Sitting of 15 July 1947

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  TENDRING HUNDRED WATER AND GAS BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  BRITISH ARMY

    Voluntary Recruitment
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for War the monthly rate of voluntary recruitment to the Army during the second quarter of 1947.
    The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Freeman): Figures for June are not yet available. Approximate totals for April and May are 3,600 and 3,400 respectively. Quarterly figures are placed in the Vote Office by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence as they become available.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Could the Parliamentary Secretary give us the figures for the Territorial Army?
    Mr. Freeman: Not without notice.

    Regular Engagements
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for War the monthly rate of wastage of men on Regular engagements during the first six months of 1947.
    Mr. J. Freeman: Approximately 600, Sir.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for War the total number of men on normal Regular engagements in the Army at 31st March and 30th June, 1947, by comparison with 31st December, 1946.
    Mr. J. Freeman: The approximate totals were at 31st December, 1946, 99,600, at 31st March, 1947, 103,100 and at 31st May, 1947, 108,100. Figures for 30th June, 1947, are not yet available.
    Mr. Swingler: In view of this decline in the Regular content of the Armed Forces will my hon. Friend say whether he is satisfied with the present rate of recruitment, and whether consideration is being given to speeding up demobilisation in view of the reduction in the term of Service?
    Mr. Freeman: The two issues are quite separate. I am not satisfied with the rate of recruitment, and will welcome my hon. Friend's help in increasing it. As to the Regular content of the Army I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the figures which I have given which show an increasing content.

    War Injuries (Pensions and Allowances)
    Mr. Attewellasked the Secretary of State for War the number of men and women receiving pension or allowance under the Injuries in War Compensation Act, 1914; the scale of pension and allowances in operation; and the date of the last increase.
    Mr. J. Freeman: As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    Pensions are being paid by the War Department to one man and 18 widows under the scheme framed in accordance with the first Injuries in War (Compensation) Act, 1914, which provided for civilians who served afloat during the 1914–18 war. These pensions have been increased to bring them into line with the pensions payable to members of the Merchant Navy, or their dependants, in respect of death or injury during the recent war. The last increase was in 1946. Pensions are also being paid under two schemes framed by the Army Council

    195
    under the second Injuries in War Compensation Act, 1914, which provided for civilians employed on shore out of the United Kingdom. One scheme was based on the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, under which the maximum benefit is 35s. a week. Pensions are still in issue to 24 women and have not been increased since 1920. Two widows' pensions are still in issue under another scheme which is based on the Injury Warrant issued under the Superannuation Act, 1887. One pension is at £126 5s. a year and the other at £63 1s. a year. Neither has been increased since they were awarded. My right hon. Friend is exploring the possibility of removing the technical difficulties which have hitherto prevented increases being given to the pensioners under the second Act.

    Detainee, Aden (Release)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for War the reason for the detention or imprisonment of Haji Farah Omer at Karasam Island, Aden Colony; and whether he has considered the representations made by the League of Somali People on behalf of this man.
    Mr. J. Freeman: During the occupation of British Somaliland, Haji Farah Omer was accorded special privileges by the enemy and broadcast anti-British propaganda. From his activities he was known to the British military authorities as an enemy agent, and on the re-occupation of the Protectorate by our Forces he was detained in the interests of public safety and defence. He was released in 1945 and is now at liberty in Aden.
    Mr. Sorensen: Can the Minister answer the latter part of the Question?
    Mr. Freeman: On that point I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which was given recently, although I have not the date with me, to my hon. Friend the Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard).

    Water Conveyance, Dungeness
    Mr. E. P. Smithasked the Secretary of State for War what is the annual cost of sending an Army water wagon daily from Shorncliffe to Dungeness, a distance of some miles, in order to load with water from the Dungeness mains and deliver it a few hundred yards to the insanitary tanks set up in the fishing village of Dungeness to supply those inhabitants de-
    196
    prived of their access to wells arising from oil pollution caused by the bursting of the Pluto pipes; and whether he will give an assurance that his promise of a year ago to the hon. Member for Ashford to supply these people with main water will be implemented during the lifetime of the present Parliament.
    Mr. J. Freeman: As regards the first part of the Question the annual cost is approximately £500. As regards the second, my Department has done everything possible to help, but the work which is being undertaken by the water company is held up owing to circumstances which neither I nor they can control.
    Mr. Smith: In view of the difficulties which have been encountered by the present Secretary of State for War and his predecessors in office in solving this complicated problem, would the Financial Secretary give an undertaking that this shall be placed very high on the first agenda of the new National Planning Council?
    Mr. Freeman: I do not know whether that would be the proper way of solving this particular problem but I am sympathetic and I know the position well. The difficulty now is simply the provision of lead piping for the water and I think that is being obtained as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Bossom: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there are any other cases of inexcusable waste similar to this?
    Mr. Freeman: I neither accept the implication in that question nor can I make any statement on it.
    Mr. Smith: In view of the extraordinary reply of the hon. Gentleman I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Bandsmen (Pay)
    Mr. George Wallaceasked the Secretary of State for War if it is intended to extend to Army musicians settled trade rates of pay.
    Mr. J. Freeman: Under the new pay code there are no special trade rates. Bandsmen below the rank of sergeant, however, in common with other soldiers are assessed for pay under the Star system which takes account of their competence as bandsmen. Sergeants and above receive the pay of their rank.
    Mr. Wallace: Is my hon. Friend aware that the system of band money has caused some trouble with the rankers and that he might obtain greater harmony if it were modified or abolished?
    Mr. Freeman: I am not quite sure as to my hon. Friend's point, but I think it probably refers to a problem which we have already solved. However, if he will give me more information, I will look into the matter.
    General Sir George Jeffreys: Will the Financial Secretary bear in mind that these Army bandsmen arc, in the first place, soldiers, and that their conditions of service and pay should not be interfered with by any outside organisation?
    Mr. Freeman: Yes, Sir.

    Forces, Middle East (Headquarters)
    Mr. Bossomasked the Secretary of State for War if he has made arrangements for constructing the new Middle East G.H.Q. that will be required now that the final date for leaving Egypt is agreed; what is the estimated cost; and when is the actual work to begin.
    Mr. J. Freeman: The Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936, which remains in force, provides for the stationing of a certain number of British troops in Egypt. It is therefore incorrect to say that a final date for leaving Egypt has been decided upon, and the second part of the Question does not arise.
    Mr. Bossom: Is the Financial Secretary aware of the terrific time taken to construct anything in that part of the world, and may I urge him to give this matter further consideration because it would be very serious if there were no headquarters when the time came?
    Mr. Freeman: Nobody is better aware of that difficulty than I am, but the answer I have given is really the only one open to me at the moment and we are standing on the 1936 Treaty.
    Earl Winterton: Will the Financial Secretary make it clear that we are in no great hurry to construct anything?

    Study Courses
    Mr. Symondsasked the Secretary, of State for War if he will state, for each of the war years, how many Service men
    198
    and women began, under his Department's auspices, courses of study with correspondence colleges; how many completed such courses; and how many were successful in passing an examination at the conclusion of a course.
    Mr. J. Freeman: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Symonds: Can my hon. Friend say now if there is any noticeable difference between the number of courses started and those completed, and, if so, whether that difference is due to any other reason than the obvious exigencies of the Service?
    Mr. Freeman: When my hon. Friend reads the reply he will see that I have not been able to furnish him with the figures of the courses completed, but in very general terms I would say that they are no more remarkable than those found in civilian life in any other correspondence: course.
    Following is the reply:
    The War Office correspondence course scheme provides courses for the personnel of all three Services. Total enrolments for all types of courses under this scheme from its inception late in 1940 to 30th June, 1947, have been as follow:

    1941 and 1942

    …

    48,197

    1943

    …

    36,773

    1944

    …

    81,822

    1945

    …

    69,647

    1946

    …

    26,705

    1947 (to 30th June)

    …

    10,213

    273,357

    Owing to the frequent movements of personnel during and since the war, and the very large numbers involved, it has not been practicable to maintain records of the numbers of completed courses or of the numbers who have passed examinations at the conclusion of such courses.

    Chief of Imperial General Staff (Overseas Tour)
    Wing-Commander Millingtonasked the Secretary of State for War what is the purpose and cost of the present trip abroad of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): The Chief of the Imperial

    199
    General Staff has undertaken this tour at the request of His Majesty's Government and on the invitations of the Governments of Australia and New Zealand. Its purpose is to enable him to inform himself at first hand of conditions and problems in Australia, New Zealand and the Far East, and to discuss some aspects of defence matters of mutual interest, and particularly those affecting the Army, with Australian and New Zealand Ministers and Army Staffs. On his way out he has taken the opportunity of visiting the Viceroy in India and of seeing British troops and studying local problems in Malaya. After leaving New Zealand he will stay for a few days as the guest of General MacArthur, Supreme Commander Allied Forces in the Pacific, and will see something of the British troops in Japan. I am informed that the expenditure on petrol, oil and maintenance in connection with the flight would be about £10,000.
    Wing-Commander Millington: Whilst nobody would disagree with the desire of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff to inform himself on imperial and world problems, may I ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there is considerable concern at the fact that our chief soldier spends much of his time—and it would appear most of his time—discussing past history in all corners of the world instead of spending his time running the War Office in this country?
    Mr. Bellenger: His presence at the War Office is not entirely necessary to run the War Office as a Department. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the purpose of his visit is one which His Majesty's Government have approved, and that I am entirely satisfied that he is doing useful work.
    Mr. Eden: Is it not part of the duty of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff to see our troops overseas, where many of them are carrying out duties of an onerous character? Would not the House therefore welcome the discharge of that duty?
    Earl Winterton: Would the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that when a soldier proceeds abroad upon the Orders of His Majesty's Government he will be protected in this House from sneers and derisive comments?
    Sir Ralph Glyn: Is it not incumbent upon the holder of the office of Chief of the imperial General Staff to tour the Empire and to consult with the Dominions?
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir, certainly, and in any case he gets the approval of the Secretary of State for War before he goes.
    Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: As the Chief of the Imperial General Staff does not run the War Office, and as the Secretary of State does not appear to do so either, who does?
    Mr. Bellenger: I can only assume that the hon. Gentleman is lacking in military knowledge. Otherwise, he would not say that about the Secretary of State for War.
    Sir William Darling: Is the right hon Gentleman aware that the flight costing £10,000 could have been done for £6,000 by private enterprise?
    Mr. Bellenger: I have taken the precaution before giving this answer to see what the flight would have cost by private enterprise. It would have cost much more.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the desires of the Commonwealth will be considered before the desires of the Commonwealth Party of Chelmsford?

    Compassionate Leave
    Mr. Stephenasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the decision to restrict compassionate leave to soldiers to cases where it is a question of the death, imminent death or dangerous illness of a wife, child or parent of the soldier, often causes great distress to a family in cases of the dangerous illness of a brother or sister of the soldier when such leave is refused; and whether he will take steps to extend the provision for compassionate leave in such cases when supported by medical certificates.
    Mr. Bellenger: Recommendations for compassionate leave in cases of dangerous illness or imminent death have necessarily been restricted generally to the relationships of parent, wife or child. This restriction was essential owing to the number of cases which would be involved if the concession were extended to embrace a larger category. Exceptional cases, however, merit and receive exceptional

    201
    consideration, and the concession is extended outside these three relationships in the case of next-of-kin or a twin, or if medical evidence is submitted that the recovery of the sick person would be materially assisted by the presence of the soldier.
    Mr. Stephen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread feeling that in exceptional cases the War Office is taking an unnecessarily hard line?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. In the overseas Commands the question of priority is decided by an all-ranks committee. I am satisfied that, on the whole, it works satisfactorily.
    Mr. Sparks: In cases where death may not be imminent but is, nevertheless, certain in a period of six months or so, as in a case of cancer, is it not possible for my right hon. Friend to arrange for compassionate posting for men stationed overseas? I understand that continued compassionate leave is not acceptable.
    Mr. Bellenger: The general policy now is not to make compassionate postings but to grant compassionate release.
    Squadron-Leader Fleming: Where the mother's medical certificate states that it is advisable that the soldier should be brought home, will the right hon. Gentleman advise the people overseas to take notice of the medical certificate?
    Mr. Bellenger: The Question does not deal with cases relating to mothers but with less close relationships.
    Squadron-Leader Fleming: The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that the Question does not apply to mothers, but does it not refer to the parent of the soldier?
    Mr. Bellenger: If the hon. and gallant Member will read the Question he will see that it relates to a brother or sister.

    Requistioned House, St. Albans
    Mr. Dumpletonasked the Secretary of State for War when the hon. Member for St. Albans may expect a reply to his letter about the release of premises at Sandridgebury, St. Albans, which are urgently required for educational purposes.
    Mr. Bellenger: A reply was sent to my hon. Friend on 10th July.
    Mr. Dumpleton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that reply, which came after this Question was put down, was very unsatisfactory? Is he further aware that these premises are occuplied by only a few A.T.S. but, on the understanding that they would be released in June the school took a lease of these premises, and has to be out of its existing premises by September? The delay is holding up the continuance of the work of the school.
    Mr. Bellenger: In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's Question, I have gathered that he was not satisfied with the answer to which I referred. In answer to the second part, I would say that even if we derequisitioned this house, which has 22 rooms, we should have to offer it to other Government Departments.
    Mr. Dumpleton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of his officers indicated that other Government Departments have already said that they do not want the house? Can he also say when the War Office is going to realise that the war is finished and that they must not take priority over civilian needs?
    Mr. Bellenger: I do my best to get these houses, large and small, derequisitioned, and have met with considerable success in that respect but we cannot get out of this house yet—it is fairly fully occupied. I could give the figures if necessary. I will, however, do my best to see that it is derequisitioned as soon as possible.

    Personnel, Channel Islands (Compensation)
    Mr. Richard Lawasked the Secretary of State for War, when it is intended that compensation shall be paid to serving officers for loss of furniture and effects due to the German occupation of the Channel Islands.
    Mr. Bellenger: No decision has yet been reached on the question of the compensation of officers and other ranks for the loss of furniture and effects in territories occupied by the enemy. Most of the claims relate to the Far East where a Claims Commission is investigating the general question of war damage. The

    203
    claims in respect of the Channel Islands cannot be considered in advance of a decision on the general question.
    Mr. Law: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that civilan claims for damages suffered by the occupation of the Channel Islands are already being met? Can he say without having had notice of the question how long it is since the Germans evacuated the Channel Islands and how much longer it will be before all this compromising and agreeing to arrangements between the parties will go on before the result will be reached?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, not offhand. I should like to get this question settled. These cases affect members of the Army. I was not aware that civilian claims had been settled, although I was aware that some payments had been made on account. I will do my best, in conjunction with other Departments, to get the matter settled as soon as possiible.
    Mr. Law: May I ask whether the Secretary of State realises that really serious hardship is being caused to these officers who have in some cases lost all their effects and have to live in the meantime and have no compensation whatever?
    Mr. Bellenger: In those cases grants can be made on account.
    Mr. Collins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of civilian claims in the Channel Islands, compensation can only be paid, even when claims are admitted, if the civilian goes back to the Channel Islands and rehabilitates himself there? To what extent will that ruling affect serving officers or other ranks in the Army at the present time? If that applies, it means that they could not get anything at all until they rehabilitated themselves in the Channel Islands?
    Mr. Bellenger: I do not think that rule would apply to members of the British Army.

    Illegitimate Children (Germany and Austria)
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking to bring home to members of the occupation forces in Germany and Austria the serious nature of their responsibilities in those cases where they have had children by women in those countries;
    204
    and whether he will make such arrangements as will secure that the men concerned are not allowed by their carelessness and indifference to add to the destitution and misery already existing in Europe.
    Mr. Bellenger: I am anxious, and take all possible steps to ensure, that British soldiers should understand their responsibilities in this respect, but the matter is one which cannot be dealt with by disciplinary action.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the policy of his Department to give every help to interested parties in assisting them to trace men in this country who are alleged to be the fathers, of illegitimate children born in Germany or Austria?
    Mr. Bellenger: The unfortunate thing is that the identification of the father is sometimes very difficult. I am afraid I cannot take on that extra responsibility.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is easier to establish paternity by refusing help to these people?
    Mr. Bellenger: I would point out to my hon. Friend that it is not my fault that nothing can be done and that I cannot take disciplinary action. It all depends on the legal authority. I have had that power in relation to cases like this in this country but not in Germany.

    Cadets
    Sir Ralph Glynasked the Secretary of State for War if he will give the total number of cadets now in the United Kingdom and indicate what are the training facilities provided for cadet instruction in the construction and handling of tanks, armoured cars and other specialised branches of the Army.
    Mr. Bellenger: As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The total number of cadets in the Senior and Junior Training Corps and the Army Cadet Force is approximately 156,000. The Army has issued a considerable amount of equipment to stimulate interest among cadets in technical subjects, and offers a Certificate "T" to those cadets who qualify themselves in

    205
    certain trades. There are a large number of Signal Sections, with wireless sets and signal equipment, in units of the Junior Training Corps and Army Cadet Force. Local authorities, in addition, co-operate in some places by providing instructors and equipment for classes of cadets.
    There is not time for a boy at school or at work to undertake a serious study of so complicated a subject as the construction and handling of tanks. The interest of cadets in such matters is, however, met by offering them demonstrations by arms such as the Royal Armoured Corps, Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers, while at annual camp, and at other times where this is practicable. Most Senior Training Corps have specialist units such as Royal Armoured Corps, Royal Artillery and Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. These specialist units are provided with the necessary equipment to enable training to be carried out.

    Personal Case
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for War why in the case of a soldier killed while in a state of desertion, particulars of whose case have been communicated to him, sums due in respect of pay and allowances earned prior to desertion have not been paid to the next-of-kin although one year has elapsed since the death.
    Mr. Bellenger: Payment has been refused in accordance with past practice under the Regimental Debts Act, 1893, and regulations made thereunder in regard to the balance of men dying in a state of desertion. I am looking further into the applicability of the rules in this particular case.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right bon. Gentleman, in looking further into that case, bear in mind the fact that the man concerned was never tried by court-martial, having been shot dead while in the state of desertion by a military policeman? In the circumstances, is it not right to pay over the accumulations of pay to the man's widowed mother?
    Mr. Bellenger: Generally speaking, I am inclined to agree with that point of view, and I am now looking into the case.

    Venereal Disease (Incidence)
    Mr. Wilson Harrisasked the Secretary of State for War what was the in-
    206
    cidence of venereal disease in the British Army in Britain in 1938; what it is in the British Army in Britain today; and in the British Army of Occupation in Germany today.
    Mr. Bellenger: the annual rate per 1,000 troops in the British Army in Britain recorded during 1938 was 11.7. In 1946 the annual rate per 1,000 troops in Britain was 32.8 and in B.A.O.R. 158.6. The quarterly rate for the first quarter of 1947 was 5.3 per 1,000 in Britain and 30 per 1,000 in B.A.O.R. This is slightly lower than for the corresponding quarter of 1946 in Britain but approximately the same in B.A.O.R.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it right that boys of 18 and 19 should be sent to Germany in the conditions shown to be prevailing there? What steps is he taking or can he take to avoid this happening?
    Mr. Bellenger: In answer to the first part of the question, I have no option as long as we have to maintain military occupation in Germany. As regards the second part of the Question, I am taking all possible steps, and so is the General Officer Commanding out there, to improve the morale of the troops; but I am bound to say that conclusions—and sometimes false conclusions—are drawn from these figures. In 1938 there was probably less recording of cases than there was in 1946, and modern medical practice, which treats the case much more quickly than it did in 1938, probably accounts in part for the apparently higher incidence of cases.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the figures for 1947 speak for themselves quite irrespective of 1938?
    Mr. Bellenger: I certainly deprecate these figures and I am taking all steps possible to improve them, but I ask the House not to draw too wide conclusions from the figures. We are never asked these questions about the civilian population.

    R.M.A. Cricket Team (Indian Visit)
    Brigadier Lowasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to send a cricket team from the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst to the

    207
    Indian Military Academy at Dehra Dun, India, this winter, in return for the successful tour by the Indian Military Academy cadets in England this summer.
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, this is, unfortunately, not possible.
    Brigadier Low: Would the right hon. Gentleman give this further consideration? Is it not desirable in the interests of friendship and co-operation between the Army of this country and the Armies of the future Dominions of India and Pakistan that visits such as these should be paid from time to time?
    Mr. Bellenger: As the House knows, I used to take a great interest in cricket and I still do; but I regret to say that our cadets at Sandhurst have only 18 months in which to train and, therefore, it is not possible to go in for these cricket matches in other parts of the world.

    Departmental Letters (Signatures)
    Mr. Boyd - Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will see that members of His Majesty's Government holding appointments in his Department make a general practice of signing letters sent in reply to letters addressed to them by honourable Members of this House.
    Mr. Bellenger: The number of letters addressed by hon. Members to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and myself is very large indeed. Nevertheless, both he and I endeavour to sign replies personally but it is physically impossible to sign each reply without detriment to the other important duties imposed on us.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that his Department has more correspondence than, for example, the Board of Trade, the Ministers of which are most punctilious in signing letters to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen?
    Mr. Bellenger: I should think that that is quite possible—from Members of Parliament and not the general public.
    Mr. Quintin Hogg: Is there any reason at all to suppose that the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary are receiving more letters than the War
    208
    Department did during the war? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the war we always had a courteous reply signed by the Minister concerned?
    Mr. Bellenger: That question is entirely wrong, because I have had letters from the War Department signed by the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Secretary of State for War. I should say that since the war we have had more letters from Members of Parliament in the War Office than previously.
    Mr. Keeling: Differing from my hon. Friend just below me, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that in the comparatively rare cases when he signs replies to hon. Members they are even more unsatisfactory than when they are signed by his Parliamentary Private Secretary?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: May I ask the Secretary of State, particularly in view of his rather unfriendly disparagement of my military knowledge in regard to the War Office, to use his influence with some of his colleagues to persuade them not to send me letters addressed, "Dear Col."?
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir. I regret this undue familiarity.

    Vehicle Drivers (Fatigue)
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Secretary of State for War if he is satisfied that Army vehicles are not driven, save in the course of properly supervised training, by men suffering from lack of sleep; and what redress is afforded to the public in cases of accidents resulting from drivers suffering from excessive fatigue.
    Mr. Bellenger: It is the duty of commanding officers to ensure that the operation of Army vehicles is properly supervised at all times, which includes ensuring that men are employed on driving duties only for reasonable periods. I have no reason to believe that this duty is not being generally carried out. A member of the public who is the victim of such an accident has the right to sue the driver and provided that he was on duty it is the practice of my Department to stand behind him and provide any funds which may be required by the settlement.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Would the right hon Gentleman look into the circumstances of the case which happened at

    209
    Slough? Is he aware that in that case the jury returned a verdict of "misadventure" and added a rider that the driver was negligent owing to lack of sleep?
    Mr. Bellenger: I am now looking into that.

    Motor Vehicles, Germany
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for War if he will now make arrangements to hand over to the civil administration in Germany for German civilian use the motor vehicle parks on the Lubeck-Hamburg and Hamburg-Bremen autobahnen which, with other parks, contain approximately 100,000 vehicles, so that they may be saved from further deterioration and assist in reducing the transport shortage in Germany.
    Mr. Bellenger: The approximate number of vehicles held on Army charge in vehicle parks in Germany is 77,000, and of this number some 6,000 are now in course of transfer to the surplus disposal authorities. The remaining 71,000 vehicles consist of both usable and repairable stocks which cannot be handed over to the civil administration. They are required to maintain the Army in the immediate years ahead as the export drive and the rehabilitation of home industry have necessitated the temporary suspension of new production vehicles for Army use. Arrangements are in hand to speed up the complete reconditioning of these vehicles, and are being made for their subsequent storage and preservation after overhaul.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are substantive reports available that show that at the end there will be more than 15,000 vehicles which have been completely scrapped for waste? Is it not possible for the Army to state precisely what they want over the next five or six years and to let the rest go for civilian services?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, there will be none of these vehicles available for civilian purposes. We want all the serviceable vehicles we can get out of this stock, which is the only stock we can call upon in the next two or three years.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at the present rate of overhaul it will take over eight years before all can be completely overhauled, and most of them will be rotting?
    Mr. Bellenger: I would not agree with that. We are stepping up the repair of these vehicles.
    Mr. Frank Byers: Will it not take more than two or three years to get down to the inspection and repair of vehicles at the end of the queue? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this, as the vehicles are going to waste, and a considerable number will not be useful to anyone at all?
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, but they cannot be used by civilian authorities. [HON MEMBERS: "Why not?"] If we once let them go, we shall not have any call upon them for the British Army. We have already 55,000 released for disposal in Germany from Army stocks, and 20,000 in Holland and Belgium.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Will my right hon. Friend see that some of these cars are made available to British ex-Service men in this country?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, I regret that that is not possible; most of these vehicles are not of that type.
    Mr. Martin Lindsay: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is not, and has not been, any waste of these vehicles, and that they are not rotting away?
    Mr. Bellenger: I could not give that categorical assurance. I should say that in all armies of the size we had in the war, there is bound to be waste. I regret it, but we are doing our best to avoid it.
    Mr. Stokes: I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I will raise this matter again.

  TERRITORIAL ARM

    Training Areas
    Mr. Sidney Shephardasked the Secretary of State for War when it is proposed to provide training grounds and buildings for Territorial units.
    Mr. J. Freeman: As far as possible, Territorial units will use the training areas allocated to the Regular Army. Where this is not practicable, arrangements will be made to provide sufficient training ground locally. Requirements for training areas for the Territorial Army not exceeding 50 acres which do not involve the use of live ammunition or tracked

    211
    vehicles will be discussed locally by Territorial Army Associations with local authorities in the near future. Renovation of existing Territorial Army Headquarters has been in hand since the reconstitution of the Territorial Army was announced. The scope of the work has had to be limited to essential repairs and redecoration so that labour and materials will not be diverted from the national housing programme. The extension of buildings in permanent construction has not yet been started, nor is it considered practicable to do so at the present time. In certain cases where additional accommodation is essential, temporary hutting is being provided. A large building programme is, however, envisaged for the Territorial Army as soon as conditions permit.
    Mr. Shephard: is the hon. Gentleman aware that most territorial units are still without training grounds, particularly armoured units, and would he get into touch with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air to see whether some of the redundant aerodromes could not be handed over to these armoured units for training purposes?
    Mr. Freeman: I am very well aware of the fact that we have great difficulties in this field, but I am advised that in fact we have adequate training grounds for what is needed at the present although, of course, they will be totally inadequate for what we shall need very soon. I am giving the matter every consideration.

    Temporary Recruiting Centre, Barnet
    Dr. Stephen Taylorasked the Secretary of State for War on whose authority an A.A. gun and a T.A. recruiting centre were set up at the entrance to Hadley House, Barnet, on Saturday, 5th July, on the occasion of the holding there of a Conservative Party fête; if he is aware that members of the public assumed there was some connection between the two; and if he will take steps to see that the laudable object of T.A. recruiting is not prejudiced by being associated with less laudable activities.
    Mr. Bellenger: The anti-aircraft gun and a Territorial Army recruiting centre were erected on the common opposite
    212
    Hadley House on the authority of the Commanding Officer in order to advertise the re-formation of his unit and its need for recruits. Although there was no reason why it should have been assumed that there was any connection with the fête, I am taking steps to ensure that nothing should be done which may create the impression that party gatherings are a suitable occasion to undertake the nonparty work of recruiting for the Territorial Army.
    Dr. Taylor: May I take it then that the use of this gun will be reserved for a party which has no big guns of its own?
    Mr. Keeling: Is the Secretary of State aware that this fête, attended by 10,000 people—which is more than the attendance at Labour meetings in Barnet in an entire year—was a splendid opportunity to get recruits for the Territorial Army? Is not the Question therefore a little petty?
    Mr. Bellenger: I am very interested to hear that there was such a large gathering. I had now better look into my recruiting figures arising out of the meeting.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that every channel should be used to increase recruiting for the Territorial Army? Is he not aware that between the two wars only the Conservative Party encouraged recruiting?
    Mr. Bellenger: I agree that we should utilise the help and ask for the assistance of all hon. Members and of all associations with which they are connected. I am certainly of the opinion, as I am sure all hon. Members are that it would be right to keep party politics out of this matter as much as possible.

    Camps (Local Authority Employees)
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Secretary of State for War how many local authorities are refusing to grant facilities to their employees to attend annual training in T.A. camps or other auxiliary forces.
    Mr. Bellenger: This information is not available at the War Office.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that various committees of the Edmonton Council apparently refused this?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, out I am hoping that it will be possible soon for all local authorities and employers of labour, including the Government, to co-operate more than they are perhaps doing at the present moment.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Can the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to draw their attention to this urgent national problem?
    Mr. Bellenger: We are about to do that or are in the process of doing so.

    Staffs, London (Allowances)
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Secretary of State for War what are the actual lodging, London, and ration -allowances to warrant officers, noncommissioned officers and privates serving on the permanent staffs of Territorial units in London.
    Mr. Bellenger: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The daily rates of lodging, London, and ration allowance for men serving on the permanent staffs of Territorial Army units, as for other members of the Regular forces in London, are as follow:

    Rank

    Lodging Allowance

    London Allowance

    Ration Allowance

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d

    Warrant Officer

    5

    0

    1

    9

    3

    2

    Staff Sergeants and Sergeants.

    3

    6

    1

    3

    3

    2

    Corporals and below

    2

    6

    1

    0

    3

    2

  POLES, UNITED KINGDOM

    Forces (Demobilisation Date)
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the Secretary of State for War if he is now prepared to state a specified date for demobilisation of all Polish Forces in this country, after which all men in these forces will have to take up profitable employment in this country, or be in training for such work and the remainder repatriated.
    Mr. J. Freeman: No, Sir, but His Majesty's Government are most anxious that all these Poles should return to Poland or failing that join the Polish
    214
    Resettlement Corps and take up productive work at the earliest possible moment. Members of the Polish Forces must not think that they can continue indefinitely to be paid and maintained in this country as members of those Forces.
    Mr. Cooper: Does my hon. Friend realise that this decision is being shelved week after week, month after month, and are not the public of this country justified in expecting that a decision shall be taken, instead of paying out monthly £250,000 in pay indefinitely?
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman say what is the time limit for these men to join the Resettlement Corps and will he go into this matter much more carefully and make a statement to the House at a future date so that we may understand what is to be the future of these men?
    Mr. Freeman: Making a statement at a future date is one thing, but I do not think it would be advisable to put a precise term to it now. I would remind my hon. Friend that it was not the impression of the House that the decision was being shelved when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made his statement recently.
    Mr. Scollan: Is the Financial Secretary aware of the tremendous amount of indignation caused in Scotland by the fact that a large number of able-bodied men have been living there and doing nothing for the past 18 months?
    Mr. Cooper: Can my hon. Friend make some definite statement now on this matter, since the public are becoming rather exasperated by this continual shelving of a decision which they feel should be taken?
    Mr. Freeman: There is no continual shelving of a decision which should be taken. I have made a categorical statement of what we feel with regard to the future of these Poles. As regards the precise date by which it can be achieved, I think it would be unwise to say definitely.
    Earl Winterton: Is it not the case that these men fought most gallantly for the Allies and thereby set an example to some?
    Mr. H. D. Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman say what sanction his Department has to make sure that when these men have joined the Resettlement Corps they are genuinely willing to take up suitable employment?
    Mr. Freeman: With regard to that question they join the Resettlement Corps for that purpose, and they remain under military discipline while in it. With regard to the noble Lord's question it is, of course true that many of them did so serve.
    Squadron-Leader Fleming: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us what is being done with those Poles who have refused to join the Resettlement Corps or to do any work?
    Mr. Freeman: I suggest that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should read the statement by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 10th June.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware—
    Earl Winterton: Hear, hear. Three cheers for Moscow.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that these gallant Allies are not being fairly treated by being kept in useless idleness as they are at present, and that their presence would be an advantage to their own country?
    Mr. Skeffington-Ledge: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that it has been brought to the notice of each of these men that His Majesty's Government are of the opinion that his duty is, in each case, to return to Poland and to help in its reconstruction?
    Mr. Freeman: I have looked into the matter personally, and I am completely satisfied that every one of these men has been made plainly aware of his responsibilities.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: In view of the hon. Gentleman's most unsatisfactory reply and lack of knowledge on the subject, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Civil Convictions
    Sir R. Glynasked the Secretary of State for War what action is taken in the case of Poles convicted of offences
    216
    in a civil court when their sentences are completed; and whether there is any intention of deporting these Poles, or of retaining them in disciplinary formations of the Polish Rehabilitation Corps.
    Mr. Bellenger: All convictions of Poles by the civil courts are referred to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary who considers the deportation of the offenders in serious cases. There are no special disciplinary formations in the Polish Resettlement Corps.
    Sir R. Glyn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is possible to deport a man who has been convicted in this way and whether any recommendations for deportation can be carried out?
    Mr. Bellenger: I should think so, Sir.

    Mining Volunteers, Scotland
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that on 30th June, there were at Stirling miners' hostel 175 Poles, of whom, approximately 85 were in receipt of wages although doing no work; that at Falkirk miners' hostel similar conditions prevailed; and what is the reason for keeping these men in paid idleness when they are anxious to work and the need for additional labour in the mines is so great.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): The agreement with the National Union of Mineworkers provides for local consultation with the Branches of the Union before Poles are introduced to any particular colliery. In a number of cases local difficulties have arisen and in consequence these local consultations are taking longer than anticipated. This has meant delay in some cases in starting Poles at work after preliminary training. I hope this is a temporary difficulty which will disappear as local misunderstandings are removed, in view of the urgent national need for increasing the manpower in the industry.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in this particular case these Poles have, I understand, been idle for many weeks, and look like being idle for many more weeks? Does the hon. Gentleman do anything more than make a statement, such as he has just made to the House?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I understand that the Poles in this case have been there for a fortnight. As the House is aware, there have been changes in the membership of the National Coal Board. I have asked for representatives of the Coal Board to get on this job immediately.
    Mr. Butcher: How long is it since these men first volunteered for this work, and what amount of public funds have so far been expended in their maintenance and training?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I cannot say without notice. They only came from training centres a fortnight ago.

    PRISONER-OF-WAR CAMPS (RATION SCALES)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for War whether a common nutritional standard exists for all prisoner-of-war camps in this country; and how frequently these camps are inspected in respect of the quality, quantity, variety and service of meals.
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir. Ration scales are laid down which are applicable to all prisoner-of-war camps in this country. Each camp is inspected approximately every two and a half months by an officer from the War Office. Camps have messing committees on which prisoners of war are represented, and through which they can forward complaints and suggestions about their messing to the commandant.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that reports show that these camps vary considerably, and while some are up to a reasonable standard, others leave very much to be desired? In view of that, could not the inspection be carried out more reasonably and quickly?
    Mr. Bellenger: I should say that, as in civilian restaurants, catering is bound to vary from establishment to establishment but I am satisfied that the standard throughout the prisoner-of-war camps is very good indeed.
    Mr. Sorensen: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that to get the best work out of these men they must be reasonably well fed? But there are cases where the food is really insubstantial?
    Mr. Bellenger: Will my hon. Friend let me have particulars of cases he has in mind, and I will look into them?
    Mr. York: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that prisoners in agricultural camps are now working up to 10 o'clock at night? Does he think that the normal rations which are being given are adequate for that work?
    Mr. Bellenger: I should think, looking at prisoners by and large, they seem a very healthy lot, and at any rate there is a special ration scale for prisoners who work.

    ERITREA AND SOMALIA (ITALIAN OFFICIALS)
    Mr. David Jonesasked the Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken to remove from the ex-Italian Colonies of Eritrea and Somalia, the Italian police, judges and other officials, since the surrender of the territory removes all obligation under international law to retain in office the former local officials.
    Mr. Bellenger: It is true that the Italian surrender of rights and interests in her former colonies removes any obligation in International Law to retain former Italian local officials in office but until the Treaty of Peace with Italy is ratified by all the Governments concerned, His Majesty's Government is bound by the terms of the Hague Convention to maintain Italian law, and must, therefore, of necessity employ Italian officers to administer it. On the corning into force of this Treaty there still remains the obligation to continue as far as possible the existing Administrations in Eritrea and Somalia until the future of these colonies is determined by the agreement of the four Foreign Ministers. It will be necessary to retain a certain number of the former Italian judges and officials (many of whom have served the Military Administrations loyally since the Occupations) to enable the existing administrations to continue to function smoothly. Since 1945 Italian officials have, however, been returning to Italy and where possible, and as opportunity occurs, officials are being replaced by suitable non-Italian and indigenous personnel in the territories.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the loyal and devoted service which these officials nave given to the British military administration over several years, and not be unduly influenced by the narrow nationalism implied in the Question?

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

    National Parks (Report)
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he is now in a position to make a definite statement about the publication of the Hobhouse Report relating to the establishment of national parks.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Fred Marshall): It is intended to publish the report on Friday, 18th July.

    Agricultural Workers' Houses Penrith
    Lieut.-Colonel Dowerasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning, if he is aware that the programme for the provision of houses for agricultural workers in the Penrith rural district is being held up owing to objections from his Department; and if he will take steps to enable the Penrith Rural District Council to proceed with the erection of houses, no only in the small and large villages, but also in the vicinity of farms where at present no suitable accommodation for farmworkers is available.
    Mr. F. Marshall: On 18th March this year, sites for 40 houses in the Penrith rural district were submitted to my Department for clearance. In approximately two months clearance had been given to the sites for 32 of these houses. More difficulty has been experienced in dealing with the remaining sites, but a meeting is about to be held in the region in an attempt to reach agreement on them. With regard to the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 18th March to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom), regarding the Government's general policy on the siting of houses for agricultural workers.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very scattered rural area and that skilled men are required near the farms where they
    220
    can work on the farms and look after the stock? Will he inform me whether his branch of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning bear in mind this matter, which is very vital to the farming industry?
    Mr. Marshall: Yes, Sir. Some of the difficulties have arisen owing to the very laudable desire to provide sewerage for these cottages, but, in view of the site, I think we can waive that objection now.

    New Town, Crawley (Community Officer)
    Earl Wintertonasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning, why, in view of the fact that there is an appeal in the courts against his decision to create a satellite town at Crawley, an advertisement has appeared in a northern journal advertising for a community officer for the satellite town of Crawley.
    Mr. F. Marshall: The Crawley New Town Development Corporation and, at their instance, any officers appointed by them in present circumstances, clearly appreciate that such appointments cannot be confirmed, but must remain on a provisional basis until the issues raised by the action now before the High Court are disposed of. My right hon. Friend is in agreement with the corporation's policy in this regard.

    Housing Site, Aveton Gifford
    Brigadier Raynerasked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he is yet in a position to give a date on which the village of Aveton Gifford. South Devon, will acquire a housing site, as this matter has been pending for many months.
    Mr. F. Marshall: There were agricultural objections to the site originally proposed by the Rural District Council but, following discussions with the local authorities, agreement was reached on 29th April to a modified site. The revised plans, for which the Rural District Council were asked on 5th May, are not yet available, but our regional officers are in touch with the Rural District Council, and the site will be cleared as soon as the plans are ready.
    Brigadier Rayner: Will the Minister remember that this small village lost 10 houses from enemy action and, therefore, was proportionately worse bombed than London? Will the Department do everything possible to help the Rural District Council get on with the job?
    Mr. Marshall: I appreciate that there teas been some delay in this matter, due to the fact that we had agreed to a modified site, and delay of the Rural District Council in submitting plans, but we hope they will begin in a short time.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS (OVERSEAS PAYMENTS)
    Mr. Stanley Prescottasked the Minister of National Insurance (1) how many old age pensioners have gone overseas within the last 12 months and have asked to have their pensions paid to them abroad; how many such pensions are, in fact, being paid; how many have been refused; and in respect of how many no decision has yet been taken;
    (2) whether old age pensioners who proceed overseas to British possessions can have their pensions paid to them there if they previously notify his Department; and how many such applications have been received and how many are outstanding.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Steele): The Contributory Pensions Acts provide that pensioners outside the United Kingdom who are in His Majesty's dominions as defined in the Acts can, on application to my Department, have their pensions paid to them direct or to an agent in this country nominated by them. The Acts provide that a pension cannot be paid where a pensioner is in a foreign country. The number of old age pensions in payment outside the United Kingdom is 4,609. During the twelve months ending 30th June, 1947, 1,886 applications for payment were received from old age pensioners in or proceeding to His Majesty's dominions overseas; in 1,667 of these cases payment of the pensions is being made in the way requested by the pensioner; in the remaining 219 cases the necessary arrangements for payment are in hand. None has been refused. The number of old age pensioners who have gone to foreign countries is not available and could only be obtained by a scrutiny of the individual records of all contributory old age pensioners. The number of such persons is, however, very small.
    Commander Noble: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there are delays
    222
    of up to about five months in the payment of some of these pensions?
    Mr. Steele: That is not my information. I understand that none of the 219 cases in which payment is still to be made has been waiting more than four weeks.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: In view of the importance of emigration, particularly of whole families, and the difficulty of arranging for the junior members only to go, ought not the Government to conclude comprehensive arrangements with the Dominions for the transfer of pension rights?
    Mr. Steele: Such an arrangement does exist. A pensioner of this country can get his pension in those countries.
    Mr. H. D. Hughes: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there are cases of great hardship where the only surviving relative of an old age pensioner may have married a member of the Allied Forces and gone overseas, the old age pensioner being left behind, alone? Will my hon. Friend see if anything can be done to make it possible for pensioners in this category to join their only remaining relative overseas, and still enjoy their pension?
    Mr. Steele: That is another question.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Building Operatives (Wages Claim)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on his conference with the employers' representatives concerning the building operatives' claim for a wage increase of 9d. per hour; and if the deadlock has been resolved.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I am in close touch with the parties but I should prefer not to make any statement at present.
    Mr. Osborne: Without wishing to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask him whether he will be able to make a statement shortly?
    Mr. Isaacs: I am, in fact, meeting both parties on Thursday of this week. I hope that the result will be such as to enable me to make a statement.

    Elderly Men
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the large number of unemployed men who are about 50 years of age; and what action is being taken to help these men to find employment and to persuade employers that a man is not too old at 50.
    Mr. Isaacs: I am much concerned about this problem and have on several occasions appealed to employers in general not to impose unduly low age limits, and representations are made to particular employers when this point arises. After consultation with the Appointments Department Advisory Council, I am seeking the assistance of employers' associations and Chambers of Commerce. The age distribution of the working population is changing and employers must realise that their staffs will have to include a higher proportion of older men.
    Mr. Collins: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that this disability does not still apply in the case of many Government Departments? Will he look into that aspect, particularly in relation to the Ministry of Transport, which disqualifies men from receiving appointments as driving instructors or examiners if they are over the age of 41?
    Mr. Isaacs: I have no information about that. If my hon. Friend has any complaint about that Ministry, perhaps he might take it up with them. The Government are not following a policy of saying, "Too old at 50."
    Mr. Lipson: Would not the Government be doing the right thing if they stated to employers that the Government are setting an example by employing some of these unemployed people of 50 or over themselves, and are also asking local authorities to do so?
    Mr. Isaacs: That is, in fact, what I propose to say when I meet these organisations.

    Exchanges (Current Vacancies)
    Mr. G. Jegerasked the Minister of Labour what steps are taken to ensure that vacancies on the books at an employment exchange do, in fact, exist and that figures quoted are authentic.
    Mr. Isaacs: It is the practice to verity that notified vacancies are still current if they remain unfilled after a month.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Consols
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that 2½ per cent. Consols have fallen from 99 per cent. to 91 per cent. during the year; whether Treasury support to the gilt-edged market is being withdrawn; and how much further the Government is prepared to allow the gilt-edged market to slide.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): I keep myself informed of these ups and downs, but, as I have said before, it would be contrary both to long established precedent and to the national interest that I should make public statements on the matters raised in the second and third parts of this Question.
    Mr. Osborne: In view of the warning given by the City Editor of "The Times" last Thursday that the gilt-edged market may go lower, may I ask the Chancellor whether it is his policy to maintain or to discontinue his cheap money policy?
    Mr. Dalton: The hon. Member had better re-read my Budget speech. As a matter of historical interest, when this Government took office Consols were down to 82, and between the wars, under a Conservative Government, in December, 1920, they were as low as 43.
    Sir Frank Sanderson: Can the Chancellor state whether taking the long view, his policy remains unaltered, namely, to continue a cheap money policy?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Osborne: Why could not I have had that question answered?

    Trafalgar House (Disposal)
    Commander Nobleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement about the position regarding the acquisition of Trafalgar House from the Nelson family for some public purpose.
    Mr. Dalton: As I told the House on 3rd December, 1946, I invited my noble Friend, the First Lord of the Admiralty, to consider whether Trafalgar House might not be used for some naval purposes. He has informed me with regret

    225
    that he has not been able to make such an arrangement. The trustees are, therefore, free to dispose of the house in whatever way they wish.
    Commander Noble: Could the Chancellor say whether consideration has been given to acquiring this house without all the land?
    Mr. Dalton: I am disappointed, as is my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, that we have not yet been able to arrange anything on the lines I have suggested. I will be very glad to look into the matter further. I am most anxious that the house should, if possible, be turned to some public use.
    Mr. Keeling: Will the Chancellor consider inviting other Government Departments to see if they cannot use this house, so that it may remain a national possession?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes. I shall be very glad to see what can be done.

    British and U.S. Cinema Performers (Earnings)
    Mr. H. D. Hughesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of British currency earned and exported by U.S. cinema performers in this country in the financial year 1946–47 and during the current financial year; and the comparable figures of dollars earned by British stars in the U.S.A.
    Mr. Dalton: Eighty-five thousand pounds for 1946–47 and £83,000 up to 10th July last. Cost of travel and expenditure here must be deducted. I have no figures for comparable dollar earnings.

    Anglo-American Loan (Price Changes)
    Mr. Sparksasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the U.S. loan, has depreciated in value to this country as a consequence of the abandonment of control of prices in U.S.A.; and if he will make a statement showing purchase prices of the main items of import when the loan was contracted and what they are now.
    Mr. Dalton: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Sparks: Will the Chancellor give the widest publicity to this matter as an indication to the country of the difficulties we are experiencing at the present time with regard to food imports?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes. I have frequently referred to it in public, and so have many of my colleagues. We shall no doubt refer to it again. The fact that the dollar has depreciated in purchasing power is a very important factor in the present situation.
    Following is the answer:
    I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) on 17th December last. On the basis there used, the loan has depreciated in value to this country by 28 per cent. since it was contracted. The depreciation since 1st October, 1946, is 16 per cent. It is impossible to say to what extent this is due to the abandonment of price control in the U.S.A. or to the general rise in world prices. Wholesale import prices have increased by the following percentages since the loan was contracted:
    Steel, 20 per cent.; raw cotton, 56 per cent.; softwoods, 100 per cent.; hardwoods, 50 per cent.; softwood plywood, 33 per cent.; hardwood plywood, unchanged; alcohols and solvents, 35 pet cent.; Rosin, 25 per cent. (allowing for seasonal variations); tobacco, 15 per cent. (1946 crop); wheat, 28 per cent.; carcase meat, 41 per cent.; cheese, 31 per cent.; dried egg, 5 per cent.; lard, 49 per cent.; copra (Philippines), 73 per cent.
    On the other hand, the price of dried milk skim is down by 30 per cent.

    Overseas Purchases (Convertible Currency)
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the obligation undertaken by His Majesty's Government to pay for current transactions in convertible currency on request, after 15th July, applies to all our overseas purchases, or only to the outstanding differences between our imports and exports.
    Mr. Dalton: The obligation is not to restrict the use of sterling currently earned for making payments for current transactions in any currency area, including the sterling area.
    Mr. Boothby: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that we shall be able to fulfil it?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir.

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) for One hour after Ten o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  INDIAN INDEPENDENCE BILL
  As amended, considered.
  3.31 p.m.
  The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  In moving the Third Reading of this Bill, I am introducing what will be the last Debate in this House on Indian affairs. For over a century now this House has been concerned with the conduct of affairs in India and the records show how many distinguished Members of the House have taken part in those Debates. Although it may be with regret that we thus pass from a great subject-matter to which so many hon. Members have given of their best in thought and effort, it is with the most profound gratitude that we should welcome the privilege that has made us the vehicles for the fulfilment of British policy in India, for there is no doubt of the fact that by passing this Bill, we shall be firmly and finally establishing our honesty of democratic purpose. There have been those who doubted whether we as a country would be prepared to carry out to their full and to their logical conclusion those professions of democracy which we have made in the past. This Bill is the proof of our sincerity of purpose.
  We take this action, not because it is forced upon us by circumstances outside our control, but because it is consistent with all that we hold to be just and right. It is true, as many have remarked in the course of our discussions on the future of India, that we would far rather have passed a Bill setting up a single united government for India as a whole. That has not proved possible and it is not the sole fault of any of us, Indians or Englishmen, that it has not proved
  228
  possible. It is the inevitable outcome of a long history of difficulties and of tensions, of lost opportunities and human failures of which we have all had our share. None of us can point our finger at others and say, "But for you, all would have been well." I am perfectly conscious myself in the small part I have played in these matters, that by greater wisdom and understanding at particular moments I might have made a better contribution to a united India, but it is of no profit now to review the past. This Bill will launch us into a new and, let us hope, a happier era.
  I have always held and often stated that we should never achieve true and worthwhile co-operation with India until we could deal with one another upon the basis of absolute equality. It is that equality which this Bill will establish for the first time. It will thus create a basis for a far deeper and more significant friendship between the peoples of our two countries. Some have thought in the past that we could hold India in close association with ourselves on some basis of modified domination. That is not possible, and to believe it shows a profound misunderstanding of all that is inherent in the democratic principles which we have spread throughout the world from this country. I am convinced, therefore, that this Bill will do more to create a real and living friendship with India than any other action which this country has ever taken.
  A great deal has been said in the course of the Debates on this Bill on the subject of the Muslim and Hindu communities and the difficulties resulting from their inability to co-operate, but let us not forget that there are other important elements in India besides these two communities. To name two, there are the Sikhs and the Pathans. In some ways the position is far more difficult for these two communities than for the two major communities. It is not practicable, short of the complete Balkanisation of India, which I think no one desires, to give to every individual community the complete and undiluted rights of self-government which the two major communities attain through this Bill. But that fact does nothing to diminish our care or anxiety that the Sikhs and the Pathans should receive the fullest measure of recognition for their racial and cultural differences.

  229
  Both these people have shown restraint in their most difficult situation and we hope and believe that those to whom, by this Bill, we are now remitting power in Pakistan and India will do their utmost to admit the reasonable claims of these two splendid peoples who have contributed so much to the life of India.
  I am glad, too, that the depressed classes in India, and other minorities such as the Indian Christians and Anglo-Indians, have been given a very full representation in the Minorities Commission set up by the Constituent Assembly of India in accordance with the suggestion that was made by the Cabinet Mission, and also that all their representatives are now working closely with the majority parties to evolve a fair and full protection for them in the future Constitution That and the action taken by the Constituent Assembly augured, I think, well for the future of their settling down together. No one who is conscious of the geographical, economic and social considerations which must condition the future of India and Pakistan can fail at this moment to express the hope that the peoples and Princes of the States will throw in their lot with the people of India or Pakistan to the very great benefit of all.
  Changes brought about by this Bill must, of course, create problems for all parties, problems which are not easy to dispose of and which will need patient negotiation for their solution. I believe that it is most undesirable that we should attempt in any way to interfere in this matter or to force its solution in a particular direction. Whatever is done must be freely done, and must be acceptable to the peoples of the States as well as to those of India and Pakistan; but we would, at this moment of parting with our suzerainty in India, express the hope that the general good and future of the continent of India as a whole, under the leadership of the two new Commonwealth States, will outweigh any particular or local considerations.
  It is important that the world should realise that this Bill has the support and backing of all the people of Great Britain of whatever party, that this is the solemn and considered act of the British people, and one which will give their country not less but more power to help in the wise conduct of world affairs. We do in this country believe most passion-
  230
  ately in our democracy, not as some lightly held theory which we can adapt and modify to meet the exigencies of our own temporary interests in an ever-changing world, but as a basis and foundation for all our progress and development. It is upon that basis that the British Commonwealth of Nations has grown up, and it is because our sister States in the Commonwealth, to which we now welcome India and Pakistan, share with us that same deep belief in the democratic tradition, that we have found the possibility of closer union with them than with other countries in the world.
  It is, indeed, a remarkable fact that there have now entered freely into this British Commonwealth two great States with the age-long tradition and culture of Asia, so different from those of Europe, upon which hitherto has been largely based the common citizenship of the British Commonwealth of Nations. This is a new development, and it will create conditions that will demand all our care and leadership in guiding the Commonwealth towards a prosperous and stable future. It is with deep emotion and humility that I am sure we must contemplate this vitally important task which falls to our lot. It has often been said that in the British Commonwealth of Nations we have a prototype of that free and friendly association that we seek amongst all the nations of the world. We have, by this Bill, added a new feature to that prototype. We have blended in a single association of closely linked and equal nations with a common loyalty, the age-long wisdom of the East and the modern experience and development of the West. We have started to build a bridge between two great world civilisations which have much to learn from one another and a great deal to contribute to one another. The success which we can show the world in the years that lie ahead in this co-operation may have a profound effect upon world history.
  No praise can be too high for all those in India who have contributed to this final stage of the fulfilment of our policy. The leaders of the two great Indian communities, who have, amidst the most intense difficulties, come to agreement on the course to be pursued; our own representatives, pre-eminent amongst them the Viceroy, who have laboured unceasingly and unselfishly to achieve that

  231
  agreement; the leaders of the other groups and communities, including those I have mentioned, who have been torn by the claims of their own people, but who, nevertheless, restrained their people from opposition; the Indian Christians and others who have uniformly given their support to a peaceful solution of the problem—all these have earned our gratitude. Every one of us must, however, realise the great difficulties that lie ahead, so great, indeed, that they well might cause lesser men than the Indian leaders of today to shrink from going forward into independence. In these coming days, we shall be ever ready and anxious to help them, through our experience, in any way that we can. It is not merely in name that they will become our sister nations within the British Commonwealth. That family association will place upon us a responsibility which we gladly and cheerfully accept, the responsibility to do our utmost to forward their independent progress and prosperity.
  In giving this Bill what will, I am sure, be a unanimous Third Reading, we shall, I believe, blot out for ever the misunderstanding and difficulties that have, from time to time in the past, embarrassed our relations with the Indian people. India and Pakistan will take their places proudly in the comity of free and independent nations of the world, strengthened, we believe by the close ties of friendship with which they will be greeted as new members of the British Commonwealth of Nations; and it is, I am sure, the hope of all of us that this membership of our Commonwealth which they will share, will help them in the future to keep close to one another, and that the time will come when their present bitterness and opposition may be engulfed in the single purpose of the progress and prosperity of all the peoples of the Indian continent, whatever their race or creed. And, in that great forward journey upon which the two new members of the British Commonwealth of Nations will embark on 15th August next, which will become an historic day, we wish them "God speed" and assure them that we may ever be by their side in time of difficulty to extend a helping hand. Their leaders, who have struggled and suffered for the faith that was in them through long and hard years, we salute
  232
  now as fellow-workers in the cause of world peace and progress. May the sun which is now rising on their independence, never set upon their freedom and prosperity.
  3.49 p.m.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: I rise to associate my hon. and right hon. Friends and myself on this side of the House with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He is, if I may say so, a member of this House who has rendered eminent services in the cause of Indian self-government. We should like to make it quite clear that we support the Third Reading of this Bill. Indeed, I think that the businesslike and friendly atmosphere which prevailed in the Committee yesterday afternoon would have proved that, without any further remark from me. Many, many people have contributed to this ultimate result. The work of leading India towards self-government has its roots in the history of many years ago. How many have wondered what the final result was likely to be, and how many of us, whatever we may have contributed and in whatever capacity, have wondered whether we should ever reach a satisfactory solution. We are here this afternoon to celebrate a conclusion which, in most of its aspects, can be regarded as satisfactory.
  There are one or two matters to which I shall refer in the course of my remarks, but I want to voice the general sentiment which we on this side of the House feel in regard to the main objective, and that is that we should practise as well as preach the doctrine of self-government; and that, I think, is achieved by the passage of this Bill. We have, in fact, been true to ourselves, and, by being true to ourselves and what we believe in, we have strengthened rather than weakened the British Imperial position and improved our position generally in the world. At any rate, I have had the opportunity of obtaining the reactions to this settlement in a country, namely the North American Continent, and in particular in the United States of America which has not always been friendly to or even understanding of the efforts of the British in India. I was very glad to observe the almost unanimous approval with which this solution was greeted, and, judging by a practical matter which is even more intense in

  233
  England today—the space in the newspapers—I was very glad to see that almost the whole of the details of the solution were printed on the front pages of the main newspapers. So that, though absent, I have been fully informed and I hope I am worthy to take part in this Debate.
  We should have liked a little longer in which to consider this Bill, and a little longer time in which the parties in India, aided the Government, could have worked out a solution which might have been even more complete. But we understood that there were grave administrative difficulties, and difficulties between those who found it difficult to work together and might be likely to split later; and it was, therefore, essential for a Bill to be passed through in what amounts to almost a record time for a Measure of this sort. I believe that these decisions sprang from an original decision to abandon British recruitment to the Services in India. I have adverted to this matter before, and there is no advantage in going over it again, but the fact is that the Administration in India was not capable of continuing indefinitely in the atmosphere which had been created. I, myself, do not accept responsibility for that original decision, but it was taken, and there is no doubt that to spin out the matter any longer might have been fraught with great danger.
  I should like at this point to pay to the Services in India a tribute which we on this side of the House feel should be paid, and to welcome the statement made by the Prime Minister on the Second Reading, which is a distinct advance on any previous statement made about the Services—the conditions, pensions and general desires of the Services in India—and I trust that the undertaking given by the Under-Secretary of State in Committee last night, that the Prime Minister's words were to be taken literally and in their full context, will have been noted by the Services in India. I should like to support the claim that was made from these benches last night, that further efforts be made to publicise that statement in India so as to give confidence to the Services, whether they be Secretary of State's Services or not.
  Here I should like to pay a tribute to the India Office. If I may say so, I can make this claim, that I have as many
  234
  personal friends in that office as I have in almost any other organisation or institution in which I have ever had the honour to serve. Many of the men and women in that office have been in periods of great doubt as to how all this was going to work out. They have lived under a perpetual strain, whether in this country or in their journeys to India, and I think we should realise that many of them deserve our thanks for the manner in which they have pursued these aims throughout this period and over these long years.
  I said just now that we should have liked a little more time. We should have liked certain aspects of the settlement to have been rather more satisfactory, but even we, with all the freedom of Opposition, did not expect any easy solution for this most complex problem. In fact, no one who has devoted his life to this subject could imagine that any solution would be easily found. I believe that on one occasion in his career, Lord Curzon, perhaps our greatest proconsul, kept an official file for up-wards of two months. His officials, accustomed to his regular habits, were very surprised when the file was at last returned and it had, instead of a minute couched in the Edwardian phraseology of that great statesman, the following words: "This is a damned tough nut to crack." That may well be taken by some of us, and by some in the country who read our Debates, as a warning that the Indian leaders in facing their problems are going to have very considerable difficulties, and that this is going to be a tough nut to crack.
  One of Lord Curzon's successors was Lord Minto, endowed essentially with common sense. My uncle was at the time private secretary and head of his office, and used to send him the files. At the beginning of Lord Minto's career, the files were sent to him with a series of decisions set out on top in tabular form, 1, 2 and 3, for His Excellency's attention. But my uncle found after a time that however many decisions he sent up, the initial "M" was always put at the top of the file. On several occasions he referred these back to His Excellency who continued to put "M." In future, therefore, my uncle referred only one decision, and His Excellency either adopted that decision or rejected it. That

  235
  may well be a better line of conduct for the Governors-General whose appointments have been announced and who are about to take office after the appointed day. I should not advise them to adopt the procedure of Lord Curzon of keeping the files. I should advise them to make an immediate decision, even if it means simply putting their initials at the top. We certainly wish the Governors-General well in their very difficult task, and trust that they will acquit themselves as we should desire them to do.
  It is some consolation that those of us who laboured with the Act of 1935 should find that the corpus of law which remains as the basis of the Bill is that of the Act of 1935. It is subject to considerable changes. Indeed, it was impossible in the short time in the Committee stage to elicit exactly what parts of that Act remain and what do not, but I think it is satisfactory to claim that, at any rate, that Act forms the basis. It is not surprising, and I certainly do not complain, that the last 12 years should have resulted in a considerable departure from the general principles of that Act. Probably in no country have the effects of the war been felt so much as in the political life of India. It has been increasingly difficult to keep pace with the political changes in India. Those who were our critics only a few weeks ago have now themselves been violently assailed with criticism. There is no doubt that new forces are growing up in India, and there is equally no doubt that in several months time we may well be supporting with equal energy those who were our critics a short time ago.
  Among the new forces I should like on this occasion to refer not so much to those revolutionary and other forces which may tend to threaten the regime, but to the place which I feel sure will be taken by the women of India. I myself feel certain, from my small knowledge of India, that the women have a great part to play in that continent, whether in India or in Pakistan. Many prominent women have taken part in our deliberations, and I hope that they will continue to mix in public life and thereby greatly enlarge the area of talent upon which the new Governments and Administrations can draw. I trust that they will play their part in improving social conditions in India, because, if they do, I am happy
  236
  to think that those social conditions may very rapidly be improved.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade used some felicitous language on the subject of our Imperial relations with the new Dominions. I think I have stated once before in one of our Debates that we are entering upon the fourth period of Empire. That fourth period will concern itself not so much with the word "Empire," but will see a development of the system of relations within the Commonwealth, which will mean that the British power of invention, of elasticity, and of political wisdom will grow and expand in a manner surprising to our enemies and satisfying to our friends. The association of these two Dominions is, I think, a most notable step in the history of Imperial relations. It is remarkable, not only from the point of view of Imperial relations generally, but I think it has a finer aspect, namely, that within the same continent these two new countries will have Dominion relationships with one another. That, I think, is going to be vital for the future defence of India, and for the settlement and maintenance of the frontiers of India.
  It is always said that the most remarkable frontier affecting the British Commonwealth is that between the United States and Canada, where one can see no guard and where there are miles and miles of friendly contact. Those of us who know some of the difficulties and sorrows of the partitions that are taking place, and in particular those in the Punjab, will realise that it is too much to hope that there will be no unfriendly gestures, or no unfortunate skirmishing. But let us at least hope that, thanks to the Dominion relationship that will prevail between these two new Dominions, frontiers may be set up and observed which, in time, may be regarded as just as friendly as the famous frontier to which I have drawn the attention of the House. But we must remember that in the partition of the Punjab, which is the second partition, apart from the partition of India itself, we have left the Sikh community, to whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman made reference, almost exactly divided as between one side of the frontier and another.
  It is to be hoped that the boundary commission, on which the most serious

  237
  responsibility will fall, will be able so to arrange the boundary that shrines and properties, and other things held dear to the Sikhs, may he amassed, as far as possible, in one area, provided that no violence is done to a proper division between Muslim and non-Muslim areas, in the same way, it is hoped that the partition of Bengal will so take place that the industrial welfare of the Eastern portion may not be prejudiced, and that access may be had to the sea through the port of Calcutta in some satisfactory manner.
  I cannot help feeling, although the partition of India appears violently necessary at the present time, that as history develops, certain contacts must be made between the two portions of India which have been divided, and that the conception of a greater whole will arise. I looked over many of the documents and papers which we had to study in the course of the preparation of the 1935 Act, those relating to communications, to railways, and, in particular, to the provision of water in one section of India to the other. Very often a water supply to the villages it has to serve may be divided by the frontier. In the question of finance, in all of these aspects some nexus will be necessary, and how that is to be invented is at present beyond the wit of man. Immediate arrangements have to be made before the appointed day. There is a violent hurry, and it is quite clear to any who have studied this matter scientifically at all that many of these great questions are left unsolved at the present time, and for some time in the future. I trust, therefore, that the relationship between the Governors-General and the Ministers of the various Governments may be friendly, and that matters to be decided, may be taken to the Arbitral Tribunal, which was mentioned yesterday in the course of our deliberations. I should like the Government to consider in another place whether the Arbitral Tribunal cannot be brought more into the picture, and whether they have given their final decision as to its inclusion in the Bill.
  When we come to the question of the Indian States, I maintain that the handling of this question is in marked contrast with the rest of the settlement. We on this side of the House have always stressed the importance of the
  238
  States in India as an integral question by itself, and one which deserves the utmost consideration. Elaborate provisions were put into the Act of 1935 to provide for the accession of States and to give them the free right to accede to the Federation. I am told—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has repeated the phrase—that the Government have been nervous about the Balkanisation of India, and that, therefore, they have been nervous about giving too much opportunity to the States to establish an independent position and not to join one or other side. I am not going to claim that the States are themselves without fault. I, myself, bitterly regret that they did not take advantage of the opportunities offered to them by the 1935 Act to accede to federation on the very fair terms which were then offered. But it is no good going back on history. I remember my disappointment at the second Round Table Conference, when the Muslims refused, through their official spokesmen, an offer of provincial autonomy officially made to them. That was some 16 years ago. If people had thought earlier, how easier would the government of the world be. Now we are faced with the facts as we find them.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked us today to believe that the right policy was that the States should throw in their lot with one or other of the Indian Dominions. I quite understand the dangers of Balkanisation. I believe that the parcellation of some of the small States in India was a feature of Indian life which some Government or other would eventually have had to deal with. Indeed, the Department of the Government of India responsible has already made certain ventures in the direction of bringing units and States together, especially in the West of India. I think it is right for many States to take the decision to join one or other Dominion. But we cannot, on the information in our possession, exclude the probability that some States will desire their independence. Some States, we are sure, will want to remain independent and to have relations with us.
  The right hon. and learned Attorney-General referred to these matters last night, and it is quite clear that the Government are not going to be pressed

  239
  on this matter, and are not going to say any more, because, in the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, they do not wish to force a solution. All I can say, therefore, in reason, and maintaining the atmosphere of the Debate, as we have maintained it, is that I trust that when it becomes clear that a unit among the States, or one, or some of the States, desires to maintain independence, the Government will then enter into relations with that State and will handle it with sympathy and with understanding. I need hardly remind tl.e House that the State of Hyderabad, for example, has more inhabitants than any British Dominion, including Canada, and is at least the size of France. In some of these States, we are dealing with very large units indeed, units which have stayed by us loyally in more than one war, and the integrity of which are beyond question.
  Scant attention has been given to the minorities, especially in the Committee stage. In fact, it proved virtually impossible to raise their case. It is very difficult to raise their case because the fact is that this House is deciding today to transfer sovereignty and power to the Indians themselves. We are also deciding that that independence shall take place before the actual Constitution making, and that means that the Constituent Assemblies have it in their power to make a Constitution under which the minorities will have to live. It is, therefore, not surprising, when I have studied the literature sent me by the leaders of the minorities, that I have not been able to find any very concrete suggestion to make. Because, in fact, any constitutional devices that one recommends must under this Bill, be decided by the constituent bodies themselves.
  I have, however, had drawn to my attention by the leader of the Scheduled Castes, a man with whom we have worked in the past, and who has served their cause, namely, Dr. Ambedkar, that it would be extremely helpful if some reference could be made to this community in the course of our Debates; and I, therefore, say that I trust that, when the new Constitution is made, full consideration will be given to the position of the Scheduled Castes themselves. It is sometimes said that Britain has not done enough for them. It is well known, I
  240
  think, that Queen Victoria's original proclamation—about our not interfering too much with the religion and habits of the people—has prevented the British from doing, perhaps, as much as they might have desired; but there is no doubt that, in later years, by a variety of devices, we have attempted to influence improvement of the position of the Scheduled Castes and have tried to mitigate the horrors of untouchability. In fact, the Franchise Committee itself recommended electorates which would have given the Scheduled Castes an opportunity for election and for looking after their own affairs. Unfortunately, the decisions of the Franchise Committee were abrogated by the Poona Pact, produced by one of Mr. Gandhi's longest fasts. I cannot now influence the decision of the constitution-making body, but it is quite clear that, under the Poona Pact, the Scheduled Castes do not get a chance of electing their representatives who ultimately represent their point of view. I hope that in part or parts of India it may be possible to find for them an electoral system which will be of a kind more suitable for them.
  There are many other minorities—Anglo-Indians, Christians, to whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, and many others—whose case we considered last night. We trust that in the future of India they, and those Europeans who are going to stay and practise their legitimate trade, will find free and fair opportunity, and will find happiness under the new regime. But there are many other sections of opinion, minorities among the Muslims, cultivators and others, who do not mix in the political life, have not shouted or talked politics, but whose views are sometimes not quite the same as some of those who steal the thunder and appear before the footlights.
  I remember some wording used in the Gracious Speech on the occasion of the inauguration of the Conference in the Royal Gallery of the House of Lords on 12th November, 1930. These words were:
  "I have in mind the just claims of majorities and minorities, of men and women, of the town dwellers and the tillers of the soil, of the landlords and the tenants, of the strong and the weak, the rich and the poor, of the races, castes, and creeds of which the body politic is composed. For these things I care deeply"
  For these people and these things we care

  241
  deeply. They are passing out of our immediate care. We are moved on this occasion, and we wish those well who are assuming the Government and the responsibility for the welfare of the Indian peoples.
  4.14 p.m.
  Mr. Clement Davies: This is a deeply emotional moment. For two centuries Members of this House have debated India, the condition of its people, their welfare, prosperity, and poverty, their development, their education, and their government in all its forms. There have been many historic occasions among which the outstanding and notable Parliamentary figures of the time have taken part. One recalls Debates not only in this Chamber but in the one which we recently occupied until it was destroyed by the enemy, and there were earlier Debates in the old Chamber, on the site now occupied by St. Stephen's Hall, and even in Westminster Hall itself. Today the Members of the British House of Commons, representing the people of Britain, will give the Third Reading to this, the Indian Independence Bill, and will do so without a single dissenting voice.
  So ends one era, an era covering not only the 200 years of which I have spoken, but even longer than that. During aril period there has been a close collaboration and relationship between the peoples of India and the peoples of these islands. It has been an era upon which we and the generations which will follow us, can look back with justifiable pride. Our people, throughout the many decades, have striven conscientiously and loyally through multifarious difficulties for the welfare of the peoples of India. There have been many mistakes. There have been, on occasions, bad mistakes. But, "To err is human; to forgive, divine." We have, so far as we could, brought peace from all external force, and we have established law and order, a system of law and of the administration of justice. We have built roads, canals, railways, harbours, systems of irrigation, factories, plant and machinery; we have built schools, colleges and universities; and we have introduced and established health and welfare measures. We have founded and taught by example and by precept a Civil Service and the methods of the working of popular govern-
  242
  ment. But, above all, we have tried to inculcate a spirit of tolerance and or understanding and a sense of justice among Indians—a sense of equity and a sense of fairness. On the other hand, we, too, have reaped great benefits from an association with that vast sub-continent and its peoples, both during our years of prosperity and our years of peril. The very association with India added to our prestige and our position in the affairs of the world.
  So now, if I may use the analogy, we leave the old mansion where we have lived and collaborated so long and so sucessfully. We leave it with a great degree of nostalgia. We cannot entirely forget those things which are behind us. But, on both sides, we shall obliterate from the tablets those things which are hurtful and bitter, and recall and cherish those memories which are forever fresh in their pleasantness; and we shall watch, with anxious pride and throbbing hope, the efforts which the Indian peoples themselves make in reaching forward unto those things which are before them.
  Today, after much discussion and debate over many years, the sketch plans for the site—and that is all—of the new building are being passed. It will be for the new India and the new Pakistan to decide what form the new structure will take. We hope and believe that they will build well and build worthily. Each has colossal tasks, immense political and administrative tasks, and even more immense economic tasks. In their work we not only wish them well, but we wish them true and real success, and we assure them, as both right hon. Gentlemen have already assured them, that, in any assistance of any kind which they, at any time, desire, we pledge ourselves to render all that is in our power. They have only to ask and all their sister nations within the great Commonwealth, of which they now stand as independent: parts, will do all they can in ready response. We all desire to give accord to the eloquent and sincere speech made by the President of the Board of Trade. It would be fitting that on this great occasion, when we are ending this whole era, that the Father of the House, who has had such a long association with India, and has himself been the witness of so many great Debates in this country, should say the last word on behalf of us all.
  4.21 p.m.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: This is, indeed, an historic occasion, and, like every hon. Member, I approach it with mixed emotions. The emotions uppermost in my mind are those of melancholy and of hope—melancholy, partly because I feel that this Bill could have been even more satisfactory, for I cannot approach the question of partition without grave misgivings; and melancholy too, because it marks the end of a great chapter in English history. We are today not causing the death, but registering the death, of much that has been of great good for India and for the human race. Let us pause for one moment in thanksgiving that our people have been allowed the privilege of bringing many hundreds of millions of people, thousands of miles away into the line of Western civilisation. Let us make no mistake about it, our administration in India has caused a great increase in human happiness, and a great mitigation of human misery. It has set up in that distant land standards that were never known there before.
  So it is fitting and proper that hon. Members on this side of the House particularly, who, more than hon. Members opposite, look towards the past for their inspiration, should pause for one moment in an act of gratitude to Providence that our forefathers have been enabled to carry out this great work. There is much melancholy in this rapidly changing world, and the passing away of so much that is noble cannot but strike a sombre note in our hearts. But there is much hope, too. A chapter has been closed; the curtain has rung down upon a scene of one of the most vivid dramas that human history has ever witnessed. But a new chapter is opening; the curtain is ringing up on another act in the same drama, with the same actors playing the leading roles, and with the same audience looking on. It is very easy, particularly today, to look back with some melancholy on the past, and to shut one's eyes to the hopes of the future, and to shut one's conscience, too, to the great need for effort, courage and hard work if the great principles which have guided us in the past are to be enabled to operate in the future.
  I believe that we in this country are gravely out of touch with India. I believe that a feeling of great optimism reigns in India; there is a great surge of
  244
  national feeling, a great recovery of national pride, a great turning over of new leaves, and—if I may say so without appearing flippant—a great burying of hatchets. Do not let us allow our natural and justifiable sense of melancholy to cloud all feeling of hope and optimism at this historic moment. The significance for us lies in the fact that our work will now be put to the proof. We shall have succeeded if our standards—and I say this without arrogance, and in an effort to approach the question factually—of law, liberty, justice, kindliness and tolerance have taken root in India and flourish, though under a new guise. We shall have failed if India turns her back upon all that we have taught and all that we have lent her, and relapses into something quite different. That is really the significance for us of this historic moment.
  I want to make two points quite clear as far as the future is concerned. The President of the Board of Trade said that this was the last occasion upon which we should debate Indian affairs. I cannot differ from him too strongly. I am firmly convinced that the inter-dependence of India and Great Britain will be no less strong in the future than it has been in the past. It may even be stronger. I believe that there will be constant Debates in this House, not perhaps on Indian affairs—"affairs" is perhaps the operative word—but upon our relations with India, upon which I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree. I want to make quite clear to the House and to the country my conviction that we have not washed our hands of India, that we have not said good-bye to India. Our responsibility for the happiness of the peoples of India will be just as great in the future, with free and independent partners in the Commonwealth, as it has been in the past. The responsibility of a brother is no less heavy than that of a proprietor or a trustee; and our relationship in the future will be that of a brother.
  What we in this country must realise, and what we seem to have forgotten, is that the approach to the peoples of India must be through the heart and not through the head. We have been surprised and hurt that, in the light of all we have done for India—and we have done great things—we should, on many occasions, have been greeted with what

  245
  may appear to some of us to be ingratitude or lack of appreciation. There should be no surprise in that. In the past 20 or 40 years we have tended to lose touch with the great heart of India. I believe our steps first went wrong when, with the inevitable growth of the modern bureaucratic machine, there was an increasing loss of contact between the administrators and those whom they ruled. Administration tended to be concentrated in the larger centres of population, and that old contact between the European administrator and the villagers and country folk became lost. That is to be seen quite clearly in considering the Indian Army. For in the Indian Army there is complete unity, with the best of relationships between every race and creed, and every colour. That stands out in startling contradistinction to the loss of contact and the loss of good feeling in the political and administrative field.
  I repeat, the approach must be through the heart. We must have an intense awareness of the great pathos of the Indian scene, an intense awareness of the fact that only infinite compassion and understanding can cope with that pathos, and that means taking trouble on our part. The real mistake we have made—I almost used the word "crime"—was that the average Englishman in this country has neglected the duty of making personal contacts and establishing personal relations with India and with Indians. Now everything depends on whether we can build up again that old standard of personal relationship which existed in the long distant past, and which has faded away so lamentably in recent years. This Debate is, in some sense, meaningless. We are not here to make speeches to persuade another part of the House to our own point of view —or, indeed, to persuade the people of this country to take certain action. This Debate is really the registration of the consummation of long past years. But I believe that two useful purposes can he served by our speeches.
  First, it must be reiterated that this is a national Measure. I do not say this "gift of independence," because that might sound patronising, but this Indian Independence Bill is the action of the people of every section of this country. We on this side of the House believe that we have just as honourable a record—although we perhaps approach the matter
  246
  from a slightly different angle—in the growth of self-government for India as any other party, and we associate ourselves wholeheartedly with the reception into the British Commonwealth of Nations of these two new Dominions. Second, this is, perhaps, our last opportunity for the time being to assure the peoples of India of our sympathy and our understanding.
  At the risk of appearing to be unduly emotional, I say that the message we should send out to the peoples of India is one of love. It is understanding, sympathy and love that India requires, and India can comprehend. We believe that we are destined to march together. Let the message we send out be the devout prayer that the Light of Heaven may be the guide of the peoples of India—that Light which shines clearly before the eyes of all who heed, whatever their race or faith. We say to India, "Hail and Farewell; but Hail again." We believe that we shall and can march hand-in-hand through the perils and opportunities of the future. The world today is a dark, dreary and dismal place, full of fears, hatreds and miseries. Amidst the oceans of unhappiness, which seem every day to be rising, that great reservoir of good feeling, understanding and affection which subsists between Britain and India, stands like a beacon light to all the peoples of the world. Let us cherish that light, and may God bless the peoples of India.
  4.33 p.m.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: Everyone of us realises that today we are writing a momentous page in the long history of our association with the peoples of India, an association going hack to the days of the little trading posts on the coast of India, and that we are now at the beginning of a new and glorious chapter in this long association. This Bill is one of the most important which has been considered by this House. It deals with no fewer than 400 million people; it starts a new era in the history of the Commonwealth, and emphasises a new and peaceful association between the Orient and the Occident. I happened to be in the Far East at the time of the recent Inter-Asian Conference, and it was remarkable to me, reading day-by-day the work of that conference, to find how happy was the association between the peoples of the Far East and

  247
  India, and the peoples of this country I know that a great deal of that happy feeling in the Far East is due to the wisdom and patience of the Government during the last two years. When His Majesty's Government came into office, the Indian situation was very difficult. There was complete lack of trust in the British on the part of the leaders of opinion in India. One thing this Government have done, which will be eternally to their credit—I say this in no party spirit—is that they have given to the people of India and Burma complete confidence in their sincerity. That is a matter which will go down in history and of which we in this country should be proud.
  With regard to the Bill itself, we ought not to leave it without saying a word of praise and thanks to those who have drawn it up. It was prepared very rapidly, and it is, I imagine, a masterpiece of draftsmanship. As one who has from time to time criticised the Parliamentary draftsmen for what I considered to be faults in Bills, I should now like to give them a meed of praise for their able performance.
  This Bill confers upon the two States, Pakistan and India, Dominion status, and I hope it will bring to the notice of the world just what Dominion status is. Both the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Prime Minister of New Zealand have pointed out that Dominion status is not something less than independence, but is independence plus something else. I hope that the peoples of the world will realise that. They do not seem to realise it yet, and that is one of the difficulties we have had and are having now, in certain parts of the Commonwealth without Dominion status, in persuading them to achieve it. They think it is Colonial status and not full independent status plus something more. Those who know the United States, and I am not among that happy band, will agree that in America there are many people, who should know better, lacking an appreciation of what Dominion status means.
  This free choice by two great States, comprising together some 400 million people and one-fifth of the population of the world, is of such great significance that it will bring home to people all over the world exactly what Dominion status means. I hope that from now on we
  248
  shall not make Dominion status too rigid, by insisting on any particular form of verbiage. If States within the Commonwealth do not wish to be called Dominions, I hope that we shall not try to force it upon them, because it seems to me that this is a case where one word is as good as another, so long as the object is achieved, namely, free association within the Commonwealth. A number of difficult problems were considered in the Committee stage, such as the future of the States, the frontier question, and the difficulties of the Punjab and Bengal While there are difficulties, India is not the only country with difficulties; there is no country in the world which has not got difficulties, and great ones; and therefore, because there are difficulties, we need not be pessimistic. Now that these problems are in the hands of the Indians themselves, and now that they have to solve them for themselves, I feel certain that they will arrive at just and proper solutions. So long as they always had to depend on some outside Power in reaching a final decision, there was no incentive on their part to arrive at decisions. Now that it is in their own hands I wish them God speed.
  The great difficulty in India, as even those with such scant knowledge of the sub-continent as I have know—it is perfectly apparent as one goes about India—is the great economic problem. It is a problem which the Indians will have to take into account. There are 300 million people living on the land, and great strides will be necessary in scientific agriculture before they can support themselves on a reasonable basis. There are various matters affecting this agricultural question which, to my mind, is the root of the whole Indian problem in future. One of the matters which affects the subsistence level of the Indian peasants is the cow population. It is estimated that there are no fewer than 225 million cows in India, and that this figure may in time rise to 400 million. We all know the difficulties in connection with this problem, which is one no outside Power can settle. It is a matter which the Indians themselves will in time have to tackle, and I am sure they will tackle it before they can get any sort of subsistence for their people.
  But there are various ways in which we can give them help. We can give them

  249
  advice on agriculture and on industrialisation We can give them scientific assistance by means of experts, and the like. I know that they need this assistance, that they realise they need it, and are very grateful for what help can be given in this way. It seems to me that not only in India, but throughout the Far East, one of the parts we have to play in our new role is to provide the scientific, technical and other advice and assistance which we, and only we, can properly give with our long experience of these matters on an advanced scale. We have no longer arms or money with which to provide them, nor would we wish to provide arms if we had them, but we can provide ideas and the means of carrying these ideas into practice. One particular way in which we can help the Indians to develop—if they so desire it, not otherwise—is by the idea of a Parliamentary democracy with a planned economy, the same idea that we are putting into practice in this country.
  Another matter which arises as the result of this Bill is the question of citizenship and nationality. As the British Commonwealth develops there will be very interesting results of that development in so far as many countries desire to have in addition to nationality, a type of citizenship which is not British Commonwealth citizenship, which is something less, and which they can use to serve their own people, to take the place of the nationality which a small State has for its own domestic purposes, but which a vast Commonwealth like ours cannot possibly achieve. Canada has such a citizenship, so has Eire, and now it is proposed in Malaya, and I have no doubt that it will come, in time, in Pakistan and India. They are new developments in our world history and legal system, but they are interesting and necessary developments of the times.
  The future is in the hands of the Indians themselves, and they realise it only too well. Pandit Nehru, some time ago, said these words, which, I think, are full of wisdom:
  "It is always more difficult to fight one's own weaknesses than the power of an adversary. We have social evils, with the authority of long tradition and habit behind them. We have within us the elements that have gone to build Fascism in other countries. We have inertia and a tame submission to fate and its decrees."
  250
  We all have weakness of various kinds but Pandit Nehru has realised these weaknesses which, he says, are in the Indian people. To realise a weakness is the first stage towards overcoming it. We believe that this Bill, and the consequences which will flow from it, are necessary steps towards enabling Indians, not only to overcome those old habits, but to build new traditions on their ashes. We, as an old, and, shall I say, fully-fledged member of the British Commonwealth, today welcome both India and Pakistan as new members of the Commonwealth, and feel certain that as the years go by, they will prove themselves ever more worthy to be members of this great brotherhood of nations.
  4.46 p.m.
  Lord John Hope: At this moment of farewell to India, I hope the House will tolerate a brief intervention from one who was personally connected with a Viceroy who gave many years of service to India during the last stages of her journey towards independence. As the Prime Minister said during the Second Reading Debate, the theme is a great one and those words have been re-echoed by speakers in all quarters of the House throughout that Debate and subsequent Debates. But in its tribute to the greatness of the theme I have wondered sometimes whether the House, as a whole, has realised, and does realise, the gravity of the hour. Although I have perhaps considered what we claim to be magnanimous as being also inevitable, I have supported the policy of His Majesty's Government all through, and I hope, therefore, that such remarks as I feel it in my duty to make will be heard by the House against that background.
  I feel, however, that support for this Measure is really no excuse for shirking an objective analysis of the situation. Besides, we in this House have a duty to the people of this country as well as to India. Stripped of all sentimental embroidery what does this Bill do? It enables us to leave India. That is its purpose, and that is also the purpose of the Viceroy. As a result of this Bill a fundamental factor in the whole Indian situation will have been irrevocably removed. I mean British responsibility. Hitherto, Indians have wielded great political power for many years. That

  251
  power has steadily increased but, ultimately and always, there has been only one sanction for the maintenance of law and order and impartial justice, and that has been the British Raj. This Bill ends all that. I make no apology for having so far stated what is obvious, but I believe it was necessary to do so because I have detected a tendency, in some quarters, to believe that because of the symbolic ties of the Crown with India, ties which still remain, and which in all parts of the House we hope will continue, in some way it will be "all right in the end"—to use a colloquial expression.
  Above all, in spite of communal dissension, we gave to India political unity. By the desire of the Indians that unity goes at a stroke. We cannot help it, but we can say that we regret it. In that connection, I record my own regret, which I know I share with most hon. Members in this House, that the names of the two Dominions are what they are now to be. I wish profoundly that the name "India" had been kept out of it for the time being, because it may be only a name, but the name "India," as I see it, should have stood as a prize to be won; a prize for unity. I believe that one day that prize will be won. I wish that the Indians—by whose desire I know this name has been conferred on the Dominion—had stood by the original idea of Hindustan and Pakistan.
  This disruption of Indian unity has had one immediate result of great significance. The Indian Army is to be split and its effectiveness reduced, as one estimate has it, to about one-sixth of its former power. Set that fact against the political division of the great sub-continent, and the net result must be that the Indian political structure is weakened. I bring that fact out for this reason: it is going to be very easy, in my opinion, unless great care is taken, to fall between two stools during the period into which we are now moving. As we are no longer to be responsible in India, so I say it is essential that we must not get involved in any possible quarrel or disagreement between the two new Dominions. I know that His Majesty's Government share that view, but I look upon the future in this connection with a certain amount of anxiety, and I was reminded of what might lie ahead by two references in yesterday's Committee stage Debate.
  252
  Reference was made to the possibility of what is called an "Arbitral Tribunal" being set up. The Attorney-General said:
  "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."
  But that seems to suggest the idea of Britain still as the ultimate authority. On another occasion, earlier, the Prime Minister used these words in connection with the discussions for the defence of the North-West Frontier. He said,
  "I should not like to go further than to say that the Government"—
  His Majesty's Government—
  "would be perfectly willing to enter into discussions with the successor Governments on any matter of common defence."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1947; Vol. 440, c. 127 & 113.]
  I know that the Prime Minister could not reasonably go deeply into that particular subject, but I hope that when the Minister winds up I may get some definition of what the Prime Minister meant. How far do we intend, now that we have no longer responsibility in India, to get involved in discussions on defence? It needs little imagination, in my opinion, to see how easily a commitment of that sort may lead to our having to take sides on behalf of one Dominion against the other. These may not be pleasant possibilities, but I believe them to be distinct possibilities, and I think that they should be stated.
  I am glad that throughout the Debate on this Bill events have taken their course so far as the Princes and the Services are concerned in the way that they have. Of course, as far as those elements are concerned, and so far as the minorities are concerned, we know that we can really do nothing any more in this House. We know that we have to rely on the sense of fairmindedness and justice of those to whom the responsibility is now to pass. I believe that we can also rest assured that as far as His Majesty's Government can help, they will. All I will say, before I close, about the splitting of India into two is that, in my view, it is very lucky indeed that in fact there is not to be one Governor-General for the two Dominions. I do not know how Lord Mountbatten, with all his range of talents, would be able to take the advice of the Ministers of India, as it is now to he called, on the one hand, and

  253
  contrary advice on the same subject from the Ministers of Pakistan. I think that his situation would have been very near to that of Gilbert's Lord Chancellor in "Iolanthe" who got into difficulties when he wished to marry one of his wards. Luckily, that difficulty has been solved.
  I started my speech on a valedictory note because it must be realised that we are saying "goodbye" to India. As we do so, I think we may all of us look back with pride on the fact that united, India has stood. I think also we should look forward with a prayer that divided, she shall not fall. One of the Indian leaders said the other day:
  "Let us now forget the past."
  Not, I hope, all of it. I would say in final farewell to India: Do not forget the law and order we gave you; do not forget the impartial justice we gave you; do not forget the tolerance and freedom of expression that we gave you. Of such quality is the light of the torch we now hand on to you. Do you keep it burning.
  5.0 p.m.
  Dr. Haden Guest: My political awakening and consciousness of political life took place at a meeting to which I was taken, as a small child, to hear a Member of this House speaking on a subject which was very unpopular at that time—India and the condition of the Indian peasants. The speaker was Charles Bradlaugh. I remember very little of the substance of the speech, but I remember the tremendous energy of the speaker, his immense enthusiasm and I remember my father afterwards telling me about the great work Bradlaugh was trying to do for India to rouse opinion in her favour against apathy, contempt and very great difficulties of every kind. Afterwards I came to know Mrs. Annie Besant, who did a great work for the Congress Movement in India and helped to build up a great movement under the slogan "India a Nation."
  Although I had never been to India until last year, I had always felt a great link with India because of those early associations and because I learned early in life to read some of the great Indian scriptures such as the Bhagavad-gita, and learned from them great lessons about life, lessons which we can find in other scriptures and which are well worth studying. When I was in India recently,
  254
  I went round very rapidly, as few people can ever have done, for I covered the whole of India inside a month. I travelled by aeroplane and saw the whole of India at one season of the year. I saw the great plains between Karachi and Delhi, the almost infinite number of small villages, and when flying low the work of the peasants in the fields. The myriad life of India impressed itself on me very vividly indeed. Then in Delhi, when I had the great pleasure and honour of staying with the Commander-in-Chief, I learnt something at first hand of the hopes of the official classes. I met a number of Indian Princes. It was during last November when they were considering matters arising from the new Constitution for India which we are now debating, and I was very glad to learn that what they were considering three months ago was methods of co-operation and not methods of separation.
  In the course of my travels, I went to the North-West Frontier and one day I stood on the site of a place the name of which will be known to many Members. It is Taxila. This was the place where Alexander's armies came from Europe into India. It made me realise how very long the history of India is, for India was a great civilisation long before that. As I listened to the speeches this afternoon, I could not help thinking that a great chapter in our history, and I hope the Indians will also consider it a great chapter of their history, namely, the British occupation of India, is now drawing to a close. At the same time we should put that into historical perspective and remember that it has been, in comparison with the history of India as a whole, only a small chapter, though a very important one. There have been great and glorious episodes in Indian history before, and there will be, I am sure, great and glorious episodes in the future.
  I cannot but feel that we should not concern ourselves so much today with the details, which indeed are no longer our concern, of how the Governments will be carried on, how the two Commonwealths will co-operate on all detailed arrangements which are the everyday administration of any Government in any Commonwealth and any Dominions of any nation. I think instead we should look forward into the future and think of the great part that India is going to play. We in the

  255
  past undoubtedly have been the means of linking India to Western industrial civilisation. That has been immensely important and valuable to the world. India in the future is going to have a very great task in leading the nations in the East. One hon. Member has already mentioned the Pan-Asiatic Conference in Delhi presided over by Pandit Nehru, which was being held last year when I was in Ceylon. There were representatives present at that conference of all the Eastern nations, including China, Japan, Indonesia, French Indo-China, the Malayan States, Burma and the countries of the Eastern Soviet Republic as well as many other countries. The language of that Conference was English, the only language which the delegates had in common. I think that that is immensely significant for the future of India and the British Commonwealth to which the two new Indian Dominions will belong.
  India will, undoubtedly, be the leader of the Eastern world, which includes that immense area of China needing so much assistance and which has been so strangely divided from India through the centuries by that great mountain range, for they are almost more separated than we are from the Indians. I think it is of immense significance that India is taking the lead in this great Eastern movement at the moment when she is assuming her place with two equal partners in the British Commonwealth of Nations. We have been a link by which the Western world has been joined to India, and India to Western industrial civilisation. India, is obviously becoming the bridge which will unite the Eastern world to Western civilisation, and will be the highway for Eastern ideas coming into the Western sphere in increasing volume. Someone suggested we had much to give to India in the way of scientific direction. Let us not forget that India has had and now has some of the world's outstanding scientists in her own ranks.
  I feel that we should not talk today of saying farewell to India. We are welcoming two new Commonwealths into the brotherhood of a great Commonwealth of which we ourselves form one part. The two new Commonwealths will have a great part to play and will bring a great new influence into our lives. We should not today say farewell to India, but wel-
  256
  come to the Indian Commonwealths as our partners in that great task which opens before us—the task of building a world civilisation for East and West, stable and secure, and a place where men and women can be happy and lead useful lives.
  5.9 P.m.
  Mr. Molson: A number of our early administrators in India, as can be seen in their papers, themselves looked forward to self-government being the ultimate culmination of our rule in India. Although it may not have been foreseen until within the last few weeks exactly how that ultimate stage was going to develop, it was quite obvious that it would come. When we instilled into the Indians the ideals of our political institutions, taught them our history, literature and language, it was inevitable that English ideas should germinate there and the Indian people should steadily become more and more desirous of self-government.
  When history comes to be written, and when all the political controversy in this House and in India is forgotten, the actual constitutional development of India from about 1857 onwards will appear as an extraordinarily steady development towards the Bill which we are debating this afternoon. During their tenure of office, Viceroys of both the Liberal and Conservative Parties have introduced and passed legislation which has gradually developed self-governing institutions in India. Some hon. Members have spoken as though, during this time, the British Raj has been imposed upon a conquered country. As a matter of fact, throughout the 19th century it was a Raj in which the vast majority of Indians acquiesced. There were, I think, at no time more than about 2,000 officers in the Indian Civil Service and the police combined. The usual strength of the British garrison in India was only about 60,000, and I doubt whether it ever reached the figure of 100,000. During that time, therefore, it was no domination of aliens forced upon an unwilling country, but the unification and administration of a country with the acquiescence of its people.
  It was really not till the first war, and very largely as the result of the activities of Mrs. Besant, to whom the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) has

  257
  just referred, that the idea of self-government for India on democratic lines first started. There had been claims for the Indianisation of the Services, but very little had been said of self-government in India as such. It was not, in fact, an idea indigenous to the Indian sub-continent, but since that time the work of the British Raj has been greatly handicapped. The administration which was so creditable to this country and so advantageous to India during the 19th century, was possible only so long as there was acquiescence on the part of the ruled. When Lord Irwin went out as Viceroy in 1936, he did so with the intention of carrying out a great policy of agricultural development and reform, and one of the first things he did was to appoint Lord Linlithgow as chairman of the Royal Commission on Agriculture. Anyone, however, who reads the record of his viceroyalty will see that all these great schemes for social and economic betterment which he had in mind, had to be postponed because of the immense difficulty he had in keeping the administration going and dealing with political agitation.
  I am not one of those who believe that only the Hindus desired self-government. The Muslims desired it in the same way, but the great difference, as it has worked out, was that whereas the Hindus thought of the British as being the alien oppressors, the Muslims tended to look into the future and to fear that the Hindus would be the alien oppressors over them. Therefore, in this Bill today, the Dominion of India may be regarded as an expression of the desire for self-government of the Hindus in India, and the Dominion of Pakistan as the expression of the demand for self-government by the Muslims. I think that one must say a word of regret that partition has become inevitable. Perhaps of all the gifts which Britain brought to India, the unification of the sub-continent was the greatest and most beneficial, but unfortunately, not for the first time in history, it has been found that the unification of the Indian sub-continent could be maintained only as long as that particular power which carried it out remained in control. I think that we are entitled to point to this partition of India as proof of the difficulties which we had in giving self-government to India. It is, indeed, the complete answer to those who say that we were delaying giving self-govern-
  258
  ment to India for motives of our own, and that the obstacles such as communal dissension to which we pointed were excuses and not reasons.
  Self-government could come to India only at the price of partition but, regrettable as that is, as it seems to me we had no option in the matter. As long as we insisted that there should be agreement between the two communities before India received self-government, it put an instrument in the hands of Mr. Jinnah by which he was able to stand out for the concession of everything for which he chose to ask. In fact, it was possible thereby for him to obstruct the development of self-government in India unless all his demands were conceded. I feel, therefore, that a time came when there was no option for us but to say that if they wished to have self-government, there must be partition. We can contrast the peace, tranquility and prosperity of India over the last 100 years since British rule was established throughout the sub-continent, with what has happened in Europe. When one reflects also upon the handicaps of Europe in the matter of tariff barriers and every kind of economic obstruction of that kind, one contrasts the relatively happy condition of India, unified and administered under British rule, with the trials, tribulations and misfortunes of Europe, with its numerous competing and hostile sovereignties. Apparently, that is the price of nationalism. I am sure that countries which disrupted the Austro-Hungarian Empire never regretted obtaining their national independence, although it is very easy to prove that economically, Europe was far better off when that Empire existed.
  It is an unforeseen and fortunate chance that when this last Bill comes before the House we are once more united, and that, I think, is the result of two fortunate changes which have taken place since the policy of the Government was announced on 10th February. In the first place, we are not now ourselves proposing to cut the painter. It is one thing for this country to say to any great dependency, "We certainly are not going to coerce you into remaining within the British Empire. If, having duly considered the matter, you choose to go out, we will in no way seek to restrain you." But it is quite another thing to say, as was said in the Government's statement

  259
  of policy in February, "We are suddenly going to bring this relationship to an end. We are suddenly going to evacuate the country, and to leave you to fend for yourselves. The immense advantage of the Bill over the earlier policy of His Majesty's Government is that now the whole onus of taking the initiative in the matter is to rest with the two newly-created Dominions.
  The second point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson). I felt tempted to agree that if the interminable discussions and wrangle in India are to be brought to an end, it was necessary for a date to be fixed. My right hon. Friend pointed out that what was really required was a fixed date for the decision one way or the other, whether India was to continue to be united, or was to be partitioned. With regard to fixing the date, he said:
  "Confine the expedient of the fixed date, to the single purpose of deciding whether or not it is going to be possible to find by agreement a central authority to whom to make over the powers of the State. Let the Government state their date in relation to that part of the problem, and having done so, then let them see how they would set about what, inevitably, must form the second stage of the process which the Government themselves have in contemplation, namely, the carrying out with all energy and speed of the transfer of the functions of Government to the new authority or set of authorities to be determined."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March. 1947; Vol 434, C 528.]
  So the second great merit of the Bill is that after the new Dominions have been set up, there is an almost indefinite period during which they will be able to carry on the difficult and complicated negotiations which will be necessary for partitioning the country and the services which at present they enjoy in common. I trust that as a result of each of the two great communities being given a Dominion in which each one will be dominant, they will be willing to practise the broadest tolerance towards the other minorities. One of the traditions of Hinduism in the past is that it is tolerant of other religions.
  It is a fortunate chance that when the final stage is reached today and the end of British domination in India has come, there are more hon. Members who will remember the great services which the Indian Army rendered to this country in
  260
  two world wars. British and Indian arms have fought, suffered and triumphed together in India for a long period. But these two wars have been episodes when the Indian Army covered itself with more glory than ever before, when far away from its home land and in climates to which Indian troops were not accustomed During the whole of our time in India there have never been wars when our need was as great as in the two world wars. This close connection comes to an end at a time when more people in this country than at any time previously, can remember with gratitude and admiration the contribution which Indians have made to the safety of the Empire.
  So, at a time when our period of authority in India ends, we trust that a spiri of tolerance in the Governments of both the two Dominions will prevail, and that those Dominions will enjoy tranquillity, prosperity and happiness. In every matter in which this country can contribute to the happiness, safety and welfare of those Dominions, they will be able to rely upon the friendship and support of this country as much as they have done in the past.
  5.25 p.m.
  Mr. Carmichael: Let me say at the outset that I enter the Debate with considerable fear and trepidation. I would not have done so had we been debating details of the Bill. I know the situation in its broad sense, and I represent a party which must have a say in this final declaration in the British House of Commons. I feel that the party I represent has had a long and intimate association with Indians, both in this country and in India, in their struggle towards self-government. Whatever troubles may lie ahead for India, the Indian people as a whole must regard today as a very proud day in their history.
  I speak as a back-bench Member of the House, even though I am actually standing in the front. I want to offer my congratulations to the Government. This is a very great piece of work that the Government have done for self-government. The principle of self-government has been accepted by many Parliaments in the past, but it has fallen to this Labour Government to bring the principle to fruition and to put the closure to British rule in India. I do not like

  261
  the use of the word "rule" in the Debate, because we have done much in India to develop a spirit of co-operation between the Indians and the people of this country. We have been reminded that we made a great contribution to the peace, tranquillity and prosperity of India. It would be idle to deny that during the time we have been in India there have been evidences of progress, but let us not make a mistake. There have been important features of our administration that every hon. Member would regret. I remember reading the early life of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) in which he wrote about the things they did in the Indian villages, for which we cannot take much credit.
  It must be a very proud moment for the people of India and for hon. Members of this House, that the country is now to be two Dominions. I hope that with their divided responsibility they will, in the ultimate, recognise the great advantage of co-operation and come together in the course of time. This division has been desired by the people of India, and we have to accept it. At this stage, I say that it may well mean the awakening of the people of the East—and not the awakening I was taught to fear when I was much younger. It was always the feeling among Europeans and the people of these islands, that the awakening in the East would be a dangerous one, maybe one of intolerance and maybe one of challenge to Western civilisation. This awakening may be the opportunity for great progress, not only in the East, but throughout the world. Let this be said of the people of the East. We have very little to be proud of when we look at the state of Europe at the present time. Europe is in a very bad way, and whatever may be said of the peoples of the East, the responsibility for the bad position in Europe today rests on the shoulders of Western civilisation, and not on the people of the East.
  I want to express my hope that as a result of this decision of the House of Commons, the Indian people will move forward holding out the hand of friendship to the people of Western civilisation. I am thoroughly satisfied that the people of this country have a very big contribution to make to the development of India, just as the people of India can make
  262
  considerable contribution to the people 01 this land of ours. I would like to remind the people responsible for the framing of the Bill of the date. It may be a coincidence, but the date is a unique one. It is 15th August. I know of one man who played a very considerable part in what was termed "agitational work" on behalf of the Indian people, who is derided and abused not only outside but in this House to this day. I refer to James Keir Hardie, who was born on 15th August. It is a very fitting ending to the old history of India, and a very good beginning to the new history of India, that independence will be granted to India on the birthday of James Keir Hardie.
  5.33 P.m.
  Mrs. Nichol: This is almost the last moment of the most tremendous Bill which has passed through this House for many years. I disagree with the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Lord John Hope) when he says that we are now bidding farewell to India. I do not feel that we are bidding farewell to India so much as setting her on her own feet and wishing her bon voyage. While in this House the atmosphere is calm and the benches are not well filled, the day is certainly not without its dramatic moments. For many of us it seems incredible that in this slim Bill which has been debated these two days, there is given to India the independence for which many of us have been struggling for over a quarter of a century. The fight for the independence of India has gone on from street corners and platforms all over the country for a great number of years. We look back today on many things connected with that struggle. We look back upon the early days of the struggle for India's freedom, when we were quite frank about what was happening in India, and said that India was being exploited and should have her freedom so that she might develop herself as a great and powerful nation.
  Now India has her opportunity, and a great opportunity it will be. Many eloquent speeches have been made in this House on the question of India, not just in this Debate, but also in the other Debates which have preceded it. I am, thinking at the moment of the grand speech which the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) made last week, a speech full of wisdom and great knowledge

  263
  of India, and a speech of very great beauty. Some hon. Members opposite have been dwelling upon the great things which we have done for India. It is, of course, perfectly true that in 150 years we have done good things for India, but let us also remember the things we have taken out of India. Let us remember the things that that great population has contributed to us. We ought to be reminding the people of our country that the high standard of life they enjoyed in years gone by was due in part to the great things that came out of India, worked for by the Indian people at incredibly low standards of living for themselves.
  I had the great good fortune to go to India just over a year ago. As I have said before, a few weeks in another country ought not to give anyone the right to be an authority on it. I would be the last one in the world to claim that, but it gives one a certain amount of feeling for the country. One came face to face with all that was still left to be done in India. There is education. I had a talk with Sir John Sargent while I was there. He talked of the great heartbreak he had had over the little he had been able to do. The schools in India are incredibly backward.
  Earl Winterton: Will the hon. Lady allow me to interrupt her? It is not fair to the Indian Civil Service and to this House to say what she has said, because education has been a provincial subject and entirely in the hands of the Legislature for the last 22 years.
  Mrs. Nichol: That may be true, but the fact remains that a stranger going to India sees it there in all its stark nakedness. A whole stretch of India has not the slightest opportunity of having the most elementary form of education. Again, there are the health services, the hospitals and all the great public services by which we in this country set such great store. It is true that we have done things for India, but there are many thing we have neglected to do for India.
  Earl Winterton: It is very unfortunate that the hon. Lady has chosen this of all occasions on which to say these things. All the things she has mentioned are entirely in the hands of the Indians and the Legislature, and have been for 25 years. It is no good accusing us of being responsible.
  Mrs. Nichol: Have I then to say that we have not the slightest responsibility—
  Earl Winterton: Yes.
  Mrs. Nichol: —for any of the things which have remained undeveloped in India?
  Earl Winterton: Hon. Members cannot ask questions in this House about education or the health services of India, because those services are not within the purview of the Secretary of State.
  Mrs. Nichol: All I can say is that there is a great opportunity for Indians to do it now that they have their country to themselves.
  Earl Winterton: Hear, hear.
  Mrs. Nichol: They have a tremendous task before them. I can only hope that in the new days of freedom they now have, they will seize their opportunity with both hands. At the same time, as an Englishwoman I feel very keenly the great responsibility we have in these matters whether we are technically responsible—as the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) says—or not. We cannot divest ourselves of the responsibility for these matters. We cannot divest ourselves of the responsibility we have for those 400 million people who have been part of our Empire, over whose lives we have had control, and whose destinies have been in our hands.
  A new chapter is starting for them in the field of trade unionism and in the field of the development of workers' organisation, and all this is now for them to develop. There is the coming of a free franchise, divested of property qualifications, which again is something they must settle for themselves. We are giving these full powers, and it is now their responsibility. This is their great opportunity, and in looking forward to the days which lie ahead, those of us who have seen what remains to be done in India can only hope that they are going to grasp their opportunities, and that their women and menfolk are going to combine to make of India what we know India can be. It will take a long time, and a long and bitter struggle lies ahead, but in looking back, I can only be thankful that this association with

  265
  India has had its glorious side. I would be the first to admit that, and we wish them God speed in the future.
  5.41 p.m.
  Sir Stanley Reed: I crave the indulgence of the House for a very few moments for some remarks on the final stages of this Bill. I sometimes wonder whether we really appreciate now, what this occasion means. When the President of the Board of Trade said that it means there will be no further discussion of Indian affairs on the Floor of the House, that was true. India is bound to loom large in its Commonwealth and international aspect; Indian affairs are now remitted to the Indian people. So ends an association with Parliament which began far more than a century ago; it started with the regulating Act of North, and even before that day.
  Now we come to this final stage, and I wonder if the House would consider it an impertinence if I offered a personal reflection? When, some 40 years ago, it carne to me to be in a position where I might exercise a certain influence on public opinion, I asked myself what was the goal of our policy in India. I took counsel with everybody who, I thought, could speak with authority on the matter, with Governors, members of the Civil Service and other services, men in industry and men in commerce, and they all came to one definite emphatic conclusion. The goal of our policy must be the establishment of self-government in India. But it was too often said that this must be a cataclysmic change—a sudden transference. That was a position I could not accept; if the goal was determined, surely the road to it should be solidly constructed. For these reasons, it was a matter of personal pride to me to work in support of the Morley Minto Reforms; the Act of 1919; and the Act of 1935. In all those discussions it was borne in on me that when the day arrived and we could say to the Indian people, "Our work here is done, and we will remit the governance of the land to your hands," that would be the proudest day in the history of the Commonwealth and Empire. From that conclusion I have never resiled; in that conclusion I do not weaken now.
  So this great day in the nisibry of our people and of the Commonwealth has
  266
  arrived, and this afternoon this House will take the final stage in remitting responsibility to the people of India. It is quite true to say that this stage has not been reached in quite the conditions we should like. We should like to have handed responsibility to a united India. Anybody who has traversed that country from Rameshwaram to Peshawar, from Karachi to Mandalay is quite unconscious of boundaries and borders, and must feel regret that there is this division which has been forced upon us through historical, racial, ethnical and also religious and economic conditions.
  We must also have a sense of regret that the great Indian Army, which has stood forth as one of the greatest unifying forces, this great homogeneous body which fought those imperishable campaigns in North Africa, Abyssinia, Mesopotamia and the jungles of Burma, is to be divided. We ardently wish that it was not so. We could have profoundly desired that the Act of 1935, which was one of the greatest Acts in record of this historic Parliament and of this historic House, had come into immediate and full operation, containing within itself not only the core of unity but also the seeds of power to blossom into full responsible Government Now these changes have to take place in these different conditions. That does not alter our conviction. I take it on myself to say that I have a joyous heart in the great enterprise to which we are committed. I refuse most emphatically to admit that this is good bye to India, or that it is farewell. Whoever else may think that, I do not so regard it, and the hope to revisit that land is one of my cherished ambitions. No; it means the end of an epoch, the epoch of governance and the opening of a new epoch, the epoch of co-operation.
  We, one and all, welcome wholeheartedly pledges of co-operation which have come from every side, and from every individual who has spoken in this House. What form is that co-operation to take? First, I ask that it should he based on understanding. It may be that very great and rapid changes will take place in India in the next few years. Enormous social and even religious reforms will have to be undertaken in the East. It is impossible in India to distinguish between, or to separate, the social system from

  267
  religion. Great reforms in the law relating to land, and the law of inheritance, and in other directions, which we could not undertake as a neutral Government, will have to be undertaken by India; they will need full and careful understanding on our part.
  The next field of co-operation I suggest is in developing the economy of India. There is a population of 410 million, and the standard* of life must be raised immeasurably beyond the stage in which it is today. We will give to India all the help our people can render her in the realms of science, in the realm of industry and of economics; in technicians, and in the field of education. I hope that there will go from this House, and from whoever has the power to speak to them, a very earnest appeal to our people who are experts in these fields to regard their part in the future of India not entirely as a question of salary, leave, allowance and living conditions, but in the light of the part they can play in our Imperial heritage and in the spirit of service, and in the hope that in the fruits of their service they will be amply repaid. So we play our part, whoever we may be, in this great adventure, in confidence and satisfaction. It is not ours "to see the distant scene"; we can but take the step. That step we take today, in thankfulness and gratitude for the opportunity which has been given to us, pride in what our people have accomplished in the past, and the hope for what we will, in faith and co-operation, be able to achieve in the future, in co-operation with those Indians who have now undertaken the responsibility of the governance of their own land.
  5.52 p.m.
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: No one who has listened to the speeches of the last two days can fail to have been impressed by the dignity and even emotion which has characterised most of them. There was a slight altercation between the two Front Benches—the hon. Lady opposite and my noble Friend—but that did not seriously disturb the unanimity of approach to this Debate.
  Earl Winterton: I think that "correction" would be a more happy word.
  Mr. Baxter: My noble Friend is now extending the area of his criticism, but I think we are too old friends to quarrel.
  268
  It is as well, in these days of rather harsh party strife, that there should be occasions when this House speaks not so much as the Government and the Opposition, but as Parliament itself. This has been one of those occasions, and it has been moving and deeply impressive. I would like at this moment, if I might, to pay a tribute to the Prime Minister for what has been brought about. The good intent that was in his heart and the transparent honesty and sincerity of his approach must have played a great part in breaking down the suspicions and feuds and quarrels that have broken out so often. It is not often that I pay a tribute across the Floor of the House, but I ask the Prime Minister to accept that as being deeply sincere on my part.
  The passing of this Indian Independence Bill makes the day at once a proud day and a sad one. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) that it is a little like a son leaving the parental roof to become a full partner in his father's business. One sees him depart from the home circle with regret, but one welcomes him in business association as a full partner. To some extent that is why today is partly a sad day and partly a proud one, because the greatest joy a parent can have is to see his son come to man's estate and assume its responsibilities and position.
  Considering this whole Measure, considering the speeches which have been made in the last two days, I feel that history will pay a great tribute to this country for what it has accomplished, not only in this Measure but across the Seven Seas. Certainly, our administration—if that is the correct word—in India, was never perfect. We never moved as fast a, we could have done; there were many things left undone. But could this agreement have been entered into unless our service in India had inculcated respect for law and the honesty of the courts? The wonder and genius of this island Kingdom is something which will engross historians as long as this world lasts. Last winter I was at the opening of Parliament in Canada. Canada is a senior Dominion, Canada is rich and powerful, and is almost in dual citizenship with the United States. It was by no means unimpressive, and it was moving as well, to see the Governor-General take his place to open

  269
  Parliament, and the way in which, with Mr. Mackenzie King, the Prime Minister, sitting there close to him—I agree with a rather subtle air of proprietorship—the Governor-General said, "My Ministers will do this and that." Canadians are proud of that, of consenting by their own will to that form, proud to be found in the traditions of the great Empire, knowing that they could walk out of it by the mere passing of a Parliamentary resolution.
  I hope that the whole world looks on today and sees what is happening and what has been accomplished by the troubled people of this island Kingdom here. I sometimes think that those of us who were born in the outer Empire have a sharper understanding of what this country means, what her Empire means, than those who were born and educated and who live here. I add that to my tribute today. The one thing we have to realise is that the British Empire and Commonwealth, like all vital living things, is subject to change, and that no matter what side of the House we sit upon, it would be a great mistake to imagine that this is the last alteration, or that more changes will not come.
  I sometimes think of the Empire, and I do not mean this entirely frivolously, as a club. We here, and the Dominions and the Commonwealth countries, are the ordinary senior members. We also have country members, as one might call the Colonies. We also have week-end members—Eire might almost qualify as a week-end member of the club—and I am not certain that we have not got foreign members. It has been said that in the days of the great Roman Empire no one could say where the influence of that Empire began and where it ended, it was so vast. Later on, in the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne the same thing was said; so powerful was its influence, where did it begin and where did it end? We can look upon the map and see those parts marked red. Those are the territorial limits of the British Empire, but I wonder if we ourselves realise how our influence spreads beyond that visible Empire to what might be called the invisible British Empire.
  In the wisdom of our Lathers and grandfathers here, not very much praised in these days, we so tuned our economy
  270
  that other countries lived by reason of our wise dealings with them. The Argentine might be considered, or might have been considered a short time ago, as one of the foreign members of the British Empire. America itself, although this might not be entirely approved of by Colonel McCormick or even Mr. Hearst, was born of this mother. It was a painful birth and not altogether creditable to the mother, bat nevertheless the qualities were there. When one visits America now and sees how strong are those institutions which came down from Englishmen, I am not at all certain that if America made application in a proper form and got a proper proposer and seconder, we may not admit her as a foreign member of the British Empire. I only say this because we should tune our minds to the fact that this is a changing organism. We should not shut our eyes to any development. That is why I think the Government have done so well not to let this Indian affair come to an impasse but rather have found the way round which expresses democracy and hope.
  In conclusion, I wish to say this. It is one thing for politicians in a subcontinent like India to make violent fanatical impassioned speeches with the legitimate idea of overthrowing the ruler under which they are living. That is one kind of responsibility. But it is quite another thing when they assume the humdrum day to day difficulties of administration. The Indian politicians have a big task before them because a public which has been fed upon heated appeals and passionate fanaticism, is not going to take lightly to the ordinary course of government. Also, the people of India, faced with the normal difficulties and the lack of spectacular qualities of what in effect was a political rebellion, may be open to subversive propaganda of a fiery nature from outside. With all the good wishes that have gone out today, I think we should say in this House that the Indian politicians have a very great responsibility to see that their soil and the minds of their people are kept clear from that menace from outside. This is a proud day for this country, for this mother of nations, this country of Britain; and if I echo the message of one of my hon. Friends to India: "Hail, farewell, and hail again, which he gave so eloquently

  271
  today, I would add to it the time-honoured cry:
  "Long live the British Empire and the Commonwealth."
  6.4 p.m.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: I suppose that different hon. Members suffer from different emotions on a day such as this. I imagine that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) must be feeling very elated on this memorable day. We have all enjoyed his great contributions on this subject on more than one occasion. I should think that the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), with his long experience of India, is experiencing another form of elation. I feel sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also are feeling very elated, not only because this is a great day for Britain and for this Parliament, but because it is a memorable day for India. I intervene in order to express my personal emotion. I think that my hon. and right hon. Friends who represent Welsh constituencies will forgive me if I take it upon myself to say that Wales will be second to none in its spirit of elation and thanksgiving on this great day in the history of India.
  My mind goes back nearly 50 years to some of my first childhood recollections of the great sacrifices made by the people of Wales in order to try to educate the people and establish a relationship of good will between them and the people of this country and India. There is one corner of India, the hills of Khassi and the plains of Lushai, which will be ever green in the hearts of Welsh people. For over a century, the people of Wales have established there a Christian church. Hundreds of our men and women have sacrificed their lives in order to bring light and education, health, hospitals and schools into the lives of our Indian brethren there. Therefore, I teel that while we are paying tribute to the soldiers, sailors, statesmer and politicians who have made their contribution to the emancipation of India, it would not be too much for us to remember also the simple men and women of Christian faith who laid down their lives in the great sacrifice.
  272
  If I am permitted to make an appeal to the people of the future India I would say, "For God's sake do not throw overboard the great virtues and benefits which have resulted from the efforts of these great and lion-hearted men and women." I appeal to the Indians not to disturb the great friendship and friendliness which exists among the Christian community in the hills of Khassi and the plains of Lushai. Nothing but good can accrue from the great contact which has been established there. I served with the Indian Army in the 1914–18 war. Two Indian soldiers are responsible for the fact that I am able to be present today. They saved my life, and I am for ever grateful and thankful. Even at that time I felt that there was that quickening of the soul of the people of India, that great awakening. Nothing gives me greater pleasure than to be in the House of Commons on this day of all days when that awakening has become a reality. It is something which will have its effect, not only upon this Parliament or this nation but upon the future of the whole world.
  I would like to pay a humble tribute to the work of the Indian Civil Service. I have known indirectly of their work for a number of years though I have never been in that service. Nobody will ever be able to assess the amount of really good work in the interests of the Indian people which has been done by some of the best types in the Indian Civil Service. In common with every other hon. and right hon. Member, I wish India the best of luck in the future. I sincerely hope that its leaders will never be too small or too big to look for the real friends of India in this and other countries. Let them try to carry on in the tradition based on our faith. I wish them good luck and God speed in the great unknown experiment which is now opening itself before them.
  6.10 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: I am glad the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. W. R. Williams) spoke about the Welsh missionaries in India, and I think it was a word in season. I have been treated personally in Dr. Robert's Welsh hospital, and so I can pay a personal tribute to the great work which they are doing in India. I do not believe that the Prime Minister or the

  273
  President of the Board of Trade are feeling elated as has been suggested. I think they are feeling responsible, and are praying in their hearts for the success of the work—and it is a great work—which they have clone. So far as I remember, the Prime Minister is the only remaining Member in this House of the original Simon Commission, on which he went out to India, I think in 1928 or 1929, to study the problem on the spot for himself. He put in a great deal of hard work then, as the President of the Board of Trade did later.
  How often have Indians said to me "You have given us that much, but you promised us independence from the time of Queen Victoria, and you always say, ' Not now, but at some future date.'" That future date has come, but I think there is a certain danger that we might turn ourselves into a mutual admiration society and shake ourselves by the hand too much. We must not do that before we are out of the wood. The situation reminds me of the Northern Ireland golf professional, who won the Open Championship at Hoylake the other day, and then went over to Northern Ireland to compete in the Championship there and was beaten. He said that the reason why he lost was that too many people had shaken him by the hand. I think that Lord Mountbatten might lose in the final round now, because we are all too busy shaking him by the hand too soon.
  Who knows what might happen? Of course, every one prays that there will he no civil war, no bloodshed. I see that the right hon. and learned Attorney-General is present, and he knows who are the masters in this country, because he has said so, but he does not know who in future will be masters in India. I think the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) suggested that there was a danger of the Muslims being oppressed by the Hindus. I would not like to say that to a Muslim. He would look upon it as a very great insult. There is just as much chance of the Hindus being oppressed by the Muslims as of the Muslims by the Hindus. The right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) mentioned that we might have taken more care, before handing over the reins of government, of the interests of the, Anglo-Indians, the Scheduled Classes and the Princes. They will all have a
  274
  part to play in the near future of India. Caste is breaking down so fast in India that I think that the Princes are quite happy today to be mentioned in the same category as the Scheduled Classes. I also agree that we must give due credit to everybody who has taken part during the past 25 years in this progress in India, and I think we should include the right hon. Gentleman whom we used to know as the hon. Member for Chelsea and who is now Lord Templeton. Also the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. When I was in India, his name was mentioned a good many times to me with reverence and appreciation, and I think that, possibly, the reason was that he had the reputation in India of being an ascetic. It has been suggested to me that the President of the Board of Trade might eventually retire to a hermitage in the Himalayas. Indeed, some commercial people in this country would not object strongly if ho entered the hermitage now.
  The danger as I see it, is whether not the Indians will he able to preserve law and order. An hon. Member on the other side mentioned the great Asiatic Congress which met in Delhi last winter, when it was stat that the Indians were accepted as the leaders of Asia. Unless the Indians preserve law and order in their own country, they certainly will not be the leaders in Asia or even in their own country. The responsibility is theirs and it is no use pretending that we could have great Debates in this House on the matter, when the responsibility lies fairly and squarely on their shoulders. Under their religion, Indians are told to look after their relations down to the 15th or 16th generation, and it is very difficult for such a religion to be absolutely impartial.
  The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) mentioned his great love for India. When I meet an Indian, it is not a question of his love for me or my love for him. It is a question of my respect for him and his for me. I have many Indians among my friends, and one whom I recollect at this moment is as good as any of my friends among Europeans. I appreciate his courage, moral and physical, his honesty, and his cleverness, and his oratorical gifts, which are far greater than my own. What these Indians want from us is respect, not patronage of any-

  275
  kind. I like to be able to look Indians in the face and shake them by the hand. I recall some of the qualities of my personal friends among the Indians, their justice and fairmindedness, and so I hope that in future we may find these same qualities in the Governments of India and Pakistan.
  6.18 p.m.
  Earl Winterton: Before coming to the subject-matter of my speech, I would like to comment on the most admirable and moving speech of the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. W. R. Williams). If I may say so, it most accurately emphasised the spirit of the whole Debate. My hon. and gallant Friend who followed him, started on a more gloomy note, and I would only commend to him in these matters the advice of his famous ancestor, who told us confidently to "Smile, smile and smile." I should also like most sincerely to thank various hon. Members who have made most friendly references to my long connection with Indian Government, especially the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and also the Prime Minister. I hope it will not be thought impertinent or effusive if I say that I, and I think all of us on this side of the House, pay our tribute to the persuasive patience that the Prime Minister has shown in all these negotiations.
  It is indeed quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that I have had a very long connection with, and experience of, Indian administration. I think I was longer at the India Office than any Minister, except, perhaps, an uncle of mine, who was there for eight years; I was there for seven years. I was responsible for getting a dozen or more Bills through this House, and I was a member of the third Round Table Conference, and I do not know how many others. On more than one occasion I was asked if I would allow my name to be submitted to His Majesty for a Presidency Governorship. I said, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer," I think I am better here, and, therefore, I cannot accept it." The right hon. Gentleman also said in connection with Indian administration that he thought I would agree—I think I am giving the gist of his words—with what he had found when he first approached the Indian problem, namely, the great difference that
  276
  exists in India between the two major communities. I endorse that. I remember speaking in this House a quarter of a century ago, when I first introduced the Indian Estimates. On that occasion, I said that there was a great volcanic rift bisecting India which divides Hindus and Muslims. That is in addition to that between the depressed classes and the Hindus, or between the Sikhs and other races and creeds, and, also, in addition to the unbridgable gap between the primitive races and the high caste Brahmin. We should not ignore the immensity of the religious problems which face India.
  For all those reasons, I have taken the view, not only for the last few months, but for a long time past—and here, perhaps, is a shade of difference not only between myself and right hon. and hon. Members opposite, but between myself and my right hon. Friend, whose work for India I so much admire, and some hon. Members on this side of the House on this main view—and have said so in debate, that partition was inevitable. I do not want to quote in full what the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence said in criticising my action—I will only mention one thing which he said—18 months ago. He said that much of what I had said the day before was intended to be helpful, but that he very much deprecated my reference to what I termed my view and belief that the "final and irrevocable rupture between Congress and the League" was now obvious. And the House cheered him. I was almost alone in holding that view. I said in reply, by way of interruption when the right hon. Gentleman gave way, that I had said that because of information which had reached me, and of which I would not give the source even today, that, for the last 18 months, partition has been inevitable in India.
  Therefore, I welcome this Bill—for that reason among others—because it accepts the inevitable. The highest form of statesmanship is to accept what is inevitable, and not to try to get round it. Why is it inevitable? I think it is worth saying a word on the subject. All the authorities on India who have spoken in this Debate have made some reference to it, but have not dealt with it at any length. I will begin by saying that it is very difficult for a country like ours, only some 15 or 20 per cent. of whose inhabitants, even though we still call ourselves a Christian nation,

  277
  are actively interested in the institutional religion, which is the official religion of the country, or the one which the nation professes, to appreciate either religious fervour or religious fanaticism. But our ancestors, and, even more so, the ancestors of European nations, knew the meaning of such things, for they killed, burned or tortured thousands of people under the impulse of religious fervour. I dare say that more people have been killed in Europe during religious wars than were killed in the war which we have just gone through.
  I say—and I think these words will be welcomed in India, because I am the first to have put this point so distinctly—that that should at least help us to understand what has been the cause in a subcontinent of, on the whole, a kindly people, of the horrors of what are euphemistically termed "communal riots," but which are really religious civil wars. People have been burned, tortured and outraged on an unprecedented scale in these socalled disturbances which, as I have said, are really civil wars. I would say to those who fervently believe in either, as millions of Indians do, that there is no point of contact in religious matters between Hinduism and Islam. The average person has not the least conception of what religion means to a Hindu or to a Muslim, because those things are a past part of our history in this country. But our ancestors would have understood it, and some who were present during the Prayer Book discussion would have understood it. Certainly the average person in this country does not understand it.
  Each of those two great contrasting systems has produced many fine characters in the course of Indian history. But their environmental upbringing and background of adherence of these two creeds differs as much as does the North Pole from the tropical jungle of the Amazon. Hinduism is a great philosophy—a religion, one might say—securing the adherence of hundreds of millions of Indians. But nearly So million other Indians, with intensive and simple-minded devotion, believe its exact antithesis, that there is but one God and that Mahomet is his Prophet, his sole interpreter on earth. One has to live alone for a while with true Muslims, as I have to appreciate the fervour of that belief and their intense sincerity about it.
  278
  Therefore, why in a manner which is devoid, to some extent, of reality, talk as if this gulf between these two people could be bridged by a unitary system of government? To that extent, I entirely agree with those who have said that the only thing to do is what is now being done: Partition may bring peace to the warring communities for the simple reason that it gives security and hostages to both. I go further and say that, while I think partition will continue, the whole trend of things—indeed, everything that has been said in this Debate has been said in India lately—shows that there is a very real chance of the closest co-operation in things that really matter between the two Dominions provided only—and I will say this if I am the only voice in the House that does so—that they keep their separate identities in the way they have done up to now. Therefore, for all those reasons, I strongly welcome this Bill.
  I only want to speak for a few more moments because the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister is to follow me, and there is another very important matter to be discussed, but I think that a tribute should be paid to the Viceroy on this really historic occasion. I believe it is true to say that no man since Wellington, has been given such twin gifts of leadership in the military and constitutional fields. It is really a very remarkable thing that one of the greatest war leaders, on either side, in the recent war should have been taken from his military duties to be given a constitutional mission of the greatest delicacy. I doubt whether any right hon. Member on either of the Front Benches, or even my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition or the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, has ever been given a greater task than that given to Lord Mountbatten, who has solved it to the satisfaction of all men of good will in both countries.
  Few statesmen have moulded and chiselled the policy of their country to the extent that Lord Mountbatten has done. I hope and believe that the new relationship will be both striking and constructive. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter), who spoke so eloquently of Empire relationship, that there is a constant growth of new ideas and associations within the ambit of the British Commonwealth and no one can

  279
  set any limits to that ambit or to those associations.
  I see that the hon. Lady the Member for North Bradford (Mrs. Nichol) has returned, and I would like to refer to a point arising from her earlier remarks. I think it should be realised that with this Bill we are not handing over such services as education and public health to the new Governments or to the peoples of India, because they were handed over years ago. It is very necessary that that should be made clear. It is necessary that it should not be said, especially at this eleventh hour, that because education and public health are lacking in India, it is our fault. It may have been our fault originally, but it has not been our fault during the last 25 years.
  Mrs. Nichol: Does the noble Lord suggest that we can divest ourselves of any shred of responsibility?
  Earl Winterton: I would refer the hon. Lady to what I have just said. I said that during the last 25 years, under the system of provincial autonomy, we have not been responsible for it. The hon. Lady might say that we should have done more before, but I am talking of the last 25 years. We are not handing over those things, because they were handed over long before. No one can say that we are now giving the Indians (in this respect) an opportunity which they have not had for a quarter of a century.
  I wish to support everything which my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) said on the subject of the civil servants, the States, the Scheduled Castes and the Indian Christians. I do not wish to make any further statement on the States. With regard to the civil servants, on the whole we have had satisfactory assurances. As we said in the course of the Committee stage yesterday, we hope His Majesty's Government will continue to do everything they can, in consultation with the new authorities, and I am very glad to see the right hon. Gentleman give an assenting nod of his head at the suggestion that everything will be done, in consultation with the new authorities, to stabilise and safeguard in every possible way the position of these people.
  Then there is the question of the Scheduled Classes. One of the evil things
  280
  which Mr. Gandhi has done to India—and he has done many—was that he succeeded in bringing about the Poona Pact, because if it had not been for that, as was mentioned in the book which was written by my very good friend, Dr. Ambedkar, the great leader of the Scheduled Classes, these people would have enjoyed a much better franchise than they do today. But Mr. Gandhi threatened to fast unto death, and the Government of that day gave way. If Mr. Gandhi threatens to fast unto death after 15th August, it will no longer be the concern of the British Government, but of Mr. jinnah and Pandit Nehru. Mr. Gandhi is very much annoyed with this Bill. I have a quotation in which Mr. Gandhi said that we are leaving India to be a cockpit. All I can say is that few people have done more than Mr. Gandhi to make it a cockpit. He has shown no realisation of the greatness of the task accomplished by His Majesty's Government on the one hand and by Mr. Jinnah and Pandit Nehru on the other. It should be left to the Indian people to deal with him as he should be dealt with.
  It is customary and almost compulsory on these occasions to indulge in some form of resounding platitude or platitudinous metaphor before one resumes one's seat. I am afraid that all the metaphors and platitudes have been used up by previous speakers, and I am not going to talk in broken, husky accents of what I feel about my life during the past 40 years in India. If I were to say that a new page was being turned over in the history of the sub-continent—which would be a platitude—I should have to confess that I am in great doubt as to what the writing on it will be. I hope it will be good. If I said that a new voyage was projected for the Indian ship of State, I should have regretfully to add that it has two captains with differing ideas as to the course. If I were, further, to use the greatest platitude of all—what I might call the kingpin of platitudes—and to say that I had carefully explored every avenue, I should be bound to confess that I have not the slightest idea, nor has anybody else, what is really at the end of it. But we must all hope that, wherever that avenue ends, it will offer a bright vista for the future. So, the House will be glad to know, I have at last succeeded in finding a platitude quite adequate for the occasion.

  281
  But, before I conclude, I would like to dc one thing which I think is not platitudinous, because it cannot be too often emphasised, and that is to plead for friendship between us and these two Indian unions. I would like to support what others have said from both sides of the House, namely, that it must be reciprocal and genuine on both sides, and on a level of equality, and I see no reason why it should not be. Because many Indian leaders are our former enemies, there is no reason why we should not become friends. Such a bouleversement should present no difficulties to a nation which, for six years of war, has played a major part in destroying one totalitarian police State and is now anxious, in the cause of peace, to be on terms of friendship with another. We have more in common with both Dominions than we have with a man in another capital in Europe. It is to our credit as a country that our admittedly strong moral viewpoint has always had, in external relationships, a certain elasticity. There is not the least reason why we should not have firm feelings of friendship and alliance with the leaders of the two Dominions. For generations many Indians and Britons have worked together with mutual respect and have died together in common heroism for the King Emperor. There are some who may sneer at loyalty to traditional symbols. The best among Eastern peoples do not. Like many of these former supporters of the King Emperor in India, I regret the breach in that symbolism, however inevitable it may be, which the passage of this Bill involves, but I hope for a new and fruitful relationship between the subcontinent and the Commonwealth.
  Meanwhile, I should like to pay my humble tribute, not without some personal emotion, to the hundreds of Indian friends of mine with whom I worked when in office or commanded in action in the first desert war; and I should like—I am sure on behalf of the whole House; and I am sure the Prime Minister will support me in this—also to pay tribute to the countless thousands of Britons—Viceroys, Governors, civil servants, police, railwaymen, soldiers and civilians—who, for generations past, have worked and, in many cases, died for the twin interests of Britain and India. No cenotaph commemorates the majority of them; but I believe that they, and those with whom
  282
  they have worked in India, have fertilised and enriched the history of mankind.
  6.41 p.m.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I should like to thank the noble Lord and also the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) for their very kind words about myself personally. I do not intend to speak at any length tonight. I spoke at, perhaps, undue length on Second Reading, and I have really little to add to what I said then. I should, however, like to pay tribute both to the British and the Indians who have served in India and who have been working hard for what has been done to lead up to the day when India achieves complete self-government. What I should like to say would be this. I think that during these days this House has shown the way in which one can handle a great theme on a great occasion: and I should like to pay a tribute to all Members of the House, and particularly to Members of the Opposition, for the great self-control and forbearance that they have shown in helping to get this Bill through.
  India is a subject that lends itself to expatiation. I have spoken at great length about India myself in former times, and I remember being rebuked by the noble Lord—quite justifiably—for the length and platitudinous character of a speech I made some years ago; and I dare say that I responded in kind myself. But there is in this House a great reservoir of knowledge on the subject of India. It came out throughout this Debate. There are hon. Members who have spent long years in India; there are numbers of hon. Members who have served in the Indian Forces; there have been hon. Members who have had long experience in office—like the noble Lord and like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler). The right hon. Gentleman can draw not only on his own personal studies, but on a parental and avuncular experience of governorship almost unequalled: he comes of a family famous in Indian annals.
  It follows that, in a Bill such as this, which was necessarily, as.I say, rather an enabling Bill than a detailed Bill, there are a great many points on which Members could have spoken at great length; but I am grateful to everyone for realising the great urgency of this matter. The Viceroy, to whom the noble Lord

  283
  paid a well deserved tribute, has been handling an extremely difficult situation. So, may I say, have the leaders of the Indian parties. And I think the House quite willingly understood that we ought to cut short this trying time to as small an interval as possible. We really want to get the new Governments at work. Everything will depend on the statesmanship shown. I believe it will be forthcoming. I have had to follow these affairs for many years, and I have noticed, especially during the past few months, a far greater degree of realism, and a far greater appreciation of the fact that we have now passed away from the time of words, and that we have come to the time of deeds. Action has to be taken. I believe that in dealing with the practical problems that present themselves to Indian statesmen we shall be getting away from slogans, getting down to the practical point of co-operation.
  I should like to say—and I am sure that in saying this I am speaking for everyone in this House and, indeed, for everyone in the country—that in the new state of affairs India can count on the utmost sympathy and help from the people of this country—help given without the slightest degree of patronage. Let me say again that all of us extend our warm friendship to the Indian peoples. Many of us have close friends amongst Indians. I have friends—Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, and amongst the depressed classes. I hear of them from time to time, and, from time to time, I see them, and they have talked to me as friends; and now that this great idea of domination is being removed we can speak as friends and equals. I believe that we can continue to help India, and I am sure that India can do great service in helping the world.
  I should like, finally, to draw the attention of the House to the magnitude of this experiment, which concerns 400 million human beings. To expect to get complete agreement at once among them is really a dream. It is suggested—some people do suggest it—that we could bring great masses of people in Europe into one polity. It is a very nice thing to do, but how difficult! Look at these age long animosities, at all these age long differences of religion. Well, we want to bring that polity about. In India
  284
  unity was brought about because it was superimposed from above all creeds and castes. When that was taken away, inevitably the old rivalries appeared again. But I believe that this long course of time in which the Indians—of different creeds, different castes, from different parts of the country—have worked together in Government, have fought side by side in campaigns, has brought about a real unity of Indians, and that this division will not mean disruption.
  I think everyone of us realises that a complete unitary system of Government in India was impossible. We hoped that these differences might have found their full, legitimate scope in federation. The applying of federation is very difficult. It has seldom been done by splitting the unitary Government into a federation. It has come about by the union of separate partners who, having once felt their own independence, have then felt the need for collaboration. Therefore, I am not unhopeful that, in course of time, this separation may come to a larger unity, a federation in which the partners will have full scope, and, at the same time, unity. In parting with this Bill from this House, I do it not with a feeling of elation, but with a feeling of responsibility, some feeling of anxiety, but also with an unquenchable hope that these things will work out for the good of all the people of India.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

PRIVILEGES

  Members of Parliament (Contractual Agreements)
  Report [17th June] from the Committee of Privileges considered.
  6.50 p.m.
  The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I beg to move,
  "That this House agrees with the Report of the Committee of Privileges, and in particular declares that it is inconsistent with the dignity of the House, with the duty of a Member to his constituents, and with the maintenance of the privilege of freedom of speech, for any Member of this House to enter into any contractual agreement with an outside body, controlling or limiting the Member's complete independence and freedom of action in Parliament or stipulating that he shall act in any way as the representative Of such outside body

  285
  in regard to any matters to be transacted in Parliament; the duty of a Member being to his constituents and to the country as a whole, rather than to any particular section thereof."
  I do not propose to embark upon a discussion of the whole procedings of the Committee of Privileges, but to confine my remarks to the fewest possible number, and to the question which is raised on the Order Paper, and to ask the House to accept the report of the Committee and the Motion with regard to the question of the action of hon. Members who are concerned with outside associations.
  The question before the Committee of Privileges was whether certain members of the Civil Service Clerical Association were guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House in circumstances which I will very briefly summarise. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) was for many years the salaried general secretary of his union, and from May, 1943, up to his election to Parliament was the salaried Parliamentary general secretary of the Civil Service Clerical Association. These appointments were subject to an agreement which was terminable by the hon. Member, but not by the Association except under a somewhat elaborate procedure in the event of serious and wilful misconduct, of which I am sure the hon. Member would never be guilty. That statement which I have summarised is contained in paragraph 3, of the report, which I do not wish to quote.
  The hon. Member said that from about the time of his re-election to Parliament in the General Election of 1945 criticism of his political activities by a section of the executive committee of his union became more marked, and suggestions were made that his employment by the union should be brought to an end. His complaint was that over a period of time there was a cumulative effect of what he called, to use his words, a sequence of events such as to bring pressure upon him to alter his conduct as a Member of this House, and to change the free expression of his views under the threat that, if he did not do so, his position as an official of the Association of which he has been a member for so long would be terminated or rendered intolerable. Your Committee state in their report the nature of the privilege involved in the present case in these words:
  286
  "It is a breach of Privilege to take or to threaten action which is not merely calculated to effect the Member's course of action in Parliament, but is of a kind against which it is absolutely necessary that Members should be protected if they are to discharge their duties as such independently and without fear of punishment or hope of reward."
  They conclude, to quote the report:
  "Although in the present case the language of the agreement between Mr. Brown and the Association was unfortunate in so far as it suggested that Mr. Brown was to represent the Association in Civil Service matters involving Parliamentary action,"—
  they did not consider that he was—to quote the words of the Association—
  Mr. Pickthorn: Which paragraph?
  Mr. Greenwood: As a matter of fact, it is in the agreement, in one of the appendices. They did not consider that he was, in fact, fettered in his complete freedom of action in regard to such matters, and they did not think—and that appears in the evidence—that any breach of Privilege had occurred. Your Committee point out in their report, in paragraph 16, that the executive committee
  "appear to have been at pains to make clear that Mr. Brown was entitled to complete freedom and independence, and it was in order that there should be no doubt that this was so and, on the other hand, to make it manifest that the Association was not involved in or concerned with Mr. Brown's views, that the Executive Committee thought the contractual relationship ought, in the interest of the Association, to be terminated."
  As the Association witnesses also pointed out, and as we have pointed out in the Committee's report, the agreement was remarkable in that the hon. Member could terminate it by notice, but the Association could not do so without his consent save, as I have already said, in the case of serious and wilful misconduct. One effect of this, as the witnesses of the Association pointed out, was that the threat to terminate was less serious than it would have been if the Association could have given the hon. Member notice. And, as your Committee say in their report:
  "it would seem strange that a Member who had voluntarily entered into an agreement subject to termination by an outside body should be able, so long as he remained a Member permanently, to preclude the outside body from exercising its right to terminate on the ground that to do so would involve a question of Privilege."
  On the question of Privilege, I ask the House to endorse the Committee's report.

  287
  The report does, however, raise a general question which we think it will be the wish of the House to consider, and which is dealt with in the second part of the Motion now before the House. As to whether we should reject the report or not, I hope the House will make up its mind.
  The second point is the question of agreements entered into between Members of the House and outside bodies..I refer to the case which is now before the House as one which does raise this problem in a somewhat acute form, but I raise it only for purposes of illustration. I do not, of course, propose to consider it except in relation to what the House may consider to be a fundamental point: The preservation of the complete independence and freedom of action of Members of Parliament.
  The agreement may be open to criticisms in various respects, and Members are entitled to have their views about it; but, in so far as this particular agreement is concerned, it is a matter between the hon. Member for Rugby and the Association, and is not a matter for this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I should not have thought so. I am saying that the agreement which had been agreed to between the hon. Member and his Association, whatever people may think about it, is not in question in this particular case of a breach of Privilege, and that obviously must stand. As I have already pointed out, an agreement of this kind does give rise to considerations which affect the House as a whole in case of agreements between Members of this House and outside bodies in the future. We are entitled to look at this problem now that it has been raised from the point of view of the independence of Parliament, and the dignity and freedom of the House of Commons. I say again, that I am not referring to this particular agreement or condemning the parties who made it, but trying to make the point that, having been raised it is a matter of primary importance for this House to deal with this question. If one looks at the report, the agreement between the hon. Member for Rugby and the Civil Service Clerical Association was, I think, entered into in all good faith.
  Colonel Ropner: This is very important. Does the right hon. Gentleman contend that the entering into
  288
  of an agreement between an hon. Member and an outside body cannot, in itself, be a breach of Privilege?
  Mr. Greenwood: I should not like to rule that it was a prima facie case—it would lie with Mr. Speaker. One can conceive of cases where agreements made between a Member of the House and an outside body might be regarded as a breach of Privilege of this House, but it is not for me so to rule. The question before the House tonight is whether, in the light of this particular case, any general guidance or declaration of principle should be laid down for the future. The particular provisions in the hon. Member's agreement, as Parliamentary general secretary to the Civil Service Clerical Association, to which exception has been taken, are that he:
  "shall deal with all questions arising in the work of the Association which require Par liamentary or political action;"
  and
  "shall not be entitled, in his political and Parliamentary activities to purport to represent the political views of the Association (if any) and he shall only represent the Association in so far as Civil Service questions are concerned."
  It is further provided in the agreement that the hon. Member
  "shall be entitled to engage in his political activities with complete freedom."
  In respect of his duties as Parliamentary general secretary to his Association, the hon. Member has been receiving a salary of round about £1,350 a year, the use of a motor car, an expense allowance of £250, the services of a private secretary, the use of accommodation and secretarial facilities at the Association's offices, the provision of a telephone at his home, and certain pension rights. I am not quoting this against the hon. Member at all, but as part of an argument. A distinction is drawn in the agreement between the political activities, in which he was to retain complete freedom, and his work for the Association on questions requiring—these are the terms of the agreement—"Parliamentary or political action." In his evidence before the Committee, the hon. Member argued that in fact—and I am very anxious to be scrupulously fair in this case—the freedom extended to Civil Service matters in Parliament, because of the complete identity of views between himself and the Association, of which, as he said in evidence, he was

  289
  "the father and the mother"—a very difficult biological problem to settle. In other words—and I want to give due weight to his argument—in his own words, he was not a "mandated delegate." He had been, as I understood his case, so associated with this organisation since its start that his authority was that of an elder statesman, rather than that of a "mother and father" at the same time. On the other hand, the Association, as I gather from the evidence, seemed to have taken a different view of the relationship. The honorary President of the Association, in answer to a question put by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid), who asked whether the hon. Member for Rugby was bound to carry out the wishes of the Association in Civil Service matters, said:
  "That was our understanding and expectation of the arrangements between us."
  Mr. Pickthorn: It would immensely facilitate the task of those who wish to debate this fairly, if the right hon. Gentleman would make reference to the numbers when quoting questions and answers. If it is impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to do that, I will not press him; but it would be of immense help to us to give the reference numbers.
  Mr. Greenwood: I have a marked copy of the report. I am trying to keep down to the minimum the time I must occupy. The question which was put to Mr. McMillan, the President of the Association. was Question 378. I have quoted the terms of the agreement between them. As I said, when the President of the Association was asked whether a member of the Union was bound to carry out the wishes of the Association in Civil Service matters, he replied:
  "That was our understanding and expectation of the arrangements between us."
  That that was so, was certainly suggested by the not inconsiderable character of the remuneration and other emoluments which the Association agreed to pay. I do not intend to go into this agreement, but would only say this: First, that there was at least room for doubt whether the agreement placed the hon. Member under any obligations to follow the Association's line when Civil Service matters, which might, incidentally, cover a very large field, came before Parliament. Secondly, I think that the House will agree that if this were the
  290
  effect of the agreement. it is open to objection in the terms of the Motion before the House.
  This Motion seems to state a principle which—a case having arisen—it seems to be necessary to establish. I submit that it is in accordance with the views expressed by the Committee of Privileges, on page 25, paragraph 14, of their Report, when they say:
  "It has long been recognised, however"—
  and I draw these words to the attention of the House—
  "that there are Members who received financial assistance from Associations of constituents or other outside bodies, and whilst those who enter into such arrangements must of course exercise great discretion to ensure that the arrangements do not involve the assertion or the exercise of any kind of control over the freedom of the Member concerned, your Committee do not think that the making of such payments in itself involves any breach of privilege."
  But, as the Report goes on to say:
  "What … the outside body is certainly not entitled to do is to use the agreement or the payment as an instrument by which it controls or seeks to control, the conduct of a Member, or to punish him for what he has done as a Member."
  The question before us is whether the House should now lay down a general doctrine deprecating, in the words of the Committee of Privileges, any arrangements with an outside body involving
  "the assertion or the exercise of any kind of control over the freedom of the Member concerned …"
  This House has lived through difficult days, and its honour is at stake. It would be undermining the dignity, the stature, and the power of this House if the general public were to come to believe that there were questionable relationships—I am not using that phrase in this particular case—between outside bodies and Members of this House, and I hope that in its deliberations this House will think tonight about its own future honour.
  7.13 p.m.
  Mr. W. J. Brown: I had hoped, Mr. Speaker, in this Debate, to limit myself to a brief personal statement of not more than a few minutes' duration, but the form of the Motion before the House, and what I think must inevitably be the character of the Debate upon it, makes it necessary that I should say more than I thought at an earlier stage would suffice to meet the case.

  291
  I could have wishes that the matter of the Motion had come before the House tonight in a rather different form from that in which it is brought to us For there are two issues covered by the Motion. One issue is whether we agree or disagree with the majority report of the Committee of Privileges—and about that there may be, and probably will be, conflicting views, cutting right across the party line. The second issue is whether the House thinks it desirable to lay down, in the form of a Motion, some kind of guidance relating to contractual obligations between Members of the House and outside bodies. I can conceive that there will be Members who would like to vote against the first part of the Motion, but would desire to vote for the second. I can conceive that there are Members who would desire to vote against the second part, yet might desire to vote for the first. And it would have been better, I think, if I may say so with respect, if this matter could have come to us in two Motions, one dealing with whether we want to accept the report or not, and the other dealing with this wider question. Then we could have had two Debates of a self-contained character. As it is, I rather fear that in this joint Motion we shall have an overflow of one aspect of the matter to another, not to the confusion of the Debate, because the House is clear-headed in these matters, but certainly to the disadvantage of clarity and continuity of discussion.
  But whatever I would have wished, the Motion comes in this form and, therefore, I must deal with it as it is on the Order Paper. I would wish to say something about both halves of the Motion. The first half accepts the majority report of the Committee, which takes the view that, in the transactions between the honorary officers of my union and myself, what transpired did not constitute a breach of Privilege. I invoked the machinery of the Committee of Privileges; I appealed to that tribunal; I made my complaint to them; they have investigated the case and have pronounced judgment upon it. In those circumstances, it would ill become me either to criticise or to question the report of the Committee. The House has, in the volume before it, all the documents that were put in; it has the minutes of evidence; it has some knowledge of me, and, in short, it possesses all the raw
  292
  materials for judgment. In that respect all that I can do is humbly to submit this issue to the judgment of my fellow Members of Parliament, and that I do.
  It is necessary that I should say something about the circumstances which gave rise to this issue, because they bear very sharply indeed upon the second half of the Motion. When I first came to this House, in 1929, I entered it as a member of the Labour Party, and I sat as a Labour Member. I was also a trade union man, receiving financial aid from my union. In that respect, my position was analogous to that occupied by many Members of this House today, as those on all sides of the House will readily agree. In that Parliament I had no contractual arrangements with my union specifically related to my work in Parliament, either governing or related to my work in Parliament. But the circumstance that there was no contractual arrangement at all did not prevent the strongest pressure being brought to bear upon me during that Parliament. In 1931 I left the Labour Party. I did that with great reluctance and after a good deal of mental struggle, because I thought that it was right for me to do so. I may have been right or wrong. But it is still possible for a man to change his party, or even to decide to stand on his own feet and to have no party. If, indeed, there had been no changes of party during the last 30 years, the other side of the House would be less fully tenanted than it is tonight.
  When I decided to leave the Labour Party in 1931, there then ensued on the part of the Executive Committee of that association, an attempt to prevent me from standing for Parliament again. That was defeated overwhelmingly by the annual conference of the union. It was laid down that I was free to stand if I wanted to and that the union was not concerned with my political line. That was not of very great consequence then, because in 1931 I lost my seat, and it was not until 1942 that I returned to this House. When I returned, I did so with a very vivid recollection of what had happened in 1931. Then, although there had been no agreement about my Parliamentary work, pressure had been exerted. This time I was determined that there should bean agreement, and that it should be an agreement which made it utterly plain that I was to be free in my political

  293
  life. Therefore, in the agreement which was drawn up between me and my union, paragraph 3 stipulated:
  "Mr. W. J. Brown was to engage in his political activities with complete freedom in accordance with the decisions of the Annual Conference."
  I want to stress that, it I may, because, if the House is to judge the positon, it is essential that this point should be understood. The whole point, pith, and purpose of that agreement, from my point of view, was to establish my political freedom. I meant to establish it because of my experience in an earlier Parliament when there had been no agreement at all. It is not the least irony of my life—a life which has not been wholly free from ironical circumstances—that an agreement designed to establish freedom should have been by implication cited as 2n agreement to limit it!
  There was another thing that both my union and I were concerned to do in 1942, and that was to make it plain that neither of us accepted responsibility for the politics of the other. They did not want to be debited with my political line and I did not want to be credited—if that word be appropriate—with their political line; and so paragraph 6 of the document laid it down that nothing in the agreement should entitle me to purport to represent the political views of the Association. I was only to represent them in relation to Civil Service matters.
  Play has been made in certain quarters with these last few words: "Shall only represent them on Civil Service matters." It has been suggested that these words imply an instruction to me, and an agreement by me, to act in the capacity of a mandated delegate on Civil Service matters. That is not a just construction of those words. The whole point of paragraph 6 of the document is not to instruct me to do something; it is to instruct me not to do something—not to purport to represent the political views of the Association. But from that prohibition there is a certain area, namely, Civil Service matters, which was exempted from the prohibition. I was fort bidden to say that I represented them on political matters. I was not forbidden to say that I represented them on Civil Service matters; and again and again in the procedings in this House I have announced, in speaking in Debates touching the Civil Service, what were the
  294
  views of the members of my association—just as miners have stated the views of miners, shop assistants, the views of shop assistants, teachers, the views of teachers, and so on through all the categories of the industries of this country. But there is all the difference in the world between not prohibiting a man from saying that he represented the association on Civil Service matters and, on the other hand, saying that he was a mandated delegate in respect of such matters. I have not so acted as a mandated delegate while I have been in the House of Commons. That is recognised by the majority report which says:
  "Your Committee do not consider that Mr. Brown was in fact fettered in his complete freedom of action in regard to such matters."
  While no differences arose between me and my union on Civil Service matters—no differences arose in that field—there were wide differences in politics, and after the re-affiliation of my union to the Trades Union Congress that gap became very wide. They represented that my independent and sometimes critical attitude was an embarrassment to them. Finally, they presented me with an ultimatum:
  "Either you agree not to speak or vote except in accordance with Trades Union Congress and Labour Party policy, or we will take whatever steps we can to make it impossible for you to retain the Parliamentary secretaryship."
  In the words of the minority report, the nature of the approach to me was:
  "Either cease your political activities, or go."
  I need hardly say what my reaction was to that. I said bluntly and categorically that I would give no assurance of any kind to them, or to anyone else, that would limit my political freedom in any degree whatever.
  There then followed an attempt to buy me out. A very large sum of the members' money—and the members had not been consulted about this—was proposed as a condition of bringing the agreement between us to an end. I declined to be bought out, as I had declined to be bullied in. Then the decision was taken to initiate steps to bring the Parliamentary secretaryship to an end. That decision, it seems to me, raises two issues: One touching the House; one a matter between me and my union. The matter between me and my union was whether that con-

  295
  tract should he brought to an end. I was perfectly prepared to do battle on that issue before the annual conference of my association, and I think I know pretty well what the result would have been. The other issue, it seems to me, concerned the House. I think that this combination of circumstances—the attempt to stop me speaking my mind, the attempt to buy me out, and the attempt to drive me out, collectively, constituted improper pressure on a Member. If that were so—and it is my understanding of the term—that constitutes a breach of the liberties of this House, and whatever view the House may take of the majority or minority report, I hope that it will not think that I was wrong in bringing that second issue to the notice of the House, and giving to the Committee of Privileges the opportunity of investigating and pronouncing on this matter.
  Before I come to the second part of the Motion, there are three points on which I wish to touch which have been touched on by the right hon. Gentleman, and which if I do not get them out of the way, may introduce a certain amount of prejudice into the Debate. It has been said that my agreement with the union was unusual in that, while I was able to terminate it at my discretion, the Association could only terminate it by consent or in the event of wilful misconduct by me. If the circumstances are examined, I do not think that that provision of the agreement would be found to be at all extraordinary. This association caters for civil servants. An established civil servant is free to terminate his contract at any time, but the State is not free to dismiss an established civil servant except in the event of misconduct. I submit that there is nothing at all extraordinary about the Civil Service Association reproducing, in its agreements with their officials—and this does not apply only to me—the same kind of security of tenure as the members of the association themselves enjoy as established civil servants.
  Nor is it extraordinary that I should have continued to receive emoluments from this association. It is a very common practice for trade unions to allow an officer, who is elected to this House, to continue to receive his union emoluments, in whole or in part. There is nothing uncommon about that, as hon.
  296
  Gentlemen opposite know. In my case, I had had up to the time that I first entered the House a long period of service —it is in all a total of about 35 years—and my union did not think it appropriate to signalise my entry into a wider field by taking away my union emoluments. That, I think, was to their credit, but certainly not to my discredit.
  Finally, under this head it is suggested that I could have avoided the occasion of privilege by resigning the Parliamentary secretaryship. I certainly could. But why should I, who, by common consent, has carried out his part of the agreement faithfully, resign at the behest of the executive which had broken their part and which I regarded and still regard, as being wholly unrepresentative of the membership of the organisation? [Interruption.] I repeat that—an executive which I regarded, and still regard, as wholly unrepresentative of the membership. The test of that will come at the next conference, and although I am not overgiven to betting, I am prepared to have a wager if anyone is inclined to indulge in a little gamble on this subject.
  What happened within my union—and I would ask trade union men opposite to take this point seriously because they know how serious this thing is—was to a large extent the result of penetration of the union by the Communists.
  Mr. Gallacher: That is a good line to take.
  Mr. Brown: Many trade union leaders in this country know just how serious is that problem. If they do not, they should look at the landscape in France, which ought to teach them, because there, the Communists' control the trade union movement, and they are making life impossible for a democratic Government with which everyone in this House ought to be in sympathy. It is my view that we should resist the Communist penetration—
  Mr. Gallacher: Thirteen hundred pounds a year.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: On a point of Order. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) is engaged in what for him must be a difficult personal speech. Can we not have protection for a particular Member of this House who is engaged in such a task? Is it not in accordance with the traditions of this

  297
  House that protection should be afforded to such a Member? I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, as the guardian of the traditions of this House to rule upon this matter.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member was a little hasty for I had already turned to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and said, "Order, Order." I think, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, here is a difficult case being presented by an hon. Member of this House and he is entitled to be heard. It is our custom in Parliament to hear a case of this kind quietly when it is a difficult one, and not to spoil it by interruptions.
  Mr. Gallacher: Further to that point of Order. I listened with the utmost silence to the hon. Member making his case, but I consider it is no part of his case to play up prejudices that exist in this House by dragging me and my colleague into this question.
  Mr. Speaker: That is a matter of opinion, not a point of Order.
  Mr. Brown: I was trying to make the point—and I think it was a fair one—that I hold certain views about the present position, and I do not think we can arrest Communist penetration by running away from it and arguing. I regret that the position arose. I did my best and the general secretary did his best to prevent it coming to a head. It was painful to me, as it must be to any trade union man to be in public conflict with the executive committee of his union. But I was satisfied that no other course would have met the requirements of the situation, and it is for this House to determine whether the evidence tendered by me, and endorsed by the Secretary of the association, or the evidence tendered on behalf of the honorary officers, bears the stamp of truth, and if so, what is the proper construction to place upon that evidence.
  I turn now to the last half of the Motion which deprecates the entering into of
  "any contractual agreement with an outside body controlling or limiting the Member's complete independence and freedom of action in Parliament."
  I think I am right when I say that that arose from the minority report—page xxxi—which is part of the report prepared by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery
  298
  (Mr. Davies), and which asks the House to pass a Resolution against contractual agreements. The minority report says:
  "The agreement with Mr. Brown led to difficulties because of his insistence on the clause giving him freedom in all political matters. In any new contractual agreement with a Member, the Association or any other outside body would, in their own interest, be bound to be less generous and to stipulate for a stricter control over any Member who agreed to act, in return for a salary, as their servant in the House of Commons"
  It will be seen that what the minority thinks is that, after this case, if any more contracts are allowed, there will be no freedom or less freedom to a Member of the House of Commons, and they suggest that something should be done about it. Let me say straight away that I will vote most heartily for any resolution which this House can pass which will have the effect of relieving Members hereafter from the kind of pressure brought to bear upon and resisted by me. It is too much to ask me to vote for the majority report, but if it is possible to split these two things up, then any resolution which would have that effect would command my support.
  But I should be less than honest if I expressed the view that this Motion really goes to the heart of our problem. There are a very large number of Members of the House who have relations with outside bodies, from which they receive financial aid of one kind or another. In some cases as in mine, the relation is the subject of a written agreement, in other cases not. In some cases, as in mine, it is proclaimed to the world; in others, the world knows nothing about it. I hazard the guess that in only a minority of cases —and probably a small minority at that —do written contractual documents exist which govern the relations of Members and outside bodies.
  It follows from that that if we are to deal only with contractual relations—unless a very wide term is given to that—then we shall be dealing with the smaller and, perhaps, the less important part of the problem. Indeed, we may find ourselves doing an injustice as between one side of the House and another. The rise of the modern Labour Party would have been difficult if not impossible but for the help given by trade unions, of which mine was one, to candidates and Members of Parliament. The last thing I want to do is to make it impossible for trade unions to

  299
  ensure the proper representation of various sections of workpeople in this House of Commons, and I hope that whoever replies for the Government—I imagine that it will be the Lord President of the Council —will deal with the point, because already there is apprehension about it. Yesterday morning I picked up the "Teacher's World" of 9th July. I will eliminate any names, because it is not part of my purpose to import names into this matter, but this is what that journal says:
  "The effort to establish this point of view"—
  That is, the point of view of the Motion—
  "is significant for, indeed, it is an attitude which may prove to be awkward to the teachers' organisations. The National Union of Teachers has for two generations past given support to representatives in Parliament whose functions have been somewhat similar to those of Mr. W. J. Brown. If political change should result from a change of Government, a distinct possibility of a prohibition of such contracts is now foreshadowed. In that event an end.would be put to the possibility of such arrangements as have in the past afforded Parliamentary careers to Mr. So-and-so"—
  I will not mention names—
  "and a number of other well-known ex-teachers. These men have had the right of free expression generally, while being restricted in matters relating to teachers and the affairs of the union, and they have usually honoured their obligations."
  Although the details or form of the arrangements vary, what is true of the teachers' union is true of very many trade unions. I do not think it wrong that this should be so. For this House does not exist in a social vacuum. And it is proper that outside interests should find expression here, even though they be the interests of sections of the community. Indeed, the modern Labour Party, as its older members will remember, began as the "Labour Representation Committee," a body designed to secure Parliamentary representation for a section of the community at that time—40 or 50 years ago—grossly under-represented in this House. When matters affecting particular trades and professions are under discussion here we properly look to men who know those trades and professions to tell us their views and give us the benefit of their experience. What we are entitled to deplore is that any such arrangement as that should result in the financial relationship being used to bring pressure to bear on the Member in this House. It is that
  300
  to which we are entitled to object, and any help which my own struggle might have from any other quarter will he heartily welcomed in that regard.
  But do not let us ignore the fact that there are dozens of arrangements in different parts of the House. On the whole, the trade union contract is likely to be the most public of the lot because it appears in many ways—in the annual balance sheet, the annual report, and so on. There are many agreements existing in this House to our knowledge which have never been made public knowledge at all. There is another point which is very important from the constitutional angle. The unit of electoral representation in Britain is the constituency, but the unit of financial organisation very often is not the constituency. It is an outside body, and that body may be a trade union, it may be a trade association, it may be an industrial interest or what not, so that where a man is elected to this House as the result of support from an outside body, it is inevitable that thereafter there should be a dual relationship. He has a relationship to his division, and he has a contract or relationship with the outside body—trade union, trade association or whatever it may be—with whose financial aid he has won his seat in this place.
  I do not think that that is wrong—and again I repeat, that the rise of the modern Labour Party would have been impossible without it. What is to be deplored is when the outside body, the trade union, trade association or industrial interest, uses this element of financial aid to seek the control of the Member. But I want to say this. In my view the root of the matter does not lie in the existence of written or even unwritten contractual arrangements. It lies in the fact of a financial relationship between a Member and an outside body. And when we have passed our Resolution tonight do not let it be supposed for a moment that we have dealt with the heart or the root of this problem. Financial relationships will exist tomorrow whether this Motion goes through or not, and we ought not to conclude that we can dispose of this matter merely by passing a Resolution. I think that safeguards are to be looked for in three directions. The first lies in the character of Members themselves. If a Member has financial relations with an outside body, and he is susceptible to pressure, there is

  301
  always the danger that pressure, negative or positive, will be used and, therefore, in my view, no Member should have such a relationship unless he makes it sunclear—as I have tried to do in this document—that he retains his complete political freedom. He had better have that in writing, too, although even that will not necessarily save him from pressure. But if he has it in writing, he is in a much better position to resist pressure when it comes, as I did.
  The second point is that, in my opinion, the most dangerous and insidious arrangements are not the public arrangements proclaimed to the world, but the secret arrangements of which the House and the world know nothing. I would make it obligatory upon Members to disclose the nature of any such financial arrangements both to their constituents and to this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] At last I have united both sides of the House. In fact, I think the danger is not so much in the contract. The relationship can be all that is decent, honourable and above board, but it is necessary that it should be known, so that when a man speaks in this House the House can make the necessary discount from what he says if the House thinks he is merely echoing the voice of an outside body.
  The third thing relates to this House and to the Committee of Privileges. In the nature of things it has been difficult in the past, and it will be still more difficult in the future, to bring home a charge of breach of Privilege in relation to a charge of improper pressure upon a Member. I cannot recall a case in the past where an outside body has indited a letter to a Member of this House and has said, "You must do this" or "You must not do this," and "If you do not do what we tell you, we will punish and victimise you." I cannot remember a case like that. I am certain there will not be one in the future. It is inevitable that breach of Privilege must consist in a conjunction of events—the bringing of pressure, the resistance to pressure, and then the application of the bludgeon. The fact, that it is a conjunction of events, and not one single act, does not make it less a breach of the Privileges of this House.
  It was my view that that conjunction of events had arisen in the case now under notice. I am sorry that the Com-
  302
  mittee is divided on that issue. The majority say, "Nay," and the minority say "Yea, there was a breach" That position I will not comment upon except to express my personal, deep sorrow that the division upon that matter should appear to follow party lines. I had hoped for a unanimous verdict from the Committee, which could have been invoked by any hon. Member hereafter to whom pressure was applied, as an example of what the House would do if pressure continued to be applied. I regret that I have not succeeded in getting that verdict, but the effect of this Debate may in some measure secure the result that I hoped to achieve, and which I believe other hon. Members hope also to achieve. For that reason, I welcome the Debate here tonight.
  I do not regret that in this place I have sought frankly and openly to help the men and women with whom I have been associated all my life from the age of 15, the civil servants of this country. I find no conflict between doing that and serving the interests of my constituents in Rugby. My constituents in Rugby find no conflict either. I do not regret that I resisted pressure brought to bear upon me. I do not regret that I invoked the machine of Privilege because I thought it my duty so to do, not only in my interests, but in the interests of my fellow Members. And if, after 35 years' service, my connection with the organisation which I founded and have built up over the years, is to come to a premature end—and I think the membership will have something to say about that—then, Sir, I would sooner go out on this issue, standing for political liberty, this issue of resisting "vile pressure wrongfully applied," than on any other issue of which I can think. Sir, I thank you for the opportunity of making this statement, and I thank the House for its courtesy in listening to me.
  7.54 P.m.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to move, in line 1 to leave out "agrees," and to insert "disagrees."
  I think I can assist and reassure the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) on one particular at least, and that is his desire that the two halves of this Motion should be separated. It was the intention, and I think it is the effect, of the Motion which stands in my name

  303
  and the names of three of my hon. Friends, to make it possible to vote in the way which the hon. Member desires.
  I am tempted to answer, or at any rate to comment upon, the two speeches which have been made, but on the whole I think it will be quicker if I try to state what seems to me to be the main question involved, referring, perhaps, to what has been said. I shall try to do it as shortly as I can, and I think I can promise the House to be dull. I hope hon. Members will do me the honour to try to listen to me. Privilege questions almost always turn either on interpretation of great principle or upon matters of rather fine distinction, and therefore, of all questions, they are perhaps the most difficult to deal with shortly. I really believe that if the House would allow me to talk for 10 or 12 hours, going through the Report and commenting on it page by page, most hon. Members would think that I was very largely right. I am not at all sure that in the 20 minutes or so I shall take, I can make plain what I am trying to say.
  First, I should like to indicate what seems to be the great question—I am putting it in the form of four questions into which I think it can be broken up—involved in this matter. It is a great question. I think it is the greatest question of Privilege which the Committee of Privileges as we know it has ever dealt with. The Committee as it is now is a very modern thing. It dates from, I think, 1909. It has not, I think, had before it a question of the nature of Privilege of this magnitude. I am very desirous to avoid unnecessary controversy but I find it necessary to say that I am the more regretful of the form in which this Debate has happened. I am not sure, but I think there has never before been a matter of Privilege of this size which has not been debated at any desired length, even de die in diem. I think it is true that the Government, by the forms of their procedure or lack of procedure, however much they may take off the Whips, have rather tended to make what was rather a regrettable split in the Committee a split beween two sides of the House. They cannot wholly get rid of the Whip effect, from the form in which the thing comes —the acceptance of the majority report, with a rider, put before us by the three leading Members of His Majesty's
  304
  Government, and taken in time in which the Rule is suspended for Government Motions only. I do not want to labour that point unnecessarily but it is a pity that a question of this matter of Privilege could not have been made more a House of Commons matter. I hope that we shall keep it as much a House of Commons matter as we can.
  Secondly, I think I quite understand that any Select Committee, and the Committee of Privileges perhaps more than others, is properly scrupulous to limit itself to what is remitted to it, and not to go outside to other matters. I may therefore be drawing too wide what seemed to me to be the question of principle involved in the case put before the Committee of Privileges, but I hope not. This is how I should draw it: First, Is it a breach of Privilege by a Member to enter into any agreement—I agree with the hon. Member for Rugby—explicit or implicit, I hope that the Government's rider when they say "contract" does not mean something written on vellum and sealed with the seal of the corporation. Of course, it is going to be far more difficult to deal with an implied contract or agreement, but I hope that we shall all agree that the essence of the matter is there, whether the contract is explicit or implicit. Is it a breach of Privilege to enter into an agreement explicit or implicit to limit the Member's Parliamentary action?
  Second, the obvious converse: Is it a breach of Privilege on the part of the other party, the trade union or the limited liability company or whatever, by which the agreement may have been made? Third, if any such agreement is a breach of Privilege, then am I right in presuming—I think I must be—that any pressure brought even within the limits of the agreement is itself a breach of Privilege? That seems quite clearly to be the case. The—fourth of the questions into which the whole general question can be analysed is: If such an agreement is not breach of Privilege, or not so that it must be treated as void and non-existent, then is any attempt to put more pressure than the agreement purports to allow, a breach of Privilege? Those seem to me to be the four questions into which the general question involved in the facts, mostly agreed, partly disputed, may be divided.

  305
  First of all, therefore, I would invite the House—I cannot go through the thing and demonstrate exactly and minutely why—to say that these questions are not clearly, plainly and rightly answered in this Report. I do not think it could be said of any one of them that it is clearly, plainly, and rightly answered in this Report. If not, I would invite the House to agree with me that the Report should not be accepted.
  I think we should all agree that the relations between a Member of Parliament arid a body or person from whom he may receive money or money's worth, or—and this I think is very important, especially in view of some of the examination—prestige and position—because the person concerned may well either on personal or political grounds attach more importance to them than even to money —the relations between that hon. Member and a body supplying him with these desirable things must always be very difficult. They seem to us—one never allows properly for the difficulties of one's grandfather—much more difficult than the old difficulties, and, I dare say, rightly. Certainly they are very different from what they were in the old days, because, in the main, of the development of trade unions and limited liability companies. I should be perfectly prepared at any time to discuss either of them particularly or generally, but at this time it is the trade union which is the matter in order. None of us would wish that any decision now taken should make those relations more difficult. As long as trade unions nominate only Socialists, I want to see them defeated at the polls, and everybody here does and properly may, but none of us wishes to see it made more difficult for trade unions to nominate candidates for Parliament.
  If relations of the sort indicated must be difficult, clearly there will be borderiine cases, and those border-line cases will have to be decided one by one as they come up. Here is where I would ask for the agreement of the House, and especially the Front Bench opposite, with whom I am really trying to debate as reasonably and amiably as possible. I ask them to say that there are two extreme views in the matter. One extreme view would be that there should be no such relations, that no hon. Member should be in such relations with anyone outside. Both the
  306
  Report and the minority draft agree in dismissing that, and I think we dismiss that too. At the other extreme, I should have thought that the safe rule of thumb might be this—that where a Member of Parliament has an obligation to obey anyone else on a particular vote or class of votes, where his vote is involved in his receipt of money or money's worth, or prestige or position, from somebody outside and is conditional upon it, there we might have agreed that at that point the thing is intolerable and at that point a breach of Privilege arises. If the House agrees with me, the House must on this point disagree with the weakness of expression of the paragraphs—I have forgotten which—towards the end of the Report.
  That the Committee was bound to consider this point can be shown by a very long string of quotations from the proceedings. I will not weary the House with them, although indeed to be honest however wearied the House might be, if I had the time, I should, because this thing cannot be discussed fully and fairly without reference to the questions in particular—[An HON. MEMBER: "We have read the Report."] I have no doubt that hon. Gentlemen have read it, and read it more intelligently and analytically than I have, but perhaps hon. Gentlemen will not have picked out the particular bits to which I want them to attend for a particular point in my argument. It is not really easy to debate this fully unless one goes through the details of the evidence. I could give a very long list of questions which showed strong evidence that the hon. Member in question was regarded as bound to vote for or against, for instance, a particular Clause in a Bill. That should have brought home to the Committee the absolute necessity of dealing with the point of principle which I last mentioned. I say that the point of principle is not made clear in the Report.
  I think it is impossible to doubt, in view of the questions and answers, that the question did arise whether the agreement was in itself objectionable, whatever use was made of it. A plain answer to that question was required. There is no such plain answer in the Report, and therefore the Report should be rejected. I am much stronger in that opinion of mine for this reason. It was quite plain from the proceedings of the Committee that Members of the Committee as well as witnesses be-

  307
  fore it took, I thought, a rather extreme view, and what seemed to me the wrong view, in this matter, and what I think the House would generally agree to be the wrong view. If the House will look at Questions 21 to 23 I think it will see that an hon. Member of this House, the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), for whom I may be permitted to express some personal affection and for whom the whole House has great respect, took it for granted that there was something anomalous about the relations between the particular hon. Member and his trade union, but that the anomaly was not in this particular hon. Member being limited by the relations but in his being less limited than was normal. Anybody who reads Questions 21 to 24 must see that is so.
  If hon. Gentlemen will look at Question D96 they will see again another hon. Member, with, I believe, trade union experience, taking the view that the normal and proper relation to expect would be that a trade unionist and a Member of Parliament was limited in all his Parliamentary action and not only in some part of it. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) said:
  "Just a minute. If you put forward that point of view, Mr. Brown, that your relationship to the Association was the same as that of any other Member to his particular Union, then does it not follow that something very different has taken place in the case of your actions …"
  and so on—
  "because you were not identical with them: only in matters affecting your organisation were you considered to be under their control ֵ it differentiated you from the other trade union representatives who are here?"
  And he underlined it at Question 198:
  "It is the same in one respect"—
  his position and that of other trade union M.P.s—
  "… in representing your organisation but you have freedom in other matters which the other trades union representatives here have not got?"
  I think it is very clear that it was the duty of the Committee of Privilege to report with extreme frankness on the matter.
  Mr. Neil Maclean: If the hon. Member reads that correctly he will find that I am not stating that
  308
  other hon. Members have not got that but that the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) could reasonably have it.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I am very sorry it I am misleading the House. I thought I had read it exactly. I think I did. I did not intend to mislead in any way. I will not go on although there are lots more—incidentally the whole complaint about its being awfully embarrassing for a union if it cannot, however much it asseverates that the hon. Member is not speaking for it politically, shake off its connection with him—the whole of that assumption which was made by practically every witness and apparently every one of the majority of the Committee has the same tendency and effect as these specific questions I am reading out. There is one more which I wished to read, Question 241, where the same point is made. I do not want to go on with it at greater length. I hope that I have made that part of the matter plain. I say that there ought to have been a plain clear statement of what is the true view on that, and there is no such plain clear statement.
  The next thing to which I wish to turn is from the conclusions of the report, to which I have been referring hitherto, to the argumentative machinery by which the conclusions were arrived at. Here again I should like to go through the lot if I could, but if hon. Members will look at page XI, paragraph g (a), they will see there what are called the findings of fact. I well understand that the Attorney-General knows better than I do the difference between fact and law and between fact and anything else. That sub-paragraph says:
  "the Executive Committee considered in good faith that the public activities of Mr. Brown … were injuriously affecting the interests of the Association…"
  It occurred to me to find out what the interests of the Association were. If the Attorney-General looks at the objects of the Association he will see that they are to promote the interests of its members, to regulate the conditions of their employment, benefits after death, etc., and in pursuance of those objects to co-operate with other societies. None of these things were affected in the least by the things objected to against the hon. Member

  309
  —[Interruption.]—I am sorry. I do not think that I can give way. I did not hear any articulate interruption and I think it will be quicker if I do not give way. Incidentally, this Association had no political affiliation at that time. I think indeed it still has not. Subparagraph 9 (c) of the findings of fact seems to me to he open to question, when it is found as a fact that both parties fully recognised that the agreement must have this or that, before termination. That seems to me to be going a long way and did, I think mislead the majority into assuming in the latter part of the argument that there was an agreement which was an effective one. If one recognises as a fact that an agreement is such and such, one has taken it for granted that there is an agreement which is in some sense a valid agreement. That is one question, whether this was a valid agreement which might have been raised and settled—I think it was, so to speak, half settled by innuendo in this paragraph 9 (c). This is another reason why we ought not to accept this report.
  Similarly I think that the argument in paragraph 9 (e) about the Executive Committee being
  "entitled to consider that, so far from objecting to the matter being referred to the annual conference …",
  that the hon. Member for Rugby invited action of a particular sort, by Conference, could be shown, I submit, to he inconsistent with the evidence. It cannot be said that a man has invited something if, when he is driven to the point at which this particular question has to be decided, he says "Very well, but you must do it in the constitutional way, and incidentally the way in which I shall be most likely to win," one cannot say that he was inviting the reference of that question. I think the evidence shows clearly that he was not.
  This next point may be regarded by some as rather academic, but I think it has considerable long-term importance. The argument at the bottom of page XI and at the top of page XII would do great harm if adopted by this House and very great harm if adopted by this House nem. con. That is another reason why I propose to divide the House if I may. Page XI, paragraph 10—the test is:
  "… whether the right claimed as a privilege is one which is absolutely necessary for the due execution of the powers of Parliament."
  310
  That really is not a fair principle stated that way round. The fair way is to state if the other way round, that Privileges are something absolutely necessary for the due execution of the powers of Parliament, or, as I should prefer it, the due execution of the function of the House, there the matter is Privilege, not that anything must be Privilege if it is that. It is necessary to bear in mind another principle, that is to say, that the House cannot create Privilege; as the thing is stated it might give the impression that the House can create Privilege by simply stating that something is necessary to the power of Parliament. I say "power," because the draft changes from "powers" to "power" on the last page of the Report, I dare say inadvertently, but again with a slight shift of meaning. On the top of page XII there is a small point but one which may be of long-range importance. I refer to the second half of paragraph XI which says:
  "It is a breach of privilege to take or threaten action which is not merely calculated to affect the Member's course of action in Parliament, but is of a kind against which it is absolutely necessary that members should be protected."
  I think that has a tendency to impute that a thing is not breach of Privilege in itself unless it is something against which protection is absolutely necessary. I think it did rather direct the later course of the argument in that direction. That is a mistake as must be apparent to anyone, without being learned in the matter, from the Tennant case, in which hon. Members will remember the matter was found to be trifling, such as could not affect anyone's judgment or vote in Parliament, but nevertheless it was held breach of Privilege. I think that is another minor but not inconsiderable reason for what I think is the weakness of the Conclusion's argument, and reason why I think that this Report should not be accepted.
  Another question is raised off and on but never clearly settled and I think that this Report should be rejected if only because it does not settle the question, the question whether the Member is, so to speak estopped or precluded because he has entered into the original arrangement out of which have arisen the facts which are now said to be interfering with his due performance of his functions; that question was clearly raised over and over again, was not clearly stated by the Report

  311
  and so far as settled is, in my submission, wrongly settled by the Report. The Report infers that a man ought to be estopped, that he must
  "in general be taken to have accepted its possible termination as a matter which would not influence him in his parliamentary duties. …"
  I am quoting from page XIII, paragraph 15—and that he must therefore:
  "be taken to require no protection.…"
  I think that a gross misunderstanding of the nature of Privilege and a gross disservice to this House, if accepted by the House. Privilege is laid down in text books over and over again, and in a recent case, as inhering in any one Member only as part of the House because it is necessary for the House. It was so held by the Committee of Privileges in the Sandys case just before the war, it was held there that it is a part of the rights of a Member's constituents. It is a part, therefore, of the rights of the House and a part of the rights of constituents. Therefore to say that a Member has put himself out of court and that privilege cannot be used to make sure that he performs his functions to the House and his constituency is wrong.
  Mr. Ungoed-Thomas (Llandaft and Barry): Here again, the point of the words is towards the end, which unfortunately the hon. Member did not read. The vital words are:
  "… require no protection against the bona fide attempt by the outside body to bring the relationship to an end"
  Mr. Pickthorn: That intervention points to what I have said about the necessity to speak at length on these matters. I could deal with that if I had time enough but I think it begs the whole question. I cannot read the whole thing. What I am trying to do as fairly as I can, is to be relevant. I think I am being fair. Those seem to me reasons why we cannot agree with the report. I have not dealt with the question, partly because it has been already implicitly well stated by the two speeches we have heard, and partly because my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) who is to second the Amendment, has the masterly and particular kind of logic required, I have not dealt with the point that agreement with the Report and acceptance of
  312
  the Government's rider are logically incompatible. I believe that anyone who has read the Report must be extremely dubious whether those two things can both be compatible. I therefore invite the House not to agree with the Report, but to accept the rider.
  8.21 p.m.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I think the House is indebted to the speakers for the three very able speeches to which we have listened. The question was put very clearly by the first Government speaker and we heard a speech of great ability from the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), and now we have heard a speech on this very difficult question of Privilege by the senior Burgess the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), who probably knows more about that particular subject than anyone else in this country. I believe the House has an extremely difficult task, which I am perfectly certain hon. Members in all quarters mean to discharge to the best of their ability. The only allusion I make to the sharp division of opinion on the Committee of Privileges itself is for the purpose of showing how difficult were the questions which the Committee had to consider, and to show how great is the responsibility that consequently lies on the House for them to make up their minds on the merits.
  As the House will have observed, after the Committee's report was published, the first Motion that appeared on the Order Paper was in the name of my hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Cambridge University and myself and my two hon. Friends who are supporting the Amendment tonight. That Motion invited the House to disagree with the Committee of Privileges, and went on to assert, as an affirmative proposition, what is in fact the heart of the second part of the Government's Motion tonight. The next thing that happened was that the Government in the Motion they put on the Order Paper slightly expanded, but did not essentially alter, the meaning of the second part of our Motion and expressed agreement, instead of disagreement, with the report of the Committee of Privileges.
  I believe that if I had time I could show, and I hope hon. Members by studying the report themselves will come to the

  313
  conclusion, that if the Amendment which my hon. Friend has moved and which I am seconding is not adopted, the Motion will contain an internal contradiction, because it is simply not true that the second part of the Motion is contained in the report of the Committee of Privileges. Indeed, it comes expressly from paragraph 25 of the draft report prepared by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) which was specifically rejected by the majority who approved of the Committee's report. Whatever the wishes of the House may be, as regards guidance for the future there will be great obscurity in discovering how much of the report of the Committee of Privileges is agreed, and how much it is implied that they disagree when they adopt the subsequent part of the Government Motion. If our Amendment is adopted to disagree with the report of the Committee of Privileges, that of course does not imply disagreeing with every word of it. It is well known that the whole of the Committee of Privileges, and, I take it, the whole House, are agreed on the very important point that this is not a case where disciplinary action need be taken against anyone. There is much with which we all agree. Disagreement with the Report will not produce the difficulties that agreement with the Report will produce.
  I expect the House would think that I was guilty of an exaggeration if I said that the Amendment was a drafting or consequential Amendment, but I say in all seriousness that it is quite literally consequential on the adoption of the second part of the Government's own Motion. There are also various affirmative reasons why the House should not agree to the Report. I cannot attempt to deal with them all, but if the House will bear with me, I will mention some of them. If I may turn to a matter to which my hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Cambridge University has alluded, I think that paragraph 10, with its general description of the nature and extent of Privilege, although I know its derivation is, as it stands, a little liable to mislead. May I read to the House a well-known passage from a leading case on Privilege tried in the courts. It is the well-known judgment of Lord Denman C. J. in the case of Stockdale v. Hansard, and it was cited by
  314
  the late Lord Hewart C. J. in the last case on Privilege that came before the courts:
  "The Commons of England are not invested with more of power and dignity by their legislative character than by that which they bear as the grand inquest of the nation. All the privileges that can be required for the energetic discharge of their duties inherent in that high trust are conceded without a murmur or a doubt."
  That is clear law, recognised by the courts, and repeatedly recognised in cases of Privilege. I think, therefore, that paragraph 10 is a little weak in its allusion merely to the powers of Parliament, but if one goes on to read the whole treatment of this very difficult question of contractual relations, one sees that the Committee of Privileges have really given no useful guidance for the future. They have left the matter in considerable confusion. I believe that the Government are making a bona fide attempt to diminish that confusion by the second part of their Motion, but they have not made the matter entirely clear, as they would do if they accepted our Amendment.
  I say at once that I agree with the passage in the minority draft which says quite clearly that this is a matter with which it is the duty of the House to deal and on which the House must give guidance. I will not trouble to quote the passage, but hon. Members will find it in the minority draft and I could produce it if required. I agree with what I am sure must have been in the minds of many hon. Members in the Committee of Privileges, and I would assure them that I appreciate the difficulty of their task and the sincerity with which I am perfectly certain all of them endeavoured to discharge it. They must have had in mind that it was their duty not to risk extending Privilege by deciding more than was necessary. With that desire I sympathise, but when a matter comes before the Committee of Privileges it is not only necessary to take care not to decide more than is necessary; it is equally necessary to take great care to decide as much as is necessary. Otherwise, the Committee will give no guidance to outside bodies or to hon. Members for the future.
  I will give two or three examples of what I call lack of direction. If hon. Members will turn to paragraph 13, page xii, they will find that the final sentence of the first sub-paragraph is:

  315
  "Equally it might be a breach of privilege for an outside body to use the fact that a Member had entered into an agreement with it or was receiving payments from it as a means of exerting pressure upon that Member to follow a particular course of conduct in his capacity as a Member."
  To say that it "might be" a breach of Privilege, unless it is followed by some fairly clear guidance in some other paragraph, is not really giving that guidance to outside bodies to which they are entitled. Throughout paragraph 14, there are allusions to payments to Members and arrangements with Members. The whole effect of that paragraph is not only a very weak final result, but it makes the Committee of Privileges say something very much weaker on the subject of Parliamentary Privilege than has already been said in decisions of the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords in extremely important cases. It would be regrettable if we put Parliamentary Privilege lower than it has already been put by the courts on this particular topic.
  I am very anxious not to weary the House, but I would remind them of what I think they will admit is one very important case which will be familiar to some of the trade union Members though, as its main result has so long been reversed by Statute, they may not have looked at it lately. It contains matters of very great importance and usefulness to all hon Members in whatever part of the House they sit. I refer to the decision of the Court of Appeal and to certain speeches in the House of Lords in the Osborne case. The immediate matter that came up for decision in that case was whether trade unions could collect and administer funds for political purposes and to secure Parliamentary representation. It was decided, as the House will remember, that that was ultra vires the powers of trade unions as those powers existed under the then existing Acts. In so far as the decision depended on that point, it was reversed, as is mentioned in the course of this report of the Committee of Privileges, by the Trade Union Act, 1913, which expressly provides for the pursuit by trade unions of political objects and specifically enables them inter alia to spend money "on the maintenance of any person who is a Member of Parliament."
  But there was another point of very great importance decided in that case
  316
  which, in my submission, is not only still law, but which I believe every hon. Member, in no matter what part of the House he sits, desires should still be the law. That other part was a matter that came out quite clearly in the judgments of Lords Justice Fletcher Moulton and Farwell in the Court of Appeal and in the speech of Lord Shaw of Dunfermline in the House of Lords. In a nutshell, what these judgments said was that any contract which fettered the full freedom of a Member of Parliament was void and unenforceable as contrary to public policy.
  In so saying, they were, of course, adopting as a matter of law not only the very well known quotation, with which I shall not weary the House, of Burke in his address to the electors of Bristol, but also some very well known statements by some of our greatest lawyers. I will give two quotations. The Lord President who is to reply will be glad to see how closely the terms of the second part of the Government Motion were in fact anticipated by Blackstone and others some centuries ago. The Blackstone quotation is this:
  "Every Member, though chosen by one particular district, when elected and returned, serves for the whole realm. For the end of his coming thither is not particular, but general; not barely to advantage his constituents, but the common wealth."
  The other is the statement of Coke in the Institutes:
  "And it is to be observed, though one be chosen for one particular county or borough, yet when he is returned and sits in Parliament he serveth for the whole realm."
  The only other quotation which I will make on this part of my case comes from the judgment of Lord Justice Fletcher Moulton and is a passage which I believe states the law on these agreements, as I believe the vast majority of hon. Members of this House, no matter where they sit, desire that it shall be and shall remain:
  "The reason why such an agreement would be contrary to public policy is that the position of a representative is that of a man who has accepted a trust towards the public, and that any contract, whether for valuable consideration or otherwise, which binds him to exercise that trust in any other way than as on each occasion he conscientiously feels to be best in the public interest is illegal and void. This deep-seated principle of law is the basis of the illegality at common law of bribery at Parliamentary elections, for the power of voting for a representative is also a trust towards the public. Now to my mind it can

  317
  make no difference whether such a contract be that B shall vote as A tells him or as any body of third persons may decide. Every such agreement is tainted with the vice of the trustee binding himself contractually for valuable consideration that he will exercise a trust in the specified manner to he decided by considerations other than his own conscientious judgment at the time as to what is best in the interests of those for whom he is trustee."
  Then follow these words, which are important:
  "And it is no answer to say that before or at the election he openly avowed his intention to be thus contractually fettered. The majority who electing him may be willing to permit it, but they cannot waive the rights in this respect of the minority."
  My hon. Friend the senior Burgess has mentioned paragraph 15 of the Committee s report. I really defy anybody to read that passage without realising that the Committee was treating the individual merits of the hon. Member making the complaint as a relevant consideration. I am sure that the correct view is that most clearly stated in the memorandum of the Clerk of the House that Privilege belongs to the House as a whole, and that the merits or demerits of the hon. Member raising it are wholly irrelevant. I am very glad that the right hon. and learned Attorney-General agrees with that view, because I would suggest that there is a slight trip-up in Question 294. This is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said to the hon. Member for Rugby:
  "I was only just anxious to make quite sure whether you were asking the Committee to take any penal action of any kind against the secretary or anybody at Newcastle."
  That seems to me to be a complete misrepresentation of what the hon. Member for Rugby was trying to do. He was not asking for penal action against anybody, but was putting a case for the consideration of the Committee of Privileges, and anything that follows about his wishes for penal action has no relevance whatever to the case—
  The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shaweross): If the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me, may I say that we were considering, and we were only entitled to consider, the remit to us by the House? We were not entitled to lay down general principles of the law of Privilege, desirable as it may be that such principles should be laid down. We were asked to consider whether any improper pressure was brought to bear on the hon. Member for Rugby. We would very much have liked to codify the law
  318
  of Privilege, and this Debate will no doubt be very useful. That particular question was directed to whether the hon. Member felt that any pressure had been brought to bear upon him in that particular instance.
  Mr. Strauss: I appreciate the distinction between the two questions which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just raised. I do not take the view that the Committee was so limited as he suggests, but, in any event, whether it was or not, this House is not limited at the present moment. On the other point—I want to be fair to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—I think his question equally shows a misapprehension, if devoted to the limited purpose to which he says it was. It is not simply saying, "Do you feel you were under any pressure?", which might have been relevant, but "Are you asking for penal action against somebody else?" I believe that question shows a certain misapprehension of what, I think, is the true view the Committee should have taken, and which, on the whole, I believe they take.
  I must deal with the possible breaches of Privilege in the present case. I am only going to deal with two, but they are both, of course, of great importance. I believe they were dealt with in both of the two opening speeches, and, indeed, by my hon. Friend. The first question is, Is the contract in this case itself objectionable? I do not believe that it was possible rightly to avoid an answer to that question. It is not possible to find in this report a paragraph which clearly shows how the Committee wished that question to be answered. There is the paragraph which was read out by the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate, stating why, in this particular case, they thought that the agreement, though not happily worded, need not be treated as a breach. But then there is also that puzzling finding of fact in paragraph 9 (c):
  "That both the Executive Committee and Mr. Brown fully recognised that the agreement between Mr. Brown and the Association could only be terminated with Mr. Brown's free consent."
  It is quite clear and obvious that, if that is accepted, all who follow after us will think that this House has clearly stated that that particular contract was a legal and enforceable contract. I think that

  319
  is of the utmost importance, and I am sure that the right hon. and learned Attorney-General will not differ from my view. If the correct construction of the contract is that it fetters the hon. Member in any way in the discharge of any part of his duties in this House, then that agreement is void by the common law of England. Therefore, to state as a finding of fact something that will be universally interpreted as showing that this contract was a good and enforceable contract is. I think, regrettable.
  Mr. James Callaghan: For the sake of clarity, would the hon. and learned Member say whether he is here referring to the original contract? Surely, he would not contend that that was not enforceable?
  Mr. Strauss: I am referring to what we all agree was the contract—the addendum, which is to be found set out on page IV.
  Mr. Callaghan: But it is important to make that clear, because paragraph 9 (c) recognises that the agreement could only be terminated with the free consent of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Brown). A possible interpretation could be that we were referring to the original contract.
  Mr. Strauss: Very properly, of course, the Committee are considering the contractual relationship between the parties; they are referring to the original contract as modified by the addendum.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne) rose—
  Mr. Strauss: I would willingly yield to the hon. Gentleman, but I hope it will be realised that, if I do, it will involve my being more lengthy than I should otherwise be.
  Mr. Silverman: The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that that particular passage begs the question as to whether the second agreement fettered the hon. Member or not. If that second agreement had fettered the hon. Member, then that agreement itself would have been a breach of Privilege, although not one which was referred by the Order of this House on this occasion to the Committee of Privileges.
  Mr. Strauss: Part of what the non Member says is correct, of course. The main point of my observation was that the contract if it fettered the hon. Member was unenforceable, as being contrary to public policy, under the common law of England, and I agree with the hon. Member that then it is itself a breach of Privilege. I do not agree that it was possible for the Committee of Privileges to avoid dealing with that question, and, in fact, they have not avoided dealing with it. All they have done is to deal with it in contradictory passages, and that is the point I am making. In justice to the hon. Member for Rugby let me say that I am convinced that this was not intended to be a breach of Privilege by either of the contracting parties; nor, in fact, did any difference ever arise between the executive and the hon. Member on Civil Service matters. Nevertheless, I think it is arguable on the construction of the contract, and on some of the answers given in examination and cross-examination, that the hon. Member was fettered, and I do not think it would offend against any cause which the Government have at heart if they got rid of these ambiguities and had the clear statement of the latter half of their Motion. All these difficulties will arise, and we cannot avoid them, if they insist on our recording agreement with the Report of the Committee. I may say in passing, that Lord Shaw of Dunfermline made it quite clear that the fact that no differences would in fact arise would not be in any way decisive in deciding whether the contract was, in fact, such as to offend against public policy.
  The other point of possible breach of Privilege is that which the Committee itself has endeavoured to decide, and that is the question of pressure. Was pressure exercised against the hon. Member for Rugby or not? Let me say at once, because I want to be absolutely fair, that certainly that was a matter as to which there was a certain amount of possibly conflicting evidence, and any Member of the House who has carefully studied the report is fully entitled to make up his own mind on that question of fact. I would only draw the attention of the House to a few facts and answers to questions which made me come to the conclusion that pressure was brought to bear on the hon. Member. First of all nobody will doubt that the hon. Member himself thought that pressure was

  321
  being brought to bear on him. I would refer to Question 318 on page 28 as giving the view of the hon. Member himself. Clearly, Mr. White completely supported him on that point and thought that pressure was brought to bear on the hon. Member. I will give the House the reference to a few questions which are decisive on this point. They are Questions 470, 537, 577 and 596. I do not know how many other Members wish to speak, and that is why I do not propose to give the details of those questions. These questions and others will leave the House in no doubt that the other witness who had the greatest knowledge of the facts also thought that pressure was being brought to bear. What did the executive of the union itself think? There are some interesting answers to questions given by the union representative himself. They are alluded to in some of the proceedings. In answer to a question by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery, Question 409:
  "That would be because his political views did not tally with those held by the Executive?"
  the answer was:
  "Were not in conformity with the general policy of the organisation."
  There are several questions in that part of the Report dealing with the matter.
  There are two other matters which I think throw a little light on the attitude of the executive. They are found in Questions 350 and 351. The question was raised why it was not sufficient to make it clear by public announcement that the hon. Member was not representing the Association at all in his ordinary political activities; and they made it clear that that was not good enough. Another question I cite for hon. Members so that they can make up their own minds what weight they should attach to it. That is Question 387. That was the question as to what was the attitude of the executive to the possible question of privilege. It was:
  "Did not Mr. Brown, on various occasions, point out to you that if you did certain things it would be a breach of Parliamentary Privilege?"
  The answer—in reply to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid)—was:
  "Yes. It never occurred to us as an Executive as being a question which required us to examine our position. References were made to Privilege but our attitude to it was that of noting the observation but not regarding
  322
  it as being of sufficient weight to cause us to examine our position."
  Hon. Members: What comes next?
  The Attorney-General: Surely, the hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House? I hope he will read the next three questions?
  Mr. Strauss: Does the House want me to read them?
  The Attorney-General: It is always very dangerous, when one is examining the evidence of a witness, to isolate any particular question and answer. Judges have again and again—
  Mr. Strauss: Really, I—
  Hon. Members: Order.
  The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman was kind enough to give way, and I am making a quite fair point. I am sure he would wish to be fair to the House about it. Judges have said again and again that one must look at the whole evidence and get a general impression from that. The hon. and learned Gentleman has read one question. There are three other questions vitally relevant to the point he is making.
  Mr. Strauss: I yielded to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I will always yield to a Member of the House. Hon. Members cannot say I do not yield. The only thing I resented about the last intervention was the suggestion that I was not going to read the questions. Of course I will read them. The only reason I have not read out more is, that I thought the more convenient thing would be to indicate them, and then, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought fit to do so, he could instruct his right hon. Friend in the matter when he replied. I do hope there is not going to be anything—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I am perfectly willing to get on. I will read the following question:
  "In your dealings with Mr. Brown, after the question of Privilege was raised by him or by anybody else, were you anxious that you should in no way commit a breach of Privilege?—Yes. We became very concerned then with the whole question of Privilege."
  That, of course, was at a later date. The next questions were:
  "Did you get any legal advice?—Yes. Your lawyers told you, I suppose, what a breach of Privilege would be?—They told us what a breach of Privilege would be."

  323
  That happened after the matter had been raised in Parliament. I can quite understand that they then treated the matter seriously. I am not asking hon. Members to adopt my conclusions as their own. I ask them to read Question 387, and the answer, to see if they do not think the Executive came to the conclusion that this question of Privilege was not important. I am sure that they did not think it would be raised, and that led them to the conclusion, of course, that the question whether or not they brought pressure to bear on the hon. Member was unimportant. I suggest to the House that it was important.
  I have mentioned Mr. White's views, and I have mentioned the views of the executive of the union. Let me now come to the view of the Committee of Privileges itself in their report. In the findings of fact in paragraph 9 (b) the report says:
  "the Committee did not intend to bring any pressure on Mr. Brown to change his views."
  Then in paragraph 9 (f) the report says that the executive committee
  "intended so to conduct themselves as to avoid any violation of such privileges."
  That is not a finding that there was no pressure; that is a finding that there was no guilty intention. The Committee of Privileges have said again and again: "First, we have to find the facts." On the facts I have given I suggest that hon. Members will come to the conclusion that pressure was, in fact, brought to bear on the hon. Member for Rugby.
  I now wish to deal with two points which hon. Members opposite, who may have agreed with me in part so far, may find difficult. They may ask: If this agreement was itself objectionable, was it not very meritorious to terminate it, by whatever means? I think the answer to that is quite clear, whichever way this question of pressure is decided. I say that on the other points I have raised hon. Members ought to agree to our Amendment, because there are sufficient objections to this report, whichever way they decide the simple question of fact about pressure. But in deciding this question of fact, do not let hon. Members think that it is decided for them by the supposition that because the agreement may have been either unenforceable as contrary to public policy or a breach of
  324
  privilege, therefore they were entitled to use any method whatsoever to terminate it. Even under this Motion, if it is adopted tonight, there will still be borderline contracts in relation to which it will be, or may be, difficult to say whether they are breaches of Privilege or not. They may be tested in court, or by the Committee of Privileges, but that does not justify pressure being brought to bear on an hon. Member to influence his conduct in the House. The very fact that the contract itself is vague does not mean that any method of pressure can be used to bring that contract to an end.
  There is one other matter which I must bring to the attention of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am sorry to have been so long, but I have been forced to be longer than I intended by interruptions from hon. Members opposite. I think the House will do me the honour of saying that I have been relevant on an extremely difficult matter. If hon. Members desire to see how important this is, let them turn to paragraph 9 (a) of the report of the Committee of Privileges, where they will find as a finding of fact that, notwithstanding all the denials,
  "it was not always realised by the public that his appointment as Parliamentary General Secretary left him with complete freedom in political matters (other than Civil Service matters) so that his views by no means accurately represented the views of the Association."
  Now think what it means. It means that the outside public can really believe that an hon. Member of this House might have an agreement which threatened his independence and limited the views that he could advance, and make them not his own views but the views of some outside body. The fact that it can be found by the Committee of Privileges that that belief was widespread makes it, in my submission, overwhelmingly important—
  The Attorney-General: I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Member again, but he really is making a false point. The Committee of Privileges found no such thing. The Committee of Privileges found that the executive committee of the Civil Service Clerical Association thought that, not that the Committee of Privileges thought it.
  Mr. Strauss: And, of course, the Committee of Privileges found their views so reasonable that they were entitled to seek

  325
  to bring this agreement to an end. It they had found the idea wholly unreasonable they would not have had the least hesitation in saying so.
  The Attorney-General: That is an entirely different point.
  Mr. Strauss: If hon. Members look at the answers given by Mr. MacMillan in numbers 373 and 401, they will find that it is made quite clear, according to the evidence, that there was this widespread view that a Member of Parliament might he fettered. I say that it is overwhelmingly in the interests of every quarter of this House, and of the survival of our Parliamentary democracy, that it should be made absolutely clear, by a Resolution of this House, that no such view must be entertained in future. I cannot urge the House too strongly, if it is agreed that this is the case, to adopt a Resolution to free the matter from ambiguity. Unless we differ from the Committee of Privileges but adopt the rest of the Government's Motion, utter confusion will be brought to bear; because if we declare in the first part that we approve the Report of the Committee, the last passage entirely contradicts it. So great is the importance to Members of the House and to our Constitution, that I hope the Government, at this late hour, may decide that there is no reason at all why they should not accept this Amendment. If this Amendment were adopted, a perfectly clear Resolution would be passed. It is perfectly true that other evils of a different kind may arise in future, but one matter at least will have been made clear if this course is adopted.
  9.3 p.m.
  Mr. James Callaghan: This has started to resolve itself into a lawyer's Debate. I am not a distinguished lawyer, nor am I a distinguished constitutional historian, but, as a layman, I hope that I can indicate what my approach is to the matter, from the point of view of common sense, and I trust that I shall be able to do so in somewhat less time than was occupied by the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss). The circumstances we have to take into account tonight are those which affect most Members of the House when they enter their Parliamentary work.
  It is clear that these circumstances have changed considerably during the
  326
  last 100 years. Most Members come from a profession, an occupation, or an employment. They are not gentlemen of leisure, beholden to no one before they get here, except to their country seats, and beholden to no one when they leave; they are people who come from a job, and to the extent that they have come from a job, it does influence them in their approach to their work here. It matters not whether or not there is a financial relationship between the job that a Member of Parliament was doing before he came here. What is of importance is that he is bringing to the House of Commons a varied experience, knowledge and a cumulative weight of information about what he has done, which he is bound to use in the course of his work as a Member of Parliament, and it would be denying the House of Commons something that is of value, if he did not use that information and knowledge which he has acquired.
  Now, when he comes here this is the question: Should he give up his work altogether, renounce his contracts, and enter upon a monastic political life? We have it on the authority of the Lord President of the Council that it is desirable that Members of this House should have other occupations, that they should keep themselves in touch and in line with the main stream of industry, business, trade union work, or whatever it may be. That is the view which is commonly held here, although we all take the view that a Minister's first duty must be to this House. I draw the distinction, at the start, between the Member who comes here from a job which he has done before he became a Member, and continues to do that job once he has entered the House, in a modified form may be, and the Member, who having got here, sells the position he has to an organisation in return for financial or pecuniary reward.
  The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) looks down his nose; it is a difficult thing to do. I am not stating anything that is offensive to any Member. All I am saying is that I draw a clear distinction between the Member who has had a job before he got here, and carries it on, and the Member who, once he has got here, sells himself to an organisation, which is something we should all deplore. Inevitably, there is bound to

  327
  be influence exerted on a Member, particularly if he has been an employee of an organisation or company, because he is only here for a short time perhaps. We all know the fortunes of Elections. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Members opposite cheer that remark, and I can only say that they certainly should know. I like controversy as a rule, but perhaps on this occasion I should try to steer clear. I will do my best. Inevitably, such a man coming from a job, maybe returning to a job, will have remembrances of the past and expectations of the future, and to that extent he cannot resist the influence that his thoughts of the past and future will have upon him. But it is wholly undesirable that such a man should enter into a contract with his old employers, and maybe his new employers, when he leaves, to represent them in what they require politically in this House. In other words, there must be no contract, explicit or implicit, between him and his old employers or any other person. That puts anybody who enters into an agreement into a dilemma if he is outside this House. He either buys a pig in a poke, because the agreement cannot be enforced, or lays himself open to the charge that he is creating a breach of Privilege if an endeavour is made to bring such an agreement to an end once it has been entered into.
  The hon. and learned Member for the English Universities got himself rather tied up. If an agreement is undesirable when it is entered into, then undesirable consequences are bound to flow from it. As I understood the hon. and learned Member, who quoted a judgment from someone very old and very dead, he said that any contract is unenforceable if it binds a Member. I agree. It must follow from that that the contract into which the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) entered not only was unenforceable, but was probably a breach of Privilege. If that is his view, it is quite clear that if one starts off by having something that is undesirable as this was, and may be a breach of Privilege, then any actions that flow from it are themselves almost certainly bound to be a breach of Privilege. As a layman, I should have thought that an attempt to bring an agreement to a conclusion if the original agreement in itself was a breach of Privilege was no
  328
  more and no less venal than the original action.
  Mr. H. Strauss: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to me when I was dealing with that particular argument. I said that the legal effect of the agreement was a matter for argument, but I also said that if on its true construction the agreement did fetter the hon. Member then it was absolutely void and unenforceable and probably a breach of Privilege as well. I went on to add that the agreement might not be enforceable or might even be a breach of Privilege, but even those two grounds did not justify any pressure being brought to bear.
  Mr. Callaghan: I only followed out the the point that has been made on both sides, and I still adhere to the view that if one makes an agreement that is in itself a breach of Privilege—nd I take it from the minority report, which the hon. and learned Member originally supported, that he thought this was a breach of Privilege—
  Mr. H. Strauss indicated dissent.
  Mr. Callagan: The hon. and learned Member shakes his head. I take it that anything that follows from it must of itself be objectionable and undesirable. The case of the hon. Member for Rugby does raise the possibility of pressure. One is a positive form of pressure, and the other is a negative form. The positive form of pressure is the conversation that took place between the hon. Member for Rugby and certain officers of the Civil Service Clerical Association as to whether he would not modify his point of view. I think that I would make up my mind that pressure had been exerted on the hon. Member for Rugby. That would be my conclusion on these facts. The second type of pressure is the negative type, as to whether, if one threatens to bring an agreement to an end, one did not in fact by that very action bring a more subtle form of pressure to bear on the man with whom one was in contract, and, to that extent, compel him to change his mind. I would say that also was true, but I do not draw from it the conclusions drawn earlier in this Debate.
  As I see it, the Civil Service Clerical Association must be entitled to decide

  329
  who is best to represent it in the fields in which it desires representation. It seems to me that they desired representation, they sought representation, and they got representation. Indeed, if we take paragraph 10 dealing with the statement of Mr. McMillan, the President of the Civil Service Clerical Association, on page 82, he said quite clearly:
  "While Mr. Brown owes no duty to the Association for his political views on matters other than Civil Service matters, it is submitted that …"
  That can only mean, it one reverses the sentence, that whilst he owed them no duty for his political views he certainly owed them a duty for his Civil Service views, and my opinion is that the association must be free at any point of time to decide that that form of duty which they claim that the hon. Member for Rugby owed to them could be brought to an end. I go on from that to say that it is of vital importance for any trade union to be in a position to say as, indeed, Mr. McMillan said in the course of his evidence:
  "We thought it more desirable to exercise our pressure through the medium of the T.U.C. than we did through the medium of a seat in the House of Commons."
  That seems to be a very sensible line for a trade union to take, or an arguable line, at least, for them to take. What we have to remember in this case is that when the hon. Member for Rugby became their Parliamentary general secretary the organisation was not affiliated to the T.U.C. and could not be affiliated to the T.U.C. It was not until they became affiliated that this issue could and did arise. I take the view that in a case of this kind where a contract has been concluded it should be open to the association to say, "Because of the change in circumstances we think our representation as an organisation can be better served through the medium of the T.U.C. than through the medium of the hon. Member for Rugby."
  We next come to the point as to whether the speeches of the hon. Member for Rugby which were the subject of the pressure—whether proper or improper—were devoted to matters which were purely political, and on that subject there can be only one answer. It is that his speeches of which the association complained were matters which vitally affected the interests of the association.
  330
  To illustrate that I would turn to Questions 344 to 346 in the Report in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) asked Mr. McMillan certain specific: questions as to what caused embarrassment to the organisation. There were two minor matters and then we come to Question 344.
  "The third matter"—
  that is, their embarrassment—
  "his votes and speeches on the Trades Disputes Act, 1946—was that a matter which caused difficulty and embarrassment?"
  The answer was, "Definitely, yes.'
  Question 345:
  "The fourth, his statements on splinter and breakaway Unions?"
  Answer, "Yes."
  And Question 346:
  "And the fifth, his general dissent from opinions expressed by the T.U.C."
  Answer, "Yes."
  It is clear that the speeches to which the Civil Service Clerical Association took exception were speeches which vitally concerned their interests as an organisation. There can be no other deduction drawn from those answers and here, of course, we get into the dilemma that the agreement was theoretically impossible to carry out, because it is quite impossible to say where a purely trade union Civil Service interest merges into a political interest. One cannot draw a clear line of distinction between the two.
  By way of illustration let me just go across the Channel to France for a moment where the Civil Service have been on the point of striking. Suppose the hon. Member for Rugby were a member of that Assembly. Would it have been his duty to his association to have prosecuted their wage claims to the point of unbalancing the French budget, with all the possible consequences, or should he not have said, "This is a political matter and on this I am bound to vote as a politician without reference to the interests of the Civil Service." One can multiply those interests indefinitely, because they flow and that is why I say that the overlap between political and Civil Service issues automatically made it impossible to carry out this agreement. The second reason which automatically made it impossible to carry out this agreement was the fact that views which were repugnant

  331
  to the organisation which was employing the hon. Member for Rugby, if expressed sufficiently strongly and freely on matters other than Civil Service matters, were bound in the course of time to affect the relationships between the two people in contact on the purely Civil Service matters. But in point of fact that theoretically impossible situation was evolved because of the personality of the hon. Member for Rugby, and Mr. McMillan told the Committee of Privileges that they knew the hon. Member nearly as well as the Civil Service Clerical Association. What he meant was, of course, that it is impossible to bend the hon. Member's line even if one wanted to; he is a law unto himself and he always has been in the Civil Service trade union movement, and no amount of pressure, if applied, could possibly make him change. That was recognised, and in consequence the agreement was made and was carried out although theoretically and logically it was not possible.
  I think that one or two points emerge. We should have a clear expression from the House tonight—and I hope that the Lord President of the Council will give us some guidance—as to whether contracts and agreement of this kind should or should not continue, and whether those that are in existence—I refer to the explicit contracts—should be overhauled or not. In my view they should be, but I think the House should express its view and, as I have said, I hope that we shall have some guidance from the Lord President of the Council as to the views of the Government. As the hon. Member for Rugby said this is, in the last resort, the test of a man's character. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) said last weekend, every Member must be his own Committee of Privileges on an issue of this kind, and we cannot possibly attempt to define all the situations and all the nuances which might apply in these cases. But what we can and must do is to re-define Privilege as we move on.
  Privilege today clearly cannot be the same as the Privilege that existed in the days of the pocket borough. What then was the situation? To whom did the Member owe his allegiance before 1832? What was the pressure which might have been brought to bear upon him at that time? We have now reached a stage
  332
  where the Labour movement has grown up. In the days when the original pioneers of the Labour party came to this House as the old L.R.C. with no payment of any sort, the only way in which their entry could be gained and by which they could be supported was by this method. It was the way in which we secured a foothold and in which we have climbed up. But that is not the situation today. There is now adequate payment for Members—on a very modest standard of living indeed, but, nevertheless, it exists.
  I do not rule out the payment of sums of money to a Member either in recognition of past services or because an organisation desires to continue to pay him in expectation of his eventual return. That is a matter for the hon. Member. What I do say is that there should be no contract in existence at all that binds the Member to serve any organisation. It is that principle upon which we ought to decide, and it is for that reason that I think we must support the Motion which appears on the Order Paper in the name of the Government. I would have preferred it to have been divided into two for the sake of the consciences of some hon. Members opposite, though, fortunately, I can support the Government on both issues.
  I do not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman the junior Member for the Combined English Universities who said that confusion would be confounded if we did not support his Amendment. What will be the situation if we say we disagree with the majority Report? Surely, it will be that we are saying that the organisation may not bring this contract to an end. It is inherent in the whole of my case that the organisation must be at liberty to do so if they so desire, and if it can be carried through in accordance with the terms of the agreement as originally set down. For these and many other reasons, I agree with the Government and disagree with the point of view put by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and I trust that the Debate this evening will be a means of preserving and widening the integrity of all hon. Members of this House in their first and main service to their constituents.
  9.24 p.m.
  Mr. Hopkin Morris: I would limit what I have to say to that part of the report on which all are agreed.

  333
  We are all agreed about such parts as relate to the contract entered into by the hon. Member with the Civil Service Clerical Association. I understand that we are all agreed that the hon Member was to be free to express his own political views on matters outside those concerning the Civil Service Clerical Association. It would appear to be a simple matter for the Committee of Privileges to come to a simple conclusion on that matter. They would have come to that conclusion the more easily if they had heeded the very clear memorandum submitted to the Committee by the learned Clerk of the House. He drew their attention to two possible courses of action. He pointed out that there was a possibility of Privilege inhering in the Member concerned, or alternatively, that the Privilege was the Privilege of the House of Commons. According to the view taken of the nature of the Privilege, different conclusions would follow.
  Nowhere in the Report do I find any discussion of those alternatives or any views as to whether the Privilege inheres in the Member himself or whether it inheres in the House, although the learned Clerk had submitted that such matter was relevant for the Committee to decide. If the Committee had decided that Privilege inhered in the House itself, I imagine that they would have expressed the opinion not merely upon the part of the contract in which the Member was free to express his own opinions but upon that part of the contract in which the hon. Member was bound to the Civil Service Clerical Association. I have listened to the instances which have been given by the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan), to those which have been given by the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) and those by the hon. Member for the Combined Universities (Mr. H. Strauss). The instances they gave were all in the same category as that part of the contract in which the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Brown) was bound to the Civil Service Clerical Association, and not to the other part, upon which part there has been no decision and no discussion.
  The Attorney-General: It was not in doubt.
  Mr. Morris: If it is not in doubt, it can only be not in doubt because it is said that the hon. Member for Rugby is in
  334
  agreement with the Civil Service Clerical Association.
  The Attorney-General: I am very sorry, but the hon. and learned Member may have misunderstood what I said. I said that it was not in doubt whether the Privilege was the Privilege of the House or of a particular Member. There is no doubt about that.
  Mr. Morris: If the Attorney-General says that, I must point out that the learned Clerk of the House submitted, with great authority, in his memorandum, that it was a point for the Committee to discuss. If it is not in doubt, and if the Clerk of the House, with his great authority suggests to the Committee of Privileges that there were two courses open to them, it is not for me or for the Attorney-General—
  The Attorney-General: It is implied in the evidence.
  Mr. Morris: The memorandum of the Clerk of the House raised the whole issue of Privilege. If that question had been determined by the Committee of Privileges, then the position of the hon. Member for Rugby could have been easily disposed of. Not only was the issue which the hon. Member has raised that issue which was raised by the evidence before the Committee—
  Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Is not the point covered by the Motion now before the House?
  Mr. Morris: I would like neither the Motion nor the Amendment to be carried, hut that the matter should be referred hack to the Committee of Privileges for them to consider the nature of the Privilege. The hon. Member for South Cardiff has raised a serious issue. He says that times are changing and that we should consider what the nature of Privilege is in these days. Could there have been a clearer case which raises this issue than the case of the hon. Member for Rugby, not only on the case raised, but the particular part to which he was bound? That issue having been raised, is not the Committee of Privileges the proper body to discuss this and come to a conclusion on it? The Attorney-General, in an intervention to the hon. and learned Member for the English Universities said that it had not been considered because

  335
  it was not part of the Committee's duties. It was made clear from the report that they could not come to a true conclusion without first considering the nature of the Privilege.
  That being so, I would like to have the matter referred back to the Committee to consider this very fundamental problem. If they consider that problem, I think their findings on the position of the hon. Member for Rugby will have a very different conclusion. If one looks at the conclusions, they are found to be contradictory. The first one in paragraph 9 on page XI of the Report says:
  "…the Executive Committee considered in good faith that the public activities of Mr. Brown …"
  It does not matter whether the Committee considered in good faith or not. Their good faith is quite irrelevant. If anybody brings any pressure to bear on a Member of Parliament acting in good faith, it is pressure, and if it is pressure it does not matter whether it is legitimate. That is an irelevant consideration. That runs through the whole of that paragraph because the Committee had at no time clear opinion of what they meant by Privilege—whether the Privilege was the Privilege of the House or the Privilege of the hon. Member. In those circumstances the House can serve its own ends and dignity and the position of hon. Members in a much more clearly defined and authoritative way if, instead of coming to a conclusion upon a necessarily sketchy Debate such as this, when everyone has to compress his words into a few minutes, they refer this back to the Committee of Privileges and ask them to come to a decision on the main issue.
  9.33 p.m.
  Mr. Proctor: The question we are considering has three aspects. I put them in the order of what I consider should be their priority. The first is, the rights, privileges and liberties of the ordinary citizens of this country. The second is, the rights, privileges and liberties of hon. Members of this House. I put this second because I feel that our liberties are only designed to preserve the liberties of the ordinary citizen. Third, I put the rights and privileges of the organisations which form part of our public life—the trade unions, the Co-operative
  336
  parties, the political parties, Tories, Liberals and Communists, for that matter. All these rights come under consideration this evening.
  Mr. Drayson: May I put a question to the hon. Member?
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr, Proctor) does not give way, the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) cannot put a question to him.
  Mr. Drayson: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. Member is speaking to this Motion, would he agree to tell the House whether he has in fact—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: A point of Order must be addressed to me and not to an hon. Member.
  Mr. Drayson: I would like to ask whether he would inform the House—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: I cannot say whether the hon. Member could inform the House or not.
  Mr. Drayson: But should the hon. Member not inform the House whether he has any connection with a trade union?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows that that is unnecessary.
  Mr. Proctor: I say that the rights of the trade unions, the rights of all the political parties, must be preserved, and the right of a trade union, or any other body, to conduct political agitation, to sponsor a candidate, to pay the expenses of that candidate, is something which has grown up by custom in this country, and should not be interfered with. If we interfere with it, we interfere with the whole political organisation of the country, and I cannot see how we can differentiate between a political party and anything which operates in a Division on one side or the other, if we limit the rights of organisations to conduct political agitation and pay for it in the manner in which that has been done up to the present time. The only way in which a person without private wealth can come to the House is by being sponsored by an organisation and as a representative of his fellow workers in that organisation. It is important that that right should be preserved.

  337
  I concede that it is the duty of any Member of Parliament not to pledge himself to act here as a delegate who is instructed on any matter by an outside organisation. As far as it is within my knowledge, no trade union in this country other than in the instance brought before the House, claims that right—certainly not my own trade union.
  Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Is the hon. Member saying that no trade union in this country specifies that one of their delegates shall vote a particular way on special legislation—one whom they assist to come into this House—[An HON. MEMBER: "As a representative."]—I am sorry, I should have said sponsor. Is the hon. Member saying that they do not require him to vote a particular way? I can give the hon. Member examples.
  Mr. Proctor: The hon. Member may have instances, but I have no knowledge of such cases, and my organisation, the National Union of Railwaymen, have never made that claim. If anyone else has any other knowledge it is their duty to speak on this matter. But I wish it to be clearly laid down that it is not a principle on which trade union membership in this House is based. I am glad this matter was brought up in question and answer, because, from the evidence, it appeared as though it were suggested that the other trade union Members in this House were less free than the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown). That point was cleared up and, therefore, I will not take up time in dealing with it.
  I wish to turn to the question of how the whole question of privilege arises. The hon. Member for Rugby complains that his political liberty is in danger, and he refers the matter to the Committee of Privileges and produces an agreement and a personal note about that agreement. In the opinion of the hon. Member for Rugby that agreement binds him for a percentage of his Parliamentary time. I cannot see, looking at the strict wording of the agreement, whether it does so or does not. I venture the opinion for what it is worth that it does not bind him, but that he was absolutely free. But the hon. Member for Rugby cannot claim anything upon that point, because I would refer to page 72, where is printed
  338
  a letter by him, which commences "Dear Len," and he uses these significant words:
  "…I bound myself to do my best to implement, in the House of Commons, the policy of the Association on Civil Service issues."
  One cannot claim that one is free and independent on political issues and make a statement like that in a letter to the general secretary of a trade union. Therefore, I say that the hon. Member for Rugby puts himself absolutely out of court in this claim to the Committee of Privileges, because he says "My political liberty is in danger." But from whom is it in danger? "From those to whom I have surrendered, we will say, one per cent. of it? What is the consideration upon which I have surrendered one per cent. of it? It is £1,350 a year, it is £250 a year expenses, it is a motor car, it is the use of a secretary and a suite of offices as well. "When any Member comes to the Committee of Privileges and says, "My political freedom is in danger from that organisation." I submit that he has no case—
  Mr. W. J. Brown: I hate to interrupt the hon. Member, but I would respectfully venture to suggest that Privilege, or breach of it, was not determined by whether my salary was £300, £3,000 or £300,000. Is not the hon. Member aware that what that salary represented was a continuation of my earlier emoluments, and nothing more?
  Mr. Proctor: I say that the question of the hon. Member's political liberty, being endangered, cannot logically be put forward by someone who admits that he has surrendered a percentage of it. That is the point I am making.
  Let us consider the actions of the association in this matter. I believe that they genuinely felt that a separation of the members and their Parliamentary general secretary of this matter would be in the interests of the union. Their proposals were that he should be paid the whole of his salary for the full period of his contract. Is that improper pressure? Their proposals were that he should still have the use of the motor car, with £500 with which to look after it for that period of time. Their proposals were that his secretary should be compensated for that period, and the proposals were also that he should continue to have the use

  339
  of the offices. If that is improper pressure then I do not say but that other hon. Members of the House would care to have the same pressure exerted on them.
  The one part of this whole question which worries me is not the pressure upon the hon. Member for Rugby, but the pressure which the hon. Member for Rugby put on his executive committee. I looked through the evidence, and I see that the hon. Member for Rugby had an interview with you, Mr. Speaker, and I see that he communicated a letter to the executive committee in which he indicated that if matters went any further, a grave breach of Privilege would be committed. I am very concerned as to whether that was not improper pressure by a Member of Parliament upon his comrades with whom he was discussing this matter.
  I promised to take up only a few minutes. I should have liked to develop this very much further. On this issue I feel that a tribute should be paid to the trade union representatives on that executive. They resisted all pressure and all advice, and tonight we are considering a report which says that there was no breach of Privilege. The calmness with which they dealt with the whole of this matter is a credit to trade unionists. The respect which they expressed for the rights and privileges of this House does credit to British trade unionism. I say that we should support the Government Motion, but I want to have a clear understanding that this does not mean an interference with the established rights of trade unions or any other bodies to continue their political work.
  I consider that this Report says one vital thing. No hon. Member of this House shall be under a contractual obligation to carry out the instructions of an outside body. [An HON. MEMBER: "Are you?"] I am not. I say that no hon. Member of this House should be under a contractual obligation of this nature and I would say at once that if that was the price of my remaining here I would go. I hold the position of a Member of Parliament much higher than that. All that this report says is that there shall be no contractual arrangement. Let us take this clear case. The Civil Service Clerical Association should not, by resolution, be able to in-
  340
  struct the hon. Member for Rugby what to do in this House. He should be entirely free. That is all that this report says, and on that interpretation I support the Motion.
  9.43 p.m.
  Captain Crookshank: This Debate is purely a private affair and there is nothing attached to it as between the Government and the Opposition Front Benches. Therefore, I only intervene for a very short time because it is the common custom at some stage in the proceedings for some senior Member of at least one of the parties to express a view. Unfortunately, time is such that the years have gone by and I am one of those today. I merely speak, if I may do so in the presence of the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), as one of the older Members. I would like to say that we are having a most interesting and extremely important Debate—make no mistake about that. I am rather sorry, as were my two hon. Friends behind me, that the House is being put into the position of really having to decide two issues at once. It has to decide the approval or disapproval of a report, which is one thing. Secondly, it has to decide the approval or disapproval of a Motion which would give not exactly a code of conduct, but an indication of the lines on which hon. Members of this House should act in this very difficult field.
  If my hon. Friends take the matter to a Division, I will certainly vote with them to disagree with the Report, but at this stage, and after all that has been said, the House would not wish me to explain exactly why. I merely make the biter dictum that I have read all of the evidence through twice and I hope others have done the same to try to make it clear to myself what the dispute was in this matter. I have come to the conclusion that on the whole the Committee's Report does not quite fit the story which was unfolded before them. In parentheses I would like to say that the Committee of Privileges is a Committee of this House whose Members are good enough on our behalf to take the evidence and come to their own conclusions.
  But it is incumbent upon every hon. Member himself to decide a matter of this kind. We have to settle it, and in a case like this, where, happily or unhappily,

  341
  most of us know all the personnel of the drama, each of us is able to make up his own mind about the printed word in a way which in other cases would have been somewhat difficult to do. For myself, if there is a Division, and I have to decide whether I think the report of the majority of the Committee of Privileges was right or not, I would say "No," and would, therefore, go into the Lobby with my hon. Friends.
  If I might, with respect, make one criticism of the Report, it would be to say that I am sorry that they did not look, behind the allegation of improper pressure having been brought, into the question whether or not the agreement was itself a breach of Privilege. In the memorandum which the Clerk of the House made, that issue was raised, and in the evidence and the questions asked on the first day, the door was opened, and I thought that perhaps the Committee would walk through it. Possibly, they thought it was outside the terms which they had received at the end of March from this House. If so, I am not at all sure that they would not have been better advised to have come back at that stage and have said to the House, "We find that there is a contract." After all, we have had it in the evidence and from the Clerk of the House, for the first time, that any such contract had been seen. Until then, there might never have been a contract, or there may have been a hundred contracts. I do not know, but this is the first time that a contract has ever appeared as such, and I should have thought that was sufficient for the Committee to have said then that there was a different situation, in view of the terms of the document, and should have come back and asked for the view of the House wheher there was a prima facie case or not, but they did not do that, and I merely express regret for my own part that that matter was not further investigated.
  Where are we now? We have on the Order Paper this Motion, which is largely taken from certain words in the minority report which my hon. and learned Friend has drafted. We can all see that, in this vast field of agreements between hon. Members and outside people, there are extremes which all of us may recognise, the one, possibly as proper, and the other as improper. Obviously, any suggestion about the making of financial payments
  342
  for an hon. Member to act in a particular way on a particular issue is quite outside anything to be considered proper, and I do not know that it has ever been made. At the other extreme, there are a number of societies and institutions, without any political interests at all, but whose matters sometimes come up for consideration in legislation, whether it is Georgian houses, steel traps for catching rabbits, the preservation of rural England or hikers, and so on. We have had all this sort of thing, which comes to us from somebody outside, who sends literature to hon. Members and expresses the hope that they will be interested when this matter is discussed, without any kind of political pressure, and we all recognise this sort of action as completely harmless.
  Then, there is the middle portion, in which for the first time, we now find that there is a contract. I am not quite sure what the term "contractual" agreement means as used in the words of the Motion and I hope the Lord President will tell us more about it. I hope it will not be thought impertinent on my part to suggest that.
  I just want to say this. There is this large field of very great difficulty. Speaking entirely for myself, I do not see how we can possibly lay down any kind of code. An hon. Member said just now that he thought it ought to be referred back to the Committee of Privileges in order that the Committee should try to define what Privilege was. I think that is quite impossible and, with all respect, I would not approve of anything of the sort. This is tradition handed down, and it is either broadened or narrowed according to the cases which come before it. One cannot lay down a code here, but I think that we must all of us, having recognised that there are extremes at both ends, assume that every hon. Member of this House is an honourable person. That is an underlying assumption that we must all make about each other, and we must also assume that not only are we honourable men and women, but that we are honest, and also sensible men and women.
  We are Members of a very great Parliament, and we pride ourselves—and that is inherent in the Motion which we are invited to pass tonight—that we cannot be, and will not be, delegates of any outside body. That, of course, has been pointed out and is laid down in the

  343
  great dictum of Burke. I wonder how, in the intervening years, that dictum has worked out. There must have been great pressure in the time of pocket boroughs, but that is past history. We are now in a very different age, but it is vital, to my mind, that we should all assume that no one here is a delegate. If anybody feels that they have been acting in such a way, let them search their consciences and see whether they ought to change the conditions or arrangements under which they work here.
  It is up to everybody's conscience to decide whether his actions are right. I am not imputing anything; I hope hon. Members realise that, because we do not know the situation in which others find themselves, although I must say that certain things have been mentioned during this Debate as being common knowledge which I had not thought were common knowledge. However, be that as it may, I think that we should all trust each other to do the right thing in these difficult circumstances, and we should certainly not let it go out from this House tonight that there is a large body of Members here who are under contract to outside bodies for the work they do in this House.
  This Parliament has a great place in the world, which has been enhanced by our actions in this House and the other House before it was destroyed during the war. Therefore, because of this unfortunate case, let it not be made to appear in any kind of way that agreements of this kind were common, or that there are some existing today. If there are, then appeal to my brother Members to look into their own cases, should there be any, and to remember the words which the right hon. Gentleman used in his speech in opening this Debate—"the honour of the House as a whole is at stake.
  9.58 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that this Debate has been full of interest, and that new Members will all agree that they have learned a great deal as the result of the speeches made today about the ethics that are expected of hon. Members of this House. In view of all that has been said, and the many aspects which this Debate has covered, I only wish, in the few minutes I propose to take up, to
  344
  refer to one passage of the report of the Committee of Privileges, because it seems to me it would not be right to pass it over unnoticed. I refer to the last three paragraphs of the report of the Committee entitled:
  "Incident of a Letter affecting
  Mr. Speaker."
  As hon. Members will realise, these particular paragraphs were common both to the majority and the minority Reports. I refer to the matter for the reason that, as I read the evidence given, it seemed to me that not the least serious of the charges which might have been heard against the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) was the use he had made to his executive committee of a conversation he had with you, Mr. Speaker. As has been said by previous speakers, the hon. Member for Rugby has apparently, over a long period, sought to bring a certain amount of pressure to bear on the executive committee by suggesting that the course of conduct which they were pursuing might have amounted to a breach of Privilege. We are all jealous of Parliamentary Privileges, but their existence should impose on us the duty never, without the greatest circumspection, to attempt to deflect third parties or outsiders from the course they are pursuing by the suggestion that they would be committing a breach of Privilege.
  I think the House should bear in mind that not only did the hon. Member for Rugby on a number of occasions appear to deflect the executive committee from the course they were pursuing, by suggesting that Privilege was involved, but he also went to the length of having an interview with you, Mr. Speaker, and I think the gravity lies in the fact that he very seriously distorted the effect of the interview or, to use your own words in the evidence that you were good enough to give before the Committee, made "a big overstatement." So great, not only in this House but throughout the country, is the respect which is given to any word, ruling or dictum of yours, that I feel the House should recognise an overwhelming duty to be most scrupulously careful when repeating any private conversation with you, as occurred on this occasion—true it was repeated with your authority—to see that any such conversation is accurate and is not used, by overstatement or by distorting any remark of yours, to a

  345
  Member's advantage with a view to influencing the course of conduct which a third party may be proposing to take. I thought it right to refer to this matter because it seems to me that the report of the Committee of Privileges is hardly strong enough in the language that it uses in reference to this subject.
  I do not propose to detain the House by referring to the evidence which you were good enough to give, Mr. Speaker, but I do think it is important to allude to the letter of 21st March by the hon. Member for Rugby, which was subsequently read to the executive committee:
  "I must tell you that the Speaker was kind enough to receive me this morning on the question of the possible breach,"
  and then, omitting unnecessary words:
  "I informed him fully of the position, and he stated that unquestionably a grave breach of Privilege would be involved if matters went any further"
  Fortunately, we know as a result of the evidence given, that those words were not warranted. I think it is unfortunate that they were used. I am glad the matter was referred to by the Committee, and I feel that all Members of this House will agree with the in the opinion that any hon. Member who is fortunate enough at any time to have the benefit of your guidance and counsel on a matter affecting our Parliamentary conduct in Debate, should be most scrupulous when repeating it elsewhere to a third party in not departing from it by one iota, or exaggerating any word of advice which you have been good enough to give.
  10.5 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Roberts: It is not my intention as a junior Member of the House to detain it very long on a matter on which Members senior to me have spoken with so much competence. But I was struck by an interjection made by the Attorney-General in the course of the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss). I do not think I represent the right hon. and learned Gentleman unfairly when I say to him, that he told us that, although the Committee would have been glad, had they been asked to do so to embark on the whole question of Privilege, the terms of their remit were confined to investigating the particular complaints made about the conduct of this trade union. Upon that
  346
  I looked at the report, and I found words to which I must trouble hon. Members to turn at the very beginning:
  "Complaint being made by Mr. Byers, Member for the County of Dorset (North Division), of certain actions by the Executive Committee of the Civil Service Clerical Association, which he submitted were calculated improperly to influence Mr. William Brown, Member for the County of Warwick (Rugby Division), in the exercise of his Parliamentary duties, and constituted a breach of the Privileges of this House.
  Ordered, "That the matter of the Complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges."
  How could the Committee of Privileges, with any conception of their duty, consider that complaint if they had not a clear idea of what was and what was not a breach of Privilege?
  If they embarked upon their duties under the misapprehension under which the Attorney-General apparently laboured as to the terms and ambit of their remit, one cannot be surprised that they came to the conclusion which, I am bound to say on reading the evidence, appears to me to be entirely contrary to the weight of evidence given. This is an attempt to exonerate the trade union and maintain some appearance of generality, and they have to set out a series of what I can only call conflicting duties of people having contact with Members of this House.
  I wish to speak with great moderation, but, as we have been reminded by one hon. Member, the ultimate decision upon this grave matter rests with the Members of the House. The Committee do their work, and it is for us to pronounce upon it. I am very sorry to say that, when I perused the report in full, I discovered that at every stage the great forensic abilities of the Attorney-General appeared to me to be directed to a cross-examination calculated to discredit the complainant and to exonerate the respondents. I am free to admit that my judgment may be wrong. I would only ask hon. Members who are eager to criticise me thoroughly to re-peruse the whole report, and to devote themselves particularly to those items which are the cross-examination by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. For that reason I find myself unable to agree with the report, and I am further of the opinion that it does not hang together with the last portion of the Motion.

  347
  I have only to make one remark by way of a cautionary note. One must feel great sympathy with an hon. Member in his desire that the proper privileges of trade unions with regard to remunerating their members who are Members of this House should not be withdrawn or abridged. Indeed, it is one of the difficulties of this discussion that the right to maintain members is expressly given to them by Statute, by the Act of 1913. But I must point out in all seriousness that if this Motion is carried, whether amended or not, some hon. Members of this House will have to examine themselves and their contracts—and I use the word advisedly—with great care. I have been scanning Dod over the weekend, and I find that some 30 hon. Members are given as being officials of trade unions. We had the evidence of, I think, Sir Gilbert Campion that he had never seen a written contract before, and that this was the only one of which the terms had come to light.
  I should like those hon. Members who may be affected to consider the exact wording of the Motion, which is disjunctive. It says:
  "it is inconsistent with the dignity of the House, with the duty of a Member to his constituents, and with the maintenance of the privilege of freedom of speech, for any Member of this House to enter into any contractual agreement with an outside body, controlling or limiting the Member's complete independence and freedom of action in Parliament;
  A contractual relationship does not mean a deed, a bond, indentures or documents. It means a contract, which can be expressed or implied by conduct. In future, if a trade union member came to me and said: "I have always voted as my trade union wished, and never dreamed of thwarting their wishes, but I gave a vote the other day at which they rather looked down their noses. Do you think I am all right?" I should be bound to advise him: "No, you are all wrong. There is a course of dealing which has clearly established a contractual relationship of the kind hit at, by a Resolution of the House of 15th July, 1947."
  10.13 p.m.
  Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: As has been said, this Motion falls into two quite distinct parts. First, approval of the report of the Committee of Privileges; and second, the question of the general principle. I was rather
  348
  astonished by the speeches of the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), and of the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss), in which they invited the House to reject the Report of the Committee of Privileges, largely upon the ground that the report was inconsistent with the second part of the Motion. The second part of the Motion is perfectly consistent with the Report. What the Report does is to make a finding on a specific matter which was referred to them. The matter which was referred to them was whether or not pressure had been brought to bear upon the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), which constituted a breach of Privilege. The findings of the Report are in paragraph 9 to paragraph 20. The vital answer to the matters submitted to them appears in paragraph 20, and the conclusions from paragraph 9 to paragraph 19 are merely matters leading up to the decision upon the matter referred to them.
  The vital paragraph, paragraph 20, is what would be rejected if this House refused to adopt the report. That paragraph finds:
  "that the Executive Committee were entitled to bring the question of the termination of the agreement before the Annual Conference of the Association, that they had in effect been invited by Mr. Brown so to do, and that their action in proposing so to do was not calculated to, and did not, in fact, affect Mr. Brown in the discharge of his Parliamentary duties."
  That is the vital point in answer to what was referred to the Committee by this House—in other words, that there was no breach of Privilege. The vital difference between the majority report and the minority report, is that the minority report found that there had been a breach of Privilege. That is why I have no hestitation, despite the rather ornate arguments which have been presented to the House, in coming down, as a matter of common sense, in favour of the finding that has been made by the majority report, namely, that there is no breach of Privilege.
  There are two matters bearing on this, to which I should like briefly to refer. They are matters which have influenced my mind in reading this report, and perhaps they have had some weight with other hon. Members. On page 45 of the report, in answer to Question 533, Mr. White, who was certainly a witness

  349
  favourable to the hon. Member for Rugby—
  Mr. Pickthorn: Politically against him.
  Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: He was favourable to him on this issue, which is the only issue with which we are concerned at the moment. The answer given was that:
  "there was no pressure put upon him after he made it quite clear at the November meeting that he would not change his views. Thereafter all the activities were directed to getting an arrangement whereby he got out of the Association."
  Mr. Pickthorn: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: That was in November, 1946, and the complaint of the hon. Member for Rugby was not until March, 1947. It is in complete keeping with the majority report decision—that what they were concerned about was to get an amicable arrangement whereby an agreement, which they conceived to be a valid agreement and would not be disposed of except by mutual agreement. What brought it to a head was a decision of the executive committee, in accordance with the invitation of the hon. Member for Rugby to refer the matter to the general conference. Here I should like to refer to a matter which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher), namely, your own evidence, Mr. Speaker. I have been puzzled by what transpired on that occasion.
  What puzzles me about this is the reference to the Newcastle resolution, and I still do not know what the explanation is. I took the precaution of informing the hon. Member for Rugby that I wished to raise this, and that I would give him an opportunity to explain it. This is what happened. I will quote from Question 653.
  "Did not Mr. Brown tell you that the Executive Committee had told the Newcastle Branch that their resolution was out of order and could not be accepted?—No, I knew nothing about that."
  The significance of this is that the matter was brought to you, Mr. Speaker, upon the footing that the Newcastle resolution was to be referred to the conference, but by this time the executive committee had already turned down the Newcastle branch resolution; yet that was a matter upon which you, Mr. Speaker, were asked to give some indication of whether there would be a breach of Privilege or not. It
  350
  was not on the question of whether the holding of a conference or the termination of an agreement—if put to the conference—would be a breach of Privilege or not. That was not the matter upon which you, Sir, were consulted. You were consulted on the question of a Newcastle branch resolution which had already been completely disposed of. I am quite sure that there is some explanation of this, but to me it is a matter which stands out of this report and I very much regret that the hon. Member for Rugby is not here to give an explanation of what actually happened.
  Personally, I have had no hesitation in coming to the decision that the majority conclusion in paragraph 20 is completely correct. If I may make just one brief reference to the general question, it is to say that the vital matter on the general issue is that financial arrangements should not be used as a method of bringing pressure. I am afraid that here I am in disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan), but it seems to me to be quite irrelevant whether this method of bringing financial pressure should result from some continuation of an arrangement existing before the man concerned became a Member of Parliament or otherwise. What really matters is the exercise of pressure. In the same way, I agree with the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) that is is not the Privilege of a Member but is inherent in the House itself. That is why I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) in saying that the hon. Member for Rugby was put out of court by reason of his own conduct. Nothing would put him out of court because this was a matter of privilege which affects Parliament itself. So far as financial pressure is concerned, as hon. Members have said, each Member is to a large extent his own Committee of Privileges in a matter of this kind. It must be left largely to the honour of Members of Parliament, but when there is a contract which itself imposes an obligation upon the Member that he must act in conformity with the conditions which that contract imposes, then there is automatically something which the House can get hold of and recognise. If I may say so with respect, the Government have rightly fixed upon that test as something easily recognisable, saying

  351
  that in that case there is certainly financial pressure which would involve a breach of Privilege.
  10.24 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): As the House has assumed, the Government put down the Motion on the Order Paper for the purpose of assisting the House, and my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio and I are intervening in order to give the House advice which we think it proper and fair to give. Having said that, I want to make it abundantly clear not only that the Government Whips are off, but that my hon. Friends are absolutely free to vote in any way they think right on this matter. I myself cannot help being Lord President of the Council for the time being, but I like to feel that I am speaking more as the hon. Member for East Lewisham than as the Lord President of the Council or as a Member of the Government because this is essentially a House of Commons matter, and the opinion of the House of Commons on a subject of this sort is, if I may say so with great respect to His Majesty's Ministers more important than the opinions of His Majesty's Government.
  We have had a good discussion—good tempered—and I think that it has been judicial and objective in tone throughout. I particularly liked the spirit of the speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), who is a considerable Parliamentarian, and, I thought, reflected the highest feelings and traditions of the House of Commons. We had an able and impressive defence of his position by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), although, as I shall say in the course of my observations, I do not agree with a number of things that he said. He would have preferred, as would some other hon. Members, that the Motion should have been divided into two parts, but, as the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) pointed out, to a great extent the moving of his Amendment gives the House an opportunity of voting on whether or not it agrees with the report of the Committee, and, on the second part, although not altogether by itself,. there is an opportunity to vote on the substance of the Motion.
  352
  The more I listened to the Debate, the less I thought there was between us as to the satisfactory character or otherwise of the Committee's report. There is, it is true, a point as to whether the Association was guilty of a breach of Privilege. With great respect, I do not think that the case has been argued very strongly to show that the Association was guilty of such a breach. I rather thought, from the point of view expressed by the critics of the report, that they attached greater importance to the criticism that, whilst the Report sets out the facts and so on, it does not set out a conclusion on the merits of the agreement itself. The answer has been that that issue was not specifically referred to the Committee, and I find that a reasonable answer. Still, I see the point of the critics, and I do not say that there is nothing in what they have said. They have a point, which I understand; but even if the criticism—that the Report does not lead to the statement or the adumbration of a positive conclusion—be fair, we have an opportunity of putting it right tonight by carrying the Motion, which will fill in the conclusion that the critics thought ought to have been in the Report of the Committee. When the difference between us is so fine—and it really is fine—I think that it would be a pity for us to have a Division, and if there could be a unanimous House of Commons on this matter of Privilege, which certainly is not a party issue—and whatever party voting occurs is somewhat by accident—if we could get a unanimous decision of the House, I think that it would be a good thing and help towards laying down the principles of the law of Privilege as we go along.
  The hon. Member for Rugby, to whom we listened with very great interest, gave us his political history very accurately, and he traced the beginnings of what he alleges to be hostility from the time he left the Labour Party in 1931. Because of that experience, he thought in 1942 that it would be wise that there should be an agreement for the purpose, from his point of view, of protecting his political liberty and his Parliamentary freedom. I follow that argument; but, of course, the real issue before the House, vis-à-vis the agreement, is not that part of the agreement which undoubtedly—and quite properly, at any rate, from his point of view—accords to the hon. Member complete freedom of action on general

  353
  political issues. That is not the issue before the House. The issue before the House is the other part of the agreement, which requires him to act in Parliament on behalf of the Civil Service Clerical Association. The hon. Member says that paragraph 6 of the agreement, on page. 59, says what he is not to do. That is to say, that he is not entitled, in his Parliamentary activities, to presume and purport to speak in political matters on behalf of the Association; and that is clear. But I think that, at the same time, the hon. Member ought to have referred to paragraph 4, which is more material and relevant to the issue before the House. Paragraph 4 of the same agreement says:
  "The said William John Brown shall deal with all questions arising in the work of the Association which require Parliamentary or political action and shall advise the Association from time to time on such matters."
  "The said William John Brown shall further confer and consult with the Association on all problems requiring his assistance, and advise thereon if and when so required by the Association."
  And indeed, the addendum must be read as a whole, and in certain respects it must be read in conjunction with the original agreement itself. The real point which arises on this paragraph 4 is the question, does it, or does it not, impair the freedom of Parliamentary action of the hon. Member? Does it fetter his judgment, does it impair his liberty to speak and vote in a certain way on Civil Service matters; that is to say, matters with which the Civil Service Clerical Association has to do? In the first place, the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) quoted from the letter which the hon. Member for Rugby sent to Mr. White, in which I thought there was pretty strong evidence, from what my hon. Friend read, that in fact his liberty had gone, within those limits—only within those limits—of Civil Service questions which are before the House.
  My right hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General made a great effort in the Committee, to extract from the hon. Member what his interpretation of that part of the agreement was, and it runs over a considerable amount of typographical area; and repeatedly the hon. Member for Rugby gave an answer to the effect "I have nothing to add to what is in my memorandum;" or, quite frequently "Nobody ever dreamed that the Association
  354
  and I could take a different view." That is a very happy state of affairs. I wish I could have said that of bodies with which I have been associated. And secondly, he said: "No one ever believed there would be a difference of view," and finally: "There never has been a difference of view." I am not disposed to dispute that evidence that there never has been a difference of view. That is no doubt one of the matters which influenced the Committee to declare that in its judgment there had been no breach from the point of view of Privilege. This went on for quite a time. But there was the question, for example, by the learned Attorney-General on page 17. I refer to Question 199—
  "If the Association had said: 'The line you have taken in the Debate on Equal Pay for civil servants' or 'In regard to the question of the right of civil servants' organisations to affiliate to the T.U.C. is not the line which the Association takes, will you therefore agree to terminate the agreement between us' you would have said, would you not: 'That is a breach of Parliamentary Privilege'"
  To that, the hon Member for Rugby replied:
  "With respect, that is the third time that you have put that to me."
  Then on the same page, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) came in, and said:
  "I should like an answer. I think you ought to give an answer to that. It is on the Civil Service side of it. It is nothing to do with general affairs."
  The hon. Member for Rugby replied:
  "The answer is that that is a hypothetic at situation which did not in fact arise and to which I have given no consideration."
  The learned Attorney-General followed by asking:
  "Would you consider it now and answer it? If you prefer not to I will leave it and pass on to something else."
  Indeed it was not answered.
  Mr. W. J. Brown: May I interrupt, Mr. Speaker? At that point the Committee broke up in disorder.
  Mr. Morrison: Well, I was not there, so I am not in a position to say anything about that. There was, however, another question by the right hon. Member for Woodford, and to this one, I think he got an answer. I will not be dead certain, but I have read the report very carefully, and I think that this was the only time that there was an answer on this very

  355
  point when put to the hon. Member for Rugby—[Interruption.] No, I do not want to be funny about this. Let us look at Question 133, on page 12. It says:
  "I quite see that. But I am not on that point yet. That is another aspect of it altogether. What I want to know is this: supposing in the discharge of your duties as representing them on Civil Service matters, a quite definite and prolonged cause of dissatisfaction arose on their side with the views on Civil Service matters that you were expressing, had they no remedy?"
  The answer was:
  "We did not envisage that situation, and we did not provide for it in any document that I can recall, but plainly, if over a long period of time on Civil Service matters, we found ourselves at loggerheads, one of two things would have happened. I should either have said: 'This arrangement cannot continue,' or they would have come to me and said the same thing."
  It seems to me that it is inherent in the answer that the hon. Gentleman, by signing the agreement, had signed away his complete freedom of action on Civil Service matters. I personally think that, so tar as I know, the law of Privilege has not hitherto laid down whether that would be a breach or not. That is what we are doing tonight, in principle, in this Motion. If, hereafter, people make arrangements of this sort, binding on an hon. Member of this House, I think hon. Members and organisations concerned should be very careful and would do well to reflect upon them. If this agreement continues after tonight, I should have thought the hon. Member for Rugby, and the Association would think twice about it. I should have thought it would be a matter for consideration whether a prima facie case would not arise for consideration by the Committee of Privileges. But it would be for you, Sir, and not for me to decide about it.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? Would he extend that to other than contractual agreements? Does he not agree that it is quite possible for an agreement to be arrived at, which is not a contractual agreement?
  Mr. Morrison: I do not want to go too deeply into matters which are more fitting for discussion by lawyers than by me. But I think it may be a little difficult for one to have an agreement which is not a contractual agreement. Indeed, the point was put to me by somebody—I forget
  356
  whom; perhaps it was the right hon. Gentleman—as to why this word "contractual" was put in.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Would the right hon. Gentleman permit me?
  Mr. Morrison: Would the hon. Gentleman mind waiting a moment? I am already answering a question put to me. I thought the word ought to go in. I felt happier at thinking it would be inserted—in connection with this particular agreement, for there was a written agreement; there was a contract. I thought for the purpose of describing the issue to the House it would be better to have the word "contractual" in. I took the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, and will tell the House quite frankly the answer he gave me. He said: "I do not see any objection to its being in, but if you ask me what difference it makes, I do not think it makes any difference." As I felt a bit happier at having it in, and he said it made no difference, I thought we would let it stand.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I am awfully sorry to interrupt, but I did wait until the end of a very long paragraph; and, therefore, I have now myself got slightly muddled. But I think this is a point on which the House really cannot afford to be muddled, and there may be others who are slightly muddled. I think the right hon. Gentleman, on the last question he was quoting, went so far as to say that it was evidence, if not proof, that there was a breach of Privilege. I just want to be quite sure that that is what he said; because if it is what he said, I do hope he will take his desire for unanimity to the point of what, after all, was the original Motion in the matter—that is for disagreeing with the report.
  Mr. Morrison: I think the hon. Gentleman has got things slightly wrong. With great respect, I think he has misunderstood what I said about this answer—I think it is on Question 133—that I thought that it established the point that when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby signed the agreement, he had, to that extent, signed away his complete freedom of Parliamentary action within the sphere of Parliamentary action. Somebody else then said that that was a breach of Privilege, and at that point I was careful not to commit myself, because it would not be for me, on my own volition, to

  357
  say so. It has not hitherto beet decided. If it is to be decided, either it must be decided by this House, or it must be decided by the Committee of Privileges on consideration. But I am content that this Motion should be carried tonight—which, I think, in principle, does declare that such agreements are undesirable and to be avoided.
  The hon. Gentleman then did indicate that he had been subjected to pressure, and it has so been asserted. The first reference he made to that pressure was after 1931, and then he referred to the fact that there were troublesome—no doubt, small in numbers—Communist elements in the Association. The hon. Member will accept from me a word of sympathy about that, because I have had my battles with the Communists from time to time, and with ferocity, but if I may say so, it is a bit of a red herring to bring into this discussion. After all, Mr. L. C. White was called to the Committee at the request of the hon. Gentleman and Mr. White is one of the directors of the "Daily Worker." He gave evidence on behalf of the hon. Gentleman, and if I were to ask myself what were the politics of Mr. White I should say he is either an actual, secret or open member of the Communist Party, or a follower or an associate or a "crypto" or a fellow-traveller of Communists or what hon. Members will. I do not know that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby will contradict me on that point, but the hon. Member had better be careful of trying to have it both ways. He blames much of this on Communist troubles, and then he calls Mr. White to give evidence.
  The next point is, did the Association and did the executive committee commit a breach? It must be remembered that if there was an executive committee of about 25 members, it is a little difficult to control the tongue of each one of them, but someone might argue whether or not that was a breach of Privilege. I would not like to be sure that not one of these members of the executive has ever said anything which might not be so interpreted. Having read the evidence I really do not see that it is shown that the executive in its corporate capacity, or the individual members of the executive, were guilty of a breach of Privilege.
  What was the trouble? First of all they disagreed with the hon. Gentleman
  358
  the Member for Rugby. On certain political matters they disagreed strongly with him. We must be very careful, even in the case where there is a contract existing, if somebody says, "I do not agree with Bill Brown"—or whoever it might be—"because I think he is following the wrong line." This is a free country and we can criticise a Member of Parliament and so ought to be careful about bringing that into a breach of Privilege. If they said, of course, to the hon. Gentleman—"If you do not change your political line we will do you out of your job and not only that, but we will do you out of the money you get for the job. In that way we will punish you financially for not pursuing the political line that is our policy"—that is another matter, but there is no evidence that that happened.
  There was evidence that there was inconvenience to the Association especially at the time they rejoined the Trade Union Congress. There was a feeling on that because their nominee, Mr. White, did not get on to the Trade Union Congress. I am not grumbling that Mr. White did not get on. There was some apprehension, however, that the activities of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby in various industrial organisations outside, with which we are not concerned tonight, acted to prejudice the candidature of Mr. White for the General Council. There was talk behind the scenes and it is perfectly true.that there was criticism of the hon. Gentleman, and I know that some of it might be strong criticism. However strong that criticism of him was, it was no stronger than has been used about me in outside quarters and organisations with which I have had to live, with happiness on the whole, from time to time. That seems to me to be perfectly legitimate.
  It is true that they proceeded to discuss ways and means whereby that agreement with the hon. Gentleman could be brought to an end, and they certainly thought that they were in a jam as to how to bring it to an end. I am bound to say that the Civil Service Association executive were a little bit innocent in these business matters. They were in great difficulties and they sought friendly ways of trying to persuade the hon. Gentleman to bring this agreement to an end. Perhaps some of the discussions were not so friendly as they might have been, but, on the whole, the attempts made to

  359
  terminate the agreement were friendly, and were on a basis of very full and ample compensation to the hon. Gentleman, which he himself accepted as not being unreasonable.
  They came to a point when he said to them—as he was entitled to say—"I am not taking this from the executive committee." He seems to have been as frank with the executive committee as they were with him. He said, "If this contract has to be brought to an end, it has to be brought to an end by those with whom it was originally arranged, namely, the Association's annual conference and when it goes there, it must be carried by the necessary majority." He added that if that were freely done, he would not regard the terms of compensation as being unreasonable. It was the hon. Gentleman who said that he did not take this termination of the contract from the executive but only from the conference, whereupon the executive proceeded to draft a motion for that conference covering the negotiations, in which I gather they had reached an amicable agreement, with a view to terminating the contract with the hon. Gentleman.
  It was at that point when they were going to the conference with the concurrence of the hon. Gentleman that the next move took place. I do not say that the hon. Gentleman was going to the conference because he wanted to go, but as distinct from settling the matter with the executive. It was at that point that the hon. Gentleman raised the question of Privilege, when the Speaker gave a Ruling of a prima facie case, and the whole machinery here went into motion. With great respect I cannot see that the Association in that case, especially as they were paying most generous compensation, under which the hon. Gentleman would not have been worse off, were being punitive and trying to punish him or coerce him in his freedom of judgment or in his conduct in the House of Commons. With great respect to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have put their case very well—and I do not question their sincerity in the least—I think the Committee was right in coming to the conclusion that the Association, the executive committee and the officers did not commit a breach of Privilege. That is the view which I take.
  360
  the hon. Member for Cambridge University put a number of points to me and I have dealt with a good many of them. I do not think he expects me to cover all of them, and he will forgive me if I have not dealt with some of them, though I think I have with the bulk of them. Here perhaps it would be better if I referred to the arguments which sometimes came from the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) and sometimes from others, on the various points which have arisen. It was asserted by the hon. Member for the English Universities that there had been pressure and coercion, threats of punishment implied, on the part of the executive against the hon. Member for Rugby. I have covered the general history of the matter as I see it and with the greatest good will, and with a wish to be agreeable as far as one can, I really cannot see it. The question has been raised about the trade unions, about the National Union of Teachers. I would only say that as far as I know, there is no other agreement of this kind—and I have had a good deal to do with the Labour Party, trade union relationships, and selection of candidates, and I have had a little to do now and again with the discipline of the Labour Party. As we have gone on, we have progressively relaxed the discipline, and the cause of freedom has marched on. Therefore, I know a good deal about these arrangements of hon. Friends of mine and the trade unions, and I agree with the hon. Member for Eccles, for as far as I know I have never heard of an agreement like this. In fact, I do not know of any agreement which affected the Parliamentary action of trade union members of the House. I cannot speak about the National Union of Teachers, which is not affiliated to the Labour Party, and I would not know, but I would be surprised, if it were so in that case.
  What would my answer be if this point were put to me—it is a perfectly fair question—namely: Suppose you found a trade union affiliated to the Labour Party which had an agreement with its M.Ps. similar to the agreement which the hon. Gentleman had with the Civil Service Clerical Association? My answer in that case would be the same, and I would advise the trade union and the Member concerned to get out of it as quickly as they could. And I would always say to hon. Members of

  361
  this House that the first duty of Members of this House is to their constituents and the nation, and it is wrong that they should be fettered in their judgment by any outside interest. Therefore, if a case did arise in which a trade union was in that situation, I would say exactly what I would say about this agreement in which the hon. Member was involved. I do not think there is such a case, but if it were so, that is the view I would take. I thought that the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) was on a fair point. I do think that it was not exactly a good use of the consultation which took place with you, Sir, and was calculated to have a coercive effect upon the Association.
  I have not dealt with every point that has been raised, but in conclusion I would
  say that this has been a very good discussion. The House of Commons is usually at its best in discussing these matters of the rights of Parliament and of Privilege. There is not really very much difference between us. I appreciate the hon. Member's point, but in so far as it may be thought that there was a gap in the Committee's Report, the Motion fills the gap. I do not like the idea of dividing even with the Whips off. It may work out, more or less, on party lines. I would not like it. I would ask hon. Gentlemen not to press it to a Division, and to allow the Government Motion to be carried.
  Question put, "That the word 'agrees,' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 114.

  Division No. 309.]

  AYES

  [11.0 p.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Deer, G.

  Hoy, J.

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Diamond, J.

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

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Dobbie, W.

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

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Dodds, N. N.

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Attewell, H. C.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Durbin, E. F. M.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A

  Awbery, S. S.

  Dye, S.

  Janner, B.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Jay, D P. T

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

  Edelman, M.

  Jeger, G (Winchester)

  Baird, J.

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

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

  Barstow, P. G.

  Edwards, W. J. (Whilechapel)

  John, W.

  Barton, C.

  Fairhurst, F.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)

  Battley, J. R.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Field, Capt. W. J.

  Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

  Benson, G.

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

  Keenan, W.

  Beswick, F.

  Foot, M. M.

  Kendall, W. D

  Bevan, Rt Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Forman, J. C.

  King, E. M.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Foster, W. (Wigan)

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E

  Binns, J.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Kirkwaod, D

  Blenkinsop, A

  Gaitskell, H. T. N.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Gallacher, W.

  Lavers, S.

  Boardman, H.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Gibbins, J.

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Leonard, W.

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

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Levy, B W.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Goodrich, H. E.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Bramall, E. A.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Lindgren, G. S

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

  Lipson, D. L

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col M

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Grenfell, D R.

  Logan, D. G

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Grey, C. F.

  Longden, F.

  Buchanan, G.

  Grierson, E.

  Lyne, A. W.

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

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  McAdam, W.

  Callaghan, James

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  McGhee, H G.

  Carmiohael, James

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  McGovern, J.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Mack, J. D.

  Champion, A. J.

  Gunter, R. J.

  McKay, J (Wallsend)

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Guy, W. H.

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

  Cluse, W. S.

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  McKinlay, A S

  Cobb, F. A.

  Hall, W G.

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R.

  McLeavy, F.

  Coldrick, W.

  Hannan, W (Maryhill)

  Macpherson, T (Romford)

  Collins, V. J.

  Hardy, E A.

  Mainwaring, W H.

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Harris, H Wilson

  Mallalieu, J. P. W

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Harrison, J.

  Mann, Mrs. J

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

  Hastings, Dr Somerville

  Manning, Mrs. L (Epping)

  Cove, W. G.

  Henderson, A (Kingswinford)

  Marquand, H. A.

  Grossman, R. H S.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Medland, H. M

  Daggar, G.

  Herbison, Miss M

  Mellish, R. J

  Daines, P.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Middleton, Mrs. L

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Holman, P.

  Mikardo, Ian

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

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Millington, Wing-Comdr E R

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Richards, R.

  Tiffany, S.

  Moody, A. S.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

  Timmons, J.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Titterington, M. F.

  Morley, R.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Tolley, L.

  Morris, P (Swansea, W.)

  Royle, C.

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

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

  Sargood, R.

  Turner-Samuels, M

  Mort, D. L

  Scollan, T.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Moyle, A.

  Scott-Elliot, W

  Usborne, Henry

  Murray, J. O.

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F

  Nally, W.

  Sharp, Granville

  Viant, S. P.

  Neal, H.(Claycross)

  Shawcross, C N. (Widnes)

  Walkden, E.

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

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

  Walker, G. H

  Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)

  Shurmer, P.

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

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

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Watkins, T E.

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

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Watson, W. M.

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Simmons, C J

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

  Weitzman, D

  Paget, R. T.

  Skinnard, F W.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wantworth)

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Walls, W. T. (Walsall)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Smith, H. N (Nottingham, S.)

  West, D. G.

  Palmer, A M. F.

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

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Wilcock, Group-Capt C. A. B.

  Parker, J.

  Sotley, L. J

  Wilkes, L.

  Parkin. B. T.

  Sorensen, R. W

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Palon, J. (Norw)

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F

  Willey, F T (Sunderland)

  Pearson, A.

  Sparks, J. A

  Willey, O G. (Cleveland)

  Peart, T. F.

  Stamford, W

  Williams, D.,J. (Neath)

  Piratin, P.

  Steele, T.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Williams, Rt. Hon T (Don Valley)

  Popplewell, E.

  Stross, Dr. B

  Williams, W R. (Heston)

  Porter E. (Warrington)

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Williamson, T

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Swingler, S.

  Willis, E.

  Price, M. Philips

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Woods, G. S

  Pritt, D. N.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Wyatt, W.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Vales, V. F.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Thomas, D E (Aberdare)

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Randall, H. E.

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Ranger, J.

  Thomas, I. O (Wrekin)

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Rhodes, H.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Mr. Kinley and Mr. Hale.

  NOES

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Gage, C

  Maude, J. C.

  Astor, Hon. M.

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

  Mellor, Sir J

  Baldwin, A. E

  Grimston, R. V.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Barlow, Sir P

  Hannon, Sir P (Moseley)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

  Hare, Hon J. H (Woodbridge)

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Beechman, N. A

  Harvey, Air-Comdre A. V

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

  Bernett, Sir P

  Head. Brig A. H

  Nutting, Anthony

  Birch, Nigel

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

  Orr-Ewing, I. L

  Bossom, A. C.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Osborne, C.

  Bowen, R.

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Bower, N.

  Hope, Lord J.

  Price-White, Lt.-Col. D

  Boyd Carpenter, J. A.

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

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J G

  Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

  Raikes, H. V.

  Brown, W J. (Rugby)

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

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Jarvis, Sir J

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Jennings, R

  Reed, Sir S (Aylesbury)

  Challen, C

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

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

  Channon, H.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Conant, Maj R. J. E.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

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

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Ropner, Col. L.

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

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Shephard, S (Newark)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

  Crowder, Capt. John E

  Lucas, Major Sir J.

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

  Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

  Studholme, H G.

  Delargy, H J.

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Dodds-Parker, A. D

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

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

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

  Maclay, Hon. J S.

  Touche, G. C.

  Dravson. G B.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Vane, W M F.

  Orewe, C.

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Elliot Rt. Hon. Walter

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E L.

  Marlowe, A. A H

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Fraser, H. C. P (Stone)

  Marples, A. E.

  Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)

  Marsden, Capt. A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Mr. Pickthorn and Mr. Henry Strauss.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Resolved:
  "That this House agrees with the Report of the Committee of Privileges, and in particular declares that it is inconsistent with the dignity of the House, with the duty of a Member to his constituents, and with the maintenance of the privilege of freedom of speech, for any Member of this House to enter into any contractual agreement with an outside body, controlling or limiting the Member's complete independence and freedom of action in Parliament or stipulating that he shall act in any way as the representative of such outside body in regard to any matters to be transacted in Parliament; the duty of a Member being to his constituents and to the country as a whole, rather than to any particular section thereof."

VACCINATED INFANT, HATFIELD PEVEREL (INQUIRY)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]
11.10 p.m.
Mr. Driberg: From the consideration of its own high honour and privilege, I respectfully invite the House to direct its attention, during the half hour which remains, to the consideration of a matter of a different kind which is also properly its concern—the welfare and the misfortune of a single English family. I shall not detain the House very long with the tragic story of the infant daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Donald Gooding, of Hatfield Peverel, in the County of Essex. I am 'grateful to my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Health, for waiting here till this late hour personally to reply to this Debate, and for the sympathy with the parents which he expressed when I raised this matter during Question time on 3rd:fitly. On that occasion, he promised to inquire into this case; and I think it only right, in fairness to all concerned, including the doctors, that the House and the public, and particularly, perhaps, the public in Essex, should know the result of his inquiries.
In this extremely sad case, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the facts are these. Mr. and Mrs. Gooding had a daughter born to them last year. They had waited for, and hoped for, the birth of a daughter for some 15 years, and at last they were granted this joy. The doctors who examined this child when she was born, and in the first few months of her life—three doctors in all—
366
including the doctor in charge of the clinic and the nurses at the clinic which Mrs. Gooding attended, all agreed that she was an extremely healthy child. They used the phrase, "A perfect baby." At the age of four months, the child was vaccinated. Apparently the vaccine did not take on the first occasion, and she was vaccinated in all three times within seven weeks. It is alleged by Mr. Gooding, the father of the child, that on the third occasion the child was vaccinated with a double injection; Mr. Gooding says that the doctor said "He had given her a double dose, and wished her luck." On the fifth day after this third vaccination, the baby was suddenly taken ill, was taken to hospital, and was found to be suffering from what was described as inflammation of the brain. Some weeks later she was returned to her home—unfortunately, blind. She is still, at the age of 13 months, blind and not developing in any way; she shows no signs of being able to walk, or talk, or take her food normally; and she suffers constantly from fits. Two children's specialists and a brain specialist have seen her, and say that there is no hope at all of her recovery.
Now, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would like, if I may, to make it clear that I have never been an anti-vaccinationist. I have not enough medical knowledge to presume to attack or to defend any medical practice or treatment. I do not know anything about it. But I cannot help feeling, as a simple matter of cause and effect, that in this case, at any rate, it is quite inconceivable that the illness from which this child is suffering, apparently for life—or for what life remains to her—is not connected with the vaccination. It seems significant that several of the doctors concerned in this case have assumed, on first examining the child, that there was an association between the vaccination and the subsequent condition, although some have later shown some disposition to modify their earlier statements. I am told by medical colleagues among hon. Members of this House that there is a well-known condition known as post-vaccinal encephalitis which does occur, and is, so far as they know, incurable. If I may say this, and I say it with the greatest respect, the medical profession is an extremely close closed shop, and not all its members are averse from a little "mumbo-jumbo." But, despite its strong tradition of mutual aid and self-

367
protection, I would honestly add that, knowing personally of some of the doctors in this case, I have a high regard for their devotion and skill. It is in their interests, to clear the air, as well as for the reassurance of my constituents, that I am giving the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity of answering the questions which I now propose to put to him.
First, assuming that vaccination is desirable, is he quite certain that everything was done in this case in an orderly and hygienic way? Has he the smallest doubt about the competence of the medical authorities in mid-Essex? Secondly, on the more general issues, can he tell us anything about this condition known as post-vaccinal encephalitis? What are the statistics about it? Does it kill many babies—or adults, for that matter—or cause them to go blind, or cause the terrible sufferings which this child has undergone? How does it compare, as a menace, with smallpox itself? I am bound to say that Mr. Gooding quotes in one of his letters to me a statement circulated by an anti-vaccination organisation, which I find difficult to accept, to the effect that post-vaccinal encephalitis kills more infants than does smallpox. Either that is not true, or it is a wrong manipulation of the facts. My right hon. Friend ought to assure the public about this, or, if necessary, have a more rigorous and, perhaps, unorthodox inquiry into the whole matter. Is any research going on into this disease? Nothing which we say here tonight can console these unfortunate parents for what has happened to them; but I know, from what Mr. Gooding has told me, that they would at least like to feel that their sufferings, and the sufferings of their child, had become the occasion for the provision of some extra safeguard, however slight it may be, to prevent other people's children from suffering in this way, and to prevent the same thing from happening again.
11.24 p.m.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I am obliged to my hon. Friend for the moderate language he has used in putting what is a very tragic case before the House, and I want to take this opportunity, once more, of expressing my very deep sympathy with the parents of this child in the tragic circumstances in which they find themselves. At the same time,
368
if is my duty, after having made a very thorough investigation into the facts, to put to the House what has been disclosed to me. As far as one can gather from that investigation, there is no fault whatever attaching to the doctors concerned, and there was no departure from normal practice. They did exactly what is done in very large numbers of cases. There is no evidence whatever of carelessness or uncleanliness. Furthermore, I must rebut the suggestion that there were two insertions at the same time. I understand that what happened was that there were three insertions over seven weeks. The first two were unsuccessful and the third, so far as they were concerned from the point of view of inoculation, was successful. That, I understand, is not unusual: it happens quite frequently. Therefore, I think that for the sake of the doctors concerned, I must make it quite clear that there can he no imputation whatever against their professional skill, or the way in which they carried out their duties.
It is true—and here I must put before the House what I am told by those who advise me in these matters because I am as ignorant of these technical matters as my hon. Friend himself and can give to the House only the expert professional opinion—that post-vaccinal encephalitis does occur. But it is extremely rare, and very rare indeed in infants under one year of age—so rare that it amounts to one in 49,000 of inoculations. So I think it can be taken for granted that parents should not be deterred from getting their children vaccinated on account of the risk run. It would be deplorable if the inevitable publicity which has been given to this case should have the effect of frightening parents from having their children vaccinated. Although it is true that some parents do not get their children vaccinated, it is also true that if there is an outbreak of smallpox, or a suspicion of one, they rush for vaccination. One appreciates why that is so. It is also in doubt whether the baby's condition was due entirely to post-vaccinal encephalitis. The diagnosis is not quite clear. There are other possibilities which I do not wish to emphasize.
I would like to point out that when the Health Act comes into operation, compulsory vaccination will disappear; it will not be necessary for people to get exemption as they now have to do to avoid vaccination. In point of fact, we have,

369
as far as possible, minimised whatever dangers there might be arising from vaccination. If we were entirely immune from infection from abroad we could probably do away with vaccination entirely. But there have been cases—very serious cases—of smallpox of a quite dangerous type brought into the country from abroad, and we have had to take precautions against it. It would, in my view, he disastrous if people jumped to the conclusion, on insufficient evidence, that vaccination does not at all affect the incidence of smallpox.
Of course, I admit at once the argument that many people advance, that at the same time as vaccination has occurred, we have had a policy of development of all kinds of preventive measures, like better nutrition, effective water supplies, increased sanitation and what one distinguished man has called "the influence of the artist on the outlook of the nation."—whatever that might be—and it is very difficult for a layman to intervene in this field. All we can do is to rely upon the laws of probability, and say that it appears to us that there is some association between the comparative immunity from smallpox enjoyed by the mass of the population and the use of immunisation and inoculation. That is all we can say. Certainly it is on a better statistical foundation than could be established on the basis of particular cases and, therefore, I do hope that the publicity given to this case will not frighten parents from having their children vaccinated. Everyone must deplore the sad circumstances in which the parents found themselves. We sympathise with them very deeply indeed but we must avoid drawing general conclusions from instances of this sort.
Mr. Bowles: I would like to ask on this question of vaccination and immunisation whether the doctor carried out his job property in this particular case, using clean hands and clean instruments—because that is a matter that might give rise to a series of complaints?
Mr. Bevan: The proceedings I have been shown disclosed no evidence whatsoever of any carelessness on the part of the doctor but, of course, the courts are there if it can be shown that it is a court case. If it can be shown that there has been negligence there is the chance of redress open to the parents. All I can say
370
is, as far as we are concerned, there is no such evidence and I really state that in order that the publicity given to this case might not cloud the reputation of the doctors in the area concerned but any expression of mine has absolutely no value whatever as far as concerns the remedy which the parents themselves may seek.
Mr. Bowles: Are we to understand that the Minister is to inquire into every fatality of this kind?
Mr. Bevan: Surely, as the Minister of Health responsible for providing vaccination facilities, I must defend the facilities as far as I can and make sure that they are used in the proper way.
Colonel Stoddart-Scott: The right hon. Gentleman in his excellent reply has omitted to say one thing, and that is about the serum with which this child was vaccinated. It is prepared in the Government Serum Station, and, therefore, he is responsible for the production of that serum. Can he tell us whether that batch of serum, of which he will have the correct number, has been tested, and whether there was anything abnormal in the serum?
Mr. Bevan: I understand that it has been tested, and that there is no evidence at all of any abnormality. It is a perfectly normal serum. So that the fact is that we have no evidence at all of any unusual circumstances.
Mr. Somerville Hastings: May I ask my right hon. Friend if any examination has been made as to the health of the parents? Also, as to the figures he gave about the number of cases of post-vaccinal encephalitis, whether those figures are of the total vaccinations or of primary vaccinations, that is to say, of vaccination of young children? Because the evidence, I believe, in the case of primary vaccinations, that is to say, of vaccinations of young children, is that in these cases post-vaccinal encephalitis is unusual, is rare, and that the child who is vaccinated in infancy, is much less likely to be troubled by this very serious disease.
Mr. Bevan: I want it to go on record quite accurately, otherwise there will be misunderstanding. What I am informed is this: encephalitis is extremely rare in primary vaccinations of infants.
Mr. Hastings: Yes.
Mr. Bevan: That is what I think I said—in children under the age of one. It is also extremely rare in revaccinations of adolescents or adults who have been vaccinated in infancy. It is somewhat less rare in the primary vaccination of schoolchildren and adolescents who have not previously been vaccinated. But even in these patients it is uncommon. I think I gave the figures to the House. In the last year for which figures are available this infection occurred at the rate of one in 49,000 vaccinations.
Mr. Hastings: Of the total vaccinations of all classes?
Mr. Bevan: Yes. The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is, that there has been no investigation of the parents. I did not wish to add unnecessarily to their distress. It seems to me it is uncalled for. In the circumstances, the least said about it the better.
Wing-Commander Millington: May I put one other question to
372
my right hon. Friend? I followed his explanation very closely, but upon one point his answer seemed a little obscure. He was specifically asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), on the question of the number of insertions, about the possibility of the third insertion having contained, as it were, a double dose. My right hon. Friend said there were only three insertions. But he did not state whether or not there was evidence that on the third insertion there was, in fact, a double dose.
Mr. Bevan: I think I am on record—if my hon. Friend will look at HANSARD—and that I said that there was not, in fact, a double dose. There were three insertions over seven weeks, but there was no double dose at any time.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.

BRITISH ARMY
  Court-Martial, Singapore
  Court-Martial, Singapore
  Requisitioned Land, Grimsby (Release)
  Requisitioned Land, Grimsby (Release)
  Camp and Barracks, Isle of Wight
  Camp and Barracks, Isle of Wight
  Release Deferments
  Release Deferments
  LONDON SQUARES (PUBLIC USE)
  LONDON SQUARES (PUBLIC USE)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (MINISTRY'S STAFF)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (MINISTRY'S STAFF)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Currency Offences (Penalties)
  Currency Offences (Penalties)
  War Damagge Insurance
  War Damagge Insurance
  Egypt (Sterling Balances)
  Egypt (Sterling Balances)
  Registered Securities (Stamp Duty)
  Registered Securities (Stamp Duty)
  Entertainments Duty (Amateur Societies)
  Entertainments Duty (Amateur Societies)
GIVIL SERVICE
  Staff Dismissals (War Service)
  Staff Dismissals (War Service)
  Auxiliary Forces Volunteers (Holidays)
  Auxiliary Forces Volunteers (Holidays)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Football Pools (Paper Allocation)
  Football Pools (Paper Allocation)
  Botany and Crossbred Yarn (Allocation)
  Botany and Crossbred Yarn (Allocation)
  Substitute Parchment Production
  Substitute Parchment Production
  Japanese Automatic Looms (Imports)
  Japanese Automatic Looms (Imports)
  Publishers' Paper Quota
  Publishers' Paper Quota
  Films (Selection Board)
  Films (Selection Board)
  Personal Case (M.P.'s Letter)
  Personal Case (M.P.'s Letter)
  Anglo-American Loan Agreement (Article 9)
  Anglo-American Loan Agreement (Article 9)
  Hosiery Industry (Ex-Service Men)
  Hosiery Industry (Ex-Service Men)
  Utility Furniture
  Utility Furniture
  Overseas Tourists (Petrol)
  Overseas Tourists (Petrol)
  Soviet Cotton Goods
  Soviet Cotton Goods
  Tyres (Commercial Vehicles)
  Tyres (Commercial Vehicles)
  Wallpaper Industry (Pulp Allocation)
  Wallpaper Industry (Pulp Allocation)
DEMOBILISATION
  Students
  Students
  Releases and Discharges (Total)
  Releases and Discharges (Total)
EMPLOYMENT
  Building Industry
  Building Industry
  Coal Industry (Recruitment Posters)
  Coal Industry (Recruitment Posters)
SCOTLAND
  Hospital Accommodation
  Hospital Accommodation
  Timber Supplies (Housing)
  Timber Supplies (Housing)
  Housing Programme
  Housing Programme
  Scottish Slate Industries, Limited
  Scottish Slate Industries, Limited
  Regional Hospital Boards (Chairmen)
  Regional Hospital Boards (Chairmen)
  Bonding Costs and Materials
  Bonding Costs and Materials
  Peat Resources
  Peat Resources
  Rock Drifter Drills (Cost)
  Rock Drifter Drills (Cost)
MINISTRY OF PENSIONS
  Adopted Children (Allowances)
  Adopted Children (Allowances)
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  ROYAL NAVY (RECRUITING AND TRAINING DEPOTS)
  ROYAL NAVY (RECRUITING AND TRAINING DEPOTS)
  AGRICULTURE (PRISONERS OF WAR)
  AGRICULTURE (PRISONERS OF WAR)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Building Licences (Glasgow)
  Building Licences (Glasgow)
  Hyde Park (A.A. Gun Site, Clearance)
  Hyde Park (A.A. Gun Site, Clearance)
  Training Centres, Scotland (Disposal)
  Training Centres, Scotland (Disposal)
  Temporary Office Building, Edinburgh
  Temporary Office Building, Edinburgh
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Surgical Dressings (Scotland)
  Surgical Dressings (Scotland)
  Ophthalmic Lens Industry (Panel)
  Ophthalmic Lens Industry (Panel)
  REQUISITIONED PREMISES, EASTLEIGH
  REQUISITIONED PREMISES, EASTLEIGH
EDUCATION
  Black-Listed School Buildings
  Black-Listed School Buildings
  Boarded Pupils (Selection)
  Boarded Pupils (Selection)
  RAILWAY COACHES (FITTINGS)
  RAILWAY COACHES (FITTINGS)
  OPENCAST MINING, COLEORTON-SWANNINGTON
  OPENCAST MINING, COLEORTON-SWANNINGTON
  INDIAN ART EXHIBITION (FINANCIAL GUARANTEE)
  INDIAN ART EXHIBITION (FINANCIAL GUARANTEE)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Bulk Purchases
  Bulk Purchases
  Catering Establishments (Hours)
  Catering Establishments (Hours)
  Sugar (Jam-Making)
  Sugar (Jam-Making)
  BRITISH MILITARY MISSION, RUMANIA
  BRITISH MILITARY MISSION, RUMANIA
  PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENTS, GERMANY
  PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENTS, GERMANY

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Lord Leconfield—Took the Oath.

ROADS IN ROYAL PARKS.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether their attention has been drawn to the progressive deterioration of road surfaces in certain of the Royal Parks, and whether it will be possible to undertake any repairs in the near future.]
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the roads in the Royal Parks are intended for the use of light vehicles only. Owing to the use of roads by heavy Service vehicles during the war, and to the shortage of labour and materials to carry out repairs, the resurfacing of a number of the roads is now overdue. Provision has been made in this year's Estimates for the Royal Parks for the re-laying of the road from The Mall to Storey's Gate, of the Marlborough Gate roadway, and of parts of Constitution Hill and the ring road in Hyde Park. The work will be carried out later this year, and a start, it is hoped, will be made at the end of the present month. This represents only the most urgent part of the work; there is considerably more to be done. The process of catching up with arrears will proceed as quickly as supplies of labour and materials permit.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for his answer. I fully appreciate the difficulties to which he has referred. I hope it will be possible for the noble Lord to bear in mind that the deterioration in the road surfaces is progressing, and the state of many vehicles, both public and private, which have to
632
use these roads is not what it was before the war. There is a great shortage of spare parts, and anything that gets broken is very difficult to replace. I am sure the noble Lord knows these things better than I do, and I hope they will not be allowed to be overlooked.
LORD HENDERSON: I think the noble Earl may take it that the points he has mentioned will be borne in mind.

FOOD CONTRACTS WITH COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether, in view of a prospective shortage in the supply of essential foods in Great Britain and on the Continent of Europe for at least another two years, they can give at once to primary producers in Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere in the British Commonwealth and Empire such assurances with regard to the market for their output as are necessary to give them full confidence in augmenting as much as possible their production of food for export.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, there is not the slightest doubt that for a long time to come not only shall we require the maximum production of food by our own farmers but we shall also need from Australia and New Zealand and other parts of the Commonwealth as much as they can produce of all the main foods with which they supply us. The world shortage of such important foods as meat, grain, butter, cheese, condensed and dried milk, eggs, oils and fats, sugar and cocoa, is likely to continue for considerably more than two years. Our own demand for these foods as a result of the general increase in purchasing power since prewar days has risen to and is likely to remain at a substantially higher level than before the war.
We must, in present circumstances, satisfy this demand as far as possible from our own production and from non-dollar sources of supply. On the other hand,

633
both our interest as consumers and our international obligations require that we pay due regard to price and other commercial considerations if we are to take as much food as they and we would wish. As the noble Viscount is aware, it is the policy of the United Kingdom in order to give producers in the exporting countries the necessary confidence to maintain or increase their production for export, to enter into medium or Long-term contracts to purchase their exportable output of food on agreed terms. I propose to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT as an appendix to this answer a list of the

LONG TERM CONTRACTS WITH COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES.

Country.

Commodity.

Quantity.

Period.

(maximum each season)

Australia

Shell Eggs

1,000,000 boxes

Long term contract entered into to 30th June, 1950 covering maximum quantities to be supplied each season.

Frozen Whole Eggs

13,500 tons

Sugar Dried Egg

2,700 tons

Dried Whole Egg

450 tons

Frozen Albumen

50 tons

Dried Fruit

—

Long term contract up to 1948 the purchase on a Government to Government basis.

Butter and Cheese

Exportable surplus

Long term contract to 31st July, 1950

Milk Powder

4,000 tons

Long term contract to 30th June, 1948, with option of extension to 1950.

Sugar

Exportable surplus

Long term contract until end 1949.

Meat—

Boef

Exportable surplus

Long term contract to 30th September, 1948.

Lamb

Mutton

Veal

Pigmeat

Offals

Canned

New Zealand

Vitamin "A" Oils

We have 2 years contract to December, 1948.

Butter and Cheese

Exportable surplus

Long term contract to 31.7.50.

Canned Milk

500,000 cases

Long term contract to 30th July, 1949, with option of extension to 1950.

Milk Powder

15,000 tons

Long term contract to 30th July, 1948 with option of extension to 1950.

Meat:—

Beef

Exportable surplus

Long term contract to 30th September, 1950.

Lamb

Mutton

Veal

Pigmeat

Offals

Canned

Canada

Bacon

Minimum 156,000 tons

1947.

Minimum 179,000 tons

1948.

Meat:—Beef

120,000,000 lbs.

Long term contract to 31st December, 1948.

Wheat and flour

1946/8 160,000 bushels annually.

Long term contract to 31st July, 1950.

1948/50 140,000 bushels annually.

existing contracts in so far as they affect Commonwealth countries. The noble Viscount will see from this that a large proportion of the foods produced by Commonwealth countries is in fact covered by contracts of this kind. We have every intention of continuing this policy and I do not think there can be any better evidence of our desire to establish in the minds of Commonwealth producers that confidence in the future market for their output which they naturally require.
Following is the list referred to:

Country.

Commodity.

Quantity.

Period.

Canada—cont.

Eggs, shell—

(Maximum each season)

Spring fresh eggs.

700,000 boxes.

Long term contract to 31st January, 1949.

Fall fresh eggs

450,000 boxes.

Stored eggs

600,000 boxes

Sugar dried egg

7,500 tons

Cheese

125,000,000 lbs. annually.

Long term contract to 31st March, 1949.

Canned milk

600,000 cases annually

Long term contract to 31st March, 1948.

Milk Powder

8,000,000 lbs.

Government to Government contract until end 1947.

South Africa

Sugar

Exportable surplus

Long term contract until end 1949.

Ceylon

Copra and coconut oil.

Exportable surplus,

Long term contract to 31st December, 1950.

British East Africa

Sugar

Exportable surplus

Long term contract to 31st December, 1949.

Copra and coconut oil

—

Long term contract to end December, 1950.

Coffee

24,000 tons annually.

Long term contract for 5 years.

Jamaica

Coffee

2,000 tons annually

Long term contract to 31st December, 1952.

Malaya.

Palm Oil

—

Long term contract to end December, 1950.

Fiji

Sugar

Exportable surplus

Long term contract to 31st December, 1949.

British Guiana

Sugar

Exportable surplus

Long term contract to 31st December, 1949.

Zanzibar.

Copra and coconut oil

Exportable surplus

Long term contract to 31st December, 1950.

Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika and Bukoba.

Coffee

Fixed annual quantities

Long term contracts for 5 years.

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the Leader of the House for the answer which he has given. I am sure it will give great encouragement to those who intend to benefit us in the Old Country, and who farm in non-dollar countries. I suppose I may assume from the noble Viscount's answer that he does not anticipate any appreciable slump in the prices of the more essential foods raised in these countries, at any rate, in the next two years.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I must not be taken as saying anything confidently on the matter of prices. They will be subject to sensible negotiation.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
CITY OF WAKEFIELD ORDER.
COUNTY BOROUGH OF OLDHAM ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF CHESHAM ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF LEATHERFIEAD ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF LETCHWORTH ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF TRING ORDER.
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that these Orders be approved.
Moved, That the Orders made under the Act by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending Section one of the Act to the said areas, be approved.—(Lord Walk den.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRANSPORT BILL.
2.39 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, you have heard quite a lot from me in connexion with this Bill, and I shall not impose myself upon you at any length at this stage. I will formally move the Third Reading, and make some observations later on the Amendments printed on the Paper in my name. These are either drafting or correction Amendments, or Amendments in fulfilment of undertakings given during the Report stage. I will reserve what I have to say until the Amendments are reached. I, therefore, beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª.—(Viscount Addison.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think it would perhaps be convenient if I said a few words at this stage. I do not propose to deal with the Bill as a whole, because my noble friend Viscount Swinton will do that on the Motion that the Bill do now pass; he has a few words that he wishes to say at that stage. My purpose in rising is merely to mention one point which arose during the Report stage on an issue which caused difference of opinion between the Opposition and the Government and which eventually led to a Division. That question is, of course, the question of the publication of the reports of public inquiries which are instituted under the Act. It has seemed to me—and I feel bound to say it to the House—on re-reading the debate in Hansard, that this difference arose materially and even mainly from the fact that those who spoke on this side of the House had rather a different conception from those who spoke on the Government side of the House as to the nature of these reports. We were not, as it were moving on parallel lines.
We on this side of the House had in mind a digest of the evidence which was given at these inquiries, and a statement of the broad conclusions for the benefit of the Minister, and even more the public and Parliament. That is what we wanted published. It seemed to me clear at the time of the Report stage—and I think this is equally true of my noble friend Lord Swinton and others who spoke—that reports of that kind ought very properly to be published, and that they would be of great value not only to Parliament but to the general public at large, because the issues to be discussed at the inquiry would not be limited issues but very wide issues. That -was the reason, of course, why we also pressed for an independent chairman. That gave art idea of the inquiry and report which we had in mind. The Government, on the other hand—and I want to be absolutely fair to them—as I understand it, had something entirely different in their minds. They had the idea of a confidential report by an officer of the Ministry to his own Minister. It is quite clear, of course, that a report of that kind could not possibly be published, and I do not think anyone in any part of the House would suggest such a thing.
It is necessary to say this, because I think this difference of conception in-
638
fluenced very much the course of the debate and the Division which took place. I still feel—and I am sure your Lordships will understand this—that a public report of a character we had in mind would be a valuable contribution to the machinery of the Bill. But in any case, what I rise to do now is merely to clear up what I regard as a regrettable misunderstanding before the Bill goes to another place.
On Question, Bill read 3ª with the Amendments.
Clause I [The Commission]:
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, this is only to correct wording which inadvertently found its way into the subsection relating to allowances. They are to be paid allowances, and therefore the word "grant" is not appropriate. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page a, line 43, leave out ("or grant").—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [The Executives]:
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, this Amendment is in pursuance of an undertaking which I gave to make it quite clear that in the event of one of the Executives being wound up, there should be some body of persons appointed against whom an action could be brought if necessary. It was an omission in the Bill, or at all events a possible omission which was pointed out, I think, by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, and this is the result of the undertaking I gave to make it good. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 35, leave out from ("Commission") to the end of the section and insert ("the scheme shall include, or, where there is no such scheme, the Minister shall by order make, such transitional provisions as to the parties by and against whom legal proceedings are to be instituted or continued, and such other transitional provisions, if any, as appear to the Commission and the Minister to be expedient").—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Suspension of dividend payments, etc.]:
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, these two Amendments are the result of an undertaking given to cover the point whereby through inadvertence notice was

639
not given with respect to the payment of interim dividends before the end of July, in the event of the Bill receiving the Royal Assent before that date. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 26, line 36, leave out ("or")
line 38, at end insert ("or

(c) of any dividend in respect of a period falling wholly or mainly before the date of the passing of this Act declared after the said date with the previous consent in writing of the Minister ").—(Viscount Addison.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 39 [Certain road transport undertakings to be acquired by Commission]:
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, this Amendment and the next (to Clause 52) are to carry out an undertaking given to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, to omit the words mentioned there which did restrict the scope of operations of the vehicles concerned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 19, leave out ("from the site of felling").—(Viscount Addison.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for this concession. It does not give us quite what we asked for, but I do recognize that the noble Viscount has made a substantial concession and I am extremely grateful.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 [Additional restrictions on carriage of goods for hire and reward]:
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 26, leave out ("from the site of felling").—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 94 [Sums which are to be chargeable to revenue]:
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, this is merely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 114, line 30, leave out ("expressed") and insert ("to be deemed").—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Eighth Schedule [Orders giving effect to schemes]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment, arising out of the decision we came to, and I believe it is going to be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 157, line 19, leave out from the first ("Minister") to the end of line 22.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, this is to make English of the Amendment to which we took exception last time to which the noble Marquess has referred and about which I will have a word to say later on.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
2.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do pass. I have nothing much to add except to say that we have reached, I am happy to feel, the concluding stages of a very complicated and difficult Bill which has given rise to very prolonged and, I am sure, not only animated, but sincere discussions. I think that although there have been marked differences of opinion, on both sides of the House on certain issues, it would be right to say that, apart from those which I naturally regard as blemishes mistakenly inserted in the Bill, it is a considerably improved measure. Many improvements have been effected and I should like, if I may, to pay tribute to all those who have spent so much time and trouble trying to master an exceedingly difficult and complicated Bill. The Bill represents a gigantic adventure which will require and call for far-sighted and competent administration. As one who is enthusiastically in favour of it I feel confident that in due time—not rapidly, because it is a gigantic undertaking which will necessarily involve years of effort—as a result of this measure, this country will be supplied with the best transport service of any country in the world. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do pass.—(Viscount Addison.)
2.51 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the Leader of the House has said that this is an appropriate time to review how the Bill has fared, what changes have been

641
made, and the form in which it emerges. We have spent a long time on the Bill—nine days in Committee and two days on Report—but I do not think our consideration of it could have been concluded in a shorter time, both because of the importance of the measure and because so much of the Bill reached us without there having been any Parliamentary discussion at all. As the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has said, a very large number of Amendments have been made in this place; and the great majority as the result of frank discussion, have been carried by agreement and without a Division. If I may say so, I should like—and I am sure the whole House would join with me in doing so—to pay a tribute to the Leader of the House for his courtesy throughout and for the care he has taken in going into every single point that was raised. It is a better Bill; we all took some share in making it so; but a great deal of its improvement is due to the noble Viscount himself and to the way in which he led the House in its long debates.
I shall refer only to the more important of the Amendments which have been passed, but a very great many more, running into many scores, of Amendments have been passed which have modified or clarified the Bill in matters of detail, some proposed by the Opposition, some by the Government, and passed as the result of discussion and agreement. There is hardly a clause or schedule in the Bill which does not bear the marks of the constructive criticism made in this House; and there alone, I think, if there were not greater instances, is a great tribute to this House as a revising Chamber.
May I review very briefly the more important? Here again, the great majority have been passed by agreement. First there was the question of the Commission. There we have agreed that the numbers as presented to us were too small for this great adventure, and now we have agreed in place of a chairman and four that there shall be a chairman and eight. That is a great improvement; it enables some to be whole-time and two or three to be part-time members. We have also agreed that the salaries of the officers of the Commission shall be published.
We dealt at great length with the powers of the Commission, and perhaps the most difficult point in that regard was the
642
question of the power to manufacture. There I think a very satisfactory solution has been reached. We have made a very satisfactory arrangement limiting the Commission's power to manufacture chassis, bodies, composite vehicles, and major components. Another wise Amendment, introduced I think by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made it clear that the Commission would not deal in a lot of things which they ought not to be meddling with, such as garages, dealing in cars and secondhand vehicles, retailing petrol and so on. Then there was the question of the duties of the Commission in the matter of operating road transport services: that the Commission must give notice where they intend to discontinue a regular goods transport service.
Then there was a point, raised by the great legal authorities, of great interest: What ought to be the liability of directors and officers for offences committed under the Bill? There the legal wisdom of the House has produced, I think, the right solution, which makes people liable if they ought to be liable, and on the other hand, relieves them of liability if they have taken all the proper steps to ensure that the Act is properly carried out. Then there was one of those points which I suppose the noble Viscount would call a blemish, though we came very near together on that. It concerned Clauses 39 and 52—undertakings which are to be acquired and the right of independent people to operate. We did come to a certain measure of agreement on that. On the question of exempted traffics, we have agreed that felled timber ought to be added; we have agreed to add special vehicles which are ancillary to the exempted traffics. Then there was what the noble Viscount, I think felicitously, called the "escape" clause, by which the Commission has a power to exclude any undertaking if they are of opinion that, by reason of its special character or of the goods carried or the locality served, that undertaking should be excluded.
On passenger road transport, very considerable Amendments were introduced to deal fairly by them as regards the inclusion of passenger road operators in a scheme and for their representation on the body of management, and also for satisfactory and fair compensation for existing operators who are injuriously affected in other parts of their business which are not taken over

643
Then there were the harbour schemes, where it looked at first as if we could not reach an agreement. But pursuing the matter, it appeared that there was a great deal more common ground between us than had appeared in the first instance. The Leader of the House played a great part in these discussions, both in your Lordships' House and outside. I think we arrived at a very satisfactory compromise. This raised the question of the Port Trusts and the local administration. There is no chance now that the great trusts will be interfered with. I do not think any of us believe that the Commission would want to do that. We are in agreement on that point. In preparing a scheme a proper latitude is allowed to the Commission. Indication is given that they must consider the desirability of including the users, and—this is equally important—that local management is to be carried out on the spot or close to the harbour or group of harbours. Those are the essentials of the well-established trust scheme.
Next were the charges schemes and Transport Tribunal. There again I think we had complete agreement. We were convinced that the Minister must have the power to make the interim increases in charges. It would not be possible to have for those the very long inquiries which a final scheme has to go through. At the same time it did seem unreasonable that the Transport Tribunal should not be brought in, and the Government have agreed—it is in the Bill—that, before he makes an interim increase, the Minister will consult with the Tribunal. Then, when the Tribunal comes to its big work of reviewing the final scheme presented to it by the Commission, I must say that I think the House has done very good work. Clauses 78, 79 and 80 deal with representation and the right of audience and appeal. We have established the right of all interested persons, whether users of transport or providers of transport, to have the right of objection and audience when a charges scheme is considered by the Transport Tribunal. I am not sure on which side of the House this particular Amendment was proposed but, very rightly, the consultative committees are to be entitled to consider charges.
When we came to the question of accounts, which was barely discussed in
644
another place, we again reached complete agreement. It is agreed that the accounts shall be in the best possible form, but also—and this is most important I think—shall distinguish the financial and operating results of all the different activities of the Commission, and, in addition to that, that the Commission shall publish, or present their accounts for publication, with regular operating statistics. It seems to me to be altogether admirable to have accounts in the right form and operating statistics in the right form.
Then we considered the very difficult questions about compensation to displaced officers and servants and pensions. There again it looked as if it was going to be difficult to reach an agreement, but we all really wanted very much the same thing. We came to the conclusion, I am sure rightly, that we could not put masses of meticulous provisions into the Act of Parliament. On the other hand, Parliament wished to be quite sure that the right people were included, and that they were included in the right way; and we have adopted what was the practical solution, that this matter shall be dealt with by regulations, but that those regulations shall be laid in draft so that they can be considered in detail. I believe that may be a very valuable and useful provision.
On the further matter as to how disputes about pensions should be dealt with, once more we reached agreement, and we reached the agreement that that should be in the nature of an arbitration. That means two things. That means that there will be a complete hearing where a claim is made and where there is a dispute; that both sides will disclose their hands completely, and also that there will be an appeal on a point of law. Then the House, always anxious to see that fair is fair, if I may so put it, and to see that there is no discrimination, has inserted a clause drafted by the Leader of the House that there shall be equal treatment for travel agencies; that is to say, that there shall be no preference given by the Commission to a travel agency which they own as against an independent travel agency outside.
Then there was the question of the compensation for passenger road transport. As your Lordships will remember, when the Bill came to us there was a very

645
detailed provision in the Schedules in regard to how the road hauliers were to be compensated, but there was nothing about how the passenger transport people, who would be brought in under a scheme would be compensated, beyond this: that they were to be treated as nearly as possible in the same way as the road hauliers. We have now inserted—and the Government draftsmen are responsible for producing them, and producing them in a very convenient form—detailed provisions for the compensation to be payable for the passenger road undertakings which are taken over so that they figure in the same way as the road hauliers.
I have run through these matters very quickly, and I have only taken some of the more important on which we have agreed. I believe that it is a very remarkable range of agreement. May I now say a word or two about those matters on which we did not agree? The noble Lord thinks they are blemishes; we think they are virtues. I hope we shall all come to a common mind on them. We can say, I think with absolute sincerity, and I am sure the Leader of the House will agree, that we have only divided where we considered that the interests of the public—that is the travelling public or the users of road transport—would be seriously affected or endangered, or where we considered that an important principle of justice or sound administration was involved, and very often the two things went together. There was the power of the Minister to give directions. I am not sure that we really differed very much about that. An Amendment has been put in, that the Minister shall not give directions which would render the Commission insolvent and unable to pay their way, taking one year with another, unless he had to do so in the interests of national security. I do not really think there was very much between us on the merits of that. I do not think the Leader of the House dissented from that as a proposition. The only question was whether it should or should not go into the Bill, and really that was the measure of the difference.
There were matters on which the difference went deeper, and to those I think I must refer. There was the question of the Executives. Your Lordships have decided that the appointment of the Executives should be by the Commission,
646
and not by the Minister. I am bound to say that that was very reasonable. These Executives are the agents and the managers for the Commission; they are, in effect, departments of the Commission, which is responsible for policy and which has to treat the whole of this great adventure as a whole. All canons of business and sound administration support that decision. It is, indeed, the principle the Government themselves adopted in the Coal Act; and, honestly, I do not think any argument, or any effective argument, was advanced against that. Indeed, there is the power, as is common ground, to change these Executives about, to amalgamate them or to mix them all up. That really must be, I think, in the Commission, and the Government made it clear that it was unnecessary to amend the Bill in this respect, because we were informed that there was no doubt about it, under the Bill as drawn, that there is power in the Commission to appoint regional executives.
There was a Division about Scotland, which we felt ought to have its own Executive. I have little doubt myself that any Commission would, not only for its peace of mind but for sound administration give a separate Executive to Scotland. How reasonable we were. My noble friends the Earl of Selkirk and the Earl of Airlie were extremely reasonable in their requests. The widest discretion was left to the Commission as to what powers should devolve on the Scottish Executive. We only asked that there should be effective delegation.
I come back to the exempted traffics, on which we could not agree, and the question of what should be the test. The avowed object of the Bill is to take over long-distance road haulage, and to leave non-long-distance road haulage with the existing operators. The question arose as to what test should be applied. Can anyone, looking at this impartially, that the fifty-mile radius is not a fairer test than the twenty-five-mile radius? If you apply the twenty-five-mile test, on such a radius you could not carry traffic across Greater London; you could not carry traffic between Liverpool and Manchester, or between Edinburgh and Glasgow. It really is hardly reasonable. Surely these are short distances and not long distances. We added two more to the exempted traffics. We added what is called the Contract A licence, which is

647
really equivalent to the C licence. Contract A licence is that under which a particular trader employs a man solely to carry his goods. Surely, that is, as nearly as you can come to it, the equivalent of the C licence, under which a man uses his own vehicle. If that is not accepted, I have not the least doubt—and I do not think anyone in any part of the House can doubt—that the only result of excluding contract A licences will be that everyone who used a Contract A licence will become a C licence holder and have his own licence. Then there was milk, regarding which everything is already co-ordinated by the Milk Marketing Board. In both these cases, the Contract A licences and milk, we were considering much more—and I am sure this is true of all of us—the interests of the user than the interests of the road haulier himself.
On the question of the onus of proof, it seemed to us that it was an elementary principle of justice that the plaintiff should prove his case, and that it would be a very odd new principle to introduce that a man must show cause why he should not be dispossessed, put out of business and have his livelihood taken away. On the same plane of fair and equal justice, we put the maintenance of the jurisdiction of the licensing authorities in passenger and goods road transport. These licensing authorities, regional authorities, have long experience and wide local knowledge, and have served the public well. We inserted a provision that they should, in exercising their jurisdiction, always act in accordance with any charges scheme approved by the Transport Tribunal, or any passenger road transport scheme approved by Parliament. Subject to that, your Lordships said that there should be the same law for the Government monopoly and for the permitted operator. Why should the Government monopoly be outside and above the law? On the question of the public inquiry I will say nothing, for it has already been dealt with by the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition.
Those were matters on which we differed. They were important, very important, but they were far fewer than the matters on which we agreed. Opinion is greatly divided on this Bill. The majority of your Lordships, and it may well be also the majority of the people of the country,
648
consider it the wrong way to secure coordination, that the experiment—I agree that it is a great experiment—is fraught with danger, and that the time is ill-chosen. But our task in the eleven days which we have spent on this Bill was to try to make it a better Bill, and, divided as people are in their opinions as to its merits, and on the question of the expediency of such a measure at all, I think few will challenge—indeed the noble Viscount the Leader of the House himself has endorsed this—that it leaves this House a better and a fairer Bill than it was when we received it.
3.16 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, on the Second Reading of this Bill I ventured to say that we, as Liberals, could receive it with only small enthusiasm, although it did contain some principles for which we had stood for years—in particular that of the unification of the railways. But I am bound to admit that, as the noble Viscount who has just preceded me has said, it is a very much better measure now than the one which reached us from another place. Again, perhaps, I may follow the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, in congratulating your Lordships on having done an extremely good piece of work. I should like, if I may, also, to associate myself with all he said in thanking both the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for the courtesy and the desire to meet us which they have shown throughout the consideration of this Bill. Indeed, I am not at all sure that I have not seen considerable traces in both of them of their old upbringing in the good old Liberal tradition, and I suspect that they would have gone to greater lengths to help us to turn this into a really good measure, if it had not been for the crippling restraint of some of their colleagues in another place, and of the trades unions behind them.
I feel that this House can also take credit for having improved and not destroyed this measure, to which, frankly, the majority of the members were completely opposed. Possibly I may be allowed, as one of the survivors of the struggle of forty years ago, to congratulate your Lordships on the success with which you have realized and justified the ideals which we set up forty years ago, that this House should become a revising

649
and not a wrecking Chamber. Incidentally I might remark on the disappointment that seems to have been caused to some of the more extreme supporters of noble Lords opposite, who were looking to this Bill to give them a battle cry, of which they stand in such dire need at the present time.
Nevertheless, I cannot say that this is a good Bill. We support the nationalization and unification of the railways as, on the whole, desirable, though we do not view it with any great enthusiasm, because we realize that these enormous amalgamations carry with them very considerable dangers. I regret that the Government have not laid before us any plan to break down this great organization into smaller and more manageable units. Indeed the matter is urgent, as we can realize in view of the experience which we have had of the Coal Board. I am told that centralization, under that Board, is forcing managers to spend more and more time in making returns, and less and less time down the pits in touch with the men working under them, and that it is partly to the loss of this intimate contact, which used to exist, that the fall in output is due. And, indeed, the danger if it is great in the coalfields, is much greater in the far larger organization which is being set up under this Bill to cover the whole field of transport.
On one point, again, following Lord Swinton, I should like to thank the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, for the concession he has made in leaving possible the local control in our great ports. That I do regard as a very great concession. On the other hand, I do not see much sign of leaving scope throughout the scheme for individual enterprise and initiative to assert itself against what is a little unfairly called the dead hand of Whitehall. And indeed we had an instance of this at the end of the Committee stage which shows the Government's affection for monopoly. When they agreed to give a similar opportunity to private tourist agencies so that they should not be squeezed out by those owned by the Government, they carefully limited that concession to tourist agencies already in operation, and so made it quite impossible for any enterprising ex-Service man to set up in that business.
On a wider survey this constant absorption of an ever larger proportion
650
of workers seems to me to be disquieting, and if an industry is to be more and more in the hands of the Government and the trade unions, to get the closed shop, I think that is bound to result in an ever-rising spiral of costs at the expense, first of all of the community, and then of our industries, because the ever-rising costs would cripple them in their capacity to compete in the world markets on which we depend for our very existence.
To return to the Bill, while we agree to the unification of railways, we have always intended that the monopoly thus set up should be kept in check by road competition. The Government have rendered this almost impossible by sweeping all the road hauliers into their net. The C licence people, it is true, are outside, but if they are not allowed to carry return loads the cost of running will be so high as to almost put them out. I suppose that is inevitable now, but I would ask the Government to take a reasonable view and temper the wind to the shorn lamb by accepting the Amendment we put in here to raise the mileage limits to eighty and fifty miles, respectively. That is not a fair compromise but it is at any rate a compromise we could accept.
I have one further point, a large and important one, on which compromise has failed completely. In this regard the Government have shown themselves to be not only hard and unyielding but I venture to think grossly unfair. I refer to the price that is being paid to all for being taken over. I am not prepared to argue about the total sum, but thousands of smallholders and trustees have invested in senior railway stocks and, although the junior stocks may very likely have been speculative, as I frankly admit, the debenture and senior stocks were regarded as a safe source of income for trustees and charities, and the gravest hardship of a sudden and undeserved loss is going to fall with special severity on some of the most helpless and perhaps most deserving members of the community. I am afraid it is too late to alter this, but I regret that the Government refused our suggestion of arbitration, and that they should put up a global sure, as in the case of the coal mines, and leave it to the Commission to decide between the different classes of stocks as to a fair share of remuneration, for that would indeed have, helped the trustees. As it is, there are many thousands of holders

651
directly or indirectly through trusts who will be cruelly hard hit through no fault of their own. By this little bit of meanness, the Government are laying up for themselves a quite unnecessary resentment and destroying the atmosphere of Good will which would have gone far towards making a success of this experiment. We do not regard this Bill as wholly meeting our views, but when it becomes law it will be the duty of all of us to try and make it a success.
3.25 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, my noble friend Viscount Swinton mentioned the long and complex nature of the Amendments to this Bill. That was absolutely true and when I first saw the formidable list I had to spend five or six hours at home with a towel round my head trying to understand them, much less argue them across the floor of the House. What has been the result as regards these Amendments in the course of the passage of this Bill through the House? I am glad to say a large proportion have been settled by agreement and I should like to add a personal word of thanks to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, for the courtesy with which he has tried to meet me and other noble Lords dealing with Amendments on behalf of the passenger road transport industry. I feel sure I shall be voicing the feelings of the whole of the passenger road transport industry in expressing their thanks in this House. I should only like to say one thing more: as a very small travel agent, I thank the Government for the insertion of Clause 116 and their efforts to protect the small independent travel agent.
3.27 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, before we say goodbye to this Bill—or perhaps, who knows, the right phrase may be "au revoir"—I feel impelled to say a word not on any of the technical aspects, but on a point referred to on Second Reading of which I think there is a danger of losing sight. On Second Reading, if I may be forgiven from quoting two sentences from my own speech, I said:
"Then there is the whole question of Civil Service administration. I do not desire to develop that, but your Lordships know that the saturation point of good administration has already been reached and passed."
652
I went on to suggest at the end of my speech the course I would like the Government to take, which was to withdraw the Bill and think again. I am afraid that after the eleven days we have spent on it and all the hard work we have put in, that is perhaps at this stage a counsel of perfection, but nevertheless I think the question of the burden on the Civil Service is one which we have to have in mind, perhaps more with reference to the future course of events than to the actual fate of this Bill.
Before going further I would like to pay a humble tribute to the great British Civil Service. I suppose no one knows better than a Minister—and I have never had the privilege of being a Minister—how much he is dependent on the Civil Service and particularly on the head of his Department. The responsibility on the head of one of the great Departments is a colossal one. He is the channel through which all recommendations about policy have to go up to the Minister; to some extent the responsibility which is carried by our senior civil servants is heavier than that carried by some individual Ministers, because Ministerial decisions have to go to the Cabinet and are the collective responsibility of the Cabinet, but in the Department the senior civil servant is responsible. If I had to name the three qualities which have made our Civil Service the admiration of the world, I would say, first, loyalty to the Minister; secondly, thoroughness; and thirdly, the wisdom brought to the consideration of all problems. I say with the utmost regret that under present day conditions only one of those qualities can in the nature of things remain unimpaired: that is, his loyalty to his Minister. I am quite certain that no matter what Government may be elected by the people of this country, the Civil Service will remain as loyal as they are and always have been. But in to-day's circumstance it is not possible for this great Civil Service to bring the thoroughness to which we have been accustomed to bear on their task, and for that very reason it is not possible for them fully to apply the wisdom which in days past they have been able to use.
There has been a great expansion of Government Departments, and for the head of a Government Department we need a first-class man. The supply of

653
first-class men even in the Civil Service is not inexhaustible. And, in passing, we must remember that we are suffering greatly from the aftermath of the 1914–1918 war, when a great destruction of the best people who would now be in these responsible posts took place and whose loss never can be made up. What is happening? The heads of Departments to-day do not have time to think. Matters are rushed, but in spite of that decisions are delayed. It is common knowledge that it takes a long time to get a decision on high principle. Correspondence is delayed; people writing to Government Departments have to wait a long time for an answer. But what is worst of all is—and it is quite undoubted—the health of the senior civil servants is suffering, and the sick list is a heavy one. We all know of cases where often several of the higher ranks are absent at the same time.
I am picking my words when I say that I believe that at this very moment the Civil Service is breaking down. It would not be right to use a general phrase of that sort without saying what I mean; I want to tell you exactly what I mean by those words. As you know, there is before Parliament a mass of legislation. The preparation of that legislation alone has imposed a tremendous burden on Departments, but this legislation is of such a character that, even when it is passed, it is not finished with. At once there is a trail of further work to be done; there is a trail to be followed of interpretation, because modern legislation is so complicated that even when it is through it takes a legal pundit to interpret it, and I think the Departments themselves spend a great deal of time settling what the legislation means after Parliament has passed it.
Then there is the question of regulations. Over and over again we have to put into Bills that the draft regulations have to be laid before Parliament. There can be no greater evidence of the complication and complexity of these matters, and that again lays a tremendous burden upon these senior civil servants. That is what I mean when I say that the Civil Service is breaking down. To put it more exactly, a load is being imposed on civil servants which is greater than their capacity to bear.
654
The application of what I am saying is to the future. The noble and learned Viscount, the Leader of the House, described this measure as "a gigantic adventure." No description could be truer. I think a gigantic adventure of this sort is one which should have been reserved, and should in future be reserved, for more normal times. Everybody knew when the war was ending that we were going to run into difficult times economically. Nobody foresaw the acute difficulties which now confront us. It is a commonplace to say that there is an economic blizzard approaching this country. We have to face that blizzard, and not the wisest of us can foresee when it is going to hit us or how it is going to arrive. Much hope is laid upon what is called the Marshall Plan. I think it is gradually being realized now that the Marshall Plan, whatever it may be, at best will be merely a palliative. We shall be struggling very shortly with the maintenance of our standard of living. We have a short-term and a long-term problem, and surely this gigantic adventure really concerns the long-term problem rather than the short-term problem. It is a thing which we should do well to postpone. I am not suggesting that we should postpone this Bill but, if there are other Government projects of nationalization on the stocks, I would beg the Government to give consideration to this point of view before they once again impose a still heavier burden which it will be beyond the powers of the Civil Service to carry.
3.35 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I propose to detain your Lordships for only a very few minutes before this Bill leaves your Lordships' House. This Bill has been debated clause by clause and line by line and, with the assistance and agreement of His Majesty's Government which we on this side of the House fully appreciate, the Bill has undoubtedly been considerably improved and clarified. In fact, the debates have led to the addition of a new form of Parliamentary language which is no doubt very expressive and all embracing but may not yet be found in the Oxford Dictionary. I think it is true to say that no Amendment has been carried in your Lordships' House against the Government which could in any way be considered a wrecking Amendment or

655
which has sought to alter the declared policy of the Government.
I want to refer to one or two of the principal Amendments. I think it is important that they should be emphasized because we may eventually get some agreement. One of the principal Amendments which have been inserted in the Bill was directed towards an increase in the radius of action of the short distance road haulier. This was done in order to give him a little more elbow room and a fair chance to earn a living while in competition with the Transport Commission. In another place, the Minister of Transport declared that the original distance as drafted in the Bill was chosen "for no special arbitrary reason." I do hope that when the Bill reaches another place he will modify his views and give the matter his sympathetic consideration, because this very reasonable Amendment will go a long way to satisfy the legitimate claims of the road haulage industry for a fair deal. I am sure that His Majesty's Government will fully realize the importance of maintaining a contented industry. It will do neither the country nor the Transport Commission any good if a discontented, impoverished private transport system is to work alongside the organization of the Commission. It is for this reason and for justice to the short distance haulier that I hope the increase in radius of action will be retained in the Bill.
I would also remind your Lordships that the declared policy of the Government has been to nationalize long distance haulage. It would be of little use to increase the radius of action of the short distance haulier if the majority of the undertakings had been absorbed by the Commission, and therefore by another Amendment we extended the distance which determined by the formula in the Bill whether or not an undertaking would be taken over by the Commission. I hope that His Majesty's Government in another place will also give this Amendment their fullest and sympathetic consideration. It has been argued that by this Amendment the Commission would be unable to absorb sufficient undertakings to run their organization in an efficient manner. I do not believe this to be true, and I feel strongly that some agreement should be arrived at on these figures.
The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has touched on another matter, which is the
656
harbour clauses. I want to speak very briefly about this. He referred to the agreed Amendments which had been inserted in the Bill. We are grateful to His Majesty's Government for going a long way to meet us on the local administration and control of the ports and services. It must not be forgotten that under the Bill as it leaves this House it will still be possible for the Commission to prepare harbour schemes under centralized control, but in view of the "desirability of local administration," as now set out in the words of the Bill, I hope that no centralized control will in fact ever be instituted and that wise counsel will always prevail.
We on this side of the House feel that the basic principles of this Bill are wrong, unnecessary and forced upon the country at a time when all our attention should be directed to the reconstruction of our trade and industries rather than to the disturbance of our efficient transport system, but, when the Bill becomes law, we shall do all we can to ensure that the reorganization is a success, and we have endeavoured to ensure this success by carefully studied and well thought out Amendments to the Bill. I have little doubt that the Minister of Transport will take the greatest care in the selection of the members of the Commission. I wish them all success in a great enterprise which may well have a profound bearing on the future of this country for good or ill, and which will certainly tax the minds and ingenuity of these supermen, as they will certainly have to be if success is to be achieved. I close as Euclid might have said: "Quod erit demonstrandum."
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, with the leave of the House I hope I may be allowed to say how much I am sure we have all appreciated the speeches that have been made on the Motion before us. I would like, if I may, to pay tribute to the remarkable summary of the Amendments for which we are indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. I must say that I do not remember ever listening to a more compact, fairly stated and comprehensive summary of a very intricate series of subjects. Those who want to remind themselves of what we have been doing during these eleven days might quite profitably, if I may say so, read the noble Viscount's speech in Hansard of what has been done on this Bill. We are indebted to the noble Viscount for that review.

657
There is one further observation I might make. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, for his exceedingly thoughtful speech. Whatever his views and our views may be as to the future of the public service, I am sure we are indebted to him, and the public service is indebted to him, for the tribute which he paid to the Civil Service, so often misrepresented to the damage of the public interest. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, and I thank the House for this opportunity of saying so.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

AGRICULTURE BILL.
3.42 p.m.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 31:
(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

(b) that the carrying out thereof is otherwise desirable for the purposes of agricultural research, education, experiment or demonstration or for the purposes of the enactments relating to smallholdings or allotments; or

(c) that by reason of the purpose for which the interest of the landlord was held immediately before the creation of the tenancy to which the notice to quit relates, greater hardship would be caused by the Minister's withholding than by his granting his consent to the operation of the notice; or

(d) that the landlord proposes to terminate the tenancy for the purpose of the land being used for a use, other than for agriculture, not falling within paragraph (c) of the last foregoing subsection:

Provided that in the case of a tenancy created after the commencement of this Part of this Act paragraph (c) of this subsection shall not have effect in relation to the termination of the tenancy unless it is so provided by a written contract of tenancy, specifying the purpose referred to in that paragraph.
Debate resumed on the Amendment moved yesterday by Lord Ashburton, at page 32, line 6, in paragraph (a) of subsection (3), to leave out "desirable in" and insert "in conformity with."
EARL DE LA WARR: Perhaps I might say a word here, as my name is down to this Amendment. I should like, with the permission of the House, and without in any way committing myself for the Report stage, to have an opportunity of seeing this clause when we have finished with it after discussing the next Amendment. I therefore propose now to withdraw the Amendment, page 32, line 6, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Ashburton and myself.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ASHBURTON LORD ASHBURTON moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (3), after "farming," to insert "or good estate management." The noble Lord said: This Amendment was in fact referred to yesterday, so I do not propose to detain your Lordships for any length of time on it. I would only say that there is a very widespread and, I think, sincere feeling on our side of the House that in this Bill, which pre-supposes the continuation of landlord and tenant, and exalts exactly similar and very fierce penalties for the failure of either, it should be made easy for the landlord to do his job. Therefore, in this clause—which is really quite a vital one—when the Minister is required to give his consent or withhold it with regard to a notice to quit being given by the landlord, he should have some reference to good estate management in giving this decision, as well as to the consideration of good farming. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 7, after ("farming insert ("or good estate management").—(Lord Ashburton.)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): It is obviously essential that the Minister should have regard to good estate management, but if I may draw your Lordships attention to subsection (3), the words "efficient farming" in paragraph (a) would cover good estate management. In fact, it is rather hard to think of efficient farming being conducted without good estate management. I suggest to the noble Lord that this is already covered by the words "efficient farming."
EARL DE LA WARR: I am afraid that throughout the Bill, whether the part

659
dealing with supervision orders or in other parts of the Bill, there are not only references to efficient farming but to good estate management. Actually they are quite separate portions of the Bill, and there are clauses dealing with each subject. Therefore, I do not think we can accept the contention of the noble Earl that the words "efficient farming" cover "good estate management." However, I gather from the noble Earl that it is really only a question of drafting, and he admits that the words "good estate management" should in fact be included in this clause. It would be very helpful if the noble Earl could accept this Amendment, and I would press him to do so.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: If that is the feeling of noble Lords, we have no real objection, and I should be prepared to accept the Amendment.
LORD ASHBURTON: I would like to thank the noble Earl for accepting this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (3), after "farming," insert "or otherwise in the interests of the community." The noble Earl said: I think we are all very grateful for the concession on the last Amendment, which certainly does widen the powers of the Minister, not only in the interests of farming but in his own interests. But quite apart from that, there are other considerations in the management of land and estates which I think might and ought reasonably to be taken into consideration on this question of giving notice to quit. I wonder whether such a case as one might have in mind of a very efficient farmer who looks after his own and his landlord's property well, but for some reason or other is a very bad employer of labour, is continually changing his men and, therefore, causing great trouble in the locality, is entirely covered by these provisions even as widened.
That is why I have in mind that we might have in the Bill—and, mind you, at the discretion of the Minister; he has got to be satisfied before he agrees—the words which I suggest shall be put in; that is to say, "or otherwise in the interests of the community." That makes
660
the provision a bit wider. I would have the noble Earl realize that farming is not only a business; it is the life of the countryside. I am seeking in this way to give to the Minister slightly wider discretion to take into account what in other parts of the Bill are perhaps called "relevant circumstances." I think the words which I propose, "or otherwise in the interests of the community," bear more nearly on the question, and I hope the noble Earl may feel disposed to accept this Amendment. I would emphasize again that it is "in the opinion of the Minister." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 7, after ("farming") insert ("or otherwise in the interests of the community").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: With regard to the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, I appreciate his intention, and I agree with him that the interests of the countryside generally have to be considered. But as I pointed out last night on a previous Amendment, what we are trying to do is to provide efficient rules for the security of tenure of farmers. The fact that this gives the Minister wide discretion might not please the tenant farmer or the farming community. What they want are definite rules to guarantee that they will not be disturbed. To take rather an extreme example, you might get a great difference in political views between the landowner and the farmer which, it might be argued, should be resolved in the interests of the community. Although I quite agree that under the present Minister such a consideration would not come into the picture at all, noble Lords have pointed out that this is a very long-term measure and that one should provide for different persons and different factors. I think however that this would open the door too wide, and I am afraid that I must ask the noble Earl to withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I cannot subscribe entirely to the views expressed by the noble Earl. It is quite true that possibly the days of the Rechabite political opinions might have caused divergence of opinion which resulted in an injustice to the tenant. We have travelled quite a long way from those days, and that that suggestion should have been thrown out is I think a little unworthy

661
of the noble Earl because he cannot produce any evidence. Equally I would refer to something I interjected last night—perhaps rather rudely. The noble Earl has produced no evidence as yet that tenant farmers are disturbed over the question of their lack of security of tenure. There is no evidence on that account at all, and the noble Earl has not produced any. I hope that before we part with this particular clause the noble Earl will be able to produce the answers upon which he bases the statement that farmers and tenant farmers will be disturbed in their minds if they do not get this additional security of tenure. But in spite of that the Amendment is not of sufficient importance to press, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.54 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved in paragraph (c) of subsection (3), to leave out "creation of the tenancy to which the notice to quit relates," and insert "giving of the notice to quit." The noble Lord said: The Amendment which stands in my name deals with a very much narrower point than that with which the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has just been dealing. The cases with which this Amendment deals are cases such as those of an owner-occupier who is dispossessed of his holding in connexion, for instance, with town planning, as in the case of the establishment of new towns. It is the case of a man whose livelihood and that of his family is dependent upon farming, and who is naturally looking for another farm in which he can carry on his business. As your Lordships are quite aware, there is great difficulty in securing and purchasing a farm with vacant possession, and in many cases it is practically impossible to do so.
This Amendment is designed to give the Minister discretion in dealing with cases of that description, as, for example, where a man has bought a farm which is already occupied and desires to farm it himself, and in order that this should be achieved it is necessary that the sitting farmer should leave that farm. What the Amendment asks for, in effect, is that in such a case it should be possible for the Minister to review the whole case and, in his discretion, deal with the matter on its merits. The wording of the whole of this subsection very involved, but I understand
662
that the Amendment I have suggested does put into effect the intention which I have expressed. As the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said yesterday, all these Amendments to the clause are to increase the discretion of the Minister, and I cannot help feeling that in this particular case there are good grounds for asking that that discretion should be enlarged in the way I have indicated. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 13, leave out from the second ("the") to end of line 14, and insert ("giving of the notice to quit").—(Lord O'Hogan.)
THE EARL ON HUNTINGDON: I thank we are up against the same point on this Amendment as on the previous Amendment. It involves opening the door very much wider and giving the Minister much greater discretion. The difficulty of using the words "notice to quit" is that in any case where a person bought a farm without vacant possession the Minister could give consent to a notice to quit. As your Lordships know, the object we have in mind is to prevent that very thing. We want to protect the sitting tenant, the farmer who has been there for years and years and who is doing a thoroughly good job. Unless there are very strong reasons for not doing so, or unless the farmer is a bad farmer and not up to standard, we want to give him security.
MARQUESS TOWNSHEND: I wish to support this Amendment and the words actually used in it, because I feel that we are dealing here with a very particular case—the case of a person who is displaced through no fault of his own. He may be displaced as the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has said, through building, town planning or some other function of a Minister, and he may be turned cut without being able to help himself. Therefore, he will be looking for another place. If we can get these words into the Bill he will realize that his only chance of getting possession of the particular holding he has bought is to produce a better case than that of the sitting tenant. I feel that that might happen quite frequently. I might emphasize that we do not wish for powers to turn out a man automatically under this rule, and we are only asking to widen the powers of the Minister in order that he may take into consideration such cases as I and the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, have mentioned.
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not think I have ever heard an Amendment turned down by a Parliamentary Secretary on the grounds that his Minister was not fit to have wider discretion. So far as I can see, that seems to be the only objection to this Amendment which obviously sets out to deal with a very real case of hardship. It might well be that the Minister is convinced of the hardship and feels it is one that should be remedied, but as the clause is drafted now he would not be allowed to use his discretion to remedy it. Surely that is most unreasonable and might lead to great injustice. I suggest, therefore, that this is an Amendment which has serious substance behind it. It leaves everything to the discretion of the Minister, and it does not widen the power of the purchaser to turn out a tenant without approaching the Minister. Therefore, I should have thought it comes well within the agreed policy, not only of His Majesty's Government but of your Lordships' House as a whole, that the tenant is as entitled to his full security as is compatible with doing justice to others.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: It surprises me to hear the noble Earl asking for greater discretion for the Minister in this clause. We so often hear complaints about additional powers being given to different Ministers that it is refreshing to hear the other point of view put so well by the noble Earl. I should like noble Lords to recognize that already we have opened the door very wide under subsection (3) (c), which reads:
"that by reason of the purpose for which the interest of the landlord was held immediately before the creation of the tenancy.…"
That is a very big concession. It allows any landlord, if or when he can get vacant possession of a farm, to say, "In future years I shall want this farm for another purpose," and if that is inserted in the tenancy agreement, the Minister may consent to a notice to quit when such a notice is given. The landlord may, for example, have a child whom he wishes to succeed him, but the child may be going into the Army or abroad; for the time being therefore, he cannot farm the land. In such a case the owner could let the farm and insert in his tenancy agreement that be has this other purpose in mind; and when the time comes he can give the tenant notice to quit, and the Minister may give his consent. If we opened the door
664
wider still to anyone who gave a reason for notice to quit, it would probably lead to the dispossession of a great number of farmers. It would cut away the security of the tenant farmer which we have so much in mind. In the circumstances I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: This is a difficult Amendment because of its many complications, but I do not quite see that the facts just mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, really bear on this particular discussion. It is true that the paragraph does have a very considerable effect on tenancies which are now existing; but this Amendment suggests that the discretion of the Minister should be capable of being exercised in the case of a tenancy which has not in fact been made by the purchaser. It means that a man can buy a farm and then find there is a chance of getting it for himself. Then there are the farmers who moved to bigger farms and perhaps want to buy their own and become the owner-occupier. Owner-occupiers of that kind are a very useful section of the farming community: men who started on small holdings and moved on and on. I think your Lordships will probably find that in most counties there are men of that sort on the country agricultural committees and on their district committees. They are extremely useful and good men to have in the farming industry, and if it is not possible for a man of that kind to buy himself a farm he will not be able to develop in that way; he will not be able to be his own master and take the part in the farming community which he should.
I understand that the Government's objection to this proposal is that anybody who is not in the category I have mentioned would be able to buy a farm and then claim it for himself. I should have thought that there was more than adequate protection in that case from the fact that the Minister is instructed that he need not give possession until he is satisfied about it. It seems to me there is adequate protection against people coming into possession of a farm and having no moral claim to occupying it themselves. I hope we can find something which will meet cases of that kind. It is essential that men should be able to progress through the industry in the way I have mentioned.
LORD HASTINGS: The importance of this Amendment depends really on the treatment which is accorded to the Amendment which immediately follows. I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, that it might be better for him to withdraw the Amendment now before the Committee, reserving to himself the right to re-enter it on the Report stage if the succeeding Amendment does not meet with the success which those who support it hope. Its relative importance will then become very much greater than it is at the moment. If the noble Lord were to allow this to go by for the moment, and wait for the discussion on the other Amendment and if necessary put down another Amendment on the Report stage, I think he would find it more satisfactory.
LORD O'HAGAN: I am in the hands of your Lordships on this matter. I think there is very great substance in the Amendment put forward. I feel, in spite of—perhaps partly because of—what the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, has said in reply, that there is really so clear a case made out that I trust His Majesty's Government will consider this particular point with great attention. At the same time, I can see the force of what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, says, and I am quite prepared, on the understanding that on the Report stage we should review the position and that I hold myself free if it is thought necessary to endeavour to get an Amendment of this nature inserted later, to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: There are three Amendments following which bear on the same subject. I do not know whether it would be for your Lordship's convenience if we were to take them altogether so that we could have a general debate.
LORD HASTINGS: I do not think it would be possible to take the last one, standing in the name of Earl Stanhope, at the same time as the others. It is a standing Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to insert, after paragraph (d) of subsection (3):
"(e) That the notice to quit is, or is proposed to be, given with a view to the holding
666
or the part thereof to which the notice to quit relates being farmed either by the landlord or by a child or grand-chill of his, and for the purpose of this paragraph a person's stepchild, adopted child (whether adopted in pursuance of an enactment or otherwise) or illegitimate child shall be treated as a child of his."
The noble Earl said: It seems that the discussion on widening the clause is going to be centred on this Amendment, and from our point of view it is a very important Amendment. I would go so far as to say that its acceptance by His Majesty's Government would go a long way to reconciling those interested in the ownership of land to Clause 31, which is the clause in this Bill to which we take very strong exception. In moving this Amendment, and in saying that, I want to make one thing quite clear: It purports to make it possible for the Minister to agree to the notice to quit when the landlord wishes to farm the land himself, or wishes a child of his to farm it. May I say that I am not responsible for the rather exotic definition of "child" in the Amendment? It originated in the Ministry of Agriculture, I think and was considerably wider in the early draft. I am not wedded to this definition. The purpose is, of course, that the heir should be allowed to enter and farm the land.
I would make it quite clear, also, that this Amendment does not have quite the same relationship to this subsection as some of the other Amendments or some of the other parts, in that although nominally it is still within the discretion of the Minister it is not intended that where a case is made the Minister shall have any discretion whatever. Noble Lords will understand what I am driving at, that though the subsection says the Minister has to be satisfied, as soon as he is satisfied in those cases it is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact; and when he is satisfied as to the facts he has to accept them if they can be accepted. It is a definite thing. I also want to make it quite clear that it is not a question of the selfish landlord desiring to turn out a tenant who deserves well of him. Nothing of that sort is intended; it is intended entirely for the benefit of agriculture the agricultural community and the progress of agriculture in this country.
May I, first of all, adduce as an argument that the powers sought in this Amendment have been in the hands of

667
landlords for many generations past? Right up to the beginning of the war a landlord could get rid of a tenant for any reason whatsoever—not the narrow reason in this Amendment, but for any reason—provided that he was prepared to pay the necessary compensation. I do not want the noble Lord again to talk in this House about the fear of the tenant-farmer for his security of tenure. Landlords have had this power, and much greater powers than we are now seeking to insert in the Bill, for many years past. And, as my noble friend the Earl of Portsmouth said only yesterday, in the National Farm Survey it was found that the average length of tenancy in this country was twenty-two years. That does not allow for many cases of people being turned out without any particular reason. You must remember, and take into account in that, the fact that some farmers do give up, others move on from one farm to another; and you have only to look at the advertisement columns in the farming papers to see the number of farms that are being advertised, and the number of farms that are ultimately taken up by farmers. The average tenure in this country is twenty-two years, and nobody can say that that denotes an insecurity of tenure, even under our normal practice of year to year tenancy.
he second point is that where there is an owner of land with an estate, then in the interests of the estate, in the interests of the countryside and in the interests of the country as a whole, it is very desirable, and indeed essential I think, that if he is able to do so he should farm some of his own land. It will give him a clearer understanding of the difficulties of his tenants; moreover, if it so happened that other farms fell into hand—such things have been known; I think my noble friend, Lord Hastings, has had trouble in that direction—and if he has a farm and has been farming it, he has the nucleus of an organization to keep these farms in proper cultivation. Thirdly, it is a great education for a young man entering in upon his own property that he should farm some of his land. There is also the case of the owner-occupier (mentioned by my noble friend Lord O'Hagan on the last Amendment) who may have been turned out through the workings of some other Act of Parliament and who desires
668
to find somewhere where he can return to his occupation.
There is also another case—that of the man who is neither a landowner to-day nor an owner-occupier who has been turned out of his farm because of development of another sort. There is the man—we know quite a number of them, and I have no doubt the noble Lord does—who, having made his money in some other walk of life, has an urge to go into farming. In the eyes of many, they may be considered undesirable people to own land, but such people have brought into agriculture a much-needed stimulus, both in money, enterprise and brains. It would be a great pity if the possibility of such men coming into the farming business should be prevented, as it is prevented now by this clause, because they cannot prove that they will be more efficient than the man they are to turn out. They have never farmed, but, on the other hand, they are going to bring brains, money and enterprise into the industry. Though they will probably lose money—and we all know of cases where money has been lost in this way—they will do a great good for the countryside in which they farm. I have in mind a particular case, where extremely good cowsheds and farm buildings were entirely rebuilt, and a whole series of cottages were also built in order to house the workers on the farm which that individual had bought. That is a permanent improvement to the countryside, and enables, or would enable in the right hands, that land to be more profitably farmed—I do not mean "profitably" in the terms of money, I mean "profitably" in the terms of production for the country's needs.
May I add one other thing? I have wondered, when I have considered this problem of the terms under which the Minister is to consider whether or not a man should be turned out of his farm, if some of our great agriculturists of the past would have been considered efficient farmers in the eyes of the present-day county agriculture committees. I wonder whether the introduction of the turnip would have been considered progressive and efficient farming. I wonder if the introduction of the four-course rotation would have been considered efficient and competent farming in the eyes of the county committee. One of the things of which one has to be extremely careful in these matters is that in official eyes, and,

669
if I may say so, in organizers' eyes, efficiency so often means merely the continuation of established practice and not the starting of new practice. We do not want to prevent enterprise in the great industry which we represent, and I am very much afraid that if the landowner, and those who wish to go into land-owning from outside, are prevented from farming their own land, you will put a stop, to that enterprise.
We know perfectly well that in the past the landowner has done great things for agriculture in this country. Most of the great advances in agricultural practice in this country have been initiated originally by the great landowners of the past, and it is in this connexion that the owner of land still has a big part to play, if he is allowed to do so. I cannot tell you what the results of his playing that part will be, but it may well be of vital importance to agriculture. If this Amendment is not accepted, or something of this sort is not accepted, that vital force which has been in the past provided by the landowners will suffer slow strangulation. Not only will landowners suffer, hut the agriculture of this country will undoubtedly suffer. The country as a whole will suffer in consequence of the lack of that increased production for which we may yet look in this land of ours. It is on these grounds that I commend this Amendment to the Committee with all the strength that I have at my command. It does not, perhaps, go so far as I should like it to go, but it does keep that vital force, which the landowner can provide, as a possibility for agriculture. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 21, at end, insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
LORD COURTHOPE: I wish to say a few words in support of the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend the Earl of Radnor. I do so not especially in the interests of any particular class but in the interests of the land itself, its fertility and its production. The owner's love of his land is a powerful emotion, and there is no doubt that in the great majority of cases the man who owns his land and is occupying it will make greater efforts to maintain its equipment and its fertility than will a man who is merely a tenant and who is primarily concerned with having an
670
economic return for his enterprise. My strong impression is that in the interests of the land and its fertility every possible encouragement and inducement should be offered to owners of Land, whether large or small, and their families, to occupy that land and to farm it.
Throughout the lean years which passed between the two wars, I was a member of the Forestry Commission, and we had experience of countless cases of land, large areas of which had become vacant and derelict. In the great majority of those cases the land which had become derelict was land which had been subject to tenancies, and upon which the tenants were not able to make a living. The home farm, or any farms still in the occupation of the owner, on the other hand, were kept in some sort of good condition and fertility, because the landowner, whether large or small, made a greater effort to maintain that land than was justified by mere economic considerations. In a great many instances land which the Forestry Commission were subsequently blamed for taking over—which was offered to them in a completely derelict condition and is now growing trees—might, in the opinion of the local agricultural committees, have produced valuable food supplies during the war if it had been maintained in some sort of fertility by the owners.
Those areas, however, were covered with weeds and scrub, and in that condition they were much more suitable for afforestation than for food production. I cite that only as an illustration, and as evidence in support of the argument which I put forward, that an owner of land, whether large or small, will make greater efforts than a tenant, who is primarily concerned with his economic return, to maintain the land in a state of fertility. I think that this is a consideration to which this Committee and the Government should attach great importance, if they want—as I know they do—to produce the largest possible amount of foodstuffs in this country in the future.
THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: I believe it to be entirely false to suggest that the tenant has not security of tenure at the present time. Most tenancies—as indeed we have been told this afternoon—have lasted for a great number of years. Some have lasted through generations of the same family. I personally rather resent

671
the attitude of the Government, who seem to me to be trying to insinuate that the tenants in this country have been rather badly treated by their landlords. The opposite is, I believe, the truth. There is absolutely no proof at all that the present system of tenancy is either unsatisfactory or unpopular. Now we are told that the Government are not prepared to meet us over this Amendment, which touches on the fundamental right of an owner to farm his own land, or to obtain that land for his son to farm. Surely, the old Socialist cry was always against the absentee landlord. Now that the landlord wishes to increase his responsibility by getting hold of the land to farm—either himself or by his son or some other relation—he is to be discouraged. In fact, I think that it would be difficult for him to do so at all. So I feel that in order to introduce some form of justice into Clause 31 it would be well if the Government could see their way to meet us on this Amendment.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: We have heard some very forcible arguments and some eloquent speeches on this clause. It always surprises me—though perhaps it should not—to find how often we seem to walk along happily together for a part of the way along the road and then suddenly the road diverges and we seem to have differences of opinion as to the way to take. I think that all of us are agreed that it is an absolute necessity that this country should have efficient farming. Clearly, there is no dispute about that. It seems that the only question of opinion is how that might be brought about: what are the best means and methods to employ? I was greatly interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Courthope, but I did not think it was altogether a good advertisement for the landlord who looks after his own farm but who is apt to neglect that of his tenant, because he is more interested in his own ownership.
LORD COURTHOPE: The tenants have gone. They have given notice, and moved out. The farms of which I spoke were vacant farms.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I apologize if I have misunderstood or have inadvertently misrepresented what the noble Lord said. In any case, I do not think that it would be suggested that
672
between the two wars farming and agriculture generally were in the condition in which any of us would like to see them now. I do not want to labour the point since it is a controversial one. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, seemed to suggest that we were not desirous of encouraging the owner-occupier. Of course we want to see the owner-occupier in agriculture. We want to see the progressive man, who perhaps has not yet proved himself, enter farming and help to make some discovery which will be of benefit to British farming. I know of one farmer who started as an engineer but took up farming in later life. He produced surprising results on his farm and added considerably to farming knowledge. This farm is now one of the show-places in the district. That is the sort of thing we do not wish to discourage.
We want to help young men to start in farming. I think we are completely in agreement there. Where we disagree on this clause is that we do not think that in order to bring about this very desirable result, a landowner should be able to dispossess an equally good farmer who is a sitting tenant. After all, it is possible to get farms with vacant possession; they do fall vacant every now and then. We should not allow a farmer to be dispossessed in such circumstances. The owner should wait until vacant possession comes along. Our emphasis is on the sitting tenant. But there is a case, I admit, for a farmer with a son who has been brought up on the farm and to whom he wishes to give a start in agriculture. There is also the particularly hard case of a man who bought a farm before the war for a son who went into the forces and that son wants to come back to farm. Owing to the provisions of the Bill the owner cannot get rid of his tenant to allow his son to take over. I think we might make some concession in this case.
We cannot make a concession on the former Amendments, which throw open the door for the buying of farms and allowing the Minister to dispossess tenants in order that the buyers may gain vacant possession. If the noble Lord will accept this, we will put down an Amendment which will allow that in the case of land bought before the war the owner could apply for a notice to quit—giving his reasons, not necessarily related to children—and the Minister woud have power

673
to agree to the notice. How far that would go to meet the noble Lords, I do not know, but if they are prepared to withdraw their Amendments, I would be very happy to make that concession.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I do not know if I speak for all those who sit with me, but I feel that the noble Earl has not answered the case which we have put forward in favour of those who have inherited land generation after generation, who know and love their land, who have a high sense of duty in regard to the landlord's functions and who are particularly interested in the local community and whose son or other children have been brought up with a deep sense of responsibility concerning the functions of a landlord. Those are the people for whom I at any rate make a plea, as I did in the course of the debate yesterday.
It is perfectly true, as the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has said, that there are people who have made fortunes in other walks of life, are progressively minded, have purchased estates and, with a reserve of wealth which most of us older landlords cannot command, have generously equipped their estates and farms with buildings, cottages and everything that we should all desire to see in the light of modern agricultural developments. But I do feel very strongly that some concession ought to be made in favour of the son or other successor entitled to an estate who will be imbued with all those traditions of which we can justly boast and who should be given the opportunity in preference to any outsider to carry on the duties of a landlord of a property which has been in the family perhaps for generations or even centuries. As I ventured to say yesterday, large number of the sons of existing landlords, particularly belonging to old landed families, are to-day receiving an agricultural education either at universities or agricultural colleges with full consciousness that they want to be equipped to carry out the functions laid down in this Bill as the proper functions to be discharged by an agricultural landlord. I am perfectly certain that, if the Government are prepared to repose the due amount of confidence in agricultural landlords in this country and in the traditions of the best type of landlordism in the past, they will not be disappointed.
LORD HASTINGS: I beg the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, to realize that the clause and the Amendment proposed to it go infinitely deeper than anything which can be described under the heading "security of tenure." It is a question of priorities and a question of priorities that goes right down to the roots of the fundamental freedoms. You are proposing in a civilized and well-ordered country to give priority to a tenant over an owner, a thing that has never been done in any other civilized country in the world. We are aware that there are countries where land has been nationalized, sometimes without and sometimes with compensation. That has been an act of State policy which has nothing whatever to do with the subject we are discussing. This is not a question of the State taking over land and dealing with it as it sees fit, having once become its possessor.
This is a question entirely, if I may dare to repeat myself, of priorities. In this country and in every other country where the private ownership of land is allowed—and I include uncivilized countries as well as civilized countries, which is a very important inclusion—the owner of the land has the prior right to occupy it. His Majesty's Government are the first authority who have ever suggested—and I do not stand open to contradiction on this matter—that a tenant should have priority over the owner. It is as well that this should sink right in, because it is a very big social question which goes far far beyond the mere expediency of security of tenure.
I venture to hold—and I should suppose that an enormous majority of my countrymen would support me in taking this view—that the right of an owner to occupy the land that he owns is a fundamental right. It is one of those rights with which it is impossible to interfere on the ground of any expediency whatsoever. That is a standpoint which can be argued, of course, but I doubt if it would be possible for anybody to go out into the highways and byways of this country and to argue against that principle; I do not think he would stand a chance of carrying his view. If we start from that standpoint, we really are in a better position to deal with the subject matter before us than if we deal with it only on the somewhat secondary ground

675
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.
676
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

677
they own in which they have acquired an interest in these different ways, and who are held up until this Bill passes into law, until the terms of it are known and until the local agricultural executive committees are enabled to function.
Unless you allow an Amendment of that character which is now before the Committee to pass into the Bill, what is going to happen to the twelve good men and true who constitute your county agricultural executive committee? Here is a matter of such vital importance to applicants that it is impossible to delegate this work to the servants of the committee. It would be grossly improper if it were so delegated. It has to be done by the members of the committee itself. The members of the committee have got to debate after an inspection and after hearing the relative merits of the man who wishes to occupy his own land and of the man who wishes to remain on it as a tenant. What guidance have they? Extremely little. There is going to be the standard of efficient farming. To-day the applicant has to prove to the satisfaction of the committee, and so of the Minister, that the standard of farming is going to be improved, and that production is going to be improved. That is an impossible thing for an applicant to prove, unless it so happens that he is a well-known farmer in the same county. Otherwise it is impossible to prove. How are your committee to sit and deal with this enormous number of cases? They cannot do it. You are going to ask your committee of twelve in every county of Great Britain to saddle themselves voluntarily with an immense burden. You are placing upon them a burden which requires to be shared—and there are many members of this House who do share it and who will know exactly what I am talking about. You are going to make that burden such that it will be veritably the last straw that will break the camel's back. It cannot be done.
For the very salvation of your agriculture executive committees, I appeal to you to allow this Amendment. It will relieve them of an immense burden of work and it will relieve them of the most odious decisions. How are they to decide these matters impartially? It is asking too much. They cannot determine these matters which you are trying to make them determine; it is beyond their capacity to deal with so large a number
678
of matters. If you want your agricultural committees to function well, you must confine them to their proper job, which is the improving of the standard of farming in Great Britain. That is what they are constituted for; that is how they can best serve the country, and not by making these meticulous decisions as to who should and who should not be permitted to enter into occupation of the land. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, offered us the minimum concession. If you are dealing with a principle so deep and so fundamental as this, how can you fob it off by making a concession to persons who acquire their interest before a certain date? How do you know that there will not be another war, and that the same reasons will not arise that now make you wish to give a concession to the ex-Service men of the last war? Is this Bill going to be torn up because there is another war—which heaven forbid? No. I think if you are going to put provisions like this in a Bill, you must make them apply to all equally.
I have spoken all too long, but I feel very strongly on this matter. I would like to end where I began. Do not let us pretend to ourselves that this is an expedient which has application only to security of tenure. It goes far deeper than that. I would not like to sit down and let it be thought that I had no sympathy with the tenant who, through no fault of his own, had to be turned out of his farm in order to make room for his landlord, or his landlord's son. Obviously, it is a hard case. It would be wrong of me, standing in my place in your Lordships' House, to argue this matter solely from the standpoint of the landowner. I should be ashamed to do so. But if we admit that the landlord's priority is the priority—and we cannot get away from that—then we ought to be ready to make concessions to meet the hard case of the farmer who has to give way to that priority. Why not agree amongst ourselves that a farmer given notice in such circumstances should be paid a degree of compensation ranging higher than that which applies to an ordinary case? It would be a matter of common justice and, although I am qualified to speak for but a few, I do know that there is an opinion held strongly by leaders of the agricultural community, in the landowning interest, that that would be a fair and proper thing to do. I would go one step further than that. You

679
must have a guarantee that the landowner is not crippling the man who wishes to evict his tenant in order to occupy his own land. In a short space of time he may sell it and derive the advantage from vacant possession. You have got to guard against that. There would be no reason whatsoever why you should not put a time limit to the period which he must guarantee to occupy that farm if he wishes to take it over and get the Minister's consent to the removal of his tenant. That is a condition which I throw out as a suggestion, which would make it easier for farmers' representatives to realize that landowners are not in this matter greedy, but are merely wishing for justice for themselves and their tenants. I would wish to support with the greatest strength I can—indeed, I have—the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. I apologize to your Lordships for the length of time I have taken in putting forward my point of view, and thank you for your consideration in allowing me to speak for so long.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I have listened with great respect, interest and patience to every word that has been uttered in the Committee stage upon this Bill. I have listened with profound admiration to the logic and clarity with which the noble Lord who has just sat down has advanced every argument I have heard him advance up to now. But I was shocked when the noble Lord claimed—and challenged contradiction—the priority of the fundamental right of the owner over the tenant.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I must have misunderstood the noble Lord.
LORD HASTINGS: Not at all.
Lord LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Does he mean—I only ask this for clarification—that the owner has the right to disregard any agreement which he has entered into with his tenant?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD HASTINGS: Forgive me—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: You can answer me completely later. I will just go on, if I may.
LORD HASTINGS: By all means.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: In spite of the fact that the noble Lord's supporters are quite sure I have not misunderstood him, I want to know quite clearly what the noble Lord really means by "the fundamental right of the owner over the tenant." I understood him to say that, disregarding everything, if the owner wanted to place his son in a farm which he owned, he could get out a sitting tenant, irrespective of whether that tenant was a good man, and even if he farmed the land to the best possible advantage; that there was a fundamental priority whereby at any time the owner wanted that land, irrespective of any agreement he had with the tenant, he could apply for an eviction order. The noble Lord can correct me if I am wrong.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Lord is correct in everything he said about what I said except in one important particular. I did not say "irrespective of any agreement."
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Lord will forgive me. He did not mention that.
LORD HASTINGS: No. I think it is well known to everybody concerned with agriculture that every tenant is in occupation of a farm subject to certain conditions of legal notice; that where the owner wishes to exercise what I repeat is the fundamental right of occupying the land he owns, he would be under legal obligation to give to that tenant not less than one year's notice and to pay him the compensation which is due to him under the 1923 Act and which will be due to him under this Bill.
LORD LUCAS of CHILWORTH: I am very grateful to the noble Lord. What he now means to say, if I understand him correctly, is that an owner should be able to make application for notice to quit with a year's notice if he wants the farm for the benefit of his family, irrespective of the quality of farming which has been done by the tenant.
LORD HASTINGS: That is correct.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Of course, that raises the whole subject of security of tenure. It is not only a problem which is troubling the agricultural world, but is a problem which is causing

681
trouble to industry as a whole. Has the working man to-day too much security of tenure? Has the tenant-farmer too much security of tenure under this Bill? It is the same thing. Is it right that an employer should be able to tap a workman on the shoulder and say: "I will give you the sack in an hour," irrespective of whether he is a good workman or whether he is not? Is it right that the owner of a farm should be able to tap the tenant on the shoulder and say: "I am going to give you a year's notice whether you are a goad farmer or not"?
LORD HASTINGS: Yes.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Whether it is a fundamental right of the owner so to do, or whether it is a fundamental right of the employer so to do, the noble Lord will at least grant me that it is a matter of opinion. But it is one which we shall have to settle in every stratum of every industry as to what is the rightful security of tenure to be given, not only to the tenant, but to the worker if he does his job correctly. I would not go all the way with the noble Lord in perpetuating a curse in industry where good honest men who have worked a long time have had to give way at a moment's notice to the son of the owner.
I think my noble friend Lord Huntingdon has made a very generous gesture. In effect he has admitted to some degree the rightness of the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and he has said: "I am prepared to accept this in so far as the past is concerned." The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, only brought in the war as an example, but he has said—and he will correct me if I have misunderstood him—"I am prepared to accept the noble Lord's argument in so far as the past is concerned, but any purchaser of any land in the future after this Bill becomes an Act will at least have purchased that land with his eyes open. Therefore, he cannot pray in aid in the future the same conditions as operated in the past."
LORD HASTINGS: Inheritance, I would remind you.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I presume that the farm is at present in the ownership of the owner, so that is the past. If I am right in what the noble Lord said I cannot see that he has anything at which to cavil. I know there can he arguments
682
pro and con, and I do not suppose the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and I would ever agree upon the priority of the fundamental right of the owner over the tenant. That does, I confess, savour to me of the good old feudal system.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD LUCAS of CHILWORTH: I am quite at liberty to say that, just as the noble Lord is at liberty to say that it is a fundamental priority. I respect his point of view, but I do not think there is a cast-iron argument to put forward as to whether this Bill as at present drafted gives too much priority to the tenant or whether it gives too little. That must always be a matter of opinion, but I think what we have to decide in the interests of efficient farming, in the interests of the community as a whole, and in the interests of carrying out the purposes set out in Part I of this Bill, is whether the security of tenure given by Clause 31 is reasonable in all those circumstances. I think the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, has met the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, in a very fair and square manner.
VISCOUNT WIMBORNE: I will not detain your Lordships for more than a moment or two on this Amendment which we, have discussed very fully, but I do wish to support it. I personally agree with every word which has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, who moved the Amendment. I have two main reasons for supporting it. What we want in agriculture to-day are capital and young men. I am rather afraid that this clause, unless it is amended, will make it very difficult to get either. I do not think that the noble Lord who has just sat down, as a man of great business experience, would like to lock up his capital in the agricultural industry to-day. It is rather like putting your head into a noose and we would perhaps lose him as a valuable recruit to this industry. On the other hand, it seems you are going to get a certain stagnation. I do not see, under the Bill as it stands, how a young man who starts perhaps as a milkman is going to work up and eventually own a farm. For those two reasons I hope we can get some sort of Amendment to this clause.
I support the noble Duke on this matter. I personally have had no evidence that the average tenant farmer is unhappy and insecure to-day. I refuse to

683
accept that. No farmer has ever told me so, and I am perfectly certain that anybody who knows anything about agriculture at all knows that it is not true. There is one other point I would like to make and that is with regard to the home farm. The home farm is a traditional link between the landlord and tenant as the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said. You may get a position now where for some reason or other the home farm has had to be let. Are you going to deny to the landowner, who may have been there for many generations, the right to take back his own home farm? If you do I think you are going to smash the landlord and tenant system. That may be a good thing, but about that I do not know. However, that is what is going to happen. For those reasons I should like to support the noble Lord in his Amendment. I am not sure about the compromise the noble Lord offered, because I think you create two classes of landlords. The favoured ones who had their land before the war and those we want to attract to the land now. With those few words I would like to support the Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think we are all agreed that we have had a full and extremely useful debate on this Amendment, which stands at the very heart of this Bill. It is perhaps inevitable, in the case, of an Amendment which raises such deep issues and deep principles, that we have tended to wander just a little away from what the Amendment really sets out to do. But before I deal with that point I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, a question. He was speaking as if we were asking for the landowner advantages that the rest of the community do not enjoy. He says that the principle has to be examined in every stratum of industry. We should be quite prepared to have that examination. I would ask the noble Lord how he would like to buy the freehold of a motor sales business which had been let to a tenant whose tenancy was at an end—because there is no question of breaking a tenancy agreement—and then having done so, have an Act of Parliament come down and impose immense new obligations on him not only for repair but for the provision—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Comparisons are always odious, and I
684
cannot think of one more odious than this: or, rather, there is no comparison at all. I will grant to the noble Earl great knowledge of the farming world, but he shows a lamentable lack of the knowledge of industry.
EARL DE LA WARR: I was not going to enter upon this matter of comparisons unless the noble Lord had done it himself. You do not have to know anything about the motor industry to know something of the leasehold system.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The leasehold system has been one of the biggest curses, whether it is in property or anything else, in this country for years and years.
EARL DE LA WARR: I really cannot follow the noble Lord, since we are now discussing the simple question of how His Majesty's Government shall compulsorily continue the leasehold system in a very special form. We are going rather far away. This Amendment prevents the landowner from obtaining occupation of his own land without the Minister's consent—mark that: this is subject to the Minister's consent. All that the noble Lord is suggesting is that the Minister shall not be allowed to use his discretion, no matter how strong the case may seem to him, to give the landowner consent to get possession of his own land for the purpose of farming it. Let us be quite clear; that is the point that we in fact are discussing.
I cannot add much to what has already been said so excellently by my noble friends on this side, but it must be obvious to the noble Earl that there is a very strong feeling on this side of the Committee that the landowner is being driven, by legislation against his will, into the position of being a mere rent receiver. I speak as one who believes that the landowner is an infinitely better landowner by virtue of having a bit of farming to do, of having something of the risks of farming, and of his tenants knowing that. There may be noble Lords who disagree, but I feel that it is almost a function of the landowner to have a bit of land himself and to farm it. Incidentally, there are many estates to-day that can be maintained only by virtue of the profit that the landowner can make out of his farming operations. Nobody would pretend that it is possible to-day to

685
maintain an agricultural estate as a private investment unless there are some very special conditions attaching to the estate.
From the point of view of the general industry, not only of the landowner but also of the tenant and the worker, the whole tendency of this legislation is to over-stabilize the industry; and over-stabilize it, I believe, in favour of the mediocre. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, quite legitimately spoke only of the possible disturbance to "A" farmers. I do not believe that the risks of the "A" farmer under out present landowning system is one half of one per cent. It is there in theory, but it is not happening. Nor do I think we need concern ourselves with the "C" farmer, because he can be dealt with under other provisions of this Bill. The man whose position you are to stabilize is the "B" farmer, the man who is not bad enough to be turned out because of bad farming but whose farming it would be easy to improve from the point of view of the country. Either you are going to over-stabilize the position or you are going to stabilize what I believe to be a blackmail value in the occupancy of land.
There is a real danger of creating something like a land monopoly here, not in the case of the landowner, but in the case of the tenant who knows that he cannot virtually, in any circumstances, be displaced. It means that in getting possession of land you are going to have large premiums paid. I have seen the practice quite lately in certain estates—and it seems to me a very bad practice—of allowing the tenant to sell out lock, stock and barrel. In fact it means that the tenant virtually disposes of that farm and settles its new possessor according to how large a price he is able to extort from an incoming farmer for his stock. It is a pernicious system which allows the man who is not the best farmer to obtain possession of land, and which frequently saddles a new man with a heavy burden of over-capitalization. That is what will happen under this Bill. You are going to turn the landowner into a rent receiver, to over-stabilize the position of the second-rate farmer, and give him virtually a monopoly value in his land. How is a new man to get in? The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, told us about his engineer friend. I should like to know from the
686
noble. Earl how he thinks his engineer friend is ever going to get in except by hanging about waiting for tenancies to fall vacant due to death. Every one of us can think of the names of some of the best farmers to-day who have introduced new ideas influencing farming for the last fifteen or twenty years. They are men who come in to the industry from outside, buying land and risking something for their ideas, and frequently we who come of the land have for five or ten years thought them crazy; and then we have begun to see what they were doing. All this will be stopped by this system.
The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, has suggested an Amendment to me, but it is extremely difficult to discuss an Amendment that in fact we have not seen. I can only say, speaking for myself, that at first sound I did not like the look of it. It is quite helpful to some of us who were on our land before the war to feel that we are to have an exception made in our favour, and that we are to be in a permanent privileged position. But I cannot feel that the Committee would be properly fulfilling their function if they said that they would take advantage of something like that, and then have these two classes of landowners—those of us who owned our land before the war, and these unfortunate men who came into the industry later. Therefore I must say, speaking for myself, that I do not like the smell of the Amendment; but, of course, we are in the hands of the Committee.
My inclination would be to suggest that we should see on Report what it really is that the Minister proposes, and then to consider the whole question again. I do not know whether that advice would appeal to your Lordships, but I think if we do withdraw our Amendment, or if the noble Lord is prepared to withdraw his Amendment—I do not know whether or not he is—we should make it clear that the whole question is kept open for an equally full and frank discussion on Report and that we keep our hands absolutely free to insert this or any other Amendment that we may desire on Report.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, appealed to me at the end of his remarks, perhaps I may be permitted to give a little advice to the Committee. This is, of course, a difficult Amendment for both

687
sides of the House, because it touches on what really is the most controversial part of the Bill. For the first time in our discussion of this measure, which is not a very easy measure for some of us, I did detect with interest some signs of heat arising in the House. I do myself feel that on practical grounds the arguments for the Amendment are very strong. As I think the noble Duke, the Duke of Rutland, said, everybody in the last thirty or forty years has concentrated on criticizing the absentee landlord. It has been common ground—not limited to noble Lords opposite and their Party; we do not like the man who does not know about his land and the way the land should be farmed.
Perhaps it is fair to say that landlords of that class have been unfairly criticized in that way. I think that the majority of landlords do know about their land and there are outstanding cases of men—Coke of Norfolk, for instance—who are some of the greatest pioneers of farming in this country. I think it is true, however, that during the last century there has come about a tendency for estate management to be slightly divorced from the actual practice of farming. That was a very bad tendency, as I think will be agreed by everybody. Fortunately, the movement is at present in the other direction. I know of, and you have seen, some of the younger members of this House who are obviously people who are farming practically their own land; I could quote a great many other cases of the same kind if there were time to do so. There is a definite and enthusiastic movement of landowners to practise farming, to learn for themselves, so as to be able to assist both themselves and their tenants. One would have thought that that was a movement to which the Government ought to give every impetus, but I do not think an impetus is given to it in this Bill, and I think the purpose of this Amendment is to facilitate that impetus.
Going into the reasons why there has been this remarkable change, I would say that it is partly because the distribution of the yield on capital in agriculture is much more unsatisfactory than it is in most other industries. I think I should be right in saying that in most industries the profit on capital is distributed equitably between the various classes of
688
those who have lent that capital; if a profit is increased they all reap the benefit of that increase. But in agriculture that has not been true in recent years. Of course, any suggestion that the landlord is a blood-sucker is certainly inaccurate; on the other hand, the yield which the landowner receives on the capital invested is infinitely smaller than the yield which is given by the other sections of the agricultural industry. A landlord who receives 2 per cent. on his land does extremely well. During the last war years, when agriculture has had the most profitable period that it has had for a long time, in a great number of cases landlords have had no increases of rent at all, and, of course, they have been far more heavily taxed than in the past.
That is the situation of the landlord and of the owner of the estate; and it is an utterly uneconomic situation. A number of these landlords have felt, apart from their natural interest in the subject, that the only way of maintaining the estates of which they are the trustees—and after all, a life tenant is merely a trustee of his estate—is to take over a number of farms and to get what is the fair yield on profit on the working of the industry. From the point of view of stabilizing the position in the countryside, I would say that enabling the estate to be properly managed, giving all the people who live on that estate a fair chance, and all the things that can be facilitated when a landlord enters on to his land as a practical farmer, are all strong arguments. They are practical arguments and not controversial, and I do not think that this afternoon they have been dealt with at all fairly by the Government. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, in his reply, put forward a proposition which I understood was to deal with the son who comes back from the war; it deals with hardly anyone else. Of course, that is a mere fleabite in dealing with a problem of this size but my feeling is that we have had an important debate and a full debate, and I think it is conceivable that we have put into the minds of the supporters of the Government certain aspects of this very real difficulty of which they have not been so conscious before.
It is so difficult a question that I think I should not be justified in advising noble Lords on this side to go to a Division unless the thing had been fully brought out. I would suggest to the noble Lords

689
on this side of the House that the Government should be given a further opportunity to consider all that has been said this afternoon. It may be that the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, and the Minister may be able to make some concession, but, anyway, they would have another week or fortnight to consider what has been said by practical experts in this House. If the noble Earl will report to the Minister what has been said, and give the matter further consideration—I cannot ask him to do more than that—I think the Committee would be wise to postpone its decision until the Report stage.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: We have had an extremely interesting debate on a subject which, as the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition, has just called to mind, does touch on the fundamentals and, unfortunately, goes right into the most controversial part of this Bill. In view of what the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition, has said, I do not wish to go into and answer all the points which have been made, because it would take a. long time to do so. But they have been extremely constructive and interesting points. On some of them we disagree and there are others on which we agree. I would like to make it quite clear, so that no misunderstanding can exist, what we can and what we cannot do; to say just how far we can go. If anything, I would add to the offer which I have already made. I suggested that we might make this proposed Amendment in respect of the time before the war. I think now that we could make it up to the time of the passing of the Bill. It would not cause greater hardship but less, because it would not be limited to an heir or children. It would cover any purpose which the landlord had in mind, and that is, I think, a very wide field.
In regard to what the noble Marquess has said, I certainly will report the matter to the Minister, and if finally, after consideration with members of the Opposition the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, would agreed to the withdrawal of his Amendment, we would put down an Amendment on the lines which I have suggested for the Report stage.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Before the Committee decides what is best to be done with this Amendment there are one or two things I would like to say which
690
arise out of the lengthy and important debate which we have had upon it. In my view this matter strikes at the fundamentals of agricultural life in this country. First of all I would refer to what the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, said in the early stages of the debate. He laid considerable stress on the question of having efficient farmers and of efficiency generally. I believe that he was thinking in the narrow terms of efficiency as envisaged in this Bill. I would like to make it clear—and I hope he will bear this in mind—that when I was speaking on the Amendment I had in mind the efficiency of agriculture as a whole, and not efficiency in the narrow sense of using some particular piece of land to the best advantage. I was thinking of the wellbeing and of the efficiency of agriculture as a whole, and not in any other and narrower sense.
I would also like to say, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that under this Amendment the landlord does not seek anything that is outside the law or outside the agreements which he has with his tenants to-day. He does not seek rights even as great as those which he had before the war. He is not seeking to be hard on his tenants in any sense whatsoever. In that connexion, I feel that too much emphasis has been laid on the danger of the "A" farmer being turned out of his farm. The landlord who owns land on which there are a number of farms, in my experience—and it is fairly wide—is not going to turn out an "A" farmer and put himself in. He is a fool if he does and he deserves to get into trouble with his county agricultural committee. The only man who is going to turn out an "A" farmer is an owner of land who owns one farm and who, probably for good reason, has need to farm that land himself. That is the only case I can think of. It would come about probably because there was a very sound reason for it. Therefore I submit that we should not make too much of the suggestion that an "A" or good farmer is likely to be turned out of his farm.
I appreciate that in my Amendment there is a danger of speculation coming in. But equally, without some such Amendment, there is the danger which has been referred to by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr—that is the danger of what I prefer to call a black market in vacant possession. You will have

691
people coming along and saying: "Look here, my dear fellow, I will give you two or three years' rent if you will give me notice." You will get that kind of black market, and I am certain that His Majesty's Government do not wish to encourage anything of that sort. In my view the danger of such a black market is greater than the danger of speculation. I know something of the danger of speculation. As a liaison officer, I had, if I may so put it, one foot inside the Ministry door during the war, and I saw that the dangers of speculation (often for reasons not unconnected with military service) were far greater then than in peacetime. With regard to the proposals of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, as I understood it he made the suggestion that he would concede that land bought before the war would entitle the owner to apply for permission to serve a notice to quit to permit of occupation for any purpose, and, of course, he said, it was in the Minister's discretion to grant that or not. I am not quite certain how much the word "bought" covers—whether it means actually bought or acquired.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: May I just make it clear to the noble Lord that it means "owned," whether inherited, acquired or bought.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Owned before the war? I understand; that makes it quite clear. The noble Earl now suggests that the date should be altered to that of the commencement of the operation of this Bill when it becomes an Act. For that further concession may I say that I thank him very much indeed. I am grateful to him for going so far as he has gone. I still think, though, that it touches only the fringe of the subject. As has been said, it divides landowners into two classes, one class of which is a disappearing class, because human beings do die occasionally. In due course the first class of landowner, those who acquired, inherited or bought their land before the passing of the Bill will die, and their heirs will take over and will go automatically into the second class. So it only slows up the process of slow strangulation of the landowner which I mentioned when I opened the debate on this subject.
692
I am wondering whether the noble Earl, when he gives the matter further consideration, will consider those who inherit their land as also being eligible for inclusion. Continuity is something which is of great importance in the countryside, and to stop that continuity abruptly by Act of Parliament will do a great deal of harm. If the noble Earl can give us some hope of widening the scope of his Amendment a little, I will be prepared to follow the suggestion of the noble Marquess that my Amendment should be withdrawn in order that we might see the noble Earl's proposals on the Paper. We hope that they may be put on the Paper in plenty of time for our consideration. Then if necessary, if we are not satisfied, I shall put this Amendment down again on the Report stage; and I hope that, without quite such a long debate, we shall then have the necessary Division and put the Amendment into the Bill.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I shall be very pleased to follow out the suggestion of the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Then, if your Lordships are willing, in the circumstances I am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.39 P.m.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS had given Notice of an Amendment to insert in subsection (3):
"(e) that the notice to quit is or is proposed to be given with a view to the holding or the part thereof to which the notice relates being farmed either by the landlord or by a child or grandchild of his."
The noble Lord said: Except that it is a little less generous to illegitimate children this Amendment is the same Amendment as that which has just been withdrawn. I would remind the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, that I have this Amendment on the Paper, and that whatever anyone else may do I propose to put it back there on the Report stage. For the moment I will, of course, beg leave of the Committee not to proceed with it now, but in no circumstances will I subordinate my rights in this matter to anyone else.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE had given notice of an Amendment to leave out Clause 31. The noble Earl said: I put down this Amendment only to give the Government

693
an opportunity of saying what are the relations between landlord and tenant. We have had a very general discussion on the whole aspect. I certainly could not say it as well as the noble Lords, the Earl of Radnor and Lord Hastings, who have put the case. The Government have had their opportunity and I do not think they have taken it. I therefore will not move my Amendment.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 32, 33 and 34 agreed to.
Clause 35:
Variation of rent of holdings.
(3) A reference to arbitration under subsection (I) of this section shall not be demanded in such circumstances that any increase or reduction of rent made in consequence thereof would take effect as from a date earlier than the expiration of three years from any of the following dates, that is to say—

(a) the commencement of the tenancy, or

(b) the date as from which there took effect a previous increase or reduction of rent (whether made under this section or otherwise), other than an increase under subsection (4) of this section or such an increase as is referred to in proviso (i) to that subsection, or

(c) the date as from which there took effect a previous direction of an arbitrator under this section that the rent should continue unchanged.

5.41 p.m.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (3), to leave out all words after "otherwise." The noble Lord said: I have been asked to move this Amendment, with which I include the next. The first is merely to lead to the second and perhaps it would be for your Lordships' convenience if I were to explain the second. The purpose of the two Amendments is to deal with the case where a tenant farmer is to be deprived of part of his holding and as a result there is a proportionate reduction in the rent. This may happen either as a result of a notice to quit from the landlord coming within the provisions of Section 27 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, or as a result of the Minister dispossessing an occupier of part of his holding under the provisions of Clause 17 of the Bill. In either case there would be a proportionate reduction in the rent of the holding.
This, however, will not be the fixing of a new rent for the bit of holding with which the occupier is left. All that will
694
happen will be, broadly speaking, an apportionment of the existing rent as between the two parts of the holding, the part with which the occupier is left and the part which has been taken from him. Since, in both cases, the reduction in the rent is nothing more or less than an apportionment of the rent, it clearly should not count for the purpose of Clause 35 and prevent any further arbitration on rent taking place within three years. Paragraph (ii) of the Second Amendment, which is to go at the end of subsection (3), provides that any reduction of rent under Clause 17 of the Bill, or under Clause 27 of the 1923 Act, shall be disregarded for the purpose of Clause 35. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 17, leave out from ("otherwise") to ("or") in line 19.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: I beg to move the second Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 22, at end insert—
("Provided that there shall be disregarded for the purposes of this subsection—

(i) any increase of rent under subsection (4) of this section or any such increase as is referred to in proviso (i) to that subsection,

(ii) any reduction of rent under subsection (6) of Section seventeen of this Act or under Section twenty-seven of the Act of 1923,

(iii) any other variation of rent which under the following provisions of this Act is directed to be disregarded for the purposes of this subsection.").—(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36:
Variation of terms of tenancy as to permanent pasture.
36.—(1) Where under the contract for a tenancy of a holding, whether created before or after the commencement of this Part of this Act, provision is made for the maintenance of specified land, or a specified proportion of the holding, as permanent pasture, and it appears to the Minister, either on the application of the landlord or the tenant or otherwise,—
the Minister may, after affording to the landlord and to the tenant an opportunity of making representations to the Minister, whether in writing or on being heard by a person appointed by the Minister, direct that the contract of tenancy shall have effect subject to such modifications of the provisions

695
thereof as to land which is to be maintained as permanent pasture or is to be treated as arable land, and as to cropping, as appear to the Minister expedient as aforesaid and are specified in the direction.
5.45 p.m.
LORD HAZLERIGG LORD HAZLERIGG moved, in subsection (I), after "aforesaid," to insert "having regard to the character and situation of the farm and to all other relevant factors." The noble Lord said: This Amendment in the name of myself and Lord Ashburton has to do with the ploughing of permanent pasture. There are so many different sorts of permanent pasture that it may be as well to put in the words which we suggest— "having regard to the character and situation of the farm and to all other relevant factors." I do not think it is a very contentious Amendment. No one is more in favour of ploughing out bad or even second-class pasture than I am. I come from a county where there is a lot of good permanent pasture, feeding land, and I have seen the disastrous effect of having a field, or sometimes part of a feeding field, ploughed up. There was the instance of a forty-acre field, twenty acres of which were scheduled for ploughing up. This land was in an impossible position, quite away from roads, and the rest of the field had to remain in permanent pasture.
During the war one could not complain very much about people doing hasty and ill-advised things, because one knew they were always being urged towards quantity of ploughing up and not quality of farming, but now we are going to have quality of farming, and we do not always need to have quite the same quantity of arable. I think we can produce from certain parts of the country a great deal more for the nation as a whole if we leave some of the permanent pasture. You will see the difficulty when you come to reseed the twenty acres of which I have spoken. That is a very uneconomical thing to do. It is a very costly business and it is very difficult to graze the two parts of the field together and always puts a great strain on the farmer who has to do it. If a little consideration could be given when any such order is going to be made and the Minister would see that whoever is sent down to look at the land took into consideration the whole aspect of a farm and all the relevant factors, it would be very useful. Although
696
I have very little doubt now it would be done, it seems to me to be a very wise thing to have such a provision in the Bill.
I ask your Lordships to remember the way they sampled in the past. I have seen a man of very great reputation come down to a field of old permanent pasture and with a spade dig up two or three sods and say that this was a likely place for growing potatoes. If he had seen potatoes being lifted a year later, with one pound of potatoes and a half a pound of good Leicestershire clay, he might not have been so pleased with it. I think we should give consideration in future where the best feeding land is ploughed up, if any more is to be ploughed up. I regard the people who talk about ploughing up really good feeding land as genial lunatics. I have asked the gentlemen keen on ploughing up pasture land if any of the factors could be mentioned by which this best served agricultural economy, and I have persuaded the financial committee of the Royal Agricultural Society to give £1,000 for experiment on that. So far we have never had any report which dealt with economy at all. I am sure that in future the present Minister will think about economy and the way we ought to manage our land. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 3, after ("aforesaid") insert ("having regard to the character and situation of the farm and to all other relevant factors").— (Lord Hazlerigg.)
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I hope and confidently believe that the noble Earl will be able to meet the reasonable request which is put down by my noble friend Lord Hazlerigg. May I say, in passing, that no one could be better fitted by location and experience to move such an Amendment as this, because the county from which he comes, Leicestershire, is famous throughout the whole world as having the finest permanent pasture to be found anywhere in the United Kingdom, including a large amount of land which is capable of feeding a bullock to the acre.
LORD HAZLERIGG: A bullock and a half.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: A bullock and a half—all the better. And, of course, it produces what some people regard as the finest cheese in the United

697
Kingdom, Stilton cheese, which is a Leicestershire product and has nothing whatever to do with the town of Stilton. I am a fervent advocate of ley farming, and I am perfectly certain that a large proportion of permanent pasture could be usefully improved in productive capacity by being periodically turned over and put in herbage and cultivable crops. But there are exceptions and I feel that there is a real danger of the ley farming idea being carried to excess by over-enthusiastic county agricultural committees. For that reason, and particularly because Lord Hazlerigg has moved it from the county of Leicester, I venture to hope that the noble Earl will see his way to make a concession in this respect.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I feel great diffidence in talking on this Amendment when two such eminent agriculturists as the noble Lord, Lord Hazlerigg, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, have introduced this Amendment and powerfully attracted us towards its acceptance. With regard to the principle of agriculture, I certainly would not venture to disagree at all that there is a difficulty about this Amendment. There is one point in particular upon which I should like to express a difference of opinion. As the noble Lords know, we are basing our policy very much on the competence of the new committees. These men, after all, will be chosen from panels representing different sides of the industry and they will be thoroughly good farmers; we hope, in fact, that they will be the very best that the industry can provide. Such a jury would obviously take all relevant factors into account; they would have to. Certainly we intend that they should.
Where the difficulty lies is in the words "having regard to the character and situation of the farm." It is a very limiting phrase and there are cases in which we feel that it would limit the Minister's power very considerably. It might be right that some pasture should be changed. Some cases might be brought to support the noble Lord's argument, but on balance we think that it would be unwise to limit the Minister's powers to the extent proposed by this Amendment. As the noble Lord says, it is not a very far-reaching or important thing, and, in view of that, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD ROCHE: I would not venture to interfere as an agriculturist, but I should like as one who is supposed to have been a lawyer to remind the noble Earl that the Minister would not be limited at all because of the concluding words: having regard "to all other relevant factors." The effect of the Amendment is to point out that there is one that they should assent to, although they need not shut their eyes to all the relevant circumstances. It is for that reason that I think the noble Earl is giving nothing away, and I would ask him to accept this Amendment which, for the reasons advocated by the two noble Lords who have spoken in support of it—who do, at any rate, understand agriculture—might be very useful.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think we are agreed that the noble Lord, Lord Hazlerigg, put up a most convincing case on this Amendment. It is perfectly true that it is not a fundamental principle, but so far as I can see the burden of quite half of the noble Earl's remarks is that the committees are wise and skilled people—I am inclined to agree with that—and that they will view the interests with considerations such as these. If that is so, why not put it in the Bill? For the ninety-nine wise there is always one unwise man; this Amendment will not hurt the ninety-nine and it might have some effect in restraining the influence of the one.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: As the noble Lord has suggested, there is the legal aspect of it to be considered. I do not pretend to have any great knowledge of the legal niceties of the point, but if it is true that the legal factor cancels out the effect of the words "having regard to the character and situation of the farm," I do not really see the value of the Amendment. If, on the other hand, having regard to those words it is an important factor, then it is such a limitation that it would be unwise to put the words into the Bill.
LORD ASHBURTON: Surely, there is a point there. The limiting factor, first of all, is the character of the farm. This Amendment is designed to draw the Minister's or the committee's attention to that. Having given consideration to this point from that angle, they can, if they like, override that consideration by using

699
the "relevant factors"; but at least it has brought the matter to their attention, and that was the object of the Amendment. After all, this is one of the few places where the Minister is receiving absolutely no guidance as to his decisions. He can have the tenant up and listen to him, and he can have the landlord up and listen to him; and he could, if he wanted to, if I may use the expression, spin a halfpenny on his desk to see to whom he should give the land. Surely, it is not asking very much to have a simple Amendment of this kind put into the Bill. I very much support my noble friend Lord Hazlerigg in his request.
LORD HAZLERIGG: May I just say that this Amendment is phrased so that it should be a pointer to encourage the wisdom of anyone who was unwise "having regard to the character and situation of the farm," and to point out to him what he should consider? As the noble Lord who talked so learnedly about the law said, the words "and all other relevant factors" were put in so that it would not bind the Minister. I am not going to press it, but I would like him to accept it.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I cannot understand why the Government will not accept this Amendment. After all, the committees ought to have something to guide them. We know very well that during the First World War and during this last World War grass was turned up in cases where it was absolutely fatal, because when they turned it up the land grew nothing; and it took ages to get it back to pasture. I am speaking for my part of the country, and what happened there no doubt happened in other parts of the country. If that is the case, why not give guidance to the committees as to what should influence them in their determination of whether or not they shall turn up grass? I think that they ought to have guidance and, as the noble Lord said just now, as they are left they might take a halfpenny, toss it up and say: "Heads I am going to do this and tails I am not." There is nothing to guide them. I cannot see why in the interests of good agricultural economy the Government should regard this as a limiting factor rather than as a factor which will be an influence for the good of agriculture.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I wonder if the noble Viscount would suggest, to carry his argument to its logical conclusion, that, because in some cases permanent pastures have been ploughed up during the war, we should never have embarked on our policy of growing more on arable farms.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I do not make that suggestion at all. I entirely agree that lands ought to have been turned up in many parts of the country for the purpose—even to the extent of procuring a smaller return on that land; but in many cases land which ought never to have been turned up was turned up, and there was practically no agricultural result from it, only a destruction of pasture land. I am sorry the noble Earl interprets my words to mean that I do not believe in any turning up at all. That is quite a different matter, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, remarked in the course of his speech.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I am sorry if I have misinterpreted the noble Viscount but at the time that seemed to be the trend of his argument. There are, I think, two factors which come into this. What we are worried about is that there may be cases where permanent pasture might have to be destroyed.
EARL DE LA WARR: There have been.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: In other words, the logical conclusion of noble Lords' argument is really that they have no confidence in the personnel of the committees.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD HAZLERIGG: I never said such a thing.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I did not say that you did.
LORD HAZLERIGG: I do not believe any of us think that. I hope the new agricultural committees will be even better than the old ones. We have a very good one now, having sacked a lot of the original members, and probably this new one will function very well.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I did not intend to suggest that the noble Lord said they were bad. I said the trend of the argument might be a dispute over the facts. I can assure noble Lords that the

701
committees will have instructions to look thoroughly into the matter and take into account all relevant factors. But we cannot put that into the Bill.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Why not?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Because it would limit much too strongly the Minister's power in certain circumstances.
LORD COURTHOPE: Would the noble Earl give an assurance to the Committee that the committees will not issue instructions demanding that definite acreages should be ploughed? That is what did the harm before. There was a demand for several thousand acres from such and such a county, and pasture land was ruined in that way. If the noble Earl will give us an assurance that the Minister of the future will not demand acreages on paper the danger will be minimized to some extent.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I do not think I can give an assurance to bind Ministers of the future. Governments come and go, and Ministers may change. Obviously we would instruct committees to take into account all relevant factors.
LORD HAZLERIGG: Although I am not convinced at all by the noble Earl's arguments, I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37:
Liability for repair, maintenance and insurance of fixed equipment.
(2) Where an agreement in writing relating to a tenancy of a holding, whether created before or after the commencement of this Part of this Act, effects substantial modifications in the operation of regulations under the last foregoing subsection, the landlord or the tenant of the holding may, if he has requested his tenant or landlord to vary the agreement so as to bring it into conformity with the provisions of regulations under that subsection but no agreement has been reached on the request, refer to arbitration under the Act of 1923 the terms of the tenancy with respect to the maintenance, repair and insurance of fixed equipment:
Provided that where there has been a previous reference under this subsection relating to the same tenancy, no further such reference shall be made before the expiration of three years from the coming into effect of the award of the arbitrator on the previous reference.
(3) On any reference under the last foregoing subsection the arbitrator shall consider
702
whether (disregarding the rent payable for the holding) the said modifications effected by the agreement are justifiable having regard to the circumstances of the holding; and if he determines that they are not justifiable as aforesaid, he may by his award vary the terms referred to arbitration in such manner as appears to him reasonable and just between the landlord and the tenant.
6.4 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved, in the proviso in subsection (2), after "Provided that," to insert "no such reference shall be made before the expiration of three years from the commencement of the tenancy and." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is really self-explanatory. As the clause now stands a man can sign a freely negotiated agreement to-day, and to-morrow he can decide that he wishes to have it changed, as he feels that it is substantially different from the terms for repair and maintenance which would be incorporated in the standard lease under the previous subsection. An unscrupulous man could sign a lease to which he had no intention whatsoever of keeping merely with the object either of letting a farm or getting the lease of a farm. There is also the case where you have a tenancy agreement negotiated fairly on both sides, and there is some doubt about the construction to be put on the regulations and at a later stage, or immediately afterwards, one of the parties decides that he wants to have that lease altered. I feel that in a case of a freely negotiated agreement it should be binding on both parties. All this Amendment asks for is that it should be binding for three years. I think the short point here is: Is a person's signature on a piece of paper worth the paper on which it is written? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 37, after ("that") insert the said words.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
LORD MORRISON: As the noble Lord has said, his Amendment is self-explanatory. I agree that in a large number of cases it would not be necessary, but the noble Lord himself said that there might be a case of an unscrupulous man, and it is to afford some protection against the machinations of the unscrupulous man that I am going to ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendment.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: An unscrupulous man is the person who is going to gain.
LORD MORRISON: I was hoping to convince the noble Lord that, on the contrary, if his Amendment is accepted he is giving an advantage to the unscrupulous man and enabling him to go on with his unscrupulous course of conduct for three years without any opportunity being given to the other party to do anything about it. I think the noble Lord will agree that both the landlord and the tenant will know when negotiating a tenancy agreement that either party will have the power to refer the matter to arbitration if the terms are unreasonable. As a result, both the landlord and tenant will think twice before making unreasonable demands. It seems to me very unlikely that either of the parties would wish to go to arbitration within three years after the commencement of the tenancy. If, on the other hand, one were to prevent an arbitration until three years after the commencement of the tenancy, there would be nothing to prevent either a landlord or a tenant taking advantage of the general situation with regard to the availability of farms, or other causes, to drive an unreasonable bargain with the other party, and it would not then be possible to get this altered for a period of three years. Therefore, if the noble Lord looks at his Amendment again, I think he will see that, so far from giving any protection against the unscrupulous man, he is doing just the opposite. It is because we want to prevent the unscrupulous man from getting an advantage that I would ask him not to press the Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: I find it difficult to follow the reply of the noble Lord. If he will forgive me for saying so, the brief he has just read out does not make sense; it is a complete contradiction. If neither the landlord nor the tenant is in fact likely to make application for an arbitration in three years—we all agree it would be most unreasonable if either of them did—why not put it in the Bill? I would certainly advise your Lordships that we should put it in the Bill.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: What the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, said in his answer does not really make sense. He suggested that if two parties were negotiating a lease they would both know they could not hold each other to it. I cannot conceive of letting a farm in that
704
way at all. I would remind the noble Lord that there is a provision as to the variation of the rents of holdings in an earlier clause which we have just passed, which does give a delayed period of three years, comparable to this. I would have thought it would be consistent to have this period in the clause we are now discussing.
LORD MORRISON: I will try again. I did try to make it clear, but apparently I did not succeed. This Bill, as it stands at present, is intended to provide protection in the exceptional cases that may arise, which were referred to by the noble Lord, of someone who was unscrupulous and wished to take advantage—
EARL DE LA WARR: Who, and how?
LORD MORRISON: Either one or the other—the landlord or the tenant. If the terms of the agreement are fair and reasonable, a provision allowing immediate arbitration after the commencement of the tenancy need cause no apprehension. Even if the matter is referred to arbitration the arbitrator is unlikely to alter the terms agreed upon. If, on the other hand, either the landlord or tenant has forced upon the other party unreasonable terms—
EARL DE LA WARR: How?
LORD MORRISON: I confess I am not able to answer that, but as the noble Lord who moved this Amendment referred to unscrupulous people who might do unscrupulous things, I came to the conclusion that someone would force unreasonable terms.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: With respect, I think the noble Lord who moved this Amendment was referring to the person who might apparently accept the terms of a tenancy, knowing quite well that, being unscrupulous, he was immediately going to repudiate.
LORD MORRISON: The short point I am trying to make to the noble Lord is that if there is going to be cause for asking for arbitration in three years, there may equally, in exceptional cases, be reasons for applying for arbitration in a much shorter period than three years.
EARL DE LA WARR: I cannot help feeling that the proceedings of this House will be brought into ridicule if we have answers of this character, which are

705
totally divorced from the reality of the situation or even logic. We have tried to avoid Divisions during the whole of this Committee, but I feel that we must put this Amendment in the Bill or have it looked into between now and the Report stage.
LORD HASTINGS: Might I be allowed to say one word upon this? The paragraph under discussion does lay down that if there has been a previous reference to an arbitrator there shall be no further reference before the expiration of three years; that is already provided for in the Bill. When a landlord and prospective tenant negotiate for the hire by the latter of the farm both of them are, of course, agreeing as free agents to rent at the terms of the tenancy. They are under no compulsion, and if the tenant does not like the terms when the landlord puts them on his table for him to sign, he does not sign and does not tenant the farm. If the paragraph here recognizes that it would be unreasonable for an award to be upset, or that it would be unreasonable that application for it to be upset should be made in a less period than three years, the beginning of the tenancy is, in effect, exactly the same date as the last arbitration award. I think you will have to recognize the fact that they are cycles of three years, during which the landlord or the tenant may quite properly apply to an arbitrator for a change in the terms of tenancy. But it would be most upsetting and disturbing to the whole law of land tenure if a tenant coming in to a farm and signing an agreement with his eyes open, within the space of months was to apply to an arbitrator to have it changed. It would introduce an element of instability which I think would be most disturbing. I do not think we could very well deal with it. This Amendment does not affect the principle of the Bill. It merely emphasizes in a way the principle which is already agreed by the words which are in the Bill—that is to say, the same conditions are to apply to the arbitration period after three years. It recognizes that the date of entry is one such of those periods.
THE EARL OF HALIFAX: Before the noble Earl replies, might I express a hope that he would feel able to reconsider this point between now and the Report stage. I am bound to say that I think the case which has been advanced by my noble
706
friends is one that is very difficult to meet, and certainly, with all respect, has not been met by the noble Lord who replied for the Government. Some reference has been made to intelligent men and unscrupulous men. Well the reflection which passed through my mind while that was being said was this: if men were intelligent, presumably they knew what they were signing when they made the agreement, and it is not unreasonable that you should have a period of stability for three years. If they are unscrupulous, they ought to be checked by the protection the Amendment may give.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I think what we really had in mind was this. Conditions in the farming industry change. Sometimes for example there is a great shortage of farms. It was thought that in the bargaining between the purchaser and the seller of a farm there might well be varying conditions. For instance, if there were a great shortage it might be that the tenant would agree to a price forced upon him by the general shortage of farms. Therefore, we thought that if appeal to an arbitrator was open quite soon after the purchase that fact would actually force a more reasonable standard of value.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: Does the noble Earl mean that the tenant knowingly agrees to these terms? He puts his signature to the paper and at the time he signs it he has no intention whatsoever of keeping it and intends going straight to arbitration?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: No, I do not think so. That would only be upon the question of unfair terms. I think the noble Lord would admit that no arbitrator would judge on a matter like that. He would only alter what had been agreed if he thought that some great unfairness or injustice had been done. For that reason we did want to allow arbitration in this particular case, which is quite different from the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, where if in fact an arbitrator had given his decision it would be ridiculous in six months' time to open up the whole question again That would, I admit, be completely foolish.
LORD HASTINGS: Might not the conditions have changed in the period which intervened between the first and the

707
second arbitration just as much as in the first period? Surely if there is a time limit placed between the dates when arbitration can be sought, there is no guarantee that in those three intervening years, during which the tenant cannot seek arbitration, circumstances would not have changed just as much. Was there no great change between 1939 and 1942?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: That is the whole reason for the arbitration, because circumstances may change. In this case we are not dealing with changed circumstances; we are not suggesting that. We are suggesting that the original agreement may be wrong.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: As the Bill stands are you not really holding out a temptation to a somewhat unscrupulous would-be tenant, or one who is a hard bargainer, to take a farm, enter into an agreement with the landlord upon what would appear to be mutually satisfactory terms, and then, in a comparatively short time, seek to bring the matter to arbi-
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.29 p.m.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (3), after "circumstances of the
708
tration with a view to altering those terms? That is calculated to create considerable instability and lack of confidence between landlord and tenant. If I may say so, if a three year interval is going to be agreed as between different awards, surely it should also be an agreed interval between the making of a contract and the variation of it by an award.
EARL DE LA WARR: I do suggest that we have discussed this matter sufficiently. Either the noble Earl can give us the Amendment, or he can tell us that he has not the authority to give us the Amendment, but that he would like, to put it before the Minister with a view to granting some concession on Report. I suggest that there is nothing more to argue about now.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 18.

CONTENTS.

Rutland, D.

Elibank, V.

Denham, L.

Hailsham, V.

Grenfell, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Lambert, V.

Hampton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Margesson, V.

Hastings, L.

Townshend, M.

Maugham, V.

Hatherton, L. [Teller.]

Ridley, V.

Hawke, L.

De La Warr, E.

Simon, V.

Hazlerigg, L.

Drogheda, E.

Swinton, V.

Llewellin, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Templewood, V.

Middleton, L.

Halifax, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Addington, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Onslow, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Rennell, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Ashburton, L.

Rochdale, L.

Radnor, E.

Bingley, L.

Roche, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Brand, L.

Saltoun, L.

Selkirk, E.

Butler of Mount Juliet, L.

Savile, L.

Stanhope, E.

(E. Carrick.)

Selsdon, L.

Carrington, L.

Teynham, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Cherwell, L.

Trevethin, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Cornwallis, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cowdray, V.

Courthope, L.

Wardington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Huntingdon, E.

Calverley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Chorley, L. [Teller.]

Morrison, L.

Addison, V.

Dukeston, L.

Nathan, L.

Hall, V.

Henderson, L.

Quibell, L.

St. Davids, V.

Holden, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kershaw, L.

Walkden, L. [Teller.]

Ammon, L.

Lindsay of Birker, L.

holding,"to insert "and of the landlord and the tenant." The noble Lord said: This Government Amendment was put down as a result of a promise made on Report stage in another place. Under

709
subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 37 either of the parties to a written tenancy agreement which differs substantially from the statutory maintenance and repair clause may refer the matter to arbitration. The arbitrator is required by subsection (3) to consider whether or not the modifications are justifiable "having regard to the circumstances of the holding." In doing so the arbitrator is required to disregard the rent payable for the holding.
The purpose of the Amendment is to widen to some extent the circumstances which can be pleaded to an arbitrator as justifying any modification from the statutory maintenance and repair clause. As the Bill is at present drafted those circumstances are limited to the circumstances of the holding. If noble Lords care to refer to page 40, line 2, they will see what those circumstances are. This would exclude the personal circumstances of the landlord and the tenant. It seems, desirable, however, that in this particular case the personal circumstances of the landlord or of the tenant should be taken into account since, having regard to these, it may clearly be more convenient to have a different arrangement for maintenance and repair than that laid down in the statutory maintenance and repair clause. For example, if the landlord lives a long distance from the holding, or is abroad, it may be more convenient for the tenant to bear a larger share of the maintenance and repair of the holding, subject, of course, to an appropriate reduction in the rent. For this reason the Amendment proposes to add to the circumstances which can be pleaded as justifying a substantial modification from the statutory maintenance and repair clause the personal circumstances of the landlord or the tenant.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 2, at end insert ("and of the landlord and the tenant").—(Lord Morrison.)
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I would just like to thank the noble Lord for having moved this Amendment, which is, I think, very helpful.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39:
Supplementary provisions as to Sections 37 and 38.
(5) 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.
6.33 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved, in subsection (5) to leave out "or, if the award so provides, from such later date as may be specified therein." The noble Lord said: I hope this Amendment will not be so contentious. Its object is to try to discourage arbitrators from joining those who foretell the future—something which does not work with complete success. In this clause the arbitrator has to assess the accrued liability to repair, either by the landlord or the tenant, as at the date when their liability is transferred. It would be wrong of him to back-date his award, as it would be difficult to assess dilapidations at some past date. But surely it would be almost impossible to specify the dilapidations at some future date, as any amount of additional damage, either by storm or by a thousand and one other means, might occur between the date of the arbitration and the date of the award. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 30, leave out from ("award") to end of line 32.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
LORD MORRISON: I hope I am more fortunate with the noble Lord now than I was last time. I would like him to consider this point. These arbitrators are responsible and sensible people who would be well aware of the circumstances, and they are also trustworthy people. If they decide that it is more convenient that their award should take effect as from some date subsequent to the making of the award, they will take this factor into account in assessing the compensation due from the landlord to the tenant, or vice versa. If, on the other hand, as the Amendment suggests, every award had to take effect as from the date on which it was made, it would cause considerable inconvenience to both landlord and tenant. Where there is a new written tenancy agreement, or where the liability

711
for maintenance and repair is being transferred from one party to another, it would clearly be desirable for that to take effect, if possible, from a term day: or, if this would be postponing it too long, from a suitable quarter day, otherwise one would have a new agreement or new covenant on an agreement coming into effect on dates which bear no relationship to the ordinary term days for the land.
It may be suggested that this could be overcome by the arbitrator delaying the signing of the award until the appropriate date, but this seems to me to be asking a lot of arbitrators. There is no reason why they should have a lot of half-finished jobs waiting to be signed until the right date comes along. For these reasons, it seems to me that the Amendment would result in very considerable practical inconvenience to both landlords and tenants, and that arbitrators can be trusted, in framing their awards, to avoid any of the difficulties which it may be suggested would arise if the taking of effect of an award is postponed until some time after it is made. I hope that I have convinced noble Lords that this Amendment would not be helpful either to the landlord or the tenant.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I am sorry to differ from the noble Lord. I am afraid that I am not convinced at all, because two things are clearly involved here in which the arbitrator, however sensible and however wise, could not possibly assess the damage. The first is, say, the case of a small hole in a roof. That is an example, and there are hundreds of others. A big storm comes along after he has given his award; he is post-dating it by three months, and the storm comes in the three months. The whole roof may be swept off—and I have known cases where that has happened—and it would still be due to the carelessness of one party or the other in having had the original hole. You have the other case where there is really bad blood between the two. The award is post-dated and, from that moment—supposing it is an award shall we say post-dating from Michaelmas to Christmas—it is quite possible for a tenant to back his mangel cart against the side of a building and completely knock it in. You could get really malicious damage done in that sort of way, and I think it
712
is putting the arbitrator in an absolutely impossible position if he has to foresee these two types of difficulty. There are many others, but it wants much more careful thought than that. That the arbitrator should make an award in general and then wait till the final moment to sign it would be a very much sounder way of dealing with it.
LORD ROCHE: As a lawyer I would suggest that this Amendment needs consideration from both sides of the House. I am not sure that the noble Earl who has last spoken is not under the impression that the awards of the arbitrator are general awards by way of compensation and so forth. This clause which he is seeking to amend really relates to Clauses 37 and 38, which are clauses relating to interference with agreements. There is a simple provision that, if the arbitrator sits and varies those agreements, he may make his variation date from the date of his award, or later. That is rather an advantage than otherwise. If you are going to interfere with agreements you had better interfere with them later rather than earlier.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I could not have made a better speech than the noble Lord who has just sat down, but, just to answer the particular points of the noble Earl, surely the roof question would be covered by insurance. The second question relating to mangels is a perfectly proper—
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: If I may interrupt, I have not yet seen a form of insurance which covers acts of God.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Maybe it would be covered by the Agricultural Disaster Fund; I do not know. In any case, to take the other instance, which I think is the more likely, the instance of the tenant doing malicious damage by banging his mangel cart against the building, there is a certain substance in that, but I think if it were obviously malicious damage there would be the opportunity to take the matter to court. There may be a case, on the other hand, of little subtle difficulties where bad blood really does exist, but I think it is a minor point in regard to the advantage of allowing this discretion to the arbitrator; and the idea that the arbitrator keeps his awards and piles up whole lists of them to sign at a

713
later date would be, I think, objected to, and would be very difficult in practice.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Before we leave this, may I say that I was rather struck by the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, to the effect that it would be inconvenient to have this on a fixed day instead of on a day which would probably be more suitable, such as a Quarter Day. I was wondering whether it would be possible to have words inserted here in some such form as this: at such later date being a suitable Quarter Day," so as to make clear the intention of the later date. I have in mind the difficulties which over-worked land agents might be in with the apportionment of liabilities on odd dates other than Quarter Days or half-yearly days. If what I have suggested could be inserted, I think it would be of value, and it would certainly earn the gratitude of land agents all over the country.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I think that the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has made, what is, possibly, a valuable suggestion. I cannot say more about it now but we will certainly look at this before the Report stage, if the Amendment is withdrawn, and see what can be done.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: In those circumstances, I certainly ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clauses 40 to 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Provisions as to arbitration]:
LORD MORRISON: The purpose of the first Amendment to this clause is to bring subsection (2) into line with other provisions in the Bill in anticipation of the consolidation of Part III with the Agricultural Holdings Act 1923. The effect will be that where a landlord or tenant is serving a notice of intention to make a claim that notice must be in writing. This is clearly desirable since otherwise there might be disputes as to whether or not the necessary notice had, in fact, been given. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 37, after ("notice") insert ("in writing'').—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This next Amendment is really a drafting Amendment, but if any of your Lordships desire a full explanation of it I will gladly give it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 17, leave out ("the foregoing, provisions") and insert ("subsections (2) and (3)").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: The next Amendment is a technical Amendment which is being moved in order to make it clear that when arbitrations take place under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, witnesses may be summoned to attend the hearing by means of a witness summons. Owing to subsequent legislation, some doubt on that point has arisen, and it is clearly necessary that it should be dispelled. Accordingly, this Amendment has been drawn up. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 24, at end insert—
("(7) The provisions of county court rules as to the issuing of witness summons shall, subject to such modifications as may be prescribed by such rules, apply for the purposes of any arbitration under the Act of 1923 as if it were an action or matter for the county court.").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 45 to 51 agreed to.
6.44 P.m.
Clause 52 [Letting of smallholdings]:
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, at the end of the clause to insert:
" Provided that before offering the land to any person under this subsection the authority shall secure that the person in occupation of the land at the time of its acquisition shall have an opportunity to become the tenant of the said land on terms settled with due regard to the rent payable in respect of such occupation or to the price at which the land has been acquired from him as the case may be."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is really quite a simple Amendment, and it provides for security of tenure. That, I have no doubt, will endear it to the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill. As the members of the Committee will be aware, in many cases local authorities acquire land for houses and roads and other purposes, and do not require that land immediately. It

715
is usually the custom in those circumstances to leave the occupier in possession at an agreed rent. It is suggested here that as the clause stands the land must be let at the best rent that can be got. It would surely be in the interests of the occupier that he should have the opportunity of staying on. There is a difference where the occupier has been the owner or the tenant; the difference is to the extent that in one case the rent would be adjusted in the light of the rent which he used to pay, whereas in the other case the rent would be adjusted to the price paid for the land, which would naturally discount such matters as severance and other matters pertaining to the rest of a holding. I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment which, as I say, is a very simple one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 38, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Ridley.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I do not know if the noble Viscount will accept an assurance on this point, but I hope that it will satisfy him. We can give a definite assurance that instructions will be issued to small holdings authorities that save in exceptional circumstances they should keep on the sitting tenant until the land is actually required for the small holdings.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I think that that would be all right except that the Bill does say that they must let the land at the best rent they can get. That might result in someone coming along and offering a better rent than the sitting tenant was prepared or was able to pay. Perhaps the noble Earl can devise some way of getting over that difficulty.
EARL DE LA WARR: It seems quite obvious that there is agreement here, but there is this difficulty to which the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has drawn attention. I wonder if the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, will agree to look at this and see what can be done.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: If the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, will accept my assurance and will withdraw his Amendment, we will certainly look into this matter.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: In the circumstances I am quite willing to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clauses 53 to 67 agreed to.
Clause 68:
Establishment of Agricultural Land Commission and Welsh Agricultural Land Sub-Commission.
(6) The persons appointed to be members of the Commission and the Sub-Commission shall be persons appearing to the Minister to be qualified as having appropriate technical, commercial or administrative qualifications, and one of the persons appointed to be a member of the Commission shall be a person appearing to the Minister to be qualified as having special knowledge and experience of agriculture in Wales.
6.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (6), after "technical," to insert "scientific." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this clause provides for the establishment of the Agricultural Land Commission which is charged with the functions, as set out in paragraph (a) and paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of managing and farming land vested in the Minister, and of advising and assisting the Minister in matters relating to the management of agricultural land. I would venture to point out, first of all, that up to seven persons can be appointed by the Minister to sit upon this Commission. When we come to explore what are to be the qualifications of these persons as set out in subsection (6) of the clause we are told that they shall be:
"persons appearing to the Minister to be qualified as having appropriate technical, commercial or administrative qualifications…"
Science has made immense strides during the last few years, and in no sphere more than in regard to agriculture. I venture to suggest that if the Minister, who need not himself be an agriculturist, is going to have sound advice, it ought to be possible for him to have on this Commission at least one person having scientific knowledge.
The fact that the word "technical" is here employed, may be urged in argument. But, after all, good technique should be founded on sound science, and it does not necessarily follow that because a person has technical qualifications he

717
has also scientific qualifications. The functions of this body are not purely economic or commercial but also cultural. Let me illustrate the sort of difficulty that might arise unless the Minister has some scientific advisers on this Commission. I can remember the time, more than sixty years ago now, when there was a perfect craze for what was described as deep ploughing. I can remember seeing in my young days a great engine set up at the corner of a field with heavy wire cables directing a deep plough over agricultural land. As a result of turning up undesirable subsoil upon the surface, very often with poisonous ferrous compounds in it, the whole of the micro-organic constituents of the surface soil were submerged and a great deal of that land became absolutely sterile and unproductive for several years afterwards.
Let me take two of the latest developments in modern farming. One is ley farming. We have been talking about it during the discussion of a recent Amendment. The other is modern methods of silage making. These are founded on the relatively recent scientific discovery that when grass is four to five inches high it has its maximum nutrient value. In other words, when grass runs to flower and ultimately to seed it has lost at least two-thirds of its protein content. All that is scientific knowledge, but it is an important factor in modern husbandry, and if the Minister is to have advice on up-to-date methods of husbandry, surely he would be well served if he had on this Commission at least one scientist. After all, my Amendment does not bind him. There is nothing mandatory about it. It only says he may appoint a scientist among those whom he appoints to give him advice. Of course, there are several sciences apart from economics which come into play—chemistry, physics, particularly mechanics, micro-biology and mycology and others I could mention. I hope I have made a sufficiently strong case, as one who has devoted a considerable part of his life to scientific husbandry, to persuade the Minister. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 27, after ("technical") insert ("scientific").—(Viscount Bledisloe.)
LORD MORRISON: There is very little difference on this point, but I have taken
718
advice about it, and I am advised that the technical qualifications include scientific qualifications. The noble Lord shakes his head, and he has much greater experience than I have. As he feels keenly about this, I will take further advice, and if it is found that the word "technical" does not include "scientific," then we will put it right on Report stage.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Can the noble Lord accept the word and put it in for avoidance of doubt?
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended at five minutes before seven o'clock, and resumed at half past eight.]
Clause 69 agreed to.
Clause 70:
Annual retort of Commission.
70.—(1) The Agricultural Land Commission shall, not later than the thirty-first day of December next following the end of each financial year, prepare and submit to the Minister a report on the discharge, whether by the Commission or the Welsh Agricultural Land Sub-Commission, of the functions of the Commission in that year.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved at the end of subsection (1) to insert:
"together with a statement of account in such form as the Minister may with the approval of the Treasury prescribe, being a form which shall conform with the best commercial standards and shall show separately the results of any farming operations carried on by them during that year and of the discharge by them during that year of their functions in relation to the management of land."
The noble Lord said: I do not think I need say very much on this Amendment; it speaks for itself. It is quite clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 34, at end insert the said words.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD MORRISON: As the noble Lord has indicated that this Amendment is quite clear, it is accepted in principle.
EARL DE LA WARR: It means that it will go into the Bill and you will amend it if necessary?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: No. I must make it quite clear that that is not the case at all. In general we are in agreement with what the noble Earl suggests. If he would agree to withdraw the Amendment, we would be glad to consider it and either put an Amendment down for Report stage or discuss it with the noble Earl, altering his wording.
EARL DE LA WARR: It is a small point to fall out about but it is the exact drafting of the Lord Chancellor's words in another Bill. I think the most courteous thing to do would be to accept the Amendment and then if it is not satisfactory it can be looked at again.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: If I understand the noble Earl's answer aright, he would be prepared to accept an Amendment or put down an Amendment the purport of which would be the same as this.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: That is right.
EARL DE LA WARR: On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7o agreed to.
Clause 71:
Establishment and functions of County Agricultural Executive Committees.
(3) A County Agricultural Executive Committee may with the approval of the Minister, and shall if the Minister so requires, appoint one or more sub-committees, and the County Agricultural Executive Committee shall refer to a sub-committee for report and recommendation such matters as may be determined by the Committee with the approval of the Minister or as may be required by the Minister, and shall delegate to a sub-committee such of the functions of the Committee, to such extent and subject to such conditions or restrictions, as may be so determined or required.
LORD SAVILE LORD SAVILE moved in subsection (3), after "shall," where that word first occurs, to insert:
"for the purpose of the exercise of any of their functions under sections twelve to sixteen of this Act relating to the management of land and in any other case shall."
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment to provide for the establishment of estate management sub-committees. In subsection (3) it says that the Minister may want to appoint one or
720
more sub-committees. It is most important for the agricultural industry as a whole that agricultural executive committees should appoint estate management sub-committees, in view of increasingly specialized work entailed in managing land. I believe that in another place the Minister gave a special assurance that he is in favour of securing the appointment of such sub-committees for estate management, and if he said that, this should be a good opportunity for the noble Earl to accept the Amendment standing in my name. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 12, after ("shall") insert the said words.—(Lord Savile.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I wish I could be as obliging as I always like to be. The noble Lord is perfectly correct in what he says, that we are in favour of estate management committees, and the assurance to which he referred was given and will stand. There is, however, a technical difficulty about putting this provision in the Bill because if we mention specifically estate management committees we will have to put in every other sort of committee that will have to be appointed. For that reason, we do not wish to put it in the Bill. I can assure the noble Lord that we appreciate his point and that these Committees will certainly be appointed, for we look to estate management committees to help in this matter. With that assurance I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
LORD SAVILE: I thank the noble Earl for his reply. If that is so, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 71 agreed to.
Clause 72 agreed to.
Clause 73:
Establishment, constitution and procedure of Agricultural Land Tribunals.
(4) Any order made under this section shall be laid before Parliament forthwith after being made.
THE DUKE OF RUTLAND THE DUKE OF RUTLAND moved to leave out subsection (4) and insert:
"(4) An order made under this section shall be of no effect unless it is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble Duke said: In the absence of Lord Courthope, I beg to move this

721
Amendment. We believe that the agricultural land tribunals are of vital importance to the working of this Bill. It is most necessary that their appointment and constitution should be subject to an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Clause 7 of the Bill states:
"An order under Section four or six of this Act shall be of no effect unless approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
So there is already a precedent in this Bill for an affirmative Resolution. I feel it is of vital importance that the constitution and the procedure of the agricultural land tribunals should be very carefully considered. I do think the noble Earl should be able to grant us this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 38, leave out subsection (4) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Duke of Rutland.)
LORD MORRISON: I have been asked to reply to this Amendment. We regret that it is not possible to accept an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, because it is considered that it would be a waste of Parliamentary time and would cause unnecessary delay. If there are any provisions in the order which are not considered desirable the Minister can always be questioned on them in Parliament and asked to give reasons why he has adopted the particular provision. I would, however, like to draw the attention of my noble friend to the fact that under the Pension Appeal Tribunals Act, 1943, similar rules of procedure have to be made by order, and that Act provides that the order shall be subject to negative Resolution procedure. If that suggestion is acceptable, I am prepared to insert words to make the order subject to negative Resolution procedure. If the mover of the Amendment would be good enough to withdraw the Amendment, the Government will move an appropriate Amendment on Report; or, if the noble Duke would prefer it, I will arrange for this Amendment to be put down on Report stage in his name.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: It sounded to me an astonishing remark which the noble Lord made, that the discussion of this question of agricultural land tribunals would be a waste of Parliamentary time. For my own part, I can conceive of nothing which would be less a waste of Parliamentary time than a discussion of
722
this very important part of the Bill, which we have to leave to order and cannot deal with in the Bill. The constitution of the agricultural land tribunals, and giving them a good start, seems to me to be eminently a matter which Parliament ought not only to have the right to discuss but most certainly ought to discuss. If there is no other argument than the pressure on Parliamentary time, I submit that that is not a very strong reason for not accepting the Amendment.
EARL STANHOPE: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I propose to put down an Amendment on the Report stage to put the procedure in regard to these tribunals into the Bill.
LORD MORRISON: Probably I expressed myself badly in not making it clear that there is no objection to discussing these matters in Parliament. What I described as perhaps being an unnecessary waste of time was the procedure of the affirmative Resolution. Under a negative Resolution, particularly as it applies in another place—upon which I have more knowledge than I have of this House—there would be no difficulty at any time in discussing any case Parliament wished to discuss.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I quite understand his point.
THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: I thank the noble Lord for his assurances and, in view of those assurances, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 73 agreed to.
Clause 74:
References to Agricultural Land Tribunal
74.—(1) In any case where by any of the provisions of this Act a person is empowered to require that a proposal of the Minister to take any action shall be referred to the Agricultural Land Tribunal, then if within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner the said person so requires, the proposal shall be referred accordingly.
(2) 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, and

and shall report to the Minister accordingy.
8.40 p.m.
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved to insert at the end of subsection (2):
"and the Minister shall forward a copy of the report to any person who availed himself of an opportunity to make representations to the Minister afforded to him under the provisions in question of this Act."
The noble Lord said: This is a Government Amendment which requires the Minister, where a matter is referred to the agricultural land tribunal, to send a copy of the tribunal's report to any person who took advantage of the opportunity afforded him under the Bill to make representations to the Minister before the matter was referred to the Tribunal. A somewhat similar Amendment was moved from the Opposition Benches and debated on Report in another place. It proposed that a copy of the report should be sent to any party to the proceedings who asked for a copy, and it was withdrawn on the Minister's undertaking to look into the point again. The Amendment now proposed goes further in that it is not limited to persons who ask for a copy of the report. The persons who will be entitled to be afforded an opportunity to make representations to the Minister are in each case defined in the relative clause in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 11, at end, insert the said words.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 75 to 77 agreed to.
Clause 78:
Power to obtain agricultural statistics.
78.—(1) Where it appears to the Minister expedient so to do for the purpose of obtaining statistical information relating to agriculture, he may, after consultation with the Committee established by him under the last foregoing section, make regulations providing for the service upon owners and occupiers of land used for agriculture, or of land which the Minister has reason to believe may be so used, of notices requiring them to furnish in writing, in such form and manner and to such person as may be prescribed, and within such time and with respect to such date or dates or such period or periods as may be specified in the notice, the prescribed information (including, as respects paragraphs (c) to (e) of this subsection, the prescribed information as to quantities, values expenditure and receipts) relating to—
724

(d) fixed and other equipment, livestock, and the stocks of agricultural produce and requisites held in respect of the land, and the provision and maintenance of such equipment, livestock and requisites and the provision of agricultural services for the benefit of the land,

(2) For the purpose of obtaining statistical information relating to agriculture, any person authorized by the Minister in that behalf may, after giving not less than twenty-four hours' notice and on producing if so required evidence of his authority to act for the purposes of this subsection, orally require the owner or occupier of land to furnish to him within a reasonable time, and either orally or in writing as the said owner or occupier may elect, such information, whether or not specified in the said notice, as the said person authorized by the Minister may require, being information which the owner or occupier, as the case may be, could have been required to furnish under the last foregoing subsection.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved, in subsection (1) (d), to leave out "and the provision of agricultural services for the benefit of the land." The noble Lord said: With the permission of your Lordships' House I would like to take this and the next Amendment together. I would merely like an explanation from the Minister of the significance of the words it is proposed to leave out. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 17, leave out from ("requisites") to end of line 19.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I shall be very pleased to give the noble Lord the information which he requires. As he knows we shall need considerable statistics and figures under the Bill in carrying out its various provisions. The question asked by the noble Lord refers to such things as farm machinery, repair of farm buildings, veterinary services and haulage services. In a few of the matters which are outside that particular category we have other services, including machinery, labour services, and transport. A lot of transactions go on, such as the hiring of machinery by committees to different farmers, and also hiring of machinery between farmers themselves. There are innumerable sorts of transactions which go on about which we need to have information in order that we may get out the figures we need. That is the reason for the inclusion of those words. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON moved in subsection (2) to leave out "whether or not" and insert "being information." The noble Lord said: As the clause now stands a person authorized by the Minister can call upon a farmer and require him to furnish not only such information as is specified in the notice served under subsection (1) of this clause, but also any other information he considers desirable which is contained in paragraphs (a) to (f) and which amounts to pretty well everything under the sun. I think that if an official of the agricultural committee calls upon a farmer he should not ask him for additional information, but should stick to the information which is specified in the notice which has been served. There would seem to be little point in serving a notice in the first place if you are going to ask for much more information at a later date. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 44, leave out from ("information") to ("specified") in line 45 and insert ("being information").—(Lord Carrington.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: In regard to this Amendment there are two points which I should like to clear up if I can. The first is as to the time. It is perfectly true that only twenty-four hours' notice is required, but the noble Lord will have noticed, I expect, that there is no obligation on the man to furnish the information in that time. That is only the length of notice of the visit. As regards the second point, which is perhaps more pertinent, I think perhaps the noble Lord mistakes the character of the visit. This will be quite a friendly visit, not an antagonistic one, and it would hamper the work of committees very considerably if an officer came to a farm and was unable to get the information needed because he was debarred from asking questions about other matters. The noble Lord's Amendment suggests that the committee have a great deal more knowledge of the farm than they actually might have. It may be, however, that only when they arrive on the farm do they see what they wish to ask about. The farmer is given reason-
726
able time to provide any further information, either orally or in writing. It would hamper the work of the committee if they had to give longer notice. In view of these considerations, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: In an ordinary case it would be serious for a man if he were to get 24 hours' notice just before market day.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: The fact that a notice was given does not put any obligation whatever on the farmer to be present when the man from the committee arrives. It is an obligation to give the notice, but if it happened to be market day it would just be unfortunate for the man calling. He would have to give another notice and go again.
LORD CARRINGTON: I cannot pretend to be very convinced by the noble Earl's answer. I should have thought that the agricultural committees were sufficiently intelligent to put in their notice the things they wanted to know. However, I do not think it is an Amendment which ought to be pressed, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 78 agreed to.
Clause 79 agreed to.
Clause 80:
Restriction on disclosure of information.
80. No information relating to any particular land or business, being information which has been obtained under Section seventy-eight or seventy-nine of this Act, shall be published or otherwise disclosed without the previous consent in writing of the person by whom the information was furnished and every other person whose interests may in the opinion of the Minister be affected by the disclosure, being an owner or the occupier of the land:
Provided that nothing in this section shall restrict the disclosure of information—

(c) if the disclosure is confined to situation, extent, number and kind of livestock, character of land, and name and address of owner and occupier, to any person to whom the Minister considers that the disclosure thereof is required in the public interest;

THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in paragraph (c), to leave out all words after and including "person" and to insert "statutory undertakers for the purpose of the exercise of any powers or duties vested or imposed upon them."
The noble Earl said: This is a very simple Amendment. I do not see why a man's affairs should be bandied about unnecessarily and so I suggest that the words of the Amendment in my name would be more suitable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 30, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 31, and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I appreciate the noble Earl's point. Obviously we do not want this information bandied about, and in fact if the noble Earl will study the Bill he will see that there are provisions and penalties for disclosure of certain information. But there is a reason why we do not want to confine this matter to such narrow limits. There are certain classes of persons to whom the Minister would very much like to give this information, who are not statutory undertakers, such as research institutions or workers, universities and so forth, possibly even local authorities. There are these various people who could I am sure be trusted not to disclose what is not very vital information. I hope that in the circumstances the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF ONSLO'W: I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said, but I hope he will look into the matter and see if it can be tidied up in the light of the information he has given. It is not in the Bill as the noble Earl puts it.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I do not think we can withdraw on this if only because we are going to employ, or hope to employ, on a very big scale scientific research workers. That is part of our programme. There are provisions in the Bill to stop unnecessary disclosure, and there are penalties for it; but we must have the right to give the information, particularly to universities and similar institutions. It is not vital, but I agree with the noble Earl that it would be very bad if this information became public property and was bandied about. However, we have found from experience, when we have taken universities or research workers into our confidence, that our trust has not been misplaced.
LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: May I beg the noble Earl to withdraw this
728
Amendment? I would like to emphasize what has been said by the noble Earl. It seems to me to be absolutely vital that research into these matters should not be confined to official persons, and that you should not make too many regulations making it difficult for research bodies to obtain information. It is very difficult to find a form of words which would properly define research bodies. They may do an enormous amount of good if they have access to these figures. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw.
EARL DE LA WARR: I should have thought the noble Lord's arguments are really quite unanswerable, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, agrees. It is better to have this information really voluntarily given. The working is more smooth, and the information is more complete. I think that research is the only point that has been mentioned. If it were possible to specify that a little more clearly in the Bill it might be of advantage—possibly "a body," or "to any of those engaged in research authorized by the various research councils," or some such thing as that. There are only three research councils in England. I just suggest to the noble Lord that that might be of advantage.
EARL STANHOPE: Frankly I think the Government are right here. I do not see how they can go any further than to say "to whom the Minister considers that the disclosure thereof is required in the public interest." It seems to me that that is the widest provision in the Bill, and I hope the noble Earl will not oppose the Government in this respect.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am not quite satisfied with what the noble Earl has said but, in the circumstances, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 80 agreed to.
Clauses 81 to 83 agreed to.
Clause 84:
Acquisition of land by Minister to ensure full and efficient use thereof.
84.—(1) Where—

(a) the Minister is satisfied in the case of any agricultural land that the full and efficient use of the land for agriculture is being prevented by reason of work not being carried out or fixed equipment not being provided, and that having regard to the nature of the work or equipment required

729
for such use of the land as aforesaid it cannot reasonably be expected to be carried out or provided unless the Minister exercises his powers under this subsection; or

(b) the Minister is satisfied in the case of any agricultural land that the full and efficient use of the land for agriculture will be prevented if existing fixed equipment thereon is not maintained, and that having regard to the nature of the equipment it cannot reasonably be expected to be maintained unless the Minister exercises his powers under this subsection; or

then if the Minister proposes to secure the carrying out of the work, the provision or maintenance of the equipment, or the use of the land in conjunction with other land, as the case may be, he may acquire the land by compulsory purchase or hiring in accordance with the provisions of this Act in that behalf.
8.54 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved in subsection (1) to leave out from "satisfied" in paragraph (a) to the second "maintained" in paragraph (b) and insert:
"that it is requisite for the full and efficient use of agricultural land for agriculture that work should be carried out or fixed equipment provided, or maintained and that having regard to the nature thereof such work will not be carried out or such fixed equipment will not be provided or maintained except in accordance with a scheme under this section he may require the owner or owners of the said land to submit for his approval a scheme or he may himself make a scheme for securing the full and efficient use of the said land for agriculture by the carrying out of such works, or the provision or maintenance of such fixed equipment as may be specified in the scheme, and where such a scheme has been approved either with or without variations or made by him as aforesaid and the said work is not carried out, or the said fixed equipment is provided or no steps have been taken for the maintenance thereof within such reasonable time as may be specified by the Minister in respect of such scheme and the Minister is satisfied that the said works will not be carried out or such fixed equipment will not be provided or".
The noble Earl said: I think this is an important Amendment, dealing with a difficult and complicated matter. I certainly would not stand on the exact drafting of my Amendment. If anything were done in this matter, it should certainly be with the help of a Government draftsman, so that our intention might be expressed in the best manner. I cannot help feeling, however, that the clause as drafted might entitle the Minister virtually to nationalize the whole of the land of this country—certainly a vast block. I can visualize that there are large areas in the country where it might be in the
730
national interest, after discussion with landowners and giving them every opportunity to carry out a definite scheme, that the Land Commission should take over the land. Indeed I am not at all sure that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor—if it is he who is going to reply—could not find words in a report of my own which suggests something of that character.
As it is drafted, the clause really goes very far. It says that the Minister can take over land where he can reasonably say—I am paraphrasing, of course—that the landowner cannot reasonably be expected to carry out certain work. What work? There is no suggestion of any definite scheme being put before the landowner and of his being asked to carry it out. There is no suggestion of an opportunity being given to him to say either that he will or that he cannot. Nor, incidentally, if I may go to a point which really attaches to a later Amendment, is there any suggestion of his being given any appeal whatsoever. I suggest that that is going in a direction which we should examine very carefully.
I think it has been suggested—and we have seen pictures outside this Chamber which make one think that this is so—that Romney Marsh is considered the sort of area which is suitable for such treatment. No doubt there is an area of extremely rich land there, possibly, in some ways, the best land in the country, without the proper equipment, the roads or the houses with which alone it can be fully developed. It is very tempting for those who feel like it to say: "Only the State can carry out the necessary work." How can we say that that is so now? As a matter of fact, my information is that very large and wealthy corporations; and colleges also, have been purchasing land down there. Have we got any evidence at all to convince us that they cannot carry out the necessary work? I do not think that we have, and there is nothing in the clause to suggest that we should make any attempt to get such evidence. I therefore suggest, according to the terms of the Amendment, that the Minister should be put into the position of having to produce a scheme himself or of having to ask the land-owners to produce a scheme, and then giving them the opportunity of saying whether in fact they will carry out that scheme or not. If they say "No," then

731
it is for the Minister to say that he will carry out the work through his own Land Commission, he having given the landowners the opportunity of doing it. I repeat that I do not stand on the particular drafting of this Amendment, but I think that your Lordships will agree that that would be a fair way of dealing with this matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 31, leave out from ("satisfied") to ("maintained") in line 2, page 69, and insert the said new words.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD HASTINGS: I would like to support the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend, Lord De La Warr. It will be observed that the Amendment, by its wording, does not, in any sense, prevent the Minister from taking the initiative in this matter. It really suggests—it hardly goes further—to the Minister that it might be well, in certain cases, to endeavour to enlist the assistance of bodies, whether corporations or syndicates of landowners, and give them an opportunity to do work of a kind which the Minister, one would assume, would undertake rather reluctantly if he could find nobody else to do it. In my part of England, in East Anglia, there come to my mind several cases which are apposite. For years a scheme has been talked of for reclaiming the Wash. Although we know there was a syndicate of landowners in the late 17th century who undertook the drainage of the Fens, to-day I have my doubts whether any further reclamation could or would be likely to be undertaken by a syndicate of private landowners. There would be, however, if the state of this country were such that it became a matter of urgent necessity that every acre of fertile land should be used for food production. There is a case where this useful clause would come into operation. But I know also that in my part of England there are two companies who have undertaken reclamation work of scrub lands, light lands, on a commercial basis and made a great success of it. It would be a n error to regard it solely from the standpoint of national purpose, so that any enterprising company prepared to invest capital in such a scheme should not be given an opportunity of doing so.
732
There is a good deal of value in competition. Where you get a landowner employing obviously expert advice, prepared to sink capital in the kind of scheme which this clause visualizes, it is really better in the national interest that there should not be a monopoly. There should be competition, so that one kind of entrepreneur could vie with the others see where the best results could be achieved. This Amendment does not seek in any way to limit or control the Minister, or to diminish the usefulness of the clause itself. It seeks merely to make it possible for private enterprise to participate in an admirable cause with the public effort which the Minister would be required to make. I think that it makes for efficiency and it would help in the widest interests of agriculture. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted in principle. I am not insisting on the exact form. I do not propose to detain the Committee, but I think that in the widest interests of agriculture there is a definite advantage in allowing competition and investment of private capital. I do not wish in any way to diminish the Minister's power but rather to relieve him of undertaking that which in its nature must be speculative and which he can do only at the national cost.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): We have just listened to a moderate speech, if I may so, with a great deal of which I find myself in agreement. The Minister has no desire whatever to exercise power under this section where there are landowners ready and willing to carry out the work. May I ask your Lordships for a moment to look with me at the nature of the clause, and see what it provides? Take Clause 84 (1) (a). First of all you will see there are two conditions which must be satisfied before the Minister can act. He must be satisfied:
"That the full and efficient use of the land for agriculture is being prevented by reason of work not being carried out or fixed equipment not being provided."
That is the first step. He must be satisfied about that. The second step is:
"and that having regard to the nature of the work or equipment required for such use of the land as aforesaid it cannot reasonably be expected to be carried out or provided unless the Minister exercises his powers under this subsection."
Therefore it is quite plain—always assuming that the Minister is being honest about

733
this, for otherwise he can do all sorts of ridiculous things; we always make that assumption in these cases—that he has to be satisfied that the work or the equipment, whatever it may be, cannot reasonably be expected to be provided by private enterprise.
Those are the conditions, and paragraph (b) is virtually the same. Where:
"the Minister is satisfied in the case of any agricultural land that the full and efficient use of the land for agriculture will be prevented if existing fixed equipment thereon is not maintained,"—
—here you get the second condition again—
"and that having regard to the nature of the equipment it cannot reasonably be expected to be maintained unless the Minister exercises his powers."
I am willing to do what I can to meet apprehensions, if your Lordships have apprehensions, and to see that those two conditions really are present to the Minister's mind. What I suggest—I am putting forward my own suggestion to which I have the approval of the Minister, and it goes rather further than I myself would have gone—is this. He is prepared (and he is going to exercise these powers under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b)) to refer the matter to the Agricultural Land Commission. The Commission, you may say, are his servant; they are. He is prepared to refer those two considerations to the Agricultural Land Commission and they are to report to him upon those two considerations. He is willing to do this and to say that that report shall be made public. If that is done, your Lordships will know exactly what the Agricultural Land Commission have reported to their Minister in this behalf, and it is only when that has been done that the Minister can exercise his powers.
His powers are exercised under the Acquisition of Land Act and, under that Act, everybody whose land is to be taken has a right either to have a public inquiry, or at any rate has the chance of making his observations to the Minister in person, and of making his objections; so that the local landowners who are concerned will have every opportunity to make their objection at that stage. Of course, the political pressure which could be properly exercised with regard to a Minister, if he attempts to exercise his powers under this section, in face of the fact that a report has been published by
734
the Commission that the landowners can provide the necessary appliances, would be very great. Indeed, the landowners would have the right to object, when the proposal was made that their lands should be compulsorily acquired, that the prerequisite and the use of these powers had not been complied with. That is as far as I can go.
Quite frankly, this offer which I make to your Lordships, and I want to meet your Lordships if I possibly can, is intended to take the place of this Amendment and the next Amendment in the names of Lord Courthope and Lord Ashburton. I am not in a position, although I have gone into it carefully, to accept either this Amendment which we are now considering or the next one. I may say, if the noble Earl who moved the Amendment will not mind my saying it, that I am quite sure he did not draft it because it is so very ill-drafted. It provides in line 13: "where such a scheme has been approved," but it never goes on to tell us what happens when the scheme is not approved! It enables the Minister to formulate a scheme and he may formulate a perfectly impracticable and impossible scheme; he might put a very short limit of time on the scheme and say, "You have not carried out my scheme and therefore you will act under my powers." In many respects I think the Amendment makes the position which your Lordships fear worse than the clause. I feel, however, that it would cause delay and, as I think we all agreed yesterday, we must consider, and consider without undue loss of time, how we are to get our agriculture in this country as fit and proper as it can be.
For my part, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said yesterday and hinted at again to-day. In so far as we can use the local landowners, with their local knowledge, let us do it; and in so far as they can themselves provide the requisite machines, and so on, by all means let them do it, and let us get on with the job. On the other hand, I think this clause may go (I do not speak as an expert on this topic—Heaven forbid!) farther than either Romney Marsh or the Wash. There may be many estates in this country which are held up from producing what they can produce by reason of the non-availability of machinery which is essential to enable

735
them to do so. Your Lordships know much more about this than I do, but I should be very surprised if many of your Lordships with great experience on this topic did not agree that that was the case—and pretty widely. If that is the case, we must not be held up in our production of essential foodstuffs by reason of the lack of the necessary machines, if it is possible to get them. If it is a mere question of money, and so on, then the Minister must do it. If it is a question of the impossibility of getting the machines, then neither the Minister nor anyone else can do it. That is what I feel.
I therefore make this suggestion to your Lordships. You are perfectly entitled to say, before assenting to my proposition, that you would like to see this down on the Paper. That is very reasonable. Your Lordships will see that the proposition does not square with the Amendments on the Paper. Frankly, it is an alternative. The scheme I propose is this. I propose that this matter shall be referred to the Agricultural Land Commission; that they shall discuss the matter, and consult with the owners concerned; that they shall then make a report on the two questions: (1) Is certain machinery necessary?; and (2) Can it be provided by those owners? That would be after discussing the matter with the owners. I propose that that report shall be made public, so that all those facts will be available and known.
In those circumstances, I think your Lordships will get about as good a security as you can get that the Minister will not act in an arbitrary way; because if a man is going to act in an arbitrary way, he does not like all the facts to be revealed to the public gaze. I think your Lordships will have there about as good a safeguard as you can have against the improper or arbitrary exercise of this power merely for the sake of bringing in by way of a side wind some scheme of nationalization. If we are going to do that, we will do it quite openly and will not seek to do it by camouflage under this clause. That is the suggestion I make, and if your Lordships say that you would like to see it down on the Paper, it shall be put down on the Paper before the Report stage. When your Lordships see that scheme on the Paper,
736
it will be open for you to say that you do not like it or, on the other hand, that you do like it. If your Lordships say that you do not like it, then you will be in a position to ask for these Amendments, which I am bound to say I am unable to accept. This is a real offer to try to meet the difficulties in your Lordships' minds, and I hope your Lordships will take it in that sense.
LORD CORNWALLIS: I do not wish to upset the harmony of this offer, and I should not be rising if part of the country which I and the noble and learned Viscount know so well—Romney Marsh—had not been brought into this matter. In the words of the Bill, it is said that full and effective use of the land for agriculture is being prevented by reason of the work not being carried out. What I am more concerned with is what is preventing that work from being carried out. I am anxious about this clause because I am perfectly certain that for two or three years anyhow the most willing developer or the most willing person who wants to improve his land with buildings, machinery or whatever it may be, to carry out all kinds of schemes, is not going to be able to get them. It seems very hard that any arbitrary action should be taken against that man who is trying his best and cannot get the materials.
Down on Romney Marsh the whole question is labour—as the noble and learned Viscount knows, because he has not left that area long enough to forget. There are very strong corporations and bodies down there; there are very strong landowners and very strong farmers buying land. In fact they are pouring down from the Fens to grow potatoes instead of rearing sheep. Whether that is for the good of the country, I am not at all sure. They are all ready to go into schemes if they can get the material and if they can get the labour. I do not want to bring controversy into this, but I am perfectly certain that there would be more houses built on Romney Marsh if it had been left to private enterprise instead of a local government scheme. I think a great deal more development might have taken place. I want to emphasize that for three or four years the most willing landlords and the most willing farmers will not be able to carry out the schemes, and it seems very hard that they should be penalized

737
under the powers the Minister is taking, if, simply by force of supply circumstances, they have not the opportunity of doing this work.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: May I add just a word to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis? I appreciate the force of what the noble and learned Viscount has just said, but, on the other hand, in the middle of his remarks he said that it might be not only Romney Marsh or The Wash but a whole host of small instances where this action would be necessary. He followed it up—and I think very rightly—with the assurance that it was not going to be a back door to nationalization, which it very easily could be. But the fact that it is not only Romney Marsh but may be hundreds of other places in various degrees does mean that possibly the whole of England, with an eager and keen Land Commission, might become the Naboth's vineyard of that Commission. I think that is a great danger.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, has said, there is no need for hurry to-day with regard to the question of redeeming these very difficult pieces of ground. They would have been redeemed long ago had there been real urgency. We have had seven years of war in which we have done a great many uneconomical things in the redemption of land, and some very successful things. We have the next five or ten years in which to try to solve the labour and material problems of the land which we know can produce fully if it is given the chance. We must use those opportunities to repair the land and the buildings on the land. A great deal of what is proposed may, in the long run, be found to be of questionable wisdom. For instance, are sheep or potatoes going to be the best on Romney Marsh? I do not know, but it is not something one can decide all of a sudden.
Apart from that, I believe that the greatest failing on the land in England has been the lack of co-operation, whether it has been among farmers or whether it has been among landowners. I am perfectly willing to admit that the Amendment may be badly framed and could be very much better drawn up, but the intention of the Amendment is to give impetus to the landowner on a difficult area of land to cooperate with his neighbours to get a scheme through, and that, I believe, is
738
something we should encourage to the full. The Pontine Marshes were a very much more intractable area of land than Romney Marsh. Their reclamation was not done, I think I am right in saying, by the methods proposed under this Bill; it was done by giving the private landowner the incentive, first to get on with the job, whether he owned 5,000 or 50,000 acres, under threat later of its being taken away if he could not produce a scheme. He produced the scheme. Your Lordships may say that the Italians were used to co-operation, but when I went over the Campagna I found a very large and ancient canal completely dried up, with a hump in the middle of it. All the other work was in perfectly good order. I said to the Prefect who was showing me round, "That part of your work is very much older," "Yes," he said, "It is the Etruscans' work. There was an earthquake 2, 000 years ago that threw the canal out of level and the Campagna has been in this position for over 2,000 years." Therefore the owners were doing it for 2,000 years without the necessity of State compulsion!
NOBLE LORDS: Too long.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: May be it was too long—but it was done under private enterprise in that way. And there were many dictators, let me remind the noble Lords opposite, during those 2,000 years.
During the war there was a certain amount of uneconomic regeneration of land. The private owner should be given his opportunity of offering to do the job and of doing it thoroughly, with the necessary effort and co-operation. It will be very much more difficult for the Land Commission, who will have great zeal in this matter—zeal always occurs in a public body of this sort. If the Commission have the example before them, they may be a great deal more careful with the spending of public money and so forth; otherwise they may be led into uneconomic works. I do not know whether my noble friend is willing to withdraw the Amendment or not, but I think that this is something that needs to be considered far more carefully than it has been so far.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I, for my part, am very anxious to see what the

739
terms of the alternative proposal are. I cannot help feeling that if the general intention of this Amendment is embodied in the Amendment contemplated by the noble and learned Viscount opposite, the result might be even more effective in carrying out what is intended than is this Amendment. I speak as the Chairman in 1927 of the Royal Commission on the Land Drainage of England and Wales, and my noble friend Lord Courthope was a member of that Commission; and especially in the light of what the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, has just said about the co-operation amongst landowners, I foresee the possibility, as this clause stands to-day, of a landowner whose land is flooded or waterlogged through no fault of his own being saddled with big expenditure; or if he cannot face that expenditure, of the land being compulsorily acquired by the Government in default. I know the answer may be, "Well, since your Royal Commission sat a Land Drainage Act has been passed, under which Catchment Boards and Internal Drainage Boards have been set up." I have sad reason to say, however, that I have been the first serious victim in respect of some of the richest land in the country in the Vale of the Severn, where the catchment board and the internal drainage board have had to confess that they have not available the public money in order to carry out the necessary reclamation.
I admit that that is an extreme case. But suppose in a case like that, where land is flooded owing to the lack of the clearing of drains or water courses on land at a higher level than the land which it is proposed or contemplated to purchase, and suppose that through no fault of his own the landowner is unable to render that land fit for maximum or optimum cultivation, and owing to lack of co-operation among landowners—compulsory co-operation will probably be called for in such a case—he is saddled with large works in order to render his land fit for its optimum use, then I think it would be an injustice if the Minister compulsorily acquired, or sought compulsorily to acquire, that land. My noble friend the Earl of Portsmouth has used the words "an uneconomic proposition."
I call in aid my noble friend Lord Courthope, who travelled with me to the
740
Netherlands as a member of the Royal Commission. We put this question to those people who have a bigger knowledge on the subject of land drainage than any people in the world. We put it to the: "Suppose that you were draining the Zuyder Zee, which you are proposing to do, will it or will it not be an economic proposition? Will you in fact be able to recover the cost of that expensive process from the land so reclaimed?" And their answer was such that I was quite convinced by it. They said: "Whether it is an economic proposition or not, it is in the interests of the nation that this should be done, and that the land should be saved and put to the best use." I felt myself entirely convinced by that reply. For my part I am quite favourable to the suggestion thrown out by the noble and learned Viscount, but I should like to see the terms of it, and I should be glad if he would bear in mind that difficulty in regard to alluvial and possibly waterlogged land which cannot be put right by a single individual.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think on all sides of the House it would be agreed that the noble and learned Viscount has made a real and genuine attempt to meet this matter which was giving us considerable concern. So far as I can see, his scheme has the merit of giving landlords an opportunity of seeing what is really wanted and saying whether they will carry it out. There is only one point that is at all concerning me now, and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will not feel that we are looking a gift horse in the mouth when I raise it. It is because it is really opening up our minds. It did occur to me that on the whole the Land Commission are, perhaps, an executive rather than a judicial body, and there may be certain parts of the functions that are being handed over to them in this proposed Amendment that might be of a judicial rather than an executive character, and therefore it might be desirable to divide up the functions proposed between the Land Commission, for the preparation of the scheme, and the Agricultural Land Tribunal, for the consideration of the rather more judicial matters. That is a point we can look at when we come to the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount. I should certainly not desire to press my Amendment, but perhaps I might say this: if the noble and learned

741
Viscount could put down his Amendment as soon as possible we would be grateful, because we are very interested in this and would like to give it serious consideration.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Naturally the draftsman will have to look at it, but I will do the best I can.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SAVILE LORD SAVILE moved, in subsection (1), after "land," where that word last occurs, to insert "or any part thereof." The noble Lord said: This is a simple Amendment, and one which is non-controversial. It speaks for itself, and does not need any explanation from me. If the Minister has power to acquire land as a whole for the purposes of this clause, it seems only reasonable that he could also accept any part of the land—that is, any part of the land apart from the land itself. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 21, after. ("land") insert ("or any part thereof").—(Lord Savile.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I think that this seems a very reasonable suggestion by the noble Lord, and the Government will be pleased to accept it.
LORD SAVILE: I am much obliged to the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 84, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 85 agreed to.
Clause 86:
Control of subdivision of agricultural units.
(3) Subject to the provisions of the Eleventh Schedule to this Act as to mortgages and charges, in this section the expression "disposition" means a conveyance, assignment, surrender, grant, or agreement for the grant of an interest in land; the expression "major disposition" means a conveyance of the fee simple, a grant or agreement for the grant of a tenancy for an interest greater than from year to year, or an assignment or surrender of a tenancy granted for any such interest; and the expression "minor disposition" means any other disposition; and subject to the provisions of the said Eleventh Schedule the dispositions to which this section applies are all dispositions except—
9.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH moved, in subsection (3), at the end, to insert:
"(d) my disposition of land which the landlord has obtained possession in cones-
742
quence of a notice to quit to which the provisions of subsection (4) of Section 30 of this Act apply."
The noble Earl said: This is a small Amendment which is designed not in any way to be obstructive but to preserve so far as possible the Minister, as represented by the county agricultural committees, from doing unnecessary work. It is much the same argument as was used before, but I would like to point out that if you turn to Clause 30, subsection (4), paragraphs (a) and (b) you will find observed there the principle of a small piece of land taken out of a large piece of land. Though on appearance there may seem to be an obvious difference between the two examples do not think that in fact there is much difference. It would make it much simpler for odd pieces of land to be taken over without worrying anyone else on the sub-division of units. None of us wants to see it made a matter for the speculator. I think that the Amendment, as drafted, would exclude all that and would mean that if a landowner wanted to open a quarry or have a shelter built or something of that sort, that type of subdivision would not necessarily have to be challenged and go through the whole processes of committee work. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 12, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have looked at this Amendment. It is rather a technical matter, and I think that although I cannot accept the Amendment I can assure the noble Earl that he need not be at all alarmed. The position is this. We are dealing at page 72, line 10, with "any disposition made in pursuance of a contract in writing entered into at the time when this section is not in force" The noble Earl wants to add to it a further paragraph, paragraph (d):
"any disposition of land which the landlord has obtained possession in consequence of a notice to quit to which the provisions of subsection (4) of Section 30 of this Act apply."
If he will turn to page 71 he will see at line 35 what disposition means. It means "a conveyance, assignment, surrender, grant, or agreement for the grant of an interest in land." I have looked at this, and so have my advisers, to see whether

743
the case of obtaining possession of land as a result of notice to quit is disposition at all. I am assured that it is not, and I think that clearly that is so. That being so it seems to me that any fear which the noble Earl might entertain is quite groundless. A tenant, of course, would be able to object under Clause 31, but it is not a case of disposition at all; therefore we do not want this Amendment here. I hope that the noble Earl will be satisfied and will not press the Amendment.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: In view of the explanation given by the noble and learned Viscount I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 86 agreed to.
Clauses 87 to 89 agreed to.
Clause 90:
Powers of managements, etc., of land acquirea by Minister.
90.—(1) The Minister may manage, farm, sell, let or otherwise deal with or dispose of land acquired by him—

(a) in such manner as appears to him expedient for the purpose for which the land was acquired; or

(b) if he is satisfied that the land ought to be devoted to some other purpose, in such manner as appears to him expedient therefor:

Provided that—

(i) the Minister shall not sell land acquired by him except where it appears to him that it is in the national interest that the land should be devoted to a purpose for which it is expedient that it should be sold by him;

(ii) this section shall have effect subject to any restrictions imposed by or under any enactment on the powers of the Minister.

9.35 p.m.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE had given Notice to move after paragraph (b) of subsection (1) to insert: "(c) if in the interests of economy or good estate management it appears advisable to sell land." The noble Earl said: I ask the leave of the House to put at the beginning of my Amendment the word "or." It makes no difference to the sense of the Amendment; it merely puts it as an alternative to paragraphs (a) and (b) of the clause. I hope the Government will agree to accept this Amendment. All it does is to increase the powers of the Minister. It
744
enables him; it does not compel him. He may sell land if in the interests of economy or good estate management it appears advisable he should do so.
The Government have made a pathetic attempt to try and curtail the increasing numbers of civil servants. They had a "standfast" for figures as they existed on January 1. That failed. The Prime Minister told another place quite recently that of course the number of civil servants depended on what Parliament put on their backs, and if they kept on giving them more things to do the Civil. Service would grow. That is quite obvious. In this Bill we are putting a large additional amount of work on the Ministry of Agriculture. They are to take over the management of property all over the place, and sometimes they are going to farm the land themselves. They are to have all sorts of difficulties between landlords and tenants to resolve, and all sorts of additional work which they have not done before. There is to be a great increase in their numbers.
One thing those of us who manage property know is that to manage outlying pieces of property is uneconomical and unbusinesslike. When property is a long way off it means that you take a long time to visit it, and when you find things you may want done—repairs or renewals and so on—you ask who are the best builders in that neighbourhood whom you can get to do the work. Your official does not know. How can he? He does not live there. He has to hunt round to find someone to do it, and when the work is in progress someone has to be sent to find out whether it is being properly done. As a result, your increase of staff is going to be enormous and extremely extravagant. Those who have had property scattered about found out long ago that where outlying pieces of property cannot be economically managed it is better to sell them.
We do not say "must," we say "may" sell them. So far as I can see at present such a provision is not in the Bill. Everybody agrees that the absentee landlord is the worst of landlords. He does not look after his property as he should because he does not visit it as he should, and all sorts of things happen. Not only do buildings fall into disrepair but tenants are not kept up to the mark in their farming. The agricultural committees may do the farming, but they do

745
not do the management part. I know extremely good agricultural members of agricultural committees who are first-class farmers, but their hedges, gates and suchlike are abominable. I have a tenant of this kind. I told him he is one of the worst tenants I have, and he laughs and agrees. You do not want that to happen in regard to property which is being managed by the State. The State surely wishes to lay down an example to all us landlords as to how property should be managed. But if you are going to have outlying property which will not be managed properly you will be a by-word and a disgrace to people managing property privately. That is a thing to be avoided at all costs. It is a wise provision to put in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 19, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD HASTINGS: It is clear that the purpose of my noble friend in moving this Amendment is to prevent the Minister from tying himself up unduly in respect of land which he has acquired. I take that to be the main purpose of my noble friend's Amendment. I would ask if the noble and learned Viscount would advise the Committee on this matter. The words in the proviso to the subsection are:
"Provided that—

(i) the Minister shall not sell land acquired by him except where it appears to him that it is in the national interest that the land should be devoted to a purpose for which it is expedient that it should be sold by him;"

I have the feeling that those words really do not release the Minister from an unnecessary restriction, a restriction from which the purpose of my noble friend's Amendment is to relieve him. If, on the other hand, with his great knowledge, the noble and learned Viscount is of opinion that the Minister can get out through the medium of that particualr proviso, then, of course, my noble friend's Amendment would fall to the ground. It is not an easy subject.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: If I speak to this Amendment, it is because the next Amendment which stands in my name is designed to achieve exactly the same purposes as that of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope. I like his Amendment rather more than I do my own, because it is
746
more exact; I do not like a lack of definition. The arguments he put forward are beyond doubt very, very sound arguments. Through this Bill His Majesty's Government are laying up for themselves, or rather for their officers, what I might well call—I think I have already called it in public—"a land agent's nightmare." They are going to take over all the worst estates in the country and they are going to take over all the worst farms; and, above all, they are going to take over such pieces of land as may be severed from their parent body—by the incursion of an arterial road, for instance.
As I understand the Bill, unless the purpose of that land is other than agriculture, they cannot dispose of it by sale. It seems to me that in the event of part of a farm being severed from its parent body by an arterial road, one would naturally try to dispose of the severed part to the nearest adjoining farm, so that this could be farmed properly, rather than farm it oneself; and hat seems to me to be inevitable under this Bill. There is no doubt that if you carry on as the Bill proposes, you have, as I say, a land agent's nightmare. I personally do not care particularly which Amendment His Majesty's Government choose to accept. I think my noble friend's is the better Amendment, but I should, of course, be prepared to agree to the acceptance of the Amendment which stands in my name.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I have been impressed by the cogency and the clear arguments, both of the noble Lord who proposed this Amendment and of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. I think they have put up a case which it would be hard to ignore. However, looking at the two Amendments, I must say that I would prefer to embrace the child that the noble Lord has spurned, for I prefer very much the Amendment under the name of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. If the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment, we shall be agreeable to accepting the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor.
EARL STANHOPE: The Amendment which my noble friend has put down contains the words: "Having regard to the use proposed to be made of the land." My idea is that the land will go on being

747
used for the same purpose as before. If it was agricultural land it will go on being used as agricultural land. I am not quite clear whether Lord Radnor's Amendment would enable the Government to sell the land if it were an outlying property. So far as I am concerned in my Amendment, the Government should have that power if they required it.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I did say I liked my noble friend's Amendment rather better than mine because it is more exact. My intention was the same as his, but perhaps the noble and learned Viscount might tell us whether the meaning of my Amendment is the same as that of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps we could also have information as to why the Government do not like the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope. The wording is clear, and it seems to us very sensible. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, said that he preferred the other Amendment, but he did not say why.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid that I cannot answer that one. Nor can I answer the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, because I did not know anything about this clause until a moment ago. It is quite plain, I think, that the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, is about as wide as it can be. Let us see how the words will read if his Amendment is accepted:
"Provded that the Minister shall not sell land acquired by him except where it appears to him that it is expedient that it should be sold by him;"
I cannot think of anything much wider than that.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: "Having regard to the use proposed to be made of the land": That has to be inserted before "expedient."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It then reads:
"having regard to the use proposed to be made of the land it is expedient that it should be sold by him."
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Yes.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That seems to me to be very wide indeed. I can hardly think of anything wider than
748
that. If my noble friend is willing to accept that, I should have thought your Lordships could deal with it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If I may intervene, it is not quite that. The point the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, made, and which the noble Earl, Lord Radnor made, was that it might be used for exactly the same purpose, but better, by somebody other than the State. It is not quite that it should be devoted to some other purpose. It might be devoted to exactly the same purpose. It is the little bit that is divided up.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: The purpose is the same.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think I have an answer now. The reason why the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, is not favoured is that the Amendment would still be governed by the proviso, and it would, therefore, be quite ineffective.
LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: Surely the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, is so wide that you are to have regard to the use to be made of the land. If you think the land is to be used for agriculture, you may then say that as an agricultural proposition it would be silly to own this land and not to sell it to the other person. Does that not bring in what the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, wants?
EARL STANHOPE: As I understand the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, he says that my Amendment is adequately covered by the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and I am, therefore, ready to withdraw it. I am the more prepared to take that course because it puts an obligation on the State that they shall sell the land in the way they should sell it, and not to the highest bidder, as the Treasury would want them to do.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am inclined to think the noble and learned Viscount has given the show away, in that he has pointed out that whereas the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, if inserted in the Bill, is still covered by the proviso, my Amendment is in the proviso, and, therefore, has that much more effect than my noble friend's.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I now beg to move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, lire 22, leave out from ("that") to the first ("it") in line 24 and insert "having regard to the use proposed to be made of the land."—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I am pleased to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 90, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 91 to 96 agreed to.
9.50 p.m.
Clause 97 [Contributions towards cost of liming agricultural land]:
LORD MORRISON: This Amendment and the next one together, with a third Amendment at page 82, line 12, have been put in to facilitate the administration of the lime subsidy. Clause 97 of the Bill contains Amendments to the existing provisions for the lime subsidy scheme, and in subsection (1) (b) extends the subsidy to cover the cost incurred in bringing lime from the place to which it is delivered at the farm by the supplier to the land on which it is to be spread, and also the cost incurred in spreading it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 41, at end insert ("or to be incurred").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 44, leave out ("towards cost incurred").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: The next three Amendments are drafting Amendments, necessitated by reference to the land fertility scheme not only in Part I, but also in Part V of the Act of 1937, for which there should be substituted references to the agricultural lime scheme. These Amendments make the necessary substitution. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 81, line 47, leave out ("Part I of")
line 48, leave out ("the said Part I") and insert ("that Act").
Page 82, line 2, leave out ("the said Part I") and insert ("Part I of that Act").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is an Amendment to which I have already referred. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, leave out line 12 and insert ("cost incurred or to be incurred as mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection as it applies to cost incurred in transporting.")—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 97, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 98:
Prevention of damage by pests.
(3) In the proviso to Section eight of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911 (which allows the putting down of poison for destroying rats, mice or other small vermin so long as reasonable precautions are taken to prevent injury to domestic animals and wild birds) for the words "rats, mice" there shall be substituted the words "animals, other than deer or hares, to which Section ninety-eight of the Agriculture Act, 1947, applies."
(4) The animals to which this section applies are rabbits, hares and other rodents, deer, foxes and moles, and the birds to which this section applies are, in relation to any area, wild birds other than those specified in the Schedule to the Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880, as it applies in that area whether by virtue of the terms thereof or of any subsequent enactment or by virtue of an order of the Secretary of State: and this section shall apply to such other animals as may be prescribed:
Provided that regulations under this subsection may provide that for the purposes of the proviso referred to in subsection (3) of this section any such other animals specified in the regulations shall not be treated as animals to which this section applies.
LORD COURTHOPE LORD COURTHOPE moved to leave out subsections (3) and (4). The noble Lord said: I tried, very ineffectively, to prepare some Amendments re-drafting these subsections, but I was not satisfied with them and I thought the best thing was to move the deletion of the subsections in the hope of getting from the Govrnment a modified intention with regard to the use of poison. Personally I dislike poison, as I expect do most of us who have anything to do with the land. With the probable exception of rats, I do not believe that poison is the best means of dealing with any kind of vermin, and in many cases the use of poison is a very dangerous thing, not only to our dogs but in some cases to ourselves. I was much interested to read in the Press a day or two ago that desperate attempts were

751
being made through the B.B.C. and other channels of communication to find some people who had picked up poisoned pigeons, the eating of which was likely to be fatal. I do not suppose for one moment that the poison was intended for the pigeons. The same thing may happen to other birds. I knew a case some little time ago of some valuable dogs which were poisoned by picking up poisoned rooks.
I am very anxious—and I am sure all of us who are interested in agriculture and food production are very anxious— about the decrease in the population of small insect-eating birds. They have had an awful winter, and many varieties of the most valuable birds, from the fruit growers' and farmers' point of view, are largely diminished in numbers. It would be a deplorable thing if the careless use of poison, not intended for those birds at all but intended for vermin, should lead to the wholesale poisoning of birds and other animals. How one would hate to think that the badgers were being poisoned, but I need not go on multiplying the examples. One ought to be extraordinarily careful, in authorizing the use of poison, to ensure that it is done in such a way that it can affect only animals like rats for which it is intended. I move this Amendment not expecting that the Government will be able to agree to the complete deletion of these two subsections, but in the hope that they will be able to announce a very much more moderate form of subsection dealing with this matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 10, leave out subsections (3) and (4).—(Lord Courthope.)
LORD BINGLEY: I should be glad if my noble friend would carry this to a Division, because we all hate the idea of an extension of the use of poison, and it seems to be utterly unnecessary. The present law is that you may lay poison for rats and mice, and if you can prove that you have done it for that purpose there is no penalty attached. This Bill extends the use to all sorts of other animals, and subjects all those animals to risks which at present do not exist. I think we all share the same feeling about the use of poison, and in these cases it seems to be entirely unnecessary, because at present any animal that lives under ground can be
752
dealt with by gas. Gas does not involve any serious suffering to the animals that die under it, and it does not leave any corpses to spread poison about the country to other animals.
I agree that the process does not cover rooks and pigeons, but I do not believe that the damage done by rooks and pigeons is sufficient to justify the greater risk which will be incurred if this Bill goes through in its present form. We all realize what it would mean if a valuable sheep-clog or any other dog came across the fourteen-day-old corpse of a poisoned rook. It would be perfectly irresistible, and anyone who knows anything about dogs will know what would be likely to happen. I hope the Government will see their way to modify this or to delete it altogether. I have put down later what seem to be two alternatives or palliatives which would secure that you have complete authority before poison is to be broadcast like this, and would also provide for complete publicity, so that everyone will know the area, and the danger existing in it. That seems better than nothing; but I would prefer that we should go to a Division, expressing our complete objection to this extension of the use of poison, which is so dangerous and really unnecessary.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I would like to say right away that I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Courthope, and the noble Lord, Lord Bingley, have said. I think that all of us in the Committee dislike the use of poison. It is dangerous, and from a humanitarian point of view unpleasant. Therefore, I can assure the noble Lords that their views receive much sympathy and we would like to go as far as we can to find some way that will provide sufficient safeguards. It seems that a case has been made out, particularly in the case of rats and mice; but it also seems that there are cases in agricultural production where poison is necessary. I agree that it ought to be closely controlled, so that the least possible unintentional damage is caused. The only question is what is the best method to be followed.
I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Courthope, that his own Amendment is not quite the best way. His proposal to delete subsection (4) actually widens the use rather than restricts it. The noble Lord, Lord Bingley, has an Amendment

753
on the Paper which is very much on the lines of what we would prefer. I cannot quite agree with the actual words, but I would be happy to look at them between now and Report stage and, in consultation with Lord Bingley, see if we cannot devise an Amendment on those lines which would safeguard the position and, I hope, satisfy the noble Lords. If the noble Lord, Lord Courthope, would agree to-withdraw his Amendment, I would be very pleased to give that undertaking on behalf of the Government.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, in his very persuasive speech, has tried to inveigle the House into accepting a less severe Amendment than that of my noble friend, Lord Courthope. But poison is something for which, once it is administered, there is very little remedy; and the poison that you put down to deal with vermin, if inexpertly put down, may well cause a great deal of trouble to many more animals than the vermin for which it is designed. I should like to call in aid my own experience as a liaison officer in the Ministry of Agriculture during the war, at a time when the status of the rook in relation to the agricultural effort was somewhat in doubt. Agricultural opinion was divided as to whether the rook was an enemy which ought to be destroyed at all costs, or whether it was an aid in the destruction of wireworms and, therefore, ought to be preserved.
In one county with which I was concerned the executive officer complained bitterly that his time was fully occupied in signing, and signing quite blindly, orders for the destruction of rooks in rookeries, quite regardless of his own opinion. His own opinion was that rooks were harmful, and therefore any order or request for the destruction of rooks in rookeries was signed by him as an order to destroy the rooks in the rookery, wherever that rookery might be. We stand in danger with the power—and the Bill mentions the county executive committees—of the indiscriminate use by an executive officer of poison to kill certain specified animals, without regard to any effect that that might have upon other animals which may be either the friend of man, or beneficial to agriculture. I must say that it seems to me most dangerous to put in the hands of county committees the power to give permission
754
to put poison indiscriminately almost all over the country. And even my noble friend Lord Bingley's Amendment, which suggests that the Minister's approval is required, does not meet the case, because again I know perfectly well from experience that when a county committee put something up to the Minister, he feels in honour bound to back up the county committee; otherwise, unless he has got very good reason indeed for not backing them up, they will complain.
I think there is a menace in this suggestion that poison should be used rather indiscriminately, and I feel that our present law with regard to poison works quite effectually. There are other means of killing the vermin which are concerned, and there is plenty of power in this Bill to insist that peopde who are, dare I say, responsible for those vermin, take the necessary steps in order to destroy them other than by the means of a free use of poison.
THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: May I say two or three words on this subject? I am glad to hear that the Government are sympathetic regarding this very serious matter of poisoning. Poisoning may go to any lengths. You do not know where it is going to end. It is a most serious matter to suggest that poisoning should be used indiscriminately. That is really what is suggested in this Bill. I was much interested to hear my noble friend the Earl of Radnor say that he thinks that the present law is sufficient to carry out what is required. That is my view also. We must remember that the present Act allows of putting down poison for rats, mice and small vermin, but that poison is usually in the form of a virus which does not affect other animals. Though I fully agree with my noble friend Lord Courthope as to dogs being killed indiscriminately (I myself have heard of a number of cases), I think it is true that virus dots not usually affect other animals.
Another point, which is an extremely important one, relates to birds. The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, mentioned rookeries. It is not always rookeries that are concerned. There are certain woods in this country where rooks and jackdaws go quite indiscriminately. Are you going to put poison in those woods all over the place, and kill everything in them? I suggest that it is a most dangerous situa-

755
tion. There is another matter with regard to birds upon which I feel most strongly, and that is that there is in this connexion a complete lack of co-operation between the Ministries. It is indeed curious that the Board of Agriculture should suggest that poison should be put down to kill birds wholesale, for I happen to know that the Home Office are anxious to bring in a new Bill to co-ordinate all the many Acts for the protection of birds. What will be the good of bringing in a Bill for the protection of birds when they have all been killed? That is what is going to happen under this Bill. Subsection (4) of this clause says that the clause applies to wild birds other than those specified in the Schedule to the Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880. Are you going to ask all other birds not to take the poisoned grain that you put down? I do not know how you are going to do it, but that is what His Majesty's Government seem to be suggesting. I do submit that that is a rather futile way of dealing with the matter.
One other point: I am not happy about Lord Bingley's Amendment because it would put this in the hands of the county agricultural executive committees. In my humble opinion those committees are not to be trusted over a thing of that sort. What are they doing with regard to trapping in the open? I find that in my own county council our agricultural committee are still trapping in the open—and in areas where there is not the slightest necessity, I am told, for anything of the kind. If they are going on with that—which, the Committee may remember, was fully discussed here and a law was passed, and to my mind it is completely illegal—are the agricultural committees to be trusted with a matter of this sort? I sincerely hope the Government will take these matters into consideration and very much amend this clause.
EARL DE LA WARR: I hope the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, will realize that the House is seriously disturbed about this matter. This is a tremendous change that is being proposed, but I think it is fair to say not one single argument has been put up in favour of it. There is no evidence that those who have investigated this problem practically or scientifically have given any reason for saying that this is the only means by which the so-called
756
pests can be dealt with. There is no such evidence, and here we are asked to make a great change. I agree with those noble Lords who feel that even Lord Bingley's Amendment does not really go far enough. I think the noble Lord, Lord Bingley, said so himself. It accepts the principle and merely suggests a slight modification and control. I need not say anything further about the possible destruction of domestic animals. We all have our dogs; some of us have cats; I have not, but some have. Those are being endangered. The noble Lords may think that pets are not an important side of life but some people think they are.
The Earl of Huntingdon himself mentioned the sheepdog, in many ways part of the capital equipment of a shepherd, a poor working man. That is the sort of animal that is to be destroyed. I hope the noble Earl will realize that his assurance that he will think again about Lord Bingley's Amendment is not sufficient. I would like to see these two clauses completely removed until some expert scientific case is put up for their insertion. I think the noble Earl would meet the feelings of the House if he were now to say on behalf of the Government that they will omit these provisions from the Bill.
10.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I do not know if Lord Courthope realizes it, but if we deleted subsection (4) it would actually widen the clause so that it would relate to any animal or bird doing damage to agriculture. I do not think the Amendment would achieve what is intended by the noble Lord. On the general question I should like to say that much as one deprecates the use of poison, there are cases where poison must be used.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will the noble Lord give some details of these cases and the animals to which they apply?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I should be very willing to do so. There are moles, which can be destroyed by strychnine much easier than by traps. Then there is the question of cyaniding rabbits, which I think is a kinder way than steel traps. There are various other methods which, perhaps, are not so agreeable to the Minister, as, for instance, in the case of foxes. We can get rid of foxes by poison,

757
possibly cyanide, and there are other ways which, again, are better than steel traps. There are certain cases where there is a very good case for poison, for instance with rats. I do not see how you are going to deal with rats in certain cases without the use of poison. There are also other cases where in the agricultural interest some kind of poison might be used.
I would like to point out to the noble Lord that the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, would still, apply, even if this Bill were passed, for it is there laid down that reasonable precautions must be taken to prevent injury or damage to domestic animals or birds. If such reasonable precautions are not taken it is no defence to plead that the poison has been used for the destruction of the animals not covered by the Protection of Animals Act, 1911. I think it is true to say that if poison were laid down you would still have to take reasonable precautions, or you would be subject to prosecution. I do not say that it is a complete safeguard, but it is a partial safeguard. I am not arguing this in hostility to the case, because I agree that it is unfortunate that poison should be used and that every sort of precaution ought to be taken if it is to be used. I am more than willing to consult with the noble Lord to see if we cannot work out an. Amendment on the lines of Lord Bingley's first Amendment. I do not think that I can say further than that, because we would have to insist on the use of poison in certain circumstances. We are, of course, open to suggestions as to any reasonable safeguards.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Perhaps I might make a suggestion. I think it is quite clear that there is a very strong feeling in this House about the use of poison. We do not think it is, at any rate, quite so necessary as the noble Earl seems to think. Rabbits, for instance, may be killed by the use of gas; it is not necessary to use cyanide. There are many other ways of getting rid of them, and poison does represent a real danger. It represents a real danger to domestic animal—dogs and cats and so on. There might be a case of a sheepdog in wild open spaces, and there poison would be a very considerable danger. It is a danger which concerns anybody who is interested in birds or animals. Ornitho-
758
logists would say it is a danger to wild birds, many of them rare wild birds. I am sure that ornithologists and scientists generally would be very perturbed if they realized the extent of the danger.
Then there is the remote danger to human beings which was mentioned by Lord Courthope. It would be indeed disastrous if there were deaths among human beings as a result of this. I think the Committee clearly would like to see the omission of any reference to poison in this Bill, but, whether it is best done by deleting subsections (3) and (4) or not, I do not know. In view of the assurance that the noble Earl has given, that he will look into the matter again and discuss it, I think we should be unwise to press this to a Division now, but we reserve the right on Report stage to make quite certain that poison is omitted, if that is the view of the majority of this House. I do not think we should be halfhearted about this matter at all, because I feel that the arguments against poison are much stronger than those in favour. The noble Earl has promised that he will look into the matter with the Minister and he will tell him about the very strong views held by agriculturists and people with knowledge of the countryside. We hope that the noble Earl will keep in touch with Lord Courthope to enable him to be aware of the considered views of the Minister, and to take whatever action he thinks proper before the next stage of the Bill is reached.
LORD COURTHOPE: I do not like to disagree with what is said by the noble Marquess who is my Leader in the House, but would it not be better to have a blank space in the Bill to enable the noble Earl, who dislikes these clauses as much as we do, apparently, to fill in that space with his draft Amendment so that we may study it on Report? Personally, I should like to see these two clauses deleted (though I will not press it against the advice of the noble Marquess) so that we may have the fullest opportunity on Report stage of considering the Amendment which the noble Earl has undertaken to draft to take their place.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If I may say so, I have the greatest sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Court-hope, says, but I feel it would be a little ungracious on our part, when the representative of the Government has said that

759
he will reconsider the whole matter, to insist upon pressing it to a Division. My feeling is that we do not want to have more Divisions in this House than are absolutely necessary, and if there is a chance of getting our point without a Division, I would rather have it by agreement.
LORD BINGLEY: I certainly sympathize with the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Courthope, that we should go to a Division. My Amendment was put down as a possible palliative if we could not clear up the main difficulty. It does not meet the main difficulty. Therefore, I hope that when he is considering the matter the noble Earl will realize that he has got to go further to satisfy the real position and to meet the views expressed.
LORD COURTHOPE: In view of the advice given by the noble Marquess, I do not want to be ungracious at all, and I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, reserving the fullest right to be as antagonistic as I may wish to be on Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 98 agreed to.
Clause 99 agreed to.
Clause 100:
Supplementary provisions relating to two foregoing sections.
(2) Without prejudice to any proceedings under the last foregoing subsection, where a requirement imposed under either of the two last foregoing sections has not been complied with any person authorised by the Minister to act for the purposes of this subsection may at any time enter on the land to which the requirement relates and take such steps as the Minister may direct to secure compliance with the requirement; and the reasonable cost of taking such steps shall be recoverable by the Minister from the person on whom the requirement was imposed.
10.24 p.m.
LORD COURTHOPE LORD COURTHOPE moved, in subsection (2) after "time" to insert "upon giving due notice." The noble Lord said: This is another attempt to secure the maximum of good will between those who are administering this Act (as it will be) and the landowners and farmers with whom they have to deal. I think it is of the utmost importance that every effort should be made to secure that there is a personal meeting between the officers concerned
760
and the farmer or landowner with whom they are dealing. Therefore, I have put down this Amendment. I will not debate it any further, because we have already talked about this on previous clauses. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 11, after ("time") insert ("upon giving due notice").—(Lord Courthope.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I quite agree to this extent with the noble Lord: that we do want to see the best possible relations all round the countryside. But I think this would be rather too wide a provision and therefore I do not think we can accept it.
LORD ASHBURTON: I should like to support my noble friend in this. I had an Amendment down to a previous clause to amend twenty-four hours' notice to seven days' notice. I did not move it as I felt that perhaps if we had it inserted in other places the Government would think again. I think they might give way on this Amendment, which has made more trouble than almost anything else. The farmer or landowner will come home and find somebody wandering about his farm. He does not know what he wants or what he has come for. He goes to his men, possibly behind his back, and asks them questions which they are not fully qualified to answer. It really is most unsatisfactory and it can be saved so easily, because due notice simply implies that the man rings up the night before and says, "Look here Mr. So-and-so I will be round your way to-morrow and I want to come and have a look." There is then nothing more to grumble about. But it would be most exasperating to find these people wandering about without any notice having been given at all. I strongly support the Amendment.
EARL STANHOPE: I hope my noble friend will insist upon this Amendment. Just see what this clause means. It refers to the compulsory acquisition of land, and what you are proposing is that officials should come down without any notice, wander about and take all sorts of information from all sorts of people, in order to acquire that land behind the owner's back. We are not yet the Soviet Republic, nor are we a Nazi dictatorship, and so long as this is a free country I hope that people are going to have rights

761
over their property, and that officials are going to ask leave to go over that property and not take it as a right.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I think there may be some misapprehension on this clause. It says at the beginning, "Supplementary provisions relating to two foregoing sections," and really deals with the question of poisons. I do beg to support my noble friend very strongly here on the general scale, but especially on the poisoning provision, which is I think most dangerous when a man can enter in and put down rat poison without the farmer knowing.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: With regard to that particular point, in relation to poison, I did not mention that because in view of the discussions which are pending I thought we might leave it open. I can certainly give an assurance that we will include an Amendment to the effect that the Minister will give notice before going in and laying down poison.
EARL DE LA WARR: This is not a tremendously important point: and yet in a way it is. We are getting to the point now where anybody can go on to anyone's land without giving any notice whatsoever. I do feel that this is a point on which, without in any way affecting the principle of the Bill, the noble Earl might give way. I think it is quite possible that if he does not give way your Lordships may feel that you would wish to enforce this Amendment. It is elementary courtesy and elementary human right.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I should like to say a last word upon that. I admit that this question is a difficult one. In the first place, I would like to mention that there are precedents for this both in the Factory Acts and in the health administration, although I do not say that they are necessarily parallel. We do not want it to be suggested that these officials are to go around with truncheons, walk in at the door and demand things and be generally unpopular. That is not the intention of this Bill at all. What we want to achieve is the agricultural industry getting together themselves, working together for their general good and for the efficiency of the industry. After all, these committees are not officials appointed from Whitehall; they are farmers and landowners, with a few experts
762
chosen by the Minister. It is the nextdoor neighbour who is coming in, originally in a helpful capacity; and when ultimately he finds that his help is no good and even the advisory service is rejected, it may well be that in the end, and in the interests of the community, he may turn from being so friendly, recommending finally that supervision might be applied. But in all 'the initial stages it is a friendly relationship. If we are going to enforce all this procedure that every time a member of the committee goes to visit a farm he must send formal notice of what he wants to inspect, we are going to build up a feeling that these are inspectors, rather than friendly farmers coming to help and do their best for the farmer and the community. I hope the noble Lord will see that point and withdraw his Amendment.
EARL STANHOPE: During the last two or three months I have had people walking across my land and laying out plans for a large by-pass road, putting in pegs, cutting down wood and so on, and I have not yet had a word from army Ministry on the subject; it was one of the Government Departments, perhaps the Ministry of Transport or the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. But when you have to go to eleven Ministries to get a decision on any matter it is not surprising that it is difficult to know which Ministry it is.
LORD ROCHE: The noble Earl's appeal for friendliness is most touching, but it has no application to this Amendment. This section is a penal section. People who come to one's land for this purpose are not friendly farmers; they are pest officers in search of material a conviction. Persons ought not to come without some notice to the person on whose land they come unless they are properly authorized police officers.
MARQUESS TOWNSHEND: I think good estate management includes letting your tenants know when you are going to look round their buildings. You do not just march in and say "I will look round your buildings." You tell them when you want to come and inspect. I think most noble Lords on this side will agree with that. The relationship between the committees and the farmers will be governed by the way they behave themselves. These people are principally the servants

763
and executives, and not the Committee men themselves. That is a point which we ought to bear in mind.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: During the war we had to put up with a great deal of this sort of thing. People whom we called "snoopers" came round and went over our estates whenever they liked, questioned men servants, and we only heard about them after they had left. The information given to them was not always accurate—necessarily so. We all thought that that was a war-time measure. We were very angry about it; but we accepted it. But now, you are going to embody this same system in this Bill, and I for one cannot reconcile the noble Earl's suggestion that this is done in the spirit of co-operation, because it is very difficult to co-operate with someone who comes on to your land behind your back, questions your farmers or whoever it may be, and then goes away. The spirit aroused is not one of co-operation but of animosity, and I hope that the noble Earl will reconsider this clause, or that the Government will endeavour to make it less offensive.
LORD CORNWALLIS: Perhaps I might be allowed to say one word. I do not want to be accused of being a gamekeeper turned poacher or vice versa, but first of all if, without giving due notice, you are going to put poison on anybody's land, I think that is absolutely outrageous and that cannot be contemplated for one moment. But may I just remind your Lordships of what we tried to do in the war, and I hope that not one single person in my war agricultural committee ever was sent on anybody's land without giving at least a week's notice; and sometimes even that was not enough. I hope that nothing more drastic than we were allowed to do in the war is to be allowed to take place in the future.
I can give the Committee cases in which it has started already, and it is rather amusing. Under the new Advisory Service one of the members of that service went to a farm and arrived about tea time to go into the cropping programme of that farmer. As that farmer happened to be, without any exaggeration, in the first ten best farmers in the world, probably it was not necessary to give him a cropping programme, but when he was
764
met at tea without notice by a person of whom he had been in charge—the farmer was in charge of all the machinery of the county, and he took on as his third machinery officer this man who had since joined the Advisory Service—as the cropping programme officer, it was not likely to start those happy relations that everybody so urgently requires. As a matter of fact, of course, they were such friends that all that happened (as a result we hope of happy co-operation in the war) was that the farmer said "You know nothing about it," and the fellow said "No," and the farmer said "Have some tea and leave me the papers. I will post them to you to-morrow and tell you exactly what the cropping programme is." Of course, the man was delighted. That is all right where two people know each other like that, but if people like that officer are going on without notice you will start this Bill in an atmosphere of rows within the first year.
The noble Earl said that they are neighbouring farmers. Oddly enough, it is their neighbouring farmers they object to more than any other, and it is absolutely essential that neighbouring farmers, members of district committees, should give notice, even to their best friends who are probably delighted to see them, that they are coming; otherwise I assure you that any hope in this Bill of any co-operation, and any hope of improvement between one farmer and another, is going by the board, because it will start in an atmosphere of suspicion and indiscrimination, which is what we do not want.
May I go back to the question of poisoning without due notice? I would warn the Government that what is lacking in the pest officers is the control of poisons. There are not the keepers and the individuals who used to go round every single morning and pick them up, and if you are going to use poison indiscriminately you will have to tighten up the service so that poison is picked up every morning. That is not being done at the moment. Your pest officers cannot do it. They go round and have to leave it for one or two days and it is an extremely dangerous state of affairs. I have been thoroughly well poisoned myself in the last few months— although that is no reason for speaking in this debate. I am one who has issued these orders and that sort of thing, but I do warn the Committee that unless due notice is given, and unless an invitation

765
reaches the officers saying "I am delighted to see you; this or that day is most preferable." you are not going to start in a very happy atmosphere.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I think there is some misapprehension about this. There are three issues here. One is the issue in regard to poison. I was thinking that this would have been meant to apply to all cases under the Bill. Clearly it does not: it applies to this one specific Amendment to Clause 100, at page 84, line 11. With regard to this present question, I quite agree that it would be a bad thing if anyone were allowed to walk on the land without notice in order to put down poison. In regard to that, I can assure the House that we will put down an Amendment, subject to our discussions, under which the Minister's agent would give due notice before entering on the land either for the purpose of putting down poison or for doing anything connected with that purpose. We are prepared to do that. But with regard to this question as it affects defaulters, I think that in this case—quite apart from the matter of poisoning or anything like that—we must allow the Minister's agents, without giving due notice, to go on the land of anyone who may have defaulted.
LORD CORNWALLIS: Even in the case of defaulters, I would not have anyone go on the land without notice. I do assure you that if you give notice it will pay dividends a hundredfold.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Perhaps if I give my own experience it may be of some use to the Committee. Lord Cornwallis said that in his district no one went on a farm without at least a week's notice being given. My experience was that in spite of instructions from the Ministry that notice was to be given, the county committee concerned and the chairman in particular did not like to meet an owner and a farmer upon his land, and they went upon it without any notice. I was considered to be a defaulter at one moment (I was afterwards proved to be not a defaulter, I am glad to say) but the first that I heard of a visit being paid to my land was from my own men, who said that there were strangers on the farm. My reactions can be better imagined than I can describe them here, but I insisted at once, in writing, that the chairman should see me personally on my own farm. But I do
766
not like that kind of thing, nor does any farmer.
TUE DUKE OF RUTLAND: I think this is a matter of common civility. I consider it is monstrous that this right of entry without due notice should be allowed to exist. We had a discussion on the same matter yesterday, and I am perfectly sure that if the Government insist upon this sort of clause being kept in the Bill, the Bill will not work. You are not dealing here with big landowners, and the issue is not political. This is a matter, as I say, of common civility. I think it is monstrous that there should be the right to behave in this way, and something should be done about it.
EARL DE LA WARR: I hope that the noble Earl will avail himself of the very considerable fund of experience there is in this Committee. A large number of noble Lords are either members of county agricultural executive committees or chairmen of those committees, and some were during the war liaison officers and, as such, came into contact with perhaps four or five committees. I say that anyone who had contact with that machinery as it worked during the war, or as it has been working during the last two or three years, would advise the noble Earl that if he wants to continue the operation of this machinery with the good will of the farming community—and I am convinced that it can be done—this is the sort of point upon which the Government must be prepared to respect the feelings of the men of the land. Whenever one came across an instance where there was conflict or difficulty it nearly always had relation to some small point of this character and not to the proper use of the committee's powers. Their powers might have been used in some very drastic fashion, as for instance in turning a man out of his farm, but, on the whole, such use of the powers was accepted by the farming communities. It was these elementary breaches of the common laws of courtesy and decent behaviour that broke up good feeling in about 99 per cent. of the cases between farmers and the committees. I once again appeal very seriously to the noble Earl to meet the feeling of this Committee, a Committee which I assure him has an immense fund of daily experience of the very problem we are now discussing.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I regret that I must argue this in the face of so much experience. I am also sorry about the experiences of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. I am glad to hear that he was found not to be a defaulter. The question is a difficult one. When the Minister issues instructions obviously he would insist that in normal cases every courtesy should be given when anyone visited a farm. But this clause applies to definite defaulters, and I think that the acceptance of this Amendment would operate against the efficiency of the committees. In normal circumstances where it was not a bad case we would always be courteous. But I do not think we can limit by Statute this particular case in regard to defaulters. I am afraid I cannot withdraw from that standpoint.
LORD CARRINGTON: I am a member of one of the noble Earl's county committees and I can speak for every member of that committee when I ask the noble Earl to think again. When one of our officers goes round to a farm he undoes in five minutes all the good work we have been trying to build up for months before. I would ask the noble Earl to think again.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I would like to add one word. I do not think the noble Earl met the point at all. He tried to make out that if this Amendment were made the officers could not inspect a farm. All we ask is that notice should be given. If the farmer is not there, that is his fault, not that of the inspector; therefore no ill will could be caused.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: This point is almost entirely to do with pest control. In committees it is dealt with at a high level by the pest officer who may be a very highly educated man, but the actual people who enter are nearly always the local poachers.
LORD COURTHOPE: The noble Earl appealed to me to withdraw this Amendment. I do not intend to. I have not
768
wearied the House with a personal experience before, but he has been so unsympathetic and shown so little knowledge and experience of what has been happening during the last few years that I will give it. I was made a defaulter. The local war agricultural committee, without notice, sent two young students—one of them was a chemical student from Aberystwyth and the other was a Welshman, a mere boy—to inspect my home farm. They spent a whole day. I was away from home, but I arrived back in the evening in time to find them. They were very rude to me because I was not prepared straight off to accept ploughing orders for 230 acres of grass land and modify my whole scheme of cropping, which I took some trouble about and which I believe was a good one. They were very rude, and I lost my temper and perhaps I was a little rude to them.
At all events, I refused absolutely to consider their proposals until they gave me an opportunity of going round my farms with someone in a responsible position. That was refused and I was made a defaulter, and a committee were appointed to supervise my cultivation. Long before they had finished supervising my cultivation I was sorry for them. They had the deuce of a time. It gave me a certain amount of trouble, too. That is an instance. Quite a number of people, important people, wasted days serving on that committee, investigating every little thing I did on my home farm. I do not think they got any change out of it. The whole thing could have been avoided, because I was only too anxious to co-operate with the war agricultural executive committee if they had given me notice and an opportunity of walking round with them, which both my bailiff and I would have been only too willing to do. In those circumstances, I do not propose to withdraw this Amendment.
On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 15.

CONTENTS.

Rutland, D.

Bridgeman, V.

De Saumarez, L.

Cowdray, V.

Denham, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Davidson, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Salisbury, M.

Elibank, V.

Forester, L.

Townshend, M.

Wimborne, V.

Grenfell, L.

Hastings, L.

De La Warr, E.

Addington, L.

Hatherton, L. [Teller.]

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Hazlerigg, L.

Howe, E,

Ashburton, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Onslow, E.

Bingley, L.

Middleton, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Carrington, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Radnor, E.

Cherwell, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Stanhope, E.

Cornwallis, L.

Rochdale, L.

Courthope, L.

Roche, L

Bledisloe, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Savile, L.

Twesdsmuir, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Stansgate, V.

Kershaw, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Ammon, L.

Marley, L.

Chorley, L.

Morrison, L. [Teller.]

Addison, V.

Henderson, L. [Teller.]

Nathan, L.

St. Davids, V.

Holden, L.

Piercy, L.

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause l00, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 101 agreed to.
Clause 102 agreed to.
Clause 103 [Schemes for provision of agricultural goods and services]:
LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, after subsection (4) to add the following new subsection:
"(5) This section shall extend to Scotland, with the substitution for references to the Minister of references to the Secretary of State."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to make Clause 103, which deals with schemes for the provision of agricultural goods and services, applicable to Scotland as well as to England and Wales. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 43, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 103, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 104:
Provisions as to representations.
(3) If, whether or not representations are male to the Minister in writing, the said person within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner requires that an opportunity be afforded to him of being heard by a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose, such an opportunity shall be afforded to him and, on the same occasion, to any other person to whom under the
770
enactment referred to in subsection (1) of this section the Minister is required to afford such an opportunity, and the Minister shall not take the action in question until he has considered any representations made at the hearing.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved after subsection (1) to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) The Minister shall give notice to the said person specifying the action proposed to be taken and informing him of the effect of the three following subsections."
The noble Earl said: Under this Amendment the Minister is required to give notice to the person concerned, telling him of the action the Minister is proposing to take and explaining to him what his rights are under the clause as to making representations to the Minister. I think this will meet with your Lordships' approval, and I hope you will agree to the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 4, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved at the end of subsection (3) to insert the following proviso:
"Provided that where any person requires that an opportunity be afforded to him of being heard by a person appointed by the Minister in relation to any representation made by him under the provisions of section twelve of this Act, the person so appointed shall not be a member or officer of the county agricultural committee for the area in which

771
the land in respect of which the action is proposed to be taken is situated, or of any district committee or sub-committee thereof."
The noble Lord said: In rising to move this Amendment, a copy of which I have given to the noble Earl opposite, I purposely narrowed the terms of the Amendment as printed on the Marshalled List, because it was considered that the terms of that original Amendment were really too wide in their effect. This Amendment, as your Lordships will see, really refers to the supervision orders, and is limited to dealing with instances where a man has applied for his case to be heard with regard to one of those supervision orders. The point is a very simple one, and will, I hope, appeal to your Lordships. It is to ensure that a man who wishes to appeal should feel that whoever is in charge of the inquiry should not have been on the previous stage (as he is very likely to have been unless some such words as I have suggested are put in) concerned with the decision to make the supervising order. Therefore, I think this Amendment would probably commend itself to your Lordships. In the interests of the applicant a member or officer of the agricultural committee in the area should not be appointed in the category that I have suggested.
Again, it surely would be better from the point of view of the Minister. He would wish to have a report from a man who was completely detached, not from knowledge of the subject but from knowledge of the particular circumstances that had led to the appeal being brought. Moreover, I think it will give the owner-occupier a greater feeling of assurance that his representations will be fairly considered and reported upon to the Minister with whom the decision rests. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will see his way to agree to this Amendment. It seems to be reasonable, and to be consistent with the feelings of most people, certainly in this Committee, that there should be no possibility of giving the impression that the person in charge of the inquiry is prejudiced in reporting to the Minister on a case of this nature. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 19, at end, insert the said proviso. —(Lord O'Hagan.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I feel that the noble Lord has misconceived what our actual procedure will be. When we talk about making representations, it is in no sense an appeal. Our purpose is to allow every side to be heard. We want the person who comes and makes the representations to be able to state his case and to explain to the officer or the committee exactly what his case is and why he does not agree with this or that; and he can bring in someone else to help him. We do not want the officer to act on his own; we wish to allow a full discussion and full representations. It is only at a later stage that appeals come in, but that is a different matter. I suggest that it would be difficult for an outsider to know the actual facts of the case. I hope, in these circumstances, that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: It seems to me that the noble Earl rather misconceives the intention of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. What Lord O'Hagan means is that when someone is desirous of making representations to the Minister on any point he has to be heard by someone. If that someone is in fact the chairman or an executive officer of the committee that has already considered his case, there is really no point in the re-hearing at all. The suggestion is that there should be someone who is not on that committee, and not in any way concerned with the case, who should hear it. Otherwise this paragraph really means nothing at all. Perhaps I might point out that this Amendment was specifically re-drafted to meet what we felt would be a very proper objection of His Majesty's Government. There are many cases in which members or an officer of the county agricultural committee might in fact be the most proper person to hear the representations. We have narrowed it purely to cases where supervision is concerned. We do not in the least stand on the drafting and we are prepared to reconsider that.
LORD O'HAGAN: If I used the term "appeals" it was done by a slip. I certainly meant representations made by the farmer or whoever it was who was concerned at the hearing of the case. It is not a question of an appeal at all. The noble Earl rather misconceived my meaning.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I am grateful for the correction of the noble Lord, but what we have in mind in cases of supervision is that actually it will be the committees, acting as the Minister's agents, who will recommend this man or that to be put under supervision. At the same time, the Minister himself will want to be informed of the exact circumstances of the case. Supervision, although not as serious as dispossession, will be a serious step to take, and obviously we do not want some members of the committee recommending certain action and for their views to slip in without proper consideration. We wish to provide an opportunity for the whole case to be thoroughly considered. The man concerned will state his case and if necessary can have a representative to help him make it out. It will then be forwarded to the Ministry for the Minister's consideration. It is not an appeal at all, as though this were a court deciding a case. We do not want that atmosphere at all. We intend that the whole case should be heard in all reasonableness and submitted for the Minister's consideration.
LORD O'HAGAN: I wish to say only another word, if I may. The noble Lord has just used words which really, to my way of thinking, represent exactly what I said in the first place: that whoever is in charge of this preliminary inquiry will have to report to the Minister. What my Amendment seeks to secure is that that person should not have been concerned in the first place with the suggestion that the supervision order should be made. In that way the Minister would have the opinion of a disinterested person when reviewing the case which he has to consider. I hope the noble Lord will look further into the matter.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I do not think we can accept the Amendment. In the first place, it would be strongly resented by the members of the committee of "X's" land if somebody out of "Y" county were brought in to arbitrate on their decisions. I see the noble Lord's point, and I recognize that he seeks to effect by his Amendment that ample consideration will be shown. But, after all, this is a case which is going to be considered by the whole committee. These people will meet together, and it is to ensure that the matter is thoroughly con-
774
sidered that we give the man concerned an opportunity for stating his case. In those circumstances I do not think that we can accept this Amendment.
LORD O'HAGAN: I do not think, at this late hour, I can press this matter, although I do not consider the noble Lord has quite met the consideration that I and other noble Lords had in mind. I do not press it at the moment, but I would like to reflect on what the noble Lord has said and perhaps bring it up at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 104, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 105 agreed to.
Clause 106:
Provision as to entry and inspection.
(3) Admission to any land shall not be demanded as of right in the exercise of any such power as aforesaid—

(a) if the power is being exercised for determining whether the land is to be acquired under Part IV of this Act or this Part thereof; or

(b) if the land is being used for residential purposes;

unless twenty-four hours' notice of the intended entry has been given to the occupier of the land.
LORD HAZLERIGG LORD HAZLERIGG moved to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3). The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I am really proposing an excision at the bottom of page 86 and the top of page 87, so that the subsection will read:
"Admission to any land shall not be demanded as of right in the exercise of any such power as aforesaid unless twenty-four hours' notice of the intended entry has been given to the occupier of the land."
This had exactly the same principle as the Amendment moved by my noble friend, Lord Courthope, on Clause 100, and all the remarks which were made upon that clause are good upon this. I will not bore the Committee at this late stage by telling any stories of my own adventures in this connexion, but I would like to say that there is more in this than just the wish to have it made clear that notice is given so that we can meet people going round our land if we happen by any chance, to be defaulters. Very often I am worried because I do not meet someone whom I want to meet, simply because they have not been cour-

775
teous enough to give me notice beforehand. I know, too, that this sort of thing can be a great nuisance to the farmer. I hope that as we had to divide over the Amendment to Clause 100, His Majesty's Government will see their way to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 45, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 1, page 87.—(Lord Hazlerigg.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: If I may adopt the noble Lord's words, I think that most of the arguments on the former Amendment might be used on this. At this late hour, I will save noble Lords from the ordeal of listening to them all over again. On the grounds that a full explanation has already been given, and because this is a similar Amendment, I do not see any point in arguing further.
LORD HAZLERIGG: I beg to thank the noble Earl very much.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Does the noble Lord withdraw his Amendment?
LORD HAZLERIGG: I thought the noble Earl was accepting it.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I was saying that most of the arguments used on the previous Amendment were applicable to this. I am afraid that we could not accept the Amendment, but I did not want to go into all our reasons, since the Amendment appears to be so similar to the other.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am afraid that I do not quite understand whether the noble Earl is accepting the Amendment or not.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: No I am not.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: May I suggest, as a simple method of dealing with the problem without having a Division, that when the question is put by the Lord Chairman, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill, you on your side will say "content." We on our side will say "not content." When the question is again put we will say again "not content," and you will
776
keep silent. That will save a Division and your honour at the same time.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 106 agreed to.
Clauses 107 and 108 agreed to.
Clause 109:
Interpretation.
(3) In this Act the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:—
"fixed equipment" includes any building or structure affixed to land and any works on, in, over or under land, and also includes anything grown on land for a purpose other than use after severance from the land, consumption of the thing grown or of produce thereof, or amenity and references to fixed equipment on land shall be construed accordingly;
LORD SAVILE LORD SAVILE moved, in subsection (3), in the definition of "fixed equipment," to leave out from "land," where that word occurs a second time, to the end of the definition. The noble Lord said: In the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Ridley, I move this Amendment. The purpose is to exclude loose fences from fixed equipment. Clause 10, subsection (2), says that landlords must maintain fixed equipment. It is not in the definition of good estate management, but under Clauses 10 (3) and 11 (3) it seems to me that a written contract of tenancy overrides the definition in Clause 109; therefore leases would be exempt. Written agreements, though common, are not universal. Many small owners have not got them. The proposal in the Bill is a roundabout way of forcing people into written agreements. It would be better to make an order in black and white to do what is desired. Also Clause 37 will produce a standard of condition of tenancy which will not be in accord with Clause 109. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 89, line 20, leave out from the first ("land") to the end of line 24.—(Lord Savile.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: It is quite true that fences are a part of fixed equipment which should be provided by the landlord, but, on the other hand, as the noble Lord said, any written tenancy agreement can make it obligatory

777
on the tenant to maintain the fences. We are trying as far as possible to encourage written agreements rather than that matters should be left to chance, and we hope in future that written agreements will gradually take the place of verbal agreements and other arrangements. The landlord would then be able to put in the maintenance of fences and ditches as part of the tenant's duties.
LORD SAVILE: I see. In view of that, and as there does not seem to be any possibility of getting an order laid down, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 109, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 110 to 111 agreed to.
First Schedule [Produce to which Part I of Act applies]:
11.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE moved after "pigs" to insert "wool." The noble Viscount said: I do not propose at this time of the night to take up your Lordships' time over this matter, but I want to elicit from the noble Earl exactly what his attitude is in regard to certain very essential products, such as, for instance, wool and non-perishable market garden produce, in respect of which the Bill does not provide in the First Schedule a guaranteed price or an assured market. I have already said something in regard to wool in the course of the Second Reading debate, and I find it a little difficult to separate the mutton of a sheep from the wool that covers its back. After all, we who keep sheep naturally look to two sources of income from the sheep, and at the present time, in view of the scarcity of clothing throughout the world and the fact that wool produces the greater part of essential clothing, the production of wool ought, in my judgment, to be encouraged in every possible way. I mentioned during the course of the Second Reading debate that I had recently returned from that part of the world which produces 80 per cent. of the whole of the world's wool supply, and I expressed some doubt as to whether even in that part of the world there was sufficient encouragement being given to wool production. We, in the Old Country, surely ought to do our part in that respect for the requirements of our own population. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 91, line 6, after ("pigs") insert ("wool").—(Viscount Bledisloe.)
LORD MORRISON: I have been asked to reply to this Amendment. I regret that it should be so late before this interesting Amendment of the noble Lord's has been reached. I would point out to him that there is already a provision in Clause 6 of the Bill for adding new kinds of produce to the First Schedule. So far as his Amendment is concerned, the words proposed to be added would be outside the financial resolution agreed to in another place, with the result that, if the Amendment were made, it would not be considered as in the ordinary course of the proceedings. Your Lordships' House does not normally pass Amendments of such a kind.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I fully realize that in this Committee we could not possibly divide upon this Amendment, because it would increase the Exchequer charge. Nevertheless, I would like to point out that it is up to us to express our views upon a matter like this, even if we do not take the matter to a Division. So I venture to hope that that will not be regarded as the chief reason by the Government for resisting acceptance of the Amendment. In the circumstances, I do not desire to press it. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE moved at the end of the Schedule to add "Dessert apples: Black currants." The noble Viscount said: With regard to this other Amendment, I should very much like to hear what the noble Earl has to say about non-perishable horticultural produce, and I particularly have in mind such a product as apples, bearing in mind that by far the larger proportion of the dessert apples consumed in this country come from either dollar or other overseas countries. We are told on the best authority that "an apple a day keeps the doctor away." At any rate, that is a theory that we hold with great enthusiasm and conviction in the West of England, whence I come. I also mentioned, exempla gratia, blackcurrants, and I did so because we have all begun to realize that they provide the

779
greatest and easiest available supply of vitamin C, which is considered so essential for the health of our young people. I beg to move in order to elicit a reply.
Amendment moved—
Page 91, line 14, at end insert ("Dessert apples: Black currants)").—(Viscount Bledisloe.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: As has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Morrison, it is not that we cannot discuss these matters, but that in the Bill there are powers to add these things to the First Schedule if we wish to. I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for having drawn our attention to these products. We will consider them, and I hope that later on we may have a discussion on the general policy.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I would like to know if there is a reasonable prospect of action being taken in regard to such horticultural products.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I can give the noble Viscount an assurance that we are considering the horticultural industry. We have been unable to put them in the First Schedule owing to rather difficult circumstances, but we do recognize that it is a very important part of the industry. We wish to help them, and we are in fact having discussions on the matter at present.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third Schedule [Improvements to which consent of landlord required]:
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH had given notice of four Amendments: insert "8. Erection of buildings"; "8. Making of roads or bridges," and to leave out "erection" in paragraph 8, and "making or" in paragraph 12. The noble Earl said: At this late hour I will do my best to be as brief as possible. With your Lordships' permission, I propose to take together the first four Amendments down in the name of my noble friend the Earl of Radnor and myself. The matter of
780
taking out of the landlord's control in the way of permission to erect and so forth, through the medium of the Minister, such vital improvements as buildings is obviously one of great seriousness to all landowners. On Clause 24 this was argued very closely. If there is no proper safeguard over appeal on such matters, we will reserve the right to bring this up again on the Report stage. With your Lordships' permission, and with that reservation, I will not move the Amendments at this moment.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH moved, to insert at the end of the Schedule:
"25. Mole drainage and works carried out to secure the efficient functioning thereof."
The noble Earl said: This is a small matter which might become quite serious, and it is one which has not been foreseen in the drafting of the Bill. We all know that mole drainage is a common and laudable practice. At first sight, there can be no conceivable reason why the landlord's consent should be required for this essentially short-term job. But the land which is going to be mole-drained may have other structures or building works underneath it of which the farmer, as the tenant coming in—or perhaps he has even been there for a long time—will have no knowledge. Mole draining has become increasingly popular, almost as a form of sub-soiling of land, where you would not have thought of mole draining in the old days. But if you have a lot of tile drains under that land you may do irreparable damage, and the man who really knows should be consulted before it is allowed. Therefore, I suggest that mole draining should come into the Third Schedule instead of the Fourth Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 29, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Portsmouth.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: In regard to mole drainage—which as the noble Earl says is usually a tenant's consideration—I must say that I have never seen mole drainage which can be done under buildings.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: Perhaps it was my diction, but I suggested some forms of construction. It might even be an electric cable or a water pipe.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I see the noble Earl's point. Apart from that if was thought that it was better to put this mote drainage where it is, and I would remind the noble Lord that it will be upon the tenant to prove that he has done the mole drainage before he claims compensation. In other words, it will be up to the tenant to prove the value by which he has improved the holding in order to claim compensation. I think that in those circumstances there would be no hardship to the landlord if the tenant were allowed to put in his mole drainage.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I would like to point out that it is not what the tenant has done in increasing the value or fertility of the property, but the damage which he may unwittingly do that is the great danger. That is why I am asking that due notice should be given to the landlord.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I would like to support my noble friend in what he says, and add just one reason which I do not think he gave. In a great many cases of old drains under the land, plans no longer exist and therefore there is a great risk of the tenant doing the damage to which my noble friend referred.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Would I not be right in saying that there would be recourse to the courts in the event of a man doing damage which he might do through ignorance? There would be a very good case for the tenant to pay for any damage done.
MARQUESS TOWNSHEND: I do not think that recourse to the courts should be necessary. The object is to prevent the damage.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope the Government will agree to some of these small and practical Amendments. The House has been extremely patient and restrained, and there have been several questions on which noble Lords on this side of the House would have very much liked a decision. In each case they have controlled themselves in order to give the Government a chance of further consideration. I honestly do not think that we on this side of the House could have acted with more restraint. These little Amendments are put up by practical agriculturists in order to improve the Bill, and
782
they are all turned down with no good reason given. I hope the Government will give us this Amendment and Amendments of this kind.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I cannot accept the Amendment but I will do this, if it will meet noble Lords. This is an instance where I think they have made out a case, and I will look into it before the Report stage without however committing myself in any way to accepting it.
LORD CORNWALLIS: Surely all that the noble Earl is asking is that before mole drainage is performed on a piece of land notice should be given to the owner who may know something about the other drains. We are now talking about courts. Heavens above! Some of us have been mixed up with tenants and landlords all our lives, and our fathers before us; and we have never dreamt of going to court for these things. Do you mean to say that we have solemnly to put in an Agriculture Bill that if anybody mole drains and upsets a land drain they have resort to the courts? What we are coming to I honestly do not know. All that is asked is that notice should be given before mole drainage is applied to a farm. Good gracious me, I should have thought it could be done without any law or anything else.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I do hope that this will not be looked at with a view to finding out the right Government objection. I do not, of course, imply any distrust of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, whose sincerity has been quite patent. It seems to me that these small matters should be met in the spirit in which they have been moved. Even if the Government made it so that notice must be given it would do. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Third Schedule agreed to.
Fourth Schedule:
PART 1
Improvements in respect of which no consent required.
6. Application to land of purchased manure (including artificial manure).
PART II.
Other matters in respect of which compensation payable to Tenant.
Paragraphs 8 to 10 of this Part of this Schedule shall not include crops or produce grown, seeds sown, cultivations, fallows or acts of husbandry performed, or pasture laid down in contravention of the terms of a written contract of tenancy unless the tenant shows that the term of the contract contravened was inconsistent with the fulfilment of the tenant's responsibilities to farm the holding in accordance with the rules of good husbandry.
11.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in paragraph 6, to leave out "artificial manure" and insert "mineral fertiliser." The noble Earl said: If the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment, I will sit down. If not, I will make an impassioned oration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 93, line 38, leave out ("artificial manure") and insert ("mineral fertiliser"). —(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: This is an Amendment which I wish I could accept, because I sympathize with the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and I recognize his knowledge of this question and the great work that he has done with regard to fertilizers. I know that he is chairman of an important scientific organization and I recognize that the noble Earl thinks this would be a useful form of words to encourage certain forms of fertilization. But in fact these words would make it rather difficult. Various forms of artificial manure have boon known by agricultural valuers for a long time, and if we were to insert these other words it might upset a lot of things. They would lead, I am told, to more complications than would be justified.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I regret that the noble Earl cannot accept this Amendment—but I will cut my impassioned oration out! I am chairman of Rothamstead, the home of mineral fertilizers. That is why I put this Amendment down. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: This is just a small Amendment which I do not think noble Lords will wish me to go into in great detail. It is a small point
784
I am putting in to meet a case brought up in another place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 24, at end insert:
(" Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to anything the doing of which is reasonably necessary in consequence of the giving of a direction under this Act.").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fifth and Sixth Schedules agreed to.
Seventh Schedule:
Minor and consequential amendments.
The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923.
6. In section twenty-nine of the Act of 1923 (which provides that the landlord of a holding shall not be entitled to recover, in respect of a breach or non-fulfilment of a term or condition in the contract of tenancy, any sum in excess of the damage actually suffered by him) the proviso, which excludes the operation of the section in relation to the breaking up of permanent pasture, the grubbing of underwoods, the felling, cutting, lopping or injuring of trees and the burning of heather, shall cease to have effect.
7.—
(3) For the purposes of any proceedings for an injunction brought under the said subsection (2) the question whether a tenant is exercising, or has exercised, his rights under the said section thirty in such a manner as to injure or deteriorate his holding, or to be likely to injure or deteriorate his holding, shall be determined by the Minister after affording to the landlord and to the tenant an opportunity to make representations to the Minister, whether in writing or on being heard by a person appointed by the Minister; and a certificate of the Minister as to his determination of any such question as aforesaid shall for the purposes of any proceedings (including an arbitration) brought under the said section thirty be conclusive proof of the facts stated in the certificate.
LORD MORRISON: The purpose of this Amendment and the next is to prepare the way for the consolidation of Part III of the Bill with the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (2).—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 30, at end insert:
("( ) Nothing in the section shall confer on a tenant or former tenant, as respects any period after his right of removal has ceased to be exercisable, any property in a fixture or building not removed by him.").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: The purpose of this Amendment is to clarify the existing provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, in anticipation of its consolidation with Part III of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 39, at end insert:
("5. Section twenty-five of the Act of 1923 (which requires that except in certain cases a notice to quit a holding must be given more than twelve months before the date on which the tenancy is thereby terminated) shall apply to a notice to quit part of a holding as it applies to a notice to quit an entire holding.")—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is also designed to clarify a point in the Agricultural Holdings Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 98, line 6, at end insert:
(" (4) In the proviso to subsection (1) of the said section twenty-seven (which provides that a tenant who receives a notice to quit part of a holding may accept it as a notice to quit the entire holding, to take effect at the expiration of the then current year of tenancy) for the words 'expiration of the then current year of tenancy' there shall be substituted the words 'same time as the original notice'.")—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved,—
Page 98, line 7, leave out from ("Where") to the third ("the") in line 9 and insert ("the operation of a notice to quit depends on any proceedings under section thirty-one of this Act").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
11.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, in paragraph 6, to omit "the grubbing of under-woods, the felling, cutting, lopping or injuring of trees and the burning of heather." The noble Earl said: This is a short Amendment. We think there should be some proviso to safeguard un-
786
necessary damage or destruction, possibly through neglect or otherwise, of felled trees and Underwood. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 98, line 20, leave out from ("pasture") to ("shall") in line 22.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The general rule of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, is that, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, in a contract of tenancy a landlord shall only be able to recover from his tenant, in respect of a breach of an agreement, a sum not greater than the damage actually suffered by the landlord. That is the general principle, but the proviso to Section 29 of the Agricultural Holdings Act excluded certain things. It excluded the breaking up of permanent pasture, the grubbing of under-woods, the felling, cutting, lopping, or injuring of trees, or regulating the burning of heather. Paragraph 6 of the Seventh Schedule deletes this proviso, so that Section 29 of the 1923 Act will apply in the case of every breach of a term in an agreement, and a landlord will not be able to obtain compensation in excess of the actual damage which he has suffered.
Of course, it must be always remembered that a tenant who does these things can be proceeded against and may suffer a forfeiture and the tenant then has to pray the Court to relieve him from the consequence of the forfeiture which he may suffer. It is not a thing that a tenant would be likely to undertake in open disregard of his obligations, but I am bound to say, apart from the risk of forfeiture, that why you should have a different rule for these things, as against anything else, I have never been able to understand. It seems right to me to put the whole thing on the same basis. So far as damage is concerned a landlord does not receive compensation for greater damage than he has in fact sustained. So far as forfeiture is concerned, a man who commits breaches of his covenant may find himself subject to forfeiture. But the whole object is to put all these breaches of contract on the same footing.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for this explanation and, under those circumstances, I would beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CARRINGTON: The next Amendment is designed to take an unnecessary burden from the shoulders of the county agricultural committees. As the subsection stands at the moment, it will be the county committees who will have to decide whether or not a tenant has injured his holding or has caused it to deteriorate. In addition, of course, they will have to find time to interview both the tenant and the landlord and to hear all the evidence. I think that county committees under this Bill will be so overworked that the Minister is going to have great difficulty in finding suitable people to do the job, and anything which would relieve any unnecessary work which will be put on the committees should be encouraged. Moreover, the matters in subsection (3) have always been dealt with hitherto by arbitration under the Act of 1923, and I think should continue to be so dealt with. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 98, line 50, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 3, page 99, and insert ("arbitration under the Act of 1923").—(Lord Carrington.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I appreciate the solicitude of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, lest the committees should be overworked. At the same time, I think that it would be wiser to keep to the committees to decide in this particular case. They are, as I have repeated, I am afraid ad nauseam, competent agriculturists. The committees are made up of farmers and landowners and various people connected with the land. I should have thought that they would be much better fitted to decide this matter than an outside arbitrator who would have to be brought in, it seems to me, rather unnecessarily. I think that if there were any question of unfair decisions or of bias on the part of the committees that would be something that would have to be taken into account. But I do not think, considering the general position of the committees, that there could be any sort of suggestion of unfairness or bias. I must say that the Amendment seems to indicate a lack of confidence in the committees. I hope that, in the circumstances, the noble Lord will reconsider the matter and will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Even at this late hour I feel that I must say a word or two in support of the Amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, would have led me to suppose, by what he said, that when a matter of this sort was being decided the members of the committee, who he tells us are competent to deal with such questions, went out and looked at the land. Unless my experience is unusual, and my own county agricultural committee differ very much from all others, I think that the committee men themselves would not go out. They would not have the time. The servants of the committee would go out on to the land. Now the servants of the committee are not likely to have professional qualifications such as are held by people who usually act as arbitrators. If I am right about this, in practice it is the servants of the committee who will go out on to the ground rather than arbitrators. Is there not, then, point in the Amendment?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: The noble Viscount probably knows far more about the detailed work of county agricultural executive committees than I do. But we wish to encourage members of these committees to go out when it is a question of supervision. We do not want servants of the committee to carry out this duty, we want the members of the committee to do it. I think that in practice it should be one or more of the committee members who should go out and look at the property; and such people, I submit, would have greater skill and knowledge of such matters than an outside arbitrator.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think that this Amendment is in the interests of the working members of these committees. But if the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, feels strongly opposed to the Amendment probably my noble friend Lord Carrington will not insist on pressing it. I do think though, that the noble Earl is speaking with a certain lack of sense of reality when he says that the committee men will themselves more and more go out to farms to perform this duty. Does he really think that he going to get busy farmers to take on more and more duties, in addition to their duties of attendance at the committee meetings? Does he think that in addition to their attendance at committee meetings they are going to take on the task of dealing with little quarrels

789
between landlord and tenant, and generally doing work for which they do not pretend to be qualified? There are trained and experienced valuers and arbitrators whose services are available throughout the country to do this kind of work. But practical farmers are not trained for duty of this kind, and I should certainly be surprised if it were found that they were willing to give up their time to do it. However, it is for the noble Lord to say what his wishes are with regard to the Amendment.
LORD CARRINGTON: After what has been said, all I can say is that I think the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, will find that when this Bill becomes an Act the county agricultural committees will be even more overworked than are your Lordships at the present time. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert as a new paragraph after paragraph 10:
". In section forty-three of the Act of 1923 (which provides for the application of the Act to Crown Lands) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection:—
'(3) Section fifteen of the Crown Lands Act, 1927 (which enables the Commissioners of Crown Lands to pay out of capital the cost of carrying out any works mentioned in the Third Schedule to the Settled Land Act, 1925, or of any works for any of the purposes mentioned in that Schedule) shall apply to compensation payable under this Act for improvements specified in the Third Schedule thereto as it applies to the cost specified in the said section fifteen.' "
The noble and learned Viscount said: Section 15 of the Crown Lands Act, 1927, enables the Commissioners of Crown Lands under the authority of the Treasury to pay out of capital of the Land Revenues of the Crown the cost incurred by them of carrying out any of the improvements specified in the Third Schedule to the Settled Land Act, 1925, those being improvements to which capital moneys under settlements may be applied. This Amendment extends this provision so as to enable the Commissioners to apply capital, with Treasury authority, to compensation paid by them in respect of improvements set out in the Third Schedule to this Bill. The Section so applied
790
enables the Treasury, if they think fit, to direct that sums paid out of capital should be replaced out of income.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: The purpose of this next Amendment again, is to prepare the way for consolidation of Part III of the Bill with the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 99, line 40, at end insert:
(" (2) In subsection (1) of the said section forty-nine for the words 'hearing the landlord or his representative' there shall be substituted the words 'affording to the landlord and to the tenant an opportunity to make representations to the Minister, whether in writing or on being heard by a person appointed by the Minister'.").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, to insert, alter paragraph 11:
"…Section fifty-two of the Act of 1923 (which makes special provision as to the costs of proceedings in the county court under that Act) shall cease to have effect."
The noble and learned Viscount said: Subsection (1) of Section 52 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, provides that the costs of proceedings in the County Court under that Act shall be in the discretion or the Court. This is already provided for by County Court rules, and it is unnecessary and anomalous to retain this statutory provision specially in relation to agricultural holdings proceedings. Subsection (2) of this section authorizes the Lord Chancellor to prescribe scales of cost for proceedings in the County Court under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, and of costs to be taxed by the Registrar of the Court. This is also unnecessary as it is covered by the provision of the County Courts Act. The following Amendment merely includes the repealed section in the schedule.
Amendment moved—
Page 100, line 13, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 100, line 29, after ("(1)") insert ("at the beginning of the definitions there shall be inserted the following—
'"building" includes any part of a building,' and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 101, line 10, leave out ("authorised").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert after paragraph 20:
".Where the operation of a notice to quit served, under subsection (2) of section one hundred and forty of the Law of Property Act, 1925, by the owner of a severed part of the reversion depends on any proceedings under section thirty-one of this Act, the period within which under the proviso to the said subsection (2) the tenant may accept the notice as a notice to quit the entire holding shall run from the time at which it is determined that the notice has effect instead of from the time at which the notice is served."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This paragraph, like the corresponding provision in paragraph 5 (4) of the same schedule, applies where a tenant receives notice to quit part of his holding and is entitled to elect to treat it as applying to the entire holding. The purpose of the paragraph is to enable that tenant to postpone his election until he knows the result of any proceedings which might be taken by him under Clause 31 for the purpose of determining whether the landlord's notice to quit is to take effect. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 101, line 41, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Seventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Eighth to Eleventh Schedules agreed to.
Twelfth Schedule:
PROVISIONS AS TO SCHEMES FOR ADJUSTING FARM BOUNDARIES OR AMALGAMATING FARMS.
Advertisement of References to Commission.
1. On referring any matter to the Agricultural Land Commission (hereafter in this Schedule referred to as "the Commission") under section eighty-seven of this Act the Minister shall publish, in such manner as appears to him best suited for bringing it to the notice of persons concerned, a notice in such form as he may determine describing the matter referred, stating that it is being referred to the Commission, and specifying a place where a map of the area to which the reference relates may be inspected at all reasonable hours.
preparation and confirmation of schemes.
3.—(1) Before submitting a final scheme for confirmation the Commission shall—

(a) in two successive weeks publish in one or more local newspapers circulating in the area to which the scheme relates a notice in the prescribed form stating that the scheme has been prepared and is about to be submitted for confirmation, naming a place within the locality where a copy of the scheme and the map referred to therein may be inspected, and specifying the time (not being less than twenty-one days from the first publication of the notice) within which and the manner in which representations with respect to the scheme can be made to the Commission;

(b) except in so far as the Minister directs that this provision shall not have effect in any particular case, serve on every owner, lessee and occupier (except tenants for a month or any period less than a month) of any land in the area which in the opinion of the Commission is likely to be affected by the carrying out of the scheme a notice in the prescribed form stating the effect of the scheme and that the scheme is about to be submitted for confirmation, and specifying the time (not being less than twenty-one days from the service of the notice) within which and the manner in which representations with respect to the scheme can be made to the Commission;

Provided that no direction under head (b) of this sub-paragraph shall have effect in relation to an owner, lessee or occupier being a local authority or statutory undertakers or the National Trust.
4.—
5. After considering any representations duly made and the report of the person by whom the inquiry was held the Commission shall submit the scheme to the Minister for confirmation, either as prepared or, subject to the provisions of paragraph 7 of this Schedule, with such modifications as appear to the Commission expedient.
11.58 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: This Amendment is self-explanatory. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page III, line 12, at end to insert ("and shall serve a copy of such notice upon each of the owners and occupiers of agricultural land within the area in respect of which the reference is made").—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I quite understand the point intended by the noble Lord, but I would draw his attention to the fact that when the Commission have produced a provisional scheme, be-

793
fore holding a public inquiry they are required by paragraph 3 (1) (b) of this Schedule to serve a notice on every owner, lessee, and occupier of any land in the area which, in the opinion of the Commission would be affected by the scheme. At the earliest stage it would not be necessary to serve notices. It would entail a great deal of work. When the scheme is in being then notices would be served. I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: This is a very small Amendment. It was put in actually because twenty-eight days is quite a common term and "twenty-one" which stands in the Schedule at the moment is rather short notice, and, should people be absent or something like that, it might easily make for trouble. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page III line 32, leave out ("twenty-one") and insert ("twenty-eight").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD MORRISON: Perhaps the noble Earl has overlooked the reason why three weeks is the time mentioned in this Bill. It follows the precedent of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act which was passed as recently as 1946, when the First Schedule provided that a minimum period of twenty-one days is given for representations against a compulsory purchase order. There does not seem to be any reason why the time should be different in this case, and for that reason perhaps the noble Earl would not persist in his Amendment.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD COURTHOPE LORD COURTHOPE moved, in subparagraph (b) to leave out all words from the beginning of the sub-paragraph up to and including "case." The noble Lord said: The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, in requesting Lord Amherst of Hackney to withdraw his Amendment just now pointed out that it was unnecessary, in his opinion, because paragraph 3, sub-paragraph (1) (b), required a notice to be served on every owner, tenant, lessee and
794
occupier, but he omitted to tell the House that that paragraph begins with these words:
"except in so far as the Minister directs that this provision shall not have effect in any particular case."
I never heard of such an amazing thing. This Twelfth Schedule has provisions for schemes for altering the boundaries of farms, and it enables the Minister to direct that a scheme may be submitted for final approval without any notice at all if he so wishes. I think it is perfectly outrageous.
EARL OF HUNTINGDON: This has been agreed. On this occasion, we agree with the noble Lord Courthope, not in all the remarks he made, but on the sense of the Amendment. I am pleased to accept this and the next Amendment in principle, subject to slight drafting alteration on the Report stage.
LORD COURTHOPE: In those circumstances, I need not move my second Amendment.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I said the Amendment is accepted in principle.
LORD COURTHOPE: If the Amendment is accepted in principle, I beg leave to withdraw it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I would like to know what exactly is the position. The Government have accepted in principle to put this in the Bill. Does that mean that they want us to withdraw it now and they will put it in on Report stage?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Yes.
EARL DE LA WARR: It is agreed that the Amendment to page III, line 36, comes in on the Report stage.
LORD COURTHOPE: I think I have to be satisfied.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON moved to insert at the end of paragraph 5:
"Provided that at any such inquiry the Commission shall give such explanation of the scheme as may be necessary for informing the public of the full nature of and necessity for the Scheme and the members of the Commission or their officers shall be subject to examination or cross-examination in respect thereto by any persons objecting thereto or by the persons representing them."

795
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is an old friend by now. I feel that, if the inquiry is to be a reality and not a farce, then the representative of the Commission should before the inquiry explain the scheme fully and should be questioned about it by those interested. I feel that that would have two advantages: first, from the Commission's point of view, it would clear away all possible doubt about the scheme, and it would remove any source of friction; secondly, from the objector's point of view, it would make him feel that the Commission had really justified their scheme and that he himself had had a fair hearing. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 112, line 26, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Carrington.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I regret wry much that we cannot accept this Amendment, which has rather far-reaching results. Again, the inquiry is intended not as a sort of appeal court, or anything of that kind, but in order to allow people to make their representations and to collect all the information possible. I would not like it to be thought that it would be otherwise. We can certainly give the noble Lord an assurance that we will ask the Commission to give a full explanation of the scheme, if that would meet his point.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If the assurance can be given, why cannot it be put in the Bill? I understand in every case that there will be a full explanation given. There is an assurance to that effect. Would it not be wiser to put it in the Bill? The noble Earl is speaking for himself and the Minister whom he represents, and we have the highest respect for them both. But this is a piece of legislation which will go on long after they have disappeared. I have no doubt my noble friend will not want to press the matter at this moment, but I do hope the Government will give a little more consideration to his point. The point of inquiry, in our view, is that it removes misunderstandings and frictions. For that reason, I should have thought the purpose of the Amendment was fully justified.
LORD CARRINGTON: After what the noble Marquess has said, I will withdraw the Amendment, subject to bringing it up again on Report stage. Before I do so, I
796
would like to say that I find it surprising that on every occasion on which this Amendment, or an Amendment like it, has been put forward on any of the Bills before your Lordships recently—and the Amendment has been for only one purpose, that of helping the private citizen, and giving him a fair hearing—the Government have refused to accept the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Twelfth Schedule agreed to.
Thirteenth Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 114, line 44, column 3, after ("fifty") insert ("section fifty-two ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL DE LA WARR: We accept.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Thirteenth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

INDIAN INDEPENDENCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
KINGSTON-UPON-HULL PROVI- SIONAL ORDER BILL;
  MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.
  CERTIFICATES FROM EXAMINERS.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:
  BRIGHTON CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER;
    MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRACTION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER:
    Also the Certificate that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:

  TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION:
  And also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (GLOUCESTER),
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TUNBRIDGE WELLS),
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LEEDS),

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TORQUAY).
  The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at ten minutes after midnight.