutely necessary that those lands should for the purposes of efficient farming be permanently married to the lands of the defaulter which the Minister is about to acquire, there is very good reason why the Minister should have the power
568
to remain in occupation of those other hired lands. But that does not mean that he has to buy them. Why should he not have compulsory powers of hiring?
It might seem a small point, but it is rather more than that. Let us suppose for a moment that those fields form part of a property which was in mortgage. The compulsory acquisition by the Minister of those lands might—and almost certainly would—involve the owner from whom they were compulsorily acquired in very great trouble with his mortgagee, with whom he would have to enter into negotiations. It might be that the mortgagee would refuse to accept the repayment of a portion of his mortgage. Such things are often done. It might well place the owner in very great difficulties. Whereas, if the Minister merely had the power to continue the hiring of those lands —that is to say, to take over the interest the defaulter had in them—then the Minister's purpose, which would be to see that the land was efficiently farmed, would be met, and the inconveniences which might so easily accrue to the owner would be avoided. I wonder if the noble and learned Viscount would think well to give a reply to that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is only a power we are giving to the Minister; the Minister need not exercise that power to the full extent. I think a reasonable Minister would certainly look—if I may take the point of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, first—to see if there was any other way in which he could do it. He might say: "I might put down an accommodation road, which is wanted for other purposes. Once the accommodation road is there, I do not want this extra land." Or he might consider, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said, that it is sufficient to acquire the use of the land for a period of years, or something of that sort. But we are dealing here with what is an odd lot —a piece of land which really cannot be efficiently managed by itself. Therefore, it seems to me that the Minister must have the power (and that is all we, are asking for), when he is confronted with that situation, to buy that adjoining land which is necessary for proper development. Although he must have that power, if he is a wise man he will not always exercise the power, but will see if he can find some other way round which will not cause any heartburning. While I must ask for this power, I can assure your Lordships that

569
it is not the sort of power that a Minister would exercise without very careful consideration.
LORD SAVlLE: The noble and learned Viscount has given a very clear explanation of this matter—clearer than anything I have read about it before. I am disappointed that the Amendment cannot be accepted, but I do not wish to press it any more, and beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection (3), after "Where any person having an interest in land," to insert "as the owner thereof." The noble Earl said: This is a very simple Amendment. Some of us have been trying for years to get everybody, man, woman, and child, interested in agricultural land and what grows on it. When you look at the first line of this subsection, it says: "Where any person having an interest in land," does this, that and the other. I suggest that some modification or limitation is required and, therefore, I have put down the words of the Amendment. I am not particularly wedded to those words, but I do feel that some limitation is required. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 28, at end insert ("as the owner thereof").—(Earl Stanhope.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. What Clause 16 (3) is dealing with is this: "Where any person having an interest in land"—and I call attention to the phrase, "an interest in land"—
EARL STANHOPE: I hope that everybody has, or will have, an interest in land.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know about "will have," but everybody has not at the present time; I certainly have not. It is dealing with an interest in land. Where the Minister is acquiring land on the ground of bad estate management, the person possessing that interest can say: "Well, my land was being managed in conjunction with the land you are now acquiring, and it is not reasonably practicable to manage it separately." The person having the interest in the land may then require the Minister to buy it. What I am not quite certain about is whether the noble Earl has appreciated what the "it" is. The
570
"it" is not the land, but the interest in the land.
For instance, if a man has land which has been used in conjunction with other land, and he has five years of a lease still to run, he may say: "Look here, you are buying that other land, and these two lands used to be run in conjunction with each other. It is not reasonably practicable for me to carry on without that other land. I want you to buy my interest." The Minister then has to buy out the five years' lease. It is not a case of buying the land. I think the noble Earl is under a misapprehension in putting down the Amendment. What the Minister can be called upon to buy is the interest in the land which the person calling upon him holds, and nothing more. Therefore, I cannot accept this Amendment.
EARL STANHOPE: I appreciate what the noble and learned Viscount has said. I was mistaken. I thought it did refer to land, and not to interest. Therefore, I must withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved, to insert at the end of subsection (4):
"and of the grounds upon which the Minister is satisfied that the management of the land to which the proposed certificate is to relate does not show satisfactory improvement."
The noble Lord said: This is a very simple Amendment and I hope the Government will see their way to accept it. As will be seen, it deals with the point that the landowner or occupier should be told of the grounds upon which the Minister is satisfied that the management of the land to which the proposed certificate is to relate does not show satisfactory improvement. In the case of farmers who are required to be dispossessed I know that it is always customary to give them the grounds upon which the dispossession order is founded, so that if they wish they can appeal against the order. It seems only common justice to the owners and occupiers of the land who may be dispossessed under these terms that they should be treated in the same fair way, and that they should be given an opportunity of knowing the grounds upon which their dispossession may be founded. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 11; at end insert the said words.—(Lord O'Hagan.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: This seems a very reasonable Amendment. I would like to discuss slightly different wording, but if the noble Lord will agree to that we will accept it in principle.
LORD O'HAGAN: In those circumstances I am only too pleased to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, to insert after subsection (5):
"(6) Any person may within twenty-eight days of receiving the report of an agricultural land tribunal lodge an appeal to the High Court."
The noble Earl said: This is a question in regard to dispossession. I usually agree with everything my noble friend the Earl of Radnor says, but I do not agree with him in regard to this particular question. He said earlier in the debate that he thought dispossession was not so important as being put under supervision. I entirely disagree. I ventured to point out on Second Reading that with regard to a landowner dispossession means that he has his property taken away—perhaps property which has been in his family for many generations.
When it comes to farmers and, above all, to farmer-occupiers, that is a very serious thing. After all, the landowner may have to cease to be a landowner—many of us are being made to cease to be landowners. You find an unfortunate farmer who is reported upon by officials of the Ministry, and reported upon presumably by the agricultural committee, who it must be remembered are agents of the Ministry. He is then brought up before an agricultural land tribunal. If that tribunal gives a verdict against him he loses his means of livelihood, because quite obviously, once that man is dispossessed, the Minister is not going to accept him as a farmer anywhere else. As regards the owner-occupier, he loses his means of livelihood and his home as well. Therefore, I cannot imagine anything more serious.
What is this tribunal to which these unfortunate people may have to apply? It consists of a solicitor or barrister of seven years' standing recommended by the Lord Chancellor, a representative of the landowners, and a representative of the farmers, all of whom are appointed
572
for a very long period. I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, is quite happy about the matters on which his legal representative will have to adjudicate. If the noble and learned Viscount will turn to the top of page 63 he will see that the proposal shall be referred accordingly. Subsection (2) reads:
"On any such reference the tribunal shall determine—

(a) whether the conditions as to which the Minister must be satisfied before taking the action are fulfilled."

That merely means that the place has been inspected, that a report has been made, the individual has been warned, suitable opportunity has been given for making representations and the various provisos referred to in the Act have been carried out. Then you get paragraph (b):
"whether, having regard to their determination under the foregoing paragraph and to all the circumstances of the case, the Minister should or should not take the action proposed."
I am quite certain that the noble and learned Viscount will not pretend for one moment that that is legal procedure.
I am personally—as I think are a good many people in this House, and certainly a very large number in the country—becoming more and more opposed to Ministers being set above the law, and to the principle that they and their officials should not have regard to a court of law where the ordinary individual can get justice and be seen to get justice. It is not only a question that justice may be done, but that it shall be seen to be done. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill may say, "Of course, these rules of procedure for the court are going to be drawn up by order, and that is laid down in a previous subsection of the Bill." Why by order? If the noble Earl looks a little further on in the Marshalled List of Amendments he will see that under Clause 44 he himself is making provision that county court rules shall apply in regard to arbitrations—a much less serious point. Yet you are not having anything whatever laid down in the Bill as to what the procedure of these land tribunals should be. Mark this: there is not to be one land tribunal, but one for each area—I understand something like eleven. One land tribunal may act in one direction and another may take a different view on the whole thing. I may

573
be told that these county agricultural committees are composed of experienced men and do not make mistakes. That is all very well, but some of us remember a case reported widely in the Press which took place in the West of England and which eventually came before the court as a libel action. That was the famous case of Odlam v. Stratton. The learned judge who decided that case not only gave a verdict in favour of the plaintiff and very strongly against the agricultural committee, but he made some very severe animadversions against this committee, its chairman and officer. That case occurred during the Coalition Government, and I am not making any sort of personal attack on this Government.
That will not do. I wondered what was to be done about it. I admit quite frankly that I put this Amendment down knowing very little about the High Court and how it works. I recognize now that my Amendment will not do. What I really want to provide for is that there shall be a rehearing of the case, and I have not said so in my Amendment. I understand that a Judge of the High Court may be very competent in regard to dealing with cases of law, but he is not inclined or does not wish to deal with cases of fact. What I want to deal with are cases of fact. I recognize that there is another method of doing this. It might be that it would be better to have a separate court to deal with all these cases rather than an agricultural land tribunal. Under the Bill—and still more if some of your Lordships' Amendments are accepted—there are a whole series of appeals that may be made to this agricultural land tribunal. For a great many of these cases I think rough and ready justice will do, but I submit that it will not do in regard to questions of dispossession. They are too serious and, therefore, I think you must have some separate court or some separate method for them. I might have covered it by saying that the agricultural land tribunals should have specific terms of procedure, as my noble friend in charge of the Bill proposes for the arbitrations, and that that should be put into the Bill. But you do not want it for all these other cases. For these other cases you do not necessarily want to be able to summon witnesses to have them put upon oath and cross-examined. But I submit you do want to have that kind of thing done in regard to disposses-
574
sion. It has been suggested that I might redraft this Amendment in this way:
"Any person if dissatisfied with such report "—
that is to say, the report made to the agricultural land tribunal—
"may within twenty-eight days lodge an appeal to the High Court for a rehearing. Rules of Court shall be made providing for such rehearing including provision for assessors."
That is one way of dealing with it. Another way would be to deal with it in regard to the procedure, but there again I do not want to burden these tribunals with too difficult a procedure for the ordinary cases. Therefore I am in this dilemma; I have either got to provide for an appeal from the ordinary land tribunals to some sort of court, or have a different kind of procedure for all land tribunals, whatever the cases are.
I have, I am sorry to say, spoken at considerable length, really to develop the general principle. I recognize that my Amendment will not do, and I do not propose to press it. But I ask the Government to give serious consideration to the subject, and to see that a court is set up which shall deal with this very important matter in a proper legal way, with proper witnesses, cross examination, and so forth, and dealt with as law courts are accustomed to deal with their business. I am certain that it is no use our talking about the liberty of the subject, when clauses like this are put into Bills which provide that the Minister and his officials shall be put outside the Courts of Justice of this country. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 16, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Earl Stanhope.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I should like to make it clear that I did not mean to suggest that I thought dispossession was less important than supervision. What I suggested was, that an appeal against dispossession was even more important than an appeal against supervision. Dispossession is a more important matter, for the individual landowner's or farmer's career is ended for good and all by dispossession, and it may be that he will lose his home and his money. I hope that the underlying principle of this Amendment will receive very sympathetic consideration from His Majesty's Government.

575
I foresee the difficulty that the county committees—and I have had considerable experience of them, having had dealings with six of them—work in very different ways. They generally work very well, but they have very different views. Sometimes they are prejudiced with regard to what is or is not good management. I knew of a case of what was called bad management in one county which might, quite easily, in some other county have been overlooked altogether, or, indeed, almost commended. In the same way, with your agricultural land tribunals you are liable to get a certain variation, a certain inconsistency, because of the varying nature of the personnel and experience of the individuals who compose the tribunal. If there were some means of appeal to a properly constituted court, where the whole matter could be considered without any prejudice and in a proper legal form, I think it would create a confidence which is not there yet and may well never grow because of the variety of agricultural land tribunals and the differing views of the various agricultural committees.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I should like to support the principle of the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope. Before every election, and indeed, upon every public platform, people go about talking of our "hard-won liberties" and dating them from Magna Charta. As soon as the election is over they then immediately go and dissipate all the hard-won efforts that have grown from Magna Charta.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I thought that there was a question of our liberties being trodden under foot, as the noble Earl has suggested, I would undoubtedy feel more sympathetic towards this Amendment than I do; but as I think no such thing, I will tell your Lordships how this Amendment strikes me. I have said before that I have an immense admiration for the work done by His Majesty's Judges, but human nature is frail and we are bound to make mistakes. Yet I believe that our judicial system is about as good as any system you can construct. Mistakes have been made and will continue to be made by human institutions, but on the whole we have cause to be very thankful for the work of our Judges.
576
But I would like to differentiate at once between two different considerations; the consideration of law, and the consideration of fact. At one time in my life it used to be necessary for me to go down to the London Corn Exchange a good deal for arbitrations on the sales of cargoes of grain. There was often some controversy as to the construction of a charter party or something of that kind. There were a vast number of arbitrators. Grain sold from The Plate to Europe generally used to provide for an arbitration clause for the London Corn Trade. The way these men worked was that two or three experts would go up and take the corn in their hands, "mess it about" a bit and say: "I think there ought to be an allowance of sixpence" or something of that kind. The thing was over in five minutes.
Imagine a case like that being tried by a Judge. You would have to have expert witnesses and you could be certain that the expert witnesses on one side would be countered by those on the other side, and the unhappy Judge would have to chance his arm and try to say which were the best of the expert witnesses. That is an extreme case, but perhaps I may give it as an illustration. Obviously the practical man is the better; and if a practical man may make mistakes he is less likely to make mistakes than the Judge in a case like that. I am certain that arbitration would be much cheaper and speedier than a law suit.
As regards practical farming, so far as there is any law in this at all, it is quite plain that the matter can go before the courts. Clause 16 refers to the fact that this is to be done "in accordance with the provisions of this Act" and Clause 92 makes it plain that purchase of land shall be "in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act of 1946." Part IV of the First Schedule of the 1946 Act makes it quite plain that the court has complete control over any legal question or consideration at all. So that we are not trying to oust the jurisdiction of the Courts or to say that the Courts are not to have control. The Court has complete control. But then you have this question: Is this farm being farmed well or not? Under this tribunal there will be three members. I appoint one, and I assure your Lordships that I shall try to find a thoroughly

577
competent lawyer who is a countryman, who knows the difference between wheat and barley. There are a number of distinguished lawyers who know a good deal about these things. The Minister appoints the other two, and rules have to be made —and do not forget, my Lords, that these rules have to be laid before Parliament. This is in Clause 73. So that I really think Parliament has a pretty good control over this thing.
In regard to an appeal, the noble Earl himself realizes that that is not the right idea because, where you have got practical men, very often these people would go to see the farm, and seeing is worth a lot of evidence in this sort of case. You go and look at it yourself, if you are a practical man. Then by all means, and if the rules provide, and I think they should provide, for a proper hearing where a witness is called, you have the evidence, and you can follow it much more easily if you have seen what they are talking about. You can have a witness examined and cross-examined. The rules will almost certainly provide for this sort of thing, and those rules will be laid before Parliament. I do not believe that you would get any nearer the truth by taking this thing away from that very eminently practical tribunal to the Judges and to the atmosphere of the expert witness. The Judge would undoubtedly do his best, and the matter might go to the Court of Appeal, and it might come to your Lordships' House. I am sure we should do the best we could, but I very much doubt if we should be able to do as well as a practical man who had gone down there and spent a day walking round that farm.
I quite agree that this is a serious matter, and it is not a thing which wants to be done lightly or ill-advisedly, yet I ask your Lordships to agree with me about this, that so long as the Courts have complete control of the matter so far as the legal side is concerned, on the pure question of fact—Aye or No, is this farm being efficiently farmed?—I believe that it would be better to trust to this tribunal, who will have a chance of investigating for themselves, rather than to bring this matter up to the Courts, and for the Courts, although they would do the best they could, to decide, as it were at secondhand, on the basis of evidence which other people give them, without an opportunity of looking at the matter for them-
578
selves. Whatever the tribunal may be, be it a Court or an agricultural tribunal, any tribunal ought to be slow to dispossess a man of his property. But, on the other hand, in the times in which we live, we all agree that we must see that farming is adequate and good, and it would be wrong to make people hesitate about taking this decision for fear of the fact that they were going to be afterwards brought up and held up to execration, for a time at any rate, in the Law Courts. Therefore, I honestly believe that it would be better to leave this thing where we have got it, for the reasons I have given.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I would like to ask one question which does arise on this clause which deals with dispossession on the grounds of had estate management. It is a question which I raised on Second Reading, and which concerns the personnel that the committees are to use for making the estimates in these cases. I feel that they should have, not only amongst their own members but in a position to advise them, people who have special training and experience in the management of land. The lack of any provision of that kind in the Bill may make many of your Lordships feel a little bit nervous about the actual decisions of the committees and, following them, the tribunal themselves. It is a question of fact more than the legal situation which I would not dare to speak about after the noble and learned Viscount has spoken. But I. think there is some room for anxiety as to the actual facts, opinions and experience, on which these judgments will be based, and I, for one, would feel a good deal more certain about this part of the Bill if there was some prevision, perhaps at a later stage, to say what the opinions and advice were to be on which both the directions for estate management and orders for dispossession were based.
The orders and so on for bad husbandry are, as is well known, well supported by a large number of practical farmers who are able to help on this. There is not only the constitution of the tribunal themselves, but the committee as well who will largely be composed of farmers, so I think it is a little bit different, and I hope that we may get some idea of the intentions of the Government in administering this part of the Bill.

579
Clause 74, was mentioned, I think, by the noble Lord who moved the Amendment. There again there is a point which has some bearing, because under subsection (2) the tribunal shall determine:
"(a) whether the conditions as to which the Minister must be satisfied before taking the action are fulfilled."
That seems to indicate that the Minister must have followed out the instructions in the Bill. He must have done what the Bill said he was to do, and, of course, it would be quite easy for that to be done through a series of formal proceedings. But the point is whether in this connexion paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of Clause 74 means that the judgment of the Minister's officers must be right. It says:
"whether, having regard to their determination under the foregoing paragraph, and to all the circumstances of the case, the Minister should or should not take the action proposed."
If that means that the tribunal must be satisfied that the Minister, through his advisers, has, in fact, made a right judgment, it seems to me to have a considerable effect on the reception which the decision of the tribunal will have. But if, on the other hand, it means that the tribunal should say, that generally speaking, the Minister might just as well take the action proposed without giving an opportunity for the tribunal themselves to express their opinion, I think it would carry less weight. I do not think there is any Amendment down on either of those two points, and I would very much like to know what is the Government's interpretation of them.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: One point occurs to me that I should like to ask on this dispossession matter. Supposing a man is dispossesed of his farm, and the man who is put in afterwards can do no better because the land will produce no better, is there any right or chance —I can find nothing in the Bill at the moment—for the dispossessed man to claim reinstitution?
EARL STANHOPE: Perhaps I might raise another conundrum for the noble Lord to answer. I agree very largely in regard to his idea that the tribunal may be a better method than an appeal to a Judge of the High Court; but there was another point which I raised, which
580
I thought he perhaps rather evaded answering, which was whether he was satisfied that this tribunal, as described in the Bill, will be able to look at this matter from a proper legal point of view, and whether they will be able to summon witnesses and all the rest of it. The noble and learned Viscount says that there are rules of procedure which Parliament has to agree, but when he looks at the clause to which I refer he may say: "That is all very well. There is a limitation under this Bill, which has now become an Act, and, therefore, it is no good talking about rules of procedure. All that they have to do is what is laid down in the Act."
An exact case illustrating my point happened very recently, which I believe came before the Lord Chief Justice. There it was merely a question of the Lord Chief Justice saying, "I have not got to try what are the facts of this case. All I have to decide is whether the Minister carried out the procedure which is laid down by law. That he did, and I am not concerned whether he is right or wrong." From the evidence in this case I say, entirely on my own responsibility, that it looked very much as if the Lord Chief Justice, if he had had the opportunity, would have said that the Minister was wrong. But the noble and learned Viscount must realize what may happen if you get a limitation of the kind made in Clause 74, subsection (2). The question arises whether any rules of procedure that you make are going to cover the point and whether you ought not to have some kind of appeal over the land tribunal. I agree that the legal side is safeguarded, but I am not satisfied that justice will always be done to the unfortunate farmer or owner-occupier who may be dispossessed because officials have got the wrong idea.
[The sitting was suspended at three minutes past seven o'clock and resumed at half past eight.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was asked a series of questions, and I will do my best to remember what they were. I have not consciously, either now or on a previous occasion, avoided dealing with any of them, but sometimes one forgets something amid the multiplicity of questions which one is asked. First, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, asked me what happens supposing, having dispossessed a

581
man and put in someone else who is a very good farmer, you discover that the state of things is no better than it was at first, and you ultimately draw the conclusion that it is the fault of the land and not the farmer. The noble Earl pointed out that there is nothing in the Bill about that. I am afraid that is true, and all I can say is that it would be just too bad. If it should ever happen that someone is hanged for murder and it turned out afterwards that he was innocent (it never has happened, so far as I know), well that would be just too bad. You could canonize him or something of that sort, but there would be nothing else to be done. No doubt if what the noble Earl has suggested did happen, we should remember that the farmer had had a very rough deal, and I am afraid that is all.
The noble Viscount Lord Ridley asked what is the position about the Tribunal. What exactly is it that they have to decide? He will find that the matter is really dealt with in Clause 74. At the top of page 63 your Lordships will read this:
"On any such reference the Tribunal shall determine—

(a) whether the conditions as to which the Minister must be satisfied before taking action are fulfilled."

Your Lordships will remember that there are numerous clauses which begin: "If the Minister is satisfied that this, that or the other." The tribunal have to look to see if the Minister ought to have been satisfied. Then the next paragraph, paragraph (b), reads:
"whether, having regard to their determination under the foregoing paragraph and to all the circumstances of the case, the Minister should or should not take the action proposed."
That would cover cases like this. Suppose that there has been neglect but that the unfortunate farmer, over a period of time, maybe over a period of years, has had some illness from which he has now recovered. The tribunal might well say: "It is true the conditions were fulfilled. The place had been let down, but it was due to hard luck on the farmer's part. He is all right now, and there is no reason to suspect that the neglect will go on." They can report to the Minister, and it is laid down in subsection (4) of clause 74 that:
582
"Where such a reference is duly required the Minister shall act in accordance with the report of the Tribunal and not otherwise."
So he is bound to do what the tribunal tell him. I think that has answered the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and that it shows quite plainly that, even more than he realizes, the tribunal have a function to perform which he said would be satisfactory.
Then the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, asked me some candid questions as to whether I should be satisfied about certain things. I should not be satisfied unless the tribunal, in a case of this sort, dealing with dispossession, had, at the request of any party to it, the right and indeed the obligation to hear evidence in the proper way, evidence formally given and tendered, and to see that that evidence was cross-examined, because evidence in chief is of no value unless it is tested by cross-examination—so far the provisions are in the Bill—and, I think I would add, to see that in proper cases they have the right to subpoena witnesses. I do not pose as an expert. I must be cautious about saying this—I have not, indeed, read it through—but if these words are not in the Bill, I shall use my influence to see that they are included, either in the Bill, if that is necessary, or in the rules. I hope that that satisfies the noble Earl and gives him the answer he requires. I should not be satisfied unless in a matter of importance like dispossession there were procedure for taking solemn and serious steps on such a serious question.
EARL STANHOPE: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for what he said. I do not think the words are in the Bill. I am out to ensure, as I think is the noble and learned Viscount, that the tribunals shall act judicially. I think we shall have to consider on the next stage whether something like that shall be put in the Bill, and not merely left to rules of procedure. I recognize that the Amendment I have put down will not do, and in view of what the noble Viscount has said I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH moved, in subsection (7), to leave out "twelve months" and insert "three years." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is one

583
on which I know the argument may be advanced that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: in other words, that a man under supervision for bad farming has a mimimum of twelve months and therefore it is right that a man under supervision for bad ownership should have a minimum of twelve months under supervision before his case is reviewed. I am perhaps rather like Doctor Johnson. I feel that "gastronomy is a particular care of myself." I feel that sauce for the goose and sauce for the gander, if I interpret the proverb correctly, is not quite correct. It is really sauce for the goose and sauce for the vegetables!
There are two entirely different points in actual fact, if not in appearance. It is quite possible to get a fair idea of what a man who is under supervision for bad farming may do to correct himself in the course of twelve months, but so far as the landowner is concerned there are a hundred and one other considerations, of which I have no doubt the noble Lord who will answer is fully aware, such as inability to get the necessary materials in time; or, if you have the necessary materials, you cannot get a licence to use them in time. There is not only the use of materials to demonstrate that one is fulfilling a certain programme; there may be the fact that, while you are under supervision, there has been a bad storm which has taken tiles off half a dozen different farms and by putting men on this work you have had to neglect the farm under supervision. It is that particular sort of point which makes it impossible to judge in twelve months whether the owner is fulfilling his duty in a proper way. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 32, leave out ("twelve months") and insert ("three years'').—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I do not for a moment suggest that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander in this case, because obviously the two cases are completely different, in what is to be done, the length of time required, and in various other considerations. I would like to point out to your Lordships, however, that the essential thing in this particular clause is that twelve months is the minimum. I think it is clearly put under subsection (7) of the
584
clause, where it says: "No certificate under subsection (1) or (2) of this section shall be given before the expiration of twelve months." I think that makes it clear that it is a minimum period.
The reason why we use the same period of twelve months for estate management and farming is that, although in many cases it would be obvious that a landlord might need a good deal longer than twelve months to improve his estate, there might well be cases where it was quite obvious to the committee that he was an utterly incompetent landlord, or a landlord in such financial straits that clearly he could not even start putting his estate in order. In those extreme cases, I think it would be a great mistake to allow the estate to go on for three years before taking steps for dispossession. I would point out that probably in normal circumstances we would give a great deal longer than twelve months, but we do wish to have the power in extreme cases to be able to take proceedings in that time. With those assurances, I hope the noble Earl will agree to withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL DE LA WARR: With a good deal of what the noble Earl has said it is hard to disagree. One can quite see that there may be cases in which certain instructions should be carried out in twelve months. Perhaps the noble Earl could help us, though, if he inserted in the Bill something to make it clear that twelve months is in fact a minimum. He said that it is clear in the Bill as at present drafted, but I am not quite sure that that is so. If the noble Earl can tell us that before Report he will think up a form of words that will make it quite clear that twelve months is a minimum; it will help a great deal, and will give a considerable amount of reassurance.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I still think that it is very clear in the Bill, but if noble Lords feel that it is not, and would like some form of words to make it absolutely clear that twelve months is the minimum, I will be happy to consider it and put down a form of words on the Report stage.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I thank the noble Earl for that assurance, which makes me feel easier. I do think it is necessary that it should be quite clear to all future Ministers of Agriculture, of

585
whatever colour they may be, that they have to consider the matter in the light of reality, and not in the light of what is printed in the Bill now. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
8.43 p.m.
CLAUSE:17.—(Dispossession on grounds of bad husbandry.)
EARL BEATTY: In view of the acceptance of the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord O'Hagan to Clause 16, the next Amendment in my name becomes consequential, and I presume that the Government will be prepared to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 36, at end insert ("and of the grounds upon which the Minister is satisfied that the farming of the said land does not show satisfactory improvement").—(Earl Beatty.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I should like to say that we shall be happy to accept the Amendment in principle, but it will require slight alteration in drafting, if the noble Lord will agree.
EARL BEATTY: I will be glad to accept that, and withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE had given Notice that he would move to insert after snip-section (3):
"(4) Any person may within twenty-eight days of receiving the report of an Agricultural Land Tribunal lodge an appeal to the High Court."
The noble Earl said: This is a similar Amendment to the one which I moved on the previous clause. I do not propose to repeat the arguments which I used on the previous Amendment, although they do apply, and I will not move this Amendment.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
Clause 20:
Service of notices on agents.
20.—(1) Without prejudice to the general provisions of Part V of this Act as to the service of notices, any notice required or authorised to be served on an owner or occupier by the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to the making of supervision orders and the giving of directions shall, where
586
an agent or servant of the owner or occupier is responsible for the control of the management or farming, as the case may be, of the land in question, be duly served if served on that agent or servant.
8.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH in subsection (1), moved, to insert at the end:
"provided that where the cost of a direction to provide, improve, maintain or repair fixed equipment is more than one-half of the net annual value of the agricultural unit or where a direction required that the management of land to which the direction related shall be entrusted to any person the notice shall in addition be served on the owner."
The noble Earl said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend, Lord Radnor. It may seem at first sight that this is not at all an important point, and it would not be an important point if this were an ideal world in which land agents, who had been appointed a good many years ago, carried on until their dying day exactly as they did for the master who appointed them. It may very easily be argued that no landowner worth his salt will have appointed a land agent who would not automatically keep him informed of the events with which this Amendment deals—namely, of major alterations, costing more than half the net annual value of the agricultural unit, or a direction requiring that the management of land shall be entrusted to any person.
As a trustee and in connexion with long and varied jobs related to the land, I have very often seen agents who, not quite realizing what they were doing, accepted responsibilities which were indeed the landowner's responsibilities, without informing the landowner until the time was rather too late. May I take two obvious instances in which this might apply? There may be a man who has been an agent to a tenant for life for a good many years. The succeeding tenant for life is either a minor just about to come of age and knowing very little for the time being, or is a woman who again knows very little. The agent may think that he knows all and it is not worth while consulting the owner in question, and therefore it is too late before the owner learns what has happened. That is the case of the inexperienced owner. Another case, which I think is even more important, is the case of the young owner who may nave gone abroad. Again the agent has

587
not kept him informed, because he thinks he knows so much better than anyone else.
I am aware that the drafting of this Amendment may present considerable difficulty in that the words in the last line, "served on the owner," come into consideration. It is my own view that "served" is the wrong word and that it inadvertently crept in there. In the case of an owner who is abroad it would especially involve considerable difficulty. However, I think it of very great importance that an owner should be posted with the results of these findings. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 39, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: The noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, who moved this Amendment put his finger on what is perhaps the most difficult feature of it when he pointed out that it requires that notice should be served on the owner. In the event of an agent managing a property the owner of that property might well be abroad, and as the noble Earl admitted it would be difficult to serve the notice upon him. It might even be impossible. At least it might take a long time and would defeat the object in view. That is the main reason why I suggest that this Amendment is not an acceptable one. But there are two other points. It has been suggested that an agent is not responsible if he has been installed by the owner of the estate. One would readily admit that there are many cases, unfortunately, of agents who have turned out to be not only unsatisfactory but in some cases fraudulent, and who have involved their employers in much trouble and loss. But as regards the legal side, it would lead to many complications if we did not accept that the agent was chosen and installed by the owner to be responsible for the estate. I think we must insist that that is the man who must be regarded by the Government as the responsible person.
The other point is that if we tried to get round the question of serving, which is a very difficult one, by posting, a letter sent to the agent for forwarding would, if he were an incompetent or fraudulent agent, probably not be forwarded and
588
one would not be much better off. In all these circumstances I should be glad if the noble Lord would withdraw this Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: This is one of the Amendments which show the difficulty that we get into when we interfere with the ordinary work as between man and man and the ordinary organization of an industry, in this case the agricultural industry. I agree with a great deal of what the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, has said on the difficulties of the owner of land in appointing an agent who is responsible for his actions. But if the noble Earl will look at the last part of the Amendment, he will see that it deals with cases where the Ministry are going to insist on someone else running the property. The Ministry are going to serve the agent with notice and say that he is sacked and that someone else is taking his place. Is it not right, in the circumstances, to serve that notice also on the owner of the property? Is it not only human to expect that the agent who is sacked in that summary fashion will probably not communicate the subject matter of his sacking to his principal? This is a human question as much as anything else. In these circumstances, is it not unfair on the unfortunate agent who is going to be so disposed of, not to serve the notice on the owner, even if it were fair on the owner to be told that someone else has taken his right out of his hand and is sacking his agent? That is the important part of this particular Amendment.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: The noble Earl has not dealt with the most difficult point, which is that of serving the notice. It is not so much the principle of letting the owner know—we should be only too glad if he did know. Unless the owner is very far away, which of course might well be the case, he is almost bound to get to hear of it. I do not see the agent's motive in not letting him know if he were going to be sacked anyway. The fundamental difficulty is the serving of the notice, which might be quite impracticable and hold up the proceedings.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Here we get to a fundamental difference of opinion. His Majesty's Government are proposing to pass laws which they find are against

589
justice, and if they are going to do justice they cannot carry out the laws. Which are they going to do? Are they going to do justice, or are they going to pass laws which are against justice, in order that their machinery may work properly?
EARL STANHOPE: If an owner is abroad, or cannot be got at, he must have given a power of attorney to somebody else. Why should not the notice be given to whoever holds that power of attorney, almost certainly not the agent?
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: Surely the point would be met if after the words "in addition" there were inserted the words "where practicable," so that it would read: "and in addition where practicable be served on the owner."
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I think that suggestion is a very valuable one, and, if the noble Lord will agree, I will look into that before the Report stage. I think it is quite a possibility, but I cannot go so far as to say that I can accept it now.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I am very grateful to my noble friend, Viscount Bledisloe, for making the point which has led the noble Earl into a more receptive frame of mind about accepting it. It is difficult to get justice in administration but, because that is so, there is no reason why you should not try; and after all, if, as I originally suggested, a notice posted to an owner went sometimes through a recalcitrant agent as a forwarding agent, that is not so every time. It is a matter of luck which you get in the rub of events. Merely because it may go through the agent is no reason for not posting it, when the odds are perhaps that it goes through the agent 25 times out of 100, and that 75 times out of a 100 it passes through a bank or somebody else who may forward it on. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21:
Interpretation of references in Part II to "owner" and "manager."
(3) References in this Part of this Act to the person by whom land is being managed shall be construed, where the management is under the control of an agent or servant, as references to the person by whom the agent or servant is employed.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, to leave out subsection (3) and to insert as a new subsection:
"(3) Any question arising under this Part of this Act whether two parcels of land are being managed by the same person shall be determined, if the management of either or both of the parcels is under the control of an agent or servant, by reference to the person by whom the agent or servant is employed and not by reference to the agent or servant."
The noble Lord said: I have been asked to move this, Amendment. It is a mere drafting Amendment, in order to put into better shape the clause as it stands in the Bill. A promise was given in another place by the Solicitor-General, and I accordingly beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 29, leave out subsection (3) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22:
Compensation to tenant for improvements, etc.
(2) The Minister may by order vary the provisions of the Third and Fourth Schedules to this Act, and an order under this section may make such provision as to the operation of this Part of this Act and the said Schedules in relation to tenancies current when the order takes effect as appears to the Minister to be just having regard to the variation of the said Schedules effected by the order.
An order under this subsection shall be of no effect unless approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved, in subsection (2), after "may" where that word first occurs, to insert: "after consultation with such bodies of persons as appear to him to represent the interests of landlords and tenants of holdings." The noble Lord said: This subsection deals with orders to vary the Previsions of the Third and Fourth Schedules of this Bill which I think your Lordships will agree will materially affect the relationship between landowners and tenants. The object of this Amendment is merely to put into the Bill an assurance which was given during Committee stage in another place, that there would in all cases be such consultation. Though there is no doubt whatever that this assurance will be honoured to the full, I think that many of those who are most concerned think that something on these lines should

591
be inserted in the Bill. The objection was that the inclusion of these words would limit the power of the Minister to consult other bodies, such as land agents and valuers. The words in this Amendment are, however, those used in Clause 37, subsection (I), when the Minster has to make regulations for the terms of liability to maintenance and repair. If the noble Earl will agree to put something in the Bill later, but feels that these words might be too limiting, I would have no objection if the noble Lord would include something on the lines of the words in Clause 25, subsection (2), which would include also land agents and valuers. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 10, after ("may") insert the said words.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
LORD MORRISON: I have been asked to reply to this Amendment which the noble Lord has stated very fairly and clearly. It is true that objection was taken in another place to accepting this Amendment, and a statement was made which I am quite prepared to repeat. The noble Lord quite rightly asked: Why not put it in the Bill? An assurance was given in another place that the effect of putting in the Amendment might be to prevent other classes of people who it was desirable should be consulted from being consulted—land agents, surveyors and valuers for example. But there is another reason. If a specific mention of consultation is made in this clause, a similar provision will be necessary in many other clauses when action by the Minister should obviously be preceded by consultation with the interests concerned. It is the intention to consult the different sections of the industry on all matters where their interests are concerned. I am sure that this course will be followed not only by the present Minister but by all future Ministers, of all political Parties. In point of fact, as the noble Lord probably knows, before this Bill reached its present stage extensive consultations took place with all interests likely to be concerned. The noble Lord has suggested that perhaps words might be introduced in a later clause to cover that. That is a new suggestion, so far as I am concerned, and I am quite prepared to consider whether anything can be done in that connexion. On this particular clause, I hope the noble Lord will not desire to press the matter.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I think I said "at a later date" and not "in a later clause;"
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Before the noble Lord decides what he is going to do on the Amendment, I would like to say, if I could have the attention of the noble Lord opposite, that I found his reply rather hard to follow. There seems to be a difference between this question here and some other instances that he brought up. The difference is this. Here you have a case where the landlord and the tenant, whose terms of agreement can be varied by these orders, are two parties to the agreement. The land agents and valuers and other people may be experts, but they are not parties to the agreement between landlord and tenant and, therefore, in this matter they should have a very special status, as should all associations representing landlords and tenants There are plenty of other occasions in the Bill where the Minister has a duty to consult, but I think that those are all general cases where the industry as a whole is being consulted. This is a case where the Government are being asked to make provisions in the Bill for consulting the representatives of the two contracting parties to the agreement which it is desired to vary. Therefore, I hope the matter can have a little further consideration.
EARL DE LA WARR: I hope we can persuade the noble Lord to reconsider this point. We have had an assurance that in fact this will be done, so perhaps it would be better if it were in the Bill.
LORD MORRISON: There is no difference of opinion as to its desirability. The, only difference of opinion is as to whether it should be in the Bill or whether it should not. I am prepared to say, as I indicated to Lord Amherst of Hackney, that we will consider at a later stage—at any rate on the Report stage—whether it should be inserted in the Bill.
VISCOUNT SIMON: May I just point out to the noble Lord, not as one who takes part in the discussion as an agricultural expert, but merely as one who is accustomed to reading words in Acts of Parliament, that really the objection he raises—with all respect to him—seems to me to be quite illfounded. If these words were put in here the result would be that in this connexion the Minister would be

593
under the duty to consult the persons mentioned. He would be under the duty; it would be in the Statute. With great respect to the noble Lord and those who advise him, this has nothing in the world to do with whether the Minister chooses in other cases to consult people or not. The two things have nothing to do with one another. If it is desired in this clause to say that it is the duty of the Minister to consult, that does not affect his view as to whether it would be right to consult in other cases. Therefore I hope that on reflection it will be felt that the argument which has been presented in support of this should be given its proper force. The Minister's power to consult is not affected at all by putting in the words which it is sought to insert in this clause.
LORD MORRISON: I can only say in reply to the noble and learned Viscount that we are quite agreeable that consultations should take place between now and the Report stage in order to see if words can be devised which will make that plain.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I intervene to ask the Government if they will accept this Amendment? We are not wedded to this wording particularly. It is clearly the right thing to do. The Amendment only asks the Minister to consult; it does not bind the Minister in any way. It is clearly right that he should consult. If it is thought that the wording is not the best that can be devised for the purpose it can be reconsidered and put right in the Report stage.
LORD MORRISON: The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, authorizes me to say that he is prepared to accept that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I thank the noble Earl very much.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I also thank him sincerely.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24:
Consent of landlord or approval of Minister required for long-term improvements.
(2) Where, in the case of any improvement specified in Part II of the said Third Schedule, a tenant is aggrieved by the refusal of his landlord to give his consent under the last foregoing subsection, or is unwilling to agree
594
to any terms subject to which the landlord is prepared to give his consent, the tenant may, after giving notice in writing to the landlord of his intention so to do, apply to the Minister for approval of the carrying out of the improvement, and on any such application—

(a) the Minister may, after affording to the tenant and to the landlord an opportunity of making representations to the Minister, whether in writing or on being heard by a person appointed by the Minister, approve the carrying out of the improvement, either unconditionally or upon such terms, whether as to reduction of the compensation which would be payable if the Minister approved unconditionally or as to other matters, as appear to the Minister to be just, or may withhold his approval, and in either case forthwith after coming to a decision on the application shall notify his decision to the landlord and to the tenant;

9.8 p.m.
MARQUESS TOWNSHEND MARQUESS TOWNSHEND moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), after the third. "Minister" to insert "give notice to the landlord that he proposes to." The noble Marquess said: This Amendment links up with the one following it on the Order paper, and I think that with the leave of the Committee it should be taken with it. I therefore beg leave formally to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 22, after ("Minister") insert ("give notice to the landlord that he proposes to'').—(The Marquess of Townshend.)
THE DUKE OF RUTLAND THE DUKE OF RUTLAND had given Notice that he would move, at the end of the clause, to insert:
"(3) Any person to whom notice of a proposal is given under paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection may require that the proposal shall be referred to the Agricultural Land Tribunal established under Part V of this Act, and the provisions in that behalf of the said Part V shall apply accordingly."
The noble Duke said: The Amendment which stands in my name and that of Lord Portsmouth seeks to provide for an appeal to the land tribunal where the Minister desires to override a landlord's objection to a Third Schedule, Part II, improvement, as he has power to do under subsection (2). The improvements under Part II of the Third Schedule could very easily alter the character of a holding. Part II of the Third Schedule deals with the erection of buildings, the renewal of fences and the making of roads. All these are large improvements and we consider it is of vital importance to the owner that in a dispute on this matter he should be

595
given the right to appeal to the independent land tribunal. It may ultimately also impose on the owner a considerable expenditure. In similar circumstances an appeal to the indepedent land tribunal is actually allowed in the Bill, and therefore I feel there should be no great objection to the Amendment. Under Clause 24 (2), paragraph (a), the Minister has the power to override the owner if he refuses permission. In actual fact it will possibly not be the Minister who does the judging, but an officer of the agricultural committee. I consider that the landowner is far more likely to be able to judge whether this extensive improvement should be allowed on that farm or not. He is far more likely to judge fairly than is an officer of the agricultural committee. It is elementary justice that the landowner should in disputes such as this, be given the right of appeal to the land tribunal. I hope the noble Earl will see his way to accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: With the permission of the Committee, I will speak on these two Amendments together. The noble Duke said that the landlord would be a better judge of whether these improvements should be allowed than possibly the Minister's agent. Perhaps the good landlord would, but unfortunately not all landlords are good landlords, and not all of them would be good judges. But the real difference of opinion on this Amendment is the question of the amount in value of the improvements made or the buildings put up, not by the landlord but by the tenant. If a tenant puts up the buildings, the landlord is forced to pay compensation, and when he rents them to another tenant the question is, can the landlord charge the tenant an additional rent to reimburse him for the compensation he has paid? I submit to your Lordships that he undoubtedly can. He can put up the rent accordingly, and, if there should be any difference of opinion on that, he can take it to arbitration. I do not think the landlord suffers any great risk. These improvements will be sanctioned by a responsible agricultural committee, and when they are carried out the landlord may benefit by an increased rent.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: This again is the problem we were discussing in another form about two hours ago, as to whether structures can be erected on land which
596
may entirely alter the character of a holding and the landlord be bound ultimately either to pay compensation which in the light of subsequent occupation may not be justified, or actually lose all advantage of the so-called improvement. You are establishing impliedly a dual ownership, and in the light of past history, particularly in regard to Irish history, I cannot imagine anything more unfortunate than establishing a dual ownership, especially in a so-called improvement which in the long run may turn out not to be an improvement at all. In other words, as has already been argued in this House this afternoon on a previous clause, these erections and so-called improvements may so alter the character of the holding that in the hands of a subsequent tenant they may not prove to be an improvement at all.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I admit the noble Viscount's point, that in the hands of a subsequent tenant they might not be what he wants. I think the person who stands to lose in that case is the tenant. He obtains permission to make the improvements, and carries them out; but when he demands compensation the arbitrator says, "No. This was a special idea of yours, but the works do not necessarily increase the value of the holding. Therefore, you will not receive compensation." I think it is the tenant who loses through his own misguided conception, and not the landlord.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: As the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said, the danger of dual ownership is very real. But, apart from that, can we always be certain that even if you ask for an arbitration you will get anything more than a purely ephemeral arbitration? I have known people go to arbitration about water meadows, and I have known the arbitrator to reduce the rent as the water meadows had not been kept up by the tenant, because, he said, water meadows had gone out of fashion—or words to that effect. That can happen again and again. This Amendment may not be quite rightly drawn, but I would like to have some sort of safeguard that where there is any very substantial improvement being put up by the tenant, against the owner's wishes but with the Minister's consent, there should be some hearing upon which it could go to arbitration.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: There are one or two points in the answer of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, on which I am not clear. One was that he said, in the event of such an improvement and the payment of compensation by the landlord to the tenant, if the tenant went out and a new tenant came in the landlord could put up the rent by going to arbitration. That is not what happens. If a farm is vacant it is let at whatever rent it will fetch. It is no good saying that the rent is up so much, when no one will pay that amount. It is not the usual thing to go to arbitration soon after letting a farm, and it is not likely that the rent would be increased beyond that accepted a short time ago. The noble Earl also said that in such a case the tenant would be likely to suffer, as he would not be awarded the costs of his compensation under the terms of the arbitration.
I think it is implied in the Third and Fourth Schedules, and also in other parts of the Bill, that those are matters for which the tenant is entitled to compensation in the same way as in similar matters under the 1923 Act. And I would assume that the arbitrator deciding that compensation must give him the cost of these improvements, less, of course, the depreciation for the number of years it may be reduced. Those various difficulties seem to show that there is something missing in this. It is clear that the Third and Fourth Schedules make a considerable difference to the terms upon which tenancies are operated. Although such an order as we are speaking of must be laid before Parliament before being confirmed, it is a thing that should be thoroughly threshed out among all the parties interestd.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think we must ask the noble Earl if he will reconsider this matter. He appears to find it difficult to realize that the landlord has to take a very long-term view on a question such as this—a much longer view than the tenant. It may be, for instance, that a new agricultural idea has about ten years' currency. Take something that I happen to be very keen about at the moment, the grass driers. It is probable that if a tenant said he wished to erect buildings for a grass drier the permission might well be granted, because there are many others who feel about the subject as I do. But it is quite possible that there may be new ideas coming along which will prove us wrong and
598
make it possible to deal with the drying of grass in a much cheaper manner than at the present time. It may be that the tenant who has erected this building may see the red light just a little ahead of public opinion. He gets his future value out of the landlord, and in about two or three years the local agent has that farm vacant and has to face the problem of letting that farm with nobody believing in that particular system. Therefore all that capital is standing out against him, and he will receive no return.
I suggest to the noble Earl, therefore, that he should look at this carefully, and in connexion with our Amendments to the Third Schedule. There are many noble Lords who think that we should in fact move the word "erection" (on page 93, line 4), and the words in paragraph 12 "making or improvements of roads," from Part II to Part I. We appreciate that there will be negotiations on this point and that it might be difficult, but we feel that if the landlord were given the simple right of appeal—which is all we are asking—to the agricultural land tribunal, then the point might be met.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I have a feeling that there is some misunderstanding between us on this point, and I should like to clear it up before it goes further. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has quoted the question of grass driers.
EARL DE LA WARR: I said, "buildings for grass driers."
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I recognize the point of the noble Earl. He takes a tenant who has an idea for building an elaborate grass drier which may or may not be good. He wishes to put up the buildings and he applies to the Minister for permission to do so. The Minister gives him that permission; a year later the tenant gives notice and the landlord is left with the building for grass drying. The tenant claims compensation and says, "It cost me so many pounds and I had the permission of the Minister to put it up. Therefore you must pay me compensation." But I would suggest to the noble Earl that two points come into the question.
In the first place, one wonders whether the Minister's agent would give permission, because it would be doubtful whether such an extensive addition of that kind would be permitted. He would be more

599
likely to let the tenant do it at his own expense. But suppose that that is the question; what is the final result of it all? When the compensation is demanded by the tenant from the landlord the question will be, not whether that tenant enjoys those advantages but what rent will the incoming tenant pay? In other words, it will be based on the rentable value of the holding; on what is the increase in the rentable value due to the erection of the grass-drying building. If it has been merely a fanciful scheme, there will be no compensation due. I should like us to be clear on that point.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is certainly a moot point. But the position is that the existing tenant makes an improvement and the two people who are jointly responsible for this so-called improvement—and possibly it is a very real improvement—are the tenant and the Minister. Those are the two people concerned. Now the tenant comes in and claims compensation from the landlord. In his first speech to-night the noble Earl suggested that the landlord could unload his responsibility on to the succeeding tenant by charging him an increased rent; but it might not be an improvement that the new tenant wants. Therefore it is very unfair for a landlord—we are looking at this not from the point of view of the landlord, but from the point of view of agriculture as a whole—to put up the rent and unload on the tenant a responsibility which he did not want—a grass drying apparatus, or whatever it may be, which he did not need.
Under the Bill as it stands the only people on whom the obligation lies are the landlord and the succeeding tenant, and the only two people responsible are the original sitting tenant and the Minister. If there is any compensation due, it should lie at their door and not at the door of the other people. That is the point of the Amendment. I think the Government ought to consider the matter further. If the improvements which were put in with the good will of the Minister were real improvements the situation would not arise. Everybody would be satisfied. The new tenant would come in for an increased value only when a "bloomer" has been made and the people who made the "bloomer" are the sitting tenant and the Minister. That is a
600
clear case which the Government ought to consider. I suggest that if the Government are willing to consider that sympathetically the matter might be postponed; otherwise we shall be obliged to press it, because there is obviously an injustice.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: The noble Marquess has put the case eloquently and I see his point quite clearly. At the same time I should have thought it was safeguarded. When a legitimate value has been created the landlord does not object to paying compensation for that legitimate value; it is where a mistake has been made that the position arises. And I would have thought that that was covered by Clause 23, which governs the amount of compensation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is rather hard on the sitting tenant. If the improvement goes wrong, why should he be saddled with the whole responsibility? That is obviously a matter which should go before arbitration or tribunal. I do not want anybody to suffer by this—the sitting tenant, the succeeding tenant, or anybody else.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I do not fully appreciate the noble Marquess's point, but I think it is covered if it is the tenant who blunders. If, however, noble Lords feel very strongly about it, I would be prepared to consider it again before the Report stage, though I cannot commit myself that the Government will accept the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps the Government would be prepared to discuss it before the Report stage, otherwise we shall be in a difficulty to know whether to put it down or not.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Certainly.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Would the Government be willing to put it in, and then we will consider it?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: No.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I would point out to the Leader of the House that no answer has been given to this matter at all—none.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The only point is the amount of compensation which the landlord would be required to pay, and

601
it relates to the provisions under the preceding part, where the Minister gives consent to the making of these improvements. The amount of compensation under this part of this Act is defined in Clause 23, and the words there are: "having regard to the character and the situation of the holding and the average requirements of tenants." If it is not in accordance with the average requirements of tenants, then the amount of compensation would be trivial or nothing. I think the point is met.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But the sitting tenant has paid something, and it may be a very considerable amount. Who compensates him, if anyone? Under Clause 23 he does not get any compensation. The point is that he has got the approval of the Minister to do this work. The Minister and the Ministry are involved in this.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: May I point this out to the noble Marquess? The tenant has not been directed by the Minister to put up a grass drier. He has said to the Minister, "May I put up this grass drier, which I am convinced is a good thing? "and, if he has made a mistake, surely the tenant should pay the penalty.
EARL DE LA WARR: No. Surely the real trouble is, as I ventured to say before, that the noble Earl will not take a sufficiently long view of this subject. It may be that the sitting tenant gets out while the particular stunt, if I may so term it, is still in vogue, and the landlord will have to pay the full compensation. Then the land is let to a new tenant to whom the landlord is able to pass the land on while the stunt is still proceeding. But that new tenant may go in three years' time—there is nothing to prevent his doing so at twelve months' notice—and then the landlord, having paid the sum in capital compensation to the first tenant, is left with the land which he has to let for a sadly decreased rent, and he will lose the whole amount.
EARL STANHOPE: The Government are taking all sorts of powers to compel owners to do this, that and the other, because they think it is necessary, and now they take away the power from the owner to say "I do not think it is necessary"; they take on the powers of the landowner and say that the thing shall be
602
done. Lord Hastings told us of cases where he put up buildings and matters have not worked out as expected, and he has had to stand the racket. He made a mistake, and he had to grin and bear it; but the Government are going to do these things, and they do not want to grin and bear it.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: There is one matter which I think bears on the noble Marquess's point. Not only will the Minister and the local agricultural committee give their cachet to the improvement, but the valuer himself will be specially influenced by that cachet having been given. He cannot ignore it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do hope that the Government will put this Amendment into effect and then consider the matter further, and we would be very ready to negotiate then if they do not think it is in its proper form. Really, the fact has emerged from this debate—and it is a very significant fact—that, of the four people who might conceivably be responsible, the only person who could not conceivably have to pay is the Minister who has given approval to the scheme! It is impossible for them to unload some of their responsibility on to the Minister. I have no doubt the Government would not accept that that should be done, though I think it would be a very proper course for them to take. The minimum that should be done is that the matter should go to an appeal tribunal, and the one who has the most responsibility should bear the burden. If the Government will not accept that, we shall have to put it in the Bill. We do not do it with a view to inflicting a severe reverse on the Government, but to enable them before the Report stage to consider the matter further. If we do not put it in now, we shall have the Report stage and then a discussion, and we shall be in a difficulty. I suggest to the Committee that we should put this in now, not with a view to defeating the Government, but with a view to giving them a further opportunity for considering the matter.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: There are two points I should like to make. The first is, why does the noble Marquess think that the appeal tribunal, which it is suggested should be used as the machinery here, would he better informed and less likely to fall info error as to what is the

603
fashionable thing to do? Why would they not be influenced the same way as everybody else?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Because the Minister made the original "bloomer"!
LORD HASTINGS: This surely can only be a matter of time. There will be so many of these cases of Ministerial "bloomers" in the many clauses of the Bill, and it will only be a matter of time before a short amending Bill will be introduced to enable them to pass the cost of the "bloomers" on to the Treasury. This will give the appeal tribunal their first and very necessary opportunity, for it is perfectly obvious that there are going to be cases coming before the appeal tribunal in which the appeal tribunal will be in a fix, as Lord Huntingdon says. They will not know who will pay. They will say to the Government of the day, "We cannot possibly saddle any of these parties with these things. Who is going to pay?" Finally, it will be the taxpayer
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 3, at end insert—
("(3) Any person to whom notice of a proposal is given under paragraph (a) of the last
who will pay, and we may just as well start a precedent at once and establish that in the Bill there is an appeal tribunal to see that the "bloomer" is paid for at the right counter. Therefore, I think this should be in the Bill.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: We cannot accept the Amendment, but I will be quite prepared to discuss the point with the noble Lord opposite before the Report stage if he thinks that will serve any useful purpose.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think we had better put it into the Bill. We are very ready, as always, to consider with the Government in a most friendly fashion any way of making the point more generally acceptable, and we do not do it with a view to inflicting a reverse on the Government, but merely for practical reasons.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 14.

CONTENTS.

Rutland, D.

Bridgeman, V.

Hatherton, L. [Teller.]

Elibank, V.

Hazlerigg, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Hailsham, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Salisbury, M.

Ridley, V.

Llewellin, L.

Townshend, M.

Simon, V.

Lloyd, L.

Luke, L.

Beatty, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Middleton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Ashburton, L.

Oaksey, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Howe, E.

Belstead, L.

Roche, L.

Onslow, E.

Bingley, L.

Savile, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Carrington, L.

Soulbury, L.

Radnor, E.

Courthope, L.

Teynham, L.

Selborne, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Trevethin, L.

Stanhope, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Tweedsmuir, L.

Grenfell, L.

Wardington, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Hastings, L.

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Ammon, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Chorley, L.

Marley, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Dukeston, L.

Morrison, L. [Teller.]

Holden, L.

Rochester, L.

Addison, V.

Kershaw, L.

Shepherd, L.

Walkden, L. [Teller.]

foregoing subsection may require that the proposal shall be referred to the Agricultural Land Tribunal established under Part V of this Act, and the provisions in that behalf of the said Part V shall apply accordingly.").—(The Duke of Rutland.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26:
Reduction of compensation where grant received by tenant.
26. Where any grant out of moneys provided by Parliament has been or will be made to the tenant of a holding in respect of an improvement specified in the Third Schedule to this Act or Part I of the Fourth Schedule thereto, the grant shall be taken into account in assessing compensation under this Part of this Act for the improvement.
9.47 p.m.
LORD SAVILE LORD SAVILE moved, at the end of the clause, to insert:
"Provided that where the tenant of a holding has refused or failed to apply for any such grant as aforesaid in respect of an improvement to which this section applies the landlord of the holding shall be entitled to apply to the County Agricultural Executive Committee established under Part V of this Act for the County in which the holding or any part thereof is situated to assess the amount of the grant which would have been made to the tenant in respect of the improvement if the conditions precedent to the making of such grant had been fulfilled and the amount so assessed shall be taken into account in assessing compensation under this Part of this Act for the improvement as if a grant of that amount had been or would be made to the tenant in respect thereof."
The noble Lord said: My purpose in moving this Amendment is to prevent landowners from being involved in unreasonable expense in the event of a tenant wanting to carry out certain improvements as specified in the Third Schedule and Part I of the Fourth Schedule for which grants are available. Tenants do not always claim grants to which they may be entitled, and they may lose a grant to which they would otherwise be entitled by carrying out works before they actually make a claim. It might also happen that a tenant, through neglect or ignorance, might fail to apply for a grant which would largely cover the expense. The landlord has to foot the bill, whereas it is the tenant's responsibility. The clause as it stands completely shields the tenants from their own shortcomings at the expense of the landlords or the incoming tenants—that is an important point. I hope the Government will change their feelings about this and right a wrong. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 36, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Savile.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I think there is a certain substance in the noble Lord's case, but it needs thinking
606
over again. If the noble Lord would accept this, I am quite prepared to discuss it before Report stage with a view to putting something in. I do not commit the Government to accepting it but I will gladly examine it.
LORD SAVILE: In that case I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28:
Compensation for continuous adoption of special system of farming.
28.—(I) The following provision shall be substituted in Section nine of the Act of 1923 (which provides for compensation to a tenant for increasing the value of a holding by the continuous adoption of a standard of farming or system of farming which has been more beneficial to the holding than the standard or system (if any) required by the contract of tenancy) for so much of subsection (1) of that section as precedes the provisos thereto:—
"Where the tenant of a holding shows that by the continuous adoption of a system of farming which has been more beneficial to the holding—

(i) than the system of farming required by the contract of tenancy, or

(ii) in so far as no system of farming is so required, than the system of farming normally practised on comparable holdings,

the value of the holding as a holding has been increased during the tenancy, having regard to the character and situation of the holding and the average requirements of tenants reasonably skilled in husbandry, the tenant shall be entitled, on quitting the holding on the termination of the tenancy, to obtain from the landlord compensation of an amount equal to the increase,"
and in proviso (c) to the said subsection (1) for the words "value to an incoming tenant" there shall be substituted the words "value of the holding for the purposes of this section".
9.50 p.m.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved to insert after subsection (1):
"(2) In proviso (a) to the said subsection (1) (which excludes the operation of the section where no record of the condition of the holding has been made, or in respect of matters arising before the date of the record so made) the reference to the said date shall be construed, where more than one such record has been made during the tenancy, as a reference to the date of the first such record."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to clarify the existing provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act,

607
1923, with a view to its consolidation with Part III of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 31, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am afraid that I do not quite understand the object of this Amendment. The noble Lord was very brief in his explanation. Could he explain a little further what is the object?
LORD MORRISON: What I said was that this Amendment is designed to clairfy the existing provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, with a view to its future consolidation with Part III of the Bill. Section 9 of the 1923 Act, as amended by Clause 28 of the Bill, provides that where a tenant farmer has adopted a special system of farming which has resulted in an over-all increase in the value of a holding he may claim compensation for that increased value on quitting the holding. Under proviso (a) of subsection (1) of Section 9 of the 1923 Act, he is able to claim that compensation only where there is a record of the condition of the holding. This is clearly necessary, as otherwise there would be no datum line from which to assess whether or not the holding had increased in value. The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that where during a tenancy there has been more than one record of the condition of the holding, the first record should be taken as the datum line rather than any subsequent record.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am obliged to the noble Lord. What he has just said has made the point clear, but I must confess that I did not gather the point from his original speech.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30:
Compensation for disturbance.
30.—(1) Where the tenancy of a holding terminates by reason of a notice to quit given by the landlord, and in consequence of the notice the tenant quits the holding, then, subject to the provisions of this section, unless—

(e) the tenant with whom the contract of tenancy was made had died within three months before the said date:
608
and unless the notice to quit states that it is given by reason of one or more of the matters aforesaid, specifying it or them, compensation for the disturbance shall be payable by the landlord to the tenant in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(3) Where the tenant of a holding has sublet the holding, and in consequence of a notice to quit given by his landlord becomes liable to pay compensation under this section to the sub-tenant, the tenant shall not be debarred from recovering compensation under this section by reason only that, owing to not being in occupation of the holding, on the termination of his tenancy he does not quit the holding.
9.55 P.m.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved in subsection (1), after paragraph (e), to insert:
"(f) the tenant had refused to sign an agreement in respect of the hire of the holding."
The noble Lord said: In the 1923 Act the refusal on the part of a tenant to sign an agreement constituted one of the several reasons which enabled a landlord to give notice to his tenant to quit, without accepting liability or compensation. That particular casus has been omitted from this Bill. It is quite clear from Clause 38 that it is the intention of the Bill that written agreement should exist in all cases; indeed, it would be difficult for the machinery of this Bill to work unless such written agreements did in fact exist.
It can be maintained, of course, that technically no tenant ought to be allowed to enter the occupation of a form until after he had signed an agreement. But in point of fact that is too often not the case, and a tenant once having got into a farm without having signed an agreement is frequently a most troublesome person to deal with. The difficulties of the landlord, and through the landlord the difficulties of operating this Bill, would necessarily be very considerable unless there were some means of coercing a tenant into signing a reasonable agreement. Up to date this condition in the 1923 Act has been extraordinarily useful. It is not that it has had to be put into operation, but that it is there; and a tenant knows that if he carries to too great a length the process of delay and a refusal to sign an agreement, the landlord has up his sleeve the proviso of the 1923 Act which enables him in the last resort to give the tenant notice and get him out without paying compensation.
It may be held that Clause 38 does supply the need which I think is universally felt, but it would make the Bill more shapely and more comely if it were put into the place where it was before, which was amongst those other conditions in respect of which the consent of the Minister to giving notice was not required. I would like to see it come into this clause in the right place. In Clause 30 the Minister is not going to give his consent to the giving of a notice to quit unless certain defaults have been committed—I think that would be the best word to use—by the tenant. I want to add to those defaults a default which is in the 1923 Act, and I can see no reason why it should not be there, since it is the intention of the Government that agreements should be in writing and should be signed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 14, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD MORRISON: To the best of my knowledge the noble Lord has described the position fairly and accurately. As he says, this provision was contained in the 1923 Act, but has now been deliberately omitted from this Bill because of the powers contained in Clause 38. Under Clause 38 a landlord who wishes to have a written tenancy agreement can, if the tenant refuses—and that is the point, of the noble Lord's Amendment—take the matter to arbitration and get the existing terms of the tenancy reduced to writing. It does seem to me that if, as the noble Lord has said, there is a great deal of trouble with tenants who refuse to sign any agreement, under Clause 28 it is possible for the landlord to take the matter to arbitration and have the existing terms of the tenancy reduced to writing. There seems to me, therefore, nothing to prevent the landlord getting an agreement in writing if he so desires.
LORD HASTINGS: I entirely agree. I am quite conscious of that fact, but what I do hold is that it is a very untidy way of trying to perpetuate a straightforward action, and that it would be very much better in the right place than in the wrong place, and the Bill would be much improved thereby. The noble Lord speaks of a landlord's opportunity of going to arbitration as if it were a light matter. Under the 1923 Act all the landlord or the
610
agent had to do was to write to the tenant and say, "I cannot put up with this any more. You must sign an agreement, and if you do not you must go." That cost a 2½d. stamp—that is all. If you go to arbitration, just to see how many 2½d. stamps that will cost! Arbitration is very cumbersome and expensive, and I would like to see the little Amendment that I have suggested put in its proper place. I hope the Government will give way about this.
THE EARL OF SELDORNE: I should like to suppose what my noble friend has just said. After all, the principle which he is advancing has been admitted by the Government in the Bill and is a principle which it would be difficult for anybody to gainsay. If the principle is in the Bill surely it ought to come into this clause, because this is a clause where that condition of affairs would have effect. I do not see any reason for amending Clause 38. There is no reason why it should not be in both parts of the Bill. But if it is part of the scheme of the Bill, as it must necessarily be, then clearly it ought to be in this clause. This is where the matter becomes of importance. I hope my noble friends will agree that this Amendment could usefully be made at this juncture. If they can agree to that, the result will be, as the noble Lord has said, that you have a tidier Bill—and a more workmanlike Bill, and that is an important matter in a measure that will have to be administered by landlords and tenants and county committees throughout the country.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: It is quite true that arbitration is provided for in Clause 38. But I have studied Clause 38 and there is nothing in it which says that tenants have to sign the agreement which the arbitrator awards. I am no lawyer, but I have a belief that the signature on an agreement is a necessary part of the agreement. I do not know what a lawyer would say if a landlord went to law over the terms of an agreement which had been arranged by an arbitrator, but which had not been signed by the tenant. I think it is a point that the noble Lord ought to consider. Quite apart from the question of tidiness or of a more comely Bill, there is the question of legal interpretation, which he ought to consider most carefully.
LORD MORRISON: I do not think that we could accept this Amendment, because, in addition to the reasons I have given, I have previously pointed out that if the tenant has refused to sign an agreement the landlord can take the matter to arbitration. It seems to me that it is a serious matter for a tenant, because if a tenant refuses to sign a written tenancy agreement the landlord would be able to serve notice to quit without payment of compensation for disturbance.
LORD HASTINGS: That is the present law.
LORD MORRISON: In all the circumstances, frankly I hope the noble Lord will not desire to pursue the matter further at this stage.
VISCOUNT COWDRAY: Does the noble Lord not think it would be right for a tenant to sign the agreement? Does he think it right to go on indefinitely refusing to sign an agreement?
EARL DE LA WARR: What will happen if the landlord goes to arbitration and wins his case, and there is nothing in the Bill to say that the tenant should in fact sign the agreement?
LORD MORRISON: He can then give him notice to quit.
LORD HASTINGS: There is nothing in the Bill. The noble Lord may think so, but I do not think that would carry any weight in the court.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: The real point is the fact that if the tenant refuses to sign an agreement then the landlord can force the tenant to go to arbitration; and if the tenant will still not sign on the dotted line the arbitrator's award becomes compulsory.
EARL DE LA WARR: Can the noble Earl point to the words in Clause 38?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I think they will be found in subsection 2:
"On any such reference the arbitrator shall by his award specify the existing terms of the tenancy…"
EARL DE LA WARR: There is nothing mandatory there.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I think the noble Earl will find that the arbitrator's statement is binding on the tenant.
EARL DE LA WARR: Where?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I cannot find it at the moment—
LORD HASTINGS: I do not think the noble Earl will. It is rather untidy. The intention of the Government and that of the noble Lords on this side of the House is the same, but it is in rather an untidy state at the present time and it would be better put in proper form. But I should like to make it clear that under the present law—the Act of 1923, under which we are operating at the present time—the tenant who refuses to sign his agreement can be given notice to quit, and forfeits his right to compensation. I think it will be universally agreed that he thoroughly deserves it. That is the present law.
EARL DE LA WARR: Perhaps the noble Lord will look into this.
LORD MORRISON: It is contained in the Bill at page 41. Subsection 5, of Clause 39, says:
"The award of an arbitrator under section thirty-seven or thirty-eight of this Act shall have effect as if the terms and provisions specified and made therein were contained in an agreement in writing entered into by the landlord and the tenant, and having effect as from the making of the award or, if the award so provides, from such later date as may be specified therein."
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Lord wins!
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved in subsection (3) after "has" to insert "lawfully." The noble Lord said: I think this short Amendment is self-explanatory. It is designed to discourage the unauthorized sub-letting of farms. I think your Lordships will all agree that a tenant who has sub-let without permission should not be entitled to compensation. There is an added danger that, without this Amendment, unscrupulous tenants might be encouraged to collect premiums on sub-letting, a practice which I am sure all your Lordships would wish to discourage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 3 after ("has") insert ("lawfully").—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
LORD CHORLEY: I have been asked to reply to this proposed Amendment,

613
which I am sorry we cannot accept. The object of the noble Lord in moving this Amendment is, as he said, to discourage tenants from unlawfully sub-letting, that is to say, in contravention of the covenants of their leases or agreements. That is clearly dealt with in the first subsection of the clause in two places—namely, under paragraph (b), and also under paragraph (c), which really deal with the same problem from two different aspects. The clause, of course, deals with compensation for disturbance. It says that where the tenancy terminates by reason of a notice to quit, the tenant shall be entitled to compensation except in a number of cases to which the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, referred a moment ago on a different issue. The two cases dealt with under paragraphs (b) and (c) are as follows:
"(b) at the date of the giving of the notice to quit the tenant had failed to comply with a notice in writing served on him by the landlord requiring him within two months from the service of the notice to pay any rent due in respect of the holding, or within a reasonable time or within such reasonable period as may be specified in the notice to remedy any breach by the tenant which was capable of being remedied of any term or condition of his tenancy which was not inconsistent with the fulfilment of his said responsibilities."
That would cover the breach of a covenant not to sub-let. The next paragraph says:
(c) "at the said date the interest of the landlord in the holding had been materially prejudiced by the commission by the tenant of a breach which was not capable of being remedied of any term or condition of the tenancy which was not inconsistent as aforesaid."
That again would cover this point of a breach of a covenant not to sub-let.
The subsection of the clause to which the noble Lord has moved this Amendment really deals with quite a different matter, if I may say so. It deals with a tenant who has sub-let and who is therefore not in a position, so to speak, to be dealt with on this basis and would not be entitled to the compensation. This subsection is put into the clause in order to safeguard his position. It is a misconception, if I may respectfully say so, to put in the words "lawfully sub-let" in this particular case. The remedy is under paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of the clause. It is quite true that there is, in a sense, a certain alteration of the law as it stood under the 1923 Act, because
614
it is just conceivable that there might be a case where it was held that sub-letting, although it was in contravention of a covenant in the lease, did not actually prejudice the landlord and, therefore, would not carry with it the right to substantial damages. I would suggest to the noble Lord, however, that the case he has in mind is quite clearly met under the first subsection of the clause, and he should be content with that and withdraw his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I say a word on this? I gather that the case of the Government on this Amendment is that it is already covered, but that does not really seem to be a reason for refusing this single word which makes the position under the law clearer. If the noble Lord will look at page 30, line 3, he will see that it reads:
"Where the tenant of a holding has sub-let the holding, and in consequence of a notice to quit given by his landlord becomes liable to pay compensation under this section to the sub-tenant, the tenant shall not be debarred from recovering compensation."
Obviously, the position is made clearer if it says "lawfully sub-let." We all know of cases in the countryside where in fact a tenant does, without consulting the landlord, sub-let; we have all had cases of that kind. It is very important that the tenants should be warned against a practice of that kind which is obviously unsuitable and harmful. Therefore, if you put into this clause the one word "lawfully," which I do not suppose would be very expensive from the point of view of printing, it would make the position absolutely clear. So far as I can see, the Government have no argument against it. They just say it is unnecessary. If it gives an absolutely clear meaning, even. if it is not necessary, it is at any rate desirable.
LORD CHORLEY: The noble Marquess did not quite follow the latter part of my argument, which was to the effect that there was here a slight alteration of the previous law. The noble Lord's Amendment goes too far because it would enable the landlord to proceed against the tenant where in fact the breach of the covenant had not led to any material prejudice to the landlord. It is that case that we want to cover. In ninety nine cases out of a hundred, there would, of course, be a material prejudice to the landlord as a result of that breach, and that is covered

615
in the earlier subsection of the clause. If the noble Lord's Amendment were to be accepted, it would mean that even in cases where there was a purely technical breach which did not in any sense materially affect the landlord and give rise to any damage, the landlord could, as a result of that technical breach, proceed against the tenant. We are not prepared to accept that position. There are two reasons why I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment. The first is that ape substance of the case which he puts before your Lordships is already covered in subsection (1); and the second is that the Amendment which he has proposed goes further than the Government are prepared to go, and would give the landlord a right in a case where he was not materially prejudiced.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do consider it would be desirable to put it in, but I do not think we shall press it any further, if the noble Lord assures me that any case of real danger is safeguarded.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: In view of what has just been said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31:
Restrictions on termination by notice of tenancies of holdings.
31.—(1) Where notice to quit a holding or part of a holding is given to the tenant thereof, and not later than one month from the giving of the notice to quit the tenant serves on the landlord notice in writing requiring that this subsection shall apply to the notice to quit, then subject to the provisions of the next following subsection the notice to quit shall not have effect unless the Minister consents to the operation thereof.
(2) The last foregoing subsection shall not apply—
(3) Without prejudice to the discretion of the Minister in a case falling within paragraphs (a) to (d) of this subsection, the Minister shall withhold his consent under this section to the operation of a notice to quit unless he is satisfied—

(a) that the carrying out of the purpose for which the landlord proposes to terminate the tenancy is desirable in the interests of efficient farming; or

10.17 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved to insert at the end of subsection (2):
616
"(d) Where the notice to quit affects part of the holding and the holding as proposed to be diminished is reasonably capable of being farmed as a separate holding."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to exclude from the compass and provision of this clause a notice to quit where the amount of land involved is very small. There are several reasons for which a small piece of land might be required. Possibly it might be wanted for a gravel pit, for a smallholding or for an allotment. Doubtless there are other purposes of which your Lordships can think. The whole point is that there is here no threat to the security of tenure of the farm which is left, as it is reasonably capable of being farmed as a separate holding. The fact that there is no threat to the security of tenure is shown quite clearly by Clause 30 (4) (b) which states that if the farmer as a result of a notice on the small piece of land decides to quit his farm and that farm is still reasonably capable of being farmed as a separate holding he is not entitled to compensation for disturbance. If he is not entitled to compensation for disturbance, there can really be no threat to his security of tenure. This Amendment is designed merely to enable landlords to obtain small pieces of land for special purposes without all the cumbersome provisions of this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 45, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I do not quite see why there should be a differentiation drawn between a small part of a holding and the main holding. Surely the principle of security of tenure ought to be valid for part. There are, of course, certain special cases, as the noble Lord has pointed out—I think he quoted that of allotments. Actually, as regards smallholdings or allotments the Minister's consent would have to be obtained, and he has discretion to give this under subsection (3) (b). As regards afforestation in special cases, the Minister's consent would have to be obtained and he has discretion to give that under subsection (3) (d). Most of these matters are covered, and I fail to see, as a result of the argument put forward by the noble Lord with regard to these special circumstances why, since they are covered, one should differentiate in regard to security of tenure for a small part of a holding.
LORD HASTINGS: There is one particular case which has, perhaps, escaped the attention of the noble Earl, though I think that Lord Amherst mentioned it. That is the case of a gravel pit. I cannot imagine that the case of a gravel pit comes under subsection (2) (c) which makes an exception in the case
"of land required for a use other than for agriculture, for which permission has been granted on an application made under the enactments relating to town and country planning…"
It might be possible for a difficult tenant to prevent the landlord from opening up a gravel pit in his holding which might be of great assistance to other parts of the estate. It is one of these small matters which one wants to avoid if one can. I do not know whether words may be found which are preferable to those of Lord Amherst but his words certainly do meet a need. The gravel pit is one of the most likely examples. Could the noble Earl think that out and possibly find a way out of that difficulty? I do not think he would wish to prevent an estate from opening up a gravel pit or allow any tenant to stop what would be good estate management.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: In that case I think planning would be necessary to establish a gravel pit.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: May I deal more generally with the matter than the case which Lord Hastings has given? One danger expressed on all sides is the danger of overloading the county agricultural executive committees with small detailed work; this Amendment is designed to stop that overloading when it is not necessary. The question of putting down a small shelter belt, which may or may not be agreed, is a matter which they should not have to consider.
May I tell a story which has always affected me as to the way the bureaucratic mind works? In the middle of this war there was an owner of land who had a few cottages and a house in my own county. He was a serving sailor who was retired in the middle of the war. He had twenty-four dependants between the cottages and the house relying on him for food and sustenance. Out of a 500-acre estate he had only one acre on which he could do anything about growing food for them. So when the lease of the tenant
618
was being renewed he asked leave to have three acres taken out so that he could keep a little more stock and break up a little more to feed his dependants. The answer came back from the district agricultural committee to our committee, through one of our most excellent civil servants—who worked himself to the bone night and day, but who was influenced inevitably to take the utterly official attitude—" I do not recommend this request. The man only wants to grow food for his family." I do not want to betray any secrets but very few people on my own committee thought that was either funny or tragic. Until it was pointed out that there could not be a better reason for growing food than for your own family, they were inclined to take the view of the official. This is a situation which this Amendment is designed to avoid. If a man wants to grow food, he should be able to do it without having to go through a rigmarole which may or may not be sympathetically observed.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: The noble Earl has told us a very moving story of the unfortunate man who wanted to grow more food for his family. I sympathize with him, but in a Bill of this kind we must look more to the general intention of the Government for agriculture. One thing the Government have in mind is to try to preserve the big farm and to prevent little parts being cut off except in regard to allotments and other special cases. With regard to committees, I am sorry if the committee on which the noble Earl has served took a rather distant view of this subject, but on the whole I think we must allow that committees will be reasonable people, and that the red tape and bureaucracy pictured by the noble Earl will be exceedingly rare.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: May I, in defence of my committee, say that they are the most reasonable committee that I have ever met?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I am glad to hear that, and we hope they may be an example to all other committees. As the committees will be administering our policy, we hope we can look to them not for bureaucratic Whitehall control, but for individual and reasonable judgments as given by agriculturists who know the situation. I hope the noble Earl will admit that point. Apart from such very

619
special cases I do not see why the principle of security of tenure should not be followed. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: Surely the whole point of this Amendment arises in cases where the security of tenure is not seriously broken. The noble Earl is prepared to admit the case where there is a nice label attached to it. He can call it an allotment, or a smallholding, but if it is an acre or two for a man to keep a few chickens, some untidy scheme like that which does not fit into the noble Earl's tidy picture of the countryside, it cannot be allowed. This is not a vital matter, on which one feels one wants to divide the Committee, but I do feel that in the interests of reasonableness the noble Earl ought to look into it. It may be that we have not quite the right words, but they can easily be redrafted. There is a point here, and I think the noble Earl should undertake to look into it,
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: May I commend to His Majesty's Government the old adage de minimis non curat lex?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I sympathize with noble Lords in their feelings, but I think this strikes at one of the principles about which we feel very strongly. Although there may be deserving individual cases, we want to avoid little bits and pieces, unless there is some very consistent reason for them. As the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has said, it is not a vital point, but it is a point of principle about which we on this side of the House feel strongly. I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I do not know whether it would be better to break off bits and pieces for allotments, or anything else. There are other things which it is essential should be broken off. There are a lot of things which are happening all the time which do not involve breaking up the farm into small units, but which are a matter between landlord and tenant. It would save a lot of time if they did not have to refer to the committees who have to send someone to look at the details. It is a small matter, but a lot of people have to waste a lot of time over it. I suggest it would be better avoided by something such as this Amendment.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I am sorry that the Government are unable to accept this Amendment. I think they are probably putting a lot of unnecessary work on their committees in the future. As the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr said, it is not a vital matter and, therefore, I do not intend to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY had given Notice of two Amendments in paragraph (a) of subsection(3): to leave out "shall" and insert "may"; and to insert after "farming" "or good estate management." The noble Lord said: This is a straightforward Amendment, the substitution of the word "may" for the word "shall." Generally the criticism is that the Minister assumes too great powers of discretion. The usual argument advanced for these powers is that it is difficult to foresee exactly how things will work out, and that it is necessary to retain a certain amount of flexibility. Here the Minister has perhaps tied himself down too rigidly. There are only these three places where he has even the power of discretion. I think it would be rash to say that these cover all the possible cases which might arise in the future, and we feel that the Minister should have a little more discretion to meet cases which may turn up and which have not been foreseen in this Bill. It is with the object of giving the Minister this discretion that I am moving this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 3, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I do not know if the noble Lord quite realizes what would be the effects of the Amendment if it were carried. One of the principal aims of this Bill is the provision of security of tenure; we want to give the tenant farmer the greatest possible measure of security which is consistent with efficient agricultural production. This is contained in Clause 31 which restricts the occasions when notices to quit may be given. It goes further than that in limiting the Minister's power to certain cases where he may give his consent to a notice to quit. These are specified in subsection (3). Of course, if we

621
insert the word "may" it gives the Minister complete discretion. He may be bound—he may not. It does, however, completely undermine the purport of this whole subsection. I think if the noble Lord appreciates that, he might be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEYI realize the difficulties here, but after all this is only permissive and the Minister need not use those powers. They are there if he wants them, and if he finds that in the future there are any other reasons other than those laid down in this Clause he could use them. But as this Amendment is not supported I will withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ASHBURTON LORD ASHBURTON moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (3), to leave out "desirable in" and insert "in conformity with." The noble Lord said: I think we all agree that the clause we are now discussing is of vital importance to the landlord and that it is of equally great importance to the tenant. Somewhere between their two interests a balance has to be struck, and I feel that we should approach all the Amendments on this clause in a spirit of great reasonableness. The background, as we all know, is that this Bill pre-supposes the continued existence of the landlord and tenant system. If that system is to operate successfully I submit to your Lordships that it is absolutely necessary that each party should be able to play his part, and that he should be given a fair chance of doing so. I think it would be perfectly possible, under the Bill as it now stands, for a landlord—anyhow, if he has some resources behind him—to become completely negative towards the production of capital when required to do so for his repairs. He could receive his rents and play no active part. I do not believe that is what we want. To make the Bill a success he has to take his part as much as the tenant. To do that there must be circumstances in which he should be allowed to give reasonable notice to quit—circumstances other than those covered by the more penal clauses of this Bill.
This Amendment concerns the substitution of the words "in conformity with" for "desirable in" in line 6 on page 32. We believe that the word "desirable" implies that the landlord must prove that
622
the notice he gives and the arrangements he is making consequent on that notice, are going to result in better farming than has gone on before. We believe that that is not reasonable, and that he should have to prove only that the farming is not going to deteriorate from its present standard. In fact, what we really want by the Amendment is to make it easier for the Minister to assist a reasonable landlord giving a reasonable notice to quit, while the Minister is quite satisfied in every other respect. The Amendment in my name which stands next on the Order Paper aims at rectifying what seems to have been an omission or an oversight in drafting. Perhaps I may say a word on that at the same time.
The whole way through this Bill the farmer and the landlord have been given more or less equal attention, in that each has to do his bit. Yet here we have a case where no notice at all is being taken of the interests of good estate management. I believe that that should be inserted here. I could cite many instances, but it is getting late and I do not want to detain your Lordships with them. But perhaps I may give one instance. No good landlord can possibly treat his estate as a lot of detached little pieces; he has to look at it as a whole picture, and, among many other things, he has to ensure not only that the tenants do their job properly, but that they do not injure each other in so doing. Look at the case of a man who perhaps is a perfectly good farmer—I expect we have all come across him—but who finds it constitutionally impossible to get on with any of his neighbours. He is a perpetual nuisance. He sets up almost a murderous feeling in the breasts of the other tenants. He may take things to such an extent that a good landlord might reasonably say "This cannot go on; I have a number of good tenants. I know this one fellow to be a perfectly good farmer, but he just will not get on with the others. I cannot put up with it any longer and I must give him notice to quit." This is a quite simple example of what I mean. The landlord must take his estate as a whole and a good estate can be spoilt by one bad tenant, even if that bad tenant is not necessarily a bad farmer.
I hope that my Amendment, which is not a very considerable one, will commend itself to His Majesty's Government, be-

623
cause it cannot possibly interfere with the working of the Bill. The Minister has ample discretion in other ways to refuse to consent to the giving of notice if he wishes, but this would make it easier for him to do so in perfectly clear circumstance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 6, leave out ("desirable in") and insert ("in conformity with").—(Lord Ashburton.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If I may say so, with great respect to the noble Lord who moved this Amendment, in his speech he treated the two Amendments as part of one whole. But they really deal with quite different and distinct points. I hope that the Committee will debate them separately, because I think we should be confusing the issue if we try to deal with two distinct points at the same time. The first point is whether the landlord should have the right to give notice to a tenant if no improvement in farming would result but if it could be assured that good farming would be continued. That is quite a separate point to the estate management point—which is an important point—and I suggest we ought to discuss it first. I hope very much that His Majesty's Government will be able to agree to this Amendment, because I think it would be fair to the two parties concerned. I confess I am not very hopeful that they will agree to this, after what the noble Earl has said, but I think it would be the fair thing to do. But when we get to the second Amendment, that seems to me to raise a very important principle which should be discussed separately.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Before the noble Lord replies I would draw his attention in regard to this Amendment and the following one in my name, that in the beginning of this clause it says at line 2, to start with:
"The Minister shall withhold his consent under this section to the operation of a notice to quit unless he is satisfied "—
so that whatever is put into this part of this Bill the Minister himself still has the discretion of his own satisfaction. Therefore in putting anything, or suggesting that anything should be put, into this part of the Bill, we are merely widening the discretion of the Minister.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I am not quite clear whether we are discussing both Amendments or only the first.
LORD ASHBURTON: I think we should take them one by one.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: With regard to the first Amendment, I feel that we are edging on to the circumference of a rather stormy sea, because in approaching Clause 31 we come up against a big question of principle. Admittedly this was a problem in the drawing up of the Bill, but as your Lordships will remember we consulted from the first all the interested parties in the industry, and we tried to get as great a measure of agreement as possible on what were, in certain cases, completely divergent views. I must say, in all due modesty I feel that to a great extent we succeeded. Although we secured agreement, however, I realize that when we come again to this question of security of tenure there is still a considerable divergence of opinion and rather strong feeling.
I would like, if I may, to give the Committee a little idea of His Majesty's Government's point of view. It is as I said before, to give security of tenure to the farmer, and thereby give him confidence. It has been suggested under this Amendment that all that is being done is to give more power—more discretion—to the Minister. I suppose that personally my right honourable friend would not object to that, but one knows, as has often been pointed out, that Ministers come and go; and the question is whether the tenant farmer would be satisfied to allow these wider powers on behalf of the Minister. I think they would be more satisfied and would have more confidence in the industry if we laid down very definite views which will show them exactly on what grounds they can or may be dispossessed or be given notices to quit and on what grounds the Minister might consent to such notices. We admit that this clause is an agreed compromise. It is a compromise between conflicting points of view, but we have done our best to try to meet the two points: to help the landowner so that he can manage his estate efficiently, and at the same time to give security of tenure and confidence to the farmer.
I began with these introductory remarks because I think they are appropriate now

625
that we are discussing this very important clause. With regard to the first Amendment of my noble friend, although we are using words without much apparent significance, they do in fact alter the emphasis very considerably. The noble Lord said that he would like it to be shown that farming was not less efficient whereas we say it must be shown that it is more efficient. I think those words "desirable in" and "in conformity" draw the line purposely between those two meanings. In other words, the notice to quit may be valid where the landlord or estate owner can show that a notice to quit would give rise to more efficient farming, and not only because the farmer could show there would be no deterioration. It is a big question at issue and I suggest to your Lordships that as a large measure of agreement—a compromise—has been reached, it would be highly desirable to leave these words as they stand.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I want to make one thing quite clear before this discussion goes any further. Many of your Lordships may have gained the impression from Lord Huntingdon that the provisions of this particular clause were discussed, and to some extent agreed, beforehand in the discussion which we had and were glad to have in the very early stages of the inception of this Bill. In this particular case, however, this particular subject of security of tenure was not cussed. I remember very clearly myself saying that we disagreed with the clause, the representatives of the Farmers' Union said that they liked the clause, and officials who were present said "It is a political matter and we cannot discuss it."
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: In the remarks which the noble Earl opposite has just let fall, there seemed to be two distinct threads of argument. One is the security thread and the other is the efficiency thread. We are to suppose, I think, that to give the maximum amount of security to the tenant would produce the maximum amount of efficiency in farming—at least, that was the impression which, perhaps quite wrongly, I gained from what the noble Earl said. I suggest to your Lordships that those two things do not necessarily go together. Too much security—I am not throwing stones at anybody—might conceivably produce too little efficiency. That is the first point want to make. The second point is that
626
the noble Earl said that, in order to produce security and peace of mind, which I agree are conducive to the best farming, the tenant should know exactly the reasons for which he might receive notice to quit.
I could not agree, if I may say so, that all the cards should be on the table—no matter whose cards they are. But it strikes me, as an argument in favour of my noble friend's Amendment referring to the interest of good estate management, that surely it is right that the tenant should know that if good estate management is one of the considerations that the Minister is to have in mind, he should be told that; it is a perfectly fair thing for him to be told. After all, this Amendment I imagine—and I certainly hope—is not seeking to further the interests of any particular section of the community. Here is a Bill in which His Majesty's Government have clearly tried to aim first and foremost at the general good of the whole farming industry, whether landlords or tenants or whoever the parties may be, Here is a clause in the Bill where, it seems to me, it should be laid down quite clearly that the Minister is under the obligation to take his decisions for the general good. If that is so then "good estate management," I feel, should be included as part of the wording of this clause.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: May I say one word here, following what the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, has so carefully said? The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, seemed to indicate that the confidence of the farmer—and, I think, we would all agree with his in this—in the future of British agriculture was of first rate importance. We all want to see the confidence of the farmer enhanced. We want to see him have every reason for that confidence. But I thought the confidence of the farmer was bound up in Clause and not in Clause 31 of this Bill. Why should the landlord be asked to give the farmer confidence in the future, when the farmer's confidence should be in the capacity of British agriculture to carry on under Government action? It is important that we should clear this up on this clause before we proceed to any other discussion upon it. If you look at the tenure which has gone on, I think you will find that under an assessment made only two or three years ago the average number of years of tenure was found to be approximately twenty-two per tenant. After all, the tenant has the right to

627
vacate his holding without any trouble at all. I cannot conceive that the confidence of the farmer in the future of British agriculture should necessarily be bound up in Clause 31 and not in Clause 1 of the Bill.
EARL DE LA WARR: We have all such strong feelings about Clause 31 that it is really rather difficult, I know, to restrict oneself to the terms of the Amendment which we are now discussing. We are not discussing the general principle of security at the moment; that, I think, is going to come before us at a later stage. At the moment we are discussing the perfectly simple point as to whether the landlord is to be put into the position, if he wants to get control of a holding, of proving that the farming of himself or of the new tenant is going to be better than the farming of the old tenant, or whether he has merely to prove that the farming will not deteriorate. It is really almost impossible, until you are in a farm, to prove that your farming, in fact, is going to be better. You can, of course, put up elaborate schemes and statements of your intentions, but there is no proof in those whatsoever. Therefore we are inclined to feel that as the clause is at present drafted the landlord is having an absolutely impossible task placed upon him. It is upon this simple point that we want clarification from the noble Earl. I am not particularly in love with the words "in conformity with" but some of us felt that these words made it clear that it was the negative side rather than the positive side that ought to be put in this clause. We thought that the landowner ought not to be put in the position of having to prove better farming, but that it would be fair and just that he should be required to show that the farming as a whole should not deteriorate. I ask the noble Earl to give careful consideration to that point.
The EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I should like to answer two questions which have been raised. The noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, maintained that what ought to give confidence to the farmer is Clause 1 and guaranteed prices, and I certainly hope they will. At the same time, however, I would like to suggest to him that good prices will not be of much help to a farmer if he should lose his holding. Security of tenure is necessary to give that
628
complete confidence we all wish to inspire. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, pointed out it was exceedingly difficult to discover in advance if a certain farmer would do better in a farm than the farmer who had been dispossessed as a bad farmer. When you have a certain tenant who has been a first-class "A" farmer, you do not want to turn him out. It is only when a farmer is a "B" or a "B-minus" or a "C" farmer that consent would be given to the notice to quit.
LORD ASHBURTON: I do not want to speak too frequently about this. I would like to hear from the noble Earl how a landowner whom the noble Earl wishes to encourage to give notice to a "B" or "B-minus" tenant, is going to prove that the next man is going to be an "A" tenant. It seems to me practically impossible to prove it, and, what is more, it seems to me that the whole of this clause revolves round this one subsection. In whatever circumstances a landlord gives notice to a man to quit his farm, the moment the Minister comes to this stumbling block he has to ask, "Is this new man going to farm better?" What can the landlord say but, "I hope so"?
The EARL OF RADNOR: Before the noble Earl replies, I wonder whether he can give us any evidence that tenant farmers of this country are suffering from a feeling that they lack security of tenancy.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I would like to answer the noble Lord who has just spoken, but it is getting late; and we are discussing an important issue. I should therefore like to suggest that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending section one of the Act to the

City of Wakefield;

County Borough of Oldham;

Urban District of Chesham;

Urban District of Leatherhead;

Urban District of Letchworth;

Urban District of Tring:

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and ordered to lie on the Table.

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bills was withdrawn. The Orders made on the 23rd and the 26th of June last discharged, and Bills committed.
  ARMY BANDS.
  ARMY BANDS.