Sitting of 17 July 1947

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  INVERNESS BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read a Second time; to be considered Tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  OVERSEAS TOURISTS (FACILITIES)
  Mr. Hugh Fraserasked the President of the Board of Trade whether with a view to encouraging foreign visitors, he will arrange for their issue with petrol and food coupons through travel agencies rather than through Government Departments which are often remote from city centres and where cases of misunderstanding and even discourtesy have been reported.
  The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): Under arrangements recently made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food, overseas visitors staying in catering establishments for not more than 28 days do not require food ration documents unless they wish to obtain certain foods such as sweets and oranges. With these exceptions it is not necessary for overseas tourists to approach Government Departments at all. With regard to petrol, I would ask the hon. Member to await the reply which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power proposes to give to his Question for Written Answer on this subject today.
  Mr. Keelingasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a substantial net gain of hard currencies would accue from the provision of extra petrol for tourists as is done in France, Denmark, Italy and other European countries, and from increasing the supply of soap and towels to hotels; and whether efforts will be made to attract tourists by this means.
  Sir S. Cripps: With regard to petrol, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner), on 15th July. Catering establishments get supplies of soap based either on their average monthly purchases during the six months prior to the introduction of soap rationing or, in the case of establishments not in operation at that time, on the number of residents and the number of meals and hot beverages served to non-residents. The distribution of any part of this soap to residents is at the discretion of establishments. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Food feels unable, in view of the present scarcity of oils and fats, to make any additional allocations of soap to hotels and other establishments. Overseas visitors not living in catering establishments receive, of course, coupons for soap in their temporary ration documents. Under a scheme announced on 5th December, in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Lady Noel-Buxton), more than 180,000 coupons for towels were issued to some 1,000 establishments catering for overseas visitors. I regret that no further supplies can be made available this season.
  Mr. Keeling: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman mind saying whether extra petrol is to be given?
  Sir S. Cripps: It was so announced.
  Mr. Keeling: While I congratulate the President on that decision, is he aware that the suggestion was turned down flat four months ago by the Minister of Fuel and Power and would he keep a sharper eye on his right hon. Friend in such matters.
  Sir S. Cripps: I understand that we have done as desired.
  Mr. H. Fraserasked the Minister of Fuel and Power why, on 20th June, an American spending a few days in England

  567
  was refused petrol coupons for his motor car by an official of the London Petroleum Board, Acton, treated with discourtesy, and advised that tourists were not wanted.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): A number of applications for supplementary petrol coupons were made to the regional petroleum officer at Acton on 20th June, by visitors from overseas. I have not been able to trace any incident of the nature referred to in the Question, but if the hon. Member will let me have fuller particulars, I shall be glad to make further inquiries.
  Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: Has the Minister given instructions that his officials should be polite to foreigners coming to this country, and that foreigners should be treated with courtesy?
  Mr. Gaitskell: It is not necessary to give them specific instructions for that purpose, and I have been unable to find any evidence whatever of discourtesy in these cases.
  Mr. Molson: In regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's reply, were the applications to which he referred granted or refused?
  Mr. Gaitskell: As I do not know to which applications the hon. Member refers, I cannot answer that question.
  Mr. Molson: If the hon. Gentleman has made inquiries about the applications, could he not say whether they were granted or not?
  Mr. Gaitskell: I have pointed out that there were a number of applications. No doubt some were granted, and some refused.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Paper Allocation
    Mr. Martin Lindsayasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the hon. Member for Solihull, in common with other hon. Members, has received prospectuses and trade circulars from Messrs. Hancock and Company, Limited, relating to birth control and kindred matters amounting to approximately 45 pages; that one of these enclosures states that the firm in question was now able to supply the enclosed,
    568
    thanks to partial release by the Paper Control; how much paper has been allocated to this firm for this purpose; and whether he will take steps to prevent similar waste of paper in the form of unsolicited business circulars.
    Sir S. Cripps: Under the provisions of the Paper Control Orders any person may gratuitously distribute a limited quantity of paper for advertising circulars, but according to the records of the Paper Control no paper has been specifically licensed for the circulars to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. Lindsay: Does not the Minister think it is desirable to stop this waste of paper? Could it not easily be done by limiting this class of circular either to previous customers or to recipients within certain age groups?
    Sir S. Cripps: It is difficult to censor the distribution of industrial literature of this type, but there is a very stringent limitation on the quantity that can be used.
    Mr. Gallacher: Can the Minister tell us if this firm has anything to do with the publication of that filthy book "Forever Amber"?
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the President of the Board of Trade when he anticipates being able to make a complete review of the paper allocations for all purposes so that the greater interests of essential technical publications, education, and periodical and book production for export, also other vital national needs, receive a higher allocation than literature, bill posting, etc., which are of less vital need to the national recovery.
    Sir S. Cripps: The allocations of paper for the different usages are regularly reviewed at four-monthly intervals. The next review will take place in about three months' time.
    Mr. Cooper: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend think that, in spite of difficulties, such as the discriminatory policy in the allocation of paper, it would be possible for him to agree to a list of priorities, so as to assist the making of books for export, particularly educational books, instead of the trashy sort of publication now appearing on the bookstalls, and apparently increasing?
    Sir S. Cripps: There is discrimination in this sense, that books are getting 80 per cent, prewar, whereas posters and advertising matters only have 10 per cent.
    Mr. Wyatt: In making the next review of the allocation of paper, would my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that only 15 per cent. of the export orders for books from this country can be met?
    Sir S. Cripps: I am aware that we should like to have more for export.
    Mr. Emrys Roberts: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that there ought to be a far more severe limitation of paper for football pools in this country?
    Sir S. Cripps: They are limited very severely at the present time.
    Mr. Lipsonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will add a representative of the Library Association to the committee responsible for the allocation of paper.
    Sir S. Cripps: I assume that the hon. Member refers to the Committee which advises the Board of Trade on the distribution of the Special Reserve for books. This Committee, which sits under an independent chairman, consists of publishers, and I do not consider it would be advisable to add to its membership representatives of other organisations concerned with books. The Committee is, however, always glad to receive representations from the Library Association, or any other body, in respect of any particular book which is under consideration and in which they are interested.
    Mr. Lipson: In view of the fact that the Library Association represents more readers in this country than any other body and therefore has a special interest, could not the matter be given further consideration?
    Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid not. There would be so many applicants who would think that they also are entitled to be on the Committee.

    Essential Goods (Export)
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that there is an overwhelming
    570
    handicap to production costs by the shortage of many essential goods throughout the country, the Government would temporarily suspend the export drive with a view to enabling industry throughout the country to obtain the essentials for a permanent recovery.
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir, I am not aware of any such overwhelming handicap but I shall always look carefully into any cases in which it can be shown that essential requirements of our own manufacturers for particular types of goods are not being met because those goods are being exported.
    Mr. De la Bère: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that a nation cannot double its exports unless it is allowed to get into its stride, and that this nation has not been allowed to get into its stride? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman further realise that men cannot go on working ceaselessly turning out goods for export, when those goods are urgently required in their own country?
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir, I am not aware of that. I am aware that people in this country want goods as well as do people abroad.
    Mr. De la Bère: Why not let them have them?

    Raw Material Controls (Staffs)
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the President of the Board of Trade whether staffs of raw material controls are allowed to engage in business as merchants and exporters of articles made from the raw materials concerned.
    Sir S. Cripps: No member of the stall of the Board of Trade may engage in any occupation or undertaking which might in any way conflict with the interests of the Department or be inconsistent with his position as a public servant. A very few members of the raw material controls have always been permitted to keep in general contact with their firms, but not to engage actively in their day-to-day management.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I have evidence of a particular individual in one of these controls not only engaging in the sale of the article concerned but, in the opinion of responsible firms, using his influence against them to prevent them

    571
    from getting their allocation? If I submit the evidence, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider taking action?
    Sir S. Cripps: I shall be very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman if he will send me whatever evidence he has.

    Rhodesian Tobacco
    Colonel Ponsonbyasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the amount of Rhodesian tobacco covered by the existing import quotas; and if, in view of the fact that this year's crop is estimated to show an increase of 9,000,000 lbs. he proposes to increase the import quotas to cover this increase.
    Sir S. Cripps: The amount of Rhodesian tobacco covered by existing import licences is 25 million lbs. dry weight. In view of the latest estimates of the crop, and taking into consideration the proportion available in English grades, this amount is being increased by 10 per cent.
    Colonel Ponsonby: Are separate licences issued for pipe tobacco and cigarette tobacco?
    Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put that Question on the Order Paper.

    Waste Paper (Imports)
    Mr. Rankinasked the President of the Board of Trade the average monthly tonnage of waste paper now being imported into this country
    Sir S. Cripps: Separate particulars of the imports of waste paper are not recorded in the trade and navigation accounts, but no licences have been issued for such imports this year.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Is the President of the Board of Trade satisfied with the effectiveness of the arrangements for the collection of waste paper in this country?
    Sir S. Cripps: They are as effective as we can make them. Everything possible is being done to try to get local authorities to perfect those arrangements.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman send somebody to collect my old HANSARDS.

    Tyres (Exports and Imports)
    Mr. Walter-Fletcherasked the President of the Board of Trade the
    572
    respective totals of tyres on new vehicles, and not on vehicles, exported from this country to sterling areas and to non-sterling areas in the two periods January to December, 1946, and January to 30th June, 1947.
    Sir S. Cripps: Exports of new motor cars and commercial vehicles in 1946 numbered 47,000 to sterling countries and 47,600 to non-sterling countries, and from January to May, 1947, 26,100 and 23,400 respectively. No record is kept of the number of tyres exported on these vehicles. The number of pneumatic tyres for such vehicles and for tractors exported in 1946 otherwise than on vehicles was 364,000 to sterling and 481,000 to non-sterling countries and in the first five months of 1947, 192,000 and 238,000.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied with the 50 per cent. sale of tyres to non-hard currency countries? Could he not see that more tyres are exported to hard currency countries, in view of the sacrifice that the export of these tyres entails to this country?
    Sir S. Cripps: We send as many as we can to hard currency countries.
    Captain John Crowder: Will the President of the Board of Trade bear in mind that many vehicles have had to be taken off the roads because of the tyre shortage in this country, and would he be prepared to look at particulars from lorry owners who have very serious complaints to make?
    Sir S. Cripps: Certainly, Sir. We do not allocate these tyres. It is a matter for the tyre manufacturers. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will send me particulars, I will look at them.
    Mr. W. Fletcherasked the President of the Board of Trade the total amount of tyres for aircraft and motor vehicles of all sorts which have been imported into this country from Norway and other countries.
    Sir S. Cripps: In the first five months of this year a total of 3,068 tyres were imported, of which 85 were for aircraft. The only importation from Norway was one aircraft tyre.
    Mr. Fletcher: In view of the fact that the President of the Board of Trade has just given very large figures for the ex-

    573
    port of tyres, can he explain how it is that we should then import them? Has not that rather an "Alice in Wonderland" air about it?
    Sir S. Cripps: Not necessarily. They may be special tyres for special types.

    Scaffold Boards (Importation)
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has had the opportunity of considering the details which have been sent to him concerning the importation into Britain of 73,000 scaffold boards of which the building industry is in urgent need; and if he will take the necessary steps to issue the import licence forthwith.
    Sir S. Cripps: I am satisfied that the importation of these boards would have adverse repercussions on the supplies of much larger quantities of softwood to this country; and I am, therefore, not prepared to issue an import licence.
    Sir W. Smithers: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say that when the building trade is crying out for scaffold boards, he will not grant this licence? Is he determined to stop the building of houses for the people of this country?
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. I am afraid that if we were to do this it would tend to stop building, because it would tend to make other larger quantities not available.
    Sir W. Smithers: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? How can I convey to the President of the Board of Trade, without breaking the Rules of Order, that he ought to be committed to a lunatic asylum?

    Foreign Countries (Import Embargoes)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the President of the Board of Trade what countries have placed an embargo on imports from this country.
    Sir S. Cripps: No country has placed an embargo on all imports from the United Kingdom, but many countries control their imports from us and other countries by licence. Full details are published in each case, as they become known, in the "Board of Trade Journal."
    Mr. Lipson: Is the President of the Board of Trade taking any action in such cases?
    Sir S. Cripps: We naturally make representations in every case where we can.

    Carbon Black
    Mr. W. Fletcherasked the President of the Board of Trade what stocks of carbon black were held in this country on 1st January, 1947, and 1st July, 1947.
    Sir S. Cripps: Stocks of carbon black for rubber manufacture on 27th December, 1946, were 4,868 tons. From incomplete returns for 27th June, 1947, it is estimated that stocks on that date were about 3,870 tons.
    Mr. Fletcher: In view of the explanation given in this House that a good deal of the hold-up in tyres was due to the shortage of carbon black, would the President of the Board of Trade state what really important and active steps have been taken to increase not only the immediate import of carbon black, out also the permanent source of supply?
    Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Scollan: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that there is a great amount of interrogation in this House on the question of channel black? HON. MEMBERS: "Carbon black."] Carbon black is also channel black. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there are interests in America who have a corner in this at the moment, and are very anxious to know if anything is being done to produce it in this country? I hope that if it is, no information will be given in that direction.

    Card Clothing
    Mr. Granville Sharpasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a contributing factor to the shortage of woollen and carpet yarn is the shortage of card clothing; and what action he is taking, in conjunction with the Ministry of Supply, to give better allocations of card clothing to wool textile and carpet-yarn manufacturers.
    Sir S. Cripps: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply is doing everything practicable to increase the production of card clothing, but output is limited by lack of labour and materials. Distribution arrangements for card clothing, which have been under constant review, are at present being examined in consultation

    575
    with the Ministry of Supply, and due weight will be given in this examination to the claims of the wool textile and carpet yarn manufacturers.
    Mr. Sharp: Is the Minister aware that the production and export of textiles in carpets is held up by the export of card clothing, and would he endeavour to see that more of the production of card clothing is allocated to the home industry?
    Sir S. Cripps: According to my information there has been no loss of output for that reason.

    Clothing Manufacture (Lining Materials)
    Mr. Sharpasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to increase the supply of linings; whether he is aware that the lack of balance in the supplies of cloth and linings is preventing the use of the cloth by clothing manufacturers; and what action he is taking give give increased allocations of lining materials to clothing manufacturers.
    Sir S. Cripps: I am aware that many garment makers are short of linings. The effect of arrangements made some while ago for increased production of linings were delayed by the fuel difficulties in the earlier part of the year, but supplies will, I hope, show some improvement in the coming months.
    Mr. Lipson: Is it also proposed to improve the quality of the linings, because there is complaint about them at present?
    Sir S. Cripps: We always try to produce the best goods we can with the material available.

    NEWSPRINT IMPORT RESTRICTIONS
    Mr. Keelingasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated daily reduction in the number of inches of reading matter and advertisements, respectively, which will be caused by the cut in imports of newsprint; and what will be the saving in dollars per yard.
    Sir S. Cripps: I am unable to state the reduction in the number of inches of matter which will result. The newspapers will either reduce their size by one page
    576
    per issue or will reduce their circulation to a corresponding extent.
    Mr. Keeling: Will the President say whether the Government do or do not desire a free expression of news and opinions, and if they do, will they not consider some alternative to this cut, which saves only a comparatively few dollars?
    Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait until I answer another series of Questions on this matter in a moment.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the widespread concern about, and opposition to, the cut in newsprint decided on by the Government, he will have the position re-investigated with the object of reversing a policy liable to misunderstanding in Canada and elsewhere, involving unfair discrimination against a particular industry, and likely to endanger regular future supplies of the material on which the future expansion of the British Press depends.
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. The whole circumstances have been very carefully examined, but owing to the present difficulties of our balance of payments, a reduction in imports must be made. There is no question of discrimination against a particular industry; this is a case where economies can be made without undue hardship to the public or reduction of our power to export.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is my right hon. and learned Friend not aware of the fact that public opinion is most seriously disturbed about this newsprint cut? Is he further aware of the fact that we may well be squeezed out of the Canadian market for newsprint as a result of the Government's policy, and, again, that small independent newspapers may be driven into monopolies, which is entirely opposed to the policy for which this Government stands?
    Sir S. Cripps: I am fully aware of all those arguments, which were put forward when the matter was being discussed. I am also aware that the newspapers naturally have a good opportunity of making the most of this cut.
    Sir Wavell Wakefield: In view of the fact that this decision affects many

    577
    Government Departments, was this decision to cut newsprint a Cabinet or a Departmental decision?
    Sir S. Cripps: All decisions are Cabinet decisions.
    Mr. Clement Davies: Are we to understand that these restrictions are coming into effect immediately; that on Monday there will be a cut in the size of all the newspapers—definitely on Monday?
    Sir S. Cripps: I understand it has been arranged to introduce the new regime on 21st July.
    Several Hon Members rose—
    Mr. C. Davies: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Would this be the right moment to ask you in those circumstances and in view of that answer, to consider a notice of Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 8 on a definite matter of urgent public importance?
    Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman can raise it after Questions if he so chooses, and then I shall have an opportunity meanwhile of considering it.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite—
    Mr. Speaker: It the right hon. and learned Gentleman is going to raise the matter after Questions, we had better continue with Questions.
    Mr. Haydn Daviesasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether in view of the statement of the Newsprint Supply Company that the restriction of imports, which begins on Monday, will involve the cancellation of longterm contracts with North American mills, the Government will urgently reconsider the position;
    (2) what action His Majesty's Government proposes to take, in conjunction with the Newsprint Supply Company, to honour the contracts made with North American mills for 150,000 tons of newsprint in 1947, 180,000 tons in 1948 and 300,000 tons in 1949, in view of the new restriction on imports;
    (3) whether in view of the fact that the new restriction on newsprint supplies, in-
    578
    volving a return to smaller papers and other disabilities will effect a dollar saving of only £1 million in the next six months, the Government will withdraw the restriction.
    Sir S. Cripps: The Newsprint Supply Company have been informed that they may proceed by way of postponing deliveries of some 48,000 tons of newsprint due for delivery from North America during the coming six months, which will involve a saving of about £1,100,000 in Canadian dollars. There cannot be any commitment as to deliveries of these or any further quantities later, but I shall be ready to re-examine the whole matter by the beginning of next year in the light of the general balance of payments position as it then is. In these circumstances, the Newsprint Supply Company will no doubt consider with their suppliers what adjustments are necessary in their present contracts. With regard to the third Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge).
    Mr. Davies: Are we to understand that these contracts remain and are not cancelled, but merely deferred; and if it is a fact of deferment, have the Canadian and Newfoundland mills been consulted, or is it merely a term, "deferment of contract," without consultation with the people to whom the contract was given on the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend?
    Sir S. Cripps: There is no question of cur breaking a contract, because we have not any. The Newsprint Supply Company have been informed that there will not be the dollars available for the quantity of paper I have mentioned, and it has been suggested to them that they should adjust the contract.
    Mr. Eden: Am I right in estimating that a similar saving in dollars could be effected by a cut of one-seventeenth in the import of American films, and would it not be more in the national interest to impose such a cut than to inflict such Draconian restrictions on the British Press?
    Sir S. Cripps: I think it is extremely doubtful whether anything would be saved at all by cutting the importation of even half the American films; they would then

    579
    collect the same sum of money on half the number of films.
    Mr. Frank Byers: May I ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered cutting tobacco by another million pounds in order to make this saving, because he cuts it in very large figures£10 million at a time£so why not cut £11 million, and so avoid this cut?
    Sir S. Cripps: We considered that it would be undue discrimination against the tobacco smoker and tobacco trade if they were asked to carry more than the 25 per cent. reduction they have already had imposed upon them.
    Mr. Davies: Could I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether or not this long-term contract running till 1959 was made with the Newfoundland mills on a written statement of the Government that dollars would be available?
    Sir S. Cripps: There was, I understand, a statement made. I am not quite sure whether it was in writing or not, but there was a statement made that dollars would be available and, had the circumstances been different, they would have been.
    Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is a suspicion in many people's minds—by no means all opponents of the Government—that the action of the Government cannot be dissociated from their well-known dislike of and contempt for the popular Press, and that they are doing this deliberately?
    Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid I cannot prevent suspicion coming into the mind of anybody who is suspicious, but it is quite clear that the Government are taking this action in order to deal with the balance of payments and not with the Press.
    Mr. Nally: Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is an actual fact that before Lord Layton undertook the negotiations with Canadian suppliers, he had in his possession a letter from my right hon. and learned Friend stating in the most specific terms that import licences and exchange facilities for a five-year agreement would be available, and that is the basis upon which those negotiations took place?
    Sir S. Cripps: I understand that is quite accurate; circumstances, unfortunately, have altered since.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman considered that while this is not discrimination against a particular industry, it is discrimination against the whole public? Democracy cannot function without adequate information, and adequate information cannot be given with the present space available in the Press.
    Sir S. Cripps: It is also important for the public to eat.
    Mr. Beverley Baxter: Are we to gather from the President's reply that he seriously does not distinguish between smoking and the power of the Press and the importance of the Press; and does he realise that this will mean the closing of the doors to young journalists and ex-Service men about to make their way, and that the whole House, I think, feels the intolerance and the mistake of this decision?
    Mr. Speaker: With regard to these supplementary questions, I should like to point out that this Question only deals with the cancellation of a contract.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: May I ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that a perfectly plain statement from the Government that dollars would be available has been gone back on, in future any contract entered into and based on an absolutely unequivocal statement by the Government must be qualified to mean "unless we think it is not right to do it later."
    Sir S. Cripps: I think that in all cases where there are emergency conditions arising as regards balance of payments, the Government must be able to take what action they think best for the country.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker; owing to the extremely unsatisfactory replies given by my right hon. and learned Friend, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    At the end of Questions:
    Mr. C. Davies: In consequence of the answer given earlier today by the President of the Board of Trade, I ask leave

    581
    to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance involving the administrative responsibility of the Government, namely, the immediate reduction in the allocation of newsprint to the Press. Before I bring this Motion to the Chair, would you allow me, Mr. Speaker, to make a respectful submission—first, that it is definite, because it involves the restriction of newsprint to all newspapers in this country—
    Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman had better make his submission after he has brought the Motion to the Chair, if necessary. To make it before I give a decision would appear to be unnecessary.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman has asked me for leave to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance involving the responsibility of the Government, namely, the immediate reduction in the allocation of newsprint to the Press. To be quite candid with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the only new point that I can see here is that arising from the word "immediate." The matter was discussed on 8th July on the general question of the restriction of imports, but I find it rather hard, as a matter of fact, to give a decision on this. The point, I quite realise, centres round the word "immediate," and the Debate is to be confined to the allocation of newsprint to the Press and not on the general question of the restriction of imports of paper. On those grounds, I think I should be justified in asking if the right hon. and learned Gentleman has the leave of the House.
    The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 8, until Seven o'Clock this evening.

    FACTORIES, GRANTHAM (ALLOCATION)
    Earl Wintertonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he intends to continue with the re-allocation of Grantham Productions, Limited, to the Cotton Syndicate, in view of the fact that Mr. Westbrook has retired from the syndicate and will, therefore, not be available as
    582
    managing director of the proposed new company.
    Sir S. Cripps: It has been decided to withdraw this allocation.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will the President of the Board of Trade set up an inquiry into how this procedure took place and how the original makers of the "people's car" were pushed out of business?
    Sir S. Cripps: The original producers were not pushed out of business. They went into liquidation. The question then arose as to who should take the factory on and whether they should continue making cars. Various people came forward. The gentleman mentioned in the Question was one of them. It was found afterwards that he could not complete the transaction.
    Sir John Mellor: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what will now be done with the factory?
    Sir S. Cripps: I cannot say until we get the fresh applications in after this application has been cancelled.
    Earl Wintertonasked the President of the Board of Trade if, before the reallocation of the factory site of Grantham Productions to the Cotton Syndicate, steps were taken by his Department to ensure either that prompt payment was made or adequate security given for the large sum of money owing by Grantham Productions for Income Tax.
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. The Revenue claim was left, as it should be left, to take its usual ranking among the genera] body of creditors.
    Earl Winterton: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what amount is involved?
    Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that I could not without notice.
    Sir J. Mellor: Can the President say how this company managed to retain £23,000 due to the Revenue in P.A.Y.E.?
    Sir S. Cripps: I could not, because I do not know whether it is a fact.

  COAL INDUSTRY

    Films
    Mr. Cooperasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what is the procedure which should be followed by any film producing company in order to be given

    583
    full consideration in connection with receiving a commission for the production of films on coalmining, either by his Department, the Central Office of Information, or the National Coal Board, and from which of these funds are made available at the present time for the commissioning of new films or the purchase of films that have already been made.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The Central Office of Information at present commissions, or purchases, the majority of films required by the Ministry of Fuel and Power, or the National Coal Board. But, I understand that the National Coal Board is also prepared itself to devote certain limited funds to the production of films. Any film producer interested should approach the Films Department of the Central Office of Information, or the National Coal Board. The only films directly sponsored by the Ministry of Fuel and Power are technical films on training or safety which necessarily have a very restricted showing.
    Mr. Cooper: In view of the great improvement in production in those industries which have adopted methods of joint consultation, if it was proposed by a group of people to produce a film on such tried and effective methods for the coal industry, to whom should they apply to sponsor this film, or obtain permission for them to carry out this work?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I suggest that the best way would be to apply to the National Coal Board.

    Domestic Allocation
    Mr. H. Fraserasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will now undertake to increase the six summer months' coal allocation of one ton, five cwts. to households with neither gas nor electricity.
    Mr: Gaitskell: I am sorry that no increase in the domestic coal allowances is at present possible.
    Mr. Drayson: Would the Minister give further consideration to this matter, which is one of great importance, especially to farmers and people in isolated country districts, who have no gas or electricity, and have not the same benefits as people in towns?
    Mr. Gaitskell: We would be only too glad to increase those allowances if the coal were available. As regards people with no gas or electricity, they can get additional supplies if they have to cook by coal.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: In this situation, is it really intended to pursue the five-day week?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I think that matter can be pursued in the Debate later.
    Mr. Hobson: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is particularly unfair to poor urban residents who have neither gas nor electricity?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I think the present arrangements deal fairly with the different classes of consumer.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is great dissatisfaction when those without gas or electricity see the full ration being delivered to those who have gas and electricity? Would he give instructions to his regional officers at least to give preference in regard to the rationed amount to those who have not gas or electricity?
    Mr. Gaitskell: All we can do is to fix the maximum amount. We have to leave the trade discretion in deciding how they share out supplies among their customers and they take into account the kind of points which my hon. Friend has raised.
    Lord Willoughby de Eresby: It the Minister cannot increase the allowance of coal to those in rural areas, where they have neither gas nor electricity, will he at least remove from rural areas posters asking people to economise in the use of gas and electricity?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Perhaps the noble Lord will let me have particulars?
    Mr. H. Fraser: In cases where persons have neither gas nor electricity, how can they cook otherwise than by coal?
    Hon. Members: With oil.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Various hon. Members have given the answer—they can cook by oil.

    Exports
    Sir W. Wakefieldasked the Minister of Fuel and Power why fuel, such as

    585
    anthracite grains, has been exported and is being exported from the United Kingdom, when it is urgently needed here at home in view of the grave shortage of fuel.
    Mr. Gaitskell: In the three months following the ban on coal exports from this country imposed in February last, shipments have averaged 43,000 tons per month compared with 420,000 tons for the corresponding period of last year. This coal is exported in the main to Eire, the Channel Islands, and His Majesty's Forces overseas. There are, in addition, a few special cases, where exports are permitted. One such case is the supply of a small quantity of anthracite to Canada.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Is not the same mistake as was made last year being repeated, namely, of exporting fuel urgently needed in this country, and will not such a policy, if pursued, aggravate the fuel crisis in the coming winter? What is the point of exporting anthracite grains to Canada, and then having to buy them back from the United States at a price which is three times higher?
    Mr. Gaitskell: The Canadian market for anthracite is of special importance, as many hon. Members know, and we are anxious to continue what is no more than a token export, in order to keep ourselves in that market.

    Opencast Coal (Wastage)
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the maximum and minimum figures from which the average wastage of 4 per cent. in opencast coal is derived; and in which areas the highest wastage has been apparent in the last year.
    Mr. Gaitskell: The estimate of 4 per cent. as the average rate of wastage of opencast coal between site and merchant relates to the whole period since the commencement of opencast operations in 1942. This figure was not built up region by region, but was calculated for the country as a whole, and I regret, therefore, that it is not possible to give the maximum and minimum regional figures. Regional figures are, however, available for the year 1946–47 during which period the average rate of wastage was 2.84 per cent. The highest rate was apparent in Scotland, but there is very little material difference between the remaining regions.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Is this in any way related to the thickness of the seams worked, in view of the Minister's previous assertion that the highest wastage takes place near the surface edge?
    Mr. Gaitskell: I think the greatest wastage is where the greatest amount of dirt is taken from the coal, and that very often applies to coal near the surface.

    Underground Gasification
    Mr. Houseasked the Minister of Fuel and Power to what extent consideration is being given to the production of gas by firing coal underground.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan), on 1st May, to which there is nothing I can at present usefully add.

    Closed Colliery, Llanelly Hill
    Mr. Watkinsasked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many men were employed at the Waun Nantyglo Colliery, Llanelly Hill, Breconshire, when it was closed down recently; how many have been transferred to other collieries; how many have left the mining industry; how many are still unemployed; and when employment is to be found for these men.
    Mr. Gaitskell: I am informed that 68 men were employed at the colliery when it was closed on 20th June. Forty-eight men have been transferred to other collieries, nine men are still employed at the colliery, and three have retired on account of age. Of the remainder, three have left the coalmining industry, two haulage engine drivers have not yet been placed in employment, and there are three other men, of whom full particulars are not at present available.

    Industrial Allocation
    Mr. Sharpasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that there are industrial firms which are not receiving their normal allocation of fuel and are being compelled to use the stocks they were building up for winter use; and whether he will give an assurance that such deficits will be made good.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Up to now industry has been receiving in the aggregate the amount of coal programmed, but this has not been true of every firm in every area. Where

    587
    the receipts of a particular firm are below the average, I can assure my hon. Friend that as far as possible action will be taken to increase supplies. If my hon. Friend knows of any particular cases of difficulty and will let me have details, I will be glad to have them investigated.
    Mr. Drayson: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give the further assurance that those factories which have been able to effect economies during the summer, and to build up stocks of coal, will not be penalised in the winter months if there is a short-fall in deliveries?
    Mr. Gaitskell: Yes, I certainly give that assurance. It was given by my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and I repeat it.

  TURBINE GENERATORS (STEEL ALLOCATION)
  Mr. Hobsonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what was the number of new turbine generators placed in commission in the selected and non-selected power stations during the period 30th June, 1946, to 30th June, 1947.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Eight sets in selected stations.
  Mr. Hobson: In view of the pathetic number of generators put into commission in the last 12 months, will my hon. Friend make representations to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply to see that there is adequate steel allocation to the firms making turbines, in order that they get the plant?
  Mr. Gaitskell: As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, it takes about three years to build a turbine generator, and therefore we are still catching up on the time lag during the war period. At present sufficient steel is allocated.
  Mr. Hobson: Is my hon. Friend aware that 18 months was the period before the war for the construction of a 30,000 kilowatt turbine generator, and that a power station was built in 18 months on virgin ground during the war? Will he look into the suggestion that turbine generating plants are being held up because the allocation of steel is not being made by the Ministry of Supply?
  Mr. Gaitskell: I think that, again, is a matter which could be more properly gone into during the coming Debate.

  SEVERN BARRAGE PROJECT
  Mrs. Middletonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is yet in a position to report upon the inquiry made by his Department into the practicability of schemes for the utilisation of the tidal waters of the Severn for the production of electric current; and what conclusions have been reached.
  Mr. Gaitskell: The construction of, and experiments with, a tidal model, which are an essential preliminary to further consideration of the project for a Severn barrage will take two years, and no final conclusions can be reached in the meantime.

  MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (DATE)
  Mr. Eric Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is prepared to introduce legislation to enable municipal elections to be held otherwise than in the months of November and March.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): This matter is under consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement.
  Mr. Fletcher: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the general desire that municipal elections should be held in the spring or summer months?
  Mr. Ede: I am well aware of that. I share the view that it would be desirable, but owing to the variable incidence of Easter and Whitsun, it is difficult to find suitable dates.
  Mr. Edward Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that inshore fishermen are disfranchised by thousands during the November fishing season?

  WORMWOOD SCRUBS PRISON (BLACK-OUT REMOVAL)
  Mr. Anthony Greenwoodasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the work of removing the black-out in the boys' wing at Wormwood Scrubs Prison was begun; and when he expects it to be finished.
  Mr. Ede: Three wings of this prison are occupied by young prisoners or Borstal inmates. In one wing the work is complete; in the second it is 75 per cent. complete, and completion awaits fixing of glass which has only just been delivered; in the third, owing to the hazardous and difficult nature of the work, which involves removal of a special paint on the outside of roofing glass, it has been found impossible to complete it with prison labour. Some 25 per cent. has been done, and the remainder is about to be undertaken by contractors: I cannot say when it will be completed; but the contractors have been asked to expedite it.
  Mr. Greenwood: While appreciating the difficulties to which my right hon. Friend refers, does not he think it scandalous that two years after the end of the war this work should not have been completed in view of the fact that Wormwood Scrubs is one of the few places in the country where there is no shortage of manpower?
  Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I do not think that it merits that epithet. The work which remains to be done is of a kind that cannot be done by prison labour.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that part would be used as a Borstal institution?
  Mr. Ede: Part of it is used now as a Borstal institution.
  Mr. Nicholson: Is it not most deplorable that this prison, the most gloomy in the country, should be used for this purpose, for which it is most unsuitable?
  Mr. Ede: It seems to me that every prison which is discussed here is described as the most gloomy. I would not myself have given Wormwood Scrubs that distinction.
  Mr. Greenwood: If my right hon. Friend is unable to assure the House that this work will be completed in the near future, will he give an assurance that he will take every step to expedite the removal of these boys from these very undesirable surroundings?
  Mr. Ede: No. I hope that the contractors will respond to the request that has been made them.

  GREYHOUND RACING (MID-WEEK BAN)
  Sir G. Foxasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the application for exemption from the ban upon mid-week greyhound racing by the Oxford Stadium, Limited, was rejected; and what was the recommendation from the regional board which considered the application.
  Mr. Ede: The Southern Regional Board for Industry was prepared to agree to meetings at the Oxford Stadium on midweek evenings, but after consultation with my colleagues concerned with production, I was not satisfied that the relaxation proposed was unlikely to lead to any substantial interference with industrial production.
  Sir G. Fox: Will the Minister say why he has overruled the regional board? The application was for race meetings on Tuesday and Friday evenings only. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my constituents only go to the dogs after a good hard day's work?
  Mr. Ede: I should have thought that by voting for the hon. and gallant Member, they had gone a good way towards the dogs. The final responsibility in this matter does not rest with the regional board. They tender advice, to which I must have regard. As a result of considering all the advice, I came to the conclusion that this application should not be granted.
  Sir G. Fox: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his remark was very unnecessary? If these regional boards are to be overruled, what purpose do they serve?

  EX-FIREMEN, ACTON (TENANCIES)
  Mr. Sparksasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that N.F.S. authorities are serving notices to quit upon ex-firemen tenants of Acton station houses who were recently dismissed from the N.F.S. after medical re-checks as suffering from disabilities, and upon the widow of a recently deceased fire officer; that this action is causing distress since there is no available accommodation but the public assistance institution; and, in view of the fine wartime record of these dismissed firemen and

  591
  the fact that the local authority have over 5,000 families upon their housing register and are unable to rehouse them, if he will cause these notices to quit to be withdrawn.
  Mr. Ede: Pensioned firemen and fire men's widows cannot be allowed to remain indefinitely in Service quarters which are required for serving firemen, and in the cases to which my hon. Friend refers a suitable letter has been sent to the occupant. I can assure my hon. Friend that, in the action taken to regain possession of Service quarters, due weight has been and will continue to be given to factors of hardship, but I must put the interests of serving firemen first.
  Mr. Sparks: Is the Home Secretary aware that the local authority is already overwhelmed with difficulties as a result of court orders for possession and the eviction of families from furnished accommodation, and that this action on the part of the N.F.S. is making their problem much more difficult? Is my right hon. Friend aware that Nos. 17 and 19, The Green, Kew, Surrey, are two houses over which the Minister of Agriculture has control, that they have been unoccupied for 16 years, and that they are quite capable of use for human habitation? Will the Home Secretary consult the Minister of Agriculture, with a view to taking over those two houses?
  Mr. Ede: It is essential that adequate fire protection should be available for the people of this district. If there should be a disastrous fire, it might well be that the problems of the town council in the matter of accommodation might be considerably increased. I am not aware of the circumstances to which my hon. Friend referred in the latter part of his supplementary question. I will make inquiries.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Can the Home Secretary state the number of notices to quit which have been given in respect of these tied houses?
  Mr. Ede: Not without notice.

  MINISTRY OF LABOUR (STAFF)
  Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Labour why 41,673 civil servants are employed by his Department today as com-
  592
  pared with 28,339 prewar, when there was more unemployment; what extra duties they are now performing; and what are the present total salaries as compared with prewar.
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): My Department has today greatly increased duties and responsibilities as compared with 1939. In addition to being much more concerned with trying to ensure that workers are placed in suitable employment and that those vacancies which are most important in the national interest are filled, it now administers the Factory Acts—[Interruption]—that interruption, arising out of the entrance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), is most welcome. As I was saying, my Department now administers the Factory Acts, which it has taken over from the Home Office, the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, the various schemes for the Resettlement of ex-Service men and women, the Appointments Service and the greatly enlarged vocational training schemes. Its responsibilities under the National Service Acts are also much greater. The total salaries, including overtime, allowances, etc., paid during the year ended 31st March, 1939, and 31st March, 1947, amounted to 6,275,000 and £13,730,000 respectively.
  Mr. Osborne: May the House understand from that reply that the Minister sees no hope of reducing the staff, but rather that it will increase, and that the number of civil servants in the country will not decrease in the next few months?
  Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir, I am in a position to tell the House that neither of those ideas would be correct. The figures I have given relate to April. Since the date to which the hon. Member's figures referred, the number of 41,673 had been reduced to 39,000 by 1st July. It will be seen that staffs are being dispensed with wherever that can be done.
  Mr. Mikardo: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will pay no attention to the suggestion implied in the Question that he ought to reduce his staff by increasing the unemployment figures?
  Mr. Osborne: Since the Government need people in productive industry, surely the question of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) was simply nonsense?

  EMPLOYMENT

    Women in Industry (Government's Appeal)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Labour if he will now make a statement as to the number of women who have entered industry in response to the Government's appeal; and if he is satisfied with this response.
    Mr. Isaacs: The district campaigns have been running for only a short time and at this early stage I have not sufficient information on which to base an estimate as to the response that has been made to the appeal.
    Mr. Osborne: Is not the Minister aware that the Parliamentary Secretary 10 days ago promised that he would give us these figures in the middle of July; the middle of July is now here, and therefore, why cannot we have the answer?
    Mr. Isaacs: The answer I have given is correct. No doubt my right hon. Friend had in mind the possibility of doing that, but the campaign is only just getting well on its way and I would much prefer to await the result. However, if it will assist the House I will endeavour to see if I can get some definite information before the House rises.
    Mr. E. Fletcher: Has the Minister considered the desirability of making a broadcast appeal on this subject?
    Mr. Isaacs: I did that. Whether or not it had the desired effect, I do not know.
    Brigadier Mackeson: Is it one of the objects of this campaign that young married women should be out of their homes even more than they are now, and is not this rather dangerous from the point of view of young children?
    Mr. Isaacs: I take this opportunity of making it clear that what we are asking is that all women who can will come and serve. We do not want women with young children to desert them, and to upset their home life, because that upsets the menfolk and the factories. There must be many, many thousands of women who can help.

    Training Courses (Ex-Servicemen)
    Mr. Sidney Shephardasked the Minister of Labour how many ex-Servicemen, who have applied to undertake a vocational training course, are still waiting
    594
    to be called after a period of six months, nine months and 12 months, respectively.
    Mr. Isaacs: The information asked for is not immediately available but I am having it extracted and will write to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Shephard: Is it not a fact that ex-Servicemen have waited, and are still waiting, for periods of over 12 months? Is not that very disturbing, and what does the Minister propose to do to take up this time lag?
    Mr. Isaacs: The answer to that is quite clear. It is that we are only training men in such numbers as industry agrees can be absorbed. Were we to extend our training facilities and to train a greater number of men, we should find they were unemployed when they came out. All the training is done in consultation with industry and we train the numbers which we are assured have a chance of finding employment.
    Mr. Shephard: Why is it that the Minister says that these figures are not available?
    Mr. Isaacs: I said they are not immediately available. I am having them extracted and I will send them to the hon. Member.
    Mr. Shephard: Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate the information?
    Mr. Isaacs: Certainly, I will.

    Poles
    Lieut.-Colonel Corbettasked the Minister of Labour what arrangements are being made to provide accommodation for those members of the Polish Resettlement Corps who have taken up permanent civil employment in this country.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): Accommodation in hostels and camps is being provided by the Ministry of Agriculture, the Forestry Commission and the National Service Hostels Corporation as appropriate. As an interim measure Poles who obtain work near their military camps can remain accommodated there as civilians after being relegated to the reserve.
    Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that employers are reluctant to give work to Polish soldiers

    595
    who, when they become civilians, eventually will require accommodation and for whom they can see no prospect of providing accommodation; and can he give an assurance that if farmers give employment to Poles they can remain in their camps until permanent housing is available?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I thought that I gave that assurance in my original reply. In any case, if it was not understood, I now give the assurance that Poles who are recruited from military camps can remain in the camps until alternative accommodation is available for them.
    Professor Savory: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that every effort will be made to avoid the overcrowding of these gallant heroes?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I have already given instructions that the space should be raised from 45 square feet to 60 square feet per man in these hostels, and I think they should be very much better for that.
    Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of Labour which are the industries in which Poles have been placed; and the numbers in each industry.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: About 24,000 Poles have been placed in a very wide range of industries. The numbers in the principal industries are as follows: Building and civil engineering, 4,432; Agriculture, 3,730; Underground coalmining, 3,316, of whom at 9th July, 2,388 had completed training and 1,668 had started work; Brick and tile making, 1,021. Smaller numbers have been placed in some 50 or more other industries.
    Mr. Piratin: Can the Minister give an assurance that in all these cases Poles will be placed only in the most essential of industries?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I thought that the figures I had given indicated that they were only going into the undermanned industries.
    Mr. Piratin: The Minister did say "50 or more other industries," and, therefore, I asked my question in relation to that.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Among those 50 other industries are undermanned industries, and they are doing a good job of work.
    Sir Patrick Hannon: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any difficulties are arising with the trade unions or whether the unions are receiving these men in a friendly spirit?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: On the whole, I do not think that there is much room for complaint except in one case about which there has been some difficulty, and I think that we are getting over that very well. On the whole, the scheme is going very well.

    Alien Workers
    Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of Labour how many foreign workers have been brought here from Europe since 1st January, 1947; how many dependants came with them or are following them; to what industries have the workers been allocated; and the numbers placed in each industry.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Up to 14th July, 16,488, of whom 8,863, have been placed. No dependants came with them. Some will follow as soon as accommodation is available but I cannot yet give figures. The men placed have mostly gone into agriculture and the women into the textile industries and essential domestic employment. In addition, 13,861 individual permits have been issued to employers to employ aliens, over 10,000 of which were for domestic employment.
    Mr. Lipson: Will the Minister say what number it is proposed to bring over ultimately and over what period?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: That will depend completely upon the accommodation available and the needs of our own industries.
    Mr. Driberg: Would my right hon. Friend consider the great need of hospitals for domestic workers before the needs of private employers?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: With regard to hospitals, we are now going into the French Zone where we are told there are several thousand single unattached women, and we are hoping to recruit them.
    Mrs. Middleton: What facilities, if any, are there for workers who have been brought from abroad to change from industry to industry after they have become settled in this country?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: In the case of single women who are brought over for hospital and domestic employment, if they have the necessary qualifications and a recommendation is made by the employer, they are given opportunities to train as assistant nurses. That is one indication of the steps we are taking in that direction.

    Disputes (Coal Industry)
    Major Peter Robertsasked the Minister of Labour how many shifts have been lost in the coal industry since 1st January, 1947, by reason of unofficial strikes in that industry.
    Mr. Isaacs: The total number of man shifts lost through disputes in the coalmining industry in the 26 weeks ended 28th June, 1947, was 311,300. Information is not available which would enable roe to distinguish between unofficial and official strikes.
    Major Roberts: Can the Minister explain this high figure of over 300,000, in view of the alleged advantages of nationalisation?
    Mr. Holmes: Can the Minister say whether it is far less than it was under private enterprise?
    Mr. Isaacs: Without any figures, I can say that it is considerably better than it was under private enterprise, but I can say also that it is not only wages that make men happy and comfortable in their jobs. There are other things that get into the machine and cause disturbances.
    Mr. Drayson: Would the Minister impress upon the miners that they are now national servants and owe a duty to the people of this country who employ them, and that they should take an oath of allegiance to the State to carry out their work as State employees?
    Mr. Isaacs: That is a good Socialist sentiment, and we will keep it in mind, but may I remind the hon. Member that he also is a servant of the State as a Member of this House, and that he does not help coal production by—[Interruption.]
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman since when the House of Commons has been nationalised?

    NATIONAL SERVICE (UNIVERSITY STUDENTS)
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister of Labour (1) how many students have been nominated for Class B release to attend universities and technical colleges in 1947; and how many have been granted release;
    (2) how many students were granted Class B release to attend universities and technical colleges in 1945 and 1946.
    Mr. Isaacs: Approximately, 4,250 students were released in Class B for the academic year 1945–1946 and 2,350 for the academic year 1946–1947. Up to 15th July, 1,695 students had been nominated for release in Class B for the academic year 1947–1948, but as releases will be effected shortly before the men are due to commence their studies, only a very few have so far actually been released in Class B.
    Mr. Pickthorn: While quite understanding the last sentence of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, will his office bear in mind the extreme necessity or desirability of allowing certainty to the men and to the academic institutions concerned as long before October as is possible?
    Mr. Isaacs: Certainly, Sir. We will take note of that.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the men who would be released in any case by the end of this year may be released in time to start their academic year this October?
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. That is the vexed question of Group 62 and Group 63. We cannot go beyond Group 62.

    GREATER LONDON (INSURED POPULATION)
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Labour to what extent the insured population of the London and Greater London area has increased since June, 1945; and by what percentage increase this compares with England and Wales.
    Mr. Isaacs: The total insured population is ascertained only once a year, in July, but the figures for July, 1947, are not yet available. From July, 1945, to

    599
    July, 1946, the number increased by 18 per cent. in the County of London, by 16 per cent. in Greater London and by 12 per cent. in England and Wales.
    Mr. Sparks: Is the Minister aware that this exceptional drift of insured workers to London and the Greater London area is causing increasing housing and overcrowding problems for the local authorities, and can he suggest any way by which he can encourage these insured workers to migrate to other parts of the country?
    Mr. Isaacs: I am aware of the migration to London and other large areas. For that reason, the Government are concentrating on getting industries to locate themselves in other areas, thus not only providing work in other areas but inducing some of these people to go there.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the Business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Perhaps the House will permit me, before I announce the Business for next week, to say how very glad we all are to see the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition back in his place. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The right hon. Gentleman has made a remarkable recovery, and all the signs are that we shall have trouble from him very soon. However, we are delighted to see him back in his place.
The Business for next week will be as follows:—
Monday, 21st July—Supply (13th allotted day), Committee. Consideration of the Second Report of the Committee of Public Accounts which relates to currency losses in Europe; and, afterwards, a Debate on the Army, with special reference to recruiting, training and conditions of administration of the Regular and auxiliary forces; Motion to approve the Greenwich Hospital accounts.
Tuesday, 22nd July—Supply (14th allotted day) Committee. Debate on Scottish Affairs; Report and Third Reading of the Education (Exemptions) (Scot-
600
land) Bill [Lords]; Second Reading of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure (Scotland) Bill [Lords]; and of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
Wednesday, 23rd July—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Transport Bill.
Thursday, 24th July—Supply (15th allotted day), Committee. The Ministry of Supply Estimate will be considered. Motion to approve the National Health Service (Superannuation) Regulations.
Friday, 25th July—Committee and remaining stages of the Wellington Museum Bill (Lords) and the Crown Proceedings Bill (Lords); consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Statistics of Trade Bill and to the Industrial Organisation Bill; and, if there is time, Report and Third Reading of the Companies Bill (Lords).
Mr. Eden: With regard to Tuesday's business, it may be of assistance to the House if I say that, so far as the Opposition are concerned, on Scottish affairs we hope to discuss Education and Fisheries. May I ask the Lord President whether his attention has been called to the Motion standing in the names of a number of my hon. and right hon. Friends with respect to the Grantham Factories, and whether the Government propose to Dive time for a discussion of that Motion?
[That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the allocation of the Grantham Factories in 1945 to Grantham Productions, Limited, now in liquidation, and their re-allocation in 1947 to 6 financial syndicate headed by Mr. F. S. Cotton; and to report the result of their inquiries to the House.]
Mr. Morrison: The President of the Board of Trade replied to Questions about that today, and, in the light of his answers, I do not think myself that it is a subject to which time should be given. It could, of course, be raised on a Supply Day.
Mr. Eden: If I may say so, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's replies to Questions did not affect, in any way, the force of the Motion on the Order Paper, but, if anything, they reinforced the arguments of that Motion. May I ask, therefore, whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider giving time for such

601
Motion to be debated, because I think is is most unusual for a Government to allow a Motion like that to stand on the Order Paper?
Mr. Morrison: I do not think so, and I should think that there are precedents. Time is very tight, and there really is not the time available. Moreover, it can be raised in Supply if it is so wished. I think it would be out of proportion to allocate special time to it.
Mr. Eden: I do not know what the Government's view is, but the Opposition view is that it is not right to allow a Motion of that sort to remain on the Order Paper, and if the Government are not prepared to make time available, we shall be prepared to make the necessary arrangements.
Earl Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman look up whether there is any precedent whore, when a Motion has been put down in the name of four Privy Councillors and other hon. Members, making the strongest allegations about the conduct of a Government Department, the Government have refused to allow a Debate upon it?
Mr. Morrison: I am afraid that that rather ponderous language really does not affect it, and I say that, taking the matter in its proper setting and relative importance, I cannot see that this matter is one to which special time should be allocated, especially when it can be deal with in Supply.
Earl Winterton: May I put the question in a manner which the Lord President will not describe as ponderous? Is it not the duty of the Government to allow a Debate on a Motion which must, so long as it remains on the Order Paper and is not debated, be a reflection upon the conduct of the Minister?
Mr. Morrison: So far as I know, my right hon. Friend does not mind the Motion remaining on the Paper, and I do not know that he feels that his honour is involved. Perhaps that will put the noble Lord's mind at rest about that aspect of the matter.
Captain John Crowder: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be making a statement about the news given in the Press yesterday regarding the convertibility of sterling, and the statement in "The Times" that all the correspondence between the Chancellor and the State Department has been published in the United States?
Mr. Morrison: I could not say; I do not know. Perhaps a Question could be put down.
Captain Crowder: Could not the Government say something about this important matter? Are we only to get this news from the Press?
Mr. Morrison: The hon. and gallant Gentleman can put down a Question and get an answer on the point.
Professor Savory: May I ask the Lord President if he will give the earliest possible notice of the Recess, owing to the lack of shipping accommodation and the serious difficulty of obtaining cabins for the journey to Northern Ireland?
Mr. Morrison: I had hoped to tell the House today, but we are not yet sure. It must depend upon how Business goes, but if I can manage it, I will tell the House next week.
Mr. Norman Smith: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he will find time for a Debate on the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the names of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), and other hon. Members on both sides of the House, on the U.S.A. Loan Agreement?
[That, in the opinion of this House, His Majesty's Government should now request the Government of the United States to release us from those obligations under Article 9 of the Loan Agreement and the Final Act of Bretton Woods which prevent us from expanding our Imperial trade.]
Mr. Morrison: I should not think so. I am afraid not.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
"That this day, notwithstanding anything in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 14, a Supplementary Estimate for a new Service may be considered in Committee of Supply."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]
Ordered,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [12TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1947–48
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a further sum, not exceeding £55, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the following services relating to the Coal Situation for the year ending on the 31st March, 1948, namely:—

  Civil Estimates, 1947–48

  £

  Class VI, Vote 6, Ministry of Fuel and Power

  10

  Class X, Vote 5, Ministry of Fuel and Power (War Services)

  10

  Class VI, Vote 13, Ministry of Transport

  10

  Class X, Vote 4, Ministry of Transport (War Services)

  10

  Class V, Vote 4, Ministry of Labour and National Service

  10

  Class V, Vote 4, Ministry of Labour and National Service (Supplementary Estimate) (New Service)

  5

  55"

  —[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

COAL INDUSTRY
3.43 p.m.
The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): The output of coal, including deep-mined and opencast in the first 28 weeks of 1947, that is to say, up to 12th July was 105,534,000 tons. In the same period of 1946, it was 101,358,000 tons. There was, therefore, an increase during this years of 4,176,000 tons. Hon. Members may wish to have the figures for the first six months. I have just given the figures for 28 weeks. Therefore, if we take the first half of 1947, up to 28th
604
June, the output was 98,310,000 tons. But, in the same period of 1946, it was 94,299,000 tons, and that represents an increase of 4,011,000 tons. That is—
Mr. R. S. Hudson: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt him for a moment? Is he referring to deep-mined, or opencast coal?
Mr. Shinwell: I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman so early in the proceedings, because in my first sentence, I said,
"The output of coal, including deep-mined and opencast."
That is the production position in broad outline. Let us consider the output of deep-mined coal alone, since the introduction of the five-day week. In the 10 weeks since the introduction of the five-day week, that is, up to 12th July, the output of deep-mined coal was 35,420,000 tons. In the corresponding ten weeks of 1946, the output of deep-mined coal was 34,731,000 tons. Therefore, since the introduction of the five-day week this year, we have produced 689,000 tons more deep-mined coal than during the corresponding period of 1946.
The only comment I allow myself is that, while the improvement in output cannot be regarded as adequate for all our needs, we have established the fact that at least as much coal has been produced in the five-day week as was produced in a six-day week in the corresponding period of last year. I am aware, however, that the point may be made that manpower in the industry has increased, and that this should more than account for the increased production. It is true that recruitment this year has been good. In the first 26 weeks of 1947, we recruited 53,400 men and boys for the mines. The total wastage during this period was 27,700. The net increase, therefore, is 25,700. That could never have been achieved without the prospect of a five-day week and the assurance of improved conditions.
At the end of 1946, the manpower figure was 692,200, that is to say, the number of persons on the colliery books. But, in the first six months of 1947, we have raised it to 717,900, which is well over half-way to the target set in the Economic Survey, namely, 730,000 men by the end of this year. The present net intake is about 400 a week, and, on

605
this basis, we should reach the target. I should add that, at 5th July, the number of persons employed was 718,300. It should be noted, however, that, of the new recruits, there was a large number of boys, and the majority of recruits—over 30,000 of them—were men new to the industry. This is mainly green labour which requires training before it can do any productive work, still less produce coal at the rate within the capacity of an experienced miner. Let me say most emphatically that intensive recruitment does not lead immediately to increased output. That is a fact of which some people are not aware.
I invite the attention of hon. Members to the stock position. At the beginning of this coal year, that is, at the end of April, 1947, distributed coal stocks totalled nearly 6 million tons—actually 5,989,000 tons—as compared with nearly 7 million tons—more precisely 6,846,000 tons—at the corresponding date last year. But by 5th July this year, we had raised stocks to a figure of 10½ million tons, the exact figure being 10,522,000 tons. At the corresponding date last year, stocks were slightly more than 8½ million tons, the exact figure being 8,603,000 tons. Although we started this coal year in May with nearly 1 million tons less stock than last year, today our stock position is better than last year by nearly 2 million tons. It is interesting to note the present position of the main categories of users. I shall furnish hon. Members with as much detail as is possible. For example, electricity stocks total 3,127,000 tons, representing nearly four and a half weeks' supply. At the corresponding date last year, this figure was 1,476,000 tons. The target for the end of the summer is six weeks' supply, and there are already four and a half weeks' supply.
Gas stocks total 2,108,000 tons, representing nearly four weeks' supply. At the corresponding date last year, the figure was 1,300,000 tons. The target for the end of the summer is five and a half weeks' supply, although we may not do better than five weeks' supply. I want five and a half weeks' supply, but it may be difficult to reach that target. In engineering the present stock is 463,000 tons, representing 4⅓ weeks' supply. Last year's stock was 403,000 tons. Iron and steel stock at present is 384,000 tons, representing 1.7 weeks' sup-
606
ply. Last years' stock was 432,000 tons—rather better—so that we are not so well off as regards supplies of distributed stocks for iron and steel. But the actual increase in stock since the beginning of this coal year in this connection has been greater than in the corresponding period last year, namely, 154,000 tons as against 94,000 tons. The present stock in other, miscellaneous, industries is 2,145,000 tons compared with last years' stock of 1,872,000 tons. I must add that recently we allocated an additional 42,000 tons weekly to iron and steel because of the present needs of production in this important field of industry.
I now turn to the more difficult position of household coal. Stocks of household coal held by merchants are not as satisfactory as I should like them to be. Stocks total 845,000 tons as against 972,000 tons last year, although the actual increase in stocks since the beginning of this coal year has been greater than last year, namely, 599,000 tons as against 509,000 tons. However—and I ask the Committee to take note of this—we began this coal year with lower stocks than last year—only 246,000 tons as against 463,000 tons. Last winter, merchants' disposals of household coal totalled 16,300,000 tons. This winter we must allow for additional registrations, and, in addition, I am anxious to provide for householders more coal than was available last winter. To achieve this I would like merchants to be able to dispose of at least 18 million tons of coal this winter, which represents a substantial increase. That is my objective. But the iron and steel industry, the railways and the gas undertakings also use household quality coal, and they are all most vital consumers. I certainly cannot divert supplies from them. If, therefore, we are to provide this reasonable minimum of supplies to the households of the country, we have to seek the solution in production. The mining industry must produce enough coal to satisfy all these requirements. There is, in my view, no other way.
In order to assess the prospects, let us examine some of the important factors affecting output. I do so realistically. First of all, there is attendance at the pits. It should be understood that, as compared with last year, absenteeism has fallen both overall and at the face. It has also fallen further since the introduc-

607
tion of the five day week, although I must admit that the figures for June are not as satisfactory as for the month of May. Here are some figures. I distinguish between absenteeism at the coal face and overall absenteeism. In April, 1946, the absenteeism at the coal face was 19.75 In April, 1947, it Was 17.99. In May, 1946, it was 17.45, but in May, 1947—and I ask hon. Members to note this—during the first four weeks of the five day week, it had fallen to 10.40. In June, 1946, however, it was 17.98, whereas in June this year, it was 11.94. There had been a rise since the month of May. The same applies to the overall position. There have been corresponding reductions. I shall not trouble the Committee with the detailed figures.
Let us take the matter of disputes. The weekly averages for tonnages lost by disputes has increased, as compared with 1946. In April, 1946, we lost 15,700 tons, but in April, 1947, we lost 37,400 tons. In May, 1946, we lost 17,600 tons, but in May, 1947, during the first four weeks of the five-day week, we lost 34,200 tons. In June, 1946, we lost 30,000 tons, and in June, 1947, we lost 38,300 tons. I tell hon. Members quite definitely that I regard this as an unsatisfactory position.
Captain Crookshank: A very mild way of putting it.
Mr. Shinwell: The machinery now available in the mining industry for the speedy and effective settlement of disputes, the presence in the mining industry of a great and influential union with capable and responsible leaders, makes it, in my view, unnecessary for men to indulge in unofficial disputes. I have said so elsewhere, and I repeat it here. Yet, at the same time, the amount of tonnage lost is not particularly excessive. That must be admitted—a matter of 30,000 tons a week. But there ought to he nothing lost, and I regret that even a single ton of coal is lost through men, in a moment of passion, or through mistaken policy, indulging in lightning strikes.
Perhaps, the most vital factor in the problem is the output per manshift. Now, as compared with 1946, the output per manshift has increased, particularly
608
since the introduction of the five-day week, both overall and at the Lace. Here are the figures of output per manshift. In April, 1946, at the coal face the output per manshift was 2.73. In 1947 it had gone up to 2.77. In May, 1946, it was 2.78. But in May, 1947, during the first four weeks of the five-day week, it had gone up to 2.88. In June, 1946, it was 2.75, whereas in June this year it had increased to 2.87. That is satisfactory; and it is a vital factor in relation to production.
It is obvious that one of the vital factors of production is the number of workers at the coal face. This year the number of face workers in the industry has increased by 8,242. At 4th January, 1947, the number of face workers was 281,152. At 28th June, 1947, the number had increased to 289,394. As I have said, this represents an increase of 8,242. If the manpower target of 730,000 for the industry as a whole is reached by the end of 1947, and the proportion of face workers to others remains constant, a further 6,000 face workers should be at work by the end of the year. Inquiries show that the absorption over the whole year of 14,000 face workers—the 8,000 already absorbed, plus a further 6,000—would be practicable. In addition, if there were a free flow of equipment and full co-operation by the men, more face room than this could be provided, and additional face workers could be made available by upgrading, provided that the men agreed. Undoubtedly, given an additional 14,000 face workers—and that seems likely—this year, a considerable additional weekly tonnage ought to result.
Another important factor is machinery and other equipment. Increased mechanisation will also increase production, as we know. An examination of over ion mechanisation projects introduced at individual collieries by the National Coal Board has shown an increase of 60 per cent. in output per manshift. Deliveries of essential equipment are showing some improvement over last year, but orders are being placed by individual collieries faster than the rate of increase of deliveries. The shortage of conveyor belting is likely to be particularly acute. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply is doing his best to increase rates of delivery, and if his plans are successful there should be a gradual improvement over the

609
rest of the year. The outlook for 1948 is not unsatisfactory, with the exception of conveyor belting. In the first half of this year manufacturers had delivered nearly 1,000 conveyers, 470 coal cutters, 50 loaders, and 4,000,000 feet of conveyor belting. Orders totalling over £9,500,00 have been placed for the second half of this year. Orders have been placed for beyond the end of the year, and overall contracts up to the middle of 1948, are under negotiation.
What about opencast machinery? Earlier this year I sent a mission to the United States of America to purchase additional excavators for opencast work. Opencast operations and output depend more on machinery than on manpower. As a result, we hope to obtain this year additional overburden excavators with a total capacity of 145 cubic yards. This is in addition to orders already placed in the United States, and, allowing for British production, we should, by the end of the year, increase our total overburden excavator capacity from 945 to 1,205 cubic yards; and that connotes increased opencast production.
What are the National Coal Board's short-term plans—and I emphasise "short-term plans" as distinct from long-term policy—for increasing output? It is with short-term plans that we are primarily concerned. Apart from increased mechanisation, there are other methods in hand, including concentration of coal faces. Now, this involves the replacement of small, scattered districts served by separate roads and haulages carrying small outputs, by groups of faces close together with a common loading point served by a single haulage carrying a large output per shift. This will reduce costs and release haulage workers—which is very important, indeed—and equipment for work elsewhere.
Then there is the concentration of output on selected collieries. All the coal divisions in the country are reviewing sub-normal pits, with a view to closing them and transferring men to other pits where face room exists or can be made. A number of such closures have already been made, but we must proceed carefully in this connection because of the social implications. One of the most promising prospects is that of the drift mines. Such mines can usually be quickly developed at low capital cost.
610
This possibility of utilising coal at shallow depths but beyond the reach of opencast workings is being examined by all divisions. Some 60 drift mines are now in process of development, and several have already reached the productive stage. They will become more productive next year, and by the end of 1948 the total output from drift mines should be substantial. The overall output per man-shift at these mines is high; in some cases as much as three tons. Therefore, we see how advantageous it would be if we could develop this process speedily.
There is also underground lighting. The National Coal Board are experimenting with new methods of face lighting, including fluorescent lighting, and installations are in hand already in nine pits. This should assist in increasing production. The more light at the coal face, the better it is. But it should also assist in reducing the number of accidents at the coal face; and that, in its turn, has a beneficial effect on output. Moreover, reassessment of tasks is being pursued in all divisions, with the assistance of the National Union of Mineworkers. The inherent suspicion of the miner of new methods—and I am afraid there are some miners who are conservative; though not politically, thank heavens—designed to increase his productive effort, will have to be overcome It reassessment is to be achieved properly; that is to say, in lengthening the stint, and in a variety of other ways. For this we rely on the new conciliation machinery and the efforts of the National Union of Mineworkers; and, so far as I have gathered—certainly among the leaders of that organisation—there is full co-operation.
Finally on the short-term plans of the National Coal Board, I would refer to training schemes. The Board are pressing on with new training schemes, although the creation and operation of the necessary training faces must take some time. It seems to be assumed that all we require to do is to get boys and men from other industries, plant them in the pits, and the coal emerges. Well, the men and boys have to be trained; and they have to be trained realistically. They can undergo a certain amount of training on the surface, in mining schools, and at mechanisation centres. But realistic training is essential in the pits, and unless training faces are available training is impeded.

611
Hon. Members will expect me to say something about coal imports. Let me be quite definite with the Committee. I have never liked the prospect of importing coal. Indeed, I have an intense and cordial dislike for an operation of that kind. This country should be resuming its traditional role of a coal exporter, and in my view it must do so with the utmost speed. I regard it as deplorable that in a country where coal is indigenous, where there are vast resources, and when the pits are available—although not in as good a condition as we should like them to be—that we should be forced into the position of importing coal. Nevertheless, in our present circumstances I am grateful to the United States of America and Poland for any supplies we may receive from them. As regards United States' coal, the European Coal Organisation recommended to the United States Government that, we should get, during the period July to September, the first 600,000 tons of any United States coal available in excess of nine million tons allocated to Europe. We were also given the right to purchase any quantities not taken up by other countries out of the nine million tons.
Orders have been placed and shipping chartered for 135,000 tons of United States' coal. One cargo of 9,000 tons is expected to arrive before the end of this month. That is an important and historic event. Nine thousand tons is just about the daily output of one of the large pits in this country. There is a hopeful prospect, if all goes well, of receiving a further 500,000 tons in the next three months. The National Coal Board are satisfied, in general, with the quality of coal, which includes a good proportion of gas and coking coal; and gas and coking coal are very important indeed. There is also the matter of Polish coal. As a result of the Anglo-Polish trade agreement, which was confirmed on 9th June, Poland agreed to provide 240,000 tons of coal in a period of 12 months. One cargo of 6,000 tons has already arrived, and two further cargoes are expected before the end of this month. During the next three months the National Coal Board hope to receive 60,000 tons of Polish coal, and shipments should continue at a rate of not less than 20,000 tons a month.
If absenteeism—and I agree there has been a remarkably striking reduction, for
612
which we are grateful—could be brought down to the level of those first few weeks when the five-day week began, we should not require to import any more coal next year. That is the position.
Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: Could my right hon. Friend tell us the price of the coal?
Mr. Shinwell: There will be an opportunity for hon. Members to express their views and to ask questions, which will be answered by the Parliamentary Secretary. At the moment I would rather just state my case. Perhaps I might say that, so far as we can gather, the price of the United States coal c.i.f. will be about £ 5 10s a ton; in the case of Polish coal it will vary from about £3 to £5 6s. a ton.
What is the position of coal exports? In January to May this year—and I mention this matter of coal exports because there is a great deal of misunderstanding about it—exports totalled 422,000 tons, as against 2,110,000 tons in the corresponding period in 1946. Since February exports have averaged 43,000 tons a month, as against 420,000 tons in the corresponding months last year. Exports now go only to the Channel Islands, Eire, His Majesty's Forces Overseas, and Canada, where we sent anthracite peas and grains. An agreement to export 45,000 tons of peas and grains to Canada was made to keep in consumption in Canada special domestic appliances, and so to preserve this market. The rest is foreign bunkers. In the period January to May, 1947, foreign bunkers averaged 374,000 tons a month, as compared with almost one million tons a month before the war. Bunkers would have been substantially higher but for the fact that arrangements were made in February for ships on the Atlantic run to double-bunker at American and Canadian ports. I am satisfied that a determined effort must be made next year to revive our export trade. This should be possible if more coalfaces are opened, if more face workers are employed, and if more machinery is made available; more important still, it depends on output per manshift and regular attendance at the pits. There is a reasonable hope that all this can be achieved, and that at least a trickle of exports can begin to flow in 1948.
There is the picture in broad outline. There are some satisfactory features, and

613
there are other features less favourable. I keep in close daily contact with the National Coal Board. They do not require to be prodded; there is a sense of urgency, and they realise the paramount needs of the nation in respect of coal. I have paid weekly visits to the coalfields, and I must have visited almost every coalfield by now, and some of them several times. There is full and harmonious co-operation among the men as far as the Coal Board is concerned, and in relation to the Ministry of Fuel and Power. There is, however, a responsibility resting heavily on the shoulders of that minority of men—about 10 per cent. or 12 per cent.—who, for one reason or another, are not pulling their weight. I said the other day, at the Conference of the National Union of Mineworkers at Rothesay, that 90 per cent. of the men are playing the game and playing it well, and deserve credit, but there is that minority. It is not fair to their colleagues; it is not fair to the National Union of Mineworkers, and they are rendering a Great disservice to the whole nation. The other day, Mr. Will Lawther, the President of the National Union of Mineworkers, said that in the last six months, since the advent of the National Coal Board, more reforms and benefits for the mineworkers of the country had been introduced than in the last 50 years. Many of these reforms were long awaited and well deserved. More reforms have yet to come, but reforms cost money, and they depend substantially on the rate of production. If we are progressively to promote reforms in the mining industry, and that we must do—much remains to be done—there must be greater output.
I do not place the whole of the responsibility on the men themselves. There are the conditions of the pits. There has been far too much neglect in the past. Too many pits have been closed down—over 1,000 pits have been closed down since 1924. New coal faces have to be opened up. That takes time. It requires machinery, and productive labour has to be transferred from the coal face to work of that kind. As I have indicated, we are recruiting green labour which has to be trained. These are some of the difficulties, and the whole of the responsibility must not therefore be placed on the shoulders of the men. The first two full weeks of the five-day week demonstrated that the men can
614
work enthusiastically, and produce the output we require. That trend must continue if we are to get through. Our task at the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and the task of the National Coal Board, the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Association of Colliery Managers is to assist—no more than that —in saving the nation. That is our purpose. We are doing all we can in that direction. It may still be that some hon. Members have constructive proposals to offer; far from me to suggest that all the wisdom in this regard resides at the Ministry of Fuel and Power—an observation which, no doubt, will be received with elation in certain circles. Therefore, if hon. Members have any constructive proposals on this occasion to make to us, we shall be only too glad to avail ourselves of them.
4.26 p.m.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: I think the House will probably agree that we have just heard a speech from the right hon. Gentleman which is very different, and, if I may be allowed to say so, very much better and much more informative than the speeches with which he usually favours us in this House. I should like also to thank him, personally, for the courtesy he has shown in letting us have a sight of the figures before the beginning of the Debate, which makes our task very much easier, even if reading them through, as I did, did very little to lighten my gloom.
Before I deal with the details of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I should like to spend a moment or two in calling attention to what, I believe, is the historic nature of this Debate. It has been the practice of the House for generations to devote 20 days to Supply, when the Opposition have a choice of subject and Ministers reply on behalf of their Departments to current criticisms of administration. Today we are starting what I believe to be a brand new series of debates. For the first time, we are debating the administration of a nationalised industry—an industry which has already been nationalised for six months. I believe that this contains some implications which are worth calling to the attention, not only of hon. Members, but also of the public outside. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have listened to coal Debates in the old days. Those

615
of us in the House before the war know that these Debates took the form, for the most part, of the miner representatives versus the owners. The miner Members of Parliament, whether they were M.P's sitting for miner constituencies, or officials and ex-officials of the mineworkers' unions, criticised the short-comings of the owners.
Mr. David Griffiths: And they are still doing it.
Mr. Hudson: I remember often listening for hours to the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar). On the other side, there were those who spoke on behalf of the owners, many of whom spoke with personal experience, as, indeed, did the miner M.P's. The consumers, or the public, were the onlookers. The public might have thought that there were faults on the one side or the other. They may have thought, like many of us did, that there were faults on both sides. But whatever their views, the one thing they were certain of was getting ample supplies of coal at a reasonably cheap price. That position has now been completely changed. From now onwards these coal debates will take the form of the miners versus the people. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not necessarily."] Yes, and I will explain if I am given time.
We have at present in this House Members of Parliament who sit for mining constituencies, or who are officials or ex-officials of the mining industry. They can speak from personal experience from the point of view of the men. But there is no one here today who can speak with personal experience of the other side of the industry. It is true that the Minister represents the Coal Board, but all he can do is to repeat, with or without embellishments, what he is told to say by the Board, or perhaps I should say that he bases his statements on information supplied by the Board. None of us on this side can have any first hand information at all, but we do represent the consumers of coal. We represent the domestic consumer and, equally important, the industrial consumer, and we are entitled today, more than ever before in our history, and probably for the first time in our history, to say that we are the people.
616
The second great change which has come over this matter is this: In the past, Members opposite have been accustomed to talk glibly about vested interests, and the wicked capitalists being the representatives of the vested interests. They have been the attackers. Today, the miners and their representatives in this House, instead of being the attackers, are representatives of the vested interests of the miners and the miners' union. That vested interest is probably the most powerful, whether for good or evil, of any vested interest in the country today. No one on any side of the Committee would deny the fundamental importance of coal to the whole of our economy. From now onwards, debates in this House on coal will fundamentally be the people versus the vested interests of the miners and the miners' union. Let no one forget that—
Mr. Sydney Silverman: What were they in peace?
Mr. Hudson: Whatever they were in peace, they were not the vested interests of the miners. If anyone doubts what I am saying, let me spend a few minutes in rehearsing the history of wages and output over the last few years. I do not wish to criticise, but merely to state the facts. Members and the public at large will be entitled to draw what conclusions they like. What are the facts? In 1939 the overall wage rate—
Hon. Members: What about 19261?
Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. It is impossible, Major Milner, for anyone to make a speech from these benches without Members opposite, who represent the miners, indulging in rude, vulgar, insulting, interruptions.
Mr. Pryde: I resent the implication of the noble Lord's words.
Earl Winterton: The hon. Member may resent it, but what I have said is true.
The Chairman: I am bound to say that I did not hear anything to which objection might be taken.
Earl Winterton: Whenever a speech is made from this side, from the Front or back benches, there is a constant stream of foolish interruptions from Members opposite who represent mining constituencies.
Mr. Pryde: That is a libel.
The Chairman: I think that the Chair can be left to conduct the Debate.
Mr. Hudson: The Minister's speech was listened to in silence, apart from a minor attempt to get a little supplementary information. The right hon. Gentleman used certain figures which suited his purpose. I propose to use figures to suit my purpose, and I hope that Members who sit for mining areas can take it. I propose to give a brief history of what has happened in the industry over the last few years. I was talking about 1939, when Members opposite always said that the mining industry was in a bad way, and that wages were too low. Wages in 1939 were, on the average, 12s. per shift, and, according to the Government's publications, the average earnings of miners were 61s. 4d. a week, compared with 69s. a week as the average earnings in 16 of our other leading industries. From that it could be deduced that the miners were less well paid than those in many other industries; but as against that, the miner was working, on an average, 40 hours a week, whereas, in the 16 other industries, the average was 48 hours.
We now come to the war years. In June, 1942, the Greene tribunal recommended an increase of 2s. 6d. per shift, and a minimum wage of 83s. a week. In making that recommendation they asked the miners to make special efforts to increase output. The Miners' Federation assured the tribunal that with the removal of their grievances following the tribunal's award, increased output could be expected. The relevance of this will be seen in a few moments. The average weekly production of coal in 1941, before the Greene award, was 3,959,000 tons. In 1942, at the time of the award, it was 3,930,000. In 1943, it was 3,815,000, and in 1944 it had sunk to 3,688,000. Allowing for the difference in the number of men employed, the output per manshift in those years before the Greene award was 1.44 tons. The year of the Greene award it was 1.40; in 1943, it was 1.38; and in 1944 it was 1.34.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): Is the figure of 1.44 the overall output per manshift?
Mr. Hudson: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not know these
618
figures off by heart. In Table 32 of the Monthly Digest of Statistics for June, 1947, it states the average output in tons per manshift worked.
Mr. Gaitskell: I was asking the right hon. Gentleman whether the figures he was giving were overall or not.
Mr. Hudson: I am comparing like with like. After the Greene award, despite the promise of the Miners' Federation, output per manshift in fact dropped. I do not suppose that the Parliamentary Secretary would deny that. A month after the Greene award, Mr. Lawther, who was quoted just now by the Minister, said:
"We pledge our word. We express our faith that the changes we have obtained will help to get the coal we need day by day. If we fail, it will be a long day before anyone again listens in patience to any of our proposals."
Yet they failed. In the first quarter after the Greene award, output was no less than 1,676,000 tons less than the previous quarter when there were 13,000 more workers employed. That hardly carries out Mr. Will Lawther's promise. Then we come to Lord Porter's tribunal in 1944. Lord Porter awarded a minimum of £5 a week, and it was also agreed to stabilise the wage agreement until the middle of 1948. The miners' representatives again undertook, in consideration of the acceptance of that award by the Government of the day, to ensure maximum output and efficiency and regularity of attendance. But despite that, output continued to go down steadily and.absenteeism to rise. To make matters worse, as far as breaking agreements, was concerned, Mr. Horner announced the other day that he had told the Prime Minister in the presence of the right hon. Gentleman that—I do not know whether he did or not but he said that he did—the miners would expect a new wage agreement to be brought in by the end of this year, although they had promised under the Porter award that that agreement should stand up to the middle of 1948. When the Parliamentary Secretary replies we shall be glad to know what the Government and the Coal Board propose to do about that.
The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech, referred to a decrease of absenteeism. He quoted figures showing

619
a substantial decrease in absenteeism this year as compared with last. We are very glad to hear that there has been some decrease in absenteeism, but I think that the figures which he has quoted show altogether a greater decrease than has actually taken place because, if my information is right, the men who used to be absent every Saturday morning, when there was a Saturday morning shift, and who were, therefore, counted as absentees during the week, now, as there is no Saturday morning shift, are no longer counted as absentees. That is making the best of your figures. It is not very difficult to juggle with figures in that way.
One of the terms of the recent agreement was a bonus for attendance. If one attended five shifts in a week one got paid for six. It did not take the miners long —and I am not blaming them for it; I am merely stating the facts so that everyone shall know both inside and outside the House—to find their way round that. I remember that in the '30s, when we were discussing the anomalies of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, the Government of the day—as a matter of fact a Labour Government—had to bring in a special Bill to close a loophole in the Insurance Acts which had been perfectly legally taken advantage of by the men and the owners—the continuity rule, and so forth. The miners have discovered another continuity rule or a variant of it. One week they work five-days and get six days pay, and in the next week they work three days, the result in a fortnight being that they work eight days and get nine days pay—an extra day's pay and longer holidays. I cannot believe that that was intended by those people who said that they would give a bonus of six days' pay for five days' work.
Our task today is not to discuss nationalisation; it is to discuss the results of nationalisation. I am bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman skated over the actual results pretty skilfully. What is the history? He selected 1946 as the best comparison, and I am not surprised. Actually, 1946 was the nadir of coal production. Coal production had been going steadily down and down, but in November, 1946, after the Essential Work Order had been take off in September, there were signs of recovery, and I think
620
that it was in November that, for the first time, the output of deep-mined coal—and the figures I am giving throughout are purely deep-mined coal—rose to 3¾ million tons per week. One would have expected that if there was anything in nationalisation that trend would have continued. It should have continued beyond 1st January with all the advantages of nationalisation, so called. [Interruption.] There was the fact that the men, at all events, had got what we have always been told they have been longing for and in the absence of which they had been depressed as regards output and willingness to work during all those years.
The men have nationalisation and, for the first time, they were working, as we have been told, for the national interest instead of for private profits with the advantages and conditions of being able to shift men about, and the advantage, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, of improved recruitment for November steadily improving, and not only recruitment of new people, untrained men, but recruitment of men coming out of the Forces and recruitment of miners coming back from other industries. So, on balance, the labour force was steadily improving in efficiency. All these things, one would have expected, would have resulted in the maintenance at least and an improvement in the steady up-trend of production. In May, there was the further psychological advantage, if it is an advantage, of the five-day week. Again that was something which had been asked for always, pressed for and given. Again one would have expected the trend of production to go up. What do we find? Instead of the trend going up and up, it goes up, then drops, then suddenly up for a fortnight in May, and then steadily drops.
The figures which the right hon. Gentleman gives today are really deplorable. What was the target stated at the last Coal Debate? I remember saying at the time that the minimum coal required was 220 million tons, and that has been confirmed since on all sides. The Trades Union Congress, Mr. Lawther and everyone agreed that 220 million tons was the right target. I have not heard anyone of experience of the industry say that with good will and hard work that could not be obtained. In spite of that, the right hon. Gentleman persuaded his colleagues that a beggarly

621
200 million tons was to be the target. Two hundred million tons, even assuming that we do not require any more, means an average output per week of 3,900,000 tons, including opencast coal. The figure this week is below 3,900,000 tons. Lord Hyndley, the Chairman of the Coal Board, speaking recently, said that we had to get 11 million tons more this year than last and that in the first half we had only got four million tons. That leaves the remaining seven million tons to be got during the remainder of the year, which is the most difficult part of the year with the holidays coming on, the possibility of the introduction of bad weather, and only yesterday we were told that wagons were going to be a bottleneck.
The right hon. Gentleman very wisely today said nothing about whether the target was going to be achieved, but his own paper the "Daily Herald," which was evidently inspired, blew the gaff by saying that it would fail by 4 million tons. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us whether there was going to be a fuel crisis this winter, nor did he express the hope that we would avoid a fuel crisis this winter. After his experiences last year and the various statements which he made he is getting wise in his old age, and he is beginning to realise that it is a wise thing to refrain from prophesying. I wonder if, in his heart of hearts, he believes that he will be able to avoid a fuel crisis. Does he think we are going to get through this year without a fuel crisis?
Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman has been labouring in heavy seas for the last 20 minutes trying his best to get something to say. Now he has hit upon something which, quite obviously, is an oasis in the political desert. I will give an answer. I have given the Committee this afternoon the facts of the present situation. I have indicated the trend in output. I have already shown what the rate of recruitment is, and I have also indicated the possibility of obtaining the necessary machinery upon which will depend whether or not we can get the coal. Having given the Committee the facts, I allow them to draw their own conclusions, except to say this, that the trend is more favourable by far than it has been for a long time.
Mr. Hudson: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I will now
622
proceed to give the Committee and the country a few more figures from which they can draw their own conclusions.
Mr. Fairhurst: Does the right hon. Gentleman hope that there will be a crisis this year?
Mr. Hudson: I certainly hope not, but I can see no possibility of avoiding it. The right hon. Gentleman said that credit should be taken for the fact that the deliveries of machinery and equipment have been substantial in the course of the last few months. The Members of the Committee on both sides heard him making that statement. One would have expected that the net result of the improved recruiting and more machinery would have been an increase in output. The right hon. Gentleman quoted some figures showing the output for the first 26 weeks of this year and also for the period since the five-day week came into operation. He compared those figures with the year 1946, but I am going to ask the Committee and the country to compare them with the last year of full private enterprise. The total production of deep mined coal in the first 26 weeks of this year, compared with the first 26 weeks of 1941 is down by 7 million tons; the total number of men employed compared with 1941 is up; while the public consumer is having the pleasure of paying just under £100 million sterling more for the smaller amount of coal. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman tried to prevent me giving these figures the other day. We will compare the last six weeks.
Mr. Fairhurst: Why 1941?
Mr. Hudson: The weeks I am referring to end on the 7th, i4th, 21st, 28th June, 5th and 12th July. What do we find there? We find that in 1947 21,330,000 tons were mined, but in the corresponding period of 1941 the amount was over 23 million tons and let us not forget about all this new machinery and increased recruitment. The number of men—
Mr. Shinwell: How many pits?
Mr. Hudson: The number of men in 1941 was 690,500 and in 1947 the figure was 717,000, so we can say that in the last six weeks 2½ million tons of coal less were produced with 27,000 more men than was the case in the last year of

623
private enterprise. No wonder the right hon. Gentleman picked 1946 as a basis of comparison.
Mr. Shinwell: Is that why the right hon. Gentleman picked 1941?
Mr. Hudson: What is going to happen for the rest of this year? The right hon. Gentleman gave us figures showing an increase in stocks. To the extent that they are better than last year, he is entitled to take the credit, but we should not forget that he is aiming at a target of 15 million tons at the end of October, which everyone, practically without exception, agrees is much too low. Most people would prefer to go into this winter with 18 million tons in stock instead of a mere 15 million. The right hon. Gentleman compared his figure with 1946. Why did he not take 1945? On this occasion I will not go back to 1941, but to the first year in which the Labour Government was in Office, and in which they had the benefit of the prudent work of the Coalition Government and of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George).
The total amount of stock today is 10½ million tons. Hon. Members who take the trouble to study the Monthly Digest of Statistics will find that in 1945 it was 12½ million tons. There is nothing to boast about in that, and we have to remember how this stock has been got up. It has been secured at the cost of drastic rationing of the domestic consumer and in electricity. Further, it has been got up through telling industry that they can have the same allocation of coal this year as they had last year, but it is not all to be used for manufacture and production, but partly for manufacture and production and partly to enable them to build up stocks for the coming winter. We would like to know how this is working. I hare tried, along with some of my hon. Friends, to discover what is happening in industry, and the answer is, that it is very patchy. Some firms say they have accumulated a certain amount of stock, while some say they have not been able to do so. What we would like to know is, will a prudent firm which has been able to accumulate a stock through careful management during the summer be allowed to keep that stock if some neighbouring firm or town runs short?
Mr. Shinwell: Yes.
Mr. Hudson: Or will it have to make its contribution towards this short supply?
Mr. Shinwell: The answer is that a firm which exercises prudence in the use of its stock and manages to accumulate stocks will not be penalised.
Mr. Hudson: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and I am sure that his promise will give great satisfaction so far as it goes, but of course it does not get over the difficulty of this question of delivery. In reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Prescott), the right hon. Gentleman said that deliveries of coal to Lancashire cotton firms were higher than the allocations. In view of representations we have received, that seemed to be a very astonishing statement, and I have caused inquiries to be made and can find no justification for it at all. Firms in Lancashire tell me that deliveries are very patchy and that many of them doubt whether they will in fact be able to build up three weeks' stock out of their existing supplies. Those who think they may he able to do so can only do it because they are burning all sorts of supplementary rubbish in order to save supplies of coal for the winter. Above all, they complain of the very poor quality of coal which is provided. The right hon. Gentleman has told us often about the difficulties of obtaining the plant for screening coal, but as long ago as May of last year, in a Debate in the House, he said that in 12 months, and in no case longer than 12 months, he would be able to provide screened coal. That was in May of last year but now, in July, 1947, these firms are justly complaining of the appallingly poor quality of the coal with which they are supplied.
The only other point with which I wish to deal is the international aspect. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to start the re-export of coal. Everybody knows the difference that a resumption of coal exports—not in a trickle such as that which the right hon. Gentleman forecast for next year, but on a substantial scale—would make not only to our foreign policy but to our own economy by helping the recovery of Europe. Everybody knows, too, that the Foreign Secretary has just come back from launching successfully in Paris the preliminaries for the development of the Marshall Plan. As everybody also

625
knows, the basis of the Marshall Plan is to help those who help themselves, and not merely for the United States to be regarded as a milch cow. I would venture to impress upon hon. Members on all sides the impact of this particular coal situation. America knows perfectly well that we have abundant supplies of coal. The right hon. Gentleman may think that he can fool the people of this country into thinking that there are good reasons for producing only 3,850,000 tons of coal last week. But you cannot fool the United States people or the United States Congress, and they are very apt to come back and say, "How about helping yourselves and getting some coal for yourselves and for Europe as a condition of our agreeing to the Marshall Plan?" In our view there is no better contribution that could be made to the general recovery of the world today than the raising, not of the target but of the actual production of coal in this country to something like the four million tons a week that is the minimum required to see us through.
What is the cause of our failure, because even the right hon. Gentleman did not pretend that he was coming down today to defend a successful administration and a successful attempt to obtain the coal? What are the causes of the failure? We have said in the past that we believe that one of the reasons for low production today is that the people of this country are not adequately fed. But we are told by the Government and by the Minister of Food, that that is not the case, and that even if it is the case in the country as a whole, it certainly does not apply to the miners who are supplied with special food and are privileged as compared with others. Therefore, according to the Government, food cannot be the reason why they are not getting this output which the right hon. Gentleman himself says they are well capable of getting. The reason cannot be hours because the miners have just obtained a reduction; it cannot be the number of days, because they have just been given a five-day week; and it cannot be wages, because they have the highest average earnings of any of the major industries.
Mr. James Glanville: Well, what is it?
Mr. Hudson: That is the question I am asking, and I venture to make the suggestion that it is very largely psycho-
626
logical. I do hope that hon. Members who are miners will not, when they come to speak, go back to the old, dreary story which we on this side have heard so often of what happened in 1923 and onwards. It may have cut ice in those days, but it does not cut any ice today. As I say, I feel that the matter is to a very large extent psychological, and I firmly and sincerely believe that the right hon. Gentleman himself has the solution in his own hands. By all accounts he is the darling of the miners; they say he is "the cat's whiskers" and they want to keep him as Minister. We even hear of representations made at very high levels to that effect, but I venture to suggest, in all seriousness, that although the right hon. Gentleman may be regarded as the pet of the miners, they may still despise him. It may well be that his mixture of alternative cajolery and abuse, is not the best way to obtain output from the miners. The British miners are not an unpatriotic body, as anyone who has knowledge of the miners' battalions in the war will know. They respond to leadership, but the great question before the country and the Government is whether the right hon. Gentleman is the right leader. We do not think that he is. He is certainly not getting results, and we believe that he is a thoroughly bad Minister administering his Department and obtaining no results at all. When the time comes we shall move a reduction of his Vote.
5.8 p.m.
Captain Field: As this is the first time I have addressed this Chamber, I would ask the Committee to extend to me the customary indulgence afforded on such occasions. I think it will be conceded that today we are greatly misusing our coal resources and that we have been doing so for some generations. For instance, in 1913 we utilised only 15 per cent. of the potential energy contained in our coal output, and the balance of 85 per cent. went to waste. It may well be that in the distant past, when coal was cheap and comparatively easy to obtain, it did not matter how inefficient we were in our coal consumption. Today, when we have a tremendous problem of securing adequate quantities of coal at the right place, at the right time, in the right quantities and at the right price, we are still squandering 70 per cent. of the total energy contained in our coal output and

627
are putting only 30 per cent. to useful account.
Quite apart from the production problem which faces us, there is also the very long-term problem of the potential life of our coalfields. The original committees which were set up in 1944 by the then Minister of Fuel and Power, worked out that the probable workable reserves of coal in our coalfields over the whole country amounted to 170 years' reserves, presuming that we used 225 million tons of coal annually. It is true that this does not affect any persons alive today, but it does mean that future generations in a not so far distant time, will have to face this even greater problem. Therefore, these two very great considerations, the production problem and the problem of our dwindling resources, contains a warning that we should extract the maximum energy from our coal output from now on.
There is another point I want to make, and that is the serious damage which can result to British industry from a lack of a comparatively small amount of coal. For instance, during the so-called coal crisis last winter, the coal saving was in the region of 2,000,000 tons, but it is stated that the damage to British exports will be in the region of £200 million sterling. Therefore, it will be seen that a very small increase in the efficiency with which we used our fuel, once it is obtained, would go a long way towards meeting our immediate problems. Moreover, it would give us that very desirable export surplus.
In scientific circles there are serious misgivings as to the methods that have been adopted by the Minister of Fuel and Power to deal with this aspect of the coal problem. For instance, Professor P. M. S. Blackett, in his presidential address to the Association of Scientific Workers, of which I am a member, in May last, said:
"The Government failed at an early date to realise the scientific, technological and statistical problems which would arise in connection with the fuel policy of the country. It was obvious that the recovery and general prospects of the country depended upon the well-planned and efficient production, transport and use of coal."
One might have expected that the Ministry of Fuel and Power would have been immediately strengthened technically and scientifically, using the experience of the
628
war years of rapid technological development or the use of research and levelopment contacts, especially of the method of operational research.
One has only to compare the number of technical personnel of the headquarters' staff of the Ministry of Fuel and Power with, say the Ministry of Supply or the Admiralty, to realise the extent of the failure to do this. This is the opinion of an eminent scientist who has given great service to the country during the last war. I know that sympathy should be extended to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power, who has just undertaken the major administrative task of nationalising the coal mines, and has moreover inherited from the previous Government a Department of marked technological weakness. I would ask my right hon. Friend to bear these points in mind and to try to remedy the defects as soon as possible.
I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the savings that could be made by the application of scientific methods in the utilisation of our coal output. For instance, the Fuel Efficiency Committee of the Ministry of Fuel and Power have, during the course of their existence, made.a saving of from five million to ro million tons annually. That has been achieved virtually without any new plant whatsoever. Now that we are undertaking measures of re-equipment in industry and now that we are building new towns and are building hundreds of thousands of new houses, I do urge that the maximum consideration should be given to the question of fuel efficiency in those undertakings. The re-equipment of industry and of the domestic side to save coal should be high on the Government's list of priorities.
An eminent fuel authority has stated during the last 12 months, that out of an annual output of 180 million tons, if industry and commerce were remodelled so as to extract the maximum fuel from the coal they use, the saving would be 80 million tons a year. This is possibly on the optimistic side, having regard to the difficulties of supply at the present time, but the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, in their recent interim report, have estimated that a saving of 20 million tons could be effected. This should be regarded as a short-term target for economy to be achieved from fuel efficiency.

629
The domestic field absorbs a large quantity of our annual output of coal. Taking into consideration the domestic consumption of gas and electricity, the estimate is 60 million tons a year, nearly one-third of our output. In the report on domestic fuel policy, issued by the Fuel and Power Advisory Council, in Command Paper 6762, there is this comment:
"We have shown that our coal is used for domestic heating with a degree of inefficiency which is not, so far as we can ascertain, even approached by any other country in the world. Quite apart from the resulting high cost to the householder, this inefficiency causes the waste of many millions of tons of our coal reserves per annum. We are using excessive quantities of coal. We are providing inadequate heating in houses. We are pouring out masses of soot and tar into the atmosphere. In our view, we cannot afford to maintain our low standard of heating. We cannot afford to continue to depress and destroy the life of our cities by smoke pollution. We cannot afford to waste our limited national coal reserves."
This is, of course, a long-term problem, but a start should be made at once.
A very small point which occurs to me and which has come to me from my experience as a borough councillor is: How many architects can design houses or dwellings for maximum heating efficiency? I think there is great room for improvement here. Turning to domestic appliances, I would point out that the open coalfire grate is only 12 per cent. to 20 per cent. efficient. Modern gas or coke stoves or grates can achieve efficiency of up to 50 per cent. especially if the appliances in a dwelling are balanced one against another. In the electrical industry we find that the efficiency of generation of electricity is only about 21 per cent.
There are, further, dynamic reasons why this efficiency cannot be increased, however well the engineer designs his plant. By the time that the domestic consumer receives his electricity, its efficiency, owing to distribution losses, is probably nearer to 15 per cent. than anything else. Therefore, we should reduce the domestic load on the electricity system and replace it by methods and appliances having a greater economy in fuel.
There are some people today who take the view that coal is obsolescent, and who say that in a very short time the use of atomic energy will have taken its place. So far as I know, the only known method of using atomic energy industrially or domestically would be to use an atomic
630
pile to heat water and generate steam from which we could produce electricity. An estimate of the cost has been made by authorities who say that electricity from those sources would be at least 25 per cent. above the current price of electricity. In any case, only 12½ per cent. of our coal output is used for the generation of electricity. Before electricity from atomic sources could replace electricity produced from coal and, especially, replace the coal used in industry, it would have to be a great deal cheaper than electricity produced from coal today. I do not think there is any immediate prospect of atomic electricity being produced at such a cheap rate. It is absolutely essential that as much effort and research should be concentrated upon the efficient consumption of our coal as upon the production problem. I hope that I have been able to persuade the Parliamentary Secretary that this is so and that as a result, urgent and immediate consideration will be given to the proper utilisation of our coal resources.
5.22 p.m.
Mr. Frank Byers: It is my extremely pleasant task to convey to the hon. and gallant Member for North Paddington (Captain Field) the most hearty congratulations of the hon. Members of this Committee upon his maiden speech. We always listen with great interest and great appreciation to speeches which are as thoughtful, as lucid and as topical as the one he has just made. I am sure that he can with pleasure report to his friends and constituents that, as he has acquitted himself so well today, we shall be only too anxious to hear him again in the future.
We are indebted to the Minister for the speech he made this afternoon. It gave us much more information than we have had in the past. I welcome that new departure and hope that it will be kept up. I am slightly worried about the picture he painted and would like to clarify it in my own mind, because it was quite obvious that certain facts and figures were being selected—I do not say dishonestly, but they were being selected —and the impression I got was that we had a chance of getting the 200 million tons target by the end of the year, or we might be four million tons short. Could we have, in clearer terms, what the Minister really thinks? Does he think we

631
shall be four million tons short and get only 196 million tons, or shall we reach the 200 million tons mark?
The next milestone was exports. I was delighted to hear the Minister say that next year we should begin to get a trickle of coal for the export market, but on what figure is that based? Is that over and above the 220 million tons which we regard as the minimum, or is it some figure over and above the 200 million tons which we know will not be enough? While I would welcome any idea of exporting coal, I cannot believe that we shall be able to export coal as soon as we get past the 200 million tons mark. We shall not be able to do it until we get the 220 million tons' mark. I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary if there is some sort of phased programme in mind. I do not think the House would want to tie him down to it as in the case of a housing target and say, "Ha ha, you said so much last year, and now you are two million tons down," but it would be very helpful to the country if, given certain conditions—and let us have the conditions specified—he would say whether he thinks we can reach the 200 million tons' mark, or whether he thinks we shall reach the 220 million tons' mark and at what point he recommends that we should be able to export coal?
I will now deal with the question of absenteeism, again, to get clarification. I do not understand the Minister's reference to the 10 per cent. of the miners who are slackers. He used the phrase at Rothesay and in the Debate today. He referred to absenteeism arising from two causes—voluntary and involuntary—and lumped them both together. I do not think there is much one can do about involuntary absenteeism, except to try to improve the conditions in the pits so that there are not so many accidents and so forth, but, surely, it is with voluntary absenteeism that we must concern ourselves? That showed a remarkable decrease immediately the five-day week came in but now it is gradually going up again. If the figure for the whole is 11 per cent., it is reasonable to assume that voluntary absenteeism is 6 or 7 per cent.
This is the point. The Minister says that this absenteeism is attributable to about 10 per cent. of the miners; in other
632
words, 90 per cent. of the miners work flat out all the time for five shifts a week and the other 10 per cent. are the boys who cause these bad statistics. Is that possible? Does it not mean that the 10 per cent. are working only two shifts a week? I do not understand that. If they are working only two shifts a week, they are not miners but statistics. We might as well write them off from the coal industry. A man cannot live on what he earns by two shifts a week. He must have some other means of living. He is no longer a miner. He must have something round the corner.
Mr. Shinwell: He is on the books.
Mr. Byers: He is on the books, but he is a statistic and not a miner. Is that what is happening? Is it that 10 per cent. of the miners are working one or two shifts a week—I cannot believe that is happening—or that a very high proportion of miners are taking one shift off a week or one a fortnight? The reason why I put the question is that the treatment of those two cases is entirely different. In one case it shows that the system is all right and that 10 per cent. of the men are all wrong. In the other case, because we have a very high proportion taking off odd shifts, it means that there is something wrong with the system. Has there been a scientific inquiry comparing absenteeism in different pits—pits with low figures and pits with high figures? If so, what have been the deductions? Do we know the cause of the absenteeism? Is it, as is suggested, that it is easy to dodge round this six days' pay for a five-day week? Is it P.A.Y.E.? Is anything being done to find out what the cause is?
Mr. Shinwell: Yes, it is.
Mr. Byers: The Minister says, "Yes, it is." Well, can we be told? I supported the nationalisation of the mines and I do not withdraw one iota. All these arguments about nationalisation versus private enterprise are so much "hooey." We should have had so many industrial disputes at the present time under private ownership that we should have got hardly any coal. Having supported the nationalisation of the mines, I have a right to know what is being done about absenteeism in the mines. What are the causes and what action is being taken by

633
the National Coal Board upon the deductions it makes? Is it a question of getting rid of these men who work only one shift a week—
Mr. Shinwell indicated assent.
Mr. Byers: —or a question of reorganising the system so that we give proper incentives to the people to go on working a five-day week regularly? I raise this because at the Rothesay conference recently we heard threats to prosecute miners. I do not believe that will get us anywhere. It is absolute madness to think that we can rely upon prosecution. It we are contemplating prosecution, it is proof that there is something wrong with the system, and the sooner we put the system right the better. Having got it right, you will not need prosecutions. I believe you will affront one of the most independent sections of the British community, namely, the miners, by threatening prosecution. If you threaten prosecution to 10 per cent. who work only one shift a week, what good will that do? Why not get rid of the chaps? If you threaten prosecution to the majority of the miners, all you will do is to get them up in arms against you.
Mr. Shinwell: I am afraid the hon. Member must have misunderstood the position. The statement made by the Chairman of the National Coal Board was that the Coal Board might have to consider invoking sanctions, but that was not in connection with absenteeism; that was in connection with unofficial disputes. Where the miners are on contract to give a certain number of days' notice, it is held to be illegal to engage in a lightning strike. It was not for the reason of absenteeism.
Mr. Byers: I am glad the Minister has intervened to clear that up, because my impression was that prosecutions were contemplated by them for unofficial strikes and for the individual absentee. Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman or his Parliamentary Secretary this question? If we are contemplating prosecutions against unofficial strikes, would he say what sort of prosecutions? Are these civil proceedings in the county courts for breach of contract or criminal proceedings under the Defence Regulations?
Mr. Shinwell: This is a quite common procedure which has been going on for
634
a long series of years. Frequently men have been prosecuted for breaches of contract under private ownership. All the National Coal Board suggested was that they might continue the same procedure. I want to make it quite clear that I cannot myself be held as agreeing with prosecutions.
Mr. Byers: I am very glad indeed to have that assurance. That was the point I wanted clarified and, as I have taken up the time that I allotted to myself, I will say no more.
5.32 p.m.
Mr. Daggar: Even though we were permitted to continue this Debate until the recognised time, I would still hold the opinion that whatever is said during this Debate cannot improve upon a statement contained in the White Paper called the "Economic Survey for 1947." In that document stress is laid upon the fact that
"The present crisis underlines the basic importance of coal, and of power derived from coal. Exports, industrial re-equipment, housing, the supply of consumer goods, transport and distribution all depend upon coal. The 1947 industrial problem is fundamentally a problem of coal"
That is simply an extended variant of the statement that some of us who have been described as miners' representatives have made repeatedly in this House, that everything in this country leads back to coal, and that there is no complete solution of a single one of our economic problems without coal and more coal. Such repetition in this Chamber has bred contempt. Innumerable have been the occasions upon which we have pointed out that the mining industry has shown signs of decadence during the last 23 years. This is part of my reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) who replied to the Minister on behalf of the Conservative Party and, if he will permit me to say it, I have never seen him in such an unhappy position.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: I did not realise it.
Mr. Daggar: Whatever may be said about private enterprise and the output of coal today, in that period it decreased by over 93 million tons. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the output in 1923 was 276 million tons; in 1945—a year to which he will take no exception, although the mines belonged to private enterprise —it was only 183 million tons, with the

635
result that exports were down by over go million tons during the same period.
Colonel Clarke: May I interrupt the hon Member for one moment?
Mr. Daggar: During the whole of that 23 years there has been a continuous, unrelieved, uninterrupted decline in output. Things could not have been worse if the mines had been administered by a set of old women.
Mr. Glanville: Why insult the women?
Mr. Daggar: These figures enable me to make this observation, which is my reply to the right hon. Gentleman, that no Government and no board can revive in six months an industry that has been dying for 23 years. A former Member of this House, whose politics I never share, is one of the few persons who have talked sense about this problem of more coal. He stated in June of this year that until British mines are reshaped, replanned and completely furnished with up-to-date machinery, we cannot begin to emerge from our difficulties. Strangely enough, he is the individual who has now been enticed to join the Conservative Party namely the Right Hon. Leslie Hore-Belisha.
I think there is more nonsense talked about this subject of coal than any other subject which is brought under discussion in this House. When the need for coal is raised, some hon. Members speak as if a mine were similar to a workshop, while the difference between the two is almost as great as the difference between a field and a factory. That inability to appreciate the difference is responsible for the not only impossible, but absurd remedies that are suggested. A glaring example of this incapacity is the suggestion that what is required to effect an early solution to this "more coal" problem is the addition of another 100,000 men to the existing number of mineworkers. If it be true that fools step in where angels fear to tread, it is equally true that experts and, indeed, economists have also a capacity to step in. This suggestion was made by no less an authority than Professor Lionel Robbins in a letter contributed to "The Times" on 14th February. There need be no doubt about the early solution of the problem, because here is a quotation from the letter:
636
"I make so bold as to say that, tiniest-something of this sort "—
That is, getting 100,000 men to go into the mining industry—
"takes place in the next few months, the domestic situation next winter will be as bad as it is now ….
Mr. Blackburn: It will be worse.
Mr. Daggar: If professional advice would produce coal, there would never be a shortage in this country. This remedy is proposed regardless of whether there are places available or could be made available for such a large number. It may be possible, certainly not in a few, months, to absorb those additional men, but even if that were achieved, would the existing shafts permit of the winding of additional coal? At present there are many pits in this country that are raising coal to their full capacity. Were the pit a factory, it would be comparatively easy to build an extension, but in mining it may take years to absorb an increased number of men. While I agree that further mechanisation may be necessary and possible, it should never be forgotten that the present shafts were sunk for dealing with coal produced by hand, and not all of them are suitable for raising an increased quantity of coal, due to modern machine production. Many of the supposed remedies are part of a long-term policy. I wish the meddling mortals would read "The Times" leader of 24th February. "The Times" pointed out:
"The most crippling shortage of all, that of coal, can be considerably reduced by in creased output within the existing facilities though the coal industry cannot be made efficient and economic without tactical reorganisation and re-equipment."
Here is another instance of the appalling ignorance that still exists regarding the life of a mineworker. It is found in the "Western Mail," our Welsh paper, dated 15th July:
"Mr Justice Lewis, when told in a cast that a mineworker had to walk four miles to a colliery, commented, 'I thought everybody was taken to the collieries in motorcars these days.'"
That is either an example of appalling ignorance, or of brilliant irony. Some of us are convinced that the output of coal can be increased within the existing facilities. That object will not be achieved by keeping the miner on the rack. For years miners have -been, and still are, bullied, abused, criticised, condemned—
Major Peter Roberts: They still are, by Socialist Ministers.
Mr. Shurmer (Birmingham. Spark-brook): No, by you
Mr. Daggar: They are censured, exhorted, and lectured upon the need for more coal. I ask who has paid a higher price for coal than the miner? He has paid not only in disease and disability, but has also paid in death, and he has grown impervious to these attacks. Without him and his products—and the representative of coal consumers can tell the country this—this country cannot survive.
I want to say a word or two about absenteeism. On 26th of last month we had a Debate in this House on the fuel emergency, and I had to listen with others to the rasping, ranting observations of the hon Member for the Hallam Division (Mr. Jennings), who appears to know about as much about the cause of absenteeism in the mines as absenteeism knows about him. With all his boasted courage, he lacks sufficient of that quality to describe what he thought was its cause. He implied that it was due to the absence of a desire to work. I consider that fatigue is a factor in the cause of absenteeism. Event before the war, mines inspectors in their reports pointed out that fatigue was an important factor in the high death and accident rate in the mines. Any measures to reduce the amount of absenteeism should be taken immediately. In addition to suitable and sufficient food, no remedy is of more importance than the provision of "man-riding" facilities in the pit. The Reid Report stated:
"A survey made by the Ministry in 1943 showed that of 615 collieries employing 250 men or more underground, no less than 407 were working faces more than 2,000 yards from the shaft bottom, to and from which there was no provision of man-riding."
Collieries in South Wales are in such a state that it is unsafe for a man to be ridden to his work. Pits are in such a state that it has been admitted that it would require £300 million to be spent on modernised production equipment.
The Report also states:
"With our present, normal working day of 7½ hours, it is not unusual for the time available at the face to be as little as five hours."
The fatigue can be reduced by making provision for men to be ridden to their
638
work. I have instances of men who before they reach the pit top have to travel by one to four buses and a train in addition. There has been much talk about making the industry attractive. In a sense, no object could be more fantastic, absurd, and impossible. The industry has become disease-ridden, dirty and dangerous. Before the change of ownership no person could recommend the mining industry as suitable employment for any member of his family. In time it may be less injurious to health, and it could be made less dangerous, but if attractiveness demands cleanliness, we will never make it clean. These observations do not mean it is impossible to attract persons to the industry if we improve the conditions of employment, and make the employment worthwhile. Five pounds a week, although it may be a minimum, is not an attractive amount for which to work five days in a pit. Provide them with the amount and quality of food that will enable them to work. Until that is done, no one has a right, even individuals described as "consumers representatives" to preach at, or to lecture the miners, or the right to prate about absenteeism.
I make another suggestion, not that it may be considered in preference to those which emanate from journalists, economists and experts, but simply because I want to make it. If we want more coal it is necessary, whatever the consequences, to increase the quality and quantity of consumer goods of all kinds. It is time we modified this policy of austerity and export madness—at least for a period, even a short period. The trouble is that most of the theorists ride their theories to death I am not seeking favours nor privileges for the miners alone. I believe that such a variation would benefit all workers, and any measure that would confer benefits upon them, would soon prove advantageous to the whole nation. Then again, if we require an increased effort on the part of miners—many of whom have never had a decent wage—we cannot expect them, because of improved wages, to hand a substantial portion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I submit there should be further relief from the payment of Income Tax by miners. In some respects that would be equivalent to an increase in wages.

639
We believe there is a right and a wrong approach to the miners. We believe that absenteeism can be reduced, and we claim that the mineworker is entitled to a form of administration of the mining industry in which he has complete confidence. That is not the position today, especially in South Wales, where the last appointment to a board or to a subordinate office was that of the secretary of the coal owners association. We are convinced that with a ready, quick and efficient system of dealing with disputes and settling them unofficial strikes would soon be things of the past. We also say that greater executive power should be given to pit production committees. Conditions of employment and wages should be improved, and further consideration should be given to the amount of Income Tax paid by the miners. I also believe that there should be an increase of consumer goods in the mining districts. With these improvements, and many others, which can be effected within the existing facilities, this nation can still acquire the coal it wants so badly.
5.52 p.m.
Mr. Raikes: I do not often feel sorry for the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power, but I felt a little sorry for him during the last quarter of an hour in having to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar), which I should think was about as irresponsible a speech as could have been made in this House from the point of view of recruitment to the mines at the present time. I do not know, either, that it particularly assists the right hon. Gentleman in his efforts to deal with that very small number of irresponsible absentees which he, and indeed everybody else, admits to be a small but irreconcilable element, when they are described from the Benches behind him as merely gentlemen suffering from fatigue. I propose to be brief, and therefore I must not trail my coat too much, or I shall find myself replying to interruptions, although I do not mind that.
The right hon. Gentleman has drawn us a picture today which has been, on the whole, easy to follow. I wish to ask him one or two questions arising out of the Debate, which I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will be prepared to answer. The first is one to which I attach a certain
640
importance. We have heard the present figures in regard to coal stocks, on which I will say a word in a moment. We have had no reference made to the present figure for coke stocks. I have been informed in various quarters that the stock of coke is considerably lower than it was last year. I think we ought to have the point brought out, for better or for worse. Secondly, when the right hon. Gentleman intervened when the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Byers) was speaking, he referred to the suggestion of the chairman of the Coal Board about prosecutions in regard to unofficial disputes. I should like to have it clarified whether the speech which was made in the country the other day by the right hon. Gentleman himself, when he referred to the possible closing down of certain pits, related to unofficial disputes or absenteeism.
Mr. Shinwell: Perhaps I had better reply to that question at once. I pointed out that I was called upon, with the concurrence of the Scottish Mineworkers' Union, to take salutary action in the case of certain pits in Scotland where there had been a succession of unofficial disputes, and where the output was exceptionally low. Taking those two factor into account, I closed those pits. I think it desirable to pursue that line in cases where the same conditions apply.
Mr. Raikes: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. That clarifies the matter. On the face of it, to deal with absenteeism by closing a few pits appeared to be rather absurd.
On the question of output, the right hon. Gentleman has given his figures, and it is common ground that if the figures during the second six months of this year are the same as the figures for the first six months, the total for the year will be short of the target of 200 million tons by between three million and four million tons, practically the figure to which the "Daily Herald" referred the other day. The Committee should bear in mind that the miner's weekly holiday has yet to come. Do not let the Committee misunderstand me by thinking that I am objecting to the weekly holiday, but if one takes into consideration the weekly holiday and the normal stoppages for August Bank Holiday and two days at Christmas, and if the average output for the first six months of the year is only

641
maintained during the second six months, apart from those particular dates, we are in danger of having about six million tons less during that period of seven, nine or II days in which men will not be working. Although I do not hold the view that in point of fact that figure will be not four million tons but ten milion tons, it might very well be seven million.
I should be interested if the Parliamentary Secretary could give us any indication as to certain other ways in which that deficit could be met. For example, we have been told that stocks stand at about 10½ million tons. I think that was the figure given for 5th July. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could say by how much stocks increased in 1946 between July and the end of October. I think the increase was two million tons, not more. That would mean, if there was an increase in stocks of two million tons between now and the end of October, that the figure would then be 12½ million tons, which would be at least three million tons below what might be described as the safety level. Does the Parliamentary Secretary consider that he will be able to make further economies in consumption, as against last year, in the months that lie ahead between now and the end of October? Does he envisage the likelihood of getting, from outside the country, by means of his Department's import policy, more than half a million tons between now and the end of October. The Minister —I am not blaming him for it—was a little vague as to when those deliveries would come in, but it does not appear that imports between now and the beginning of the next coal year are to be such as to affect very substantially the stock position.
I welcome the fact that exports have been considerably lower this year than last. I welcome wisdom even when it comes late in the day. In view of what coal stocks were in April, 1946, it might well have been advisable for the economies made in exports this year to have been made last year. It would have had some effect on that problem at that time. Hon. Members opposite will appreciate that although we on this side of the Committee welcome what increase in stocks there is as against last year, we are nevertheless greatly perturbed, because the situation is a bad one. Stocks at this moment would be only precisely the same as stocks on
642
the same date in 1946 were it not for the fact that 1½ million tons of consumption was saved between the beginning of January and 31st May. The Government might well bear that in mind.
It is stated that we are to get considerable further advantages from mechanisation. When I hear it stated at the same time by an hon. Member opposite that the technical department of the Mines Department was pretty bad when the Government took over, I should like to remind the Committee that it was during the period of office of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) that the Reid Report was produced. Probably that is the best technical report to be produced in this generation. I should like to have some guidance from the Parliamentary Secretary about how far and in what way the Reid Report is being implemented and in what way the hon. Member expects to implement it in the days that lie ahead. I do not propose to speak for more than another two minutes, although on this subject I could go on for a very long time.
In conclusion, I would say that although the figure after the hold-up and everything else, so far as stock is concerned is slightly better than the zero year of 1946, the position is not one which can cause anything but the gravest disquiet in the months that lie ahead. On the figures as they stand, the 200 million tons seems unlikely to be obtained in this calendar year. If it is not obtained, if we fail by four, five, six or even seven million tons, we know, as the Lord President of the Council said only last week, that we shall be faced, as he put it mildly, with the same inconvenience as we suffered last year. We shall continue to prod and jab the Government into doing something. I only wish that there was some sign that they had a plan in their heads to meet the situation.
6.2 p.m.
Mr. Pryde: Some very interesting views have been put forward in this Debate. I have closely followed the Debates in Committee of Supply during the last six weeks and I have been most interested to notice that coal obtruded itself into all of them. The subject arose in Scottish housing and in the Debate on the import programme, while on the last occasion a

643
full-dress coal Debate developed out of the discussion on productivity of labour. On that occasion hon. Members opposite went to the length of asking what Arthur Horner was going to do about it. Arthur Horner's name cropped up again on a second occasion, and the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) told us of miners getting special advantages in the shape of extra food, cheap coal, etc. Hon. Members wanted to know what the miner was going to do in exchange.
I am sick and tired of hearing the miners being blamed for the condition of the coal industry today. I think the Minister of Fuel and Power gave us a very fair picture of the position. There were certain things with which I did not agree and I hope to deal with those points before I sit down. It has been put to us that there must be an increase in the number of miners. I am glad to say that in Scotland this week Mr. James Barbour, an ex-President of the National Union of Scottish Mineworkers, intimated that in Lanarkshire, the home of coal-mining in Scotland, there had been an increase of something like 3,600 miners in the pits of Scotland. I say without fear of contradiction that that additional recruitment is a response to the five-day week which we have introduced.
In reply to the question, "What is Mr. Arthur Horner going to do about it," I want to say that this is placing the Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers in a false position. It is thinking in terms of John L. Lewis of America. The National Union of Mineworkers is the most democratic of all the unions. Mr. Horner does not belong to the same political party as myself, and we shall never see eye to eye on many subjects, but I will allow no man to depreciate his work in the economic field and in the field of mining in this country. Horner knows his business. It would be far better if hon. Members opposite dealt with the question which is at issue. That question is one of manpower for British mines. Let us see who has been responsible for the exodus of workers from the mines. I will quote from only one day's proceedings in this House. I ask hon. Members to consult the OFFICIAL REPORT for Tuesday, 24th April, 1928. My hon. Friend who is now Postmaster-General asked the then Secretary for Mines the
644
number of collieries closed down in Great Britain since January, 1927, and the answer was:
"Since 1st January, 1927, 769 pits in Great Britain normally employing 80,800 wage-earners, have closed down and not reopened. Of these, 273 pits employing 14,800 wage-earners have been definitely abandoned
Mr. Tom Johnston, who was at that time the Member for Dundee, asked whether it was true that the owners were compensated for loss of profits, and what was the position of the mineworkers. The answer was:
"The miners who are displaced have the ordinary facilities provided by the Government for unemployment pay."
On the same day, my right hon. Friend who is now Secretary of State for Scotland, who then represented Peebles and South Midlothian, asked:
"… the number of employees engaged in and about the mines in the Counties of Stirlingshire and Mid and East Lothian, respectively, in December, 5924 and 1925, and February, 1928, or the nearest date to that for which figures are available."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th April, 1928; Vol. 256, C. 790–1.]
He received a reply that in Stirling, Edinburgh and Haddington in Decemer, 1924, there were 26,691 mineworkers, but in February, 1928, there were 19,646, a difference of 7,045. Since 1921, over 1,500 collieries have been closed in this country. Today we are told that mineworkers are at a premium. A year ago I stood in this House and told hon. Members that there was only one way in which to recruit the necessary labour. I detract nothing from what has been said by my colleague, the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar). He and I know the facts. Nevertheless, I believe in the Coal Board. I believe that if the industry had been left to private enterprise Great Britain today would have been in chaos.
Mr. Osborne: What are we in now?
Mr. Pryde: We have nationalised the mines and the managers are drawn from the ranks of the working classes Nine out of every 10 of them will see that loyalty is their key word. The men can be depended upon to do their duty, because their lives and their bread and butter are invested in the industry. A fortnight ago the hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), herself a daughter of the mining industry, gave the Coal Board

645
very good advice when she told them that it would be wise tor them to switch their agents, because the son would never serve the man who had victimised the father. That does not apply to the managers, but it applies to the agents. It would be well for the Minister of Fuel to note that and attempt to carry out the suggestion in the same way as I am glad to see the Coal Board is following my advice in regard to drift mining, because deep pits cannot save the industry in the immediate future.
In my own constituency there was one great mine which was the show place of Scotland, the Lady Victoria Pit at New Battle. It was commenced in 1890 and not finished until 1894, and it cost one guinea per inch in those days to sink through the common stone. It will be readily understood that it is impossible to sink new pits into deep levels to meet the requirements of Britain in her present situation, but drift mining must be the order of the day. In South Midlothian, where, according to history, the first licence was given to a man to mine coal, we have on the banks of the North Esk, 20 workable seams of the finest household coal in Britain, and possibly in the world, and of the highest calorific value; and, on the other bank of the South Esk, we have 14 seams of coal of the highest calorific value. Between the two we have four seams of high grade coal and clay of such quality that would make Fletton blush, but these are not being fully exploited because the men who should be doing the job are away in other industries. We can only get those men back by offering inducements, and that is the only way to balance recruitment to the various industries. Men will not go into the coal industry if they can get better terms in other industries, and the young men should be offered inducements in regard to Income Tax.
Absenteeism has been referred to. Let me give an illustration of something I came across at the weekend from three men who came to me in my own town. They said to me, "Look at this. Cannot you do anything about it? We went out to go to work the other morning by the bus, but the bus did not turn up, and we had to go home again. We lost that shift. We did not mind that so much, but we also lost the bonus." I am going to ask that the Coal Board should see that, when they do hammer out an agreement,
646
the miner will not be penalised by losing a shift through circumstances over which he has no control. Mention has been made of prosecutions in connection with absenteeism, and the case I have just mentioned is an illustration of how men would be classified as voluntary absentees in the industry because they fail to reach the colliery and report for work. In this case, there was no regular bus service, because the bus which took the men to work in the morning does not ply for hire during the day, and, in order to get to the colliery, these men would have had to make a great detour. Because of the uselessness of that situation they decided to go home; nevertheless, they are classified as voluntary absentees.
We are told that the chairman of the National Coal Board is contemplating prosecutions. The Duke of Argyll told the then Queen of England, when she said she was going to turn Scotland into a hunting ground, that he would require to go up and get his hounds ready. When the National Coal Board starts prosecutions in Scotland—and we regard prosecutions as anathema—I shall be going up to organise the prison warders. I do not believe in that policy. People have been told that, because of unofficial stoppages, pits were going to be closed. I do not believe in that policy, either. I believe that the men can be disciplined. Surely, hon. Members on those Benches—
Mr. McKie: On a point of Order—
The Chairman: No point of Order arises.
Mr. Pryde: I know perfectly well that the men will take it in good part. I extend my sympathy to the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) today in attempting to criticise an institution which is only six months old. In a previous Debate, I was in a somewhat similar position. In other industries, people can see men at work, and often see those who are not at work. In agriculture, they can see the men actually at work, but they cannot lift the lid off and see the impossible postures in which the miners are working. A man may be working at a colliery where there are no baths, because not all collieries have baths, and the result is that, if he is awakened in the morning and does not feel fit to go to work but lies still in bed

647
instead, there is no excuse for him; he has not been to work and he is an absentee. I am going to ask hon. Members who criticise the men who go down into the bowels of the earth to remember the philosophy of the old man who taught me the rudiments of mining. He said "When you go contracting, remember never to ask a man to do what you are not prepared to do yourself."
6.17 p.m.
Colonel Lancaster: I am afraid I shall have to cut my remarks very short, because time is against me. The Minister, in his opening speech, gave the Committee a number of figures, and adduced from those figures certain trends. I think it would be wholly misleading to attempt to relate the early months of this year to those of last year. To my way of thinking, the early months of 1946 showed the end of the postwar period, and, from that time to the end of the year, there was a steady, gradual but consistent rise. The disturbing thing which we have to consider today is that that trend has been no more than maintained, and the results of the most recent weeks have shown an alarming recession from that level. It is impossible to deduce, in a short Debate like this, any consensus of opinion about the causes for all this.
I think that, running through the Minister's speech was a deep anxiety about the matter of absenteeism. I will only say this on that subject. So far—and I do not put this point in a party manner—we have not been able to solve this vexed problem of how to maintain a high level of production and attendance while providing the incentive of the highest wage rate in the whole field of British industry without the necessary counterpart of adequate sanctions. It is, however, a problem which we have to solve. It is, if not the underlying problem, one which is in many ways the most important I want to make a brief reference to the question of costs, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with it. After all, seven months have gone by without figures of costs, whereas previously, they were produced on a monthly basis, regionally and nationally. We have had, in seven months, no figures on which to base any conclusion. I want to say straightaway that, in my opinion, whether or no we solve these various problems
648
which have been referred to by hon. Members in all parts of the Committee, no short-term or long-term benefit will be obtained unless the underlying cause—the maladministration of this industry—can be solved.
I do not think that the framework in which the National Coal Board are required to function and the organisation set up in consequence is one by which we are going to solve this task, a task which, I think the country is beginning to recognise, is an immense one. It has resulted in the setting up of an industrial empire greater than anything that has been attempted previously. There is nothing comparable to it in the world. The nearest analogy is, possibly, the General Motors Corporation of America, and even that great company has rather less than half the number of men who are employed in or about this industry. Whatever service that company renders to the community, its significance, both socially and economically, in no way corresponds to that of the British mining industry.
Let me at once make it plain that I am making no criticism about the individual members of the Board. They are eminent men in their different spheres, and I am quite certain that they are giving loyal service to this industry. But we are not here to consider them in their individual capacities. What we have to consider is—are they part of an organisation which is capable of solving this problem? It is not a political problem; it is an industrial problem. If we attempt to apply a political approach through the methods of Civil Service control, with its emphasis on uniformity, to this highly diversified industry, we shall fail.
What is the present situation? A National Coal Board has been set up consisting of a board of management composed of functioning executives—men of the highest attainments in their separate spheres, but lacking experience of administrative organisation on so vast a scale. Those who have been closely connected with coal-getting as such, are the chairman, who had a long and distinguished career on the distributive side, and Sir Charles Reid and Mr. Young, the two foremost mining engineers in the country. But technical abilities and administrative ability are two very different matters. That is a fact generally accepted throughout the United States. The Germans, with

649
their passion for technical qualifications, never made the mistake of confusing these qualities at the level of the Sindicat; at that level administration was supreme.
At the next level—the division—the position is aggravated. The Board decided that independent men should be appointed as chairmen of these divisions. At best, independence is an ephemeral quality, but when it is accompanied by an almost total lack of experience of this industry, it may be very costly. The individuals selected, worthy men, no doubt, were drawn from the Services and the professions. They were amateurs confronted with a tremendous problem of industrial organisation. I made the analogy a few minutes ago that the General Motors Corporation of America approximated in some way to this National Coal Board. Each of these divisional areas is as great in its complexity, scope and variation as the combined maritime fleets of the P. & O., Cunard, and White Star Lines. That immense conglomeration of factors is dealt with at that level by men who previously had no experience of industrial organisation whatsoever. They have under them boards of management representative of the functional members of the National Board. They are no more than pale reflections of the National Coal Board, and control at this level is vertical, not horizontal.
Finally we come to the operating level, the area where results are obtained. Here they have appointed as general managers technicians, men who were previously in technical control of, say, one or, maybe, two million tons of output. In one fell swoop they have had to increase their control to cover a matter of, say, five million tons; they have had to merge and bring into one cohesive whole possibly as many as a dozen separate pits. They have had to unify the staffs of those pits into a single unit. They have had to maintain, and, if possible, increase their tonnage, and at the same time lay the foundations of the reforms envisaged in the Reid recommendations. To help them they have a board of management of heads of Departments drawn from the managerial level.
To whom can those men turn for help and advice? Not to their own board of management whose officials have no experience of administration on an area, or,
650
indeed, on a pit level. To the divisional chairman, who has little or no experience of this industry, or to the divisional production executive, another technician who at this moment should be wholly immersed in surveying and planning both the short-term and the long-term developments in his division? There is no time to consider the administrative problems which arise from day to day, and which confront this manager, hitherto a man who had no great administrative experience, and who has, overnight, had to take on this immensely enlarged area of responsibility. Can it be wondered that he is rapidly becoming a worried, overwrought, and harassed individual? I would like to quote one thing which the Minister said in this regard, when we were pressing him during the Committee stage of the Bill to say who would be in charge of these areas. He said:
"Those groups"—
he meant areas—
"being under the supervision of a highly competent administrator who may, or may not, be a technician; it depends on the circumstances. Some technicians are competent administrators, some are not."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 5946; Vol. 423, c 145.]
It would appear that his principle was very hurriedly thrown overboard.
I will now return for a moment to the National Coal Board. During the Committee stage and the Third Reading of the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) pressed the Minister very strongly to set up a body concerned with policy making and supervision. The Minister, however, decreed that the Board should act as a board of management, constituted of functioning departmental heads. The result, of course, has been that they do, in fact, act in this capacity, and departmental directions descend in a steady vertical stream to divisional headquarters, where parallel executives have to pass them on for area consumption. At the area, they converge on one man, the area general manager, a man who, as I have shown, has, in many cases, very little administrative experience. Can it be wondered, as I said, that he is rapidly becoming a worried, overworked, harassed man? We must remember that he occupies a lonely position. Hitherto he has had the opportunity of turning to his managing director, to his chair-

651
man, or to other members of the board and discussing his problems with them. Now, at fortnightly or monthly intervals, he attends a divisional board meeting where matters of an administrative nature are discussed, and the more he discusses those matters the less useful he is as a technician. He cannot go over to the adminstrative side and, at the same time, remain a good technician. A good technician has to remain on the job all the time.
For three months I acted in an advisory capacity on the Coal Board, on the area level. It was my opinion that the only purpose I could serve would be to give such advice, in conjunction with my divisional board, in regard to administrative policy as could be implemented by the area general manager. It was highly necessary that I should not usurp the area general manager's control of the general management of his area. During those three months my advice was never sought on a single problem. I think I had something to contribute. Since then, I have compared notes with other men similarly placed, and I have found that their experience was very much the same. But during those three months I did have the opportunity of watching this process in operation, and in what I am saying today I feel that I am voicing a reasonable criticism on the part of men on every level in the industry.
Hon. Members may ask what this has to do with day-to-day production, and how this would affect the amount of coal which has been raised in the first six months of this year. As all Members who have any experience of the industry know, there is such a thing as the rhythm of industry. It is brought about by good management, sound administration and, beyond everything, leadership. If at the head of affairs there is a man who is disturbed and overworked, living in a world of which he has no great experience, attempting to guide and lead, he is likely to fail. If he fails, the effect on the men is apparent straightaway and all the contributory causes, shoddy work, absenteeism, lightning strikes begin to show themselves. Let me be quite clear on this point. Miners respond to leadership as quickly and loyally as any section of the community. If I did not believe that, I should despair of the situation. But I do know that to be the fact. If
652
leadership is lacking, the effect will show itself immediately. The situation today is critical. I have felt for a number of months—and nothing the right hon. Gentleman has said today makes me feel otherwise—that we shall not raise more than 183 million tons of deep-mined coal this year. If that is so, it spells disaster. At least, it spells the end of our hopes of economic recovery. Even this low figure would be bearable, if we could feel that, meanwhile, the Reid recommendations were being implemented either as a short-term or a long-term matter, but as I have tried to show the Committee, the very men who should be using their technical abilities to carry out those recommendations are having to learn a new technique—that of administration—and they have not the time to do the work for which they were originally trained.
I submit that a complete and immediate overhaul of the organisation of the Coal Board is necessary. It should assume its proper role as a policy-making and a supervisory body. I believe the chairmen on the divisional levels should be replaced by men who have experience of administration. A profound mistake was made when this great wealth of experienced and trained men was cast aside. It is essential that the area general manager should be complete master in his own field. Unless and until he is, there will never be any decentralisation, and without decentralisation this business simply will not be made to work. The area general manager whether he be a technician or administrator, should have complete authority under the supervision of his divisional chairman. There should be no infringement of his control through Departmental channels, whether with regard to finance or distribution or labour relations or anything else. Without that, we cannot expect the area general manager, on whom the whole onus at this moment of producing the results falls, to get the required results or to give the leadership which will infuse the mien with the will to work.
This is a problem which transcends the individual. It is one on which the future, not only of this country but, in many ways, of Western Europe, depends At this moment decisions have got to be made. They should be made by the Prime Minister. The Government must decide whether to continue along this

653
road, with this failure to maintain the upward trend, or whether, even after only six months, we recognise the mistakes we have made and are prepared to correct them. If we do not do that, as my right hon. Friend the deputy-Leader of the Opposition said the other day, we may have a repetition of last winter, and the country will not forgive that. Unless there is re-organisation, and the minimum target of zoo million tons is obtained, this Government will stand condemned at the bar of history.
6.38 p.m.
Mr. Blackburn: I have been absolutely horrified by the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster). The tone of this Debate has simply staggered me. This country is now faced with a situation which is at least as bad as that in 1940. The miners in the pits today are equivalent to the fighter pilots in the Battle of Britain in 1940, when they flew over the skies of Kent and Sussex and saved us from Fascist atrocity. No one can have a greater admiration for the miners than I have. I had the honour to command them in battle, and I have the greatest admiration for miners in the intolerable conditions in which they have to work, but an appeal must go out at the highest level, from the Prime Minister, to the miners. Let us say to them, "You are now the fighter pilots in the Battle of Britain." Let us tell the miners and everybody to work. We are now utterly dependent upon American charity. Is that a tolerable state of affairs for Socialists? Is it a good thing that we should know that our people will be starving next winter—I use my words with care—unless we succeed in getting further credits from those whom my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), with his infinite capacity for tact, calls the barbaric thugs of Detroit?
Let us face reality now. Let the Labour Government and the Prime Minister speak for Britain and for Socialists. At a gala of my divisional Labour Party, some of my own members, people who have fought fur 30 and 40 years for the nationalisation of the mines, came and spoke to me with the utmost anxiety about the coal situation. There is one thing we cannot afford to do, and that is to have one class of the workers hating another class of the worker. That is an intolerable thing.
654
We can never allow that to occur, but it would appear that that is about to happen.
I accuse the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde of an utter lack of any sense of reality. The issue is not whether we shall get through the next winter. The issue is whether or not we are going to succeed in producing 50 per cent. above our 1938 volume of exports. If we do not do that, or if we do not get another loan from America, our people will be in danger of suffering a decline in their standard of living, with less food, leading to lower productivity, and I shall be ashamed to be a Member of this Parliament, let alone a member of the Labour Party. That is an intolerable position. Let the voice of Britain speak now. I hope that my hon. Friend—I have the greatest respect for him—in his speech will realise that we want 210 million tons of coal this year. We can get it. But we cannot get it unless we are prepared to appeal to the miners to work voluntarily, with extra rates of pay on Saturdays, or, alternatively, to work 8½ hours instead of 7½ hours. We have to face this problem. We cannot run away from it.
Mr. Jennings: It is common sense.
Mr. Blackburn: Either we are going to become utterly dependent on American charity or the workers are going to prove that Socialism can work. The The miners will do it. Nothing can ruin Socialism but the Socialists. We are the Government of the country now, not those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They are not the Government. We are the Government. We can prove that Socialism can work, and I appeal to the Minister to do all that he can to that end.
6.42 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): I hope my hon. Friend will understand that if, instead of spending my time talking about the dollar problem, I reply to some of the points made in the Debate, it is not because of any lack of appreciation on my part of the serious nature of that problem or of its connection with the coal situation. My right hon. Friend, at the end of his long and interesting statement, said that he was prepared to consider any constructive suggestions that would help us in dealing with this problem. I do not think that, it is

655
really appropriate for me to spend the very short time I have at my disposal in party polemics, and, therefore, I hope that hon. Members opposite and my hon. Friends behind me will excuse me if I become severely practical and deal with the concrete issues.
The hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Raikes) asked me one or two questions, and I should like immediately to deal with them. The hon. Member raised the question of coke stocks, and I should like to tell him what the position is there. It is quite true that coke stocks are about 700,000 tons less now than they were at the corresponding period last year. They were almost precisely so much less at the beginning of the coal summer, that is to say, on 1st May. The reason for this I explained in some detail myself when speaking on the Adjournment some weeks ago; and, perhaps, he will forgive me if I ask the hon. Member to look at my speech on that occasion, as I do not want now to take up too much time in repeating the points of it. Briefly, the explanation is that the demand for coke has steadily increased year by year, and so has output; but in the last year we have been obliged to take certain measures which have delayed that expansion. In particular, we have used a good deal more oil in the making of gas, and we have had to use coke itself for making carburetted water gas, and that has diminished the available supplies of coke. We are very much aware of the coke difficulty, and certain steps have already been taken, which, I think, will lead to a fairly speedy restoration of the stock position.
He also asked me what the stock increase between July and November was in 1946. I think the comparable figure was an increase of about 2,500,000 to 2,750,000 tons. He mentioned 2,000,000 tons. I think the figure was a little larger. He then asked me why we do expect it to be any better this year. I think the answer to that is quite simple. We have already done considerably better this year than last year, and we have every reason to expect that we shall do better in the next few months.
The hon. and gallant Member for North Paddington (Captain Field), whom I should like to congratulate on an admirable maiden speech, referred in some
656
detail to fuel efficiency, and quoted from the report of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. I know that other Members not fortunate enough to catch your eye, Major Milner, would have raised the point. I have not time to go through the whole of that interesting report, but I propose to take up some of the important points and deal with them. I am not going to add to what has been said on the estimate of production for the calendar year. My right hon. Friend did give full figures to the Committee, and it is for Members to draw their conclusions. Whether we shall reach the 200 million target or not I cannot say, and nor can anybody. There is a prospect of reaching it, I think I can say, but that there is cause for complacency or satisfaction on the basis of the existing figures no one would for one moment suggest. I think that the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, when they spoke of consumption, put the figure very high indeed, if they meant to refer to inland consumption. They spoke, I think, of a figure of 210 million tons. One can only say—for one has to take the recent figures—that inland consumption is not likely to attain that level. Of course, it could attain that level, no doubt, if the domestic consumer were allowed very much larger amounts. If one is thinking in terms of exports—and this relates to something the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Byers) said—we should have the revival of coal exports rather sooner than some other Members have suggested.
The Report of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee deals in some detail with the matter of industrial allocations, and, as hon. Members have referred to that issue, I should like to take up a moment or two by saying something on the subject. I think the Committee knows generally what the arrangements for this summer are. Firms are receiving—or, rather, are programmed to receive, and, in the aggregate, certainly are receiving—their 1946 consumption. From this they are expected to accumulate stocks up to a three weeks' level by the winter. Extra supplies have been made available for building materials and for deconcentrated firms. I agree with the Committee that past consumption as a basis is not satisfactory for encouraging fuel efficiency. But I should also like to point out that in allocating to firms—and

657
my right hon. Friend has again given this assurance—what stocks they have by the end of the summer will not be taken into account in calculating their allocations for the winter. We are giving there definite encouragement for efficiency. There is some difficulty arising from this policy. We knew there would be, though I think we were right in doing this. The difficulty, of course, is, as I think the right hon. Gentleman suggested, that some firms were, in fact, getting very much larger stocks than others, and they got those stocks not solely as a result of greater fuel efficiency. It would be a mistake to expect, under these arrangements for the supply of coal, to say that every firm receives to the last ton exactly what it is programmed to receive. There are far too many accidents involved in this which we cannot control—literally accidents; accidents in pits from which they can derive coal; disputes may arise; there are transport difficulties, and so on. But what we do try to do is to even up deliveries as much as we possibly can.
We are now engaged in working on the plans for the winter allocations. It is far too early to go into this in detail, but I would say that the Government accept two basic principles laid down in that report—that, in so far as deliveries may not be adequate to meet all requirements absolutely in full, we have to consider priorities on the basis of national needs, and we have to take into account fuel efficiency as well. I would add only two other things in this connection. We roust try—and we are going to try—to let industrial consumers know what they may reasonably expect next winter precisely. It will not be possible to guarantee them that amount, but we can give them at any rate some guidance on it; and we must preserve some element of flexibility.
The hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) dealt at some length with the administration of the National Coal Board. He knows that I have not time at my disposal to reply to that in detail. I am bound to say, however, that I think it is premature to start criticisms of that kind in detail. He is perfectly entitled to criticise; and certainly we wish that there shall be opportunities of criticising the administration of the National Coal Boad. We are entirely in favour of it. But, after all, the National Coal Board has been in existence for only
658
six months; it is the largest commercial organisation in the world; it has over 700,000 people employed in it; it has a capital of £250 million; and it has taken over more than 850 undertakings, many of them small and inefficient. It is quite out of the question to expect them to have solved all the problems of organisation in a matter of six months, and, in the same time, to have secured the coal which the nation needs.
When Parliament passed the Coal Industry (Nationalisation) Act it recognised that the National Coal Board must be free to frame their own organisation. I do not think even the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde would wish us to be intervening continuously in matters of this kind. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member on one thing. It is true, I think, that when a number of undertakings are amalgamated—and this applies, may I say, whether it is done under private ownership or under State ownership—and a number of very much larger units are created than existed before, it is not easy, to start with, to find personnel who are capable of managing these very much larger organisations. That is true, and I agree that it is a problem. But it is a problem which will be solved in time, as more experience is gained.
What have we got to do? Surely, in this industry, we have to build up a new tradition of public service. We have, of course, taken over both sides; we have taken over the managerial side as well as the workers' side. We must get a willingness to forget the past; we must get a readiness to give up that feud; and we must get people willing to work together, willing to put production first—first and last—because the interests of the country demand it. We must create a tradition of public service, and it cannot be done in a matter of months.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: The hon. Member will not forget the question of costs.
Mr. Gaitskell: I am afraid that at this stage I cannot say anything on the matter of costs. It really is too early to expect us to do that. I suggest that is a subject which could be discussed more appropriately when we get the accounts of the National Coal Board, when they are presented to the House.

659
Some hon. Members have got into the habit—both inside and outside the Committee—of painting an extrordinarily gloomy picture of the coal situation. Only the other day one hon. Member spoke of coal output going down, and down, and down—a sort of picture which implied that when the Labour Government came into power everything was all right, and that, since then, nobody has done any work, and that the whole thing is falling to pieces. That is an absolute travesty of the facts. The facts are.—and I now come to something the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) said—that the nadir of the coal industry was not 1946 but 1945, and the output in 1946 was 6½ million tons above 1945. In fact, it began to rise immediately after the Labour Government came into office. Take whatever index you like—I do not mind; output per manshift, manpower, absenteeism—there has been a steady improvement since then. We are not satisfied with that. Of course not. How can we be satisfied, in the present state of the country? But there is no reason whatever for this general gloom and despondency. In comparison with other European nations the output per manshift in this country is far nearer the prewar figure than in any other country in Europe.
Mr. R. S. Hudson: Nonsense.
Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Member says "Nonsense," so I will give him some figures, and perhaps he will try to "take it." I will start with the lowest. As one
might suppose, in the Ruhr, the output per manshift overall is ·55—that is to say, just over half, or 55 per cent. of the prewar level; in Holland, 56 per cent.; in Poland, 70 per cent.; in France, 73 per cent.; in Belgium, 79 per cent.; and in the United Kingdom—taking April, before the five-day week pushed up the output per manshift—89 per cent. In this respect we stand in.a better position than any other European country.
Major P. Roberts: Read the figures for the Saar.
Mr. Gaitskell: The Saar, 81 per cent. I am afraid the hon. and gallant Member has misfired again. I repeat what I said before. Since we took office there has been a steady improvement, and we believe that things are going on the right lines. But we are not satisfied. We realise, of course, that the whole of the exchange problem is bound up with our coal position. It may well be that, in the discussions which take place, the possibility of providing more coal from this country will be raised. Well, we are not afraid, if that is the case. We believe, with confidence in the successes we have already achieved, that we can go forward to further progress and larger output of coal in the future.
Colonel Lancaster: I beg to move, "That Item Class VI, Vote 6, Ministry of Fuel and Power, be reduced by £5."
Question put.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 100, Noes, 248.

Division No. 315.]

AYES.

[6.58 p.m.

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Fox, Sir G

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R

Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

Baxter, A. B.

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

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Bossom, A. C

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

Low, Brig. A. R. W.

Bower, N.

Gammans, L. D.

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

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

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

Glyn, Sir R.

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Grant, Lady

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Byers, Frank

Granville, E. (Eye)

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Channon, H.

Gridley, Sir A.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Grimston, R. V.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G

Gryffydd, Prof. W. J.

Marlowe, A. A. H

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Marples, A. E.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

Head, Brig. A. H.

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

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

Maude, J C

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

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Mellor, Sir J.

Drayson, G. B.

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Molson, A. H. E.

Drewe, C.

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

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Dugdate, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Hurd, A.

Nicholson, G.

Duncan, Rt Hn Sir A. (City of Lond.)

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Nutting, Anthony

Eden, Rt. Hon A.

Jennings, R

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Fletcher, W (Bury)

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

Osborne, C.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M

Sanderson, Sir F.

Walt, Sir G. S. Harvie

Pickthorn, K.

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W

Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Spearman, A. C. M.

White, J. B. (Canterbury)

Price-While, Lt.-Col. D

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

Stoddart-Soott, Col. M.

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Raikes, H. V

Strauss, H. G (English Universities)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Sutoliffe, H.

York, C.

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

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

Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

Turton, R. H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Vane, W. M. F.

Mr. Studholme and

Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

Walker-Smith, D

Major Conant.

Ropner, Col. L

Ward, Hon. G. R.

NOES.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Fernyhough, E.

McLeavy, F,

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Field, Capt W. J.

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Follick, M.

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Alpass, J. H.

Foot, M. M

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Forman, J. C.

Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Foster, W. (Wigan)

Martin, J H.

Attewell, H. C

Gaitskell, H. T N.

Mayhew, C. P.

Austin, H. Lewis

Gallacher, W.

Medland, H. M

Ayles, W. H.

Ganley, Mrs C. S.

Mellish, R. J.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

Gibbins, J.

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Balfour A

Granville, J. E. (Consett)

Mitchison, G. R

Barstow, P. G.

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Moody, A, S.

Barton, C.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Battley, J. R.

Grenfell, D. R.

Morley, R.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Grey, C. F

Morris, P. (Swansea, W)

Beswick, F.

Grierson, E

Mort, D. L.

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

Griffiths, D. (Rather Valley)

Moyle, A.

Bing, G H C

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Nally, W.

Binns, J.

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Naylor, T. E.

Blackburn, A. R.

Guest, Dr. L. Hadan

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

Blenkinsop, A.

Gunter, R. J

Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)

Blyton, W. R.

Guy, W. H.

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

Boardman, H.

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

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

Bowles, F. G (Nuneaton)

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

O'Brien, T

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

Hardy, E A

Oldfield, W H.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Harrison, J

Oliver, G. H.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Orbach, M.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Henderson, A (Kingswinford)

Pargiter, G. A.

Brown, T J. (Ince)

Herbison, Miss M

Parkin, B. T.

Bruce, Maj D. W. T

Hobson, C. R.

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Buchanan, G.

Holman, P

Pearson, A.

Burden, T. W

Holmes, H. E. (Hermsworth)

Peart, T. F.

Burke, W. A.

House, G

Popplewell, E.

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

Hoy, J.

Porter E. (Warrington)

Callaghan, James

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

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Carmichael, James

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

Price, M. Philips

Castle, Mrs. B. A

Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

Pritt, D. N.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Pryde, D. J.

Cobb, F. A.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Randall, H. E

Cocks, F. S

Janner, B.

Ranger, J

Collick, P

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Rankin, J

Colman, Miss G. M.

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

Rees-Williams, D. R.

Comyns, Dr L.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Reeves, J.

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

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Crawley, A

Keenan, W.

Richards, R.

Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S.

Kenyon, C.

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Daggar, G.

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

Rogers, G. H. R.

Daines, P.

Kirby, B. V

Royle, C.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Lavers, S.

Sargood, R.

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

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

Scollan, T.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Lee, Miss J (Cannock)

Sharp, Granville

Deer, G.

Leonard, W

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Leslie, J. R.

Shawcross, Rt. Hn Sir H (St Helens)

Diamond, J.

Levy, B W.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon E

Dobbie, W

Lewis, A. W, J. (Upton)

Shurmer, P.

Dodds, N. N

Lindgren, G. S

Silverman, J (Erdington)

Driberg, T. E. N,

Lipson, D. L

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich)

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

Simmons, C. J.

Dumpleton, C. W.

Logan, D. G

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

Dye, S.

Longden, F

Skinnard, F. W.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J C

McAdam, W.

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Edelman, M.

McAllister, G.

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

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

McEntee, V. La T.

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

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

McGhee, H. G.

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

McKay, J (Wallsend)

Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

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

Sparks, J. A

Ewart, R.

McKinlay, A. S.

Stamford, W.

Fairhurst, F.

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

662

663

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N)

Ungoed-Thomas. L

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Sylvester, G. O.

Viant, S. P.

Williams, Rt. Hon. T (Don Valley)

Symonds, A. L.

Walkden, E.

Williams, W R. (Heston)

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Wallace, G. D. (Chisleburst.)

Williamson, T.

Taylor, R J. (Morpeth)

Watkins, T. E.

Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Wise, Major F. J

Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)

Weitzman, D.

Woodburn, A.

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Vates, V. F. A

Thomas, I. O (Wrekin)

White, H (Derbyshire, Nt)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Thorneyoroft, Harry (Clayton)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Thurtle, Ernest

Wigg, Col. G E

Zilliacus, K

Timmons, J.

Wilkes, L

Titterington, M F.

Wilkins, W. A.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Tolley, L.

Willey, F. T (Sunderland)

Mr. Joseph Henderson and

Tomlinson. Rt. Hon G.

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Mr. Hannan.

It being after Seven o'Clock, the Chairman left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the Proceedings on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House standing over under Standing Order No. 8.
Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

NEWSPRINT IMPORT RESTRICTIONS
7.6 p.m.
Mr. Clement Davies: I beg to move (under Standing Order No. 8), "That this House do now adjourn."
We all realise the serious position that this country is now in with regard to its overseas liabilities, and we all know that there is a huge adverse balance in respect of our overseas payments and that there is a huge gap between our imports and exports, especially from and to the hard currency areas. We all realise the urgent need there is to close that gap; otherwise the country might even get into such a serious position as bankruptcy. We all realise that food, raw materials and machinery must have first place in our import programme, and that if we are to achieve economies in imports, they must be achieved in the less essentials. But the gap is vast. It runs into hundreds of millions of pounds. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 8th July, told the House that during the first two quarters of this year, the rate of drawing on the United States and Canada for dollar credits, put together, amounted to no less than £400 million—that is an adverse balance at the rate of £800 million a year. Cheese-paring methods will not save such a situation as that which has been disclosed, and something far greater, far more radical and far more thorough than the Government have yet proposed or planned
664
is necessary to meet the situation. On 30th June, the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to the House and made a statement immediately after Questions. Almost in passing he said:
"Some restriction of supplies of newsprint is inevitable, which will render it necessary to return temporarily to four-page newspapers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 30th June, 1947; Vol. 439. c 961.]
It will be noticed that he gave no date for this restriction, nor did he indicate how long the Government thought it necessary for such a restriction to be imposed.
Before the war, the British Press received newsprint at the rate of 1,200,000 tons per annum. At present, the Press are receiving only 405,000 tons. That is practically one-third of what they had before the war. At first, the Government, in their statement to the Press, proposed to cut the present allowance by a further one-third. That would have meant not only a reduction of the penny newspapers to four pages, but a cut of 10 per cent. in their sales, and a reduction in their stocks to below the danger limit. Representations were then made to the President of the Board of Trade, and he met the Newsprint Supply Company on 7th July. That Company represents the national and provincial newspapers of this country and in their discussions with the right hon. and learned Gentleman they were supported by the trade unions of the industry. As a result of their representations, the Government agreed to a slight modification of their original demand. But the cut, even now, is to be 25 per cent of the present allocation to newspapers from all sources. The cut is to be for the next six months, and the result will be that from Monday next the newspapers will have only four pages, and sales are not to exceed the sales figures for June. At the same time, the Government announced that the price of home produced newsprint would be raised from.32 5s. per ton to

665
£39 7s. 6d. per ton, due to the increased cost of pulp in Scandinavia. Thus, this increase from £32 5s. to approximately £40 is to be added to the other difficulties of the Press.
What do the Government hope to achieve by this cut? They hope to achieve, during the next six months, a cut in the value of imports to the extent of roughly £1 million, and that is all. The amount of foreign exchange now being spent on newsprint and pulp comes to £9 million per annum. There is, therefore, a reduction of newsprint to 25 per cent. of the prewar supply, and a saving of foreign exchange, at the most, of not more than £2 million. Why this discrimination against the newspapers? The present supply of 405,000 tons of newsprint has left them in a position far below that of any other industry. I would like to know what cut the Government are proposing in films, which are using something between £14 million and £17million worth of dollars annually? We all know the difficulties with regard to books, and especially school books. The Government, I am glad to say, do not propose any further cut in the supply to users of paper for school books. The only cut they propose is in newsprint. The newspapers will have only 25 per cent. of what they had prewar. Commercial and general printers, and other industrial users, are getting, and will still get, 66 per cent of their prewar supply and book publishers are getting, and will get, 85 per cent. of their prewar supply. But Government Departments will get, as they are getting now, 177 per cent. Why is it only newsprint which has been selected for this killing cut down to 25 per cent? Why this undue discrimination against this industry?
It is impossible for newspapers to fulfil their proper functions if they are reduced to four pages. The Press is the raw material of democracy. It has to cater for the general interest, and not merely for politics, whether home or foreign—[Laughter.] I do not know why there should be all this hilarity on the part of hon. Members opposite. There is not one of them who does riot read a morning newspaper. Why should they treat this matter in this fashion? There is not one of them who does not turn to a newspaper for events, for comments on his own party or on the Government.
666
Newspapers have to cater not only for politics but for sport, the administration of justice, industrial happenings, even for meetings of trade unions and other bodies. They have to comment upon and discuss all the events which are of public interest. We all know that newspapers have to exist upon their advertising income. It is impossible for them to get a proper income which will enable them to sell newspapers at a penny, or to supply all the needs of news and comment, which the public require, in a four-page paper. At the same time, there will be a very serious cut in their advertising income. Who will be hit the hardest? Not the large papers with the huge circulations, which can spread their overheads over those enormous circulations. It will be the small, independent newspapers whose very existence is vital to the Press. It will be a tragic blow for some of them. It is rather ironical that those who will suffer most are those whom the Government have constantly said it is their policy to encourage—the small independent, newspapers. It that is so, why set out to kill them? Or is their statement of policy just another bit of hypocrisy?
There is another, more serious, matter. The Scandinavian supply of pulp to British mills is at all times very uncertain, and particularly so now. It is also very expensive. The price is approximately £40 per ton for newspaper made in mills in this country from pulp imported from Scandinavia, as against £30 for newsprint delivered to this country from Canada. The buying of pulp from Scandinavia for our mills is in the hands of the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade have been unable to enter into a long-term contract for the supply of pulp to our mills, due, in a large measure, to the high price. The main source of supply of newsprint is Canada and Newfoundland. It is Canada who has been so generous to this country, who has forgiven us our debts, who has lent us £250 million, and Newfoundland, who has had an association with us over the centuries—they are to be the sacrifices on this altar. They were the only sources of supply during the war which kept our Press going. Last year, they produced two-thirds of the world's newsprint. They can sell every ton they produce to American publishers and newsprint users, and on a long-term agreement. We can ill afford a breach of faith

667
with our own people, but it looks as though the Government were determined on such a course.
Two years ago, arrangements were made to increase the imports of newsprint so that larger papers might be published, and contracts were entered into. Then Lend-Lease came to an abrupt end. The Government then asked the Press to cancel the contract which they had recently made, and they did so. That was the first breach of contract made by this country, to which the Canadian people assented. However, they did not assent without a protest. There was deep resentment in Canada and then, in the summer of last year, the Government agreed in principle that the Press should make long-term contracts with its main reliable sources of supply so as to safeguard and provide for the future expansion of British newspapers. After long and very thorough negotiations, the Canadian and Newfoundland mills agreed to limit their contracts with the United States, who could have taken them all, and limit them in such a way as to enable them to enter, as indeed they did, into a five-year programme with the Newsprint Supply Company of this country, to supply what was, after all, only a moderate amount of newsprint. Before this could be done, the Company had to know how they stood with regard to payment for this newsprint, and the Government gave a written undertaking to provide both the import licences and the necessary dollars. Not only that, but with the Government's approval and at the request of the North American paper mills, the chief British newspapers signed contracts to continue their imports from those sources until 1959. That agreement was signed on 28th January, 1947. I will read what follows after Clause 8:
"This Contract is entered into by Buyer"—
that is the company in this country—
"with the approval of His Majesty's Government, contained in a letter from Mr. H. J. Hutchison to Sir Walter Layton, dated r5th August, 1946, which states as follows: 'The Lord President informed you that the Government would be prepared to provide exchange and import licences for 250,000 tons of newsprint in respect of 1948 and 300,000 tons in each of the three following years, and you can contract in Canada on this basis should you find it necessary to contract so far ahead.'"
668
That agreement, as I have said, was signed as recently as 28th January, 1947. Just six months later, the Government withdrew its word, and compelled these people to withdraw from their contract and contract-out. The contracts have to be broken; they cannot now be carried out. One, therefore, asks the question: To where will Canada and Newfoundland turn? It is perfectly obvious. They will now turn to the United States of America, who not only can take all they produce but will carry out to the full the contracts they make.
I agree that it is necessary for us to be placed again on a secure footing, and to do all that we can to close this gap, running as it does into hundreds of millions, between the value of our exports and imports; but this is not the way. This is just feebleness. It is almost like trying to tow a ship which is out of control with a reel of cotton. This will deprive the public of free access to all the news and comment, and even deprive them of making their own comments, which they so often do, and for which space is provided in the newspapers. This will not close the adverse balance gap. One does not quite know the extent of the language which one can use in connection with this. It is just feeble, with a situation which calls for great and real action. I accuse the Government not only of unfair discrimination but of worse—of doing something which is futile, paltry and feeble.
The effect will be that not only will they create difficulties on matters of contract and matters of faith between this country and Canada and Newfoundland, which may imperil our future supplies from those countries, but, at the same time, they will imperil the freedom of the Press and the right of expression. That is a comment not only on the futility of their case but of their failure of vision. In January, they gave their word: in July they broke it. They are condemned in that way by their own case. But there is also the failure of vision. May I refer to one paragraph in the Economic Survey, 1947, proudly issued by the Government in February of this year. On page 19, paragraph 78 states:
"The United States and Canadian credits"—
which have been running out at the rate of £800 million a year, and the total amount only came to £1,250 million—

669
"must last us not only until we have ourselves established a stable balance of payments and are exporting as much as we import; they must last until this special dollar problem is also solved."
That expresses the amount of vision which this Government showed in February, 1947. In July, the situation has become so serious that they have to go to that Box and suggest, in order to put us on a stable footing, piffling small items of this kind. Let them think again and much more radically and on a firmer basis than they have done hitherto.
7.29 p.m.
Mr. Haydn Davies: I think it very undesirable that we can never have discussions in this House about newspapers, without their going along strictly partisan lines. I wish that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not been quite so partisan in making this case. This has nothing to do with politics or any political party, but it has to do with newspapers and the freedom of expression which we all desire. I hope to try to bring the discussion back to a real consideration of the problems facing newspapers rather than any attempt to attack the Government.
I begin by asking the President of the Board of Trade whether it would be possible for him to illustrate the rather amazing answer that he gave this afternoon in reply to Questions about this situation. For example: What is meant by the Newsprint Supply Company having been informed that they might proceed by way of postponed deliveries? A contract was entered into to buy newsprint from Canada and Newfoundland, and it was signed, sealed and delivered. Do we pay dollars for that, or do we postpone payment and postpone obtaining the newsprint or what is this marvellous transaction envisaged in my right hon. and learned Friend's reply? And if it is not that kind of juxtaposition, where is the saving of a million pounds' worth of dollars in the next six months which, again, was referred to in his answer? Finally, if the matter can he reviewed in six months, what is it that is to be reviewed? Is it the question of postponing the 48,000 tons; is it a review of the matter of the million pounds' worth of dollars, or is it the whole machinery of newsprint between North America and ourselves that my right hon. and learned Friend had in mind in the answer he gave?
670
I ask those questions because, to be perfectly frank, newspapers are faced with the biggest crisis they have ever experienced in the whole history of the British Press. I hate to think what will be the effects on Monday morning throughout the whole of the industry. As I think the House knows, I am speaking as a journalist who has had something to say before now on the Press, and I am very concerned at the situation that is likely to develop as the result of the restriction on the import of newsprint. I think that this House should look askance at the fact that on Monday our newspapers will be the smallest newspapers in the world. I know that we shall have a series of cross currents in the House on this issue, but I was delighted today to find hon. Members of the Opposition rising in their places to support certain things I had suggested earlier in the day. I accept this belated conversion to the freedom of the Press, in which I believe, although on the last occasion when I happened to mention it, the Opposition were all against it. I welcome it because I believe in a thing called the freedom of the Press, and I do not consider that we can have adequate freedom of the Press if, next Monday, we are to have this restriction.
There is no partisan spirit about this. The fact that the proprietors of newspapers happen to agree with me is a mere accident. I have been attacking them all my life, and from time to time shall continue to attack them, but I have been receiving today telegrams from all over the country from branches of the National Union of Journalists who are extremely concerned about this decision. This is not just a trade interest in the sense that there are people pulling wires or bringing pressure on groups. It is a genuine concern on the part of all those engaged in the very important job of producing newspapers, and the trade union is as much concerned as the employer about the developments that are likely to result. My quarrel with the Government is not the same as that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). My quarrel with them is that they encouraged the Newsprint Supply Company to go on making long-term contracts, that they encouraged them to the extent of giving a written confirmation of the fact that there would be dollar

671
exchange and import licences, and that then, when everything was signed and settled, they came along and made the announcement that it was not to be done.
I am very concerned about the effect that this will have in Canada and Newfoundland. We are entitled to put that serious point to the Government and to ask them how they are satisfied that in breaking their word in this way—I repeat that phrase, "breaking their word"—they are doing the right thing to encourage future commercial relations with the Dominions and the Colonies, or any other part of the world. It is all very well for my right hon. and learned Friend to say that he will review the matter in six months, but that will not satisfy the mills of Canada and Newfoundland, and I think we are entitled to have an answer from him on that point. As I understand the newsprint situation, the United States will take all the newsprint they can get. Contracts were made with us, and if we break our word and cancel them, the newsprint will go to the United States. In that case, where we are we afterwards to obtain newsprint when we are once more in a position to make longterm contracts? In other words, we are throwing away the goodwill of Canada at this moment, and at some time or another we shall have to go back to them and ask for further concessions; and having broken our word, we shall not be able to make that request. They have made concessions twice in the last few years, and I think it will be very hard to ask that it should be done again.
My main concern in this issue is not for the newspaper combines, who can look after themselves. I am concerned about the small independent local newspapers which will be hit by this in a way that this House has not yet fully realised. It is possible that the bigger firms, by reason of a pooling of all their resources and overheads, will be able to withstand it, but the small firms will suffer severely. Last time I spoke in this House on the Press, I made a plea for the small independent newspapers, and said that wanted to see more and more of them. If this cut is introduced on Monday, those newspapers will go to the wall and will not he able to keep going.
I am told that during the war we had four-page newspapers and that there were
672
no sackings. The answer is that about 50 per cent. of the personnel were then in the Forces, or were engaged on Government service. Now, all those people have come back to the newspaper offices. How on earth can a small newspaper keep going, with all these men and women who have returned, if they are now to be faced not only with a four-page paper, which means a reduction in advertisements, but also with an increase in the price of home-produced newsprint? I suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that the discrimination which this restriction will introduce against the small newspapers, as opposed to the large ones, is something which this Government should consider, believing, as I know they do, in the freedom of the Press.
Mr. Brendan Bracken: If the hon. Member believes that, he will believe anything
Mr. Davies: I am always glad to have the confirmation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) on any matter affecting the Press.
Mr. Bracken: Hear, hear.
Mr. Davies: I think there has been very unfair discrimination against the newspaper industry in this matter. I say "unfair discrimination," and I really mean it, because I could suggest ways in which cuts could have been made which would have saved far more than the £1 million worth of dollars involved. I believe that it has been worked out that £1 million in the next six months represents less than a farthing per head of the population per day. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether freedom of expression is not worth a little more than a mere farthing. I should like to know, for example, why we must continue to import into this country trashy American magazines which obviously have to be paid for in dollars. I have here an advertisement from an American agency inviting agents in this country to set up in business for the importation of American magazines. I should have thought that to import those American magazines would have cost us dollars, and I would prefer, instead of importing them, to import newsprint so that we could produce our own newspapers in this country. Here is an advertisement for agents—and I presume the Treasury have

673
given permission for dollars to be used in buying these magazines—
The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps)indicated dissent.
Mr. Davies: My right hon. and learned Friend shakes his head, but if that is so, why are these people allowed to go on advertising, because advertisements like this are appearing week by week, and one must assume that they are genuine, or action would have been taken before now to stop them. That is one way in which we might save dollars to buy newsprint. Then there is the question of the type of books which are imported into this country. They involve paper and dollars. I will not mention things like football pools. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because all Members know about them and it would be a waste of time. We know that there is a vast amount of paper being used and really wasted, and yet, to save this amount of money, the Government are going to deal a crippling blow at the newspaper industry.
My final word is an appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Is it not possible, between now and Monday, to have a second look at this situation? I appeal to him not to let this cut happen. If it does, he will deal the most vigorous and crippling blow at the newspapers of this country ever known in the whole of our history. I believe that a second look at this would convince even the President of the Board of Trade that somewhere there has been a mistake, and that it is not worth the farthing per head per day that this saving would make. I would go still further. In making a personal explanation, I am in a difficult situation at the moment. I have no desire to see the Government defeated, for I think it is the best Government we have ever had in our lives. As one who believes in the freedom of the Press and of newspapers, I should hate to see all newspapers transferred to hon. Members opposite. Therefore, I appeal to the Board of Trade not to listen to the arguments, which are spurious and bogus, that come from the other side of the House on this issue. As one of his most loyal supporters, I ask him to help those of us who work in the newspaper industry, and who believe in freedom of the Press and freedom of expression; and I appeal to him to stop
674
this restriction between now and Monday. I suggest that he should reconsider it for a week or a fortnight, and so give the industry time to have further talks with him as to how economies could be effected. I hope he will not make the ban absolute.
7.44 P.m.
Mr. Eden: I listened to the hon. Member for South-West St. Pancras (Mr. Hadyn Davies) open his speech with a rebuke to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) for being unnecessary partisan in his observations, and he quite rightly said that this matter rises well above party. I did notice, however, that in a very short time he made a lapse on his own account and started tilting at this side of the House for having insufficient interest in the freedom of the Press. I shall try to follow his earlier advice and not his later excursion, and model my observations on this subject, such as they are, in a way that is not couched in party language as such. Let me say at the outset that there is no dispute as to the extent of the gap in our dollar balances and how that has got to be bridged. We are all agreed as to how serious it is, and if it could be shown that this cut is one which would make a really serious contribution to the closing of this gap, most reluctantly the House would take that matter into careful consideration. But so far, from the figures which the Government have given, it is perfectly clear that this cut makes no contribution of any significance to solving the problem with which we are faced. I do not think the Government will disagree that since these cuts were first announced tentatively by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a written reply to my Question about a fortnight ago, public opinion has been increasingly concerned.
There is a growing conviction, not confined to any one party, that the Government have made a grave mistake I will tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman why I think that conviction is growing. First of all, it is because of the size of the saving in relation to our present dollar debts. I reckon that one-fourth of a hundredth part of our total dollar deficiency will be saved in this way chat is so ludicrously infinitesimal that the public cannot be expected to take it as a serious contribution. Put it another

675
way. Take the right hon. Gentleman's figure of £2 million, which represents less than one day's expenditure of our American and Canadian Loans. That is the first reason why the public feels uneasy at this decision. But that is not the whole story. The British Press today is working on supplies of newsprint which are broadly equivalent to about one-third of the supplies which they had before the war. There has been a reduction of two-thirds in the availability of the raw materials of this industry. I ask the House to consider whether any equivalent drastic cut has been placed on the raw material of any other industry. It is a terrific cut. It can be compared, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman waved aside my comparison earlier in the day, with the position of American films which, so far, have not been cut in any way at all.
That is not the whole story. The public demand for newspapers has increased during the war. Presumably we are all aware of that, and I imagine there is no dispute about it. Certainly the Lord President of the Council could not dispute it, because he made an extremely eloquent speech on this subject—I am sorry he is not here now to remember his speech—on 29th October of last year, when he uttered great praise of the Press. He said:
"After all, none of us can disregard the totality of the newspaper Press"—
I do not know what "totality" means but it sounds well—
"Press agencies and the periodical Press, we cannot underestimate the nature of that great institution, the powerful part that they play in our national life, and the even greater part which they perhaps could play in our national life."
[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) does not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's point of view. However, they will not play the part mentioned by the Lord President because of the decision that the Government have just taken. Then he went on to say:
"The Press as a whole, in its own way, does function as a kind of unofficial part of the British Constitution."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 29th October, 5946; Vol. 428, c. 556.]
That is a pretty good tribute from the Leader of the House. I do not think we are in dispute on the fact that the greater demand for newspapers at the moment is a good thing.
676
The newspapers have to meet that increased demand with a two-thirds reduction of their raw material before this cut is ever introduced. I have said that so far as I am aware, no other industry has been so drastically dealt with, yet we were told last week—this is where I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say whether I am right or wrong, because I saw he shook his head in reply to his hon. Friend just now—by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in the last financial year we spent upon the importation of American literary publications nearly half the amount it is now proposed to save. I am all in favour of the importation of foreign literary publications into this country. I hate anything which results in the closing of frontiers to the exchange of views among nations. I think that few factors contributed more to the war than the way in which Hitler succeeded in walling oft his country. Let there be no mistake. I want an exchange of periodicals; but it does seem to be out of all proportion that we should be inflicting a cut in this country on our own newspapers to the order of £2 million but we are spending £800,000 on the importation of American publications. That is 40 per cent. as it appears, from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said.
This is a cut which is to be inflicted on newspapers already limited to one-third of their prewar raw material. I want the Government to contrast for a moment a point which has been touched upon, but was not developed. What are the Government themselves doing, in their use of paper? After all, this is a fair contention. If the Government say to the newspapers, "We have not enough newsprint for you. We cannot allow you to have what you want," we might expect the Government to say, "We have cut our own paper and have reduced our ration, by which we estimate to save so much." The Government are not saving paper at all. In this respect the Government are using 177 per cent. of the paper that was used by the Government before the war. I make the suggestion: Let the Government reduce some of their own consumption of paper. Let them start perhaps with some of those posters which say, "Work or want." There are some of them back in my constituency, where people cannot work because they have not the materials to work with. Let the

677
Government reduce that poster. A few others might come down as well.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: What about the posters against the Transport Bill?
Mr. Eden: I am sorry. I could not hear that interruption.
Mr. Skeffington-Ledge: I thought the right hon. Gentleman said just now that he was not going to introduce any partisan atmosphere. The point he is now making would appear to me to be a purely party point. We will answer the point.
Mr. Eden: I thought I was making just a human observation. I walk about the streets. I see these posters. Perhaps it ought not to have occurred to me that the Government are connected with them. I apologise if that point was unduly partisan. I was simply looking for ways of saving paper and I referred to the posters on the hoardings. I thought some hon. Gentlemen opposite did not like that particular poster. I thought that the more discerning among them said that the poster ought to come down. [Interruption.] Well, I have left the poster now, and I am just coming to the hare bones of the expenditure. The Government have spent this year 3,200,000 on paper. It is a very large sum. Could they not get it down a bit? Paper is a substance which represents dollars, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will himself admit. I am trying to be as little partisan as possible, but I think there is room for economy in the Government's use of paper, both in Government Departments and on the hoardings of this country.
Now I come to a further point which I want to make. What the Government are really now asking the newspapers to do—I ask the House seriously to consider this point—is: "You must do one of two things as the result of this fresh cut. You must either reduce the size of your paper to four pages, which means inadequate reporting of matters which should be fully reported, or else you must cut your circulation." Some papers will certainly decide upon the latter course, but I know that the result, from the point of view of the nation, is un-
678
satisfactory. It is not desirable that the citizens of this country should be unable to obtain the newspaper they want to buy. It is even more unsatisfactory in a free community that a citizen should not be able to say, "I don't want to take that paper in any more. I am going to take in the other paper instead." That is precisely what no one will be able to say after the Government have imposed this cut. Newspapers will be able to take no new readers.
I must be careful not to mention any newspapers by name. No one will be able to say, "On the whole, I don't think I want to read the 'Daily Blank.' I will read the 'Daily Something Else' instead," because the "Daily Something Else" will not be able to supply him with a copy of that paper. That is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs and it is not one which this House should welcome or even accept. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may say to me, "We had all this in the war. We had four-page newspapers." Of course we had. That is quite true, but that is not a relevant argument. We are now at peace. The problems we have to discuss are different. During the war we had virtually no political controversy and we had a national Government. Broadly speaking, there was no political controversy. There was certainly no legislation of a controversial character and there were no party issues which had to be put before the nation.
Mr. S. Silverman: Does that argument mean that if we had a Coalition now, the Opposition objection would disappear?
Mr. Eden: I should imagine that the kind of Coalition which the hon. Gentleman would have, would require far more newspapers than there are at present to explain what it was up to. In war time, the whole national effort was concentrated upon one particular endeavour, whereas now there are all sorts of activities, such as sport and financial activities, which were in abeyance during the war but now need to be recorded in the Press. I hope we shall not hear too much, if anything, about the parallel between peace and war.
I come to a matter which has been lightly touched upon by the hon. Gentleman who preceded me. I want to underline what he said about local weekly newspapers. I ask the Government to look into this question of local weekly newspapers. They are an especial feature of our national life. They play a part in whatever part of the country we live, and they play a special part. The hon. Gentleman did not make this point, in connec-

679
tion with these papers, but it is one which the Government should bear in mind. The smaller the paper is in circulation, the more that paper depends upon its advertising revenue. If these small, local papers are compelled to cut their advertising revenue, the Government will be killing them. I do enter the strongest plea of which I am capable on behalf of these small papers.
I turn for a moment to the very important question of the contracts. I do not feel at all content with the replies which the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave this afternoon, and which seemed to be far from lucid. The Canadian Minister, Mr. MacKinnon has already said something on this matter. He has already issued a warning. He has said:
"We don't want to lose our market in Britain, which is a traditional one, upon which at one time the Canadian newsprint industry was dependent, but the situation is now reversed. If Britain cancels her new orders they would soon be gobbled up by Canadian publishers in British Colombia and Alberta, who are short of newsprint.
However, business is business. If Britain cancels her contract, then new contracts will be drawn up with other bidders. This would be done with great regret because we are all anxious to keep Britain in the first place"
What is the position about these contracts? I must for a moment call the attention of the House to that. The Newsprint Supply Company is the sole authorised importer of newsprint for the Press. Last autumn, as I understand—I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—Lord Layton and others went to Canada to negotiate new contracts with the Canadian mills. Before they left they received from the Board of Trade a letter confirming some verbal assurances which the Lord President of the Council had given. That is why I am rather sorry he is not here. He is very much concerned in this matter. He gave these verbal assurances that the necessary dollars would be available, and that was confirmed by letter. I am informed that the Canadian negotiators only agreed to sign those contracts—because they had many other offers—on seeing that clause in the letter from the Board of Trade saying that the necessary dollars would be available.
The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) read out
680
the actual terms of the contract. I will not weary the House by reading it again, but the contract is here and the right hon. Gentleman must have seen it. This contract, which included the quotation from a letter from the Board of Trade with the Lord President's assurance in it, was agreed before Christmas in Canada. As I understand it, the negotiators then came back here and—this again I ask the Government to note—before this contract was ratified in London in January it was again shown to the Treasury who, so I am informed, approved its terms. If that is so, how in the world can the Government say they have no responsibilities? Of course they have responsibilities. It is quite true they did not sign the contract or negotiate it themselves, but in the contract are terms containing the Government's undertaking and they were placed there with the full knowledge of the Government. I cannot conceive that the Government can have more direct responsibility than that.
I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to explain what he meant when he said this afternoon, "Next year we will examine the matter again." That assurance is of no value whatever because if these contracts are torn up, new contracts will be made by the Canadian authorities with other purchasers—no one can blame them for doing so—and next year there will be no chance to renew these contracts which bore Government confirmation and are now to be torn up. If these contracts are broken, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is striking a blow at the future supply of newsprint to this country and also striking a blow at British credit.
There is another observation which I must make on a subject not so far dealt with by any speaker tonight. That is the question of employment in the industry as the result of the Government's action. Here I base myself on the unimpeachable authority of the Minister of Labour. I ask the House to note what he has to say about that. On 3rd July he said:
"From what we have read and heard, the probabilities are that, owing to the dollar situation, the great newspapers of this country will come down to four pages instead of six pages. That will put a lot of compositors out of work. Well, the compositors can be put out of work, but they cannot be then put to work on brickmaking or brick-laying. It is

681
quite easy to push people out of a job, but it is not so easy to make sure that they are going into other jobs, even if all the factories are in handy places."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 3rd July, 1947; Vol. 439, c. 1632.]
That is the Minister of Labour. I hope we are not going to be told by anybody tonight that if these men are forced out of work they can go to other work. We have the Minister of Labour's authority for explaining the impossibility of that. It is quite true. The Minister of Labour is right. There will be suffering and unemployment if this decision is upheld. In the circumstances it is not surprising that thousands of printers are joining in a protest against the Government's action. I have here tonight a report—hon. Members may have seen it—of what Mr. Willis, the general secretary of the London Society of Compositors, which is of course a trade union, said in an interview this afternoon. He said:
"It is my view and the view of my executive committee that we are being unreasonably singled out by the Government. Hitherto, there has been no union more loyal to the Government than us—but this is a question of bread and butter. We are prepared to share any necessary hardship with the rest of the country, but in this case we feel we are being singled out, and if there are any cuts in employment we have no vacancies."
That is true, and I think it is fair to say that that is what the House also feels—that there has been an unjustified victimisation of one particular industry. I conclude with one quotation from the "Manchester Guardian," certainly not a paper which the House would regard as unduly partisan:
"There also seem, it must be said with regret, to be political motives, foreign to the spirit of a truly democratic policy, behind the Government's discrimination against newsprint."
Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: That is not true.
Mr. Eden: I am quoting from the "Manchester Guardian." I thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman would like to hear it. It is not a paper which has always supported the party to which I belong. I could find many others, even, I think, including the "Daily Worker." The only paper that has kept silent is, I believe, the "Daily Herald." On the other hand, they more than made up for it by the big black print in which they set up the manifesto about the position.
I truly believe that the Government have made a mistake in this decision. Nobody doubts the formidable nature of
682
the problems that face them in regard to the balance of payments, but in this issue I am sure they have made a mistake. We would be out of Order if we suggested to the Government other ways—we could give a number of other ways—by which this saving could be met without having these drastic consequences. I have known Governments make mistakes before—even Governments to which I have belonged. Sometimes when they make these mistakes, it is probably the path of wisdom to come to the House, to admit it, and to retract it. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, taking the broad view of this situation and realising that in this of all times the nation needs be informed of the problems that confront us, will say that the Government have reconsidered their decision and will allow this necessary newsprint because it is imperative in the winter now approaching that the country should have the fullest opportunity of judging the issues that confront them.
8.8 p.m.
The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr, Eden) that if the Government or I thought that we had made a mistake with regard to this, we should have not the slightest hesitation in admitting it. I should, therefore, like to try to explain to the House, in the light of the three speeches that have been made, the reasons that have actuated us in making this decision. First, I will make it quite clear that we do not not imagine that this particular cut will close the gap in the balance of payments, nor was that ever suggested or thought of; but, on the other hand, we have felt compelled in the existing situation to make such adjustments in our overseas payments as would extend as far as possible the period before the dollar credits run out. I think every hon. Member agrees that that is the right and proper thing to do. People will differ, naturally, as to the incidence of those cuts that have to be made, and perhaps it is not surprising to find that the Press are unanimously against this particular cut.
It would, indeed, have been extremely surprising if they had not been. Therefore, I do not think one ought to pay too great attention to the accounts that have appeared in the Press, as they are an interested party on this issue. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the

683
Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) asked what was the date and time of this restriction. It is quite impossible to say more than that, in coming to the decision on the import programme for the next year in general, and the next six months in particular, we have had in that programme to make certain cuts. What will happen at the end of the six months, I should not be so foolish as to prophesy.
Mr. Bracken: People will have lost their jobs.
Sir S. Cripps: It may be that a lot of people will have lost their jobs; it may be that a lot of people will have found jobs. That is difficult to say. However, we must make provision now for what is to happen during the next six months and therefore, as regards dates, it is something which has to happen over the next six months and, as regards the period, it is something for which we fix the end of the year as the immediate period, and the end of 12 months from 1st July as the ultimate period; but the second six months will be reconsidered before we finalise the import programme for that period and, quite obviously, nobody knows what then the position will be. I do not think that even the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken), with all the wisdom with which he can forecast in the "Financial News," would say that anyone would like to foretell what the position will be in six months' time.
I would like to deal with the factual situation as regards the newsprint paper supply, and I hope no hon. or right hon. Gentleman will make the confusion between ordinary paper and newsprint, because they are not interchangeable in fact. I might just pick up the point made by the right hon. Gentleman about the saving on Government account. He will be glad to know that, taking the period of which he speaks when the Government use of paper was 71,000 tons—177 per cent.—it has now been reduced to 55,000 tons, which is almost a 25 per cent saving over that period. We have made our contribution as well to this saving of paper. The actual position as regards newsprint is as follows. Last June to August—there were a number of talks which lasted over a couple of months—it was decided that
684
we were most anxious to expand the Press as rapidly as we could in the light of the then dollar situation and, after many conversations, we came to the conclusion that, if prices and other things remained as they were, we should be able to import 200,000 tons in 1947; 250,000 tons in 1948; and 300,000 tons in 1949–51, annually, and that was on the basis of the gradual expansion of the number of pages which papers could print.
There let me explain this point. People talk of the four-page newspaper, the present stage being a five-page newspaper, but of course there are many newspapers now with more than five pages, and they will be reduced only by one page. If now they are seven pages, they will be reduced to six, and it is not the case that all papers will be reduced to four pages. It means that all papers will lose one page from what they are now publishing. It was contemplated and hoped that under that arrangement we should get a gradual expansion of pages. Now, no doubt we may be accused of having been too optimistic and too desirous to assist the Press, but that is the only accusation on that ground that can be brought against us.
Unfortunately, of course, as everybody knows, since that time the dollar position has deteriorated very seriously indeed, to a very considerable extent due to the rise in prices which has taken place in the dollar market since that date. When the matter came to be reconsidered as from 1st July, we had to examine it and to see what the situation would be for the Press over the coming 12 months. These were the figures we found—the stock of newsprint was 128,000 tons; the home production was calculated at 225,000 tons, making in all 353,000 tons. Consumption for 12 months on the basis of reducing the newspapers by one page per issue, but maintaining their present circulation—which, of course, is very much greater than their wartime circulation—would require 355,000 tons.
It is felt necessary, of course, to maintain stocks. We cannot let stocks run down to nothing. That entails having a usable stock. There is a difference, because, there are certain types of paper in stock which in fact are not usable at the present moment. Usable stocks would be 78,000 tons as at 1st June, 1948. Owing to the change in the size of newspapers which the reduction in consumption en-

685
tails, a certain part of the present stock will become redundant, and it is estimated that that will be 20,000 tons. So that the gross stock in June, 1948—the mobile stock of 78,000 tons, plus the 20,000 tons, would mean 98,000 tons. That added to the amount needed for consumption, gives a total of 453,000 tons which will be required during the year. So imports will have to be 100,000 tons; that is, the 353,000 tons, plus 100,000 tons to make it up to 453,000 tons.
That is in respect of the contemplated figure of imports of actually 180,000 tons for this year. In the programme for this year there will have to be reduction of that importation by 85,000 tons; that is a saving of 48,000 tons falling into the first six months, which is a mere matter of convenience of arrangement. We originally hoped to make a saving of £3 million on paper this year, but we recognised the fact that we must leave enough to produce the one-page-less-newspapers, and could not split anything below that. Therefore, we readjusted our figures, and instead of £3 million, it comes somewhere between £2 million and £3 million estimated saving for the year. Those are the facts of the situation.
I now pass to the question of the contract which has been raised by a number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen. It is true that when this contract was entered into, the parties entering into it on our behalf, the British parties, had in their possession the letter which has been quoted, and which was incorporated in one of the paragraphs of the contract. That was the letter which set out the scheme I have mentioned, which was arrived at in June to August of last year. We were quite conscious, of course, that that was going into the contract, and we were most anxious that we should be able to fulfil the contract in the terms there set out. That is why we have suggested to the newsprint companies that, instead of cancelling the contract, they should arrange for a postponement of deliveries for six months, so that it can be reviewed at the end of six months, and then, if our position is such as to permit us to import that quantity of paper, we shall be able to take delivery of it under the contract. At the present moment, it is a question, provided, of course, that it can be arranged with the Canadians, of postponing the deliveries under the contract to the second half of the year, instead of taking them
686
in the first half of the year. My hon. Friend the Member for South West St. Pancras (Mr. Haydn Davies) asked me to explain how that could be done. Payment is due against deliveries. If deliveries are postponed, payments are also postponed until the second half of the year. Other wise, we might as well buy the paper, put it in stock here, and not use it.
Mr. Frank Byers: What the right hon. and learned Gentleman is telling the House, in fact, is that at the end of six months we may still not be saving £1 million—that we may be paying it out—but that in the meantime he does not care a jot if it has put men and women out of work?
Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Member need not think that he is the only person in the House who cares about people being out of work. Other people think of these things, and he need not put his questions in that way. By the beginning of next year, our position as regards dollar exchange may be better than it is now. If so, we shall be in a position to buy more paper with dollars than we are able to do now. We should be very glad if that position was—
Mr. Byers: What about the people out of work?
Sir S. Cripps: People will be out of work if they are out of work. If one were to take the view, for instance, as regards tobacco workers, that one could not cut the amount of tobacco coming into this country because otherwise someone would become out of work, we could cut nothing. It is a most unfortunate fact that we have to cut some of our imports. We have to cut some of our imports of raw materials, and this is one of the raw materials which we have to cut. One has the deepest sympathy with people who are affected in any way by this cut, but one would have very much deeper sympathy if, as a result of not making any cuts, everybody was adversely affected, instead of, as one hopes, only a comparatively few people.
Mr. Henry Strauss: In view of the Government's concern with this contract, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has described, does he not agree that the action now taken by the Government would entitle the Canadian party to treat this contract as at an end? If he does agree, does he not think that it would have been more

687
appropriate for the Government to approach the Canadians rather than the British party to the contract, which has not got it in its power to revise the contract?
Sir S. Cripps: We have always dealt with the Canadians through the Newsprint Company. That is why we suggested to them this method of postponing instead of cancelling, which might be an advantageous method, not only from the Canadian companies' point of view, but also from the Newsprint Company's point of view. We are obviously conscious of the fact that any action such as this may jeopardise future consignments from Canada, and we are most anxious to avoid it, but if one takes special considerations into account with regard to any commodity which it is proposed to cut, there are always special reasons why that one should not be cut. That is what makes the matter one of extreme difficulty. After all, we were living previously upon an import basis which was only some 70 to 80 per cent, of prewar, and everything, therefore, was already on a margin. There are certain things, like raw materials for our export industry, which it is absolutely impossible to cut. They cover cotton, wool and a lot of other things of that type, where some small material adjustment might be made, but which it is quite impossible to cut. The only other things we can cut which are coming substantially from dollar sources are machinery, which obviously we do not want to cut, because that concerns the rehabilitation of our industries, food and films. There really is not anything else left to cut.
So far as films are concerned, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are taking power to do what we believe is the only thing to be done. We are taking the only measures possible to save dollars on films. I told the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a Question—and I am sorry if he thought I was discourteous, because I did not intend to be—that it was really no good cutting films because all it means is, as film receipts are based upon the receipts of the cinemas, for half the entertainment value one must pay twice the price, and the dollars go just the same. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] Therefore, we must have some other method by which we can stop the sterling being exchanged into dollars. That is the
688
device that has been put into the Finance Bill now, and when it comes into operation, it will be for consideration whether and how it should be put into active operation against American films.
Mr. Bracken: Could I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he were to cut by one quarter the amount of dollars he has given to one film monopolist, he could well provide for all the paper we would import from America next year?
Sir S. Cripps: The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt referring to the money that Mr. Rank is spending in America for the purpose of building up the' exhibition of British films. Whether it is going to be successful, as he hopes, nobody can say at this stage, but he certainly has entered into some extremely useful agreements for showing British films in America which should materialise very considerable dollar receipts.
Mr. Bracken: How much has been received so far?
Sir S. Cripps: I could not tell the right hon. Gentleman, because I am afraid I have not got the figures. All I can say is that the new agreements he has made are, of course, far more extensive for showing British films in America than anything we have had so far. Those who know about these things anticipate that we may make a considerable volume of dollars.
Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: My right hon. and learned Friend has, quite rightly, said that whatever cuts are made will be related to protests about them. The point which I think he has not answered effectively, is that the paltry saving which is brought about in connection with this newsprint cut is minute, compared with the great damage which it will do.
Sir S. Cripps: I quite appreciate that it depends rather on the terms "small" and "great" in that case. I would remind the hon. Member that all these cuts must be made up of comparatively small items. There is nothing we can slash, unless he wants us to slash newsprint altogether.
Mr. Scollan: We could slash films.
Sir S. Cripps: We cannot slash films at the moment, until we have power to deal with them. That we shall not get until the Finance Bill is through this House

689
and another place. In regard to the effect which this situation is likely to have, I really think that those who have spoken have done so slightly in terms of exaggeration. I think that it is not quite accurate to say that if one page is taken off the papers today one does away with the freedom of the Press. I hope that the freedom of the Press in this country does not depend upon whether they have four, five, or six pages. They are equally free however much they have. They may not be able to report so much. They may have to give some of the more distinguished cases that are heard in our courts rather shorter reports. There are some other things, such as serials in the Sunday Press, which may not be given so fully, and that would not necessarily be a bad thing for the country; nor does it interfere with the freedom of the Press.
Mr. James Hudson: Some of the hon. Members of this House write articles.
Mr. Haydn Davies: In order to get this thing quite straight between us, may I say that the reduction in the number of pages might not interfere with the freedom of the Press, but the restriction in the sale of newspapers which this cut will involve from Monday, taking the sale figures for June, must restrict the freedom of the Press.
Sir S. Cripps: I do not really think that the hon. Gentleman is right in that. I think that, during the war, and especially in the latter part, there was a very great danger of that, because the figures were based on 1939, and there had been a great change of public opinion. Since then, there has been time for the papers to find their own level, and that has been going on for many months past, and I do not think that that can interfere with the freedom of the Press. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington told us that we would not be able to get the newspaper we want, or to change our newspaper. That is very unlikely, because, when we reach this high point of circulation, there are always enough people who are changing both ways. I think that, if the right hon. Gentleman tries to buy the "Daily Worker" instead of the "Daily Telegraph," or whatever he reads—perhaps I should have said the "Daily Telegraph" instead of the "Daily Worker"
690
—he will probably find that he will he able to do it.
We certainly regard this as a very unfortunate necessity, something which we hope will last as short a time as possible, but we cannot neglect the contribution which this can make, because, compared with the other things which could make a similar contribution, we believe that on the whole this is less harmful to the people as a whole. If we were to cut food in preference, I think everybody in the House would say it was wrong. If we were to cut machinery, which we want for the rehabilitation of our industries, everybody would say it was wrong; and the only point, I think, on which hon. Members might take a view is that films should be cut, in preference, and that, as I have said, is a matter with which we cannot deal until the Finance Bill has been passed, and then the means for doing that will be open to us. I hope that, after this explanation which I have given, the House will realise that this is not an attempt to discriminate against anybody. It is an attempt to get a contribution towards helping to stave off the time when we shall run out of dollars, and we hope that, by making these various efforts to stave off that time, we shall, in fact, improve the position ultimately for the Press, rather than make it worse.
8.34 P.m.
Mr. Wilson Harris: I ought, perhaps, to make it clear that I have no private interests to disclose. I have had my quarrels with the Government, when a felon blow was struck a few months ago at the type of paper with which I am connected, but I am endeavouring to forget that, even though it is impossible to forgive. My own particular paper is not, so far, threatened, and I do not want to put undesirable ideas into the right hon. and learned Gentleman's head, but I am a reader of the papers, and because I have made some study of the history of the British Press, the functions they discharge and have endeavoured to discharge in the national life, I believe, as everyone must who has studied the growth of democracy of this country, that there is nothing more dangerous than an uninstructed public opinion. I would almost rather have a benevolent dictator than a country ruled by a democracy which was not adequately instructed in

691
what was going on in the world around it. A Hebrew prophet once said:
"For lack of knowledge the people perish."
This people is in some danger of perishing for lack of knowledge today. I note, it has been suggested even by the "Manchester Guardian," that the action taken by the President of the Board of Trade had, as one of its objects, to stifle criticism of the Government. I do not believe, and never have believed, that for a moment; I do not believe that there is a grain of truth in it. What I think has happened is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has cast about—as he was bound to do—for any means of diminishing our adverse balance, and has hit upon this expedient. He did not allow his mind—that alert and far-ranging mind—to dwell, as it should have done, and might have done, on the consequences which a step like this must inevitably produce.
I do not think that the ordinary person, or even the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself, realises what the position is in regard to the national Press. We are talking tonight about a cut which, in some cases, will amount to two pages, and, in others, to one page of the national newspapers. But this is only one last cut superadded to a series of earlier cuts. It is very difficult for most of us to cast our minds back to what the prewar newspaper was, so accustomed are we to the abnormal newspaper of today. Not long ago, I had occasion to look back and to compute what was the average size of newspapers before the war. I took a day in 1938, entirely at random. It happened to be 13th April. I found that, on that date, "The Times" consisted of 30 pages and the "Daily Mail" of 20 pages. From Monday next, "The Times" will consist of eight pages, and the "Daily Mail" of four pages. What are going to be the consequences to the community of a reduction like that? Let me take one single example. There was no more valuable feature of the prewar Press than the correspondence columns of "The Times." They constituted an open forum of public opinion, without parallel in any country at any time. In them, one had the highest authorities on any subject freely expressing their views and arguments, the very cut-and-thrust
692
and dialectic, out of which instructed and healthy decisions are made. I found that, on that date, the correspondence columns of "The Times" consisted of 117 inches. This morning, "The Times" contained 36 inches of correspondence. That is a reducton of three-quarters, so that, today, we have only a quarter of the space for that feature, and the toss to the community is immense.
This is where I differ from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who rather minimised the effects of this decision. I do not consider that it is a menace to the freedom of the Press; I do not think that the freedom of the Press is menaced if it is cut. But I do say that the effect is that, in these diminished papers, the public will be given more and more of what it wants, and less and less of what it is good for them to have. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who is of a kindly and charitable disposition, is already trying to give the public what it wants, though he is not conspicuously succeeding. But newspapers, which are in strong competition with one another, have to give the public what they want.
For example, a feature which is often discussed in this House—the reports of Parliamentary Debates—is something which I would say the public ought to have, although, frankly, it is not something which the public want. There is no avid desire to study the reports of Parliamentary Debates in this country, although it is of immense importance that Parliament should continue to hold its place in the national life, and that it should retain the confidence and respect of the public. It is not going to do that unless the public know what goes on here. I am perfectly aware that a precisely opposite argument could be framed on that point, but I prefer to stick to mine. At the present time everyone knows what reports of Parliament are like. Members who have made impressive speeches here in the evening open the newspapers next morning with high expectation and close them with deep depression. Even "The Times," which gives by far the best Parliamentary reports, can only give something quite inadequate which does not reflect in any sufficient degree what takes place in this House, and that must be so because the newspapers are their present size.
Mr. John Paton: Does the hon. Gentleman say that the great national newspapers with high circulations before the war carried appreciably greater Parliamentary reports than they do today.
Mr. Harris: There is no doubt that they reported Parliament far more fully than they do today. My point is that they will be able to give even less adequate reports of Parliament than we get now. The old proverb, "Out of sight, out of mind," has a great deal of truth in it, and affairs which are not reported, or not adequately reported, in the Press, do not make their impression on the public mind. Let me give an example. There is hardly anything of greater importance in international affairs today than that the firm support of every country should be ranged behind the United Nations. But there again, in order that that may happen, there must be some intelligent knowledge of what the United Nations are doing, and no one could pretend that the papers of today give us that information, or are able to do so. We are told when Mr. Gromyko applies a veto, and I agree that that takes considerable space because it happens so often, but the papers even in their present form cannot give us adequate reports of the important and interesting subsidiary activities of the United Nations, and if their space is reduced, the reports will become still more inadequate.
I have said that that is one of the most important factors in international relationships today, but I would put one factor still higher, and that is the necessity to knit ever closer together those mysterious and unseen bonds which bind the members of the British Commonwealth one with another, more than ever at the moment when we are saluting the entry of two more Dominions to the Commonwealth. We know too little of what happens to Dominion countries. We know hardly anything of the outstanding sympathy of Australia, South Africa and Canada towards this country and of the financial contributions which they are making and are offering to help us in our necessity. The loss arising from not knowing that is quite immeasurable, and there will be a further loss in that respect when the papers are still further reduced in size. There is nothing again, about which we need more information than Russia and her internal
694
and external affairs. Our supreme duty is to try to understand Russia. It is difficult enough with full knowledge, and it is quite certain that the information we get in our papers today is incomplete and partial. The more incomplete and partial that becomes, the less possibility there is of a good understanding between us and that great country.
In the old days when taxes of all sorts were imposed on newspapers—on the paper itself and on every copy of the printed journal—one heard a great deal about taxes on knowledge. Here we have not a tax on knowledge but an actual ban on a very great deal of knowledge, and the Minister who comes down here with such a proposal ought to do so in sackcloth and ashes. I wish the Minister of Education were here tonight, because this matter concerns him more than any other person on the Front Bench opposite. It will be asked in what other way we could save the £2,000,000 worth of dollars which this cut involves. In answer to a supplementary question of mine this-afternoon, the President of the Board of Trade reminded me that people must eat—a fact which, I confess I had overlooked. But having been reminded of that, I tried to discover how much the people in this country do eat and drink every year. I discovered that in 1946 we ate and drank imported food and drink to the amount of £572 million. In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman said tonight, I maintain that it would be far better for us to be content with eating and drinking £570 million worth this year, and leaving the papers as they are, than to cut the papers to the extent suggested and have this extra £2 million worth of food, the loss of which will not even be noticed when such an amount is involved.
I do not know who is to reply for His Majesty's Government tonight, but I would conclude by urging that to change one's mind after reflection is a sign not of weakness but of strength. As new aspects of the subject have been opened up in discussion in this House and in discussion in the newspapers, as new considerations are imported into the discussion, it is the highest statesmanship to be prepared to revise the decision than merely obdurately to stick to it because it has been once announced, and I do earnestly appeal to His Majesty's Government—I think it will be acknowledged that I have not said anything partisan tonight—not in any

695
spirit of criticism, antagonism or any spirit of hostility, to ask themselves whether some of the considerations which have been urged tonight do not raise in their minds the realisation of the immense amount of damage that will result from this ban. I ask them, considering that, whether they will not come down to the House to say—or say it tonight—that, after all, in the interests of the instruction and education of the people of this country—I am not in the least interested whether the papers maintain their dividends or not—but in the interests of the 25 million readers of the daily and evening papers in this country, they have decided to change their decision and remove this ban.
8.46 p.m.
Mr. Driberg: I have promised to speak for only two or three minutes because I want to ask just one question that was not answered by my right hon. and learned Friend in his speech. I do not know if he is going to reply or who is to do so—
Dr. Morgan: On a point of Order. Is it fair that a Member who came in late for part of the discussion, when other hon. Members want to speak has the right to speak, if only for two or three minutes?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): That is a reflection on the conduct of the Chair, which is out of Order.
Dr. Morgan rose—
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Driberg: I do not know what the hon. Member is talking about. I think his mind must be wandering.
Dr. Morgan: My mind does not wander into the underground depths in which apparently the hon. Member's mind wanders.
Mr. Driberg: If I may continue, the question I have to put is simply this. I thought that my right hon. Friend made a rather convincing case in that passage of his speech in which he said that pegging of circulation does not in itself impinge on the freedom of the Press, and so on. I accept that. But he did not deal at all with one point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West St. Pancras (Mr. Haydn Davies) and, I think, other hon. Gentleman, and that is the very different effect that this cut will
696
have on large circulation newspapers and on small, local, independent papers. The effect on the latter class of newspaper is infinitely more damaging, I believe, and I should like to ask whether my right hon. Friend did make special inquiries about the actual effect that there will be on those small-circulation, local, independent newspapers. If it were so serious as to lead practically to the extinction of some of them, that, I submit, would be a definite infringement of the freedom of the Press, at any rate in some parts of the country. In my view, although the big-circulation newspapers can look after themselves, it would be little short of a national disaster if anything were to imperil the future of some of these small-circulation newspapers, including even such great and well-founded papers as, for instance, the "Manchester Guardian," or papers of that kind. I hope that whoever is to wind up the Debate will deal specially with this point about the small, as distinct from the great, properties, and say whether it would not be possible, even now, to devise some machinery by which the burden might fall relatively a little less disadvantageously on the small ones.
8.50 p.m.
Mr. Beverley Baxter: We in this House have many reasons to know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade is a man of high intellectual calibre as well as fine character. I think however that the answer he gave tonight would have injured his reputation as a lawyer had he made that speech in any court of law. It was inadequate, it was confused, and showed—which one seldom finds in the mind of the President of the Board of Trade—a lack of knowledge of the subject which he was discussing. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."; I would not not make that statement unless I were prepared to prove it. This is not a party matter; there is no party Division on this. I hope very much indeed, if there is a Division tonight, that hon. Members opposite will back their own convictions, because Parliament itself has a voice, and is not merely Government and Opposition. When one thinks of the four Estates--Parliament, the Church, the Courts and the Press—I think the Fourth Estate is being treated very badly by the first.
Let me return to my case with regard to the speech of the right hon. and learned

697
Gentleman. He told the House that nobody knows what will be happening six months from now. Yet we then say to the Canadians: "Would you mind setting aside and keeping back your newsprint, for which we have contracted, and perhaps in six months' time we will have some money—or perhaps we won't?" A little later on the right hon. and learned Gentleman says: "We have no power to deal with films. Something may turn up. We don't know. But let us ask the Canadians to take a chance."
Mr. Percy Wells: He did not say that.
Mr. Baxter: Oh, yes, he did. The President of the Board of Trade said that the Canadians could be asked to hold up the deliveries for six months, when we might or might not be able to take delivery. That is exactly what he said.
Mr. Wells: What about films?
Mr. Baxter: Then he said—and has said on more than one occasion—that not until the Finance Bill has been passed will the Government be able to deal with the question of reducing the imports of films.
Mr. Wells: That is not what the hon. Gentleman said previously.
Mr. Baxter: Then I am glad I have put it right. But have the Government which are so given to planning, no idea what they will do about films when the Finance Bill is passed? Must they wait until the Finance Bill is passed and then say: "Now let us, for the first time, consider films"? I am making a point which is very important, because the newspaper industry has been dealt a staggering blow.
Mr. Medland: You have been, you mean. [Laughter.]
Mr. Baxter: This destruction of the Press, this foul treatment of the Press, may be a matter for laughter on the other side of the House, but I think none of us wants to believe—
Mr. House: On a point of Order. Is it right that we should have such misrepresentation from the hon. Member?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of Order.
Mr. Baxter: None of us on this side of the House wants to believe that the party opposite is antagonistic to the Press as an institution, but sometimes, from the way the party opposite behaves when this issue is being discussed, it is difficult for us to disbelieve it.
I want to come once more to the President of the Board of Trade. He says that the Canadians should, and he hopes they will, put aside the newsprint until we are ready to say we will take it. I say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in his capacity of President of the Board of Trade, should know that there is not even the storage capacity over there for such a bulk of newsprint; there is not storage capacity in Canada for 50,000 tons. There is another thing too. The Canadians will not accept this proposition. [An HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"] I am telling the House that they will not accept this proposition. They will enter into contracts with American and South American firms and newspapers, and even with Spain, all of which have been offering far above the price we have been offering. The President of the Board of Trade said that this will save us dollars. Incidentally, I notice that the figure has now gone up from £1 million to £2 million. I put it to the Government, that this will cost far more dollars than would have been involved if this mistake had not been made. Once the Canadians have entered into long-term contracts with America and South American countries, and with their own publishers and newspapers, they will be closed to us, and we shall have to fall back on the Scandinavian cartel, which has already, in one case, increased the price of newsprint by £7 10s., which is the biggest single increase in history.
By the misguided action of the Government, the solid protection of Canada is being thrown aside, and they will be unable to meet our commitments, if we should find some dollars under the pillow later, with the result that we shall be forced to buy from the Scandinavians at their price. I do not know who is to reply to this Debate. I do not see any great intellectual activity on the Government Front Bench.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): We are waiting for a stimulus.
Mr. Baxter: My old friend must not be lulled into too much confidence by that docile laughter behind him. His supporters are laughing to hide the action they are to take in the Division Lobby. I ask the Home Secretary, or the Minister of Health, to convey to the President of the Board of Trade my point about the increased cost, as against a saving, which, I think, is of importance.
I have one or two points which the House should know. One of the things which has been cut down is advertising, and about this there has not been much sympathy shown in this House. The art of advertising is the psychology of salesmanship. Salesmanship is the life-blood of industry, and in competing in a modern world, we have to advertise and go in for salesmanship. This country is in reverse. Advertising managers are trying to persuade their clients not to advertise because there is no space. Sales managers go out to persuade their customers that space cannot be supplied. This is no one's fault, as the shortage is, perhaps, inevitable, but this country, which will presently have to compete with a recovering world, is steadily in reverse, and this killing of the skill of advertising is a very serious thing in itself.
The unemployment caused by this misguided attempt at saving will run right through the newspaper industry. It will affect compositors, machine men, proof readers, all who make up the very life of the newspapers. I should like to think that in this case I had the backing of every Member in the House. Not long ago I addressed the Writers' Circle of the Forces, a gathering of young ex-Servicemen, many of whom have fine war records, and who want to become writers. I encouraged them. I said that writing was a good life, and that newspapers would be expanding. Now these young people have the gates closed to them. Everywhere people are asking, "Where are the young writers?" I agree that some of us have had our innings. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot), and my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert), will agree with me when I say that, and when I say that we want to see young people being given their chance. They are not being given their chance. The intellectual life of this country will be stultified; it has, in fact, fallen to a level I have not seen for many years.
700
I am sorry if I have taken a little more time than I should have done, but even if the Government do not consciously look upon the Press as their enemy, I believe that that thought is at the back of their heads. The setting up of a Commission of Inquiry into the Press is an indication of it. Now they are imposing this foolish, misguided, and unfair cut in newsprint supplies. If it is said that the saving of £2 million worth of dollars is essential to the balance of our financial situation, let me say how £1 million can be saved. Cut the overseas travel allowance from £75 to £70, and there would be saved the best part of £1 million. Restrict the import of 10 first-class costly American films, and the other £1 million would be saved. I speak on this matter with some knowledge. Instead of that we have this new cut in newsprint. I agree that it does not interfere with the freedom of the Press, but it does interfere with the adequacy of the Press. It cuts down news from other countries. It stops enterprise, opportunity, and the natural expression of public feeling. The Government are fond of the phrase, "the twelfth hour," and I say to them that at this twelfth hour they should not make this blunder which will bring them into more disrepute than they have already been brought by way of the actions which they have carried out hitherto.
9.5 p.m.
Mr. Mallalieu: I want to come back, for a moment or two, from the speech of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) to which we have just listened, and with a great deal of which I agree, to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), who opened the Debate. I was very sorry indeed to hear that speech. For the first time in this House I was made angry by something said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I liked the speech very much better when I read it two days ago in the "News Chronicle." Then it was an article written by Lord Layton, and it had none of the rather hysterical flourishes shoved round it by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. During the course of his speech some hon. Members on this side of the House, including myself, had occasion to smile, indeed, to laugh, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman turned on us with all the

701
pomposity of which he is capable and said "I am astounded that hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House find the freedom of the Press a matter for laughter." Of course, we do not. I will tell him why I, personally, laughed. He said that the Press was the raw material of democracy. That is a view of the Press—and a phrase—which I appreciate at once. I laughed because precisely that phrase had been used in this article by Lord Layton and the right hon. and learned Gentleman pinched it without acknowledgment. To the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and some other members of the Liberal Party, the freedom of the Press is both an article of faith and a subject for peroration. For me it is both those things, but in addition it is my bread and butter. Although I would on every possible occasion deride what I consider to be plagiarism and pomposity, I would never in any circumstances deride the freedom of the Press.
A point was made by the junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) and the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Beverley Baxter) about the effect that this cut will have on the British Press. There has been a little exaggeration about that. The hon. Member for Wood Green, I gather, said that it would reduce British intellect lower than it is now if we cut the "Daily Express" from six pages to four. Frankly, I do not think that it will. Nor do I think that it will decrease the quality of the "Daily Express." Some of my colleagues laugh at the "Daily Express." I do not because, technically, it is a first-class paper. In fact the news published during the war by the "Daily Express" and by many others, in a four-page paper was almost as great as it had been in pre-war times in 24 page papers. The reason for that is not only smaller headlines but "tighter" writing and "tighter" subediting. I am not prepared to argue that four pages necessarily mean better production than six pages, but I deny that six pages will necessarily mean a better production than four pages. We have an example to look back on in recent months. Look at the use that the papers have made, so far as the reporting of the House of Commons and serious matters of that kind are concerned of the last in-
702
crease in newsprint. That extra space in very large measure has been used for a whole spate of comic strips, and I would deny entirely that this cut of itself will damage the production of our newspapers, the quality of writing and the quality of the coverage which they can give.
I agree with the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) on the point he made about the weekly papers and the smaller papers. I believe that they will be severely hit, and I am absolutely delighted to see that precisely the same point is now being made not only by the hon. Member for Maldon but also by the big newspaper proprietors, including Lord Kemsley. I am delighted to find at last that Lord Kemsley and the rest are being concerned about the future of small and weekly newspapers. Because I am absolutely convinced of their sincerity in this matter, I can tell them a way out of the difficulty and that is to make certain that the cut does not fall on these small papers. They can do that by seeing that it all falls on the big national newspapers.
Having let off that amount of steam, I want to come back to the points made by the hon. Member for Wood Green with which I entirely agree. It will be a very serious thing—I will not say a disaster for I want to try to avoid exaggeration—for the newspaper industry of this country if the Canadian contract is broken. It will be a breach of faith. We on this side of the House just as much as Members on the other side are concerned with the good name of this country and its ability and willingness to keep its word. There is a second point very well made by the hen. Member for Wood Green—if we break that contract we may for all time lose our main sources of supply in Newfoundland, because for many years the United States have been encroaching in that field and they will take it all if they get the slightest chance. That will mean we will have to take supplies from Scandinavian sources where newsprint is more expensive and the source less reliable than Canadian and Newfoundland supplies.
I believe we should make this cut in newsprint, but it is a pity that it was announced singly. The Government ought to have announced it as part a general programme of reduction, because it is not fair to say it only means a little bit. All these little bits add together, but where the Government made a mistake was in

703
announcing this little bit by itself. I believe we should make that cut, but we should not break the contract. What we should do—and this proposal has been put to me privately, on fairly good authority, and I understand that it is acceptable to the Canadians and also, surprisingly enough, to the newspaper industry, is we should continue to take newsprint under that contract, we should let the cut fall on the papers here and we should sell the surplus to South America for dollars. If that proposal is really acceptable, as I have been told it is, we ought to put it into practice at once, because in that way we shall be able to maintain a contract which is one of the most vital things for the future supply of this British industry and we will be able to effect the saving in dollars we all desire.
9.14 p.m.
Sir Alan Herbert: The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mallalieu) is one of those hon. Members who is a distinguished writer and who is a very good speaker, but who did or does follow the, to me, at least, deplorable practice of reporting the proceedings of this place over an assumed name, whether it is "Phineas," "Junius," or "Jack Wilkes," I forget. That seems a pity to me, but I shall look forward to the next issue of the paper for which I think he still reports for a report of this Debate. The partiality for writing under an assumed name has not surprised me, because it was not until towards the end of his speech that I had any idea if he was for this proposal or against it.
I was much shocked by some of the levity and laughter which has been shown by hon. Members opposite on this very serious subject. When my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) talked about the doors being shut to young writers, he was talking perfectly good sense. It does not matter whether he and I are finished or not, but it matters very much that the doors are being shut, if only for six or 12 months, to the new writers who have been in the Forces. They cannot get a story or an article printed through lack of space, and that is not a thing to be laughed at at all. It should be treated more seriously. This is a fundamental, and, in principle, a shocking thing. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris) recalled that in 1850 or so, the taxes on knowledge
704
were swept away after a great campaign. It was one of the great achievements of this country. Now we are in every respect going back to that situation now. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] For God's sake, do not say "rubbish." It hon. Members cannot listen to a serious argument without saying "rubbish"—[Interruption.] I am telling hon. Gentlemen of this House of the time when we had a tax upon knowledge. If we must go back to it—
Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Member is really making a great deal of fuss about little. The word "rubbish" may not be a very pretty word, but it was not used about the abolition of the taxes on knowledge. It was used about the suggestion that we thought we heard the hon. Gentleman make that because we reduce the size of newspapers today for a limited period by one page, we are back in the period when we used to put taxes on knowledge.
Sir A. Herbert: It hon. Members would kindly refrain from making insane and irrelevant interruptions and if they will be silent, I will develop the point of my argument, which curiously enough has not been developed. I will now come back by saying that taxes upon knowledge were abolished and that was a great thing. I was interrupted when I said that we were now getting back to the same state of affairs. I was not talking only about newspapers. I say that in every department that appeals to the mind we have the same thing. We have a savage tax upon theatres, and music and films. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We have a tax upon plays, upon music and upon films. Books are held up in every possible way. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I know a little more about this place than some hon. Members. This is a Motion for the Adjournment and I can say this. We are to have a new Customs tax upon films. And now we are to have a new burden on newspapers.
Upon the whole area of things of the mind we are going back to a barbarous condition of things. For God's sake, let us not laugh at it. It sounds so smart to say things in this place like "Food before flicks," "Nuts before newspapers" or "Tea before 'The Times.'" Hon. Members laugh and boast about it, but it is a terrible thing. After all,

705
in a civilised State, which we think we are, food for the mind is just as important as food for the body. To say "Cut out books and have beer," or "Cut out films and have food," or "Cut out poems and have potatoes," is all very well if you are on a desert island. But we are not on a desert island yet—though before certain people have done with us, we may very well be. [Interruption.] When hon. Members read the report of this Debate tomorrow, or better still if a record could be taken of it, I think they will be sorry to be reminded of the senseless, uncivilised and barbarous laughter and behaviour they have shown.
This is a fundamental principle. Without going into the question of whether it is going to affect this or that newspaper, I say it is another obstacle and another tax upon the things of the mind. As a university Member, I will stand up for ever to oppose these things, but this is being done just for one million dollars. Why not American plays? Why not American books? Why not stop all the free flow of thought? Why only films? We spend £3 million a year on American publications. Thank God. Let them all come. Let American plays come. I do not want to stop the flow of thought and of ideas. Certainly I would never stand up here and laugh and boast because we are forced to do it. I will support anybody who goes into the Lobby against this barbarous thing.
9.21 p.m.
Mr. Nally: There was a time when I entertained the highest regard for the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) who has just resumed his seat. When he has spoken in years past, I have listened to him, from the Gallery, with great pleasure. I know of no more pathetic spectacle to see, or of anything more pathetic to hear, than a great wit making a silly and stupid speech, and delivering himself of the quite ridiculous exhibition we have heard here tonight. He was right in saying he has been in this House a good deal longer than some of us. I hope when we have been in this House as long as he has we shall not be guilty in old age of the impertinence to others that he has shown to us.
I propose to say a few words on this subject, and it is a matter of complete
706
indifference to me whether hon. Members opposite consider it a partisan speech or a party speech or not. I could not care less. The words I propose to say will be an appeal from a loyal Member of this party to my own particular leaders. There has been a great deal of hypocritical nonsense talked from the other side suggesting that the Government desire to interfere with the freedom of the Press and that this cut has that effect. We accept that that is not so.
My main complaint against the Government on this matter is that it has been silly; it has been ill-advised; it knows quite well that it has made a mistake, and its main concern tonight, I feel, is rather to devise some means of saving its face on a proposition that it knows is largely indefensible. The Government is entitled to comment, as we all are, upon the use that newspapers make of their newsprint. There is—I do not think I am out of Order in using this expression—at the moment, for example, in the bulk of the Sunday papers what is literally a "whore-war" in process. Large numbers of the Sundays papers are engaged in seeking for serial stories of the worst possible type, designed to attract circulation. The Government are entitled to protest about it, as is every man and woman who cares for decency in newspapers and in general life. Newspapers are a commercial proposition produced mostly for profit and should for the purpose of this Debate, be so regarded, and the proposed cuts in their raw material judged accordingly.
It is no good the Government getting tough in this matter unless it demonstrates that in every other field of waste in our national resources and labour it is prepared to be equally tough. For 18 months in this House I have, I know, made myself something of a bore on the subject of football pools because I regarded and still regard the attitude of the Government towards football pools as being symbolical of whether or not they were prepared to take steps to deal with obvious, clear and undeniable waste of the worst possible kind. [An HON. MEMBER: "They have not the courage."] Why should the newspaper industry be face to face with this quite savage attack when the football pools industry is being left completely intact to carry on its business, even though its paper has been

707
cut? I have been asking questions for months about the labour involved in the pools. Fourteen months ago I asked the Government to undertake negotiations with the pools to try to reduce the amount of labour and materials used in that industry. A few weeks ago it was agreed that that should be done. Since that time the whole might and majesty of the Ministry of Labour has been engaged in those negotiations, and we are, one and all, gratified to know that no fewer than 13 females have agreed not to enter the employment of the pools, but to go into productive industry.
I have in my hands a Canadian magazine which was purchased at a London bookstall yesterday. It is selling on the bookstalls of W. H Smith & Son, at all the main railway stations, at 1s. Look at the weight of it. Why import this newsprint, already printed upon by the Canadians, and pay dollars for it when at the same time it is argued that we cannot buy Canadian newsprint for our own use? It is a quite fantastic situation.
I have a word to say about the position of the smaller newspapers. I know a small, important and independent provincial newspaper, and I am associated in a friendly way—not professionally—with members of its staff. A few months ago they had a plan. They were going to do something which, to the best of my knowledge, no provincial newspaper has done before. They were going to develop independent foreign representation, including, in particular, the sending of reporters and feature writers out to cover things like municipal developments and town planning in other countries. This proposed cut makes that plan absolutely impossible. At the same time as we are dealing with the dirt in the Press through this cut, we are, with equal effectiveness, preventing honest papers from developing real news services of the kind we desire. That fact ought to be taken into account.
There is also the psychological effect. I am told that the Leader of the House specialises, as I know he does, in these matters of putting over public policy. He considers policy questions from the point of view of the effect they will have. I say—if I am wrong I shall be contradicted—that at no time in the Government's consideration of these cuts—at no time whatever—was a single step ever taken or
708
a single question ever asked, to find out what the effect of this would be upon the provincial newspapers. The cuts themselves were first announced on 27th June, when the newspaper industry and Lord Layton were informed that the cuts were to be made. There had been no consultation whatever with any provincial newspapers and no inquiries were or have been made of these newspapers as to what the effect will be—and the effect is going to be serious. My information is that on 7th July the President of the Board of Trade interviewed certain representatives of the newsprint buying agency and he told them—on that Monday—that the full case as expounded to him would be put before the Cabinet. The following day—that is Tuesday—the Leader of the House in a speech to the House, referring to a question by the right hon. Gentleman the deputy Leader of the Opposition, said that the Government stood by its decision. If the promise made by the President of the Board of Trade was made the day before, that there would be reconsideration of this matter, are we to assume that between the Monday night and the Tuesday it had been gone into again and that further consideration given? I find it difficult to believe that in that space of time the matter could have been given the proper re-examination that was promised. I ask the Government to reconsider this. I believe it is in the public interest that they should reconsider this, I believe it is in the interests of the newspaper industry as a whole, but, above all, I believe it to be in the interests of the Government.
9.30 p.m.
Mr. Frank Byers: I think that all hon. Members will surely agree that it was a right and proper thing to have this Debate on this subject tonight and I feel, having listened to all of the Debate, that the attitude of all hon. Members would have been different if this newsprint cut had been one of 400 other readjustments made at the same time, and not just a single discrimination against one industry and one section of the community. I think that is the feeling of all sections of the House.
Listening to the speech of the President of the Board of Trade convinced me more than ever that a mistake had been made by the Government. I am not blaming the Government for this; it is the sort of administrative bad decision that one got

709
occasionally during the war at an Army headquarters or an Army group headquarters. It can happen at times, and my purpose tonight is to ask whoever is to wind up—the Minister of Health perhaps—if he will give some indication that this matter can be reviewed again, because, quite frankly, I was not impressed by the speech of the President of the Board of Trade and the excuses which he gave. Let us look at the advantages and the disadvantages. The advantages put forward by the President of the Board of Trade were, first, that we should save, or try to save—
Air-Commodore Harvey: On a point of Order, Sir, owing to the noise going on, it is quite impossible to follow this speech, although the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Byers) has a loud voice. Could we have a little more silence?
Mr. Byers: I shall not detain the House long but I want to put one or two points. The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave two reasons why this was essential, why it was vital: one, that we might save £1 million dollars—we might, because we shall review it in six months time to see if we are to expend it or not; secondly, this cut would stave off the difficult situation which will arise when the dollar loan runs out. That seemed to impress hon. Members in all quarters of the House. Yet it means that we shall stave it off for less than one day. That was the sort of argument advanced by the President of the Board of Trade, with his title of leading silk, and I think I am entitled to say that the House cannot agree to accept that type of argument on a matter which affects the Press of this country. Those were the only two advantages indicated.
The disadvantages have been detailed—the unemployment of specialists. That is the point. It is not just unemployment in the newspaper industry, but the unemployment of specialists who, as the Minister of Labour said, will not be able to be employed in other industries. Not only are you doing that for six months, but you are jeopardising the continuing supply of paper from Canada which may keep those men out of work for a long time. The President of the Board of Trade said, "But whatever you cut, whatever saving in dollars you make, will put somebody out of work." I must say
710
that I felt overwhelmingly a sense of indignation at the almost callous way in which he could regard this idea of throwing anyone out of work. The point is that there are ways of saving dollars without throwing people out of work. I do not know anything about this Rank deal in America, but I am told that several million pounds worth of dollars have been advanced to Mr. Rank to invest, in order to get some money back later. You will not get dollars back in six months but, if you cut that allocation down, you would not throw anybody out of work in England. We are now being told we are going to try to do a deal with America so that we can import more Empire tobacco—
Mr. McAllister: Surely, if we cut down dollars for films, we should put film technicians out of work?
Mr. Byers: That is not true Films are going to be made any way, and they would be sold elsewhere. This is a dollar problem. I am told that we shall import Empire tobacco—
Mr. Harrison: Not in six months.
Mr. Byers: I would have expected the President of the Board of Trade to consider some of these alternatives, instead of just saying that if men are to be put out of work, they are going to be put out of work. The Government are to cut down newsprint at a time when it is vital that the public should be fully informed. We are going through a great crisis of some sort this winter; it is going to be vital, as the Government appreciate in their White Paper, and people should know what is taking place. In the "News Chronicle" this morning there was a survey of the six-page newspaper, which showed that the "Daily Express" and the "Daily Mail" gave two and a half times more coverage to Parliament in a six-page than in a four-page paper. That is of vital importance, and it is vitally important that we should not jeopardise the small independent newspapers. I ask the Government if it is not possible to find this £1 million worth of dollars in some other way? Why not take this matter back, and have another study made of it? The amount might be saved on 10 small items. I ask in the most conciliatory spirit, will the

711
Government not look at this again, and not say the final word tonight?
9.37 p.m.
Mr. Naylor: I am not attempting to enter into the discussion at this late hour, but my association with the newspaper industry in particular, and with the printing industry in general, prompts me to make a suggestion to the Member of the Government who is to reply to the Debate. I was present on Wednesday last at a meeting of the National Joint Industrial Council of the Printing and Kindred Trades Federation, and it is only fair that I should be allowed to point out to the House that a resolution was passed there deprecating the cutting of newsprint supplies, while recognising the difficulty in which the Government are placed. They also suggested that the Board of Trade was not yet in a position to come to a fair judgment on the decision, without having the expert advice that men engaged in the industry are able to give. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for South-West St. Pancras (Mr. Hadyn Davies) in an appeal to the Board of Trade to reconsider this matter. I ask the Government if they can give the Cabinet a further opportunity of considering the position after receiving representations on the matter, and to suspend the operation of the order for two weeks, in order to enable that to be done.
Something has been said about unemployment as a consequence of this decision. I am able to tell the House, as I am a representative of the industry, that there will be considerable unemployment among the newspaper staffs if this order is carried out. The newspaper industry in London alone covers thousands of men, and, if one takes the provinces also, many more. Only compositors have been mentioned tonight, but it is not only the compositors who will be displaced. It is the journalists, about whose handicap we have already heard, and there are other departments, right from the top of the building, each of which will be obliged to part with men as a result of this curtailment of their opportunities of employment. I do not suggest, for I know it is impossible, that the representative of the Government who is to reply tonight is in a position to say that the Govern-
712
ment will revoke the order. What I am impressing upon the Government is the desirability of giving an opportunity to the interested parties to place the whole of the facts of the paper situation before them, and to suspend the operation of the Order for at least two weeks in order to enable that to be done.
9.42 p.m.
Mr. Norman Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) has indulged in a piece of pure and simple special pleading. He is a member of a newspaper trade union, and has spoken from that point of view. I have also been interested in the newspaper industry for 30 years, and when I came into this Debate I did not know how I would vote in the Division. I have listened to the arguments and have been influenced by what I have heard. If all Labour Members are to approach the coming crisis in the sectarian narrow spirit in which it has been approached by my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Southwark, then it is "God help the Labour Party."
This is the worst Debate to which I have listened in this House. To hear one hon. Member after another speaking as they have done, no one would imagine that this old country was drifting into one of those dangerous and difficult periods in its history comparable with, shall I say, 1931 or 1940. The economic background appears to have been forgotten in a welter of sentiment. I am not afraid to vote against the Government. I have voted against them before, and I shall vote against them again. I came to this House prepared to vote against them on this occasion, but the factitious arguments which have been used, mostly by the Party above the gangway, have convinced me that my place is to go into the Lobby with the Government. I said "factitious," and I mean factitious. Always hon. Members are talking about saving the country, that the nation is living on tick, about America's eleemosynary attitude, always they are challenging us to produce some policy and to say what we propose to do. Yet, when my right hon. and learned Friend gets up and makes one single suggestion, we are told "You must not do that. There is nothing anyone must do."

713
I have voted against the Government and I shall vote against my own profession and my own trade union. I do not like doing it. I would far sooner go into the Lobby against my right hon. and learned Friend. I cannot do it, because no argument has been produced that is worth while.
9.45 p.m.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I listened with very great care to the bulk of the Debate, particularly that part which has occurred since my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade addressed the House. I am bound to say that I think my task is particularly easy because I thought that after his speech there was no argument left about this issue at all. There has been some heat and we have been reproached by one of the hon. Members who has endeared himself to the House by his sense of humour, for laughing at some of the things he said. We have listened on several occasions to a good deal of hilarity from the opposite side of the House.
I want to make my position quite clear on this matter. If I thought for a single moment that the proposal made by the Government would have the appalling effects described—intellectual starvation, spiritual degeneracy, the exclusion of young writers from the opportunity of using their creative talents—and all those horrible consequences that have been described, including unemployment, though I must confess that when hon. Members opposite raise their hands with horror at unemployment I find it very difficult to listen to them seriously.—[Interruption.] I have made very many speeches in this House in years past about unemployment. They were addressed to hon. Members opposite and we never got any sympathy at all. We on this side of the House are the last people to take frivolously and without careful thought any action that might have the effect of throwing people out of employment. But the fact of the matter is that the appalling consequences described will not foliow the action the Government have decided to take. Indeed, if it be the case that there will be starvation of newsprint for books which ought to be printed, that can quite easily be avoided. Most of the national newspapers could take this cut quite easily and yet at the same time leave
714
plenty of newsprint for people who want to write things that ought to be written.
The argument has been used by one of my hon. Friends that the provincial papers, in particular the small papers, will feel this cut the hardest. That is an argument that should be answered. No one wants to see the small newspaper pass out of circulation any more than it has done at the hands of the chief supporters of the party opposite. No one has done greater damage to the freedom of the Press in Great Britain than the proprietors of the newspapers that are the most ardent supporters of the party opposite. The answer is that the provincial newspapers, many of which have seven or eight pages, will suffer proportionately less than the national papers which have five or six pages. They will lose one page, and no one would suggest seriously that the provincial papers are likely to be put out of circulation at this stage by a reduction in their size of one page. In fact we have had very many generalisations, and I challenge hon. Members opposite to produce any example of any newspaper that would be forced to sell out to a combine as a result of this cut. In fact, we have had no evidence of any sort at all. We have had a lot of airy generalisations.
Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the local newspapers have taken back practically all the ex-Service men employed by them before the war, and how can they continue to employ these men when they have to get seven days news into one weekly paper?
Mr. Bevan: That is an entirely different argument. There is the point, and no one denies it and my right hon. and learned Friend did not deny it, that one of the consequences of the cut will be, in many cases, and it may be in all cases, the reduction of employment. No one has denied it, but I was addressing myself at that moment to the argument that has been used on the other side of the House and on this side as to whether the newspaper itself would be extinguished and forced to sell out to a combine. It is obvious that, if we are to meet this situation, which is liable to become very much more difficult in the course of the next three or four months, as everyone knows, we shall have to adopt measures that will be unpleasant to different sections of the community. My right

715
hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained, when this cut was announced to the House that not only is newsprint being cut, but that there are other cuts as well, although no one has mentioned them in the course of the Debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "It would be out of Order."] If I am out of Order, the whole Debate has been out of Order because over and over again hon. Members have made reference to alternative cuts. There has been reference after reference to what might be termed an alternative to the cut. We are, in fact, at the moment, having to cut foodstuffs in order to conserve dollar resources, and I say at once—[Interruption.] I will read out the actual words:
"While, therefore, we shall not be able to afford all the imports of foodstuffs for which we had hoped …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th June, 1947; Vol. 439, c. 961.]
[Laughter.] I do not understand what hon. Members are laughing at. First of all, they deny a statement, and then, when they get the evidence, all we get back from them is a hoarse laugh. Therefore, there has been already some cuts in foodstuffs and I say—
Mr. Eden: I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but those who spoke earlier in the Debate, before he was here, had understood that they would not be able to discuss the alternative reductions. I was prepared to suggest alternatives, but I understood that that would be out of Order.
Mr. Bevan: We have had a very long discussion on cutting films, and it really is rather hard to have to listen to arguments of that sort and then to be prevented replying.
Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman did not listen to one argument, as he was not even in the House.
Mr. Bevan: I answer the right hon Gentleman by saying that the right hon. Gentleman listened to none of the Debate at all after my right hon. and learned Friend had spoken. I am, therefore answering a Debate of which he is entirely ignorant. It was, therefore, decided, not only that we should make cuts in newsprint, but in food as well, and I speak here as Minister of Health, and I say,
716
that, if I have to choose between making further cuts in food and making cuts in newsprint, I will make cuts in newsprint. I think it is far more important to get food into our people's stomachs than to read "Forever Amber" in the Sunday newspapers. I understand that serial is going to be followed by another, about which some individuals may have heart—"More Orchids for Miss Blandish." This is an example of the intellectual level which we have attained in Great Britain. Everybody who has seen some of the national newspapers knows very well that they could take a cut in newsprint and still maintain a far higher level than they have maintained in the past, by cutting out a great deal of the rubbish which they have been printing.
On behalf of the Government, I resist the main arguments that have been put forward. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) asked us to postpone this cut for a fort-night, in order that there might he an opportunity of discussing the matter with representatives of the unions. But all the representatives have been met; every representative connected with this matter has had an opportunity of making his case known. This has not been sprung upon the House, or upon the industry. My right hon. and learned Friend has had a whole series of discussions on this matter, and we reluctantly came to the conclusion that it was necessary to make this cut. I say "reluctantly" because, for some time. I was connected with a weekly journal, and I should be the very last man to support any cut which might have the effect of driving serious weekly journals out of circulation. Indeed, I would be very reluctant to deprive hon. Members opposite of the education of that journal. As far as I am concerned, this is the position which we are taking up.
In conclusion, may I say that I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Mr. N. Smith) said. It is really a very serious thing for the morale of this country if, when we come forward at a serious time like this, and propose a reduction in our dollar payments, we should have special pleadings from various sections of the community, and, of course, exploitation of the difficulties for party purposes. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know whether hon Members wish to talk this Motion out.
Mr. Bevan: I cannot hope to make my point of view agreeable to hon. Members opposite. I have never wanted to do that, and I should be very unhappy if I did.
If they wish to divide, I hope that my hon. Friends on this side will support the Government.
Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
The House divided: Ayes, 113; Noes, 234.

Division No. 316.

AYES.

[9.59p.m

Astor, Hon, M

Head, Brig A H

Orr-Ewing, I, L

Baxter, A. B

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

Osborne, C.

Beamish, Maj. T V H

Herbert, Sir A. P.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M

Bennett, Sir P

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Pickthorn, K.

Birch, Nigel

Hogg, Hon. Q

Pitman, I. J

Bossom, A. C.

Hollis, M. C.

Ponsonby, Col. C E

Bower, N.

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

Prescott, Stanley

Boyd-Carpenter, J A.

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

Bromley-Davenport, Lt -, W

Hurd, A.

Raikes, H V.

Buchan-Hepburn, P G T

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Bullock, Capt. M

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Clarke, Col R. S

Keeling, E. H.

Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

Conant, Maj. R. J E.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

Crookshank, Capt Rt. Hon H F. C.

Langford-Holt, J.

Ropner, Col. L

Crowder, Capt. John E.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

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

Lipson, D L

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W

Drayson, G B

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Spearman, A. C. M.

Drewe, C

Low, Brig. A R W

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

Dugdale, Maj Sir T. (Richmond)

Lucas, Major Sir J

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Duncan, Rt Hn. Sir A (City of Lond.)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

Eden, Rt. Hon A.

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O

Studholme, H G

Fletcher, W (Bury)

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Sutcliffe, H.

Fox, Sir G

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

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

Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Thorp, Lt.-Col. R A F

Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Turton, R. H.

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

Maitland, Comdr. J. W

Vane, W. M. F.

Gammans, L. D.

Manningham-Buller, R E

Wakefield, Sir W. W

Gates, Maj. E. E.

Marlowe, A. A. H

Walker-Smith, D.

George, Maj Rt Hon G Lloyd (P'ke)

Marples, A. E.

Ward, Hon. G. R

Glyn, Sir R

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

White, J. B. (Canterbury)

Grant, Lady

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Granville, E. (Eye)

Mellor, Sir J

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Gridley, Sir A.

Molson, A. H. E.

Winterton, Rt Hon. Earl

Grimston, R. V.

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

York, C

Hannon, Sir P. (Moteley)

Nicholson, G

Hare, Hon J. H. (Woodbridge)

Noble, Comdr. A. H P

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Harris, H Wilson

Nutting, Anthony

Mr. Frank Byers and

Harvey, Air-Comdre A. V

O'Neill, Rt. Hon Sir H

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts.

NOES.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Dye, S

Adams, W. T (Hammersmith, South)

Bruce, Maj D. W T

Ede, Rt. Hon J. C

Allan, A. C. (Bosworth)

Buchanan, G.

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Burden, T. W

Edwards, N (Caerphilly)

Alpass, J. H.

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

Edwards, W J (Whitechapel)

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Attewell, H. C

Chamberlain, R. A

Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C R

Chetwynd, G. R

Ewart, R.

Ayles, W. H.

Cobb, F. A

Fair hurst, F.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs B

Cocks, F. S

Field, Capt. W. J

Baird, J.

Coldrick, W

Fletcher, E G M (Islington, E)

Balfour A.

Collick, P

Follick, M

Barnes, Rt Hon A J.

Colman, Miss G. m

Foot, M. M

Barstow, P G

Comyns, Dr. L.

Forman, J. C

Barton, C.

Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camo well. N.W)

Foster, W. (Wigan)

Battley, J. R

Corvedale, Viscount

Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

Bechervaise, A E

Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S

Gaitskell, H. T N

Bevan, Rt Hon A (Ebbw Vale)

Daggar, G

Gallacher, W

Binns, J.

Daines, P.

Ganley, Mrs C S

Blackburn, A. R

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Gibbins, J

Blenkinsop, A

Davies, S. O (Merthyr)

Gibson, C W

Boardman, H.

Deer, G

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Bowles, F. G (Nuneaton)

Diamond, J

Gordon-Walker, P. C

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

Dobbie, W

Greenwood, A. W J (Heywood)

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Dodds, N. N.

Grenfell, D. R

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Grey, C. F.

Brooke, T. J (Rothwell)

Dumpleton, C, W.

Grierson, E

Brown, George (Belper)

Durbin, E. F. M

Griffiths, D. (Bother Valley)

Griffiths, Rt Hon. J. (Llan lly)

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Skinnard, F W

Griffiths, W. D (Moss Side)

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Gunter, R. J

Manning, Mrs L (Epping)

Smith, H. N (Nottingham, S.)

Guy, W. H

Medland, H. M

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

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Mellish, R J

Sorensen, R. W

Hall, W. G.

Middieton, Mrs. L

Soskice, Maj. Sir F

Hamilton, Lieul.-Col. R

Mitchison, G. R.

Sparks, J. A

Hannan, W (Maryhill)

Moody, A. S

Stamford, W

Hardy, E A

Morgan, Dr H. B

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Harrison, J

Morley, R.

Strauss, G R (Lambeth, N.)

Hastings, Dr Somerville

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Sylvester, G. O

Henderson, A (Kingswinlord)

Morrison, Rt Hon H (Lewisham, E.)

Symonds, A. L

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Mort, D. L.

Taylor, H B. (Mansfield)

Harbison, Miss M

Moyle, A.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Hobson, C R.

Neal, H (Claycross)

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Holman, P

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

Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)

Holmes, H. E (Hemswor)

Nicholls, H R (Stratford)

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

House, G

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

Thomas, I. O (Wrekin)

Hudson, J H. (Ealing, W.)

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

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Hughes, H. D (Wolverhampton. W.)

Oldfield, W H

Timmons, J

Hynd, H (Hackney, C.)

Oliver, G. H.

Titterington. M F

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Palmer, A. M.

Tolley, L

Isaacs Rt. Hon. G A

Pargiter G. A.

Tomtinson, Rt. Hon G

Janner, B

Paton, J (Norwich)

Turner-Samuels, M.

Jay, D P. T.

Pearson, A.

Ungoed-Thomas, L

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Peart, T. F

Walkden, E.

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

Pools, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

Wallace, G. D (Chislehurst)

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

Porter E. (Warrington)

Wallace, H W (Walthamstow, E.)

Jones, D. T (Hartlepools)

Porter, G (Leeds)

Watkins, T. E

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Price, M Philips

Webb, M. (Bradford. C)

Keenan, W.

Prill, D. N

Weitzman, D

Kanyon, C.

Pryde, D J

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Kinghorn, San.-Ldr E

Randall, H E

White, C. F (Derbyshire, W.)

Kirby, B. V

Ranger, J

Whileley, Rt. Hon. W

Lavers, S.

Rees-Williams, D. R

Willey, F. T (Sunderland)

Lawson, Rt Hon. J. J

Reeves, J.

Willey, O G. (Cleveland)

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Williams, D J (Neath)

Leonard, W.

Richards, R.

Williams, J. L (Kelvingrova)

Leslie, J. R

Ridealgh, Mrs. M

Williams, Rt Hon T (Don Vallay)

Levy, B W,

Rogers, G H. R

Williams, W. Ft (Heston)

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Royle, C.

Williamson, T

Lindgren, G. S.

Sargood, R.

Wills, Mrs. E A.

Lipton, Lt.-Col M

Scollan, T.

Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J

Logan, D. G

Shackleton, E. A. A

Wise, Major F J

McAdam, W

Sharp, Granville

Woodburn, A

McEntee, V. La T.

Shawcross, C N. (Widnes)

Yates, V. F.

McGhee, H. G.

Shawcross, Rt. Hn Sir H (St Helens)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

McKay, J (Wallsend)

Shurmer, P

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

McKinlay, A S

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

McLeavy, F.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

McNeil, Rt. Hon. H

Simmons, C. J

Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell.

Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY
Again considered in Committee.
[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1947–48
Original Question again proposed.
It being after Ten o'Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceedings, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his report to the House.
Committee report Progress: to sit again Tomorrow.

NATIONAL SERVICE BILL
Lords Amendments considered
NATIONAL SERVICE BILL

  CLAUSE 5.—(Liability to complete interrupted service.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 16, leave out from "person" to end of Clause and insert:
  720
  "applies in the prescribed manner to the Minister for the cancellation or variation of the notice on the ground that he is not liable to be called upon to undertake part-time service under this section or is liable to undertake a term of part-time service shorter than that specified in the notice, the Minister shall, unless he grants the application, refer it to a referee selected by the Minister from a panel of persons nominated by the Lord Chancellor; and the notice shall not become operative to enter or enlist the applicant for service except as from such date and for such a term as may be determined by the Minister or the referee as aforesaid "
  10.10 p.m.
  The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Isaacs): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  It may be for the convenience of the House if I explain that this Amendment and the subsequent Amendments have been put down by the Government, in another place, in response to undertakings

  721
  that were given in this House to hon. Members who raised a number of questions in the previous Debates on this Bill. I hope that in each case we have fully carried out the undertakings specifically given, and the promise that we would look into the matter. These Amendments carry out those undertakings, and unless there is any desire for some explanation, I propose to say no more.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should just like to thank the right hon. Gentleman and the Government for the way in which they have met the point I raised in this regard on the Report stage. I did raise the point about the man who wished to dispute the notice given in writing. I presume that will be covered by the prescribed regulations.
  Mr. Isaacs indicated assent.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I feel sure—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will state that it is the fact—that the notice served upon the individual will inform him of his rights of making representations if he thinks the notice is wrong.
  Mr. Isaacs indicated assent.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Calling up for training during part-time service.)
  Lords Amendment: In line 43, at end insert:
  "so, however, that the maximum punishment that may be awarded in respect of any such offence shall be, in the case of a person convicted by a court of summary jurisdiction, a fine of twenty-five pounds, and in any other case detention or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years."
  Mr. Isaacs: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think the point of this Amendment meets entirely the arguments we put forward. I think it is right to say that there is a difference in punishment imposed under the various codes, and in some cases penal servitude can be imposed for desertion. I hope that at some time an opportunity will be taken to bring those codes more into line. At the same time, I am glad that the Attorney-General has met the point, as he said he would in the course of our previous discussion.

  CLAUSE 13.—(Prohibition of dismissal of employees by reason of liability for service.)
  Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 44, leave out "umpires" and insert "the umpire."
  Mr. Isaacs: I beg to move, "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: There seems to be something a little wrong with this Amendment. In page 9, at line 44, one sees the words "umpires and deputy umpires." If we leave out "umpires" and insert "the umpire," the sentence would read, starting in line 43:
  "Section eight (which relates to Reinstatement Committees the umpire …)"—
  which seems to me to be bad grammar. I imagine it is that "umpires" which is being taken out. If it is the other "umpires" it would read:
  "Section eight (which relates to Reinstatement Committees umpires and deputy the umpire)."
  I am not quite sure that the drafting is right.
  Mr. Isaacs: So far as I understand it, it is mainly a question of phraseology. I think the purpose is to refer to "the umpire" in that case, and then to "deputy umpires." So it should be "the umpire," who is a single individual, whereas there might be more than one deputy umpire.

  THIRD SCHEDULE.— [Minor and Consequential Amendments of the National Service Acts, 1939 to 1946.]
  Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 24, at end insert:
  "and at the end of subsection (2), there shall be added the following words—
  'and in particular, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the Minister may, if he is in doubt whether an enlistment notice served on any person other than by registered post has been received by him, cause a further enlistment notice to be served on him by registered post and may by that notice direct that the former notice shall be deemed never to have had effect.'"
  Mr. Isaacs: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
  Mr. Janner: It seems to me that this Amendment does not go

  723
  quite as far as was expected, in view of the arguments put forward when this matter was discussed on the Committee stage. I should be glad if my right hon. Friend would give an assurance. It is stated that:
  "the Minister may, it he is in doubt whether an enlistment notice served on any person other than by registered post has been received by him, cause a further enlistment notice to be served on him by registered post and may by that notice direct that the former notice shall be deemed never to have had effect."
  It seems to me that that does not go far enough, because if the Minister is in doubt whether a notice has been served, then obviously the benefit of the doubt ought to be given to the person to whom the notice should have been served. We should be given an assurance that a man will not be in jeopardy in such circumstances, and that another notice will be served. I think the word "shall" should be inserted instead of "may."
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I do not share the doubts of the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner), in view of an Amendment which is to be considered later. I feel a little doubt about the

  NAVY. ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1945–46

  Resolutions reported:

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

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses, viz.:—

  Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated receipts (Votes 2–6 and 8–16)

  —

  55,106,623

  12

  4

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

  —

  8,215,984

  15

  7

  46,890,638

  16

  9

  Total Deficits, viz.:—

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

  46,890,638

  16

  9

  —

  Excesses of actual over estimated gross expenditure

  721,843,260

  15

  11

  —

  768,733,899

  12

  8

  Net Deficit charged to the Vote of Credit

  £721,843,260

  15

  11

  And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of that part of the surplus receipts realised under Votes 2 to 6 and 8 to 16 which is required to make good the deficit in receipts under Votes 1 and 7.

  1. That the application of such surpluses be sanctioned.

  [For details of Schedule see OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1947; Vol. 440, c. 181–2.]

  drafting, because the circumstances in which the Minister can be in doubt under this arrangement seem to me unlikely to arise. I think that the point raised by the hon. Member, and by hon. Members on this side of the House, in our previous discussion is adequately covered by this Amendment, if the three Amendments are considered together.
  Mr. Isaacs: I will try to explain the position. A notice will be sent to a man telling him to report. If he does not report on the day given, the Service authorities will report to the Ministry of Labour that he has not appeared. We shall then take it that he has not received his notice, and send a further notice by registered post. That notice will cancel the previous notice which brought him into the Forces, so that the man in question cannot possibly be arrested as a deserter.
  Mr. Janner: That is a very satisfactory answer, and I am very pleased to have the assurance.
  Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

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

  Total Surpluses, viz.:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

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

  —

  30,250,475

  17

  9

  Total Deficits, viz.:—

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

  188,365,139

  3

  11

  —

  Excesses of actual over estimated gross expenditure

  1,309,873,523

  17

  2

  —

  1,498,238,663

  1

  1

  Net Deficit charged to the Vote of Credit

  £1,467,988,187

  3

  4

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

  2. That the application of such surpluses be sanctioned.

  [For details of Schedule see OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1947; Vol. 440, c. 183–4.]

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

  Total Surpluses, viz.:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

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

  —

  54,669,692

  11

  2

  Total Deficits, viz.:—

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

  65,540,918

  17

  5

  —

  Excesses of actual over estimated gross expenditure

  510,859,611

  19

  1

  —

  576,400,530

  16

  6

  Net Deficit (charged to the Vote of Credit)

  £521,730,838

  5

  4

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

  3. That the application of such surpluses be sanctioned.

  [For details of Schedule see OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1947: Vol. 440, c. 185–6.]

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolutions."
  10.20 p.m.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: This may appear to be a formal matter, but I do not think the House should pass it entirely formally. This is a very useful piece of procedure. I remember, during the war, being very irritated by the procedure which obtained in the years before the war, whereby the Treasury would not write off the deficit on one Vote against the surplus of another. That had a bad effect on our preparations for the war effort. When there was a surplus of money available for wireless experiments, it could not be converted to tanks and, consequently, the whole of our tank production suffered. I am delighted to find that now, in peace time, we have returned to the original and correct practice. I do not think the
  726
  House should pass these Resolutions without some comment. It is true that the Public Accounts Committee—
  Mr. Speaker: The noble Lord is not in Order. The only question is whether debits can be set against credits. Details cannot be discussed, as they have already been passed.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: We have formally to pass the procedure by which the credits and debits are aligned by the Treasury, and the net result is brought before this House for sanction. Under the Navy heading, there is a deficit approximately of £720 million; under the Army heading there is a deficit of approximately £146 million; and under the Air Force heading there is a deficit of approximately £521 million. These are fantastic sums, and although they have been passed by the Public Accounts Committee, they reflect on the situation in 1945–46, during nine months of which

  727
  we were at peace. If it is a fact that the great spending Departments, in a particular year, during nine months of which we were at peace so inaccurately budgeted.
  Mr. Speaker: the question of expenditure has already been discussed and settled; the only question now is whether expenditure can be covered by a Vote of Credit.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Then may I express the hope that this time next year we shall not see such very large discrepancies between the receipts from one Department and the expenditure of another Department, which are brought before this House for equalisation and sanction? I object to the fact that these great discrepancies between income and expenditure should have occurred in a year during nine months of which we have been at peace, and I ask for more accurate budgeting in future. I think I am in order in saying that.
  Mr. Speaker: I think not. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Vote, he will see that he can only argue about the surpluses.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: We are under force majeure. The Public Accounts Committee has sanctioned them, and they come before the House now for formal approval. I submit that anything brought before the House is not entirely formal, and to some extent can be debated. However, I do not wish to prolong the discussion.

DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES (ASSESSMENT)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn"— [Mr. Michael Stewart.]
10.25 p.m.
Mr. Kenyon (Charley): I desire to raise what I consider to be a point of principle regarding the way in which dependants' allowances are assessed. I think that in the formation of the Regulations governing dependants' allowances a point has been overlooked that causes unnecessary hardship in certain cases. It is accepted as a right that a relative
728
in certain prescribed categories authorised under the Regulations, who is dependent on a person called into the Services, shall be entitled to a dependant's allowance, if the income, after various deductions, falls below 23s. per week, or, in the case of one dependant, 26s. per week. The point to which I desire to call the attention of the Minister is that all moneys coming into the home are considered as income, irrespective of their source. I fully agree that under the present Regulations that is correct, but I submit that certain moneys entering into the home are not income in the accepted sense of the word, but are capital income, when it becomes necessary, in order to sustain the home, for a person to withdraw invested capital.
In this respect, cases of capital sums which have been awarded under workmen's compensation fall into two distinct classes. There is the compensation which can 'be invested in a lump sum, and the compensation which is granted in a weekly allowance. In the former case, when the income is assessed for the purposes of a dependant's allowance the interest only on the capital sum is considered. In the other case, if a person is granted workmen's compensation in a weekly sum of, say £1 then £52 is considered as income. This places the two cases in an entirely different category, and in my submission is quite unjust. A person who is able to invest £100 at 3 per cent. is considered to have the 3 per cent. interest as income, but in the case of the person who is granted compensation of £100 which is given to that person at the rate £2 of a week, that £2 per week is considered as income, and entirely debars that person from obtaining a dependant's allowance.
Let me state briefly a case as it actually works out in practice. The widow of a man killed in 1943 by a fall of rock, earning £5 145. a week at the time, was granted partial compensation of £285. At that time an elder son was working in the home, and that was the reason she was granted only partial compensation. But at a later date that son married and made no further contribution. Therefore, it became necessary for her to ask permission of the court for the money to be granted to her in weekly sums. The court granted the compensation at the rate of 23s. a week. She made application for a dependant's allowance when her

729
younger son—who, at the time of his father's death, was only 15 years of age—entered the Services, but she was refused a dependant's allowance because her income was more than 26s. a week. Her income was made up as follows: She had a widow's pension of 10s. a week; her son made her an allotment of 10s. 6d a week: and the compensation of 23s. a week made her total income £2 3s 6d.
I submit that the 23s. a week compensation ought not to be taken into account in a case of this nature. It is granted by the court because of the loss of the husband. Considered in the financial aspect, it is a most inadequate sum for the loss of the husband—23s. replacing £5 14.s. a week. At the time the younger son joined the Forces he was earning £3 a week. The mother now loses that £3 and obtains only 10s. 6d. from his Army allowance. So, because compensation has been granted to her in a weekly sum she cannot obtain a dependant's allowance. If the compensation had been granted to her in a lump sum, which she could have invested had she had sufficient capital, or other income, she would have been able to draw the dependant's allowance.
I want to point out what the effect of this will be when the younger son comes home. He will return home when he is over 21. Let us suppose, for the purpose of illustration, that he gets married. The mother will then have no other income coming into that home except for the 10s. per week widow's pension, because she will have spent the whole of the £285 granted as compensation. I do submit that here is something which requires the consideration of the Government. I understand from the Service Departments that this is a Treasury regulation which has been laid down, and they are tied to the principle of considering weekly compensation as an income. I hope that the Minister, in his reply, will be able to say that the Government will consider this position where it is falling very hardly indeed upon widows and their dependants. In submitting this case tonight I hope that the Minister will have something good to say on this point
10.35 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State to the War Office (Mr. John Freeman): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter. It has served to draw attention to the practice which I think bears the
730
examination of this House. I am also grateful to him because he has been very courteous in not suggesting of the Department which I represent that we have, in any way, unfairly administered the regulations which at present exist to meet this case. The substance of his contention is that where compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act is being paid to a widow in the form of weekly sums making up a total lump sum, it should be regarded as capital and not as income.
The position about dependants' allowances in the Forces is that it is not in any sense part of the ex-Serviceman's emoluments. It is an allowance which is paid by the State to meet immediate needs which are brought on by the fact that the State has taken into the National Service the breadwinner of the family, and the justification for the regulation which I have hitherto had to administer in this connection is that since that money is coming in, whatever be its source, there is at that moment not a degree of immediate need which would otherwise justify the payment of this allowance. Circumstances must necessarily be taken account of and the allowance should not be paid. I have given very careful consideration to this matter following a series of letters which my hon. Friend has written to me, and I have come to the tentative conclusion that there is substance in his argument.
The reason, I think, is that there is a distinction which we should not lose sight of between capital and income in this connection. The distinction is simply this, that in the case of ordinary income at the end of any given period you are still left with the capital. In the case of lump sum compensation of this kind, which is paid in periodical packets at the end of the same period, your capital has disappeared and I think that there is some substance in what my hon. Friend has said that it does constitute an entirely different case.
I would not like to give the impression to the House that I or my predecessors are sheltering in this matter behind the Treasury. It is of course perfectly true that in the administering of warrants of this kind one draws up for ordinary day to day practice, a series of regulations which, if they work well over a period of time, are usually held to have almost statutory force. I cannot at this late stage

731
of dependants' allowances, which is, after all, a purely wartime measure, undertake to reverse the practice of the last seven years without very careful thought. There are objections to doing so. We must be very careful in these matters not to remove one anomaly, and in doing so, create a whole series of other anomalies. These matters of dependents' allowances and the various operations of the Assistance Board, to say nothing of the other two Services which are also concerned in this, hang together in a complex way, and I shall have to consider with the greatest care whether it is reasonable for the Government at this late stage to make some sort of alteration to meet my hon. Friend's point.
However, this is the argument which really sways me. When the court, in the original workmen's compensation case, made its award, it made it having regard to family circumstances and having regard to the fact that there was a young person at home who was earning money and contributing to the upkeep of the family. The effect subsequently, when the State had called that young man up, of not allowing the weekly compensation to be excluded from the assessment of income is that we are, in effect, compelling the widow to spend that lump sum of compensation at a faster rate than the court originally intended her to do, and to that extent it appears to me that these regulations tend, as they stand at the present time, to frustrate the intention of the court which originally gave the compensation.
That is a frank argument, which I think largely concedes my hon. Friend's case, and if he will allow me to say so, it is the most forceful argument which can be adduced in this matter. I cannot give a categorical reply one way or the other this evening, but I will say that my hon.
732
Friend will observe, from the way I have argued this case, that I am considerably sympathetic to the concession which he is seeking to get, and I will undertake in the immediate future to look into it and to see if it is reasonable at this late stage of an allowance which is rapidly disappearing, to make such a change. In order to avoid misunderstanding, I wish to make it quite clear that I am giving no binding undertaking, but I will look at the whole question with the utmost sympathy and with a desire to help my hon. Friend. Having said that, I think he will be well advised not to press me further this evening.
Major Legge-Bourke: May I ask the hon. Gentleman one question? He said the dependant's allowance was purely a wartime measure. May I ask if it is the intention of the Government to continue it for the period of the National Service Bill which has just been before the House, because if his argument in favour of the dependant's allowance was in order at a time when we were at war, it is equally in order while the National Service Bill is in operation.
Mr. Freeman: I can speak again only by leave of the House. I would rather not give a categorical reply; indeed, I am not in a position to do so. When I referred to a wartime measure, I would have been better advised to say "a National Service measure or expedient." The future has not arisen, but we will deal with it when it does arise. Had I spoken in that way, it would have avoided the difficulty which the hon. and gallant Member had.
Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Steel (Export Orders)
  Steel (Export Orders)
  Tyres (Licences)
  Tyres (Licences)
  Utility Furniture
  Utility Furniture
  Ladies' Shoes
  Ladies' Shoes
  GAS WORKS, OXFORD (EXTENSION)
  GAS WORKS, OXFORD (EXTENSION)
  SCOTTISH COAL EXPORTS
  SCOTTISH COAL EXPORTS
  OVERSEAS TOURISTS (PETROL)
  OVERSEAS TOURISTS (PETROL)
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployment (South Cumberland)
  Unemployment (South Cumberland)
  Building Draughtsmanship (Training)
  Building Draughtsmanship (Training)
  Productive Workers, Sheffield
  Productive Workers, Sheffield
  T.U.C. (Special Crisis Committee)
  T.U.C. (Special Crisis Committee)
  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE (INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS)
  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE (INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (AGRICULTURAL WORK)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (AGRICULTURAL WORK)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Currency Offences (Prosecutions)
  Currency Offences (Prosecutions)
  War Damage (Outstanding Liabilities)
  War Damage (Outstanding Liabilities)
  Sterling Balances
  Sterling Balances
  Anglo-Egyptian Financial Agreement
  Anglo-Egyptian Financial Agreement
  National Savinggs (Encashments)
  National Savinggs (Encashments)
  Securities (Government Holdings)
  Securities (Government Holdings)
  British Shipping (Film)
  British Shipping (Film)
  Purchase Tax (Football Pools)
  Purchase Tax (Football Pools)
  Emigrants (Exchange Allowance)
  Emigrants (Exchange Allowance)
  DARTMOOR PRISON (ESCAPES)
  DARTMOOR PRISON (ESCAPES)
HOUSING
  Agricultural Workers
  Agricultural Workers
  Orlit Houses
  Orlit Houses
  Timber
  Timber
  Airey Houses
  Airey Houses
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Nurses (Recruitment)
  Nurses (Recruitment)
  Regional Hospital Boards
  Regional Hospital Boards
  Water Supply, Colwyn Rural District
  Water Supply, Colwyn Rural District
  Milk and Dairies Act
  Milk and Dairies Act
  Reports on Nursing
  Reports on Nursing
  Student Nurses
  Student Nurses
  ELECTORS LISTS (B.B.C. APPEAL)
  ELECTORS LISTS (B.B.C. APPEAL)
  EXPORT OF HOUSES
  EXPORT OF HOUSES
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' LOANS
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' LOANS
EDUCATION
  U.N.E.S.C.O. (Committee Appointments)
  U.N.E.S.C.O. (Committee Appointments)
  School Meals, Shropshire
  School Meals, Shropshire
  Educational and Technical Books
  Educational and Technical Books
  British Commonwealth (History and Evolution)
  British Commonwealth (History and Evolution)
  Schools for the Deaf
  Schools for the Deaf
  Burnham Salary Scales
  Burnham Salary Scales
  POLES, UNITED KINGDOM (PAY AND ALLOWANCES)
  POLES, UNITED KINGDOM (PAY AND ALLOWANCES)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  University Building Requirements (Labour)
  University Building Requirements (Labour)
  Building Labour, Coventry
  Building Labour, Coventry
  MALAYAN TIN AND RUBBER (DOLLAR EARNINGS)
  MALAYAN TIN AND RUBBER (DOLLAR EARNINGS)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Bread Units (Loose Coupons)
  Bread Units (Loose Coupons)
  Eire Meat
  Eire Meat
  China Tea
  China Tea
AGRICULTURE
  University Degree Courses
  University Degree Courses
  CROWN LANDS (HOUSES)
  CROWN LANDS (HOUSES)
  WILLS AND BEQUESTS (PRESS PUBLICATION)
  WILLS AND BEQUESTS (PRESS PUBLICATION)
  POST OFFICE (HOURS OF WORK)
  POST OFFICE (HOURS OF WORK)
GERMANY
  Displaced Poles (Newspapers)
  Displaced Poles (Newspapers)
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Control Commission (Strength)
  Control Commission (Strength)
  RUSSIAN-BORN WIVES
  RUSSIAN-BORN WIVES
  BRITISH PUBLICATIONS U.S.S.R.
  BRITISH PUBLICATIONS U.S.S.R.

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

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.
2.35 p.m.
Further considered on Report (according to Order).
Clause 84 [Land held for charitable purposes]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT) moved to leave out Clause 84 and insert the following clause:
Land held for charitable purposes.
84.—(1) This section applies to land an interest in which is held for charitable or ecclesiastical purposes of any description if the land, as distinct from the rents and profits thereof, is used in any manner (including use in a manner involving the beneficial occupation of the land by any person) for or in connexion with the purposes for which the said interest is held, and not otherwise, or if the land would be so used but for the occurrence of war damage or but for the fact that the land is for the time being requisitioned land.
(2) No payment shall be made under Part VI of this Act in respect of any such interest as aforesaid in land which, on the appointed day, is land to which this section applies; and no development charge shall be payable under Part VII of this Act in respect of any operations carried out on such land by the person entitled to any such interest for or in connexion with the purposes for which that interest is held or in respect of any use of the land by that person for those purposes.
(3) Where any land which, on the appointed day, was land to which this section applies ceases at any time thereafter to be such land, no development charge shall be payable under Part VII of this Act in respect of any development by virtue of which the use of the land is made to correspond with the use which prevails generally in the case of contiguous or adjacent land, if planning permission for that development has been granted under Part III of this Act before the land ceases to be land to which this section applies.
(4) Where any such interest as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section in land to which this section applies is compulsorily acquired under this or any other Act in pursuance of a notice to treat served on or after the appointed day, then if—
936

(a) the land was land to which this section applies on the appointed day; or

(b) the land is being used at the time of the notice to treat for a purpose of such a nature that there is no general demand or market for land for that purpose,

it shall be assumed, in assessing the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the said interest, that planning permission would be granted under Part III of this Act for any development by virtue of which the use of the land would be made to correspond with the use which prevails generally in the case of contiguous or adjacent land, and that no development charge would be payable under Part VII of this Act in respect of any such development.
(5) If, upon application made to him at any time within three years after the appointed day, the Minister is satisfied—

(a) that any interest in land was held on that day for charitable or ecclesiastical purposes of any description, but that the land was not then used in any such manner as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section; and

(b) that it is reasonable, having regard to any proposals for its future use, that the land should be treated for the purposes of this section as if it had been so used,

he may, if he thinks fit, direct that the foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect in relation to the land, so long as that interest is so held, as if the land was land to which this section applies and had been such land on the appointed day:
Provided that subsection (3) of this section shall not apply by virtue of any such direction if the interest in question ceases to be held for charitable or ecclesiastical purposes before the land has been actually used in the manner aforesaid.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section any interest in land which is held by the National Trust shall be deemed to be used for the purposes for which that interest is held, and not otherwise, if, and only if, that interest is held by the Trust inalienably.
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move that we leave out Clause 84 as printed in the Bill and substitute the clause on the Order Paper. Before I go any further, may I say that there is a purely technical error here. On the eighth line you will find the words "the war damage." It is intended that the phrase should be "war damage," and may I take it that your Lordships understand that, in moving this clause, I am moving it without the word "the." This clause and the next proposed new clause are so closely intertwined that I think it is really impossible to discuss one without trespassing upon the other, and I shall therefore—and I assume your Lordships will think it not improper—inevitably, I am afraid, in

937
discussing this clause rather stray into the territory of the other.
I may say at once that I think this is by far the most difficult topic of an exceedingly difficult Bill, and I may add further that there is no clause in the Bill which has given me personally more anxiety than this clause relating to charities. I gather from my postbag, and I gather from some of the leaders I have seen in the papers, that I am regarded as the modern Henry VIII despoiling the monasteries, and it is apparently assumed that my colleagues, and in particular the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are mere puppets who dance to my tune. My Lords, I wish it were so. But you may take it that that is not true, and that, though I must of course take—and I take without any hesitation—my share of the collective responsibility for the matters that are put forward, I cannot take, and it is unfair that I should be asked to take, more than my fair share. On the other hand, I do not claim to be the sole originator or begetter of this scheme. At the same time, I have had, in the course of the last six or seven years, to give very careful consideration to this matter and, having given that consideration, I myself have come to the conclusion—I do not mind saying the rather reluctant conclusion—that the only course you can take about this topic is to differentiate the land by reason of the nature of the land, some quality attaching to the land, rather than to consider the nature or quality of the owner of the land. I believe that as we come to consider this topic in the course of this clause and the next clause, you will find that you will get into very great difficulty if you are going to treat two parcels of similar land in a different way because of some inherent quality not in the land but in the owner.
Our scheme, broadly speaking, is this: We differentiate between operational land, as I have termed it, and investment land of charities, and we say that land which is used for the direct purposes of the charity, which is what I mean by operational land, shall have one treatment, and land which is mere investment land—that is to say, land from which the charity derives profits and rents which it uses no doubt for its charitable purposes —shall be in a different category. Historically the matter in the last few years has been dealt with in this way. At the time of the Uthwatt Committee they had
938
to consider this matter, and those of your Lordships who are familiar with the Uthwatt Report will find, in paragraph 76, that they dealt with this matter. They were not concerned to deal with land within towns, but so far as land in the country is concerned they expressly state in that paragraph that the lands of institutions such as hospitals and other charitable institutions should be treated exactly on the same basis as dwelling-houses. With regard to dwelling-houses their scheme was to treat them as developed with, I think, one acre.
Then in 1943, in the days of the Coalition Government we had to consider this matter very carefully in the case of war damage in regard to the collection of war damage contributions. In regard to charities what we did was this—I am not sure whether it was the first time it was done, but the first time of which I am aware—we differentiated between what may call the operational land and the investment land, and we made them pay contributions in respect of their investment land, but preserved them from paying any contribution in respect of their operational land. When this Bill came from another place to this House, and Clause 84 as it was drafted originally was before us, again it preserved the distinction between operational land and investment land. I undertook to your Lordships to take back that clause and to consider its drafting again, because I am most anxious to make the relief in respect of operational land as wide as I can, and where there comes a border-line between operational land and investment land I am quite willing to draw that line with a favourable view towards the charities so far as I can.
I confess that on looking at the clause as it came to us, I was not altogether happy about it. As I thought, it emphasized too much the principle of the land being "contiguous or adjacent" and one or more of your Lordships gave me some illustrations in this connexion. I remember that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, referred to the boathouse of Westminster School, which is situated at Putney. That boathouse is certainly not contiguous or adjacent to the school, but, obviously, it is used for the purposes of the educational establishment. I was not satisfied, therefore, with the contiguous or adjacent test. If you come to think of the case of an ordinary country vicarage, it would be an odd result if

939
one were to grant some privilege or protection to a vicarage merely because it nestled beside the church, but denied it that same protection if it was situated half a mile or a mile away. In drawing up my new clause I have been anxious, so far as I can, to deal with that matter, and I think I can fairly say that in the new clause, so far as land is being used for operational purposes, whether it is contiguous or adjacent to anything or not, it gets the benefit of the relief.
I wish now to say something with the next Amendment particularly in mind. I would like the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, to listen to this carefully. It is a question I am going to ask him when we consider his proposed new clause, so I must make the matter perfectly plain. If land, operational land held for charitable purposes (though in this connexion the same principle applies to investment land) is purchased, either through voluntary sale or compulsory acquisition, you must make it plain what the purchaser is getting. By buying that land what right does he get? Has he the right to develop the land to any extent without paying a development charge? Or, alternatively, has he the right to develop it in accordance with the prevailing user of the neighbourhood without paying a development charge? Or has he no right to do anything without paying a development charge? It is no good, if I may say so with great respect, having a clause dealing with this difficulty unless that matter is made plain. I am sure that your Lordships will agree with me upon that. When I ask your Lordships to look through my clause I shall endeavour to show that I have made that matter plain. Equally when I come to consider the next proposed clause which I shall examine from that same point of view, and—forewarned is fore-armed—I am telling my noble friend Viscount Samuel that I shall ask him to consider what is the position under his clause if land is purchased either in a voluntary or compulsory transaction: what does the purchaser get? Unless that matter is put beyond the ambit of ambiguity it is obvious that the clause is no good at all.
I have drafted my clause wide enough to meet the case of the particular movements or bodies that I was asked to consider—youth organizations, youth hostels,
940
boy scouts or anything of that sort. In the case of land with regard to which you cannot say that there is a general requirement for land of that character contiguous to anything at all that matters, so long as it is used for the purpose of boy scouts, youth hostels and so on it is plain, according to my clause, that it is operational land and therefore gets treated as operational land. And the treatment of operational land, of course, is this. You do not claim under Part VI—that is to say you have no share of the £300,000,000 —and having no share in that you do not have to pay development charges if you seek to develop your land.
That is the broad scheme, and it would be convenient now, I think, if I were to ask your Lordships to look at my clause in order to see what I have been enabled to do. In the first subsection I define, so far as I can, operational land. It is land
"held for ecclesiastical or other charitable purposes if the land, as distinct from the rents and profits thereof, is used in any manner (including use in a manner involving the beneficial occupation of the land by any person) for or in connexion with the purposes for which the said interest is held … or if the land would be so used but for the occurrence of war damage.…."
Then, in the next subsection, consequent on that, I set out that
"No payment shall be made under Part VI in respect of any such interest as aforesaid in land which, on the appointed day, is land to which this section applies.…"
That is, there shall be no share of the £300,000,000. But correlatively
"no development charge shall be payable under Part VII … in respect of any operations carried out on such land by the person entitled to any such interest for or in connexion with the purposes for which that interest is held. …"
So far, I hope, it is quite plain.
Now I have to deal with the question of what happens suppose that operational land ceases to be so held. I say that if the land ceases at any time thereafter to be such land, no development charge shall be payable under Part VII in respect of development so as to make the land correspond with the prevailing user of adjoining land. That is to say that if an Oxford College, which I will call St. Luke's College—is minded to sell its land, it can sell its land and the purchaser will know that in buying that land he can, always assuming he receives planning

941
permission, develop that land up to and in accordance with the existing use prevailing in the neighbourhood without paying development charge. St. Luke's will get more from the purchaser because the purchaser knows he has that privilege without paying development charge.
I turn next to what will happen on compulsory purchase. I deal with this in subsection (4):
"Where any such interest as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section…is compusorily acquired…then if—

(a) the land was land to which this section applies on the appointed day"

or has since the appointed day become operational land, it shall be assumed in assessing the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the said interest, that planning permission would be granted under Part III of this Act for any development corresponding to the prevailing use in the neighbourhood. And no development charge is payable in respect of that. So, if St. Luke's wants to sell its gardens to a man going to build a factory—a horrible thought, but let us assume it for a moment—always assuming you get planning permission and the factory is in accord with the prevailing use in the neighbourhood, then it could sell the land for a factory and the purchaser would know he was entitled to put up that factory without paying any development charge.
Then I deal with a different topic. I have been trying to meet a particular point put by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. St. Luke's may have land at some other part of Oxford, possibly in the High Street, at present used for shops but which in the fullness of time may well be wanted for an extension of the college or other college purpose. If the college like to go to the Minister and obtain his approval, that land may be treated as if it were operational land. But there is a proviso, which says:
"Provided that subsection (3) of this section shall not apply by virtue of any such direction if the interest in question ceases to be held for ecclesiastical or other charitable purposes before the land has been actually used in the manner aforesaid."
Therefore, if St. Luke's, having got the Minister to agree that this land occupied by shops may be used for college purposes, decide they cannot use it and wish to sell it, then subsection (3) will not
942
apply to that land and the purchaser will know that he will buy it subject to existing use and if he wants to do more than that he has to pay development charge. Finally, I have tried to meet the almost passionate plea of the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, about National Trust land, and I have decided to treat as operational land the inalienable land of the National Trust, which is by far the largest proportion of their land.
That is the scheme I am here putting forward. I have differentiated between operational land and investment land. I warned your Lordships on the previous occasion when I promised to withdraw the clause for redrafting, that I felt certain the instructions I had to maintain this distinction would prevail. What I promised to do, I have done. I promised to take this matter back to my colleagues and impress them with the arguments which your Lordships had used. I have done so. I have faithfully carried out my undertaking, but the net result is that I am bound, and I say it quite unambiguously, to adhere to the distinction between operational and investment land. If this were merely a system of taxation analogous to the Income Tax or what was done in '31 or '43, I think there would be a strong case for exempting the charities from this tax. But what we are doing in this Bill is not a matter of taxation at all: that is purely incidental.
This is one of the most far-reaching and one of the most revolutionary Bills ever introduced into this House. The broad principle of this Bill, be it observed, is agreed to by all Parties. It follows the Coalition White Paper. What we are doing is nothing less than this—the whole principle of ownership in fee simple has virtually gone. The owner of land is at best and at most a sort of tenant for life without any of the concessions and privileges which the Settled Lands Act secured him. He is entitled under the scheme to continue to use the land in its existing state, but if he wants to alter the land or the nature of its use, he has to get permission to do so and pay a fee by way of development charge for so doing. It seems to me a complete fallacy to speak as though this were a mere system of taxation. It is not. It is a limitation, and a very serious limitation, imposed on ownership of land and it is a limitation to which all Parties are committed.
Speaking for myself, though it is a revolutionary change, I believe it to be right, I believe it to be justified. If you look at conditions in our great cities and realize how far the absence of planning is due to our grandfathers in the past having no planning policy—I am not making Party capital out of this—I think there is complete justification for this Bill. Is it possible to have subsisting at one and the same time two forms of land tenure, not depending on the nature or use of land, but depending on the quality of ownership? Is it possible to say that land held, for instance, by St. Luke's College shall be subject to one system of tenure, that they shall have complete ownership, something corresponding to ownership in fee simple as we used to know it, and that land next door belonging to a landlord shall be subject to the limited system of land ownership? We do not believe that to be practicable. We realize, everybody must realize, that the consequence of putting investment land into the category of ordinary landowners' land may have adverse effects on some charities. I believe myself, for the reasons I have given in the course of the debate, that the extent of that adverse effect is very much overstated, but I will not embark on that now.
Surely, if we take any other criterion than the use of land we get an arbitrary and artificial distinction. Take charities' land within the Green Belt: where it is not going to be developed, where no question arises, you must be able to say in regard to that land, "You are not going to develop it." Are you going to pay compensation there? Are you going to pay different compensation apart from the £300,000,000? If so, you find yourself in this position, that the treatment which charities get will depend on an accident as to where that land is situated, whether it is or is not fit for development. I believe that to be impossible and, as I have said, having thought over this matter for a very long time, I have come to the conclusion that the only thing you can do on this very difficult and very debatable clause—I can see there is room for two points of view—is to base your principiles upon the quality of the land itself and not upon the quality of the owner.
For those reasons, I have endeavoured in my Clause 84 so to draft it as to apply
944
concessions to operational land, though at the same time—and I hope your Lordships will not use this in evidence against me when we come to the discussion on the later clause—I have tried to consider operational land in as wide a way as I legitimately could, so as to bring as much charity land as possible within the concession of the clause. That is my scheme. The other proposed new clause, which I have to some exent incidentally discussed, we shall have to consider, too, but for the moment I hope your Lordships will realize that I have, to the best of my ability, carried out the undertaking which I gave. I can only assure your Lordships that the redrafting of this clause has caused a great deal of thought and anxiety to myself, and in particular to those who have been advising me. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 84 and insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has made, as he always does, an impressive speech which, if I may say so without impertinence, was of course very well argued and very attractive. I thought myself that when he reached the latter part of his oration he moved a little wider of the mark than at the beginning. He treated the matter which is in issue here as though it involved a question as to whether planning should apply to the land the treatment of which is in dispute between these two clauses. Surely, it must be quite plain to the noble and learned Viscount—he knows it perfectly well—that the planning clauses of this Bill apply with exactly the same force to land which is held by trustees for a charity as they do to any other land. It has, again with the greatest respect, nothing whatever to do with the point, and is merely a flourish added at the end of his argument to induce some people to think that what some of us venture to think would be right here is an invasion of the planning principles of the Bill. The trustees of educational charities—of whom I am particularly thinking in this connexion—are the people who welcome planning most of all; and they have shown it by the way in which they have acted throughout. I am sure my noble and learned friend will forgive me if I say that the issue of planning has nothing whatever

945
to do with his Amendment or the other Amendment.
It is, as the noble and learned Viscount says, very difficult to decide what is the right thing to do here. I would like to express, if I may, my sincere thanks—and I think I can say the thanks of the whole House—for the trouble which he has taken about this. He has beyond any question improved the original clause in the Bill almost out of recognition by the substitute which he now puts forward. It does make plain—as I ventured to suggest when we discussed this in Committee he would have to make plain—that the test within his clause is not really whether a particular piece of land is "contiguous" to another piece. That has really nothing to do with it; it was an imperfect piece of drafting. In the nature of things mistakes must arise, and the skilled draftsmen are always ready to recognize that. With the help of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor—and I have no doubt with his principal authority—the clause has been altered so that all that difficulty has gone. I am very glad that it should be so.
But I do not think that his new clause covers quite all the difficulties. If I mention one, it is not with any desire to be captious, but merely so that it should be on record. I do not myself see (though I may be wrong about this) how the noble and learned Viscount's clause deals with this case, which is not at all an uncommon case. You have cases—I think I could mention one, or perhaps two, in the university I know best—where the college or the university has already acquired an area of land with the idea that later on, perhaps when leases have run out, or when sufficient money is available, they will make use of it not wholly for the purposes which my noble and learned friend very conveniently called "operational," but partly for operational purposes and partly for something else—what you might call a "mixed" user. The sort of instance which occurs to me, and which I know is the practical instance, is this. You may have a college which has some time ago acquired an area of land in the town which it hopes, when the leases have run out, to make use of by providing additional rooms for undergraduates on the upper floor, while having shops below. I do not mention that with any desire of magnifying this point beyond
946
what is right, but I ask my noble and learned friend to consider whether that case is really dealt with. If it is, I am more than satisfied, but I felt so much doubt about it that I thought he would allow me to mention it.
As the noble and learned Viscount said, it is convenient to review these two clauses together. If I do that (and I will not do it at any length) I want to be sure that we concentrate our minds on the real issue. The real issue is an issue of principle. If my noble and learned friend thought it was right—or perhaps I should say, had the necessary permission—to provide that land held by a charity as an investment should not be treated in the same way as land which was held by a private individual for his personal profit, nobody could question that with the resources that he commands he could draw up a clause which would cover the case. I do not for a moment suggest that he could not. As it is, those who put down n the Amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, are, I think, at a certain disadvantage, because they have not my noble and learned friend's assistance, nor the assistance of the skilled draftsmen of the Government. But that it could be done nobody is going to dispute for a moment. Of course, with the resources of Parliamentary draftsmanship it is not impossible to provide that investment land held by trustees for charitable uses shall not be treated in the same way as land which is merely held for private profit. There may be complications but of course it could be done. The real issue is, therefore, on the point of principle.
The question is whether the profits on development in the case of trustees for charities who hold land, could better be made available for the community through being left in the hands of the trustees, or whether the community will benefit more by their being transferred to the Treasury. Now observe that when this development charge in respect of such lands is paid to the Treasury there is no sort of guarantee —there is no sort of pretence, I think—that in the hands of the Treasury they are to be devoted to educational, religious or other charitable purposes—none at all. They fall into the general maw of the Treasury. The noble and learned Viscount explained just now the relationship between himself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the old days, certainly down to the days of Mr. Lloyd George,

947
"the Chancellor" meant the Lord Chancellor. Mr. Gladstone would never for a moment have allowed himself to be referred to as "the Chancellor." He was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and anybody who looks at Hansard—anybody who knows the history of our Parliamentary nomenclature—knows that that was the old position, and "the Chancellor" in the old days meant the Lord Chancellor. The change took place in the time of Mr. Lloyd George.
Equity has sometimes been described as a very uncertain protection, because, as the old lawyers sometimes said, "it was the length of the Chancellor's foot"; that is to say you could not imagine what it would be in advance and you had better just see what the particular Chancellor would say. The amount of development charge in the present Bill, and the way in which it is going to be used may be described as the length of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's foot—it depends on how much he wants for general purposes. There is not the slightest reason to think that the £300,000,000—which, by the way, is to be shared with Scotland—is arrived at by any particular calculation. The question is whether, when you come to educational charities, you are really going to promote the benefit of the community by placing this heavy charge upon such land. What has been done in this new clause is really to follow as closely as possible the provisions in Clause 84. Anybody who compares, for example, subsection (5) in the clause of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, with the clause which was referred to just now by the Lord Chancellor will see that they are practically the same. In the same way, subsections (3) and (4) really are fitted in, in view of the language of Clause 84 of the Lord Chancellor. Everything depends upon whether we are or are not going to treat land which is admittedly investment land held by the trustees of charities just like private owners' land or not.
If I may, by way of brief exposition, make a further observation, it would be this. I have no difficulty in answering the noble and learned Viscount's question which he put just now. The scheme of the clause of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, as I understand it is this. Supposing that trustees of charitable land
948
sell it, as of course they may sell it, to anybody who is not interested in the charity at all, it is just the money which is paid for it which then becomes the charitable fund. If the trustees of a landowning charity which is land with a development prospect get planning permission for a given development for any given parcel of land, then the first proposition is that the development charge which ought to be paid shall not exceed the amount which has been paid in respect of that area of land from the £300,000,000, which is sometimes called compensation money. That is the first proposition. If that proposition is applied it follows, of course, that the trustees of a land-owning charity, whatever they may receive in the first instance, will have to pay it back in development charge, but not more than they have received when the planning permission is given for a particular development and before that development takes place. Such a man who buys such a piece of land from the trustees—it may be a college or a school—will buy land which to that extent has a permission for development. But if there is any further development which is required hereafter he has to pay development duty on anything which is added. It is perfectly simple and nothing more than simple arithmetic.
But there did arise a second administrative difficulty which the Lord Chancellor did not fail to point out very clearly in the previous debate. The difficulty is this. It may be that the area of land, in respect of which a portion of the £300,000,000 may have been granted, is a larger area than the portion of it which is going to be developed or going to be sold. In that event, as the noble and learned Viscount pointed out—and I quite agree with his criticism—you would get into the gravest of difficulties as to how you are going to distribute over the whole area of the land the amount received, having regard to the fact that only a portion of it is going to be granted development rights. The criticism is a perfectly just one and, of course, the noble and learned Viscount made it as clear as crystal the moment he explained it. He said that it is a great administrative difficulty—as it would be—but it is completely overcome, I venture to think, by the clause which we are now discussing

949
together with the Lord Chancellor's clause. That other clause contains the provision that if only a part of the land which, as a unit, has got some payment from the £300,000,000 is sold, or ceases to be trust land, then there is no limitation on the development charge which may be made—permission having been obtained in connexion with a given development of that portion—until the development charge or charges on such portions as have thus been dealt with equals or exceeds the payment out of the £300,000,000 which has been made in respect of the whole. The advantage of that is that you never have to undertake what I agree would be a difficult task, the task of apportioning between the whole area and a portion which is going to be developed and sold, this contribution out of the £300,000,000. That is, I think, an exposition of Lord Samuel's clause, and I will not, at any rate now, take more time about it.
At the end of his speech the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, advanced some very striking and stirring propositions and said that he regarded this as a revolution in land tenure. It abolished in effect fee simple. I wonder what would happen to the Birkenhead Acts, passed not so many years ago, if it is so revolutionary as all that. So far as I am concerned, it is nothing of the kind. It is recognizing a principle from which I have never retracted, in which I have sincerely believed ever since my early days: that if the increased value of land can fairly be regarded as created by the efforts of the community as distinct from the efforts of the individual owner, then it is perfectly right to demand from that owner a contribution. I am the purest of the pure on that subject. I have expounded it in another place and on public platforms, probably, if I may say so, before some noble Lords opposite were ever interested in the subject at all. I have not changed one scrap.
Having spent my life in—amongst other things—trying to master our law, I know that throughout our whole history we have always regarded land which is held for charitable purposes as not being a proper subject for the general statutory exactions which from time to time have to be made for public purposes. I am not going to spend time, and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack
950
would not expect me to do so, in discussing where a tax is not a tax. It really is an idle discussion. He himself called it a "fee," and if it is any advantage to anybody to say that this is a fee exacted from the landowner instead of saying it is a tax imposed on him, then for heaven's sake take the advantage of the distinction.
I think that if you had any regard to the language of Adam Smith or of John Stuart Mill, this thing does become in substance what they would have called a tax. I have extracted a passage; here it is:
"A tax is a compulsory contribution in support of government levied on persons or property under the force of an Act of Parliament."
Do not let us spend more time in discussing whether this is a tax or not. What is quite certain is that, throughout our history of exactions placed by Statute upon our citizens for purposes of contribution to the Exchequer, there cannot be the least doubt in the world that from beginning to end lands held by trustees for charity have been regarded as exempt. It goes back further than the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, suggested the other day. He thought it started in 1846. As a matter of fact, there was an Income Tax imposed by Pitt in 1799. Then the Peace of Amiens came, but it ended in 1803. I had the curiosity to look at Pitt's Statute of 1803 and I found that it exempted all charities just the same. It has always been so.
Reference has been made to the Snowden Act. It is relevant to observe that in 1931, when Snowden made his proposals in respect of this very purpose—namely, getting a contribution out of the development of land—there was this actual provision in paragraph (f) of Section 24 headed "Exemptions and Reliefs." It is, of course, in rather technical language but the meaning of it may be very easily ascertained. He exempted from what he was imposing any land "owned by any persons entitled to claim, in respect of the unit or any part thereof, or in respect of rents and profits thereof, exemption from Income Tax under Schedule A of the Income Tax Act of 1918, Section 37." I have the section here; I will not trouble your Lordships by reading it, but I hope you will take it from me that it is a clean exemption of lands which are vested in

951
trustees for charitable purposes so far as they are used for charitable purposes. It has always been so. The reason is this. There may be a great deal to be said—I think there is—for getting a contribution from the private owner of land which he sees growing more valuable, not owing to his own efforts but owing to the efforts of the community—circumstances having in one form or another made it more attractive to buy. But when you come to these educational charities, they are held on behalf of the community.
As I ventured to tell your Lordships' House the other day, I really have a personal knowledge of this. For thirty or forty years I have sat and helped to administer such a charity to assist the Bodleian Library, the Adult Workers' Association, the non-collegiate students who may not always be able to afford the ordinary expense of a university education, and other educational purposes. Here is a simple example within my own knowledge. Some years ago the institution to which I refer were the owners, as trustees, for educational purposes, for a charity, of a considerable acreage of land—not I think very far from London. In the course of time, the land became more valuable. In 1936, a portion of it was requisitioned for some purpose or other and the college were paid in respect of that portion of the land £81,000. They invested that £81,000 with the authority of the Minister of Agriculture—without whose authority we could do nothing at all in the matter either of buying or of selling land—in other land, which had at the time a prospect of development. What is going to happen to this trust? It has got this £81,000 worth of land. It is going under this Bill to be required to pay, I do not know how much. Nobody knows; one of the oddities of this Bill is that it does not give any definition as to how much. It is an undefined amount which has to be paid as development charge. What were they going to do with the land? If it had been left in their own hands they were going to do nothing whatever except promote the education of the people. Are we so set in our ideas, sitting in serried ranks, that when an argument of this kind is before the House of Lords,
952
it is of no avail? I say that on principle and precedent alike, this exemption ought to be made.
The clause which has been here produced by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, is a clause which I do not think it is very difficult to explain. It proceeds exactly on the same lines as the clause which the Lord Chancellor himself has introduced. The real issue for this House, which we have to decide, is whether or not we as a House think it right to take these large exactions from trustees of land which they have acquired with the authority, and very often with the encouragement, in some cases of the Ministry of Agriculture, in some cases of the Board of Education and in some cases of the Charity Commissioners. Do we think it right to say: "This will be very much better used if you hand it over to Mr. Dalton"? There is no sort of suggestion that Mr. Dalton is going to use it for educational purposes. But still, here is £300,000,000. It is going hereafter to be divided, even with Scotland although Scotland is not included in this Bill. In those circumstances, I submit to the House—I apologize for having kept your Lordships—that the argument should prevail. I hope I have put it clearly and reasonably. I submit that the right course is to make a further exemption which is suggested in the clause.
LORD HAMPTON: My Lords, whatever may be the fate of the colleges under this present clause, I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount sincerely for the concessions which it brings to those associations on whose behalf I spoke. I should also like to include the National Association of Boys Clubs which I did not mention before, and other associations which will benefit very greatly. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount.
3.33 p.m.
LORD BRAND: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of the Amendment in the name of Lord Samuel. I am sure you will give me your indulgence for a few moments. I feel like a junior barrister, or perhaps someone who is not even a barrister, arguing before the House of Lords sitting as a court of law. I am, in fact, going to support the Amendment on behalf of educational

953
charities, and particularly on behalf of the colleges of a university, of two colleges of which I happen to have been a member for many years, who are going to suffer a very heavy financial loss if this Bill goes through as now drafted. I think it is natural that that loss will be incurred not only by them but by other educational charities, because land is, in my opinion, the proper investment for a charity which has a perpetual life, and has always been so.
The colleges of Oxford and Cambridge, no doubt, still possess land that was given to them by their great founders and benefactors five hundred years ago. If one could assume that it were possible in those days that those educational charities were able to invest in equities, as they might now, I feel convinced that in the course of five hundred years they would have lost their money. Land, however, always remains, and therefore land is obviously the proper investment and the main investment that such charities should hold.
My view is the same as that enunciated by my noble friend Viscount Simon, that what we are discussing in this Bill is not a new principle of holding land, but whether certain values which have not been given to land by the owner shall be retained by the owner or shall be used on behalf of the community. Viscount Samuel's Amendment, to my mind, is wholly consistent with the second principle, that the development profits shall be retained for the purposes of the community. Like my noble friend Viscount Simon, I have sat for many years at meetings concerned with the administration of such charities. I know the meticulous care which has been given to the administration of the trust; I know how the moneys are used for the most urgent university purposes, and I feel sure that no one could say that any private interest whatever is concerned in the management of those trusts. That is where they differ fundamentally from the ownership of such land by purely private interests. I think one can say, too, that the great universities cater for all classes of the population and in that way serve the whole community, and not only part of it.
It would seem that those who disagree with this view really hold the opinion that the community can only be represented
954
by Whitehall. That seems to me a very deplorable consequence of this Bill. It is perhaps one small nail in the coffin of what you might call private enterprise and variety in this country, because it leads on to all control, not only of other institutions but of educational institutions, ultimately being centred in Whitehall. Yet in these great universities we see what I regard as perhaps the most magnificent example in the world of private enterprise. They were started, it is true, in most cases, by the great magnates of the Church, but they have been administered through many centuries by those who are in charge of them and in authority, and they have been so well administered that no other institutions in the world have a world-wide reputation superior, or perhaps even equal, to theirs.
One has to recollect that hard times are coming for these educational charities. This is a period of inflation when all expenses are going up, when all salaries have to go up, and when all costs of every kind are going up. These educational charities, these universities and colleges, to my mind, will be very hard put to it to make both ends meet. They have in the past relied very greatly on large benefactions. That was so not only in the earliest days but we have a recent example in the benefactions of industrial magnates such as Lord Nuffield. Nevertheless, while in the United States the universities can still rely on such support and do get it in large measure, in my opinion, it is not possible in this country to expect that we shall have men of such wealth in future that they can support universities or colleges as they have done in the past. Therefore, you are taking away by this Bill revenues which it will be extremely difficult to replace. For that reason, I think one ought to consider with all the more care whether it is really desirable in the public interests to diminish their revenues and therefore to prevent them from carrying out the duties that they so well carry out for the, community now. I have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment brought forward by Viscount Samuel.
3.40 p.m.
LORD LUKE: My Lords, I am sorry I was unable to be present when this particular clause was discussed on the Committee stage, otherwise I should have spoken on that occasion, and then I think

955
perhaps the noble and learned Viscount's surprise, about which he spoke on that occasion, might have been possibly less. His surprise was that the number of voices raised on behalf of these charities was not larger. Well, I venture to add my small voice now. Although it may be rather a voice crying in the wilderness, at any rate I feel it should be raised. Let me assure the noble and learned Viscount that the list is rather formidable. I do not wish to weary him with the full details, but it is a formidable list. I do not speak, as you might think, on behalf of St. Luke's College, which the noble and learned Viscount has instanced to-day, but on behalf of the Harpur Trust, which was one of those mentioned, and which is the governing body of the Bedford Schools.
The Lord Chancellor has asked us to consider this matter upon the nature and quality of land rather than upon the nature and quality of ownership. I have tried very hard, but I think it is extremely difficult to do that. We are right up against the principle whether the landowners should be treated all alike, or whether there should be any exception in this Bill. Even landowners have good intentions, I believe. It is not often thought so—it is popularly thought the other way, and the legislation which we are passing in this and other Bills does tend to view the landowner with suspicion; it partially pushes him into the semi-criminal class. But the good landlord—and we have heard something to the effect that the Government are going to be a good landlord in the future—does, I understand, plough back his increment, if you like, if he has any, and he improves his property. That may not be a very good way of putting it briefly, but I think that describes it fairly well. That is the good landlord. But there is one better, the best landlord. The best landlord ploughs back and develops for the benefit of others than himself, and I think it is only fair to say that these land-owning charities come under that category. They plough back and develop for others in the community, and not for any selfish interest.
We come up against the question whether there shall be an exception. I should have thought, with all the arguments we have heard, and a great deal of sympathy for those trusts, that this
956
should be the one exception. Instead of that, it appears to be the policy of His Majesty's Government that they should, after all these years, as we have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, make an exception to the rule that charities are exempt. Now that is to be changed. In his speech on the Committee stage, the Lord Chancellor gave us advice that if the schools and colleges want assistance they must come to the Government for it. Strangely enough, many of them value their independence. It is again rather an unfortunate trait that anybody should value independence to-day, because independence is very greatly frowned upon. I would suggest that with most of these trusts the last thing that they would wish to do is to go cap in hand to the Government and thereby submit themselves to Government control.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I ask the noble Lord a question? He may, no doubt, be aware of the Universities Grants Committee, and will be conscious of the fact that large sums of money are paid every year by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Does he suggest that the interests of these colleges are being interfered with in that way?
LORD LUKE: I was talking on behalf of the Harpur Trust, which does value its independence and which is not anxious to receive Government grants. I know, of course, that grants are made to the universities. But we have heard so much on this and on other occasions, that where public money goes Government control must follow, and that is why I brought it up on this occasion. It is probably old-fashioned of me to appeal for intelligent thought and action, and I am sorry that I always seem to come up against the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack on all these charity matters. But I would suggest that the value to the nation—and that is the community—of the individuals and institutions who have forged their own particular link in the educatonal chain, is quite invaluable. It is, if I may say so, applauded on all sides, but it is, at the same time, and is about to be, hampered.
The illogicality of special treatment for a particular class of landowner is a point which has, of course, been emphasized from the Government side, but I would point out that special treatment is already

957
being given in the Lord Chancellor's new clause in the case of operational land—and it is welcome—for particular landowners. I should have thought the illogicality was on the other side, to withhold the special treatment of those small landlords, it being another part of their essential operations. The principle is, as I see it, "thus far, and no further." That is a question which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, asked in Committee, and I make no apology for asking that question again. I will not keep you any longer, my Lords, but I do hope that there may be reconsideration of this matter on the grounds that the community should continue to have the benefit of a particular kind of education which is being opened wider and quite rightly so, and which has contributed so greatly to the good of our great nation in the past.
3.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, let me, in the first instance, express the thanks of all those who are interested in this matter to the Lord Chancellor, and to his advisers, for the great trouble that they have taken in order to deal with the matter as fully as could be. We are extremely grateful to him for the new clause which is now before your Lordships' House. It is certainly a great improvement on the first draft which was before your Lordships on the Committee stage. Many of the difficulties which would have arisen out of that clause would be obviated by the present draft. We have no Amendments to propose to it, and we trust that your Lordships will accept it as it stands. But, as the Lord Chancellor has warned us, it does not deal with our most important point and, therefore, we have found it necessary to put down a second parallel clause which does deal with the question of investment land. This debate has necessarily covered both the one clause and the other and, as was suggested by the Lord Chancellor, it is convenient that that course should be adopted. Therefore, in my observations I shall treat the two questions as inseparable.
With regard to the clause which stands in my name to go after that of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor if your Lordships accept it, I desire to move, when the time comes, with a very slight verbal change in the second line
958
as printed on the Paper. The wording of the first subsection follows the wording of the Government draft of their clause in the Committee stage. Now that has been slightly altered, and in order to make a corresponding alteration in this clause I should like to move it in these words:
"This section applies to land an interest in which is held for ecclesiastical or other Charitable purposes of any description."
That change, of course, is merely drafting. The essential difference between the two clauses is this: whereas the Lord Chancellor's clause in the first subsection says that it applies to land an interest in which is held for ecclesiastical or other charitable purposes "if the land, as distinct from the rents and profits thereof" —and those are the vital words—is used for the purposes of the charity, my clause which, as I have said, is parallel to the Government clause, applies to land an interest in which is held for ecclesiastical or other charitable purposes of any description if the land not used in such manner as is mentioned in Clause 84 (1).
To use the language which the Lord Chancellor has employed the first clause applies to operational land, and the second to investment land. That is the one point which I wish to bring to your Lordships' consideration. I do not propose to repeat this afternoon the arguments that I advanced in the Committee state a fortnight ago, but I should like to summarize the main points because I see many noble Lords in the House today who were not here on that occasion. Therefore, without elaborating the arguments, I would venture to submit the heads of those arguments. One important point is that this clause does not conflict with any considered opinion of another place. I know that your Lordships are very chary, and wisely so, of entering into any conflict with a view that has been deliberately expressed by the other House. This Amendment, which I am putting forward, is not the same as that which was proposed in the other House before the Standing Committee. It differs in a most important particular and in a matter on which the Minister of Town and Country Planning laid the greatest stress in opposing the clause.
That Amendment, as originally drafted proposed that charitable land, to use the technical term, should be exempted

959
always qua land, no matter who owned it. If they sold it to anyone else, for all time that land would be exempted and differ from all other land in all other ownership. This clause does not go so far. It only refers to the land while in the possession of the charities and being used for their financial benefit. Furthermore, this matter never came before another place on the Report stage—this clause fell under the guillotine and there was no opportunity for the House to express an opinion upon it.
Again, this clause in no way affects the planning powers generally conferred by the Bill. I share the surprise which has been expressed by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, in his concluding observations, laid emphasis upon the importance of the planning provisions of the Bill, saying that the whole House had assented to them. He said: "Look at the condition of our towns. How essential it is that we should ensure that effective and drastic improvement is made! That is the purpose of the Bill." Certainly, we are all at one upon that, but this clause does not affect in the smallest degree any of the planning powers of any authority. The universities and other charities do not ask for any favour or any exemption with regard to the planning powers conferred under this Bill.
Next, the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has argued—and this was a point with which I dealt briefly, and with which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has dealt rather more fully—that if it were merely a question of tax it might be that we should make an exception. There is an exemption for Income Tax and all other taxation purposes, and always has been, but this is not a tax. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, says that it can come within the definition of a tax, but I would add that it is something much more drastic than a tax. It is a tax and something more. During all my political life, as with him also, I have been an advocate of the taxation of land values. That was one of the political war cries for one or two generations, and that was intended to be a way of securing for the community unearned increment in the land. That was the purpose of Lord Snowden's land taxes in the Budget of
960
1931 From that taxation all these lands were in fact exempt. But now, those methods not having proved highly successful, an entirely different approach has been deemed necessary.
The Uthwatt Committee propounded a scheme under which we should not attempt to tax land values nor should we nationalize the land. But we should nationalize the development value of the land. That is an alternative to the taxation of land values. Now the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor says that if we were imposing a tax of 20 per cent. on development values we might consider exemption, but when we impose what in fact is a tax of 100 per cent. and take away the whole of the development value we cannot be expected to make an exception at all. If there is a claim for exemption from the land tax, a fortiori there is a much greater claim for exemption from this special measure of what is in effect confiscation of those values.
The noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack raised in the previous stages of consideration of this Bill one or two points of machinery. I shall not go into the details of those, for my noble and learned friend Lord Simon has already dealt with them. But since I am giving a brief summary of the whole situation I would mention that in the Committee stage the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, first of all objected that we were in effect asking by our clause, as it then stood, that any piece of land which was now charitable land and was sold to someone else should be franked for all time, no matter in whose ownership that land would be, because it had at the present date been charity land. We recognized the force of that objection, and the present clause I think completely meets that point. The exemption only extends for the benefit of the charity, and does not apply to any future owners.
On that point, the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, asked me a question, and he warned me that he would raise the matter when we came to the clause which I was to move. What is it, he asked, that the purchaser buys and how far do any future development rights —any fresh development rights—belong to him? The answer is a simple one. He buys whatever the charity sells, and what

961
the charity sells is that piece of land with a certain permission for development from the planning authority. The purchaser may consequently develop the land so far as the planning authority has given permission before the sale. After that it ranks the same as every other piece of land. If there is any further development, it has to pay the development charge exactly the same as any other land in private ownership. Therefore by this we are not constituting two forms of land tenure existing separately. The Lord Chancellor also objected that we were setting the valuers an impossible problem in their having to value a portion of the land if only a part of it were sold afterwards for development. We realize the force of that and the present clause meets that point, as the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has explained. There will be no question in future of making the valuer apportion one part of the value of a unit as distinct from the rest.
The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has raised this further point. He says that we are treating charities unequally because one may perhaps have land in the Green Belt, where the land is sterilized, and it will have to pay development charge under our clause and to receive whatever modicum of compensation belongs to it—that is true —while another charity may have land in a developing area and would receive the benefit of this clause and would be able to get much more money for its land. That is true. The noble and learned Viscount said it was a matter of chance. It is a question of chance. So it is already, and always has been, for the private owner or any other owner. One has land in the Green Belt and gets it sterilized and the other has land in a developing area. A charity may have one piece of land given it in the reign of Queen Elizabeth which happens to be in the centre of the City of London and brings in perhaps £1,000,000 and another piece of land in some rural area never developed, and which never will be developed, bringing in nothing in particular. The fact that that still continues and that there are inequalities according to geographical situation and economic circumstances is no reason for doing an injustice to charities which have valuable land.
The position reminds me of what was said by one of the characters in one of
962
George Meredith's stories: "I never commit an injustice save with gaud reason." The noble and learned Viscount said we spoke of his Government as if it were a case of King Henry VIII despoiling the monasteries. Precisely; that is exactly what it is. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for having given the illustration—I will not say the illustration, but for having mentioned the precedent. The methods are more urbane, as one would expect from the Lord Chancellor, and though the extent of deprivation is much smaller, historically the process is the same and the result will be similar. Just as the monasteries and other institutions that were despoiled were compelled to cease such of their activities as were of great social value, to the extent to which this law does prevail, universities, colleges and hospitals will be compelled to cease their beneficent activities.
The noble and learned Viscount said that they were compelled to adhere to the provisions of the Bill. But why? He has really given us no reason why they should adhere to that provision except that it is the ipse dixit of the Minister concerned—whether it happens to be the Lord Chancellor or the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a matter of indifference both to us and to the victims. The noble and learned Viscount said it is impossible to create a system in which different treatment is meted out, not according to the particular piece of land, but according to the character of the owner. But that is done by the Bill now, because all land in the ownership of local authorities is taken out of the Bill. Our point is that the work of these hospitals and educational establishments is more analogous to the work of health authorities and educational authorities than it is analogous to the position of private owners.
And that brings us to the point raised in discussion in Committee. What is a community? The Minister of Town and Country Planning opposed an Amendment in the House of Commons on the ground that we were surely all agreed that the community is entitled d to the increase in value of land which the community had itself created. By passing the Second Reading of this Bill your Lordships, whatever might be your private feelings, have accepted that principle and now the question arises whether the community which has created these values is the State

963
or the whole body of the nation. Surely it is not the State that has created these values? It is the community itself, by its efforts, its labours, its enterprise in developing the land in which we live. These universities, these colleges, these hospitals are part of the community, doing a communal work on behalf of the people as a whole, and we urge that they ought not to be deprived of resources on which they have learnt to rely and on which they must depend for the beneficence of their operations.
4.8 p.m.
THE EARL OF HALIFAX: My Lords, I do not think there is anything of substance to be added to the case that has been made by my noble and learned friends on these Benches and others. If I ask your Lordships' leave to say one or two words, it merely would be to protect myself from the charge that a silent voice might imply a lack of interest in a matter which very directly concerns and affects the University of Oxford, along with a great many other institutions for which argument has been advanced this afternoon. I regret that it was not possible for me to be in your Lordships' House when the matter was argued in Committee. I think there emerges a sufficiently clear broad principle on which all of us can judge without being too deeply involved in the intricacies and technicalities of this exceedingly difficult Bill. The noble Viscount who spoke last stated it with his usual clarity and force. I do not repeat the argument that he developed better than I could in relation to what we exactly mean by the community. I agree with every word he said. To go out of your way, in these days when education is more costly and more generally desirable than it has ever been before, to make it more difficult for educational institutions to perform their self-accepted task, does seem to me to be a very extraordinary thing to do and one for which I find it extremely difficult to accept any justification.
What about the long-term future of educational and other charitable institutions? Quite apart from the effect that this sort of treatment of educational institutions may have upon possible benefactors in future—about which my noble friend Lord Brand spoke a few moments ago—is it really the desire of this House to throw everything more and more than
964
they need into one mould, and to diminish, where it still prevails, that variety of influence and impulse that invigorates our national life, as it does in all these countless institutions that are affected? There is no quarrel, so far as I know, in any part of your Lordships' House with the general principle that in this particular case we are discussing, profit in land should rightly inure to public advantage rather than to private gain. We are all agreed on that principle.
It appears that what would be done under the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, would in no way affect the powers of the State or its appropriate agents to plan in whatever fashion they may think desirable. But it does seem, to my mind at least, that if we fail to give the kind of exemption and protection for which the plea is urged this afternoon to these institutions, we are taking a further step along that road of establishing the uniform control and extension of power of the State over areas where it is probably not the determined intention of any of us to do so, and from the doing of which, as I think, great damage and loss would ensue. If it is not necessary, why do it? The conclusion I have reached, after giving such study as can to this problem, is that the Lord Chancellor and His Majesty's Government are in this matter being unwittingly unjust, and unwittingly unwise. I hope they may still reconsider the matter, and not be afraid of a frank exception for bodies that are doing this public beneficent work, whether educational or charitable, that is of admitted importance to the State. If they are not able to reconsider the position, as the noble and learned Viscount has stated this afternoon, I hope your Lordships will not hesitate to support a claim that seems to me to be inherently right and just.
4.13 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate this afternoon, and I do not think it is really very necessary. We have had a full discussion, and there has been, I think, most impressive unanimity among the members of your Lordships' House. I feel His Majesty's Government should pay full attention to what has been said. I never saw a more imposing array of arguments and personalities come out in favour of any proposition. The only reason why I have risen

965
is because I have been asked by certain noble Lords on this side of the House who sit behind me whether there is any advice I can give them. I do not think I can give any advice on this matter. It seems to me that it is not an ordinary political question on which advice is permissible. It is a question on which everybody should wish to exercise his right to his own opinion. There are strong arguments which have been exposed in favour of the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and there are equally strong arguments which have been exposed, and with great persuasive capacity, as always, by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. Therefore, I would say to any noble Lords who belong to the Conservative Opposition that it is just one of those cases where every man must take his own view and not expect any advice from his Leader. It is a matter of conscience, and a matter of personal opinion.
At the same time I am bound to say that personally, after a good deal of anxious consideration, I have decided to support the Amendment, if it is pressed to a Division. I should say, quite frankly, that when the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, originally introduced his Amendment I took rather a different view. It seemed to me—as I think it seemed to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor—unwise as a general principle to put any section of the community, however desirable, in a favourable position in comparison with other citizens. However, there have been two considerations which have influenced me since then, and influenced me, I think, conclusively. The first one is that this Amendment applies only to existing properties, and it will not, therefore, present an opportunity or a temptation to the organizations in question—if they have any such temptation—to begin to speculate in land values. The second consideration is this—it was mentioned, I think, by my noble friend Viscount Simon. All this land was bought on the advice of Government Departments and, unless it was intended for the personal operations of the foundation in question, it was bought because of the development value attaching to it. That was why these Government Departments advised these people to buy the land, and if they had not had that official advice they would not have bought those particular properties. That seems to me to be
966
a very powerful consideration, and in those circumstances I have been driven to the conclusion that there are solid and, to my mind, convincing grounds for affording special treatment to the charities in question.
If I may say so, I have not been diverted from this point of view by what was said by the noble, and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. I am very nervous of advancing on this ground, which is largely legal, and on which I shall only expose my ignorance if I go too far. But the noble and learned Viscount attempted to prove that the only possible basis of compensation in this connexion was upon the land and not upon the person who owns the land. Surely, the Government have demolished that very argument by their own Bill, because this £300,000,000 is not going to be paid out on a basis of equal compensation but on ground of individual hardship. The Government are going to decide whether they pay compensation or not on the hardship caused to certain citizens. If they admit that in the payment of compensation it is fair and right to judge between one case and another, I should have thought they were admitting the case for this Amendment.
Surely, the charities in question represent the most deserving category of citizens. As has been said this afternoon, they are corporations entirely devoted to the welfare of the community. If in the Bill we are going to say that it is right to differentiate and make exceptions, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to do, between one citizen and another, surely it is perfectly proper for him to differentiate in favour of this particular category. Perhaps, I ought to add that, in my experience, the Chancellor of the Exchequer never differentiates in favour of, he always differentiates against; but in this particular case I think he might make an exception. After all, there are, as your Lordships know, many precedents for special treatment of charities of this kind. They have been quoted again and again in debates we have had on this subject. I cannot see why such a differentiation should not be made now, except, as I say, because of the peculiar characteristics of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do beg the Government to consider this matter. They have here a most powerful body of opinion, people all of them above

967
reproach, arguing for institutions which are themselves above reproach and which, in the opinion of every noble Lord who has spoken this afternoon, will suffer grievously if this Amendment is not accepted. It does seem to me that in the present case for the Government to stand firm, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, said, is not only mistaken but extremely unwise. That was the only reason I rose this afternoon: to express first my advice to my supporters—which is to do whatever they think right—and second to explain the reasons which have driven me to the conclusion that I must myself go into the lobby and support the Amendment.
4.21 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to reply very shortly, as I moved Clause 84 and we have discussed also the next clause. I am grateful to your Lordships for what you have said about Clause 84, and although I have been likened to Henry VIII yet I like to think that some of the monasteries which he then abolished did, in fact, form the basis of the land of the Oxford Colleges. Let us hope the same will apply in my case. I venture to think that the last speech made by the noble Marquess was eminently reasonable. I consider that some of the speeches we have heard to-day have not been reasonable and have not advanced to the smallest degree the cause which your Lordships have at heart. To suggest that this is some wicked Socialist conspiracy, designed to get you all into one dull common mould, or something of that sort, is entirely to neglect the fact that the proposal we are making is more favourable than the proposal the Coalition Government made. Unless you say that the Coalition Government had this desire to force you all into one dull mould, it seems to me that that observation, with due respect, is quite worthless and does not elucidate the problem at all. The other argument which I think equally worthless is the argument about the community; that, after all, it is true that these Oxford Colleges are the community, and they should retain the value which is due to the effort of the community. That argument applies to the future just as much as to the past, and everybody agrees that it is utterly wrong to make this extension apply to anything except
968
land existing at the critical date. It cannot apply to the future.
I do not suppose for one moment that I shall influence any one of your Lordships in what I am about to say, so I will make it very short indeed. On the other hand, I may influence other people, and therefore I shall say what I am going to say in this way. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, asked me whether it was not possible for a Parliamentary draftsman to devize some scheme which would be better than the scheme of this Amendment. If I may say so, I am quite sure it is. The simple way of dealing with this matter is to treat this land as though it were dead ripe land; take it out of the scheme altogether; admit no claim against the £300,000,000, and in consequence of that pay no development charge. That is simple, but that is not what your Lordships are doing. What your Lordships are doing is this. In respect of this investment land, unlike operational land, you are distinguishing between the two just as much I am. You say: "Let us have a claim against the £300,000,000 in respect of our investment land," and you are claiming against the £300,000,000 in respect of your investment land. I quite understand that when the amount of the payment you get has been exhausted in paying development duty, thereafter you pay no development duty.
What I do not understand—and which so far as I know no one understands—is what happens before that time. Supposing that the day after a charity has received £10,000 by way of payment out of the fund of £300,000,000 it is going to sell either voluntarily or compulsorily for road widening a portion of its land—and this is the first thing that has happened after it has received the £10,000—what comfort the man who buys that land is going to acquire I am sure I do not know. Upon what basis the arbitrator is going to give his award I do not know.
I am not going to bore your Lordships with a lot of details, except to say this. I have gone through this Amendment with my advisers, who are experts on these things, and they do not know either. It is all because your Lordships have mixed up the claim on the £300,000,000 and this exemption. I am inclined to think—I am still experimenting with it, I confess—that the scheme simply will not work.

969
May I just answer this question of your Lordships? Supposing the charity landowners were to get full compensation out of the £300,000,000; that is to say, they assess what they will lose by losing their present development rights and get that sum of money. Is there anyone of your Lordships who, in addition to that, will ask for any further concession? I gather not. If so, may I suggest to your Lordships that a much more hopeful way of trying to achieve that which you want is to hold your hand until the scheme has to be presented for the division of the £300,000,000, and try then to get yourself into the preference class of shareholders. I am not going to anticipate, and I certainly hold out no promise, but it is quite obvious that if the amount of the loss of the charity land is assessed at £20,000,000 you may have one solution. If it is assessed at £200,000,000 you might have another and very different solution. We do not know the figures, and therefore we cannot say. As a matter of principle, there can be no noble Lords on either side of the House who can say that it is fair that you should get full compensation out of the £300,000,000, and also over and above that have this concession.
It seems to me that this concession does not work, and you are trying to mix up two wholly different things. If you want your investment land to be left out of the scheme altogether, that you could have done; that the draftsman can do, and that I have done for my operational land. But to try and get the best of both worlds in this way is, in my humble belief, impracticable and impossible. For those reasons we shall have to resist this Amendment and see that there is not this special exception made for these charities.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I beg to move the new clause standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 84 insert the following new clause:
970
(" —(1) This section applies to land an interest in which is held for ecclesiastical or other charitable purposes of any description if the land is not used in any such manner as is mentioned in subsection (1) of Section eighty-four.
(2) The provisions of Part VI of this Act shall apply to any such interest as aforesaid in land which on the appointed day is land to which this section applies.
(3) Where any land, which, on the appointed day, was land to which this section applies ceases at any time thereafter to be such land any development charge which shall be payable under Part VII of this Act in respect of any development by virtue of which the land is used in any such manner as is mentioned it subsection (1) of Section eighty-four or its use is made to correspond with the use which prevails generally in the case of contiguous or adjacent land shall not, subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section, exceed the amount of any payments made under Part VI of this Act in respect of the said land, if planning permission for that development has been granted under Part III of this Act before the land ceases to be land to which this section applies.
(4) Where any payment has been made under Part VI of this Act in respect of any land to which on the appointed day this section applies and any part or parts of such land cease at any time thereafter to be such land the limitation imposed by subsection (3) of this section upon the amount of the development charge payable in respect of such part or parts of the said land shall apply only to the amount, if any, by which the aggregate of the development charges payable in respect of all such part or parts exceeds the payment made under Part VI of this Act in respect of the whole of such land.
(5) where any such interest: as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section in land to which this section applies is compulsorily acquired under this or any other Act in pursuance of a notice to treat served on or after the appointed day, then if the land was land to which this section applies on the appointed day, it shall be assumed in assessing the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the said interest, that planning permission would be granted under Part III of this Act for any development by virtue of which the use of the land would be made to correspond with the use which prevails generally in the case of contiguous or adjacent land, and that the development charge payable under Part VII of this Act in respect of any such development would be limited in the manner provided in subsections (3) and (4) of this section").—(Viscount Samuel.)
On Question, Whether the said clause shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 17.

CONTENTS.

Cholmondeley, M.

Aberdare, L.

Hampton, L.

Salisbury, M.

Addington, L.

Hylton, L.

Altrincham, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Abingdon, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Llewellin, L.

Bessborough, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Lloyd, L.

Grey, E.

Brand, L. [Teller.]

Luke, L.

Halifax, E.

Butler of Mount Juliet, L. (E. Carrick.)

Mancroft, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.) [Teller.]

Lucan, E.

Cawley, L.

Lytton, E.

Cherwell, L.

Monson, L.

Ypres, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clan-william.)

O'Hagan, L.

Rennell, L.

Elibank, V.

Courthope, L.

Roche, L.

Hailsham, V.

Cromwell, L.

Rushcliffe, L.

Lambert, V.

De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

Sinha, L.

Long, V.

Digby, L.

Soulbury, L.

Maugham, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Monsell, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Samuel, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Tweedsmuir, L.

Simon, V.

Grenfell, L.

Wakehurst, L.

Swinton, V.

Greville, L.

Windlesham, L.

Templewood, V.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Holden, L.

Ammon, L.

Kershaw, L.

Onslow, E.

Carrington, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Radnor, E.

Chorley, L. [Teller.]

Marley, L.

Dukeston, L.

Morrison, L. [Teller.]

Addison, V.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Walkden, L.

Resolved in the Affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.38 p.m.
Clause 85:
Land subject to claims for betterment under other Acts.
85. Where, on the carrying out of any development after the appointed day, any payment falls to be made to a local authority by virtue of the provisions of Section forty-eight of this Act or of any Act passed before the passing of this Act, in respect of any works carried out (whether before or after the passing of this Act) by that authority, then—

(a) if the amount of any such payment is required to be calculated by reference to any increase in the value of the land in respect of which the payment is made, the amount of that increase shall be calculated as if Part VII of this Act had not been enacted;

(b) whether or not the amount of any such payment falls to be calculated as aforesaid, the payment, or the liability therefor, shall be taken into account in determining under the said Part VII whether any and if so what development charge is to be paid in respect of that development.

LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved to leave out "by that authority." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Saltoun, who is not in the House to-day—perhaps he has to be in Scotland. Although I have some doubt myself as
972
to whether this is the appropriate clause in the Bill in which to do it, what my noble friend wishes to do is to provide that in case the frontagers themselves make up a part of the highway they can be reimbursed just as a local authority can be reimbursed. That is the point of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 103, line 13, leave out from ("Act") to ("then").—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment has been quite properly and fairly stated by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. Perhaps I ought to say that during the Committee stage my noble friend Lord Chorley, in dealing with the Amendment to this clause, agreed that the point ought to be met. Since then the matter has been further examined, and it has become clear that it could not be covered either by accepting the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, or by making any other Amendment to Clause 85. That is because Clause 85 deals only with cases where a payment falls to be made to a local authority. It does not apply where an owner executes worksat his own expense, and Lord Saltoun's Amendment would not make it so apply. As a matter

973
of fact, Lord Saltoun's Amendment is part of a wider problem which is not limited to the execution of street works but covers also cases where owners have carried out land drainage schemes, works for sea defence and flood protection or the reclamation of derelict land. In calculating development charge, due regard must clearly be had to works carried out by an owner which enhance the development value. It is hoped to secure that that regard is given by regulations to be made under Clause 69 (3)—that is to say, the regulations which prescribe the general principles on which development charges are to be calculated. Having given the noble Lord that explanation, I hope he will see his way not to press his Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation. On consideration, I think that the matter is certainly better dealt with in the regulation which gives the general direction than in this clause. With that undertaking and in those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.43 p.m.
Clause 90 [Land acquired by notice to treat served before appointed day]:
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the clause as drafted deals with acquisitions which take place before or after the appointed day but does not define what will happen in the case of acquisitions which take place on the appointed day. This Amendment rectifies the omission. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 107, line 44 after ("acquired") insert ("on or").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the last. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 108, line 34, after ("before") insert ("on").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to take this Amendment and the next three Amendments together. These
974
Amendments are consequential on the insertion of the new clause after Clause 55, the new clause which was accepted at the last meeting of the House. They give rise to no point of policy or controversy. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 108, line 35, leave out ("and") and insert ("then—(a) where").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 108, line 41, after ("interest") insert:
(" (b) where the compensation so payable falls to be assessed in accordance with Rule (5) of the rules set out in Section two of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, as amended by subsection (2) of Section fifty-six (Special provisions as to war-damaged land where compensation assessed by reference to cost of equivalent reinstatement) of this Act, the provisions of the said Rule (5), as so amended, shall apply, subject to any necessary modifications, for the purpose of calculating under the said Part VI the restricted value of that interest").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 108, line 42, leave out ("thereunder") and insert ("under the said Part VI").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 109, line 17, after ("Act") insert:
(" (b) the provisions of Rule (5) of the rules set out in Section two of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919, as amended by subsection (2) of Section fifty-six of this Act, shall not apply for the purpose of calculating the restricted value of any interest acquired as aforesaid except in the cases provided by subsection (3) of the said Section fifty-six;").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 91:
Determination of questions under Part VIII.
91. Any question whether land is land to which Section eighty-one, eighty-two or eighty-four of this Act applies shall be determined by the Minister.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved, at the end of the clause to insert:
"(2) Any question of law arising in connection with any such determination as aforesaid, being a question relating to the application of the said section eighty-four, may, if the Minister thinks fit, be referred for decision to the High Court; and any person aggrieved by the decision of the Minister on any such

975
question of law which is not so referred may appeal from that decision to the High Court.
(3) Provision shall be made by rules of court for regulating references and appeals to the High Court under this section and those rules shall provide for limiting the time within which such appeals may be brought.
(4) So much of Subsection (1) of section sixty-three of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, as requires an appeal from any person to the High Court to be heard and determined by a divisional court shall not apply to appeals under this section."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment implements a promise made in Committee that there should be an appeal from the Minister's decision to the High Court on the question of whether land is land to which the charities clause applies. The Amendment also provides that the Minister may refer a case in the first instance to the High Court. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 109, line 25, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Henderson.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, those of your Lordships who were here on Committee stage will remember that a proposal was then put forward that there should be an appeal to the High Court in really all the cases dealt with by Clause 91 of this Bill. However, on further consideration, questions between the Ministry and the local authority which some of the clauses deal with are not those that ought so to be marked. The real point that a lot of us had in mind was that, when we come down to this Clause 84, which is the one dealing with what is a charity, that is a very proper matter for the High Court; indeed, the Chancery Division of the High Court deals with such matters quite frequently during the course of a legal term. On the real point for which some of us were pressing on the Committee stage the Government have met us, and I rise to say that the way in which they have done so is quite acceptable.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.46 p.m.
Clause 96:
Power of Ministers to contribute towards compensation paid by local authorities.
96. Where compensation is payable by a local authority under this Act in consequence of any decision or order given or made under Part III of this Act (including compensation
976
payable in respect of land compulsorily acquired by virtue of Section nineteen of this Act) then if that decision or order was given or made wholly or partly in the interest of any service which is provided by a Government Department and the cost of which is defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament or out of the Road Fund, the Minister responsible for the administration of that service may pay to that authority, out of moneys so provided a contribution of such amount as he may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved to leave out the first "may" ["may pay to that authority"] and insert "shall." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe this is the same point on which the Lord Chancellor was good enough to meet me on Clause 22, subsection (5), in an Amendment which was lodged at an earlier stage. I hope that the present Amendment will be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 113, line 31, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Addington.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sorry I cannot meet the noble Lord on this Amendment, but, if I had met him before on a similar point, I should have found myself in trouble. I have consulted the Treasury about this, and constitutionally the word "may" is right and the word "shall" is wrong. I am told that there is an important constitutional point involved in this. I do not think we need bother about it now. In all these matters, the word is "may." When I first became Lord Chancellor and had to look at the retiring pensions of the Judges, I found that the document I signed was an authority which enabled the Treasury to say that "they may pay"; it did not say "they shall pay." They always do pay, and, whether it is "may" or "shall," I do not think it much matters. I will, therefore, spare your Lordships the lengthy constitutional arguments which go to show that the word "may" is appropriate.
LORD ADDINGTON: My Lords, in view of those remarks, I will not press the Amendment. I hope the payment is made with the same regularity as that made to the Judges! I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 110 [Regulations and orders]:
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, this Amendment is preparatory to the new clause which is to be moved after Clause 113 a little later on. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 124, line 20, leave out from ("by") to ("this") in line 21.—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 111 [Assumptions as to permission for development]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of the clause to insert:
"(3) Any reference in the said Third Schedule to the cubic content of a building shall be construed as a reference to that content as ascertained by external measurement."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. Your Lordships may remember that in the Committee stage we had some discussion as to whether or not, when you talked about the measurement—it was important because we had the words "fifteen hundred cubic feet"—you were referring to the external measurement or the internal measurement. Varying views were expressed upon it. I said it was internal. Several of your Lordships got up and said that it was external. I do not know which is right, but we do want to have it plain. This Amendment will make it plain that it is external. By way of consolation, I have increased the figure of "1,500 cubic feet" to "1,750 cubic feet." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 125, line 4, at end, insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, for exactly the same reason that the Lord Chancellor has moved this Amendment, I moved a similar Amendment on the Schedule. My Amendment was to require that the internal measurement should be taken, whereas the Lord Chancellor has said that it should be the external measurement. It is highly important that it should be made clear in the Bill which measurement it is to be. If the Lord Chancellor had kept his figure at 1,500 feet internal measurement, I should not have welcomed it as much as I do at the present moment. However, I have been into this matter, and found that with the added 250 feet we have gained slightly; therefore I would only
978
say that I am obliged to the Lord Chancellor, and that I shall not move my Amendment. I think the position is fully met in this way.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 113 [Special provisions as to London]:
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved, in subsection (2) to leave out "and forty-one" and insert "forty-one and ninety-seven." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment corrects a small omission in Clause 113, subsection (2), which extends certain powers and duties, of local authorities under Parts III and IV of the Bill to the City of London and metropolitan boroughs. Clause 97, subsection (1), enables local authorities to contribute towards the expenses of local planning authorities and county districts. Since neither of these expressions includes the smaller London authorities there would be, without this Amendment, no power for one metropolitan borough to contribute towards the expenses of another—for example, in the purchase of land for open spaces. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 126, line 12, leave out ("and forty-one") and insert ("forty-one and ninety-seven").—(Lord Henderson).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, this Amendment continues the power of the City of London to enter into agreements under Clause 25 regulating the development or use of land. It also enables a metropolitan borough council, with the consent of the London County Council, to enter into similar agreements. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 126, line 17, at end insert—
(" (3) The power of a local planning authority to make agreements under Section twenty-five of this Act may be exercised also

(a) in relation to land in the City of London, by the Common Council of that City; and

(b) in relation to land in a metropolitan borough, by the council of that borough with the consent of the London County Council,

and references in that section to a local planning authority shall be construed accordingly.")—(Lord Henderson.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, this Amendment, I suppose, gives a little bit of sugar to these bodies. Having had their

979
main planning powers taken away, they are allowed something back. I suppose that really summarizes what the Amendment does. However, it is something that they are allowed to keep, and for that concession those of us who took their side are grateful.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, this Amendment relates to the powers conferred on metropolitan boroughs by subsection (4) to acquire land for open spaces. It secures first that one borough can contribute to the expenses of another in acquiring land for this purpose, and, secondly, that when the land has been acquired the borough can use the powers of the Eleventh Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 126, line 39, at end insert—
(" (5) Any reference in this Act, or in the Act of 1944 as incorporated with Part IV of this Act, to the said Part IV shall be construed as including a reference to the last foregoing subsection.")—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved, after Clause 113 to insert the following new clause:
"Application to Isles of Scilly.
114. The Minister shall, after consultation with the council of the Isles of Scilly, by order provide for the application of this Act to the Isles of Scilly as if those Isles were a separate county, and any such order may provide for the application of this Act to those Isles subject to such modifications as may be specified in the order."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause gives the Minister power to apply the Bill to the Scilly Isles. It is a common form provision, closely following similar provisions in a number of recent Acts—for example, the Education Act of 1944. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 113 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Henderson.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: Perhaps the noble Lord could tell us why this important part of the British Isles was overlooked in another place.
LORD HENDERSON: I understand that the Scilly Isles are not outside the scope of Public General Acts, but Acts affecting local government will not work in the Scilly Isles unless specially applied,
980
because the Scillies do not fit into the normal local government pattern. It may be of interest to the noble Earl, the Earl of Radnor, to know that the Scilly Isles are not under the jurisdiction of the Cornwall County Council. They have an authority of their own, the Council of the Isles of Scilly, which exercises many of the functions both of a county council and of a county district council. The present Bill would not work unless specially applied. We have sought to remedy that omission. I am not sure whether it is common form also for this provision to be inserted in this House, and not in another place.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 117:
Interpretation.
"enactment" includes a local Act and an order or bye-law made under any Act;
"engineering operations" includes the making of excavations and the formation or laying out of means of access to highways;
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. It adopts the same definition of "enactment" as that contained in the Scottish Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 132, line 6, leave out from ("includes") to end of line 7 and insert ("an enactment in any local or private Act of Parliament and an order, rule, regulation, bye-law or scheme made under an Act of Parliament").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN had given notice of two Amendments to the definition of "engineering operations"—namely, to leave out "the making of excavations and" and to insert at the end "and the making of excavations in connexion therewith." The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House I would like, instead of my two Amendments that appear on the Marshalled List, to propose in Clause 117, at page 132, line 8, the same line as my first Amendment, to leave out from "the" to "formation" in line 9—["making of excavations and the"]. Your Lordships will remember that I pointed out, I think, quite accurately, although of course from my point of view of the argument taking the de minimis cases, that under the Bill as

981
drafted permission in law would have to be got for any digging that anybody did, and that was because of the development permission having to be obtained for any engineering operation, which included the making of any excavations. I have had some talks with noble Lords opposite and their advisers, and it may be that the Amendment that I now move is more acceptable than those that I had put upon the Paper. I was taking the view that it is rather absurd to leave these things in a Bill of this sort. Although it is not a big point, I do hope that we shall tidy it up in this way, and that the Government can see fit to accept my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 132, line 8, leave out from ("the") to ("formation") in line 9.—(Lord Llewellin)
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I do not think there is any need for me to make any comment on the point raised by the noble Lord in justification of the Amendment. I am quite prepared to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the rest is a little more than a drafting Amendment, to avoid doubts on what is meant by "improvement" in relation to roads. It arises on Clause 12 (2), Clause 47 (2) and Clause 49. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 132, line 15, at end, insert:
("'improvement', in relation to a highway, has the same meaning as the expression 'improvement of roads' has in Part II of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment. The reason for this, and we have so phrased it, is to make it plain that when you are talking about land you are talking also about easements. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 132, line 27, leave out ("in") and insert ("or right in or over").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.58 p.m.
First Schedule: Part II [Planning Committees]:
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved, at the end of Part II to insert:
"4. Any power conferred by this Part of this Schedule to establish or appoint committees or sub-committees, or to authorise such committees or sub-committees to exercise any functions, shall include power to dissolve or alter the constitution of such committees or sub-committees, and to revoke or vary any such authorisation."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a machinery provision. Its purpose is to ensure that a local planning authority can not only appoint committees and subcommittees, but can also dissolve them, alter their constitution, and withdraw from their control functions which have been delegated to them. There is, as the noble Lords I have no doubt will have seen, a similar provision in Part III of the Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment movedߞ
Page 138, line 11, at end, insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the next two Amendments are consequential, and the third one is drafting. I beg to, move.
Amendments moved—
Page 138, line 34, after ("by") insert ("this Part of");
line 34, leave out ("and constitute");
line 35, leave out the second ("such").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THIRD SCHEDULE.
EXCEPTED CLASSES OF DEVELOP- MENT.
PART I.
DEVELOPMENT INCLUDED IN EXISTING USE FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN COMPENSATION UNDER S. 20.
1. The rebuilding, as often as occasion may require, of any building which was in existence on the appointed day and of any building which was in existence before that day but has been destroyed or demolished since the seventh day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven (including the making good of war damage which has been sustained by any such building), so long as the cubic content of the original building is not exceeded in the case of a dwelling-house, by more than one tenth or fifteen hundred cubic feet, whichever is the greater, and in any other case by more than one-tenth.
PART II.
DEVELOPMENT INCLUDED IN EXISTING USE FOR ALL PURPOSES.
4. The carrying out, on land which was used for the purposes of agriculture or forestry on the appointed day, of any building or other operations required for the purposes of that use, other than operations for the erection, enlargement, improvement or alteration of dwelling-houses or of buildings used for the purposes of market gardens, nursery grounds or timber yards or for other purposes not connected with general farming operations or with the cultivation or felling of trees.
7. In the case of any land which, on the appointed day, was being used for the deposit of waste materials or refuse in connection with the working of minerals, the use for that purpose of any additional part of the land so far as may be reasonably required in connection with the working of those minerals.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment deals with a matter to which I referred just now. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 139, line 26, leave out ("fifteen hundred") and insert ("seventeen hundred and fifty").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in paragraph 1, after "case," where that word last occurs, to insert: "so long as the floor space of the original building is not exceeded." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which we discussed before. There was some question as to whether this extra one-tenth should be a matter of cubic feet or whether it should be floor space. As the result of talks which I have had about this I have become quite convinced that cubic feet is correct in regard to dwellinghouses, but I am not convinced that we ought not in the case of factories and office buildings to take floor space as the criterion, and that, of course, is in square feet. These, briefly, are my reasons. If it is desired to add not more than one-tenth to an existing factory, the man who wants to add it will be counting up how many machine tools he can get in, how much additional working floor space he will have.
It is my belief that in a large number of cases instructions will be given to the architects to put in as low a ceiling as possible, if the cubic content rule is insisted, upon, so as to keep as large an area of measurement as possible in floor space. Office buildings and factories are practically
984
in every case sold by floor space. The insertion of these words would make floor space the test in the case of factories or office buildings and leave cubic content the test in the case of dwellinghouses. As your Lordships will see the Amendment does not increase the amount in any way, it only ensures that it shall be measured by area. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 139, line 27, after ("case") insert ("so long as the floor space of the original building is not exceeded").—(Lord Llewellin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I said when we had a discussion on this at the Committee stage that I would consider with my advisers the possibility of using floor space in this connexion for the purpose of factories. I confess that this is a topic on which I have no special knowledge. The noble Lord is really putting in this Amendment to have it considered as a matter of convenience. I have duly consulted with my expert advisers, measurers and so on, and they tell me that they have definitely come to the conclusion that even in the case of factories floor space is not a suitable criterion. In the case of factories, just as in the case of dwellinghouses, there is sometimes a good deal of floor space which is not, so to speak, fully operational—boiler houses, passages, administrative offices, caretakers' rooms and the like. There would thus remain very considerable room for doubt as to whether in any particular case the operational floor space of the factory had or had not been exceeded by more than the permitted amount.
This Amendment would create further difficulties, since it is not limited to factories. It applies to all buildings other than dwellinghouses, and would thus include offices, hotels, multiple shop buildings, and so on. In these cases, the difficulty of deciding what is and what is not included within the total floor-space of the building would be just as acute as in the case of dwellinghouses. I am assured that the test of cubic content avoids all these difficulties, that it is a simple one to apply, and that it is a basis well known to the valuation and surveying Departments. It is in practice always calculated on external measurements. I am afraid therefore that, guided as I must be on such technical matters by experts, I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I do not agree that there would be any great difficulty about the application of my Amendment. I think that it would call for the use of a little common sense and that the difficulty for the valuers would not be so great as they make out. But this is a small point. Although I am certain that, in practice, in a great number of cases, I shall be found to have been right, this is not of great importance and I shall not press it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment. Your Lordships know the reasons for it.
Amendment moved—
Page 139, line 38, leave out ("fifteen hundred") and insert ("seventeen hundred and fifty").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.7 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON moved, in paragraph 4, to leave out all words after "operations" where that word occurs a second time, and insert:
"not required for agriculture or the cultivation, felling, or utilization for estate purposes of trees."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when this point was discussed at the Committee stage the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, said that the Amendment I moved then was much too wide, although he agreed in principle with its purpose. Therefore, I have put down this Amendment in the hope that it will now meet the case. It is not the intention of the Amendment to open the door to all sorts of buildings which are not in fact used for farming purposes. All I am asking is that genuine buildings put up by market gardeners, and horticulturists, for their own businesses should be exempt from payment of development charge just as are those buildings which are put up by farmers. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 140, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 4, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Carrington.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment, but I may be able to
986
give the noble Lord some consolation. My difficulty with regard to this Amendment arises in this way. If your Lordships look at the Third Schedule you will see that it deals with the excepted classes of development—both Part I and Part II will deal with them—that is to say, classes of development on which you may embark without paying any development charge. Now whenever you acquire land compulsorily a valuer has to assess the value of that land on the basis that those things set out in this Third Schedule can be done.
The reason why we cannot put this Amendment into the Third Schedule is this. Those who have practised in the law have had trouble enough over the question of hypothetical tenants. I do not want further trouble about hypothetical greenhouses. Supposing this were in the Schedule. This would be the result. If I am going to acquire compulsorily a piece of agricultural land, and the owner of that land is insisting, naturally, on as much as he can get, he will advance this argument before an arbitrator. He will say: "Please remember, in assessing the value of this land to me, that I have a right, without paying any development charge, to cover this land with greenhouses"—or to set up a seed-factory, or some bizarre thing of that sort. And so the general level of compensation for acquiring a perfectly innocent piece of land, which no one had the slightest idea of covering with greenhouses, would be assessed on a basis of being dead ripe. I do not think that either the noble Lord or I want that. But that is the consequence of putting those words in the Third Schedule.
There is only one way in which I can meet the noble Lord and prevent that. The Minister has power under Clause 68 to make, with the consent of the Treasury, regulations to exempt certain classes of business from development charge, and I can, on behalf of the Minister, give the assurance that it is his resolve to grant an exemption for such things as the erection of greenhouses and other agricultural buildings of that sort. I do not know how far it will go. I do not want to say a word more than I should. Greenhouses and chicken houses are the particular cases which have been given. I am not sure whether it would take in sawmills, if there is an estate sawmill, or possibly a combination to which the

987
estate supplies available labour and appliances and which sometimes does extra work for people in the neighbourhood. The Minister is in consultation with the Central Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union to try to fix the terms on which these exemptions should be granted. The noble Lord may rest assured that the sort of building he has in mind will be covered by virtue of the exemption under Clause 68 and will be free of development charge. I hope, therefore, that he will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. The aim of my noble friend who moved the Amendment was to see that just as buildings which were necessary for agricultural holdings, as defined in the Bill, were exempt from development charge, so should the buildings necessary for market gardening be exempt, because, in our present food positon, it is just as important that nothing is done to hamper or in any way discourage vegetable growing.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the assurance given by the noble and learned Viscount relieves my mind completely, and I can assure him that when market gardeners read it they will be very gratified. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.14 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after paragraph 4 to insert:
"5. The winning and working, on land held or occupied with land used for the purposes of agriculture, of any minerals reasonably required for the purposes of that use, including the fertilisation of the land so used and the maintenance, improvement or alteration of buildings or works thereon which are occupied or used for the purposes aforesaid."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment was put in to meet a point I was asked to concede at an earlier stage, that gravel pits and things of that sort should be free of development charge. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 140, line 4, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the
988
noble and learned Viscount for this concession. I think that the words are all right—"on land held or occupied with land used for the purposes of agriculture." I take it that these words presumably cover ordinary agricultural estates and are not confined to individual farms. I assure the noble and learned Viscount that the owners of agricultural land will be extremely grateful. It is only a crumb of the whole question of minerals in the Bill, but it is very welcome.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, this is one of the matters on which we pressed noble Lords opposite, because it would be almost impossible to work if you have to pay development charge for every load of chalk taken out to put on a field, or every load of gravel to put on the roads. I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for this Amendment and for meeting us so fully on this matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is a great consolation to me to know that market gardeners and estate owners will have some kind thoughts for me. I am afraid the friends of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, will not.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON moved, after paragraph 4, to insert:
"(5) The erection, enlargement, improvement or alteration of dwellinghouses occupied by persons engaged or employed in agriculture, so long are they are so occupied."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage the noble and learned Viscount said that the Government were prepared to make a concession and exempt from payment of development charge all those agricultural houses which attract a subsidy under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts, 1946, so long as they continue to attract it. I think that some exemption is better than none, but if the Government are really interested in seeing a fully progressive and well balanced agriculture—and I am sure they are—then it is not logical to exempt one particular class of house and not all the others, whether it be for a political or any other purpose. Further, I think that because of the present appalling shortage of houses in rural areas and the many existing cottages being too small, too cramped and unsatisfactory, anything that would discourage anybody from either

989
building or reconditioning houses in the country should be avoided at all costs. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 140, line 4, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Carrington.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in principle I find myself in sympathy with the noble Lord. I cannot, for the reasons I have already given, put this proposed paragraph in the Third Schedule. The question is, whether it can come under the exemption in Clause 68. The difficulty is this. Under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946, a subsidy is paid only so long as the house is occupied by a genuine agricultural labourer. The noble Lord and I would agree that we do not want to help week-enders who use agricultural houses. If I relate this to the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946, I have an automatic control. I can exempt from development charge, or I can spread the development charge over a term of years, but I cannot exact development charge so long as a subsidy is being paid. In that way we know that week-enders are not getting the benefit of this concession. Immediately I depart from that, I am in a difficulty. I must get somebody to police the scheme, to let me know when a genuine agricultural labourer goes out and a week-ender comes in. If I could be certain I had some proper method of policing, then I would go all the way with the noble Lord so far as Clause 68 is concerned. The Ministry of Agriculture, whom we asked to undertake this job, started off by saying they would, and then came to the conclusion that it was too big for them.
I myself hope—I do not promise—that we may get the local authority to do it. To be quite candid, I think the local policeman would probably know as much about it as anybody else. We may be able to do something of that sort. I am afraid I must answer the noble Lord in this way. If we solve the difficulty of policing, then I anticipate that the Minister will put what is proposed, together with the greenhouses, in the excepted clauses. Unless we can find some satisfactory and simple method of policing the thing, we shall be in very considerable trouble. The noble Lord will see what the trouble is. I rather understand that on this matter, too, consultations are proceeding, and I
990
hope that a happy issue will come which will enable us to settle this problem.
LORD ADDINGTON: My Lords, I hope that will happen. It is very important from the point of view of the local authorities, and for the development of agriculture. The same authority which has experience of the Act making provision for preparing these houses will be able to deal with the other one.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I had hoped the noble and learned Viscount would be able to give us something rather firmer on this Amendment than he has given. I understand that as it stands at present the only thing that has to be done under the Bill in regard to a house that attracts a subsidy is that the owner has to send a certificate to the local authority, who, if they like, in any case of doubt, can check the validity of the certificate. In principle, as I understand the noble and learned Viscount's speech, we are all absolutely agreed that any dwellinghouses properly used by an agricultural worker should be exempt from paying the development charge. If we are agreed on that, I should have thought that where there is a will there ought to be a way; and if it is only a question of getting somebody to check an occasional certificate in regard to these houses, I should have thought it was not too big a thing for any Government to undertake. It is a most important point.
I should have liked to hear to-day that the matter would be dealt with in the regulations, because this is one of the things that shows whether or not we are in earnest in this country about food production. We all know we are lacking in private dwellinghouses for the agricultural workers of the country. We all know that the problem is going to be most acute, the moment we lose all our German prisoners. I should have thought that this assurance could be given to-day, and arrangements could be made to see that the certificates were checked in any case where the planning authority had not to impose the development charge because the house was being occupied by an agricultural labourer. The planning authority are the local county council, and they can check that. They can get their agricultural department to check it. They are all in the same building, and they know what a certificate is. If there is really a will to do this, I am certain a

991
way can be found. I should like a better assurance that something is going to be done than the one which the noble and learned Viscount was able to give us.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I should like to reinforce the remarks of my noble friend, Lord Llewellin. This is a very important thing. The noble and learned Viscount, in his remarks, seemed to suggest that the procedure under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act was adequate to prevent the week-ender from deriving benefit from cottages that are subsidized for agricultural purposes. No doubt that is so in a great many cases. But he would be a rash man who would guarantee that it was always so; and, in fact, that procedure has to rely upon the fact, not, I think, very well understood in Government offices, that there are more honest people in the world than there are dishonest. I think this procedure of an annual certificate from the owner of the cottage ought in many cases to be applicable, and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount can see his way to make that promise before the Bill leaves this House. As I say, there are more honest people in the world than dishonest people. Some dishonest people, of course, may slip through, but surely when they are caught out there are processes of law which should act as a not inconsiderable deterrent to wrongdoing in that direction as in others. However, it is a comparatively small thing. I think it is in fact true to say that development charges from agricultural cottages may not in many cases be leviable. On the other hand, the psychological effect will be very great if this concession can be made before the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I rise only to say that at an earlier stage of the Bill I expressed the great desire of certain local authorities to ensure that agricultural cottages were maintained for agriculture. I even went so far as to move an Amendment to secure an assurance—which I got—that it was possible for local authorities to issue consents, with a condition attached to them that they should remain agricultural cottages. I do not necessarily marry that suggestion with what has been put forward by my noble friend. I wish only to say that it is an indication
992
that local authorities would be willing to co-operate in order to enforce this suggestion that has been made.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I cannot speak again without the leave of the House, and perhaps your Lordships will give me that leave. I am not sure that I can go further than I have gone. I agree with the noble Lord that where there is a will there is a way. I am afraid I can only tell him there is a will. I do not myself doubt but that the way will be found, but the way has not been found yet. I am very anxious to be cautious in the statements I make, because once I make a promise which I cannot make good your Lordships will hestitate to accept my promises in future. Therefore, I rather play for safety. I have very little doubt that I shall be able to do something, and there is this solid consolation which the noble Lord can have. Your Lordships will remember that we bring up our regulations; they have to be brought before this House, and I think I am right in saying that they have to have affirmative approval. If, when these regulations come up, your Lordships see that this concession is not there, I have no doubt that I shall be reminded on all sides of what took place to-day. I shall be very anxious to avoid having to be reminded of that fact. I venture to think that your Lordships may feel comparatively comfortable, though I cannot say more than I have because I have no authority to do so.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I confess that I am a little disappointed at what the noble and learned Viscount has said, but I understand his difficulty. I am sure that if he agrees in principle with what we all want, he will, in point of fact, find a way somehow. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 140, line 19, leave out from beginning to the first ("the") in line 20.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in paragraph 7, to leave out "the use for

993
that purpose of any additional part of the land" and insert "on any land comprised in a site which, on the appointed day, was being used for that purpose." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. It is really consequential on the acceptance in Committee of an Amendment to Clause 12 (3) (b) providing that any extension of the height of a dump of waste materials involves a material change of use. It is therefore necessary to draft the exemption for mineral undertakings in the Third Schedule in such a way as to allow vertical as well as lateral extension of a deposit. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 140, line 21, leave out from ("minerals") to ("so") in line 22 and insert ("on any land comprised in a site which, on the appointed day, was being used for that purpose").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, might I just ask a question on that? I am not quite sure that I know what effect this is going to have on the working of minerals. This clause, as altered, will have this effect, will it not? The only thing a mineral owner can do is to increase the height, or something of that sort, of his spoil heap. When he has got that up to a certain height he can go no higher because the angle of repose remains the same. I am not quite sure what the position is when he wants another spoil heap or wants another area of land upon which to deposit his spoil. I do not want to harry the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor at the present moment, but as one who has had something to do with things of this sort I am not quite happy about the ultimate result of leaving out those words. I thought that while those words were in it was intended that you could increase the size of your spoil heap. You cannot go on increasing the height, you cannot make it steeper. Perhaps the Lord Chancellor will think that over and see what should be done about it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly think over the point the noble Viscount has made.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
FOURTH SCHEDULE.
PROVISIONS RELATING TO COMPENSATION UNDER PART III.
3. Where any interest in land is subject to a mortgage—
(d) the compensation payable in respect of the interest subject to the mortgage may be paid by the local planning authority to such of the claimants as they think proper, and shall be applied by that claimant in such manner as the parties interested may agree or, in default of such agreement, as may be determined by arbitration.
5.33 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment consequential on an Amendment introduced in Committee making compensation payable under Clause 22 subject to the provisions of the Fourth Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 140, line 27, after ("twenty") insert ("Section twenty-two").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the object of the next Amendment is to bring the wording into line with the wording of Clause 22. There is no change in meaning. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 140, line 28, leave out ("diminution") and insert ("depreciation").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, this Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 141, line 3, leave out ("diminution") and insert ("depreciation").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved to leave out sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 3 and insert:
"(d) the compensation payable in respect of the interest subject to the mortgage shall be paid by the local planning authority to the mortgagee or where there is more than one mortgagee to the first mortgagee and shall in either case be applied by him as if it were proceeds of sale."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment was suggested to me by the Law Society. It raises rather a curious point and I think the proposed Amendment is an improvement on the present sub-paragraph. The question is

995
as to what happens when an interest in land subject to mortgage is dealt with, or has now to be dealt with, and compensation is payable in respect of that interest. To whom should the compensation be paid? Of course in ordinary law the compensation would go to the local owner of the property—namely, the mortgagee. It might be more than the amount of his mortgage—and I will tell you the result of that in a moment. The sub-paragraph as it stands says:
"the compensation payable in respect of the interest subject to the mortgage may be paid by the local planning authority to such of the claimants as they think proper.…"
The schedule does not go on to say what they are to do with the money.
All difficulties can be resolved by reason of the fact that in dealing with matters of this sort in the equity part of the Court we constantly have to deal with cases where the mortgagee sells the property and receives more than enough to pay his principal, interest and costs. After that he becomes a trustee of the balance. If there is a second mortgagee he would hand it over to the second mortgagee who himself would become a trustee if he gets too much. Therefore, the legal result of a person getting too much is resolved by saying, as is suggested in the Amendment:
"the compensation payable in respect of the interest subject to the mortgage shall be paid by the local planning authority to the mortgagee or where there is more than one mortgagee to the first mortgagee and shall in neither case be applied by him as if it were proceeds of sale."
Therefore, if I may repeat what I have said, if he gets a little too much, or a great deal too much, he is a trustee for that and is bound by law to hand it over to the person in title. That seems to me a better plan than to leave it rather in doubt as to what the local authority would have to do in selecting such of the claimants as they think proper. Some of those claimants, for all I know, may not be in equity trustees except under some equitable doctrine, about which it is better not to bother for the moment. I think, if I may say so, the new subparagraph will meet every requirement of the case and be much more simple than the original. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 141, line 10, leave out sub-paragraph (d) and insert the said new sub-paragraph.—(Viscount Maugham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I may perhaps save your Lordships trouble if I say at once that we are grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for thinking of this point, and we have much pleasure in accepting his Amendment.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Eighth Schedule [Enactments Amended]:
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the next is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 159, line 21, column 2, leave out ("order made") and insert ("decision given.")—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, this also is a drafting Amendment. It is consequential to Amendments made in Committee to Clause 35 and the Fifth Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 159, line 24, column 2, leave out ("sanction") and insert ("authorization.")—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the words to be omitted by this Amendment are now unnecessary in view of the procedure which the Bill provides for compulsory acquisition. They are consequential on certain repeals in the 1944 Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 160, line 44, column 2, at end insert ("and in the said sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph (3) the words 'or the draft of the order or the application therefor as the case may be' shall be omitted.")—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Ninth Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, this Amendment repeals certain references in the Sixth Schedule to the 1944 Act to the supplements to owner-occupiers, etc., provided for in Part II of that Act. Since the supplements are being swept away

997
with the 1939 standard, these references are no longer necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 164, line 23, column 3, after ("Act") insert ("and in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 5 the words 'or the amount of any sum payable as a supplement thereto' and the words 'together, if any small is payable as a supplement thereto, with the amount of that sum'").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved, in reference to the extent of the repeal of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, to insert: "subsection (4) of Section nineteen." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is put down in order to question a point which might be raised upon the administrative action taken by the Minister of Town and Country Planning, and to obtain some statement as to the policy and intention of the Ministry. It is fully accepted that it is quite right that the Minister's consent should be required when a local authority is proposing to dispose of land which they have acquired for development purposes, but the Ministry now are not merely requiring such information as will be necessary to enable them to give a decision on the question of principle. They are not even content to see the leases which should be drafted in this respect drafted by a solicitor advising the local authority; they are insisting that the lease must be in a form laid down by the Ministry, and must be finally approved by the Treasury Solicitor. That, I understand, is a practice that is entirely new, and that has been embarked upon only within comparatively recent times. All the local authorities have been letting land for a good many years now. They are competently advised, and the advisers consider themselves quite capable of drawing up leases which are designed to meet the case. I venture to hope, therefore, that they may be able to get some assurance from the Minister that his Ministry really will not go into these questions of detail. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 167, line 12, column 3, at end, insert ("subsection (4) of Section nineteen").—(Lord Addington.)
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I am inclined to think that the noble Lord has been misinformed. The Ministry have never sought to impose a standard or any other form of lease. It has always been
998
recognized that the form of any disposal by way of lease is a matter for the professional advisers to the authority, and they are allowed complete freedom in their draftsmanship. The Ministry's criticism of any draft submitted for approval has always been offered by way of suggestion and for consideration by the authority as an improvement. In one respect only is a particular provision required in the lease—namely, in respect of the linking of leasehold and planning control of user, and of alterations and additions to the building. The reason for this is that without it there could arise conflicting controls, in that the authority as lessor could impose conditions other, and different from, the planning control of the planning authority, and, on appeal, of the Minister. This particular provision has been accepted without hesitation by all authorities with whom the Ministry has so far had dealings, for the need for it, and its justice, is recognized. There has been some evidence that some authorities in their dealings with prospective developers, have for their own purposes, informed the developer that such and such a form of lease was final and the only acceptable form to the Ministry. This is quite untrue, and I welcome the opportunity which this Amendment has given me to make the truth of the situation known to the public.
LORD ADDINGTON: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for what he has, said. I think it clears up what appears to be a misunderstanding. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
TENTH SCHEDULE:
Transitory provisions and provisions consequential on repeals.
10. Subject as hereinafter provided, any agreement for restricting the planning, development or use of land made under Section thirty-four of the Act of 1932 with any such authority as is mentioned in subsection (2) of that section, or made or having effect is if made under a planning scheme with the responsible authority for the purposes of the scheme, shall, if in force on the appointed day, continue in force in accordance with the terms thereof and may be enforced under the said Section thirty-four or under time scheme, as the case may be:
Provided that
(a) nothing in any such agreement shall be construed as restricting or requiring the exercise, in relation to land to which any such agreement applies, of any powers exercisable by any Minister or authority under this Act;
(b) if the Minister is satisfied, on application made to him by any person being a party to any such agreement, or a person entitled to land affected thereby, that any restriction on the development or use of the land imposed by the agreement is inconsistent with the proper planning or development of the area comprising the land, he may by order discharge or modify that restriction so far as appears to him to be expedient;
5.42 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 171, line 26, leave out ("or requiring").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment complementary to the Amendment on Clause 25, which has been accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 171, line 28, at end insert ("so long as those powers are exercised in accordance with the provisions of the development plan or in accordance with any directions which may have been given by the Minister under Section thirty-six of this Act, or as requiring the exercise of any such powers otherwise than as aforesaid").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to enable a local planning authority to take the initiative in asking for a modification of a Section 34 agreement, even though they were not a party to the agreement. This is clearly right, because action can only be taken under this paragraph in the interests of the "proper planning or development of the area;" the local planning authority is obviously the right person to judge that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 171, line 31, after ("thereby") insert ("or by the local planning authority").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Eleventh Schedule [Unrepealed provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, reprinted as amended by this Act]:
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, this and the remaining four Amendments on the paper are consequential. They simply
1000
write into the Eleventh Schedule Amendments which have already been accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 194, line 27, leave out ("order made") and insert ("decision given").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 194, line 29, leave out ("sanction") and insert ("authorisation").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 200, line 25, leave out from ("submitted") to ("made") in line 26.—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 202, line 3, leave out from ("Schedule") to ("is") in line 4.—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 202, line 10, leave out from ("compensation") to ("has") in line 11.—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
SWINDON GAS ORDER, 1947, BUCKLEY GAS ORDER, 1947, AIRDRIE GAS ORDER, 1947, WORKINGTON GAS ORDER, 1947.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read and ordered to lie on the Table.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SUPERANNUATION) REGULATIONS, 1947.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that in their opinion

1001
the provisions of the Order raise important questions of policy and principle; and that the Order is not founded on precedent and cannot be passed by the House without special attention, but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Order: Read and ordered to lie on the Table.

ELECTORAL REGISTRATION REGULATIONS, 1947.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Order as required by the Standing Orders of the House; that in their opinion the Order raised no important questions of policy or principle other than those which have been accepted already by the House when passing the Parliamentary Electors (War-Time Registration) Acts, 1943–44, the Representation of the People Act, 1945, and the Electors and Jurors Act, 1945, under which the Order is submitted for approval; that the Order is founded on precedent; and that in the opinion of the Committee the Order can be passed by the
1002
House without special attention, and that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolution to approve the said Order: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Fourth Report from the Select Committee made, to be printed, and to be considered on Tuesday next.
NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
The King's Consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, before we adjourn I suggest that, unless there is any objection from the other side, we meet at 11.30 a.m. to-morrow instead of at 11 a.m.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before six o'clock.