Sitting of 30 July 1947

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

    Exit Permits
    Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has now arranged that persons who have been authorised by the Home Office to visit this country from Germany shall be given exit permits in Germany without delay.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): Travel out of the three Western Zones is governed by tripartite agreement, and applications can only be approved if they come within the prescribed travel categories. Subject to this, arrangements have now been made whereby exit permits will in future be issued with the minimum of delay.
    Mr. Keeling: Is the Secretary of State aware—as I expect he is—that a large number of the applications for permits are for compassionate cases, and that a good deal of misery has been caused in the past by the delay in granting them, which delay has extended to months?
    Mr. Bevin: If the hon. Member comes across cases like that in future under the new arrangements I shall be glad if he will tell me.

    Civil Police Force
    Mr. Vaneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the total strength of the civil police force in the British zone of Germany at the time of the capitulation; how many of those then serving have since been dismissed
    426
    or suspended; what is the present total strength; and on what basis new recruits are selected.
    Mr. Bevin: The first reliable figures obtainable are for the middle of July, 1945, when there were 29,758 regular police and 4,321 auxiliary police, in the British zone of Germany. Of these, 12,553 regulars and 2,534 auxiliaries have been dismissed. The present strength of the civil police is 38,456 regular police and 2,294 auxiliaries. New recruits are selected on the basis of educational and physical qualifications, and applicants are screened by special German de-Nazification panels. No former regular officers or regular non-commissioned officers of the German Armed Forces are accepted.
    Mr. Pickthorn: Can the Secretary of State tell us whether any track is kept of these 12,000 or 15,000 dismissed policemen; whether anything is known about what has become of them; and could he explain why service as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer should disqualify a man for police service?
    Mr. Bevin: In regard to the latter part of the supplementary question, I understand most of the people who were either regular officers or regular non-commissioned officers in the German Armed Forces were, in the main, Nazis, and were not trusted in the police. I should like to have notice of the first part of the supplementary question and I will get the facts.
    Mr. Vane: Will the right hon. Gentleman look again into this senseless discrimination against the re-employment of ex-regular officers and non-commissioned officers? Some of them, for instance, might have been Socialists, and surely it is unfair that they should be subject to discrimination?
    Mr. Bevin: I am looking into it, but in one breath the House wants me to de-Nazify and in the next breath the House wants me to employ them. It is a very difficult problem to handle when a country has been dealt with in the way Germany has been since 1933.
    Mr. Bramall: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this de-Nazification and discrimination, as it is called, is not senseless; and will he also bear in mind how

    427
    important it is to build up in the new German police force an entirely different spirit towards the general public from that which obtained in the police force before 1945?
    Mr. Bevin: The police in Germany are working on the basis of trying to make a non-political force in our zone for the future good of Germany. If we cannot do that we shall be in danger of creating a police force which can be a ready-made instrument for a "police state" should one arise.

    Krupp's Works, Essen
    Mr. Ronald Chamberlainasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proportion of Krupp's armament works at Essen is incapable of conversion to non-armament productive work.
    Mr. Bevin: It is difficult to say that any plant is completely incapable of conversion to civil purposes, given sufficient time and labour. A proportion of the shops or units at Krupps are, however, specifically designed for war purposes and, as Category I plants, are due for liquidation. I should add that the detailed plan has not yet been finalised by the Control Council.
    Mr. Chamberlain: Is my right hon. Friend aware that expert engineering opinion on the spot puts the proportion at 1 per cent.; and will he bear that or an approximate figure in mind in connection with the recent statement of the Under-Secretary that nothing capable of conversion for peacetime use would be destroyed?
    Mr. Bevin: I shall have to look that statement up. We have never agreed that anything is incapable of conversion to peacetime use, because nearly everything is. What we have to do is to study the security of Europe, and not allow a war potential beyond industrial requirements, which may again endanger our security.
    Mr. Skeffington Lodge: Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that the whole policy of this blowing up and destruction of plant may very well turn out to be a cutting off of our nose to spite our face?
    Mr. Bevin: But we shall still have our face.
    Mr. Hobson: Is it not a fact that the only part of Krupp Werkefabrik at Essen which is not destroyed is at the present moment producing locomotives, or in the course of being changed over for the production of locomotives?
    Mr. Bevin: We are still working on a new level of German industry in which some plant in Categories 2, 3 and 4 will be revised; Category 1 has been agreed by the War Council as war potential, and those in that category are being removed.

    Meat (Refrigerating Plant)
    Mr. Douglas Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the quantity of meat that was condemned in Essen during the first three months of July, 1947, owing to no spare parts being available for the butchers' refrigerating plant.
    Mr. Bevin: The Control Commission have no knowledge of meat being condemned in this way. If the hon. Member will supply me with details I will gladly make further inquiries.

    Soap Ration
    Mr. D. Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the quantity of the soap ration in the British zone of Germany during the first three weeks of July, 1947; and to what extent this ration was met in Essen.
    Mr. Bevin: The average soap ration per head, taking into account supplementary rations to such groups as miners and children, contains 48 grammes of fatty acids for a four week period. The actual weight of soap would depend on the nature of the soap products which compose the ration. All supplementary rations in Essen have been met, including miners' supplies, but unfortunately there was local maldistribution of supplies to meet the basic ration in the last period. This has caused a shortage in the centre of the city and a surplus in the suburbs. Ration cards are, however, still valid for the subsequent period.

    Occupying Troops (Illegitimate Children)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will initiate consultations between zonal authorities in Germany with a view to

    429
    securing joint action on marital affairs and the care of illegitimate children involving troops of the occupying Powers.
    Mr. Bevin: No, Sir.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is there any likelihood of this very important matter being considered either unilaterally or multi-laterally, in the days to come?
    Mr. Bevin: I think it would be resented by our Allies if we interfered in the behaviour of their troops within their own zones of responsibility. The care of illegitimate children is a matter which has been left in each zone as the sole responsibility of the German authorities.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will my right hon. Friend see whether, in fact, we can recommend action of this kind, seeing that in many cases our men are involved?
    Mr. Bevin: I should like notice of that question

  POLAND (ARRESTS)
  Professor Savoryasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has received from the British Ambassador in Warsaw with regard to the arrest of Kazimierz Puzak, for many years Secretary General of the Polish Socialist Party, and the following leading Socialists; Jozef Dziegielewski, Adam Obarski, Wiktor Krawczyk, W. Wilczynski and T. Szturn de Sztrem; and whether he is in a position to make a statement to the House with regard to these arrests.
  Mr. Bevin: Three of the six Poles referred to, namely, Puzak, Krawczyk and Wilczynski, were, in fact, only arrested early in June, 1947. The other three were arrested in 1946, Obarski in October, Dziegielewski and Szturm de Sztrem in November. Obarski has been in prison ever since. Dziegielewski and Szturm de Sztrem were released in January and February, 1947, respectively, prior to their re-arrest in June. 1947.
  Professor Savory: How does the right hon. Gentleman account for the arrest of these leading Socialists by a Government presided over by a Socialist prime minister?
  Mr. Bevin: It does not come within my province to account for these things

  SOUTH TYROL
  Professor Savoryasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the present negotiations for the granting of autonomy to South Tyrol, in accordance with the treaty with Italy, the 70,000 displaced South Tyrolese who were driven out of their country between 1939 and 1943 will be able to return to South Tyrol; and whether the full rights of Italian citzenship will be restored to them, as well as to the optants who remained in South Tyrol, since the Hitler-Mussolini Agreement has no longer any validity
  Mr. Bevin: This question is at present under discussion between the Italian and Austrian Governments. I have no reason to suppose that a settlement acceptable to both sides will not be reached, and that is certainly my wish. I cannot, however, associate myself with the statement that these persons were driven out of their country. That seems to me an oversimplification.
  Professor Savory: But surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that they were threatened that unless they opted for Germany they would be deported to the South of Italy, and that it was under that threat that they migrated?
  Mr. Bevin: My information is that a very large number of them went quite voluntarily.
  Professor Savoryasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, with regard to the discussions between the Italian Government and the representatives of the South Tyrolean people, the autonomy guaranteed to the German-speaking inhabitants of South Tyrol will be such that control over all police departments will be given to the autonomous government within the autonomous region, in accordance with Section 2 of The Italo-Austrian Agreement incorporated as Annexe 4 of the Treaty with Italy.
  Mr. Bevin: I have left the Italian Government in no doubt as to my interest in seeing satisfactory measures taken to honour the Austro-Italian Agreement of September, 1946, once the Draft Constitution which makes provision for certain autonomous regions has been approved by the Italian Constituent Assembly. I understand that the precise

  431
  measures to be taken are still under discussion by the Italian authorities, who are in touch with representatives of the main German-speaking political party in South Tyrol.
  Professor Savory: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how it is possible to have "autonomous legislative and executive regional power"—to quote the very words of the Treaty—without control of the police.
  Mr. Bevin: Well, I think it is possible. The agreement, I think, is quite clear; and there will, I understand, be, in the main, a good deal of local autonomy in the control of the police.

  CONTROL COMMISSION DEPOT, BLETCHLEY (STAFF)
  Mr. Granville Sharpasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the total number of staff now employed at the control office depot and training centre at Bletchley; how many individuals without previous Control Commission experience are being trained at the depot at the present time; and how many other individuals are there and for what purpose.
  Mr. Bevin: The staff still numbers 190, but is being progressively reduced to match the reduction in recruitment. Of the present staff, 49 are partly engaged in the provision of common services for other Departments using the camp in which the Centre is situated. Last week there were 95 students, 86 of whom were without previous Control Commission experience, and nine had previously served in the Commission in a military capacity, and are now taking up civilian appointments. Like the others, these nine went to Bletchley for documentation and record purposes as well as for training from which they can still profit.
  Mr. Sharp: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the presence of all these people at Bletchley is really necessary?
  Mr. Bevin: I am looking into it.' I have been watching the Bletchley organisation. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that a lot of the people at Bletchley are not
  432
  employed by the Foreign Office. Therefore, I am looking into the whole problem.

  PALESTINE

    United Nations Special Committee (Report)
    Dr. Segalasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by what date it is anticipated the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine will be able to submit its report to U.N.O.
    Mr. Bevin: The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, which was established by resolution of the General Assembly, is required, by the terms of that resolution, to communicate its report to the Secretary-General not later than 1st September.
    Dr. Segal: Could this report be still further expedited in order to avoid prolonging by a single day the appalling policy that His Majesty's Government are at present pursuing in Palestine?
    Mr. Bevin: His Majesty's Government are pursuing a policy of endeavouring to get a settlement of the matter, and have referred it to an international tribunal. If all parties would accept that fact and act accordingly, and wait for the decision, then these appalling things that happen as a result of their attempt to defy the United Nations organisation, as well as us, could be avoided.
    Mr. Austin: Pending the submission of this report, will my right hon. Friend avoid intensification of the terrorism in Palestine by not allowing the repetition of an incident like that in connection with the "President Warfield"?
    Mr. Bevin: I think the Jewish Agency can prevent it by not sending them.

    Illegal Immigrants
    Dr. Segalasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what tonnage of British merchant shipping has now been placed at the disposal of the Palestine Government for the interception of unauthorised Jewish refugee immigration.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Seven ships, with a total gross registered tonnage of 26,000, have been made available for the transfer of illegal immigrants from Palestine and for transport from the Cyprus camps to

    433
    Palestine. Four of these, with a total tonnage of about 5,300, are of corvette type, and could not be employed for normal commercial purposes.
    Dr. Segal: In view of the present heavy demands on shipping space for the con veyance of food supplies to this country, and for the needs of our Dominions, could not these vessels be put to better use than to force the remnants of the gas chambers and concentration camps back into exile?
    Mr. Creech Jones: These are corvettes They are unsuitable for commercial use, and in any case Britain must carry out her international obligations.
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about the latest situation of the refugees transhipped from the "Exodus 1947."
    Mr. Creech Jones: The three transports carrying these illegal immigrants arrived at Port de Bouc on 29th July. The arrangements for their disembarkation are under discussion with the French authorities.
    Mr. Janner: Can my right hon. Friend say that no coercion will be used against these hapless people to land so that they shall not be still wandering aimlessly after all their years of bitter experience, and will he say whether he is aware of the fact that 1,800 people, among them children and pregnant women, were kept in one hold without any sleeping requisites or proper accommodation?
    Mr. Creech Jones: This matter is under discussion now with the French Government, and I am not in a position to add to my reply.
    Mr. Skinnard: is my right hon. Friend aware of British Press reports that should these unfortunate people be unable to land in France they will be transferred to Hamburg? Can he assure the House that there is no truth in those reports?
    Mr. Creech Jones: All I can say is that that is a Press story.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Jewish Agency has issued any public advice to these people to obey the orders of authority, and so avoid incidents?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I regret I have no official information to that effect.
    Mr. Scollan: Are the Government taking any steps to find out who is responsible for exploiting these people?

    Abducted British Sergeants
    Mr. Stanley(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the grave anxiety in the House about a report on the tape about the fate of the kidnapped sergeants in Palestine, he has any information to give to the House.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I am aware of the acute anxiety felt by Members regarding the position of the two British sergeants, Paice and Martin, abducted at Nathanya in Palestine on 12th July. I regret that as yet I am unable to give any official information to the House, though I am aware that certain statements have already been issued by a news agency. I need hardly assure the House that this, matter is receiving the close and urgent attention of the Government and the authorities in Palestine, and I will keep the House informed of developments. I am sure the House expresses its sympathy with the relatives of these men in the anxious suspense through which they are passing.
    Mr. Lipson: May I ask my right hon. Friend how long it takes him to receive official confirmation either accepting or denying any information of this sort which is given on the tape, and when we might expect some official statement on this matter?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I cannot say how, soon we shall get the information, but telegraphic communication is very quick.

  INDONESIA (SITUATION)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of events in Indonesia; if the Netherlands Government have made any further response to his efforts to mediate in this dispute; and if he will now give an assurance that no more arms or equipment will be supplied to the Dutch from British sources, and that no facilities will be given for training Dutch troops in British territory, in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
  Mr. Bevin: I am afraid that the amount of information officially available on the progress of the military operations in Java and Sumatra is so limited as to render any proper assessment of the situation impossible. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative. His Majesty's Government have prohibited the supply of war material to the Nertherlands East Indies from Singapore and British territories in the Far East, and training facilities in this area. Further, no supplies of war materials intended for the Netherlands East Indies will be permitted from this country.
  Mr. Bramallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what report has been received from the British Consul-General in Batavia on his request to the Netherlands East Indies authorities for a respite of 24 hours before hostilities were started.
  Mr. Bevin: No such request was made to the Netherlands East Indies authorities by the British Consul-General at Batavia, who was not informed till the evening of 20th July that military action would begin at dawn on the 21st.
  Mr. Bramall: Is it not a fact that the Consul-General, Mr. Mitchison, to whose good work everyone has rightly paid tribute, was requested by the Indonesian authorities to ask the Dutch authorities to give them 24 hours to consider the new demands which they were making, and that he did pass this request on to the Dutch authorities?
  Mr. Bevin: I cannot recall any telegram to that effect without looking it up. Mr. Mitchison immediately communicated with me, and when I arrived in London from the North, I went straight into the office to try to do what I could that night.
  Mr. Bramallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that use is not being made by the Dutch armed forces of the Port of Singapore for the transport of arms and equipment to Java.
  Mr. Bevin: His Majesty's Government have prohibited the supply of war material to the Netherlands East Indies from Singapore.
  Mr. Bramall: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to see the world knows that the stories being spread by certain Indo-
  436
  elements, and passed on by certain elements in this country, are quite untrue?
  Mr. Bevin: I do not think there is a better sounding-board than this House.
  Mr. Chamberlainasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a request for mediation in Indonesia has yet been made by the Dutch Government; what other action is contemplated by His Majesty's Government in this matter; and whether His Majesty's Government are prepared to arrange for medical and other necessary supplies to be made available to the Indonesian forces.
  Mr. Bevin: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. As regards the second part, His Majesty's Government have been in consultation with interested Governments, including the United States, but I am not in a position to make any statement. So far as the despatch of medical supplies to the Indonesian authorities is concerned, His Majesty's Government have already approached the Netherlands Government in this matter, and the latter have readily agreed in principle to such supplies being despatched with the permission of the Dutch authorities in the Netherlands East Indies, to whom they have sent appropriate instructions.
  Mr. Chamberlain: While appreciating the answer to the last part of the Question, may I ask, in regard to mediation, whether the Foreign Secretary will bear in mind the possibility of mediation and reference to the United Nations going on at the same time? Does he not agree that there is a plain duty in regard to reference to the United Nations, and that we should not withhold our moral duty in this matter and leave it to Australia and India?
  Mr. Bevin: Any Government has the right to refer to the United Nations, but I think it is difficult for me to pursue mediation and reference at the same time. India has a perfect right to refer to the United Nations, and so has Australia.
  Mr. Eden: Are we to understand from that answer that the right hon. Gentleman's offer for mediation is open and remains open?
  Mr. Bevin: It is open and remains open.
  Mr. Bramallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is

  437
  now in a position to give an assurance that no war material will be supplied to the Dutch Government while hostilities continue in Indonesia.
  Mr. Bevin: His Majesty's Government have suspended all military supplies and facilities to the Netherlands authorities from the Far East.
  Mr. H. D. Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many Dutch military and naval troops are now being trained in this country, and whether any steps can be taken to bring that arrangement to an end pending cessation of hostilities in the East Indies?
  Mr. Bevin: No, Sir, I cannot do that. After all, Holland was overrun by the Germans, and we entered into a very solemn undertaking to re-equip and train the Dutch Army which had been destroyed. I am entitled to say to the Dutch Government, however, that we are not doing this for the purpose of this war in Indonesia. I cannot go beyond that.

  PRISONERS OF WAR (COMPASSIONATE REPATRIATION)
  Mr. Lipsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what machinery exists whereby the applications of individual prisoners of war to return home early on compassionate grounds can be considered.
  Mr. Bevin: Prisoners' relatives may apply to the German local authorities for compassionate repatriation of prisoners. The local authorities, if they approve, forward the application through the occupying authorities to the German Section of my Department, which authorises the return home of those prisoners who have the most urgent compassionate grounds for repatriation, up to a total of 500 a month.
  Mr. Lipson: Can my right hon. Friend say how many applications have been granted, and whether this is widely known among prisoners of war and their relatives?
  Mr. Bevin: I have not the figures immediately available. Perhaps the hon. Member will put that down.
  Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman said that relatives of prisoners of war can apply; are we to infer that prisoners of war cannot apply?
  Mr. Bevin: I think my hon. Friend has misunderstood the answer The relatives of prisoners of war may apply. I will inquire whether prisoners of war may also apply.
  Mr. Sorensen: Why is there this maximum figure of 500, when there are urgent pleas beyond that figure for repatriation which cannot be granted?
  Mr. Bevin: We have to provide transport, and we have a lot of administration to do in handling these cases. It is a pretty big task.
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the procedure he has outlined is very slow moving indeed, and will he take some steps to try to speed up things in really compassionate cases?
  Mr. Bevin: I will look into that

  AMERICAN LEGION (BRITISH VISIT)
  Sir Ian Fraserasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the National Commander of the American Legion and his party, numbering 150, are arriving in this country on 8th September; that the British Legion will have the honour to give them a reception; and if His Majesty's Government will mark this occasion in a suitable manner.
  Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government have learnt with pleasure of the proposed visit of the National Commander of the American Legion and his official party of 150 Legionaries to this country from 8th September to nth September, and are aware that the British Legion will entertain them. His Majesty's Government have decided to mark the occasion by giving an official dinner in honour of the National Commander and his party on Tuesday, 9th September, to which they have already been invited, and at which the Minister of Defence has consented to take the Chair.

  MAURITIUS (FOOD CULTIVATION)
  Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what assistance is being given by the Government of Mauritius to plans for the growing of foodstuffs on sugar estates; and whether he is

  439
  aware that there is considerable discontentment in Mauritius arising from the high cost of food.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): The Food Production Board, which was appointed by the Governor of Mauritius in February last, has voted 7 million rupees for bonus payments during the present financial year to sugar and other planters who grow maize, sweet potatoes and other root crops. Locally grown root crops are already being sold at reduced prices. The principal imported foodstuffs are already subsidised, and it is hoped that complaints regarding the lower purchasing power of money will decrease as a consequence of the Board's activities, and steps recently taken by the Price Control authorities to reduce the cost of other foodstuffs.
  Mr. Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at the moment there is widespread discontent in this Island, and that there has not been a Royal Commission appointed since 1910 to investigate conditions there? Does he not think it would be worth while to appoint a Royal Commission to go into this problem?
  Mr. Creech Jones: We are fully alive to the conditions in Mauritius, and I am in active discussion with the Governor at the present moment regarding the economic affairs of the Island.

  COLONIAL EMPIRE

    Parliamentary Delegations
    Mr. Wilkesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many parliamentary delegations have visited the countries within the Colonial Empire during the preceding 12 months; and how many Members of Parliament went thereon.
    Mr. Creech Jones: During the past 12 months, one parliamentary delegation visited the four British Colonies in West Africa, under the auspices of the Empire Parliamentary Association. It included six Members of this House and a Member of the House of Lords.
    Mr. Wilkes: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that during the last year 114 Members of this House visited European countries, and that while it is very
    440
    important Members should visit European countries, that it is equally important that they should be given an opportunity to visit the Colonial Empire? Will he see that more facilities are given in future to Members to visit the 60 million people for whom we are responsible?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I am fully aware of the desire of Members of Parliament, and I am already discussing possibilities of arranging further delegations.
    Mr. Drayson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is ample opportunity for Members to visit the Colonial Empire at their own expense and not at public expense?
    Mr. Wilkesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many parliamentary delegations to the Colonial Empire are planned for the next 12 months; and whether he will bear in mind the great benefit to be derived from delegations which include Members with trade union experience who can advise on trade union problems and policy within the Colonial Empire.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The planning of visits by parliamentary groups is usually a matter for the Empire Parliamentary Association. I am, however, examining the prospects of possible visits, and have little doubt that Colonial Governments will assist in facilitating any which are practicable during the next twelve months.

    Linseed Oil Substitutes
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what practical steps have been taken up to date to develop projects for producing substitution for linseed oil in the Colonies.
    Mr. Creech Jones: As the reply is rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    I am aware of the need to increase production of drying oils in the Colonial Empire, and I have already communicated on this subject with the Governments of all territories where climatic conditions may be expected to allow of the cultivation of linseed. As a result, up to 4,000 acres in Kenya are to be planted experimentally this year, the

    441
    resultant crop being used for seed bulking, and trials are also being conducted in the Gambia and Mauritius. As seed becomes available, these tests will be extended to other suitable territories. As regards substitutes for linseed, tung oil which has an even higher iodine content than linseed, and is, I understand, regarded by the paint trade as the measuring stick of performance of all drying oils, including linseed, is already widely grown in Nyasaland where there is a scheme for the extension of growing on a large scale in the Vipya highlands, if the experiments now proceeding show that it promises to be an economic proposition. These trials are also being studied by the Governments of Northern Rhodesia and Tanganyika, and tung growing will be encouraged in these territories if they are successful. As regards oils with a lower iodine value than linseed oil, but which are possible substitutes, the Colonial Empire can produce rubber seed oil, soya oil, candlenut oil and conophor oil. The position regarding rubber seed oil is given in my reply of today's date to the hon. Member. With respect to soya, the Governments of all the territories which are suitable for soya bean production have been circularised, and trials Will be undertaken. Whether extended cultivation will be encouraged depends upon the results of these trials. Candlenut oil, which is produced in Fiji (and to a lesser extent in Ceylon and Malaya), and conophor oil, which is derived from a jungle plant in Nigeria and Sierra Leone, are both technically suitable as linseed oil substitutes, but there are difficulties over collecting them similar to those in the case of rubber seeds.

    Colonial Projects Research Committee
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give a list of the main projects now under consideration for development as a result of recommendations from the Colonial Projects Research Committee; and whether he will give an assurance that everything possible is being done to bring these recommendations to fruition at the earliest possible opportunity.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I would refer my hon. Friend to the information given in the recently published report on Colonial Research (Cmd. 7151). The answer to
    442
    the second part of the Question is in the affirmative.

    British and Foreign Capital (Investments)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies approximately the total amount of British and foreign capital, respectively, now invested in British Colonies; the last annual estimate of the value of goods produced through this capital investment; and the approximate aggregate amount of profit received in this country from the British Colonies according to the last available annual statistics.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I regret that the information is not immediately available. I could not supply it without considerable research.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will my right hon. Friend be able to provide it in due course, for the benefit not only of the Colonies, but Members of this House?
    Mr. Creech Jones: We have a great deal of information, but it would be very difficult to compile it in a paper.

    Military Forces (Strengths)
    Brigadier Mackesonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how the comparative strengths of military Forces shown on page 116 of Command Paper 7167 for 1st May, 1945, compare with similar figures for 1st May, 1946, and 1947; how the decrease, expressed in percentage, compares with similar decreases in United Kingdom Forces; and, if the dates concerned are inconvenient, if he will make a statement comparing any convenient dates in 1945 and 1946 with the same date in 1947.
    Mr. Creech Jones: I regret that for the reasons explained by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence in his statement in the House on 20th March, it would not be in the public interest to give this information.

  JAMAICA (EX-SERVICE MEN)
  General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Jamaican ex-Service men of the first world war are

  443
  dissatisfied with their treatment by previous Jamaican Governments; that these men were promised on demobilisation good land for cultivation and that they would be cared for by the Imperial Government; that the land which they were actually given is little better than a stony desert; and whether he will cause their complaints to be looked into and their grievances to be redressed.
  Mr. Creech Jones: The grievances of the Jamaican ex-Service men referred to in the hon. Member's Question are the subject of representations recently laid before me by the Jamaica Ex-Servicemen Trade and People's Labour Union. I am at present in communication with the Governor of Jamaica concerning their complaints and I will communicate with the hon. Member when I have received the Governor's reply.

  AFRICAN COLONIES

    Maize Production, Nyasaland
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of Nyasaland will provide long-term, low-interest Government loans to assist large-scale maize production schemes undertaken in response to their appeal for increased production of maize.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The Nyasaland Government will no doubt consider all possible suggestions for encouraging maize production, but there would appear to be no reason why such schemes should not be financed on normal commercial lines. No request for such a loan has been received.

    Non-Official Organisations, West Africa
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are taken to encourage and receive representations from non-official organisations in West Africa respecting economic and political matters and clearly to acquaint them with Government's short- and long-term policies; and if he is satisfied that everything possible is being done to convey to West Africans the immediate steps now being taken to implement these policies.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The steps taken to this end are, of course, many and various
    444
    including the prior publication of legislation in the form of Bills for comment, the issue of statements of Government policy as Sessional Papers presented to Legislative Council, the appointment of representatives of non-official organisations to bodies such as local development councils, labour advisory committees and boards of education, the establishment of public relations organisations charged specifically with the task of interpreting Government policy to the public and the explanation of Government's intentions and actions by means of broadcasts, Press conferences and Press statements. I regard the existing arrangements for this purpose as generally satisfactory, but I am sure that the Colonial Governments are constantly on the watch to improve their machinery in this respect.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is my right hon. Friend aware of any impediments which are put in the way of unofficial organisations approaching local Governments with a view to securing further information? Is the initiative taken by the Governments to reply to non-official organisations?
    Mr. Creech Jones: A great deal of initiative is shown by the information departments in the respective Colonial Governments. That information is available to representatives of non-official organisations, which are brought together in order that it may be passed to them.

    Unemployment, Bathurst
    Dr. Segalasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many unemployed were registered at the employment exchange at Bathurst on the last available date; and what increase this figure shows as compared with that of 12 months previously.
    Mr. Creech Jones: As there is no employment exchange in Bathurst the figures requested are not available. Such unemployment as occurs is mostly seasonal, and does not appear to be developing into a serious problem. In fact, over the past 12 months unemployment has, I understand, probably decreased as a result of Government works started in the vicinity of Bathurst.
    Dr. Segal: Is it not high time that a register of unemployed was instituted in Bathurst, even if the Labour Adviser there may have to place himself at the head of the list?
    Mr. Creech Jones: One of the officials has produced a register of ex-Service men, but we cannot do everything at the same time. In most Colonies employment bureaux are being established.

  HONG KONG (TRADE UNION COUNCIL)
  Mr. James Hudsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the efforts to institute a central trade union council in Hong Kong; and whether the rules and constitution of the proposed body which were submitted to the Hong Kong Government have received Government approval.
  Mr. Creech Jones: I am informed by the Governor of Hong Kong that no proposals for the institution of a central trade union council in Hong Kong have yet been submitted to him.

  BRITISH HONDURAS (FOOD CROPS)
  Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress had been made in schemes for the local production of food crops in British Honduras; and what plans have been made for future encouragement of subsistence farming.
  Mr. Creech Jones: The local production of food crops in British Honduras, with the exception of a small Government managed rice scheme, is undertaken by the farmers themselves. The Department of Agriculture is fostering sound farming practice, and measures such as guaranteed prices and loans have been adopted to encourage a much greater output of the staple food crops, particularly rice and maize. The need for increased food production is fully recognised by the local development planning Committee and a co-operative officer has recently been appointed by the Government. His duties will include the stimulation of increased food production.
  Mr. Skinnard: Is it the intention of the British Honduras authorities to arrange for settlements along the new West road, so as to increase the number of farms in the colony?
  Mr. Creech Jones: The Governor is particularly active in getting on with development plans, and this aspect of his problem is very much in his mind.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Dockyards (Whitley Councils)
    Mrs. Middletonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will arrange for regular weekly or fortnightly meetings of the Whitley Councils in His Majesty's dockyards for the purpose of achieving, through regular periodic discussions with representatives of the management and workers, schemes for the more efficient working of the dockyards and for utilising to the full any suggestions of value which operatives may desire make; or whether he will set up production committees in each of His Majesty's dockyards to work to the same ends.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): Suggestions for improvements of methods and organisation of work are among matters which may be discussed at meetings of the yard committees. So far as workpeople are concerned, the Whitley constitution provides that these committees may meet as frequently as once a month, if necessary, at the request of either the staff side or the official side; and evidence shows that yard committees in each of the three home dockyards have met on four occasions during the past twelve months. In addition, following discussion with the trade union side of the Admiralty Industrial Council, in 1943, machinery for setting up joint production committees was agreed, and is still operative. Non-industrial Whitley committees in the dockyards are also empowered to meet as often as necessary, and full provision is made for the receipt and examination of suggestions for improvements in methods and organisation of work.
    Mrs. Middleton: Is my hon. Friend aware that many men in the dockyards are of the opinion that the present machinery is not efficient enough to bring organisation and production up to the level at which it could be brought? Will he overhaul the machinery, to add to the efficiency of the dockyards, and at the same time give a lead on behalf of the Government to other backward industries?
    Mr. Edwards: This Question concerns the setting up of joint production committees. I have said that agreement has

    447
    been arrived at with the trade union side that these committees will be operative. We shall be only too glad to welcome any assistance from the staff side.
    Major Bruce: Will my hon. Friend say what initiative will be exercised by his Department in ensuring that committee meetings take place more frequently than once a quarter? Is he aware that the opinion of many trade unionists in the Royal dockyards is that the facilities in those dockyards are not being used to the best advantage?
    Mr. Edwards: There may be that opinion, and there can be opinions about various other industries. We are trying to make the dockyards most efficient. The question of calling meetings oftener has been left to the staff side, for them to make application if they think that a useful purpose would be served by holding a meeting. I think it is far better to do it in that way than to call a meeting merely for the sake of having a talk.
    Mr. Hobson: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the trade unions concerned were signatories to this machinery, and that there is a clause in it whereby, if necessary, a special meeting can be called at the request of either side?
    Mr. Edwards: That is true, and I think it is far better to deal with the trade union side of the Admiralty Industrial Council rather than pursue this matter by question and answer.

    Flying Exercises, Port Phillip Bay (Accidents)
    Mr. Austinasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will make a statement on the casualties sustained during the recent exercises of the 1st Aircraft Carrier Squadron in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria, Australia.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): The series of accidents to which my hon. Friend refers occurred on 20th July during the course of flying practices carried out by the 1st Aircraft Carrier Squadron in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria, in preparation for subsequent exercises with ships of the Royal Australian Navy. In the first of these a Firefly strike fighter from H.M.S. "Theseus," collided with another
    448
    Firefly in the same formation and both crashed into the sea locked together. It appears that the aircraft failed to see each other, one pulling slowly up into the other from below. The body of one of the pilots was recovered but the other pilot, together with an observer and a telegraphist air gunner are missing and they too must be presumed to have lost their lives. Shortly after this accident, a Seafire fighter also from H.M.S. "Theseus," in the final approach to land on, drifted and ran up the extreme port edge of the flight deck before entering the safety barrier, striking and killing a rating of the aircraft handling party who was in the walkway. The third accident occurred on board H.M.S. "Glorv" when a Seafire fighter, on landing, bounced and failed to catch the arrester wires, cleared the safety barriers and crashed into the deck part at the forward end of the flight deck, resulting in the death of an air mechanic and slight injuries to another rating. Boards of inquiry into the causes of these accidents have been convened. I would wish to take this opportunity to express the deep sympathy of the Board of Admiralty with the relatives of those who lost their lives in these accidents.
    Mr. Austin: In view of the high ratio of accidents on this particular day, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is completely satisfied that the postwar training of the Naval Air Arm is satisfactory or adequate for its present task?
    Mr. Dugdale: I am quite satisfied as to that. The process of landing on and taking off from an aircraft carrier is of necessity a hazardous one, and one must expect that, from time to time, there will be accidents. Everything possible is done to prevent accidents. As regards this particular accident, a court of inquiry is inquiring into the cause, and will report in due course.

    Seamen Ratings (Releases)
    Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) if he is aware that for the purpose of demobilisation, the seamen's branch of the Royal Navy is placed in Group 66 and that this group is considerably behind other categories; and if it is proposed to adjust this disparity:

    449
    (2) if he is aware that Royal Marines in Group 72 who were called up approximately 12 months after seamen in Group 66 will be released several months before the latter group; and what is the reason for this disparity.
    Mr. Dugdale: All seamen ratings are not in age and service group 66. They are given age and service groups according to age and date of entry in exactly the same way as other ratings. It is not possible, at present, to release the age and service groups of seamen ratings at the same speed, group for group, as ratings of other categories. For this reason it is possible, but not certain, that Group 72 of the Royal Marines will be released two months before Group 66 of Seamen. No dates for the release of these groups have yet been published. Since the first announcement of the release scheme, it has been made clear that it would not be possible to release age and service groups in the different branches at the same rate. The disparity has been reduced by the transfer from time to time of men from surplus branches to shortage branches, but at this late stage adjustments of this nature are not practicable because of the time occupied in re-training and the short period of further service to be expected from the ratings concerned before their turn also comes for release.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: Would the hon. Gentleman consider issuing a Fleet Order clarifying the position, because there is a lot of disquiet and confusion about it?
    Mr. Dugdale: I am satisfied that in this case it is quite clearly known, but if for any reason I thought it was not, naturally, I would consider the suggestion. My information, however, is perfectly clear that the people do know about it.

    No. 24 Map Review
    Vice-Admiral Taylorasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty by whose authority No. 24 Map Review, published on 29th March, 1947, issued by the Bureau of Current Affairs, was distributed to the Fleet; and if he will see that no further such issues are made.
    Mr. Dugdale: No. 24 Map Review was distributed to the Fleet in accordance with normal practice. I can see no objection to the contents as such, and I am
    450
    unable to give any assurance that similar Reviews will not be issued in the future.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this map, of which I sent him a copy and which I see in his hand, contains party political propaganda and that the principle of putting party political propaganda on the notice boards of sea and shore establishments is entirely wrong and should not be allowed to take place?
    Mr. Dugdale: I emphatically deny that. The only thing that could be called political propaganda in this pamphlet is a reference to what is called the Butler Education Act.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment.

    Warrant Officers (Status)
    Commander Nobleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will make a statement after consideration of the report of the recent committee on the status, etc. of warrant officers.
    Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. I will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member when I am in a position to make a statement.
    Commander Noble: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say when the statement can be expected, and also will he give an assurance that all reasonable demands put forward by the warrant officers themselves will be given every consideration?
    Mr. Dugdale: All reasonable demands will be given every consideration, but I naturally cannot make any promise as vet. I hope we shall be in a position to make a statement shortly after the Recess.

    Compassionate Leave
    Mr. John McKayasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what are the regulations which debar a man from getting compassionate leave to see a dying father when other relations are near home to give the parent attention; in particular, whether such regulations absolutely debar a son from getting the opportunity of compassionate leave merely because of the number of other members

    451
    of the family who reside in the district; and if he will consider granting immediate compassionate leave to P/KX 797029 Stoker T. Brennan, Mess 23, H.M.S. "Theseus," to enable him to see his father who has had several strokes and is in a serious condition.
    Mr. Dugdale: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 22nd May last to the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers). I understand that. Stoker Brennan is the youngest of 12 children and that the rest of the family are available to help and are, in fact, doing so. In the circumstances, I regret that he cannot be given compassionate leave.
    Mr. McKay: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there are more things in life than mere attention when a father is dying, and that there are special reasons why a son in the Services should be allowed to go home on such occasions?
    Mr. Dugdale: I do realise it, and I can assure my hon. Friend that I get no pleasure at all from making such a decision as this nor does my noble Friend, but we have to consider the fact that we are short of men and that we must strictly keep to our commitments.
    Mr. Tiffany: Can my hon. Friend say when the Royal Navy will show the same compassion in these matters as is shown by other Services?
    Mr. Dugdale: It is already shown.
    Major Bruce: Surely, if the state of affairs is as stated in the Question and that this man is dying, it is possible for the Navy to arrange for a short period of compassionate leave for this rating.
    Mr. Dugdale: There are a great many men in the Service who from time to time have relatives who are dying, but we have got to keep the same rules operating for one as for another, and we cannot send some men home and not do the same for others in similar circumstances.
    Mr. McKay: Is not the Minister aware that the regulations now existing have been commented on by hon. Members in this House who have asked that those regulations should be made more elastic?
    Mr. Gallacher: Will not the Minister allow humanity to cut red tape and in
    452
    all such cases give leave when someone in the family is dying?
    Mr. Dugdale: It has nothing to do with red tape, but rather with the fact that the Navy has got to continue. I will convey the views of the House to my noble Friend but I cannot hold out any assurance of any change.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS, WALES (DESIGNATION)
  Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Prime Minister, whether he will give instructions that all Government Departments operating in Wales shall be designated as Welsh rather than Regional.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Some time ago the attention of all Departments was drawn to the desirability of avoiding the word "regional" in the designation of their offices in Wales, and I do not think that any further action is required.
  Mr. Beechman: Will the Prime Minister have a similar arrangement made with regard to Cornwall?

  ARMED FORCES

    Strengths
    Mr. Mikardoasked the Prime Minister, whether he expects to announce before the recess the result of the Government's reconsideration of the numbers of men to be retained in the Armed Forces as at March, 1948.
    The Prime Minister: I hope it will be possible to make a statement on the estimated strength of the Forces on 31st March, 1948, before the House rises.

    British Personnel, India
    Mr. Thomas Macphersonasked the Minister of Defence, what is the estimated number of all ranks British personnel, Royal Navy, R.A.F. and Army, stationed in India, who will be released from duties in that country as a result of the new defence arrangements in the two Indian Dominions.
    The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Freeman): I have been asked to reply. Over and above withdrawals already planned, the total number involved is rather more than 30,000.
    Mr. Macpherson: Can my hon. Friend say if in the statement which we have been promised on the new figures for the Armed Forces regard will be had to this reduction in our military requirements?
    Mr. Freeman: Yes, Sir.

    Closed Roads
    Mr. Digbyasked the Minister of Defence how many roads are still closed to the public on account of their being taken over by one of the service departments; and under what powers are these roads still retained.
    Mr. J. Freeman: The number of roads still closed by the War Department and the Admiralty is 214. I regret that it is not possible in the time available to make an analysis of the 1,350 orders, made by the Air Ministry for the closing of roads, footpaths and bridle paths, which are still in force. All such roads are retained under Defence Regulation 16.
    Mr. Digby: Has not the time now come for further consideration of this matter in view of the complicated number of orders, and will my hon. Friend look into it?
    Mr. Freeman: Yes, Sir, on a particular case one can look into it in detail, but many of these roads were closed for reasons of airfield reconstruction and so forth, and it is impossible to solve these problems at short notice.
    Mr. Medland: Will the hon. Gentleman give consideration to releasing the land around the roads owned and appropriated by the War Office?
    Mr. Freeman: That is another question.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Bread (Vitamin Content)
    Sir Ralph Glynasked the Lord President of the Council whether he has consulted the Medical Research Council on the effect that the extraction of vitamins from the bread now obtainable throughout the country has had on the increase of meningitis and infantile paralysis; and if immediate steps will be taken to reduce the extraction and to ensure that the bread content shall be the same as in 1939–40.
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am advised that the vitamin content of the bread obtainable in this country since 1942 is in fact much greater than in 1939–40, since a higher proportion of the nutrient materials in the grain is retained in the flour. There is no evidence of any relationship between diet and the incidence of meningitis and infantile paralysis, but it is a fact that the death rates from cerebrospinal meningitis and from infantile paralysis in England and Wales were much lower in 1945 than in 1940.
    Sir R. Glyn: Am I to understand that the quality of the vitamins in the bread today is better than it was prewar?
    Mr. Morrison: Generally speaking, I think that is the answer.
    Sir R. Glyn: If that is so, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a great deal of misconception throughout the country? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me when I say that if the increase in mortality as a result of this unfortunate epidemic is in no way due to lack of vitamins in the bread, it would be a consolation if he would give his answer in a way which is perhaps more easily understood by those concerned.
    Mr. Morrison: I am all for answers that can be more easily understood by all concerned. I would not wish to quarrel with the hon. Gentleman. I am assured that there is no connection between this particular disease and the subject of the Question. I am scientifically assured that that is so.
    Sir R. Glynasked the Minister of Food whether he is satisfied that the vitamin content of the bread now on issue throughout the country provides adequate nourishment; and whether, under the circumstances of improving wheat production, he will consider reviewing the whole position so that the nutritious value of bread may be restored at any rate to that obtaining in 1939–40.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): The question of the best extraction rate for flour has already been fully reviewed and the findings of the Conference on the Post-war Loaf were published in Cmd. 6701 in November, 1945.

    455
    The vitamin content of the present 85 per cent. extraction flour is higher than that of the flour available in 1940.

    U.S.A. Wheat
    Mr. George Wallaceasked the Minister of Food to what extent gift shipments of wheat have been made from the U.S.A. to the United Kingdom.
    Dr. Summerskill: So far as I am aware, there have been no gift shipments of wheat from the United States of America to the United Kingdom during or since the war years.
    Mr. Wallace: Is the hon. Lady aware that my Question was put down at the request of two American visitors from the Middle West, who informed me that two shiploads of wheat had been sent to this country?
    Dr. Summerskill: I have no knowledge of them. The Americans kindly sent a small amount of flour during the war to the Women's Voluntary Service and the British Red Cross. Apart from that, there have been no gifts, and no shipments of wheat under Lend-Lease.

    Meat Allocation, Devon (Quality)
    Mr. Heathcoat Amoryasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the unsatisfactory quality of much of the meat now being distributed to butchers in the county of Devon, resulting in both hardship and waste; and what action he proposes to take.
    Dr. Summerskill: The quality of meat at present being distributed to butchers in Devon is not below that for the country as a whole, and I cannot agree that much of the meat is not of satisfactory quality.
    Mr. Amory: Does the hon. Lady realise that some of this meat is absolutely unfit for human consumption, and in view of the relatively poor quality of the meat, does she not feel that it is a shocking waste of hard-earned foreign currency to spend it on the importation of low quality meat?
    Dr. Summerskill: I think that the difficulty is that the people of Devon have been used to very high-quality home-produced meat and now they are having to share in the imported meat. So far as
    456
    the second part of the Question is concerned, I would like the hon. Member to know that recently an official of the Ministry has been in Devon, and other places, and has contacted 90 per cent. of the chairmen of retail buying committees, none of whom has made any grave complaint.

    Oatmeal Production
    Sir R. Glynasked the Minister of Food whether any steps will be taken by his Department to encourage the millers to install machinery for the production of oatmeal in England as is the practice in Scotland, so that oatmeal may become an increasing quota in the diet of persons in the south of England.
    Dr. Summerskill: The processing capacity of the oatmeal industry is fully adequate to meet demand. About one quarter of the total production in Great Britain is milled in England.
    Sir R. Glyn: Can the hon. Lady say why it is almost impossible to get oatmeal in England?
    Dr. Summerskill: I cannot say, because there is no difficulty in transport between Scotland and England, and there is no shortage.
    Mr. Scollan: Would it be possible to bring some Scottish housewives to teach housewives in England how to make porridge?
    Lord William Scott: Is the hon. Lady aware that oatmeal made in England could never possess the quality of Scottish oatmeal?
    Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The constituents of oatmeal in England are exactly the same as the constituents of oatmeal in Scotland.

    U.S.A. Canned Fish
    Squadron-Leader Donnerasked the Minister of Food how much tinned fish has been imported from the U.S.A. in the first six months of this year; and the total cost in dollars of these imports.
    Dr. Summerskill: About 39,000 tons of canned fish were imported from the United States of America during the six months ended 30th June, 1947. The approximate total cost was 22,450,000 dollars.
    Squadron-Leader Donner: Is the hon. Lady aware that this American tinned fish is being sold in my constituency and that the fishmongers on the other side of the street cannot sell their fresh fish, and is not this importation a gross waste of our dwindling dollar resources?
    Dr. Summerskill: I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that 85 per cent. of the imports consists of salmon and pilchards used for points rationing, and that the demand for salmon and pilchards has not yet been met in this country.
    Mr. Spence: Can the hon. Lady say how much silver hake was imported and does she consider that is essential?
    Dr. Summerskill: I could not give an answer to that question without notice.
    Mr. Thomas Reid: Could the hon. Lady say if it is not a fact that in the case of this tinned fish the tin often costs as much as the fish?

    Consumption Levels (Report)
    Mr. J. S. C. Reidasked the Minister of Food when the promised publication on food consumption levels will be available.
    Dr. Summerskill: The Report should be published in about a month's time.
    Mr. Reid: It is 11 weeks since the Minister said the figures were ready and what is the explanation of the delay? Will the hon. Lady see that when the world food review which was promised nearly a year ago is ready in the autumn the delay does not recur?
    Dr. Summerskill: I recognise that there has been some delay, but I must remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there has been a good deal of editing and setting up to do because this is the first time that the British figures have been published alone.

    Wholesale Fish Merchants, Grimsby
    Mr. Youngerasked the Minister of Food how many new wholesale fish merchants have established themselves at Grimsby since the control of licences was abandoned.
    Dr. Summerskill: Since my right hon. Friend relaxed the qualifications for
    458
    wholesale fish licences on 1st July, one licence for herring has been granted at Grimsby to an established white fish merchant. A decision has not been reached on the remaining 89 applications for provisional white fish licences, largely because of the need to satisfy my Department that the applicants have suitable premises.
    Mr. Younger: In view of the fact that there are several hundreds of merchants at Grimsby and that control of fish distribution still persists, can the hon. Lady say what advantage her Ministry expects from the increase in these merchants?
    Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Food reminded the House that perhaps in the fish industry at this stage a little healthy competition might be introduced.

    Street Trading Licences
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Minister of Food whether, in the light of a recent case in which a street trader was heavily fined for breaking the law, he will, in this and similar instances, cancel the licence under which such people operate.
    Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend can only decide whether to revoke the licence of a trader convicted of a food offence after carefully considering all the circumstances of the case. If my hon. Friend will let him have particulars of the case which he has in mind, he will notify him of his decision.

    National Milk Cocoa (Price)
    Mr. Keenanasked the Minister of Food, why the cost of National Milk Cocoa was increased on 1st July last from 6s. 9d. per 6 lb. container to 10s. 3d., and from 18s. 4d. per 20 lb. container to £1 10s.
    Dr. Summerskill: The price of National Milk Cocoa was increased by 7d. per lb. on 1st July, 1947, to cover increased costs of materials and manufacture.
    Mr. Keenan: Is it the full economic cost which is now being charged in the new price?
    Dr. Summerskill: There was a temporary subsidy which covered the period of price negotiations.

    Horseflesh
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that unlicensed slaughterers are doing an extensive trade in horseflesh at high prices which is sent to London for use in sausages and meat-pies; and whether he will look into this traffic in horseflesh to ensure that there is no evasion of the law and that young healthy horses are not slaughtered for this traffic.
    Dr. Summerskill: We have no knowledge of the traffic in horseflesh, which would, if it exists, constitute a breach of the regulations governing the sale of horseflesh for human consumption. If the hon. and gallant Member will let me have particulars of any case of illegal slaughter or disposal of horseflesh of which he is aware, I will see that the matter is followed up with the utmost vigour.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that scores of young colts are reported to have been loaded for killing in Devonshire and would it not be in the national interest that these horses should be turned into the rich pastures of Cheshire and Lancashire instead of being turned into sausages and meat-pies?
    Dr. Summerskill: I saw this information in the "Sunday Express" last Sunday but I have no other evidence.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: I will send the evidence.

    Milk Bottles
    Mr. John E. Haireasked the Minister of Food what is the present rate of production of milk bottles; and what is the unsatisfied demand.
    Dr. Summerskill: The total production of milk bottles for six months to 28th June last was 644,777 gross, showing an average weekly rate of production of 24,799 gross. I am informed that there is no unsatisfied demand at present. If, however, my hon. Friend knows of any particular case of local shortage and will give me particulars, I shall be happy to look into it.
    Mr. Haire: Does my hon. Friend realise that in my constituency I am told there is a delay in some cases of as much as two years, and will she look into it?
    Dr. Summerskill: Certainly.
    Mr. Baldwin: In view of the terrific losses of milk bottles and the unnecessary waste is it not about time that milk producers were entitled to charge for milk bottles?
    Dr. Summerskill: No, we are not prepared to penalise the housewives.

    Jam Making
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Minister of Food why last year's plum pulp is only now being made into jam, and why last year's strawberries are still not made into jam.
    Dr. Summerskill: The preserves manufacturers can only make a proportion of their jam direct from the fresh fruit and for the greater part of the year they have to use preserved fruit. The size of the fruit crops varies greatly from year to year and after a good season manufacturers may carry over stocks to the next. The stocks of preserved strawberries and plums of the 1946 crop are now relatively low.

  BURMA (SITUATION)
  Mr. Eden(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any further statement to make on the situation in Burma.
  The Prime Minister: I am glad to be able to inform the House that, according to the latest reports I have received, the situation throughout Burma remains quiet and under control. The rapid formation of a new provisional government under Thakin Nu has had a calming effect, and has been generally welcome. There is no doubt that the vast majority of the country is solid behind the new Prime Minister and his Cabinet. There was at first a tendency in certain quarters to spread rumours connecting His Majesty's Government and the Governor with the recent outrages. The Government of Burma have announced that they wish it to be known that these rumours are utterly unfounded, that there is close understanding between His Majesty's Government, the Governor and the Government of Burma, and that they are actively cooperating with a view to bringing the culprits to book with the least possible delay.
  The identity of the assassins and the origin and ramifications of the outrage are

  461
  still under investigation. A number of arrests have been made, large quantities of arms and ammunition have been seized in various places, and effective security measures have been taken. The Government of Burma, who are pursuing their inquiries with the utmost energy, are announcing today that they have reason to believe that the persons who committed this dastardly crime are among those arrested, and that the assassinations were part of a plot to overthrow the Government.
  I regret to say that two important consignments of arms and ammunition were obtained from the Base Ordnance Depot at the end of June and from the Base Ammunition Depot on 12th July by individuals impersonating the civil police and carrying forged documents. Investigations by the police, with the co-operation of the military authorities, are being vigorously pursued in relation to these thefts. A Military Court of Inquiry was immediately instituted, and the Burma Command have emphasised that the strongest possible action will be taken against any military personnel found to be in any way guilty of negligence. Meanwhile, the officer in charge of the depots concerned has been relieved of his duties. I am glad to be able to say that the latest reports indicate that the bulk of the material stolen has now been recovered.
  The House will wish to join with me in sending a message of encouragement to Thakin Nu and to his Cabinet. They have shouldered a heavy task with courage and determination and they will have the good wishes and the sympathy of us all.
  Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman, in his statement just now, referred I think to a declaration by the Government of Burma that His Majesty's Government are in no way connected with the recent events in Burma. In view of some allegations that have been made, may I ask him if he will be good enough to make it plain that His Majesty's Opposition, equally, have no connection with this outrage? I ask him to do that, par-
  462
  ticularly, as the right hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friends and myself saw certain of these Burmese leaders at different times, and always at the request which the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to make, and with his full knowledge.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I know that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends saw members of the Burma Government, and nobody would believe that the Opposition did not take the same view as the Government and as the Government of Burma take in regard to these matters.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eden: May I ask the Lord President of the Council if he has any statement to make in regard to Business?
Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. After the consideration of Business of Supply Tomorrow, and the Second Reading of the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, it is proposed to take the Motions on the Paper relating to Double Taxation Relief. With regard to the further Amendments to the Transport Bill which have been received from another place, it is proposed to consider them on Monday next.
May I take this opportunity of adding this statement with regard to another matter? The Report from the Committee of Privileges and a Special Report have just become available in the Vote Office. Right hon. and hon. Members will require time to consider the Report, which is of some length, before Debate takes place. The House will require to debate the Report and the Government will afford an opportunity. The House will not, however, expect me to name the date now, until there has been time to ascertain the wishes of the House through the usual channels. The matter is complicated by the absence of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Garry Allighan) who, I am informed, is on his way to South Africa on medical advice.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'Clock and that the Proceedings
  on Government Business be exempted, at this Day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]
  The House divided: Ayes, 268; Noes, 107.

  Division No. 343.]

  AYES

  [3.40 p.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  McGovern, J.

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Ewart, R.

  Maclean, N (Govan)

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

  Farthing, W. J.

  McLeavy, F.

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Fernyhough, E.

  MacMillan, M K (Western Isles)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Follick, M.

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Ayles W. H

  Foot, M. M.

  Mainwaring, W. H

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs B

  Forman, J. C.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W

  Bacon, Miss A

  Foster, W. (Wigan)

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Balfour, A.

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)

  Barstow, P. G

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Mathers, G.

  Barton, C

  Gallacher, W.

  Medland, H. M.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  George, Lady M Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Mellish, R. J

  Belcher, J. W.

  Gilzean, A.

  Middleton, Mrs. L

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon F J

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Benson, G.

  Gordon,-Walker, P. C

  Mitchison, G. R

  Berry, H.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

  Monslow, W

  Binns, J.

  Greenwood, A W J (Heywood)

  Moody, A. S

  Blyton, W. R

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Morley, R.

  Boardman, H.

  Grey, C. F.

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

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Grierson, E.

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

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

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

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

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Mort, D. L.

  Bramall, E. A.

  Gunter, R. J.

  Moyle, A

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Guy, W. H.

  Mulvey, A.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  Murray, J. D.

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Hall, W G

  Nally, W.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

  Naylor, T. E

  Bruce, Major D. W T.

  Hannan, W (Maryhill)

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

  Buchanan, G.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Burden, T. W.

  Harrison, J.

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

  Burks, W. A.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

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

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Oldfield, W. H

  Byers, Frank

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Paget, R. T.

  Carmichael, James

  Hicks G.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Parkin, B. T.

  Champion, A. J.

  Holman, P.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Chater, D.

  House, G.

  Pearson, A.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Hoy, J.

  Piratin, A.

  Cluse, W. S.

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

  Porter, E (Warrington)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Collick, P.

  Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W)

  Price, M. Philips

  Collindridge, F.

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Collins, V. J.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H

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

  Janner, B.

  Randall, H. E.

  Corlett, Dr J.

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Ranger, J.

  Cove, W. G.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Rankin, J.

  Crawley, A.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Cunningham, P.

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Reeves, J

  Daggar, G.

  Keenan, W.

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Daines, P.

  Kendall, W. D

  Rhodes, H.

  Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

  Kenyon, C

  Richards, R.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  King, E. M

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Kinley, J.

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

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

  Kirby, B. V.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Davies, R. J (Westhoughton)

  Kirkwood, D.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Davies, S O. (Merthyr)

  Lang, G.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Deer, G.

  Lavers, S.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Scollan, T.

  Diamond, J.

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Dobbie, W.

  Lever, N. H

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Levy, B. W.

  Sharp, Granville

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Lindgren, G. S.

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

  Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich)

  Lindsay, K, M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)

  Shurmer, P.

  Durbin, E. F. M

  Lipson, D. L.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Dye, S.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.

  Logan, D. G.

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

  Edelman, M

  Lyne, A. W

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

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  McAdam, W.

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  McEntee, V. La T

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Stamford, W

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Willey, F T (Sunderland)

  Stephen, C

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Tiffany, S

  Williams, D. J (Neath)

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Titterington, M. F

  Williams, J (Kelvingrove)

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Tolley, L.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Vernon, Maj. W F

  Williams, W R. (Heston)

  Swingler, S.

  Walker, G H.

  Wills, Mrs E A

  Sylvester, G. O

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Wilson, J H

  Symonds, A. L.

  Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Woods, G. S.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Watson, W M

  Yates, V F.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Webb, M. (Bradford C.)

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Weitzman, D.

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Mr. Simmons and

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B

  Mr. Popplewell.

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

  Wilkins, W A.

  NOES.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Maj C. E

  Amory, D. Heathcote

  Gammans, L. D

  Noble, Comdr. A. H P

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Glyn, Sir R.

  Osborne, C.

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Beamish, Maj. T V H

  Grant, Lady

  Pickthorn, K.

  Beechman, N. A.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Prescott, Stanley

  Bennett, Sir P

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Price-White, Lt.-Col D

  Birch, Nigel

  Head, Brig. A. H.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig O

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

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Raikes, H. V.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

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

  Bower, N.

  Hogg, Hon. Q

  Roberts, Maj. P G. (Ecclesall)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Hope, Lord J.

  Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

  Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (_din'gh, W.)

  Ross Sir R D. (Londonderry)

  Butcher, H. W.

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

  Savory, Prof. D. L.

  Challen, C.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Scott, Lord W.

  Channon, H.

  Jennings, R.

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Smith, E. P (Ashford)

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Smithers, Sir W

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

  Law, Rt Hon. R. K.

  Spearman, A C M

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H

  Spence, H. R.

  Crowder, Capt. John E

  Lindsay, M (Solihull)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col M

  Davidson, Viscountes.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

  De la Bère, R.

  Low, Brig. A. R W.

  Sutcliffe, H

  Digby, S. W

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

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

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

  Teeling, William

  Donner Sqn.-Ldr. P W

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

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

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

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Touche, G C.

  Drayson, G B.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Manningham-Buller, R E

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J

  Eden, Rt. Hon A.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Williams, C (Torquay)

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

  Marshall, S. H (Sutton)

  Fraser, H. C P. (Stone)

  Moore, Lt.-Col Sir T.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

  Morris-Jones, Sir H.

  Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.

  Gage, C

  Morrison, Rt. Hon W S (Cirencester)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [18TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  SUPPLY

    ARMY ESTIMATES, 1947–48
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £2,856,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the War Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948."

  REGULAR ARMY
  3.49 p.m.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: My right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) indicated last Thursday that it was the desire of the Opposition to discuss today the recruitment, organisation and training of the Regular Army. It is difficult not to feel that this Debate is to some extent overshadowed by the rumours which appeared in the newspapers yesterday and today of impending large cuts in the Armed Forces, and in particular in the Army. I conceive that this is not the occasion on which to debate that question—with one qualification—except so far as those cuts may affect the permanent strength of the Regular Army. It may seem odd to Members of the Committee that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) should initiate a debate upon the Territorial Army, he being a Regular officer of great distinction while I, whose sole experience of the Army before the war, was for a short time as a Territorial subaltern in a horse artillery regiment—which incidentally had neither horses nor artillery—should initiate a Debate upon the Regular Army.
  That seeming paradox demonstrates the complete community of interest between the Regulars, the Territorials, the National Service men and ordinary members of the public with regard to the modern Army. Everyone has now the same interest to see that the Army should be properly recruited, properly trained and properly organised, all sections of it being so inter-dependent and inter-related.
  468
  When discussing the future of the Regular Army we must obviously have in mind its new task. The older tasks exist, although to some extent changed in name. First of all, the Army has to enable us to discharge our commitments to the United Nations organisation, to strengthen the hands of the Foreign Secretary and to carry out the occupational and operational roles overseas. Those really are the traditional tasks, but in the future the Army will have the new task of training the National Service men. The National Service scheme is absolutely dependent upon there being an efficient Regular Army. I had misgivings about the period of 18 months in the National Service Bill, and I have many more misgivings about the period of 12 months. I was very doubtful whether it would be possible to train men properly in that time because I thought that the Regular Army would never be given the men, the resources or the equipment to do that job. If we do not give the Regular Army adequate resources to train the National Service men, the National Service Act will be made completely futile and it will be a complete waste of manpower. We have on the one side the disadvantages of interfering with the industrial and professional careers of these men. It is not putting it too high to say that we cannot afford to waste a single day of the 12 months if we are to get value from the National Service Act. Everyone in the country is vitally concerned in this matter. To use current phraseology which finds favour in certain quarters, we can say that the Regular Army is now an integral part of a national plan for the proper use of manpower. It is the falsest of false economy to cut down the Regular Army so that it cannot carry out that task properly.
  The first question I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman is: What is the planned strength of the Regular Army on 1st January, 1950? It is true that certain figures have been given from time to time. On 13th March the right hon. Gentleman himself mentioned a figure of 250,000, and before that in another place reference was made to the same figure for the purpose of exposition. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that figure stands. If it has been altered, has it been increased or diminished? If so, why? I would stress in this connection the importance of continuity. When some minor

  469
  administrative slip up is found out in the Army, usually we get a tremendous howl from members of the public, but they are apt to forget the enormous fluctuations and oscillations in the strength of the Regular Army. There is a period of semi-starvation and then a vast and enormous expanse. Then follows an equally vast and violent contraction. It is obvious that in that process some administrative mistakes must be made.
  In another connection we hear about the rhythm of production. With regard to the Army, it is absolutely vital that once a figure has been planned, it should be adhered to. We cannot expect those who administer our Army to be able to do their job properly if their ceiling is constantly being changed. Somehow it always seems that the Army is the first target for cuts. It is easy meat for the gentleman who is proposing to use an axe. In view of the new task and the National Service Act, I hope the country and the Committee will realise the wastefulness of cutting the Regular Army beyond a certain figure. The right hon. Gentleman will be more convincing with regard to that planned figure if he will attempt to justify it to us to some extent. I may be met by the answer of secrecy. I do not think we would be entitled to ask him for order of battle details or for details by theatres, but he could give us a great deal more information than he has done in the past about the set up of the Regular element of the Army of the future.
  What are the reasons why this figure of 250,000, if that be the correct figure, should be the irreducible minimum? First of all, take the task of training National Service men. I understand that there are to be about 100,000 of them under training each year. I should say that if we reduce the period to 12 months we shall probably have to have a ratio of four to 10 so far as the Regular element is concerned for training these men. When the whole problem is considered, a ratio of four to 10 will probably not be a serious over-estimate. That means 40,000 Regular soldiers absorbed in that one task straight away. Then there is the Regular element in the Territorial Army. The figure for the Territorial Army is, I understand. 600,000, and the Regular component is planned at two per cent. I make that calculation 12,500. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give
  470
  us his opinion on both those figures. That is 52,500 straight away on those tasks. In connection with the Territorial Army, we must not forget that it has been promised that during the training season the Regular Army will, so to speak, be at the disposal of the Territorial Army.
  That means a further call on the Regular Army's manpower. In certain cases that call will be quite abnormal because of the disproportion in arms between the Regular Army and the Territorial Army. For example, I imagine that anti-aircraft units of the Regular Army will be almost completely used up in assisting Territorial units during that time because relatively speaking there are so many more Territorial units of that branch. So obviously there is an important commitment for the manpower of the Regular Army in that respect. Then I assume that a proportion of the units of the Regular Army will be in the United Kingdom. That is already the case as far as anti-aircraft is concerned and certain other types of units which I will not mention. But I also imagine that, from the point of view of morale, it will be necessary that that shall be so for all arms as time goes on; if there are to be a certain number of Regular units in the United Kingdom, once again that will take a certain amount of the Regular Army's manpower. Again I ask the right hon. Gentleman, is that so?
  Then there is the maintenance of certain special arms or services—airborne forces are a typical example, and certain special signals units and special engineer units which had strange and wonderful methods, of waging war towards the end of the last war. Are these being kept in being? I think most of us would feel it would be a serious thing if they were allowed to die out completely. What arrangements are being made in the Regular Army for keeping in being those special units and special branches of the Service? Then there are the education, welfare and catering services. How many men from the Regular Army will they absorb on 1st January, 1950? It would be of assistance to the Committee if the right hon. Gentleman would give some indication of the layout between these various elements competing for manpower within the Regular Army itself.

  471
  Then there is the maintenance of staff training. I hope it will not be considered offensive to the Regular Army to say that at the commencement of the last war staff training up to the divisional level had been extremely good, but, for a variety of reasons, beyond that level it was hot so good because there had not been the opportunity. That also applies to inter-service co-operation. After many years of, in some cases, painful work, the measure of co-operation became extremely good between the three Services. At the moment I understand that is being preserved by the Inter-Service Staff College, but we would like to hear about the future from the right hon. Gentleman, and to have an assurance that those institutions for preserving inter-Service staff cooperation will continue. The relevance of this question is that this kind of thing absorbs manpower and it is a demand upon the strength of the Regular Army.
  Superimposed upon the strength of these competitive demands which I have listed, is the fact that the Regular Army has to carry out its operational duties overseas. No one can see those disappearing during the next few years. I am sure, if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give us these particulars, he will also welcome the argument from this side of the Committee that paper strengths are different from actual strengths, and when you are deciding whether or not a quarter of a million is too many, it should be borne in mind that a proportion of those men will be on leave, sick or travelling from one position to another. So paper figures are not the real figures by any means with which the man on the ground has to carry out his job. Again I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is not only quantity he wants but quality because, if these various responsibilities under the National Service Act and for the Territorial Army are to be carried out, it will require a well educated and an intelligent type of man; accordingly I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer these questions and to give not only some grounds for supporting the figure of 250,000, if that is correct, but also give us an idea of the picture he is building up of the future layout of the permanent element of the Regular Army.
  That is the first part of what I want to say. The next part relates to the present position. The latest figures, which
  472
  I understand were given to the House yesterday, were that there are at present 108,813 other ranks, 14,894 officers and 15,633 short service men. There has been some confusion about these statistics. Sometimes they appear to include officers, at other times without; sometimes with short service men, and at other times without them. I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would make clear beyond doubt the present statistical position. If my figures are right, they add up to about 139,000, and that means that he is 111,000 short of his target for 1st January, 1950. That is an extremely serious shortage. I do not think we on this side of the Committee want to be alarmist about the matter because, particularly during last winter, the recruiting figures were quite good. Nevertheless, they have fallen somewhat substantially during the summer—I concede that they are to be expected to do this during that period—but even so they have fallen to a level which is pretty low. In December the total number of enlistments were 4,673, of which 2,790 were long service and 1,650 short service approximately. By May the long service figures had fallen from 2,790 to 1,980, and in the case of short service from 1,650 to 1,390. In June the long service figures were up by nearly 200 but the short service figures were down by about 300.
  I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, that he is really running month by month far short of the figure he really requires, because one also has to take into account the wastage figure. That has been given at something like 600 a month, but it is quite impossible to make further calculations upon that figure because, as the Regular element increases in size, the wastage figure will increase. There is the further point that I imagine it would not suit the right hon. Gentleman's purpose to get his 249,999th man on 31st December, 1949. If the Regular Army is to carry out its job, it must be recruited in time for it to be trained for the purpose, and I suggest there is no case at all for complacency over the present figures. What steps are the Government taking over the matter, not only about the numbers but about getting the right type of man?
  I would suggest certain lines to the right hon. Gentleman along which action requires to be taken. First, over pay.

  473
  The most obvious and first step is to revise the rates of pay. Figures have been bandied about and, as is usual with figures, they seem to prove almost anything. I will not give another set to the Committee, but the opinion is widely held that many, individuals in the Army are worse off under the new rates of pay than they were under the old. Secondly, there is widespread dissatisfaction on that ground. Whether it is well-founded dissatisfaction or not is another matter—I believe it is—but it certainly exists to a substantial extent. Thirdly, in my view, the Army is not offering comparable rewards with industry.
  I will give one set of figures to compare increases as between 1939 and March, 1946, between various types of soldiers and men in industry. The first case is of a sergeant with a wife and three children and with nine years' service; his net remuneration has increased by 46 per cent. A warrant officer, class 2, also with a wife and three children finds his net remuneration has gone up by 37 per cent.; and a major with a wife and three children has had an increase of 12 per cent. in his net remuneration. If one takes the figures in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" for February, 1946, in regard to industrial workers, the figure for all operatives is an increase of 80 per cent., and for men of 21 years and over the increase is 76 per cent. That shows the disproportion between the increases. I concede at once to the right hon. Gentleman that my comparison is not quite a straight comparison, because I have selected individual soldiers and not individual operatives in the industrial field. But if I did that, I think the difference would be even more startling, and the tendency has increased since 1946. I think it applies particularly to skilled technicians. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to say what prospects there are of a revision in rates of pay.
  Then there is the question of accommodation. In many cases at present married quarters are just not available and Regular soldiers coming back after perhaps six years of absence from their wives and families are finding it quite impossible to set up house again near their new stations. The right hon. Gentleman must get his share of new construction. I quite agree that that is very difficult at present, but I ask him what
  474
  steps have been taken to see that at each station a certain amount of accommodation is earmarked for Regular personnel. Time and again a man has a house or a flat in which he lives with his wife and family and is then relieved; but he leaves before his replacement comes, and the house or flat gets into the open market, and when the replacement arrives he finds it impossible to get that accommodation. The War Office authorities should make it quite certain that that accommodation is kept earmarked for the replacement, if necessary paying the rent in the interim. Then there is the vexed question of jobs at the end of the period of service. I think we should know what is the War Office organisation for the placing of men when their period of service is over. That is one of the matters which worries a great many people who are considering enlistment in the Regular Army and we would be interested to know exactly what the War Office does or proposes to do about placing these men.
  Barrack accommodation is obviously a matter which cannot be solved immediately, but old-fashioned barracks do lead to enormous waste of manpower. We have complaints of skilled men scrubbing floors, but that is inevitable as long as we have old-fashioned barracks in which a large number of men are needed merely to keep them clean and sanitary. Finally, over equipment, if there is a failure to provide up-to-date equipment a sense of futility will be induced which will do a great deal of damage to recruitment to the Regular Army. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to say something and to do something about the questions of rates of pay, married quarters, a plan for modernisation of barracks, the organisation of placing men when their term of service is at an end and the question of up-to-date equipment. If he will give an indication of what he is prepared to do on those lines it will help recruiting. What action are the Government going to take, or are they going to allow matters to drift?
  I wish to end on a personal note. Unfortunately, the Army has suffered very much in the past from the ease with which it can be caricatured. We have the conventional sergeant major, "Colonel Blimp," the "Whitehall Warrior" and the "Brass hat" with the red tabs. I think perhaps it would be better if senior

  475
  officers could be distinguished in some other way than by way of red tabs and brass hats. When in September, 1939, I went to the Staff College, I confess I went imbued very much with some of those ideas about the Army, but I found that General Paget had gathered around him about as outstanding a staff of regular officers as it is possible to imagine, whose qualities of intellect and character were unrivalled. I also served during the war under various commanders and in association with many Regular officers. I am very proud to have this opportunity to pay tribute to them. I am perfectly certain the Committee and the country need have no fear about the capacity of these men to carry out their responsibilities, if they are given the proper material with which to do so. I am also certain that many of the officers and other ranks of the Regular Army are of the best that this country can produce.
  The Army has not always had tan treatment in the past. We have expected too much from too few with too little, and I hope that is not going to happen again. I am quite convinced that if the right hon. Gentleman has a plan, and will tell the Committee about it; and that, if it is a good plan, and the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to stick to it through thick and thin, then, when it is successful, no one will be more ready to applaud his success than I and those who sit on this side of the Committee.
  4.18 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) I think we are all very worried about the present position and the future. As he said, the question of possible reduction is not one to be discussed now, but I think it is a point on which the Minister should say what is in the mind of the Government. Nothing does the Regular Army, or any of the Services, more harm than to read these things in the Press but to see no Government pronouncement upon them. That is one of the things that puts young men off when they are considering enlisting. They do not like to commit themselves. My hon. and learned Friend very clearly pointed out the difficulties we face with the commitments we now have. Not only are those commitments more than we had before the war, but they are far more
  476
  arduous and difficult. That makes it far more difficult for the small number of men, and the small number of units we have, to be and to remain in a complete state of readiness. They are so far flung that they can never get on with their main job. I, for one, am not seriously worried on that score, because from what I have seen of the soldier of the present day I think he is just as good as, if not better than the man of the past, and he will very quickly pick up what he is not being taught now, if the need ever arises.
  I am worried about why we are not getting the men to join up. It does not matter what the Government say is to be the strength of the Army unless we can get the required number of men. The Government must decide on the figure they want, and that figure must be attained. We must get the Regular Army put in such a position that it is not just a question of getting the exact number we want, but one of being able to be a little more selective, so taking the young man with a little better brain. That is the aspect upon which I wish to speak, and to put to the Minister certain points which I feel tend to operate against recruitment.
  What is in the mind of a young man now when he thinks, "Shall I join up or shall I not?" My first point is that he probably says, "The British Regular Army will be a foreign legion, and if I join I shall never serve at home." I believe that point is in the mind of many men. It must be cleared up, and a statement must be clearly made as to how much service the average soldier will have at home. I know that it is difficult to arrange, but surely it can be worked that, say, one year in every five each Regular unit is at home as a unit, not that it comes home and leaves all its young men abroad, as has been done in the past. In the case of the last joined recruits with only about five months' service abroad, they were told, "You have not done enough service over seas. Therefore, you will have to stay out with another unit." That does a great deal of harm. The whole regiment, the whole battalion, must come back. It should come back and do one year's complete service in every five at least.
  The second point which I have heard spoken about quite a lot by some of the men now in the Services is this question of different types and different lengths of

  477
  annual leave according to the area the troops are in. We were told at Question time yesterday that there are two periods of 19 days if they are nearer home, or one period of 30 days if the are further away. The period of leave ought to be exactly similar for every man in the Service. A man has no choice whether he serves near home or further away, and he should know that he will get the same amount of leave as his pal who is in some other part of the world, that is, leave in this country, not including all the time taken getting here and going back.
  My third point concerns the reduction of units. Men and officers are very proud of their regiment and battalion. I have heard of first battalions with long and distinguished service being put into what is called "suspended animation" and of the second battalion being kept. We also hear that there are to be reductions in the Royal Armoured Corps. There is talk of some of its regiments, with extremely long and valiant service, having to go, while battalions or regiments formed quite recently are to stay. That is difficult for the average man to understand. We all know that in the war we had to train men in very little time compared with that taken in the old days of peace, and that it did not take a new unit long to master its job. Therefore, if we have to have a new type of unit now, I suggest that the oldest regiment be asked to adapt itself rather than that it should be said, "We will have a new regiment, and the old one must go." While I am speaking on the question of regiments and battalions, I would say that in recent years there has been rather too much talk of the spirit of the corps rather than the spirit of the battalion or regiment. The esprit de corps of a unit in a precious thing to a Regular soldier. In war it is difficult to maintain in view of the need for reinforcements, but now that the war is over let us try to rebuild our regimental spirit. The traditions of the unit are of vital importance to a Regular regiment.
  I also wish to touch upon the question of pay and allowances. These were increased, but we know that the pay of other people has gone up more. That is a factor which influences the mind of a young man today. Some people will say that a boy who joins the Services is not looking to the future, but that is not true. He is looking carefully at the future, and
  478
  he looks at the pay rates—what he will start with, what he will get if he becomes an N.C.O., and what he might get if he becomes an officer. He will ask his friends about it. Without question there are N.C.O's and senior officers, majors and lieutenant-colonels in particular, who are no better off now, and are in some cases worse off, than under the old rates. That is mainly due to the taxation of allowances. I would quote the case of one senior officer, who reckons that he is £10 a month worse off than he was before the new pay code was introduced. That sort of thing gets around to young men, and obviously it cannot help recruiting.
  We would also like to know what are the opportunities for the soldier after he has finished his time. That is a point on which the Minister could easily give guidance—what opportunities will there be, and what jobs will be kept, or what percentage of jobs will be available for the Regular soldier when he has finished his time? I have a word to say about living conditions which I shall base upon my own unit. They came home a short time ago, having been abroad during the whole of the war. They were placed in a camp where there was not the slightest opportunity for any of them to bring their wives to live. There was another empty camp alongside it, but no effort was made to provide temporary dormitories or hutments of a suitable nature for married people. They have now been moved to a barracks. Their attitude was, "When we go to a barracks, there will anyhow be quarters there." But when they got there they found hardly any available, the majority being occupied by members of the staff and their families. These are the fighting regiments where the recruits started their Service career. The recruit enters the Service to join a regiment and not to join a staff. Accommodation of this nature should be made available for regiments. If it is not possible to provide the permanent buildings at present, surely it is possible to convert huts so that the families of members of these units can be together.
  I also wish to refer to the purchase of discharge. Before the war it was possible to purchase discharge. Naturally, that system was dropped during the war. Is there any reason why it should not be re-introduced? The percentage of men we would lose would not be great,

  479
  but the percentage of dissatisfied men which are held because they cannot purchase discharge is very great. In a regiment there may be one man who has a very difficult home situation which is not quite strong enough to enable him to obtain his discharge on compassionate grounds. He becomes a most dissatisfied man if he cannot buy himself out, especially when he is told that this was only stopped as a wartime measure. Here we are two years after the war, and the system has not yet been reintroduced. It would not cause a very big wastage and it would help a great deal to promote a better spirit and to stop a lot of grumbling.
  Finally, is there any reason why there should be so much secrecy? Why cannot we be told where different units are serving? If certain units are in Palestine, details should be published in the Press. Why should it not be said what unit is concerned if there is an unfortunate incident? I cannot see that there is necessity for secrecy now. Everybody out there knows exactly which units are there. People at home like to see where their friends are serving. If there happens to be some good action, everybody likes to know the name of the regiment or battalion which has performed it. I ask the Minister to consider these points. If many of these complaints were given attention, I suggest that our recruiting figures would be improved.
  4.33 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Roberts: I intervene in this Debate with some diffidence in view of the contributions which have been made from hon. Members with personal knowledge of the Army. I served in another branch of the Forces. Nevertheless, there is much in what they have said with which I agree. It is essential that the Army should consider further the question of making the pay of the Regular Army equal to the pay for service in industry. It is amply clear now that the new codes of pay have not achieved that object. In several cases men are worse off because of the new way in which allowances are regarded. Wages and salaries in civilian life have increased since the new code was introduced. It is essential that the War Office should look again at the system. A well-trained, well-Paid Regular Army is the essential
  480
  basis of a good Army system, and a fair code of pay is bound up with that. I would also like to associate myself with the remarks made about guaranteeing jobs for soldiers at the end of their service. At the moment there is a lot of uncertainty on this subject. I think that a promise should be given to each man when he joins the Regular Army that at the end of his service a job will be provided for him in civilian life at a certain status taking into account the training which he will be given. Reference has been made to the regard in which the Army is held. The hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) referred to the ease with which it is possible to caricature the Army and said that very much of it was not justified. It might be equally true to say—and I may strike a discordant note here—that all too often much of it is justified.
  I wish to deal, in particular, with the position as regards recruiting men from Wales for the Regular Army. I am afraid that we have not had from the War Office that understanding of our point of view to which we feel entitled. I will not refer to the Territorial Army in detail, because that would be out of Order on this Vote, but I cannot let the opportunity go by without putting on the record our problem in Wales regarding recruiting for the Army. We are a martial nation, willing and anxious to contribute our share to the voluntary Army. The Regular Army will never recruit a proper quota from Wales, unless those who rule the Army begin to understand the special point of view of the Welsh people, particularly those in the rural areas. There, the young men are brought up speaking the Welsh language and nourished by the culture of Wales. It is very important both in regard to the conscript and the volunteer, that they should be trained with and posted to Welsh units during every stage of their service career.
  It is essential that the Secretary of State should make a declaration that it is the policy of the War Office to post Welsh recruits, National Service men and volunteers, to Welsh units, officered by men from Wales. Under the new system the officers themselves will come from the ranks. From my conversations with young men who joined the Army in wartime, and from correspondence I have had since then as a Member, I can assure

  481
  the Minister that few things are more disturbing to a young Welshman than for him to join the Army which in itself is a rather alien institution to him, and to find himself among people who do not understand what he says, and with whom he finds difficulty in communicating freely. The laying down of that principle is vital for the National Service men and the Regular Army alike.
  There is another thing which should also be laid down. In the past we have had disputes concerning the correspondence of Welshmen serving in the Army. Local commanding officers or officers have raised objections to men writing home in the Welsh language, but it is essential that the War Office should lay down—equally with the other principle I have mentioned—that men serving in the Army should be entitled, wherever they live and wherever they are serving, to write home in their own language. I assure the Committee that otherwise, a man is deprived of that most intimate of rights, the right to write his letters home to his family in a language they can understand. An Army Order to this effect in this very important matter should be published to end disputes once and for all.
  The understanding by the War Office of these national considerations is really vital and we are disturbed by certain things which are happening. There was the 53rd Welsh Division, two battalions of which, in the Royal Welsh Fusiliers, went to form the 5th and 6th Battalions. These battalions, recruited men from Anglesey and Caernarvon, Merioneth and Montgomery, the most Welsh parts of Wales, but they have been disbanded by the War Office, although men from these parts are naturally good infantry men. That is done in the name of administrative neatness at the War Office and in Army Commands. These are important considerations, but it is even more important that rather than try to make men fit the machine an endeavour should be made to make the machine fit the factors of national life. I ask the Secretary of State for War to bear in mind that these mechanical arrangements, however difficult they may be or however important they may seem at a certain level, are after all only secondary matters, and that it is his duty so to build up the Army that there is scope in it for the characteristics
  482
  of the men from Wales. There is great foreboding and dissatisfaction with the present position.
  It is not only we Welsh Members on this Liberal bench who take this view, and not only Welsh Members in other parts of the House, but all over Wales representations have been made. They have been made to the War Office by the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion, a society of non-political character covering all aspects of Welsh life. We are far from satisfied that our point of view is understood or accepted by the War Office and unless we have some assurance that it is appreciated and carried out we shall have to reconsider our attitude towards recruiting for the Regular Army and the Territorial Army in Wales. I do not wish to develop that point further. Negotiations are proceeding, but I did not think it right that this Debate should pass without putting on record the things that have mentioned.
  4.45 p.m.
  Sir Roland Ross: I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) concerning the difficulties of Welsh soldiers, and I can support him in one material particular, because, when raising my regiment in Ulster at the beginning of this war, I was fortunate enough to be able to borrow a corporal cook from that sound and tough regiment, the South Wales Borderers. He cooked food so highly flavoured and with so much Welsh pepper in it that we could hardly eat it, and this shows that for the Welsh our food would have seemed rather anaemic. It shows, too, the individual consideration because of which we must guard against treating the soldier as a mere unit or robot—private, trooper, gunner or whatever he may be.
  There is another point—and here I would stress the sympathy of Ulster Members for Wales as compared with the lack of sympathy of Welsh Members for Ulster—which is the question of writing in the Welsh language. Welsh is the Welshman's native tongue and he can express himself in it, and when I was privileged to be in charge of the welfare in a very substantial military district, one of the great difficulties we were always up against between the soldier husband and his wife at home was the great difficulty

  483
  they had in expressing themselves by letter. They were not, as a whole, very literate people, and they found estrangement arising through a complete lack of spiritual contact. I think it is very important in the case of Welsh-speaking troops that they should be able to use the tongue that comes most naturally to them when writing back to their relatives.
  Mr Emrys Roberts: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not assuming that these Welshmen were illiterate simply because they were not fluent in English. The two things do not go together at all.
  Sir R. Ross: On the contrary, I agree that they are positively bardic, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that I am doing my best to support his case.
  Returning to the general Debate I wish to make one or two points, and to deal particularly with Northern Ireland which stands in a special relation as regards military affairs. First, there are the points which two of my hon. and gallant Friends have already made, and which can be summed up by saying that whatever size the Army is, it must be the best in quality that we can possibly obtain as regards material, training, prospects and equipment. There is an old agricultural adage that it is just as much trouble to raise a bad crop as a good one, and that very nearly applies to the Army. We entered the war in 1914 with about the best Army this country has ever gone to war with. That is, perhaps, not a very good standard because we are not as a rule very good at being ready to go to war, but any economy in quality is most dangerous. A bad Army and an Army that is not efficient, is more of a danger and disadvantage than an advantage. It has been said that we did more for the German Army in the Peace Treaty by making it a small, long service arm, and so providing an expert corps from which the Army could be expanded, than if we had let them go on with conscription. Even before the days of Hitler they did not make any mistake about letting the Army be other than a very good and expert body.
  I should like now to emphasise one particular aspect—not on the question of pay generally, a point which was well and truly made by other hon. Members—namely, the fact that the proportionate rate is not enough. It should bear a
  484
  relation to the normal rise of wages. The most important person in any unit is always the commanding officer, whether it be in any of the three Services, and this is certainly the case in the Army. In war he prevents unnecessary casualties, and in that respect he saves the lives of his men. In peace time he makes for a well disciplined and happy unit. An ill-disciplined unit, under the command of a bad commanding officer, is not, generally speaking, a happy or comfortable one to belong to. I think that more attention should be paid to the prospects of senior officers. I know full well that if I went to the country with the slogan, "More justice for major-generals," it would not have very wide support. But I think that the potential major-generals, on going into the Army, should be able to realise that, if they do well and distinguish themselves, they have a career before them in which there is not only a spiritual, but also a material satisfaction.
  In that connection, I think that the worst thing that has recently been done is the taxation of officers' allowances. Hon. Members opposite have a very happy knack of using the word "reactionary," which they sling about in appropriate, semi-appropriate, and, some times, wholly inappropriate senses. But if ever there was a reactionary change, it was the taxing of allowances. Let us consider what are the allowances. A soldier, of whatever rank, was supposed to be fed, housed, and, where necessary, warmed by the Army which employs him. It was subsequently found that it was simpler to let him have a certain amount of money and to arrange these things for himself. Sometimes the amount of money was wholly inadequate, as in the case suggested, that, in London, for 2s. a day a man could supply himself with the almost wholetime service of a manservant. That was the basic idea.
  Now we go back to positively feudal times. In feudal times, a man gave his service, and if he had a certain amount of land he was supposed to do without some of the pay he otherwise got. The taxation of allowances is like saying that people who are well off can warm, feed and house themselves on only 50 per cent., or thereabouts, of those allowances. It is a most distressing thing that the inducement given to potential commanding officers should have been lessened by a reduction not only in relation to the

  485
  present standard of living, but, in some cases, to an absolute reduction of pay in the modern Army. Whenever there is an announcement of increased pay, every officer works out what he is likely to lose by it. They do not all lose by it, but a large number do. That is the impression that increases in pay make on that gallant, but not always fortunate, class of men who are prevented by their loyalty to the Service from making any effective political demonstration.
  I will now come to the particular position of Northern Ireland. There we have an area which, before the National Service Acts were passed, was the best recruiting area in the United Kingdom. In 1938, it had the highest proportion of voluntary recruits in any area. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is a most valuable reservoir from which many good recruits should be enlisted. It should be recognised by the War Office that the conditions in an entirely voluntary area must be distinguishable from those of an area where service is compulsory, and that it requires some special branch, or some particular body of service officers or civil servants to study recruiting in such an area. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to make a special study of recruiting in this voluntary area and to see that it has the material assistance which it requires.
  I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can verify the rumour that the Victoria Barracks in Belfast were condemned at the time of the Crimean war, and that it was almost a relief for the men to go to the Crimea. It is probable that that is no more than a rumour. Although the Germans did their best to destroy those barracks, they were not wholly successful, and they are still being used. I suggest that, except for the new military establishment at Lisburn, the barrack situation in Northern Ireland is not as good as one would like it to be. One of the things which attracts the attention of voluntary recruits is to be able to see good barrack accommodation. That is specially important where we are wholly dependent on voluntary recruiting. I know the struggles which the right hon. Gentleman has to get his buildings, but I would particularly urge the necessity for these things. I hope that we shall hear more definite information than we have yet
  486
  heard from the right hon. Gentleman about the position of the Regular Army. I think that the questions which my hon. and gallant Friends on this side have already asked are questions which could be readily answered, and that a certain amount of publicity will not do the Regular Army any harm.
  4.58 p.m.
  Mr. Symonds: I hope, that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts), and the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) will forgive me if I do not follow them in discussing Wales and Northern Ireland, and purely nationalistic problems. I wish to confine myself to the broader issues raised in the Debate, and particularly to the two issues which affect Army recruiting—pay and conditions in the Army itself, and the post-service prospects for the recruits. It has been suggested that one of the main reasons for the comparative slowness of Regular recruiting is the new pay code. While, in a sense, agreeing with that, I think it is a matter of rather broader economic issues than just the question of the pay code. There is all the difference in the world between conditions now and conditions before the war, because, then, as we all know, Regular Army recruiting varied according to the unemployment figures. The higher the figures of unemployment, the higher the figures of Regular recruiting tended to be. We no longer have unemployment as a recruiting sergeant. Therefore, quite different methods have been used to induce men to join the Regular Army.
  The general aim as expressed in the White Paper, to make pay and conditions in the Services roughly equal to those in civilian life and industry generally, has been successful. There are exceptions and individual anomalies which might well be put right, but by and large I think the aim has been achieved. I am not sure, however, that the achievement in itself answers the problem because, as I see it, any young man faced with the alternatives of taking a job either in the Army or at home, both equally remunerative, will very often tend to choose the one at home, simply because there is no separation from wife, children or the family generally. I do not think it is

  487
  sufficient to make the conditions comparable between the two. What is necessary is some special form of compensation—and I think it is inevitably bound to be financial—for the separation from home which overseas service inevitably involves. Much more could be, and must be, done with regard to overseas stations so that more and more families can be together when the husband is serving overseas. The other day I had an instance of a prewar Regular soldier who got married in 1939, and who has spent only a few weeks at home with his wife since that day. Now, two years after the war, it is still impossible to post the husband to a station where his wife and child can join him. He has expressed his willingness and eagerness to serve at any station in the world, providing his wife and child can be with him.
  As regards the outlook for the Regular soldier after he has completed his military service, we ought to try to get away from the curious distinction there has always been between service to the State in uniform and service to the State out of uniform. There might well be some sort of continuity in the service of the Crown between service in uniform and service out of uniform afterwards. It is rather hard that a man should spend the best years of his life in the service of the Crown in uniform, and then when, because of his age, he is no longer physically capable of quite the amount of effort required from him in ordinary military service, he should have to look around for quite a different job. It should be possible for a man at the beginning of his life's career, if he enters in the service of the Crown in uniform, to feel sure that, as in most other forms of employment, it is possible to look forward to a lifetime's occupation, if he wishes, in that same direction. I think we might well examine possibilities of seeing that in the future our Regular Forces, which inevitably are bound to be comparatively small in number, have some sort of continuity to which they can look forward after their Regular service, so that a man joining the Army will not necessarily feel that after a certain number of years, before he reaches anything like civilian pensionable age, he will suddenly find himself looking for something else to do. If that question of providing continuity of employment for the Regular soldier after he gets out of uniform can be
  488
  considered more thoroughly, his outlook will be much improved.
  5.4 p.m.
  Brigadier Low: I am sure that the Committee are very interested in the suggestion which the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Symonds) has made. I will not follow him directly in what he said, but I will later make a few comments on some of the points to which he referred. I would like to refer to the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), who dealt with the importance of recruiting to the Regular Army. I think it is a matter of such importance that it warrants discussion, especially at a time when like today, all our discussions are overshadowed by a spirit of great urgency. My hon. Friends will agree—and I think the Secretary of State also will agree—that one must view the present recruiting situation with a certain amount, not of alarm, but of urgent concern, and I would remind the Committee that about ten months ago there was the same concern, both in Parliament and in the Press, about the way in which the recruiting to the Regular Army was proceeding. During the winter, recruiting got better, and now it has gone back slightly.
  I would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman a few figures so that we may, perhaps, clear up this question. I have always believed—and I think Government spokesmen also have stated—that the target for the Regular Army is to be 250,000. I find at the moment that, including men on short service engagements, we have approximately 140,000 on Regular engagements, normal engagements, plus short service engagements. This leaves a shortfall of 110,000, ignoring wastage for the moment, if we are to reach the figure of 250,000 in two and a half years—and I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman wants to take as long as that—we shall require every month a net increase of 3,700. We have been told that at the moment the wastage is approximately 600 a month.
  It is quite clear that the wastage is bound to increase as the size of the Regular Army increases. It is bound to increase when the Secretary of State opens the door through which men who are now in the Regular Army may obtain their discharge, because that door is held fairly tightly closed at the present time. The

  489
  Secretary of State will probably remember that when he presented the Estimates on 13th March, he said that once the figure of 250,000 had been reached, in order to maintain that figure and to cover wastage, he required 2,800 men a month. We are now getting only 3,400, including 1,000 short service men and we have not only to maintain the 250,000 when we get them, but we have got to get to that number. The matter is really urgent, because unless we have a Regular Army of the proper size, not only can we not carry out our peace time commitments properly, but the right hon. Gentleman will not be able to make full use of the 12 months' period of whole-time service.
  It cannot be too often said that the whole purpose of the National Service Act will be defeated if we have not efficient instructors of high quality and character to guide these men during that period. I believe the right hon. Gentleman's chief shortage at the moment is of men of the right quality to become N.C.O's, warrant officers and officers. I hold the view that unemployment will not help him in that respect. Even if anybody in this Committee were so blind as to think that unemployment of that size would have any advantages at all, it would certainly not be of any advantage to the right hon. Gentleman. I believe he wants to go for men of the right quality, and it is for that reason that I lay rather more emphasis than I used to do on the pay conditions in operation.
  We have in the past argued this for some time across the Floor of the House. We have always been told that the right hon. Gentleman is waiting to hear from all the theatres and the Home Commands what have been the reactions to the new pay code. I think most of us realised that we would not get adequate reaction until there had been some experience of the period in which allowances have become taxable. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, although we have not had much experience of that, we have at any rate had a little. He certainly has had, as all of us have had, time to hear a little more of the reactions. I agree with my hon. Friends who have said that there is general dissatisfaction. It is very difficult, according to the procedure of the Committee, to argue figures. Any-
  490
  body in the right hon. Gentleman's position starts with an advantage because he has all the figures available only a few yards from him, and he can shout us down; but I should like to put this point to the Committee.
  One of the main objects of the new pay code, as was so rightly stated a little time ago, was to get some balance between civilian rates of pay and the rates of pay in the Army. The new code was fixed in the autumn of 1945. If hon. Members will turn to their digest of statistics, they will find that at that time the points rating for wages over-all in this country registered 51 above the 1939 civilian wage rates. At present, it has risen from 51 to 67. Therefore, any comparison that was made in the autumn of 1945 is, surely, quite out of date, if the right hon. Gentleman's purpose is still the same. I quite realise that we cannot shuffle rates of pay in the Army every time wages are put up or down. That would be administratively impossible. But the change of 16 points in the average over-all wage rates of the country is a very big one; it is something that we should have very much in mind. In the United States of America it has been found necessary to increase the pay of other ranks between 20 per cent. and 50 per cent. since 1945, and that of officers between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. That is a matter to be taken into consideration. If we compare the rates of pay in the British Army of officers and other ranks today—the gross rates before deduction of tax—with those received in 1939, we shall find that in practically every case, there is, as there ought to be, an increase. If we compare the net emoluments they receive, that increase is not so general, but it is fairly general.
  What I am arguing is that the increase has not been sufficient between 1939 and today. I further argue that, whereas civilian wages have gone up since the end of the war, the amount of net pay for many other ranks—privates, N.C.Os., warrant officers—and many officers has actually gone down. It has gone down for two reasons. First, because, particularly in the case of other ranks, certain war service increments have been lost. The right hon. Gentleman's own pay code shows 1½ per cent. fall between the rates in force in August, 1945, and the rates under the new pay code, and so, obviously, we may expect a fall. It has

  491
  gone down—for officers mainly—because allowances have become taxable. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) mentioned in the recent Debate on the Territorial Army that certain officers had lost a substantial sum. I think a lieutenant-colonel with two children has lost £180 a year as a result of the taxation of his allowances. The right hon. Gentleman may well say that there was a warning, and that officers should have accepted that. It is not only officers who lose, but warrant officers and N.C.Os. as well. My hon. and gallant Friend quoted the case of a staff sergeant who, I think, lost between £40 and £50 a year. These losses are substantial and they do matter.
  To sum up my argument since the new pay code was based on a balance with civilian remuneration in August, 1945, and since civilian remuneration has gone up by 16 points; and since the new pay code was also based on the lowering of Income Tax in the near future, which has not taken place, there is a very good case for an immediate revision of this new pay code. I have gone into that argument somewhat fully because I believe it to be one of the most important matters.
  There are certain other factors affecting recruiting which I want to mention. There is a common opinion—not as large as it used to be—that Army life is not a profession. Some people believe it is wrong to treat service in the Army as a profession. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman), whose advice, I believe, does not appeal to the Secretary of State for War so much as it appeals to his colleague the Minister of Defence, thinks so. I hope that the Secretary of State for War disagrees with the hon. Member for East Coventry, and thinks that the Army is a profession, and a very noble profession.
  The second point is the importance of information about the Army, about what is happening; and the importance of that information not being concentrated on bedside lamps. I think we want to know far more of what the Army is doing, and of the new things that the Army is doing. I believe that would be a great recruiting fillip. It would be a fillip to recruiting, for instance, to give information about new weapons. I think that the more information the right hon.
  492
  Gentleman is able to give out—and, of course, there is an old conflict between the giving of information for propaganda and morale purposes and the security instincts of the G.S.I., as we all know—the better.
  The third factor is home service. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the importance of home service to a young man. I hope he realises that a young man does not want to sign on in a job that is going to take him out of the country and away from his family—and, perhaps, away from his wife and children in later years—for five, six, seven years without the prospect of some equivalent period at home. It is quite clear that at the moment, there is inadequate provision made for home service. I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties in regard to housing, barracks, and so on, but inadequate provision is made for stationing formations at home.
  I believe that the importance of the Regular Army to the efficiency of the land forces of the future cannot be exaggerated. The chance of success of this country has always depended on quality, and not on quantity. In order to obtain that quality in the Army, we must have the right number of men in the Regular Army at the earliest possible moment. But in addition to the men we must have good and up-to-date equipment. General Fuller, who is a well-known writer on military matters, has said—and many people agree with him—that the right weapons contribute 99 per cent. towards victory. That may be an overstatement, but it is quite clear that at the moment, for reasons which the Secretary of State explained to us in the last Debate, he has not been able to get any new equipment or new weapons, and, therefore, no new techniques of a major character for the Army.
  In the course of his reply to the Debate on 21st July, the right hon. Gentleman used what I thought were some peculiar words about the up-to-dateness of the equipment of the Regular and Territorial Armies at the present time. I will not quote his exact words, because I think the Committee, and certainly the right hon. Gentleman, will have them in mind. He told us that we had ended the war with a lot of equipment which was already out-of-date, and implied that such

  493
  up-to-date equipment as we had was mostly American, and that we had not been able subsequently to keep that equipment in the Army because we could not get the spares. I hope he will give us some assurance that the position is not really as bad as that.
  I am sure the Committee will feel that this Debate has served a useful purpose if the right hon. Gentleman can give us the assurances for which we have asked. Despite the absence of the ranks of Tuscany from behind him, I hope the Secretary of State will feel that the Committee as a whole is as interested as ever it was in the success of the Regular Army.
  5.22 p.m.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: I think the Army must be going through a difficult period just now, and this Committee should give it any help we can. In the first place, the Army has, to a large extent, to meet a situation it has never had to meet before. There is the new weapon, the enormous effect of which we saw in Japan, whose ultimate effect cannot yet be gauged by anyone, and whose mark on training, tactics and, indeed, strategy, must be very largely a matter of conjecture. On top of that there is the inevitable fact that never again will the Regular Army have a time lag in which to train its reserves and the new Army coming to its support in time of war. It must be ready to kick off, as it were, with its full strength immediately war is declared, or even before that. This is a matter we have never had to face in this country, and I do not think any of us fully realise what it means to the people who are working on it at this moment in the War Office.
  I believe that never again will this country—certainly in a European war—be a base for operations, because that would be too dangerous; the concentration of population would be too great for this country to be a base, and to provide the necessary industries to support and maintain an Army in the field. Then again, the Army is faced with limited manpower, and has but a limited amount of money at its disposal. It has to train a large National Service reserve coming in by dribs and drabs every week and every month, which must of itself impose a great strain upon the Regular training staff. Finally, it has great garrison commitments abroad.
  494
  All this means that the Army must cut its coat according to its cloth, and must be prepared to sacrifice ruthlessly anything which is not of immediate importance and vital necessity. Before the war it seemed to me, as an amateur soldier, a Territorial, that the Regular Army did not do that, and that the War Office did not do it either. One example sticks in my mind. In 1935, I remember going to a brigade headquarters of the Royal Horse Artillery. We called them "brigades" in those days; they are regiments today. I went around that brigade headquarters with the commandant, a lieutenant-colonel, and when we came to the gunnery training school in the establishment I found that it consisted of a shed containing a table. The gunnery training was conducted in this way. Before starting ranging a man with a lighted cigarette was seated underneath the table to register the supposed fall of shot; he puffed the cigarette, the smoke spiralled through holes in the table, and the fall of shot was registered.
  Now, that was a crack brigade of the Royal Artillery; the Royal Horse Artillery, the right of the line and the pride of the British Army. When we consider the amount of money the Army was spending at that time on the Royal Artillery—on horses, equipment, and so on—it was obviously fantastic not to have the operative part, the gunnery, properly organised with an efficient system of training, such as the heavy guns had at Shoeburyness. But it goes further than that, because the cost of this amateurish apparatus had come out of the pocket of the commandant; it had not even been paid for by the Army. In those days, at all events, in spite of the enormous amount of money being spent on the Army year by year, the really vital things were lost sight of, and a great deal of money was spent on matters which were not of first importance. So I do beg my right hon. Friend and the Army Council to try to determine for themselves what are the matters of first importance upon which their limited amount of money must be spent, and to spend it on those matters and ruthlessly to cut out anything else.
  Recruiting is the special subject for today, and affects what I have been saying. I am impressed—as I think we all must be—by the allegation that the new pay

  495
  code is having an adverse effect on recruiting. I cannot say whether that is so or not; only the Secretary of State can say that. But it is fantastic to make a statement such as we heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown), that a young man is dissuaded from entering the Army because a lieutenant-colonel receives £10 a month less now than he did before the new pay code. That sort of argument is childish and detracts from the value of the case put forward on this pay code. We all know perfectly well that no young man entering the Army as a recruit would ever bother to compare the pay of a lieutenant-colonel—who, after all, is a being on a very high plane to the recruit—in 1946 and his pay in 1947.
  To my mind, recruiting for the Regular Army before the war was bad. It depended very largely upon a Territorial Army permanent staff instructor, who had to cycle or walk round his area every week and clock in, as it was called, at the post offices to show that he had circled the area on that particular day. Those permanent staff instructors had no interest in it whatever; they were interested only in the Territorial Army; they got no extra pay for it, and the Regular Army was definitely handicapped by having to rely upon such an uncertain source for its recruits. When my right hon. Friend replies I hope he will give us some assurance that that old system of using the Territorial Army permanent staff instructors has gone, and will never be replaced in such a way, but that some more efficient system is employed at the present time.
  We often hear it said from both sides of the Committee that it was unemployment which drove men into the Army in the old days. To some extent that may be true, but there was also a lot of keenness for the Army. There are people in this country who enjoy soldiering; they are natural soldiers, who join the Territorial Army or the Regular Army. I remember some years ago a young man who wanted to join the Welch Regiment. The standard of height was not very great, but he happened to be half an inch below what was necessary. All he had in the world was 10d. He went outside the Barracks and bribed a man to hit him on the head with a bottle to raise a swelling,
  496
  and then went back to the medical officer, who accepted him because his height had been made up to the right standard. That man has served in the Army ever since, and he is serving today. He has been a fine soldier, and has brought up a family in the Army. I guarantee that there are very few Members in this Committee who would be prepared to go to that extent even to become Members of Parliament. It shows that there was keenness in the old days, and that it was not only unemployment which brought men into the Army.
  We must face the fact that after every war recruiting is bad. We have to obviate this difficulty in some way. Speaking as an onlooker who has never been in the Regular Army, I have one or two suggestions to make. I agree that too much foreign service is detrimental to recruiting. It is difficult to avoid it, especially under present conditions, but I would ask my right hon. Friend what is the position in regard to Gurkha troops, of which there are, I believe, 10 battalions? Then there are the colonial troops. They do not like to serve outside the colony in which they live, but it seems to me that there is no reason why they should not serve within their own areas to release our Regular soldiers.
  I believe that we shall have to pursue methods of this sort in order to economise in our manpower overseas, as I feel certain that this is one of the chief detriments to recruiting. Secondly, I would ask my right hon. Friend as far as possible to get rid of the petty, trifling, irritating restrictions which are so prevalent in some units. We all know the sort of thing which happens when there is a narrow, small-minded commanding officer or battery commander. Instead of overlooking tiny faults, he jumps on them, with the result that a happy unit soon becomes very unhappy. I would put a broad outlook on the part of the commanding officers even above welfare and matters of that kind. However good the welfare is, and however many sets of ludo there are in a unit, if the commanding officer is a little Napoleon, tyrant or dictator, there will be an unhappy unit.
  Years ago, there was a battery commander of the Royal Horse Artillery who was known to have no interest in welfare. He used to spend most of his time hunting, but they always sent him a telegram when

  497
  an inspecting general was about to arrive at his unit. On one occasion a general came to inspect the battery. The men were lined up for inspection in two ranks, and after inspecting the front rank, the general turned to this battery commander, and said, "I have never seen such a filthy lot of men in my life." The major replied," Ah, Sir, you wait until you get to the rear rank, that is where the lousy ones are." This is a true story, but the point of the story is that it was an extremely happy unit. The men loved their battery commander, and it is perhaps not surprising that they fought extraordinarily well at Omdurman, and they pulled the battery commander out of danger when he was badly wounded.
  I hope that the War Office will take into account any recommendations which may be made in regard to summary punishments and courts-martial. I do not know what stage the Committee's findings have now reached, but in some units in the past there has been a great feeling of frustration on the part of the men because they thought they were not getting justice and a square deal. The Army Act gives tremendous power to commanding officers, and in many ways the powers given to commanding officers and to courts-martial are out of tune with modern ideas. That is why I ask my right hon. Friend to go into the question carefully, and to limit these excessive powers in accordance with the views of the times.
  5.37 p.m.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I am always very happy to follow the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) because of the very useful and constructive speeches he delivers on the Army. I can find nothing upon which to criticise him, except perhaps his last story which I find a little difficulty in swallowing. I shall have a word to say on the question of welfare in a moment. It is apparent that recruiting is not going as well as it should do, and that we are not making up for normal wastage. It would appear that we shall not have the numbers requisite by 1950. I suggest that this is due to the extremely inadequate propaganda, although I prefer to use the word "advertisement," and, to the question of pay, which I again wish to drive home to the right hon. Gentleman. As I have said before, I am convinced that were the conditions of service
  498
  in the Army as they should be, we could raise a voluntary Army up to the strength required. I shall continue to say that, because I believe it is correct.
  The basis of the new pay code, as has been stated, was that it should provide parity with industrial wages. I wish to produce one instance out of many to disprove that this has been achieved. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Ministry of Labour's Statistical Digest and compare the figures shown there with a soldier's pay, he will easily see where the discrepancy arises. Take the case of the average two-starred, well-trained soldier who is married. Taking into account his pay, his "home saving," in which is included his food, clothes and his roof, which are his "perks," and his marriage allowance, he receives 97s. a week. That is what the average highly-trained soldier receives in the Army. He is below the expert, and above the recruit. Let us compare his 97s. with the figure shown in the Statistical Digest for April. We find that the average for a man in industry over the age of 21 is 120s. 9d a week.
  These figures cannot be denied, and until this discrepancy is overcome there will still be a feeling that the soldier is not being paid as well as his counterpart in civil life. I hope the Minister will not say that I should realise that these civilian figures include bonus and overtime, because I would point out that the soldier spends a great part of his Service life working overtime. He works on Sunday, and does not get double pay for it; he works all night on occasions; and when he goes out on divisional exercises he may get only two hours sleep a night for a fortnight. He does not get a bonus or overtime. There is, however, one part of the pay code with which I am in complete agreement—the abolition of specialist rates of pay. Towards the end of the war the position in this respect became farcical; commanding officers who tried to get a little more money for their men used to qualify all sorts of people for specialist rates of pay, until there was hardly a man in the Army who was not receiving some kind of specialist pay.
  The whole idea of the one, two and three star basis is excellent up to a point, but it has one limiting factor. Whereas it has brought the ordinary fighting soldier up to the level of the man who drives a

  499
  carrier, fires a machine gun, or works a wireless set, it has reduced the expert technician to that level. The expert technician should not be on the same basis. I refer specifically to the radar mechanic, the armament artificer, the instrument mechanic, and the wireless mechanic. When they go back to civil life they will be of great value to the community, and will receive high rates of pay. They should not now be on the same basis as the ordinary star soldier. The Minister will not attract the best brains into the Army to fill these posts unless men know that they will get a higher rate of pay than the ordinary skilled soldier. The excuse has been offered that we cannot afford this. I do not think that we can accept that excuse any longer. We see vast sums about to be spent on nationalisation and social security schemes, with which latter I am in entire agreement, but I suggest that it is very short-sighted not to pay a simple premium on an insurance policy which will ensure that the advantages of those schemes can continue to exist by reason of the fact that we shall not be invaded or conquered.
  On the question of training, I assert—and I hope I shall be contradicted—that training of any sort in Germany has come to a complete standstill. I believe that units are dispersed over wide areas, and are split into small sub-units. They never see the rest of their regiment from one year's end to the other. They are on guard duties all day long, and there is virtually no training of any value going on at all. There is also no collective training. Without individual training the soldier is valueless, and without collective training individual training is also valueless. I hope that some new arrangement will be made, that some guard duties will be reduced, and possibly, taken over by the Germans. Are there no Germans who can be trusted to guard D.Ps., or see that the right sort of doctrine is taught in German schools? Our soldiers are standing over school children to see that they are not taught the Nazi doctrine. I should have thought that we would have got beyond that sort of thing by now.
  I have one constructive point to make about relating the standard of living index to the rate of pay in the Army. I fully realise, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North
  500
  Blackpool (Brigadier Low) has said, that rates of pay in the Army cannot be altered as the index figure rises and falls. But I suggest that there might be a standard of living allowance, entirely separate from any other allowance, which should fluctuate with the rise and fall in the standard of living.
  There is another point which creates dissatisfaction in units. It is a child of the war. I never thought that it was necessary in wartime, but it is even less necessary now. It has to do with commanding officers and brigade commanders leaving their commands, and new officers being appointed in their place. During the war, commanding officers used to arrive to take over a unit after the outgoing commander had left. I had to take over a brigade after only five minutes' conversation with the previous brigadier. That sort of thing is absolutely wrong. It is impossible for an incoming commanding officer to get to know the characters in his regiment in under three months, unless he is given some indication by the outgoing commanding officer. Unless this is done there are all sorts of cases of unfairness and anomalies in regard to pay, promotion, and leave. I hope that an A.C.I. will be issued laying down, categorically, a specific time during which commanding officers and brigade commanders must live alongside their outgoing opposite numbers, so that valuable information can be transferred.
  We have heard a lot lately about welfare, both from Members opposite and Members on this side. The correct type of welfare is not provided by one officer—probably a junior officer, who is useless for anything else—who is given the job of running the ludo and darts games, and all the rest of it. Every officer and every N.C.O. in a unit is a welfare officer. Until officers see that their men are properly fed and bedded down before they have their own meals there will not be happy units. That is all I have to say, except this: We get criticisms of the "brass hats." The War Office is in exactly the same position as any other Ministry. The right hon. Gentleman is responsible; the whole of the responsibility rests fairly and squarely on his shoulders. It is up to him to apply the energy and the effort, with all the personality he possesses, to see that the

  501
  Army gets a square deal—I go almost so far as to say for the first time in its history.
  5.50 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: My remarks will be brief because I do not want to delay and thus incur the displeasure of the right hon. Gentleman who, I believe, will follow me. They are primarily directed to the subject of recruitment for the Regular Army. I am strongly of the opinion that one very useful factor which would help recruitment would be some form of guarantee, which is not impracticable in the circumstances, that soldiers who have completed their term of Army service in the Regular Army should be given an over-riding priority in connection with civilian appointments after they leave the Army. It should not be beyond the bounds of possibility, with the kind of Government which we have in office, and with the kind of social and economic developments which are going on in the country at the present time, to regard as impracticable some such form of guarantee. As it is, many men in the prime of life when they leave the Army find themselves completely at a loose end, and that, I am sure, has been a deterrent to recruitment in the past.
  My next point links up with a suggestion made by the hon. Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer), and is a suggestion which I made a year or so ago, as to whether it is possible to form some kind of Foreign Legion which could work with the British Army and be officered by British officers. There are large numbers of people in this country and other parts of the world who were associated with the Allied war effort, and who might be glad of an opportunity to join some kind of Foreign Legion on terms and subject to such conditions as the War Office might consider desirable.
  My next point is that, for some curious reason which I have not been able to understand, there appears to be discrimination as between recruitment for the Regular Army and recruitment under the National Service Acts. Under the National Service Acts, no questions are asked as regards parentage and matters of that sort. The recruit is called up, and so long as he is British born and does his service, no questions are asked, but when it comes to the Regular Army or the
  502
  Territorial Army various difficulties are placed in the way of the man. For one reason or another, he may have one of his parents who is not of British birth. I have a case at the moment, which I am trying to get cleared up with the War Office. A young fellow in my constituency—like other hon. Members I do my best to encourage recruitment for the Regular Army—is 17½, and he desired to join the Regular Army before he was called up under the National Service Acts. His application was turned down. The only reason I can find for this refusal is that his father is Swiss, although his mother is British. His father became a naturalised British subject 30 years ago, and two brothers of this young man, also born in this country, served during the war. This young man is denied the opportunity of joining the Regular Army, and unless a favourable decision is made, he will have to wait until he is called up under the National Service Acts.
  I know of another case affecting a constituent of mine which shows a curious mentality on the part of some one at the War Office. A Territorial officer, whose pedigree is unimpeachable, and who has been serving since the Territorial Army was embodied in 1939, applied for a Regular Army commission. His application was turned down, and he was offered a short service commission. I cannot understand why an officer who has been serving for so long, and who has earned a good report from his commanding officers, should be rejected for a Regular Army commission and offered a short service commission. The only explanation I can think of is that the War Office may save a few pounds in a few years' time. That does not appear to be an adequate reason for the peculiar form of treatment which they have handed out in this case, which is within my own personal knowledge, and which is possibly repeated in other cases. I think that in little things of that kind, concessions could be made, without detriment to the national interest, which would be to the advantage of recruitment for the Regular Army.
  5.56 p.m.
  Mr. Eden: I have been glad to note as the Debate has proceeded that there is in no quarter of the Committee any feeling that the Opposition have done wrong in putting down this subject for discussion. It is

  503
  certainly the duty of this Committee to examine these problems. I notice that until the intervention of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Symonds), the approach of the party opposite was what seemed to be an avowed Trappist silence in regard to this discussion. I was getting worried about it. I thought that they must be feeling so depressed by this morning's proceedings, that they were unable to say anything, but I must be very careful because I know that those proceedings are highly confidential, and I must not seek to penetrate the veil.
  Mr. Gallacher: So the right hon. Gentleman will not tell us anything about them?
  Mr. Eden: Unhappily we can neither of us do that. We are today discussing the Army's future role and the problems of recruitment for the Regular Army. We are not discussing the commitments which the Army is called upon to fulfil, nor are we discussing conscription under the Act which the House has already passed. I would be ruled out of Order if I attempted to do so. With regard to the part which the Army has to discharge, I would remind the Committee, especially in view of what has appeared in the newspapers in the last day or two, and of the repeated assurances given during the Debate on the conscription issue. As the right hon. Gentleman will remember, during the Debate on the limitation of the Forces to be raised under the scheme which the House finally approved—that is one year instead of 18 months—we were repeatedly assured that such limitation would not involve any reduction of our existing commitments. I do not wish to discuss that matter today, but merely to note that those assurances were given to me personally by several Members of the Government, including the Foreign Secretary, and that is where we still stand. Therefore, any departure from, or any diminution of, these commitments would be a matter of the gravest significance for all of us. In any circumstances I should hope, if I may say so, that this House would be unwilling to consider anything of that kind in an atmosphere of scare or scuttle.
  Today, however, that is not our main concern. Our main concern is to try to save the Government, within the sphere of agreed decisions already taken, from a repetition of what is already a characteris-
  504
  tic pattern in their behaviour. We are now dealing solely with the recruitment and organisation of the Regular Army. Time after time, as it seems to us on these benches in recent months, we have on other issues drawn the Government's attention to impending difficulties in various spheres, and we have had very little thanks for our pains. We have been scoffed at as panic mongers, only to find when the time arrived, that our fears and predictions had been only too well founded, that we had given the Government rather more credit than we should have done, and that the Government were planless in the grip of a situation which they had not foreseen or provided for.
  I come to the position in respect of the Regular Army today. Our anxiety is to ensure, so far as this Committee can ensure, that that does not happen where the future of the standing Army of Great Britain is concerned. I cannot pass on to what I have to say about the Army of the future without making one reference—and here I am sure I have the sentiment of the whole Committee with me—to the present position of our troops in Palestine. I think that there ought to be on the occasion of this Debate some indication from the House that we understand and sympathise with the extremely harassing duties that all ranks in Palestine are now called upon to perform. Those are not the dangers and discomforts of active service under war conditions. They must, I feel, suffer severe distress in maintaining discipline and performing unpleasant duties under conditions of extreme provocation. I think also I would carry the Committee with me if I say that the bearing of our troops under these exceptional, arduous conditions, commands general admiration from us all. After this Debate, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will send some message to that effect from the Members of the Committee.
  I address myself now to this problem on which we want to focus the Government's attention, namely, the future of the Regular Army. It appears to us in the light of the information available, that the recruitment figures and the planned strength of the Army give serious cause for alarm. Might I briefly put the position as I see it? By the beginning of 1950—the right hon. Gentleman can correct me in a few minutes if I am wrong—unless the Government go back on the clear under-

  505
  takings which they have given to the men in the Services, the only National Service men still serving will be those called up under the Act which the House passed two months ago. These one year conscripts will number, if we are to judge by the size of the annual intakes forecast, a little above 100,000. The remainder of our standing Army at the beginning of 1950 will consist of men serving on regular engagements.
  The Government have repeatedly indicated that the permanent side of the Regular Army is intended to be approximately 250,000 men. What is the position at the moment? Against that figure of 250,000 there are, I think, rather fewer than 110,000 regular soldiers serving. That means that with the present wastage rates of regular soldiers the average monthly recruitment which we need in order to raise our Regular Forces to the Government's figure of 250,000 by 1950 is, I reckon, about 5,300 a month. The best figures we have seen were those towards the end of last year, which were about 4,500 a month and which were encouraging, but those figures included a large number of short service enlistments, which may or may not be converted in due course to normal Regular engagements. Whether they are converted depends on inducements, upon which I want to say a word in a minute or two.
  Since last year the situation has become, if our information is correct, more and more alarming. Recruitment has fallen steadily in each successive month of the present year until in June last—the last figure we have—the figure was less than 3,250. In other words, we are now running at the rate of 2,000 recriuts a month less than the minimum monthly figure which we need to restore the Regular Army to the planned size at the required date. I ask whether these estimates are right, because if they are right they reveal a very serious situation, and I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions on the position.
  The first question I should like to ask is, are my figures and calculations approximately correct? If they are, have the Government realised the existence and the gravity of the problem which is now developing? Have they understood that on present indications they will find themselves at the beginning of 1950 with a most serious shortfall in the size of our Regular Army. If that position does
  506
  develop they have also to bear in mind the warning given so well just now by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) that no Army at the present time in this country can serve its defence purposes unless it be immediately ready, and with its present recruitment strength it could not be immediately ready. I asked the Government whether they have realised these things, and, if they have, I ask that the House and the country should be told of the measures which the Government propose to take.
  What do the Government propose to do? Have they plans to reverse the present unfavourable trend in recruitment and, if so, what are they? If those plans do not succeed, how do they propose to achieve the minimum figures for the Regular Army which they themselves laid down? There is a matter which is not often realised in the reports one reads in the Press, and that is that the continuation of the National Service Acts will give us little help with this problem of recruits, if we are faced with a large deficiency in the Regular Forces. It is no solution, even if it were possible, which it hardly is, to retain conscripts with the Colours beyond their normal term. The functions which the Regular Army has to perform—and I know the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me—are very largely functions which under our system can only be performed by long-term Service men. In the first place, they have to provide the cadres to train the annual intake of conscripts. They have to provide further cadres for the new Territorial Army. These are both tasks which only Regular, experienced and highly trained Service men can discharge.
  Mr. Harold Davies: There is just this point. Would the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that those two groups may at the end of their service decide to go into the Regular Army and, therefore, the picture is not quite as black as the right hon. Gentleman is painting it at the moment? Am I not correct there?
  Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman may or may not be correct. None of us can tell, but what I am obliged to base myself upon is the position as it stands at present. It may be that what he says is true, and that in those two groups some of the short-term Service men may prefer to stay

  507
  longer; but I am bound to say that the figures of recruitment at present show very little indication of that, and unless the Army can be made more attractive—a subject on which I wish to speak in a moment or two—it seems to me that the trend is likely to be the other way and we are likely to find ourselves by 1950, by a series of shortfalls in the Regular Army, with nothing like the figures anticipated. If anything is wrong in those figures and calculations I shall be glad if the Minister would tell us.
  I will give an estimate of what I think is required. There are two fields of activity, the training of the intake of conscripts and the training of the cadres for the Territorial Army. I suggest that those two groups of activity would employ something like 40,000 regular N.C.O.'s and men. Then there are our overseas garrisons and the provision of a high percentage of all the occupation duties, which will still fall to be performed in 1950. There again, though conscripts will help, there must be a large percentage of Regular Forces for occupation duties. These are tasks which must be done. I think I have said enough to show that the critical position which the Regular Army appears to be in with the falling off of recruitment is rapidly leading us to the possibility that when 1950 comes, it will not be able to discharge its task.
  Hon. Members in this Debate—some of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee and some hon. Members from the other side—have made a number of very valuable suggestions to the Government for improving recruitment and increasing the inducement to the volunteer. I want to say this in all seriousness to the Government before I pass on to the question of inducement. If the Government are decided that this is the Regular Army which is their minimum requirement to carry out the national and Imperial needs, they must go all out to get that figure and must start going all out now. Do not, please, leave it to the very last minute when you are approaching 1950 and find that it is too late to get the men.
  May I tell the right hon. Gentleman what I think he should do above all. He is probably aware of all the suggestions that have been made with great frankness, but I think that he will admit that
  508
  they have been put forward to help him in his task. They have come from all parts of the Committee, but I think that the most important of all are those dealing with the question of rates of army pay, especially, if I may single out one section, those for warrant officers and non-commissioned officers. Those rates of pay today do not bear any relation to the general level of wages which men of comparable intelligence, skill and training can command in civilian life, and until that discrepancy is met I fear that the right hon. Gentleman will not obtain the recruits for which he looks. If the Government allow this disparity to go on they are really placing an unjust strain upon the patriotism and sense of duty of the men who come forward to volunteer or who would wish so to come forward.
  As I have said, I am not today arguing the general merits of the Government's defence plan, but whatever that Plan may be, the Government must take the necessary measures to put it into effect. The Government's present failure is that, having made a scheme and having budgeted for a Regular Army of a certain size, they are failing to recruit that Army. We are asking today, first, whether the Government have realised the extent and consequence of the failure which is developing, and, second, what measures they propose to take to remedy it before it becomes so serious as to threaten the collapse of their whole scheme.
  I conclude with this warning to the right hon. Gentleman. This Debate was brought forward after we had carefully considered the figures because we are genuinely concerned at the situation which may confront us at the beginning of 1950. We want the right hon. Gentleman to understand that the warning which we are giving him of our anxieties, though intended to be constructive in spirit, is a very serious warning. If the Government have not remedied the position by the date to which I have referred—their own date of January, 1950—a very heavy responsibility will lie upon them, but at least they cannot say that they have not been warned by this Committee or that this Committee has not done its part both by warning them and by suggesting measures by which they can meet the risks we see ahead.
  6.13 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): With the general tone of the Debate, and especially with the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), I have no fault to find. Indeed, I have some commendation to express because the situation as the right hon. Gentleman has put it, is perhaps not quite so alarming as he appeared to suggest. The position is certainly serious. But if any matter may be said to be a non-party one it is the defence of this country. In the course of my remarks I shall suggest that it will not be possible for any one Minister, whether the Minister for War, the Minister of Defence or any Service Minister to solve this problem by himself for reasons which are obvious to the whole Committee at the present moment. Whether we increase the pay by 50 per cent. or not, the fact remains that there is serious and intensive competition from industry. We also have to overcome the weariness of six years of war. Men do not want to go into the Services but wish to be in civil life, although in certain circumstances this may be less beneficial to them even from a financial point of view than if they went into the Army.
  Our principal anxieties at the moment are concerned with the lack of skilled soldiers—that is speaking for my own Service. But no doubt this affects the other two Services as well, to a greater or lesser degree and, perhaps, so far as concerns the Royal Air Force, to an even greater extent because they have such a large proportion of skilled tradesmen in that service. Our main anxiety is to maintain the forces that we have in existence at the present time, in the interim period before I950, with which most hon. Gentlemen have been dealing, and to carry out the commitments which are vital to us. In that respect it is very difficult to compete with industry, which is offering far better conditions—short-term perhaps—than the Army can hope to offer under present circumstances.
  Before I come to the details of the speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee, I would like to take up the remark made by the right hon. Gentleman in relation to our troops serving in Palestine. It was my intention,
  510
  particularly after the news that we had heard today from Palestine in relation to two of our N.C.O.'s——
  Mr. Oliver Stanley: Has it been confirmed?
  Mr. Bellenger: I have no more information than was given by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary as I have been here all the time since he made his statement. Nevertheless, certain information was given and whether the news is confirmed or not that these two N.C.O.'s have lost their lives, the fact remains that their lives are in jeopardy. This applies not only to their lives but to those of other troops in Palestine, and it was therefore my intention to pay a tribute to the patience and forbearance of our troops there under most trying and serious conditions, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has anticipated that. Those troops, who are only carrying out the policy of their Government and those set in authority over them, and who, in the main, bear no great antipathy towards the indigenous population, are jeered at, insulted, provoked and badly treated in every way by those who, to a certain extent, owe their safety to them. In view of this the Committee will I am sure share my view that we cannot render too much thanks to those troops on behalf not only of the House of Commons but of the rest of this country as well, for the forbearance and patience they have shown in very difficult circumstances. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that a message should be sent to them from the House as a result of today's Debate and I will certainly consider it.
  Before I come to the composition and the recruitment of the Regular Army, perhaps the Committee will permit me to say one or two things which are related to this question and which arise from a remark made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). He mentioned the scare headlines which we have seen to the effect that the C.I.G.S. has suddenly been ordered home or that he is coming home in order to make drastic cuts in the Army. This is all quite remote from the truth. The Chief of the Imperial General Staff was not ordered home. I gave him no instructions to come home and he is coming home on his own initiative. I understand that he

  511
  will arrive in this country about 8th August, which I imagine will be after the date when the crisis referred to in those headlines is supposed to reach its height. So far as this House is concerned, this will certainly be so since the Debate will be next week. Decisions have been taken in relation to the reduction of the Armed Forces, but this does not apply to the Regular Army where our policy is the opposite one. We are doing all we can to increase the figures in relation to the forces now serving in the Army. We have taken decisions of which the Chief of the Imperial General Staff knows and approves, although they have been taken in his absence.
  As a result of these decisions it was announced that part-group 63, so far as the Army was concerned, was to be released by the end of the year. This means that 48,000 more officers and men will be released in the last quarter of this year than we originally planned. In effect, we are planning to increase release in the last quarter of the year in the Army by nearly 100 per cent. over our original plan when we announced that part-group 61 would be released by the end of the year.
  Mr. Eden: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving us more information about this matter, to the great relief of the Committee? I would like to be clear that this great acceleration that is proposed is in no sense contrary to the fulfilment of the commitments which the Government have hitherto told us they stand for.
  Mr. Bellenger: I am coming to that point in a moment. I am mentioning the figures because my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour said that part-group 63 would be released by the end of the year. The effect of that statement is to expedite release to the extent of 48,000 officers and men over the target which we had originally set. Further than that, in the first quarter of next year we shall still further accelerate the rate of release. In regard to the question which the right hon. Gentleman has just put to me, I would say that it will be done without prejudice to the maintenance of those commitments which His Majesty's Government consider vital to
  512
  the interests and peace of this country. It really means that we are pruning and streamlining the Army as much as we can, in the circumstances. On previous occasions when we have been discussing the Armed Forces, there has been, even if there is not today, an implied criticism that we are keeping in the Army a large number of men unnecessarily. Next year, as a result of the Government's release plans which they have already announced, we shall release something like 350,000 officers and men, who will be coming out of the Army in order to keep to the engagements we have entered into in the White Paper. As against that, there will be, as the right hon. Gentleman estimated, something like 100,000 National Service men coming into the Army next year; so we shall achieve a release of something like 250,000 officers and men. I mention that fact in order that the Committee may appreciate what we are doing and what will be done next year to help our industrial affairs.
  In the course of this release programme next year—or I should say, not next year but the next financial year; the Committee knows that it runs from April to March—the number of troops serving overseas as compared with the current financial year will be cut by more than 50 per cent. I hope that some of my hon. Friends who have been inclined to criticise us for keeping too many men in the Army in relation to our industrial requirements will appreciate the significance of the figures which I have just given.
  Now let me come to the main point of the Debate, namely, the future of the Regular Army. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to say a few words on the effect of reducing the period of National Service from 18 months to 12 months. That decrease in the period, to which the House has agreed recently, will result in the Army getting some 60,000 fewer National Service men than it would have got under the 18 months' programme. That has meant a complete recasting of our training programme and the allotment of the manpower which we shall be getting from 1949 onwards. It has resulted in a very careful review being instituted of the training organisation in order to minimise the loss of efficiency which the cutting down of the period from

  513
  18 months to 12 months might have entailed. We find that we cannot cut the primary training below six weeks. We are investigating that position, but we think it will be necessary to maintain the six weeks' period in order to give the men the elementary basic training for a soldier. The personnel selection procedure will then be applied to him and we shall be able to fit the square peg into the square hole, or, at any rate, not put the square peg into the round hole.
  During the war, the primary training period was followed by a corps training period. We found that to be a most useful method of intensive training of men before sending them into their units, which probably were in the line. As a result of the reduction of the service period for National Service men we shall not be able to continue that corps training period. Therefore, men will be posted straight from the primary training centres to their units. At first sight it may appear that we shall lose the benefit that we have obtained by the intensive training of men, but on reflection that may turn out to be an advantage. It will mean that the National Service men for the remainder of their 12 months' service, after having done their primary training, will be posted to one unit. It will be an advantage to the men to be able to stay there for the remainder of their period of National Service.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Many of us would agree with those admirable sentiments, but can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that there is no question of training being curtailed and men being sent straight on to guard duties which would be very bad for them?
  Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir, there are dangers, but I am thinking of the period when the National Service man is first called up under the new Act which will not be until 1st January, 1949. I sincerely hope that by that time we shall have got rid of some of our more pressing commitments which necessitate guard duties. There is a tremendous amount of valuable stores and equipment, and a good deal of time in the Army must be spent on work like guarding them. I hope that we shall be able to get some relief in the Army from those duties, although there is no doubt that as long as an Army exists there will always be certain guard duties and fatigues to be performed.
  General Sir George Jeffreys: Is there not an alternative to doing away entirely with the corps training centre? Could not the primary training centre be given a little longer time to handle men? Although they make wonderful progress in six weeks, the recruit is still a very raw recruit at the end of six weeks. If he has three months, something could be done.
  Mr. Bellenger: If the Committee will allow me to continue with my survey of the training organisation that we are proposing to put into effect as a result of this decision to reduce the period to 12 months, I think the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) will understand that what we have in mind is probably something better than he has suggested. Perhaps I ought to say that the corps training centre will not entirely disappear. For certain parts of the Army it will have to be kept in existence. For certain highly specialised arms of the Service it will obviously have to be kept going, for example, the Royal Engineers, the Regular Army part of which will have to be given a much more concentrated period of instruction in their duties than they can possibly hope to get in their units. But as a result of what I have just said, corps training except for certain specialist and highly skilled tradesmen will be carried out in active Army units in the following arms and services: The Royal Armoured Corps; the Royal Artillery; the Infantry; the Royal Engineers, with the exception of the Regular part of the Royal Engineers; and the R.A.S.C. In all other arms and services, corps training will be carried out much as it is at present—in corps training units in the United Kingdom. In all arms and services the training procedure will be exactly the same both for the National Service man and the Regular.
  The right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington and others have referred to the difficulty we shall have in manning our outstations, which can only be manned by the Regular Army. This consideration caused me some alarm taken in conjunction with our present recruiting figures. It is quite correct that we shall have to rely on the Regular Army for all stations abroad except for Europe proper and perhaps—we are looking into this at the moment—stations like Gibraltar. Malta and Trieste. It may be possible to

  515
  send to those stations National Service men with 12 months to serve in the Army. It would be a very good thing that they should see those parts of the Commonwealth in which in the past Regular soldiers have had to do duty. But generally speaking with those exceptions—Germany, Austria, and the Mediterranean stations—we shall have to rely on Regular soldiers to carry out duties farther afield. They will have their training duties to perform, a large proportion of them to be performed in this country, particularly in relation to anti-aircraft. It is therefore clear that we have a considerable task to recruit our Regular Army up to the ceiling which we will have to set.
  A figure of 250,000 has been mentioned in this Debate. It is based on some remarks of mine which I think I made in my Estimates speech earlier this year. I think I said then that the figure was of the order of 250,000, but my own feeling is that the actual target figure when finally approved will be something less than that—something perhaps like 20,000 to 30,000 less than that figure. If we can recruit to this figure it will provide satisfactorily as far as we can see at the moment for our garrison duties overseas and the training organisation needed to train the National Service man up to the stage that he is to achieve by the time he leave the colours and goes to the Territorial Army.
  Brigadier Low: The right hon. Gentleman has given only two roles for the Regular Army. Does he not include the role of a striking force or a nucleus of that?
  Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir. I am not going to say that that force will be composed as it was before the last war or the first world war—composed largely of a British expeditionary force. It is quite obvious that there will be certain formations—the Airborne Division as in Palestine at the moment and so forth—which would in emergency form the spearhead of the striking force, but we estimate that in any act of aggression against this country the whole impact of the aggressor will fall on this country or countries very near to us. Although my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) said it would never be possible for these islands to be used as a base again
  516
  in any European war, I am rather inclined to doubt that. I know the difficulties. It means the dispersal of factories and of the Army and its equipment and stations and so forth, but nevertheless, until we have experience and knowledge of the form that aggression will take, we have to prepare in the way we know best, and that way is based on the experience we got from the last war, and particularly the closing stages of the last war. That obviously means that a large portion of the Army will have to be engaged in antiaircraft protective duties both with the static forces at home and with mobile forces overseas if they should be necessary there. A large portion of the Territorial Army will have to undertake those duties and therefore a large portion of the Regular Army will have to be engaged in instruction duties and, indeed, in manning duties.
  Perhaps I ought to explain now to the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield how we shall post these men to units when they come into the Army, as I said we should do, after a short primary training period. They will be allotted to their units by intakes varying according to the nature of the unit. For example, in the battalions of the Infantry there will be four intakes of these men in a year, roughly corresponding to the four sub units—the four rifle units—of the battalion. Therefore, the men will get in the unit to which they are posted four periods roughly of 11 weeks training, allowing for six weeks primary training and two weeks for drafting and leave before they are posted to their unit.
  In the Royal Armoured Corps the periods will relate to the structure of the regiment, with three squadrons. There will be three annual intakes. This we think will enable the training to be carried out in stages which will equip the men, with the exception perhaps of the specialists and tradesmen, reasonably well to take their part in the Territorial Army when they leave the colours. The Committee must not forget that the whole purpose of the Regular Army is really to train men to take their place in the Territorial Army. The Territorial Army will be far larger than the Regular Army on which will fall the garrison duties and the instructional duties which I have already outlined. It follows, therefore, that the men will spend their time wherever their

  517
  units are located. There will be some—certainly while we are in occupation of Germany—who will have to be sent to B.A.O.R. and will spend most of their 12 months in Germany. There will however, be others who will spend their time in this country because the units to which they are posted will have to be stationed in this country. These will serve their 40 odd weeks in this country, and to that extent there will be some difference between the National Service men called up. Some will be lucky—according to their point of view—by being retained in this country, and some by going overseas.
  With regard to the technical training of these specialists, it is quite true as the hon. and learned Member for Wirral said, and as other hon. Members have reiterated, that we shall need to recruit quality before quantity, although obviously we must have quantity at some time if we are to recruit up to our ceiling. That will not be an easy matter. Indeed, I am not disguising it from the Committee, it will be very difficult to recruit those tradesmen. It is possible that we may be able to get a better response than we are getting at the moment if we improve rates of pay and this possibility has not been entirely overlooked, although the Committee will understand that now, under the new system, with the Minister and the Ministry of Defence to co-ordinate the three Services, it is not possible for each Service Minister to play his own hand in that respect. He has to do it in coordination with the other two Services. Therefore, those matters are considered on a Ministry of Defence level and then put up to the Treasury.
  I view with some sympathy the points that have been put by both sides of the Committee as to anomalies which may have appeared in relation to senior N.C.O.'s and warrant officers and, perhaps, commanding officers. My own feeling is that, generally speaking, we have succeeded in the new code in relating the rates of pay of the Services to industry although, if there is any great inflation of industrial wages the relation would obviously be upset. However, the Committee has reason to hope that taxation will be reduced, and I know that is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to achieve that——
  Mr. Stanley: Oh.
  Mr. Bellenger: The right hon. Gentleman may be cynical——
  Mr. Stanley: Sceptical.
  Mr. Bellenger: He is cynical sometimes too—sceptical of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who told us in his last Budget speech that that was his intention, and I hope and believe he will achieve it in spite of what hon. Gentlemen opposite may say. If that is the case, then it is obvious that some of the arguments made by hon. Gentlemen this afternoon as to some officers being worse off than they were, will weaken. At any rate, I am prepared to look into any anomalies which hon. Gentlemen like to bring to my attention and, if possible, to try to rectify them, always of course in association with my colleagues in the other two Services.
  I could go on to give the Committee more information about the training proposals but, in view of the time, I ought to get on to that other important matter raised today, recruitment. In stating those facts I have disclosed some of the difficulties with which I have to contend, and although some of the proposed solutions advanced by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen this afternoon may help me to solve them, my difficulties are much more difficult to solve than would appear from the suggestion made, that merely by improving pay, we can get all the recruits we want. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) said that if we would only put that right, we would have all the recruits we wanted for the Regular Army.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer Brigadier Prior-Palmer indicated dissent.
  Mr. Bellenger: Perhaps I misunderstood him but, nevertheless, that was my impression. It will not be possible by increasing pay alone to get recruits for the Regular Army, for reasons to which some hon. Gentlemen have referred today. One said that it was so easy to caricature the British Army, and that it has been done extensively in the past. Why? What hon. Gentlemen are saying when they have attempted to criticise the Government this afternoon is that for years past, during which time they were in office, we have steadily neglected the Army's needs. That is absolutely true, particularly in relation to barrack accommodation, housing and so forth. That

  519
  legacy, which was handed to me when I took office as Secretary of State for War, is a legacy which I cannot hope to dispose of by 1950 or any early date like that.
  Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has introduced the party aspect into this reasonable Debate, but may I remind him of the by-election at Fulham?
  Mr. Bellenger: The by-election at Fulham had nothing whatever to do with these bread-and-butter matters which affect the Army. I think it was in 1932 that we had the lowest Estimate for the Army between the two wars. However, I want to introduce no party note into this matter but to state facts. The facts are that in the matter of accommodation for our troops—and after all hon. Gentlemen have brought these matters forward this afternoon only too well, as well as I could have put it when I was a back bencher, if not better—I cannot hope to overcome those difficulties in two or three years. It will probably take us 15 years to rebuild and reform barrack accommodation for the Army, always assuming that we are given some better priority in building matters than we are given at the moment.
  Therefore, I want the Committee to be under no illusion whatever that, in so far as better accommodation will help me to get recruits for the Regular Army, I cannot hope to do that in two or three years. I am, however, doing my best to meet that situation. Since we took office we have budgeted for 2,000 married quarters for other ranks, for 750 married quarters for officers, and 200 War Department constabulary married quarters. I am not satisfied with the rate of progress being achieved in the building of these quarters which have been approved in the Estimates, but in this matter the civil population can get greater priority than I can in the Army. Also, I have to rely on other agencies to build these married quarters for us. Nevertheless, those figures I have given are some indication that we are attacking this matter seriously, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested in his concluding remarks we ought to do.
  Since the end of the war we have recovered many quarters that have been irregularly occupied, sometimes by civilians, with the result that we have increased the number from 5,000 at the end of the war to 9,000 now. Those figures
  520
  may seem small in relation to the Army's needs, but these accretions, small though they may be, are of value to the Army, especially to those returning from overseas. On top of all our difficulties we have to make provision probably for a large number of Regular troops who will be leaving India and very shortly arriving in this country. Whether it be married men coming back from Palestine with their families, as they did a little time ago owing to circumstances out there, or the troops and their families coming home from India, the Army is looking after them as best it can, and on the whole we have had very few complaints from those for whom we have found temporary accommodation until they have become assimilated into the structure of the civil population here.
  It is true that figures in regard to recruiting are not as satisfactory as we had hoped. I am bound to say, however, that they never are satisfactory during the summer months. It is very difficult to go to the seaside resorts and holiday camps to appeal for recruits during the summer. We would get a very short answer. During the summer time people do not want to come into the Army, but want to be doing something different.
  Brigadier Head: It is very interesting to note that the right hon. Gentleman started recruiting for the Territorials on 1st May.
  Mr. Bellenger: That may seem curious, but recruiting for the Territorial Army on a part-time basis is quite different from recruiting for the Regular Army on a full-time basis. Our whole experience goes to show that during the summer months the falling off of recruits for the Regular Army is constant, although to a lesser extent the same applies to recruiting for the Territorial Army. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member is not suggesting that we should have delayed the start of recruiting for the Territorial Army from May until the end of September. I thought the Debate was intended to urge the Government to get on with recruiting as speedily as possible, and recruiting for the Regular Army has its concomitant in the Territorial Army.
  I wish to give some figures in regard to recruiting. After all, this problem is not entirely mine, although obviously I

  521
  have to take responsibility for it, and I have to take any criticism if any is coming. Also I hope that if there is any credit, and if I am successful in recruiting for the Territorial Army—and I am not despondent of doing that—I hope I shall have some of that credit. In the first quarter of 1937 the monthly average intake of normal Regular engagements was 2,433. In the second quarter it has fallen to 2,181. That would bear out what I have said about the difficulty of recruiting in the summer months. The short service intake average fell from 1,753 to 1,213. In the technical corps the lack of volunteers does cause us some anxiety, but we are doing what we can, particularly by the recruitment of boy apprentices, which will give us a dividend in a few years time. The recruitment of boy apprentice tradesmen is itself not entirely satisfactory. On the last examination, in July, for 787 vacancies, only 396 boys competed. There is room for improvement there, but, generally speaking, as I look at my charts in the War Office, I am satisfied, not complacently so I hope, that in time as parents get to know of the valuable opportunities there are for boys to learn a trade in the Army, there will be more coming forward who will be the future specialists, tradesmen and N.C.Os. of the Regular Army.
  Having given what appear to be, as indeed they are, not entirely satisfactory figures in relation to recruiting, perhaps the Committee would be interested to know that for Regular recruiting, including the short service man, the figure for the period 1st January to 30th June last year was 10,119. These are volunteers. In the first half of this year it has more than doubled and the figure is 22,815. That gives some indication that the situation is not yet lost by any means. It has to be considerably improved, I quite agree, but those figures give me hope that we shall be able to do better in the forthcoming months. The interesting thing is that we are now getting more National Service men volunteering for Regular engagements, and more men serving on Regular engagements are volunteering to re-engage. What does that indicate? It confirms a thought I have had in mind for some time, and which I have tried to impress on my recruiting people at the War Office. It is
  522
  that the best field for recruitment to the Regular Army lies among the National Service men, a compact 100,000 of whom are coming up each year. Although we shall still appeal directly to the civil population to join the Army, I believe that so long as our propaganda is right, and conditions are right, and so long as we have the right commanding officers, we shall get a very good response for the Regular Army amongst the National Service men. At any rate, we are going to make special efforts to recruit amongst National Service men.
  Mr. Harold Davies: Has an estimate of percentage been made?
  Mr. Bellenger: I can give my hon. Friend some figures, although not the percentage. In the first six months of the current year 8,890 men have accepted short term engagements. For the whole of last year the figure was less, 8,618, and throughout 1946, 4,299 National Service men volunteered to remain in the Army on Regular engagements. That is for the whole period of last year, but already during the first six months of this year 4,205 have so elected to become Regulars. I think the Committee will agree that those are very welcome signs that the National Service man is beginning to want to join the Regular Army.
  Brigadier Low: In comparing the short service recruiting of this year with what the right hon. Gentleman calls the short service recruiting for the whole of last year, ought he not to have told the Committee that it was not brought into operation until the middle of May last year, and that the figure relates to only seven months, which is in fact a good comparison with the first six months of this year?
  Mr. Bellenger: Whether it is a good comparison or not, I think that the figures in regard to the National Service men are an excellent comparison, because they were serving for the whole of the year, and these figures go to prove that we are getting a better response from National Service men to join the Regular Army.
  Sir R. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to make special arrangements in regard to Northern Ireland, which is a purely voluntary area?
  Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir. I was coming to that. I am making a special visit to

  523
  Northern Ireland, and hope to do a bit of recruiting there. I hope hon. Members who come from Northern Ireland will help in that respect. I believe we shall be able to get quite a number of recruits to join the Regular Army from Northern Ireland and perhaps from elsewhere in Ireland. In answer to the question of what special steps we are taking, we are now considering, in co-operation with the other two Services, whether we can have a special recruiting campaign led by Service Ministers, and perhaps other Ministers also. Owing to the cutting down of newsprint, I am afraid we shall get less space in the newspapers, and we can perhaps make up for it with speeches in the country, and broadcasts over the wireless. I hope that in that publicity right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the Committee will help us.
  We have to take advantage of every possible means of getting recruits. Although I believe that we shall get a good response from National Service men, we have to go round the country to persuade their relations that it is a worth while job for the men to join the Regular Army. As I say, recruiting figures are not satisfactory; they have got to be improved. There is no easy solution to this problem, but I am not disappointed about our finding that solution. Indeed, I go so far as to say, although it is very unwise to attempt to prophesy in this House, that I believe the time is not far distant when we shall have a waiting list for those who want commissions in the Regular Army. At Sandhurst, for three terms in the year, we are training our candidates for commissions. I believe that in two or three years' time we shall have got that matter satisfactorily settled, and that our main difficulty will be among the non-commissioned officers, who have to come from the Regular recruits.
  I shall have to neglect to reply in detail to some of the interesting points put to my by different members, because there is another Debate to follow this one. I
  524
  would particularly say to the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) who spoke so feelingly about recruiting in Wales, that I hope that Welsh Members will give us every help to recruit men from Wales. We need them. It is not so easy to put them in Welsh speaking units or mainly Welsh speaking units——
  Mr. Emrys Roberts: Then we shall not give the right hon. Gentleman the help for which he asks.
  Mr. Bellenger: This is a subject which Welsh Members have taken up with the War Office. I hope we shall be able to convince them that there is a satisfactory reason for not changing the composition of the 53rd Division because the role of some of the regiments forming that division has changed from infantry to artillery. I hope that I can appeal to hon. Members from Wales not to say that they will not help us unless we can give them every national point for which they have asked. Scotland has also asked for the same sort of thing. We have difficulties in giving them all they want, but I shall do all I can to concede the points which can be conceded, as I want the help of hon. Members from Wales.
  I hope that if I have not given complete satisfaction to the Committee, and obviously I have not done so unless I can say I have got all the men I want in the Regular Army, I have shown something of our difficulties, which are not entirely of our own making. Some of them have been left over from the years which preceded the coming into office of this Government. As a final example, in the war there was no Regular recruiting whatever. I hope that I have shown to the satisfaction of the Committee what we are doing at the War Office to tackle these matters in a responsible, and, I hope will be shown, when 1950 comes, in a satisfactory manner.
  Mr. Joseph Henderson (Lord of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn

  REGULAR ARMY
    CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1947–48
      CLASS VI

        BOARD OF TRADE
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That a sum, not exceeding £24,969,350, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade, and subordinate departments, including the cost of certain trading services; assistance and subsidies to certain industries; certain grants in aid; and other services."

  GRANTHAM FACTORIES (ALLOCATION)
  7.5. p.m.
  Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: The Committee will remember that when I requested the President of the Board of Trade to have an independent inquiry into the matter of the allocation of the Grantham factories, he refused. We on this side of the Committee have, therefore, taken this opportunity to raise the matter, and I shall confine myself entirely to this subject. We propose to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he does us the courtesy of being present—and I must say, in passing, that this being a matter which concerns the administration of his Department, of which he has had plenty of notice, and I having received no notice from him, I think it is treating the Committee with great discourtesy not to be present—and in his absence I shall ask the hon. Gentleman, who probably has not got the power to do so, which makes it difficult for the Committee, to consent to a Select Committe being set up in this matter. If he does so, it will not be necessary for me to ask my hon. Friends to divide the Committee, but if he does not consent, we shall move a reduction in the Board of Trade Vote. I hope that nothing I have to say will impart the slightest prejudice into the consideration by the Committee of the facts which I feel it necessary to recite.
  In order to understand the apprehension which Members on this side of the Committee, and indeed on the other side also, feel about the allocation of these Grantham factories in this year, it is necessary to go into the history of these transactions in some detail. I must begin at the beginning. The three factories in question have an area of about 250,000
  526
  square feet, so that we are not dealing with a very large proposition. During the war Factories 3 and 4, which I am chiefly talking about, were engaged with Factories 1 and 2, in the manufacture of Hispano-Suiza guns. Factories 3 and 4 had been built by the Government and leased to British M.A.R.C., which is the British Manufacture and Research Company. Subsequently Factory 2, which is not of such importance, was transferred to the Government.
  When the Public Accounts Committee investigated certain matters in connection with production from Grantham, their inquiries were addressed to British M.A.R.C., of which the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) was at the time the managing director. Subsequent to that date, a company called Grantham Productions Limited, which had initially a small capital of, I think, £1,000, came into the picture. As far as I understand it, this company in some way or other entered into contracts with the Government for the supply of certain guns, not the original production, though in fact at that time it was British M.A.R.C., not Grantham Productions, which was the lessee of these two factories. The contractual relations between Grantham Productions, on the one hand, and British M.A.R.C. on the other, call for some investigation, because the facts cannot be ascertained unless access is had to the books of both companies, or at any rate of one of them. That is only preliminary.
  After the end of the European war, proposals were made by Grantham Productions to the Board of Trade under which these factories were to be allocated, in peacetime, to Grantham Productions Limited for the manufacture of two products, first, a "people's car" which was intended to sell for £100, and secondly, agricultural tractors. At the time when this application was originally made, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was President of the Board of Trade. After going carefully into the circumstances, he turned down the application of Grantham Productions, and allocated the premises to another company called Aveling-Barford, which had been established for over a hundred years in Grantham. They have a well-known name for road making machinery, such as steam rollers. They had a new

  527
  development at the end of the war for small earth-shifting machinery.
  The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his capacity at that time of President of the Board of Trade, considered that neither the people's car nor the tractor were what is called production propositions. He regarded them as, mere drawing board projects and, from my own knowledge, it was mainly on this ground that he allocated the factories to the rival claimants and not to Grantham Productions. If these two projects were in an advanced state of development, as was claimed by the company, some investigations are necessary about how a company which was entirely engaged upon Government contracts had been able to develop two such ambitious projects during the war and have them ready for exploitation on VE-Day.
  Just about this time the Labour Ministers left the Coalition Government and the so-called Caretaker Government came into office. In that Government, I was President of the Board of Trade and Minister of Production. I combined both offices. When I got back to the Department over which I had previously presided in 1940, I was immediately given the facts about this case. I found that my predecessor the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had in fact only reached a decision the day before I returned to the Board of Trade. Therefore, I determined that I must make up my own mind, because the decision was so recent, and not shelter behind his. I would like to assure the Committee that my reason for re-opening the case was that I felt that the hon. Member for Grantham, who had been engaged successfully in the manufacture of Hispano-Suiza guns during the war, was entitled to more consideration in regard to these factories than any other firm who had not been manufacturing during the war.
  I had a first interview with the hon. Gentleman and I so informed him. I may say that I considered the reasons why the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had turned down the application to be quite sufficient in themselves. Whether a particular product is a production proposition or a drawing board project is, after all, a matter of opinion which only events can prove to be right or wrong. I emphasise that I considered his reasons by
  528
  themselves were enough. However, I investigated the whole matter in very great detail and I asked the hon. Member for Grantham if he could call upon me at the Board of Trade to discuss some other aspects of this proposition. I asked him in particular how the proposition was to be financed. Clearly, the Government in allocating a Government factory to an industrial concern must be satisfied that the proposed tenant has sufficient money behind him to develop projects such as this and to carry them through their various stages until they are proved and become commercial propositions.
  The hon. Member for Grantham then informed me regarding finance that he himself was going to put up £70,000, that two of his friends, whom I am not going to name, because I do not know whether the statement was made with their authority—I am not making any criticism; I am not going to name them—were going to put up £10,000 each. The hon. Member for Grantham also said that the workpeople in the factory were going to put up £30,000 to £35,000, and the balance of the finance required would be by prepayment by the agents to whom the sale of the people's car was to be entrusted. I judged from this statement that the total finance proposed was to be of the order of £150,000 to £175,000, and that some of this finance was very far from firm. I was also apprehensive about the prepayments by the agents who were to sell the cars. I believe that in the United States it is a common practice for agents to make these prepayments and, as far as I know, they only make them against a prototype or a model which they can see, or else they make the prepayment with one, two or three very great automobile manufacturers behind the product. I did not think at the time it was suggested that finance should come from prepayment that either of those conditions really existed. There was no prototype to be seen and there was not an engineering firm, of great prestige in this particular field behind the projects.
  However, I came to the conclusion, first, that the total finances which were to be provided for these two very ambitious projects were totally inadequate in amount; and, secondly, that even if that were not so, the methods by which these were to be obtained were not sound, or at least they were not firm enough.

  529
  Therefore, after my own investigation, I confirmed the decision of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I allocated the factories to the same firm to which he had allocated them, namely, Aveling-Barford. I trust the Committee will believe me when I say that I came to this decision very reluctantly. I hope also that they will acquit me of any smugness or complacency in making this statement. I am entitled to no praise whatever for making this decision. I am not saying, "I told you so" or anything of the kind. Any novice in industrial matters would have reached the same conclusion.
  I would remind the Committee that some motor manufacturers in this country would regard £2,500,000 or £3 million as insufficient finance for a project of this kind, and others would put it at an even higher figure. To proceed with £175,000 of finance, which was only at the best a conditional promise, was to court certain failure. I came to the conclusion very reluctantly. I would remind the Committee that I was also Minister of Production and part of my duties were to try to stimulate production wherever I thought it could properly be done, and that this edifice was erected on insecure and insufficient foundations.
  In this rather tangled story, another event occurred—agreeable to hon. Members opposite—when the Caretaker Government failed. The investigation which I have made into this project had, as sometimes happens in Government Departments, taken some time. It so happened that I reached the conclusion which I have described to the Committee only a few days before the fall of the Caretaker Government. I was succeeded by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the present President of the Board of Trade who, unfortunately, is absent. I apprised him of my decision in these matters in a memorandum. I have some reason to believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman at first confirmed the decision of his two predecessors but subsequently, acting from motives of which, naturally, I had no knowledge, he consented to set up a Committee of Inquiry under the chairmanship of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith). After this inquiry the right hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded to
  530
  reverse the decision of his two predecessors—one, I would remind the Committee, a Labour Minister, and the other a Conservative Minister. He cancelled the promise of allocation which had been made to Aveling-Barford and allocated the factories to Grantham Productions.
  In the case of the finance for this project, it was found in a different manner from that which the hon. Gentleman had contemplated originally. A sum of £265,000 was found. His Highness the Jam Sahib of Nawanagar, according to my examination of the registry, provided £245,000, and the hon. Member for Grantham provided £20,000. I do not know whether the latter holding was a beneficial holding. The agreement was that this £265,000 was to be put up in five per cent. non-cumulative non-participating preference shares. I understand from a statement which the Jam Sahib made at the time that, in return for this subscription of £245,000, he received 25 per cent., or 2,500 shares, in Grantham Productions. In other words, he risked over 90 per cent. of the money sunk in the project, and apart from the five per cent. which was non-cumulative be became entitled to only 25 per cent. of the profits or equity of the main company. It is not for me to comment upon these terms except to say that they were generous to the point of being quixotic.
  No part of the failure of the company can be attributed in any way to the onerous terms which were imposed upon it by those who financed it. That sum of money, as I have said, is getting on for twice the amount which the hon. Member for Grantham had originally told me he contemplated raising for his project. The production of these two ambitious projects, even with this greater finance, never had a chance of success, and the company, in its new form and possessed of this new money, had a life of just over a year and went into liquidation on 15th November, 1946, and had unsecured creditors at that time of £247,116. Amongst the creditors were the Inland Revenue for P.A.Y.E. to the amount of £25,000, which appears to me to be quite out of line with the wages bill for which the company was liable at the time. This is a matter which alone requires to be investigated, because it is not the custom, so far as I know, for the Inland Revenue to finance industry by this means, but this was, apparently, an ex-

  531
  ception. This was in addition to £25,000 to British M.A.R.C. Further, the hon. Member for Grantham paid out a liability which the company had incurred towards the hospital.
  Had the company gone into compulsory liquidation, there would have been a different turn and its affairs would have been in the hands of the Official Receiver, but, actually, the company went into voluntary liquidation. During its life of slightly over a year, its total deficiency, according to the statement of affairs on 15th November, amounted to £445,000, or, in other words, the capital of £275,000—£265,000 in preference shares and £10,000 in ordinary shares—had been lost, and, in addition, there was a balance of £170,000 due to creditors, against which there were no assets. There were also liabilities to a number of creditors in respect of contract cancellation orders, which the directors of the company at that date estimated would not be less than £120,000.
  When Granthams Productions, Ltd., went into voluntary liquidation one would have expected the Board of Trade to have done one of two things—either to have approached the previous applicants or to have sought some other substantial concern to take over the factory. They did neither. The Board of Trade never approached the previous unsuccessful applicants, Messrs. Aveling-Barford, and they received no reply to several letters sent to the Department until Mr. Edward Barford was asked to see a secretary on 5th June, 1947. At that time, he was informed by the second secretary that the factory would not be allocated to him, but to a financial syndicate headed by Mr. F. S. Cotton.
  At this point, I must intervene with some comments. It is quite possible, as we all know, to make mistakes in these matters, and it is even possible to allow one's sympathies, and I share many of them, to turn one's judgment, and this must have been the fact over the original allocation to Grantham Productions. Any cursory examination by a competent businessman should have convinced the President of the Board of Trade that the finance on which these ambitious projects were to be launched was, to say the least of it, flimsy and inadequate, but it would also appear to the ordinary commonsense man that, having made such a
  532
  mistake once, one would not enter into the same mistake again, once it had been proved conclusively by the failure of the company itself after 12 months or little more and without any substantial production having been made.
  The ordinary commonsense man would have been at great pains to prevent a similar mistake happening again, and I do not think it possible to suppose that the second allocation was made from carelessness or ignorance of what had gone on before. Grave as are the responsibilities of the President of the Board of Trade in regard to the first allocation, they become much heavier and much graver over the second. I would not, of course, dream of imputing anything but the highest motives and disinterestedness to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, however much I differ from him politically, but I must say that this reallocation calls into question the trustworthiness of the whole Administration and particularly that part of it for which he is responsible. The main reason why I am anxious that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us, at least, an assurance that he will consent to a Select Committee being set up, is because I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been let down, and I am very suspicious about the allocation of these factories, which, to say the least, requires independent investigation.
  To resume the narrative, the re-allocation was made to a financial syndicate headed by Mr. F. S. Cotton. Let me at this point say that I think it very doubtful whether Government factories should ever be allocated to financial syndicates, and I think they never should be allocated where there is a reputable industrial firm of long experience who are applicants at the same time. In this particular instance, there was another such firm in Grantham, but I think the idea was that the factory should be allocated to an industrial concern. I think that the greatest care is necessary to ensure that a financial syndicate is not engaged in trying to make money by turning over the assets and reselling. At least, they should have at their disposal all the finance necessary, not only to buy the assets and to finance production, but to carry the project through to a successful issue.
  By this time, the project of the people's car had been dropped, and, instead, the production contemplated at Grantham was

  533
  the manufacture of agricultural tractors. The established manufacturers of agricultural tractors are now very well known, and some of them have many years of experience behind them in this type of manufacture. I have it on the authority of more than one that they could increase the output of tractors by up to 50 per cent. if they could obtain a greater quantity of steel. Therefore, it appears inexcusable to allot capacity to a financial syndicate, who, I suspect, and I cannot say more than that, had no experience in this type of production, and who were completely untried in this field, but, even if they had had the experience and had been successful, as the Board of Trade is no doubt aware, the only result would have been to cause a further shortage of steel for the established manufacturers. When the present capacity for making tractors is unfilled, the creation of further capacity with the same object appears, on the surface, to be undesirable. I have heard some suggestion that the tractors were to be made of cast iron, but iron castings constitute one of the bottlenecks of industry, and, at any rate, the tractors would probably have been out of date before they were designed.
  It appears that Mr. F. S. Cotton had been declared bankrupt before the war, and that he had paid a last amount of 2s. 4d. in the £, making a total composition of 12S. in May, 1947, and that he had been, promised the allocation of these Grantham factories in June, 1947. I would like to say quite frankly that I consider it a very distasteful task to have to bring out circumstances of this description, but they are not intended, in any way, to cast aspersions on Mr. Cotton, who suffered these misfortunes. I do not know the reasons which led to them. I make no charges against the good intentions of Mr. Cotton; I do not know what they were. I confine myself to the simple proposition that a syndicate headed by a gentleman who had only the previous month paid the last composition of 2s. 4d. in the £ to his creditors, is an unsuitable type of syndicate, whoever the other members of it might be, to which to allot Government property.
  I would remind the Committee that Government property is certainly the lesser of the interests involved. There are also the interests of the workpeople who had already suffered very seriously
  534
  from the brief life of the previous venture. If they were to be collected and used in Grantham for the purpose of this production, surely, after the experience which the Board of Trade had had, most careful inquiry was necessary to ensure that the new company was one of substance, and had at its disposal all the necessary finance. I cannot believe that a syndicate headed by this gentleman, who was described as a West End financier, and with this particular record, fulfils those necessary conditions.
  At the time that the allocation was made, the hon. Member for Grantham made it known through a paper in Grantham, which he himself controls, that the Cotton syndicate was, in reality, the hon. Member himself, and his interests in another form. I do not know whether the Board of Trade repudiate this suggestion or whether they support it. Be that as it may, running through all these transactions, there appears to be a positive intention, in the face of all the facts or experiences, by the Board of Trade to allot these factories to a concern in which the hon. Member for Grantham was engaged or had the controlling interest, irrespective of reason and irrespective of the distress brought about by their first allocation.
  The Cotton syndicate could not find the necessary money with which to pay the purchase price of the assets which had been agreed with the liquidators. Much less could they find the finance necessary for production. I want to be perfectly fair, and it is, perhaps, fair to say that the publicity which surrounded these transactions, and which I regret, but which I cannot see could have been avoided, may actually have frightened off those who were originally prepared to back Mr. Cotton. But the fact remains that, so unstable was the backing of the financial syndicate, the moment the circumstances surrounding these two allocations were ventilated in the Press, the syndicate, so far from having the necessary money, were unable to find even the £110,000, which was the agreed figure at which the assets could be purchased.
  It only became apparent that they could not pay after several delays granted, for reasons which I do not know, by the Board of Trade, and, in fact, to all intents and purposes, the activities of those factories were suspended while the

  535
  Board of Trade tried to bolster up the syndicate. The blunders of the Government have sterilised a possible source of industry for 18 months, and this sort of thing sounds ill to those who are being exhorted about the urgency for greater production in the country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, when questioned by me, refused to have an independent inquiry made into the circumstances. I must say that, at that time, I thought he might be doing that because he thought that he would cause some embarrassment to the hon. Member for Grantham. Such an attitude I should resent as being neither fair to the hon. Member nor to the House; nor did it pay any regard to the egregious blunders which the Government had already made in this direction. But if his refusal of an inquiry had been made because of a wish not to cause embarrassment to the hon. Member for Grantham, it was at least understandable, even if it was wrong. But now, I see, the hon. Member for Grantham has put his name to the Motion which I put on the Paper calling for the appointment of a Select Committee. It is quite clear from that—and I appreciate his motives—that he, too, wishes the whole of these circumstances to be fully investigated. Who, then, are the Government sheltering? What reason have they for denying an inquiry?
  I can offer certain explanations, but they would be mere surmise. One explanation could be that the President of the Board of Trade has been badly let down somewhere, and finds himself in the position of having to defend actions which are indefensible, and that he wishes to protect those who have been guilty of giving him wrong advice. But, as I say, that is mere surmise. I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, through the Parliamentary Secretary—I cannot suggest it to him personally because he is not here—that it is in the interest, not only of the administration and its trustworthiness, but in the interest of the good name of the House of Commons, and in the interest of the good faith of the Department and the Government that he should now accede to the request which I make, and should set up a Select Committee to inquire into the matter, and to publish to the last detail the circumstances surround-
  536
  ing the original allocation, the failure of the company after 12 months, and the re-allocation to a financial syndicate, headed by a man who could only pay the last composition to his creditors the month before, and the subsequent and inevitable failure of that syndicate to complete the deal. If he does not agree to the appointment of a Select Committee, everyone will have the impression that something reprehensible has been going on which the Government do not wish to bring to the light of day. I think it would be a great mistake to think that anything which was disclosed by the Select Committee would do more harm than leaving the matter unexplained and unresolved, thus giving to the ordinary man suspicions which nothing but the full disclosure of the facts can possibly allay.
  7.37 p.m.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: On a point of Order. I am going to ask you, Mr. Beaumont, whether you will accept a Motion to report Progress and ask leave to sit again in the following circumstances? My right hon. Friend has just made a series of statements to the Committee which, I think, the Committee will probably agree raise a prima facie case for an inquiry. The statements relate in detail to matters which took place before the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary was appointed to his present office, and which call for some explanation from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. Moreover, my right hon. Friend has asked the Government to reconsider their refusal to have an inquiry. In my submission, the continuance of this Debate in the absence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, for whatever reason—not knowing the reasons, I can, of course, make no complaint—is nothing but a mockery, and, therefore, we must ask leave to sit again when the right hon. and learned Gentleman finds it possible to be among us.
  The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's Motion, because a representative of the Department concerned is present to reply to the Debate.
  Earl Winterton: On that point of Order, Mr. Beaumont, is it not usual, when the personal position of a Minister is under discussion, for that Minister to be present? May I respectfully

  537
  suggest that the Ruling which you have just given—although I am not quarrelling with it—may have a most calamitous result, because it means that any Minister whose personal conduct is under review could, without explanation, absent himself from this Chamber.
  Mr. Kendall: Further to that point of Order. Would it not have been more proper, Mr. Beaumont, to have raised the question of this Motion before the Debate started, and not after the speech by the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton)? It seems to me to be unfair to raise the point now. Surely, on seeing that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was absent from the Front Bench, the objection to his absence could have been raised before, and not subsequent to, the speech of the right hon. Member for Aldershot.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I will first deal with the point of Order raised by the noble Lord. I cannot determine how far the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was aware that his presence would be necessary. It is purely for the Chair to decide whether a Debate can continue if there is present an official representative of the Department concerned who can reply. In those circumstances, the Debate should continue.
  Mr. Hogg: Further to the point of Order raised by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall). In the first place, may I say that, of course, I could not raise the matter before the Debate commenced because I had naturally assumed, until a late stage in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), that the President of the Board of Trade would have taken the trouble to come here. Further, I had no prior knowledge of what my right hon. Friend was going to say. Therefore, I waited to see whether the charges against the President of the Board of Trade were of such a nature that, in my judgment, he ought to answer them personally, and, in my submission to you, Mr. Beaumont, I took the only possible course of waiting until my right hon. Friend concluded his speech and until one had some opportunity of seeing what the situation was, before raising a point of Order. I submit that I should have acted
  538
  prematurely and wrongly had I taken any other course.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I appreciate the point of view expressed by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). The position is this: a statement has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), to which presumably there will be a reply, not necessarily, from any particular individual Minister but from a Minister representing the Department concerned. So far as I know, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade is present or not, a reply will still be made. In those circumstances, the Debate should now continue.
  7.42 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: In whatever section of the Committee hon. Members may sit, they cannot fail to be impressed and, indeed, profoundly shocked by the facts disclosed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton). The whole story reads rather like some mysterious novel, with the Board of Trade, British M.A.R.C., Grantham Productions, Mr. F. S. Cotton and last, but not least, the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) playing the principal parts. What lies behind this mysterious and unhappy sequence of events which has led to two years' loss of production, an unfortunate Indian Maharajah losing about £250,000, the Inland Revenue being owed some £25,000 in unpaid taxes, and a lot of unhappy people being thrown out of work? I want to read an extract from a statement issued to the "Grantham Journal" by the hon. Member for Grantham on 17th June, 1945:
  "We have an outstanding record of productive efficiency by the managers of these factories during the war. Nine months ago we made application for them to be allocated to us for postwar projects. These included a cheap motor car and a light tractor, and a number of other very interesting engineering products. They are all tested and proved to be first-class. We have orders which run into many thousands of them all over the world."
  I understand that at that time the peoples' car project was intended to produce 50,000 cars and tractors a year, that production was to start within six weeks from V.E. Day and that the car was to sell for about £100. The question I want to ask is, whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade

  539
  took steps to ascertain how a company with a capital of £2 in 1939, increased to £10,000 in 1945, could have incurred the vast development cost of the Kendall-Beaumont car and the Kendall tractor.
  Mr. Tiffany: On a point of Order. Would the hon. and gallant Member kindly explain whether he is still reading the statement or making his speech?
  The Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of Order.
  Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: The hon. Gentleman is trying to make it difficult for me. That is the usual practice of some hon. Members. It is understood that the development cost of this car must have amounted to far more than £10,000, and possibly in the neighbourhood of £100,000. If so, how was it done? Where did all this money come from, in a company with only £10,000 capital? It could scarcely have been made during the war, with crippling taxation and with war profiteering quite properly made impossible. Surely, any reasonable man must know that for anybody to be able to produce 50,000 cars and tractors a year, starting within six weeks from V.E. Day or thereabouts, vast development costs must have been obtained and expended prior to 1945. If so, when and where did development take place and how was it paid? Did the development cost of these tractors as well as the "people's car" take place on British M.A.R.C. premises and by individuals on a British M.A.R.C. pay roll? But we want to know and the public want to know where this vast development cost came from, and when and where did development take place? I suggest that the only way in which a full and proper explanation can be found to all these questions put by my hon. Friends is by a Select Committee with the right to delve into all the evidence and, above all, to examine the books.
  As regard the 1945 allocation, what did the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade consider to be adequate working capital before allocating these factories to Grantham Productions? How much capital did this firm actually have at the time of the 1945 allocation? In this connection, I have
  540
  heard it said that the late Mr. Henry Ford, the late Lord Austin, Lord Nuffield and the Rootes Brothers all rolled into one, could not begin to produce 50,000 cars and tractors a year, without a capital possibly of at least £5 million. A capital of £10,000 is not sufficient for the mass production of people's roller skates or the rotating tooth brushes so admired by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick), let alone a people's car.
  With regard to the 1947 allocation, I would like to quote from "The Times" of 15th July, 1947.
  "The great criticism on the second allocation is whether it was proper to grant a lease of Government factories to tenants whose resources were unknown, who had no actual experience of manufacturing the intended product"—
  and, as they say elsewhere in the article—
  "who were closely associated with the previous tenant now in liquidation."
  I understand that Mr. F. S. Cotton has now failed in his endeavours to dispose of the assets of Grantham Productions at an immense profit. We know that no more Indian gentlemen have come forward, and I must say I cannot blame them. Once bitten, twice shy. The allocation has now, therefore, been withdrawn by the Government, but the question I want to ask is: Why were the Grantham factories ever allocated to the Cotton group?
  I would also like to know what is the result of the 1945 and 1947 allocations of the Grantham factories by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. It is apparent to everybody, whatever their political party, that we are once more back where we first started in 1945. An unfortunate Indian gentleman, as I say, has lost about £250,000; the Treasury, I understand, are still owed some £25,000 in taxes which have not been paid; the production of goods so badly needed for export has been held up for two years, and a lot of people have been thrown out of work. In consequence, therefore, everyone suffers.
  If this is an example of the way the Government conduct the business of this country no wonder our people suffer. No wonder we are up against it. No wonder we must work or want. The Government, of course, know tonight that they can,

  541
  with their huge majority, do anything they like. If they are nervous of the truth, if they are anxious about disclosures resulting from inquiry, they can make vague statements and draw red herrings across the trail by talking of the past iniquities of their political opponents and 20 years of Tory misrule, and that sort of poppycock. But that will deceive no one. They can order their supporters to troop obediently through the Division Lobbies en masse chattering with exultation at yet another victory. But they will know, we shall know, and the people of this country will know that an inquiry will not have been held because the Government are anxious about any possible disclosures that might be revealed by a Select Committee. If there is nothing to hide, let there be a court of inquiry. The Government have nothing to lose. But if there is not an inquiry, then it may well be that the Government are anxious of any possible disclosures and have a good deal to lose. Therefore, we ask the Government to appoint a Select Committee, and if they refuse, whatever they may say, the people of this country will know the reason why.
  7.52 p.m.
  Sir John Mellor: I should like to assume that the President of the Board of Trade in his unfortunate absence has authorised his Parliamentary Secretary, after hearing this Debate, in his discretion to agree to an appointment of a Select Committee. I do not think that that is necessarily a very optimistic assumption, because it is always the way with the President of the Board of Trade to entrust a very great measure of authority to his Parliamentary Secretaries. He did, indeed, entrust the decision of the allocation of these factories to his then Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith), and it is on the correspondence that he made it quite clear that, to whatever decision the hon. Member for Stoke came, he would abide by that decision. In answer to a Question which I asked last December concerning the original allocation to Grantham Productions, Limited, the President of the Board of Trade referred to evidence of improved financial and productive resources. That evidence very much impressed the hon. Member for Stoke. I am rather wondering what that evidence included, because in less than 18 months from that date Grantham
  542
  Productions Limited, had gone into liquidation.
  Mr. Gallacher: Will the hon. Member excuse me? He is talking of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith). Will he make it clear that even if the hon. Member for Stoke was mistaken, the hon. Member for Stoke was scrupulously honest in anything he said?
  Sir J. Mellor: I really think that there is nothing that I have said that could possibly have suggested anything but complete confidence in the integrity of the hon. Member for Stoke. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The question of his judgment is an entirely different matter. I was suggesting that he had been very much misled by the evidence put before him as to what was described as improved financial and productive resources, because, as I pointed out, within less than 18 months the company which was alleged to have those resources had gone into liquidation, and it had gone into liquidation causing a good deal of distress, not only to people in Grantham, but to people up and down the country.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) referred to the proposals in the financing of the production of the "people's car" as including prepayments from the distributors. But, unfortunately, those distribtuors and their customers who did make such prepayments are still out of their money. There is a sum, I understand, of £55,000 held in a banking account, but it has not so far been considered possible by the liquidators to return that money to the depositors, and that being so, I think it is very doubtful whether they will get it back at all. It may be they will only be able to rank as ordinary creditors claiming pari passu with the rest of the unsecured creditors to share in whatever assets there may be to distribute.
  But this has caused a good deal of distress, and I would like to read one letter which I received from quite a humble person who is still out of his money. He wrote:
  "We people who have put down our deposit money have not heard one word officially as to what is to become of our money, whether we shall ultimately get a car, or whether our money is lost. I have written to Mr. D. Kendall twice, enclosing stamped and addressed envelopes for a reply, but have had no answer. I have telephoned Grantham Factory and the only thing they could tell me

  543
  was it was hoped things would straighten themselves out. Nothing more. There must be hundreds of working men like myself who desire to run a small, cheap car that we could manage to buy who deposited our money in good faith, and we can ill afford to lose £20. I think we are entitled by this time to know something of what is going to happen."
  After the company went into liquidation six months passed. I think it singularly strange that immediately the company went into liquidation the Board of Trade did not publish a notice such as they published about a week ago saying that these factories were now available for re-allocation. I cannot understand how they hung on, and that is, I feel, what we want particularly to have explained by the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies—why they took no action, but just waited upon events such as might develop in connection with Grantham Productions Limited in liquidation. Then Mr. Cotton came upon the scene, and we were informed by the Parliamentary Secretary on 17th June as follows:
  "The group in question have acquired the assets of Grantham Productions Limited, from the liquidators with the view to continuing the production of the tractors."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June, 1947; Vol. 438, c. 204.]
  Was any condition made by the Board of Trade that, if the factories were allocated to this group, they would produce tractors? I do not think so, because we know that, within a few days of their acquiring the allocation of the factories, Mr. Cotton, on behalf of this group, was hawking the assets of Grantham Productions Limited, which they had acquired, round the City, hoping to dispose of them at a very substantial profit. At least the Board of Trade must have recognised that that was a very grave breach of faith. This group came to the Board of Trade saying, "We have acquired" the assets of Grantham Productions Limited in liquidation." That was not quite true. But, at least, they were committed to purchase them. On the strength of that, and because they assured the Board of Trade that they intended to carry on the production of tractors, they got the allocation of the factories.
  Well, in no time they were trying to dispose of the assets at an enormous profit. Surely, that having been done, one would have thought that the Board of Trade would have broken off all negotiation with
  544
  the group and said, "In no circumstances shall this group have the allocation of these factories." We also asked the Parliamentary Secretary what experience the Cotton group had of the production of tractors. Upon that point, however, he was entirely silent, and it is quite obvious that they had no experience whatsoever which would assist towards the production of tractors.
  In the Debate on 26th June, the Parliamentary Secretary said, with regard to their financial resources:
  "… we ascertained from the group's bankers … that Mr. Cotton and his group were well able to provide out of their existing resources the necessary capital both for the purchase and for the running of the business."
  It may be that there was money in the bank to an impressive extent. I do not know whether that was true or not. But the fact that there was money in the bank does not necessarily mean that the proprietors of that money will be true to their obligations, and apparently the Board of Trade took no steps to discover whether these people could be relied upon or not. Indeed, a little later in the same speech the Parliamentary Secretary said, with reference to the acquisition of the assets of Grantham Productions Limited, by the Cotton group:
  "A binding agreement had been reached, and only afterwards was it decided to continue the allocation in favour of the group."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1947; Vol. 439. c. 807–9.]
  A binding agreement had been reached by this group, and apparently, according to the information at the disposal of the Board of Trade, they had the money with which to implement that agreement. Except for Mr. Cotton they all preferred to remain anonymous, and the Board of Trade has protected them in that anonymity. Then, as soon as there was publicity, which made them feel a little nervous of their position, they fled from the field leaving only their broken undertakings behind them. Those are the people with whom the Board of Trade have been in close relationship, without taking the slightest trouble to find out whether they were reliable.
  There is one other question I would particularly like to ask. It was stated on 20th June in the newspaper controlled by the hon. Member for Grantham, the "Grantham Guardian":

  545
  "Supplies of raw material have been assured by the only authority in a position to assure them."
  I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether that is a correct statement. If so, who gave that assurance, and what does it involve? Was any priority promised to the Cotton group if they went ahead with the production of tractors? Were they given any undertaking which would put them in a more favourable position than their competitors? This is a very important aspect of the matter, because there is only a sufficient amount of steel available in the country—I will not enter into the question whether cast iron is of any use in the production of tractors—for the production of a limited amount of tractors. Therefore, it is of supreme importance that such steel as is available for this purpose should be used only by firms of considerable experience and productive and financial resources, so that we can be quite sure that the country gets the best possible results.
  This has been a long chapter of a most deplorable waste of time, money and productive resources. These factories could have been put to some useful purpose; two years have elapsed since they were originally allocated to Grantham Productions Limited, and they are still not allocated in firm hands—two years' wastage of valuable factory space. I think the President of the Board of Trade has a great deal for which to answer, and I only hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be in a position to answer for him. The least we should be granted is our request for a Select Committee to investigate the whole matter.
  8.7 p.m.
  Sir Arnold Gridley: In intervening in this Debate for a short time I would like the Committee to understand at the outset that I have no interest whatever in either of the parties who are concerned in this matter. I know nothing about the alternative firm who were anxious to secure these premises. Also, I know absolutely nothing about the business of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall), but I have every reason to believe that he is a most capable engineer, and no doubt we shall learn from him, in the
  546
  course of the Debate, the story that he has to tell.
  Few hon. Members in this Committee have heard the story unfolded to us by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), before today. All we have heard up to now have been Questions and answers in the House, and a certain amount of newspaper comment upon them. But I think we would all be agreed upon this—indeed I should be extremely surprised if any hon. Member in any quarter of the Committee would dispute it—that we have heard from my right hon. Friend a case to which there must be an answer. For my part, I propose to suspend judgment—because I always like to hear both sides of a case—until we have heard what the hon. Member for Grantham may have to say, and what the Parliamentary Secretary may say in reply.
  What concerns me this evening is that, in this Committee I speak in one sense or another, as I think everybody knows, as representing industry, and those of us who are concerned in industry are frequently attacked on the ground that we mismanage this, or misconduct that, or do not handle our employees properly, or that we are engaged in some doubtful transaction, and so on. I am very jealous for the reputation of industrialists, who include both good and not so good men—as is the case in all activities in life. Here, for the first time for some years in my Parliamentary experience, we have a Government Department which, rightly or wrongly—and I say "rightly or wrongly" advisedly up to now—is being charged with the very careless and incompetent handling of this matter. As I say, there may be a very good reply to it, and we would all be wise to wait until we have heard both sides of the case.
  There are one or two observations I think it right to make to the Committee, which are based on my fairly long experience in the conduct of productive industry. I want to put this question very directly to the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not know whether Members are aware—a good many may be—that if you wish to develop new prototypes in these times, as some of my works are doing at the moment, and the materials out of which they are to be made are, or may be, in short supply, you have to apply either to the Board of Trade or to the Ministry of Supply for licence to manufacture.

  547
  If there is a shortage of materials, no licence is granted until the prototypes have been produced and the Government Department concerned are satisfied that they will be advantageous to the national interest. If materials or allocation of materials can be provided for production, a licence to manufacture some limited quantity may be granted. I have been through this experience myself on three or four occasions during the last six months, and hon. Members on all sides can take it from me that that is the position. I do not think anyone representing a Government Department will dispute it for one moment.
  That being so, this question seems to arise. The people who wanted to have these factories, with whom the Board of Trade apparently negotiated so long were to manufacture tractors and a "people's car." Therefore, were prototypes of these products ever produced, and were the Government Department concerned satisfied that they were what the nation wanted and must have, even in these times of shortage of steel and so on? If they were approved, were there sufficient materials available to put them into production in factories to enable them to be manufactured in sufficient quantities to cover overhead charges and be a really commercial proposition? I think that these are important questions to which answers are absolutely essential.
  The next point, which was touched upon by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport), although he did not raise it in the same way as I should have raised it, is this. Those who have been engaged on producing prototypes, whether it is for motor cars, motor car engines, aeroplane engines, tractors or anything else, know perfectly well that invariably immense sums of money have to be spent on development expenditure before the prototype can be tested out when it has been produced, and the position has been reached when all the "bugs" which are found in anything entirely new nave been eradicated, and you are satisfied that it can safely be put into production. Having regard to what we are told about the lack of capital from which this firm suffered, where was that money found? The hon. Member for Grantham may have his answer, and it is a very, important question to have answered.
  548
  We know that the factory was engaged on Government contracts for a long time, and I should think that a works which was fully occupied on such contracts would have had no time whatever to devote to producing something entirely new for postwar production and, far less, have any funds available for that particular purpose.
  My next point is this: One of the newest and biggest factories in the country today for the production of tractors is, I believe, the one put down by the Standard Motor Company. I speak subject to correction, but I have seen it mentioned many times that a capital of £2 million was required to put that factory into production. What capital was to be involved in equipping, jigging and tooling, the factory at Grantham, not only for tractors, but also for cars on a mass production basis? I believe the Board of Trade may find it difficult to answer, if they were willing to allow this factory to be handed over without making certain, or getting expert advice, as to the amount of capital which would be required to establish and carry on a successful business. If the Government have a good case a committee of inquiry need not be feared because, presumably, the Government will have nothing to hide. But if the Government refuse a committee of inquiry it is only reasonable to suppose that they will themselves quite unnecessarily create suspicion that there is a good deal to hide. If there is not, what possible objection can there be to a committee of inquiry? I am sure that the hon. Member for Grantham feels that he has a good case, that if he himself is prepared to ask for an inquiry he will be willing to come out into the light of day and give all the facts. I beg of the Government, for the sake of their own reputation—unless they have something to tell us which will convince us that a committee of inquiry is not necessary—to assent to what we are asking today. It would be in their own interests.
  8.19 p.m.
  Mr. Kendall: I have been in this House for nearly six years, and I have participated in many Debates, including Debates on old age pensions, the Beveridge Plan, agriculture, and pay and allowances. Every once in a while I seem to be faced with having to make a personal explanation. I well remember that nearly the first speech I had to make in this House was in connection with a

  549
  breach of Privilege, following an investigation by the Public Accounts Committee. I would not have referred to past history except that it was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton). And I believe mat it is in the interests of the Committee to hear the whole story, just for a change. I still believe that the reason I was pulled up on that issue of the Public Accounts Committee was political and not factual; indeed, the final Debate in this House gave me a clean bill of health all the way through, and the Minister, now sitting in another place, gave many words of commendation, not only to me but to the workers, for doing a good job.
  The war came to an end, and Government contracts came to an end. I was faced with either having to "fire" everyone in those factories or find additional work for them, when, to my great astonishment, I found that the factories had in fact been allocated to another firm. This was the first time, I believe, in the history of Government factories that those who were occupants were not to be allowed to occupy those factories for peace-time production. I know the reasons for that, too, and that is why my name went down on the Motion asking for a Select Committee of Inquiry. I thought that there was pressure against me and my firm and that there were people who should be pulled in front of that Select Committee to give evidence, because there were things that should be said and should come out that had never given this company of mine a chance of getting along. There has been pressure brought by a Member of another place, who lives a few hundred yards away from me, and who has done his very best locally and in Government Departments to have these factories removed from my firm. All we wanted to do was to work and to be given a chance of work; we deserved that opportunity. We were one of the few companies that never made a penny profit during the war, so we had not any capital to start out. We were not favourably placed like some of the other big firms in this country, who made huge fortunes out of their war time contracts. We were not in that category.
  I will deal quickly with the very proper point raised by the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley). The money that was provided on prototype work was provided by me personally and not
  550
  by the company, and the work was not done on the company's premises. It was entirely separate. I would like to go into that in full detail. I had been concerned in making automobiles all my life until I came to do this war work for the Government. That was the kind of engineering I knew and had been dealing with, and I had the designs and sketches of some years previously, and I still have them, for the prototypes, which the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned, on the final car that was decided upon. These prototypes had been built during the five previous years in France. They were a fine piece of engineering. It is quite true that I went to the right hon. Member for Aldershot on the allocation of the factories, when I found that they were being assigned to others. Why?
  Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member omitted to say that the factories were allocated to Aveling-Barford by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. Kendall: I grant that and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for helping me. It is perfectly true I did see the right hon. Member for Aldershot because I was shocked to think that we were not going to be given a chance to run these factories. I had been fortunate enough to get hold of a Canadian contract for the repair of vehicles on behalf of the Canadian Government, and I was employing at that time 1,500 people. I consequently got hold of a Ministry of Supply contract for the repair of vehicles too. When the President of the Board of Trade was changed after the collapse of the Caretaker Government, I stated my case to the present President of the Board of Trade and he set up a committee of inquiry under the leadership of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith). The basis of our case is not the basis of the Barford case.
  I would like to deal with the Barford case and none of the hon. Gentlemen on this side of the Committee have dealt with it at all. They have not dealt with the case of whether or not the factories should have been allocated to Barfords. The things produced by Barford cannot be produced in Grantham Productions because there is no head room. There is only space of 10 feet 6 inches to the eaves, and road rollers cannot be built there. If now they are going suddenly to produce some kind of

  551
  tractor where are they going to produce them and where are they going to get their materials to produce them?
  The decision was come to in 1945 to allocate the premises to Grantham Productions, and in 1945 we all worked extremely hard on the Canadian contract and the Ministry of Supply contract. Further, we worked terribly hard on the preparatory work for the cars and the tractors, but we were always up against the difficulties of some suppliers stopping supplies. Certainly I want a full-blooded inquiry. Certainly I want evidence called as to whether some of the big ones applied pressure on some of the suppliers of accessories, telling them "If you supply Kendall we will cancel "our orders." I was up against that kind of thing.
  I want to refer to the backing I had from India. It was genuine backing. We tried to do a good job and further backing was going to be given by the same people, who had travelled, I do not know how many miles, in connection with the matter. What happened there? I remember ever so well. At twenty minutes to 11 o'clock on a certain Friday morning everything was going fine and the additional capital was going to be placed in the business. We were off again. A visit was paid—again this is the reason for my name on the Order Paper—to a very big motor car manufacturer, who showed my principal, empty conveyor lines, bodies without door handles or without upholstery, and said to him as Barford said to him—a lot of this was used in the House in the last few weeks and also in the newspapers—"There is going to be a political row unless these factories are assigned to Barfords." This being perfectly true. I want a public inquiry. At twenty minutes to eight that night he came back and said, "I am sorry, I dare not touch it at all," and went back. He went on the promise, too, that if he wanted cars out there, they would be sent, but that England by now would be in a terrible financial emergency and that industry was going bust. Why should he be mixed up with this and blamed, and why should he be mixed up in local politics? He is a very fine, honourable man for whom we tried to do a fine and honourable job, but the pressure which has been applied to us from all kinds of sources is something
  552
  disgraceful. All kinds of names should be used, and the best way to disclose them is through an inquiry.
  I did not go hawking this thing around, but went to the Finance Corporation for Industry who put an investigation on the works. I never saw the full report, but this is briefly what they said. "Kendall, you are a good engineer; your works up there in Grantham are excellent; your products are first-class; but your finances are awful." I went to them because the finances were horrible, and if the first three points were good, I had every right to go to them. Surely, there is nothing wrong or criminal in somebody wanting to do a job of work? After all, I am private enterprise and have always been. I hope some hon. Members of the Tory Party will forgive me, but sometimes I doubt whether the Tory Party really are the champions of private enterprise unless private enterprise means a monopoly. I really mean this because when one gets into the City of London one is told, "Sure, it is fine. We will do this, that and the other." But then they bring up the political arguments and say, "Well, we are frightened of the politics of this business."
  As far as concerns the allocation of 1947, if I may skip a few pages, the position is that F. S. Cotton, whom I never knew, came along and said that he believed he could find a group who would be interested in starting up that factory. Of course, I was interested. One hon. or right hon. Gentleman made a statement to the effect that I was the financial backer of the Cotton syndicate, but that is totally untrue.
  Mr. Lyttleton: Then why was it published?
  Mr. Kendall: The right hon. Gentleman does not read my excellent newspaper carefully.
  Mr. Lyttelton Mr. Lyttelton rose——
  Mr. Kendall: If the right hon. Gentleman is ready to read it out I shall be perfectly happy to give way to him.
  Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Gentleman has contradicted something which I said. I said that he stated himself in the newspaper which he controls that the Cotton syndicate was the same as the Kendall group and I will had him the newspaper now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] I

  553
  will put it on the Table. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] The heading is, "Assets Acquired by the Kendall Group." I will not go further, but this paper is printed and published by Grantham Publications of which the hon. Member and one other gentleman are directors. I will put it on the Table. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."]
  Mr. Kendall: I must correct the right hon. Gentleman, because I am sure that it does not say that. I do not know the particulars of the article to which he refers but I am sure that it cannot say that because it is totally untrue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."]
  Mr. Lyttelton: If hon. Members want me to read it of course I will. I will read as far as is necessary—further if hon. Members like. This paper is called the "Grantham Guardian." It is printed and published by Grantham Publications Limited, of which the directors are the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) and another gentleman called Mr. Emmanuel. The main heading of the article—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] This is the paper which is controlled by the hon. Member—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read, the article."] It says:
  "Assets acquired by Kendall Group."
  It was upon that that I said that the hon. Member's own newspaper said that the assets had been acquired by his Group. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] I am reading it. If hon. Members want the whole article I will read it.
  Mr. Gooch: Hand it over here and I will read it to you.
  Mr. Lyttelton: The article reads as follows:
  "'Any major alteration in the financial structure of a company occupying a Government factory involves reconsideration of the tenancy allocation.
  'The future of the Government-owned factory in Grantham is being urgently reviewed and consideration is being given to allowing the present allocation to stand.'
  This statement was given to the 'Guardian' yesterday evening by an official of the Board of Trade regarding the Springfield Road Factories, where it is hoped to manufacture agricultural tractors.
  An offer to the liquidators was received and accepted earlier in the week for the purchase of the whole of the plant and stocks of
  554
  Grantham Productions, Limited. A substantial deposit accompanied the offer.
  The necessary financial support for the firm's continuation is thus assured, and engineers, on behalf of Mr. F. Sidney Cotton, of Seamore Place, London, have been busy at Springfield Road this week making an inspection in the event of the new company obtaining the lease.
  The name of the company will be Grantham Productions (1947) Limited."
  Hon. Members: Go on.
  Mr. Lyttelton: Very well.
  "Mr. Cotton himself is coming to Grantham in a few days. He told the 'Guardian' yesterday that details of Mr. Denis Kendall's capacity in the new firm had not yet been finalised.
  As soon as the engineers' reports are complete a date can be set for production of tractors to begin.
  It is anticipated that work will start in a few weeks' time, and the output is expected to be 50 a week at first.
  Also dependent on the engineers' reports is the number of men who will be employed by the company, but it is anticipated that the figure will be in the region of several hundreds.
  At Wednesday evening's meeting of Grantham Borough Council, Coun. H. Cant asked if the Chairman of the Town Planning Committee"—
  [Interruption.] Well, hon. Members asked me to read all this. It goes on:
  "had any further information about the future of the Springfield Road factory.
  Coun. S. Foster replied: 'I have no further information. The factory has not been allocated to anybody.'"
  Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. The right hon. Member said or implied that the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) had a controlling interest—[HON. MEMBERS: "Financial"]—and all we wanted him to do was to quote from the newspaper, and not to read it all out. We wanted him to quote anything that suggested that the hon. Member had a controlling interest.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Butcher): It might be as well if the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) were now allowed to continue his speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "No." and "Withdraw."]
  Mr. Lyttelton: This matter has been called into question. I have read now, at the request of the Committee, the statement out of this paper. It begins.
  "Assets acquired by Kendall Group."

  555
  If hon. Members require any proof that the "Grantham Guardian" was in fact controlled by the hon Member——
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Kendall Mr. Kendall rose——
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Dr. Morgan: On a point of Order. Is it not customary in this House if an honourable Member—and everybody knows that the right hon. Gentleman opposite is an honourable Member, and a right honourable gentleman, a man of great integrity—makes a statement which he is asked to prove and to justify, and if he has not done so, that the right thing is for that Member to withdraw his statement?
  The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of Order. It is a matter for the Committee whether statements that have been made carry the weight which the right hon. Gentleman attaches to them.
  Mr. Kendall: I still wish to complete what I was saying when I was interrupted. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot stated that I was supposed to be controlling the Cotton group. I tell him once again that I have no financial interest in any way, shape or form in the Cotton group and never have had under any circumstances. That statement from the right hon. Gentleman is totally untrue.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Mr. Lyttelton: I made my statement upon the information in this newspaper. [An HON. MEMBER: "On a headline."] Really, hon. Gentlemen opposite must learn to control themselves. The word of the hon. Member for Grantham is quite sufficient for me. If he says that he had no interest in the group and that the statement is incorrect, naturally I accept it.
  Mr. Scollan: On a point of Order, Mr. Butcher. I want to know if it is in Order for a right hon. Gentleman to impute a motive——
  Wing-Commander Hulbert: Take your hands out of your pockets.
  Mr. Scollan: You have had your hands in my pockets for a long time. Is it in Order, Mr. Butcher, for a right hon. Gentleman to impute an ulterior motive to
  556
  an hon. Member and to fail to substantiate the motive which he attributes to him?
  The Temporary Chairman: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot has entirely withdrawn any suggestion that he made and that the hon. Member for Grantham is satisfied.
  Mr. Kendall: When Mr. Cotton came along and said that he had a group who were determined to get the factory started and on its feet again, specifically for the manufacture of tractors, every step was taken by myself to ensure that he had the proper financial backing. This was done by a personal visit to one of the banks here in London by a noble friend of mine in another place who was going to be connected with the new firm on the basis that it was in the interests of the workers of Grantham, in the way that I was interested. He went along and got the assurance from the bank manager. We had subsequent meetings with the Board of Trade. There were one or two names in the syndicate which I knew well by reputation and only slightly personally—good names and substantial names—and I thought we were on the road to success and prosperity once more and felt very happy about it.
  But something transpired with Cotton and those with whom he was associated in the negotiations and deliberations of which I have no knowledge except one thing, that when the adverse publicity broke through in the "Daily Graphic" and the "Financial News"—this I believe to be true; I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot has already made a similar comment—at the particular moment when the deal was about to be completed, it was of such a character and nature that some of them withdrew from the group, and there we were left high and dry once more. The factories at Grantham have had approximately 100 key men working all these very many long months because key men were part of the assets of the company as a going concern. The place is tooled up for tractor manufacture. It is tooled up for car manufacture, but far more so for the manufacture of tractors that have been well proven and accepted by the Ministry of Agriculture. They serve a real purpose and are sold at a reasonable price.

  557
  I do not know what will happen after tonight's Debate. I do not know if there will be a public inquiry, or whether a Select Committee of Inquiry will be constituted through the officers of the Board of Trade, or if it will be refused. However, one thing I am absolutely certain of, and that is that had G.P. not become political but had remained industrial, we should have been at work a long time ago. And I want to say this: no matter what is the outcome of this Debate, so far as I am concerned, I will keep on fighting and travelling thousands more miles to get the company back on its feet again, provided they give full employment to the folks of Grantham. I am not interested in any kind of financial jiggery-pokery; I am not the slightest bit interested in somebody making capital appreciation.
  I am not talking of politics, but I put my money into it and I will still sell everything I have to put it back there again if it will help. I shall keep fighting to get somebody to take over those factories, to produce the jobs there that are good, with the backing of many of the small suppliers who, in spite of what somebody said here about cast-iron not being required for tractors—the one who said it did not know what he was talking about because you use cast-iron to give weight, and weight gives pulling power—today have masses of cast-iron which will be scrap unless it is utilised. The workpeople are good and the products are good, and I wish anybody good will, and I will give them every help I can in getting that place restarted and getting re-allocation of those factories to those who mean business up there.
  8.48 p.m.
  Earl Winterton: I think I shall have the assent of both sides of the Committee in paying a tribute—though naturally I do not agree with everything that has been said in it—to the speech of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall). He is in an obviously difficult position and, while he has made some controversial statements with which I am not in agreement and neither are my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, he is fully entitled to put his case. After hearing it, any ground which the Government have had for refusing an inquiry must be completely eliminated; in fact, it would be nothing less than a scandal after the speech we have just heard, if
  558
  the Government refuse an inquiry. I would also like to pay a sincere tribute—and I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will not think I have my tongue in my cheek—to the attitude of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite when my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) was making his speech. I hope I am not saying anything controversial, and I hope I shall not be interrupted when I say it was quite obvious to me that those hon. Members who were in the Chamber were impressed by the fact that here was a serious state of affairs.
  Because they have not been quite properly recited in the speech of the hon. Member for Grantham, I will recite some of the facts—perhaps I could have the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade? I can understand he wants to talk to his secretary; that is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. These are the facts which my right hon. Friend recited and, once again, I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite as one who, whatever my faults may be, has seniority in this Chamber that, even if they do not agree with the facts which I shall now state, the recital of those facts by my right hon. Friend demands an impartial committee of inquiry.
  What are the facts? The first is this. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend refused the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Grantham. We never had a single word of explanation from the Government benches as to why an offer, which was refused by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was in the position occupied by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, was accepted by the present President of the Board of Trade. That is the first point. The second point no one disputes. The hon. Member for Grantham has not dealt with it in his speech, and there is no reason why he should have done so. It is that the maximum amount of money available, something like £175,000, was a totally inadequate amount of capital, however able the hon. Member may be, and no one has attacked his ability or suggested that he has not done admirable work. However admirable he may be, the amount was totally inadequate. We have not had throughout these Debates one word of explanation from the

  559
  Government benches on that point, and I believe it to be one of the reasons why the Chancellor of the Exchequer turned down the original offer.
  The next point on which we say there is need for an impartial-committee of inquiry is the calamitous history of Grantham Productions. There is £23,000 owing to the Inland Revenue, and a total deficiency I understand—the hon. Member can correct me if I am wrong—of £445,000, which is some £170,000 more than its capital. Is this Committee to be asked by the hon. Gentleman when he replies to believe that a factory allocated by the Government to a business which shows such calamitous results, with such heavy sums of money owing to the Inland Revenue, is not a matter which should be inquired into? Is that- an ordinary thing which can happen? Surely no one is going to take up that attitude.
  There is the question of the treatment of the firm of Aveling Barford. I think my right hon. Friend was extremely friendly to Mr. Cotton, but I am neither friendly nor unfriendly. Is the Committee to be told, and through the Committee the country, which takes a considerable interest in this matter, that the present Government allocated, one month after he had made his final composition, which I think was 12s. in the £, this factory to Mr. Cotton? I do not want to be too controversial, but if this is an instance of business management by a Socialist Government, God help Socialism.
  Lastly, I would like to say that this is a point of investigation—Mr. Cotton, this wonderful financier whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had selected was able to find only £110,000. It is only fair to say to the Committee, and I quite realise that feelings may be aroused over this matter, that there may be an answer to every one of these questions; but we have not had them yet in Debate. I wish to associate myself with my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot who says there is no charge made against the personal integrity of the hon. Member for Grantham. But a factual statement has been made by my right hon. Friend and many hon. Friends behind me, and never answered. In parenthesis, I would say that the President of the Board of Trade
  560
  is abroad, and that is the reason that he cannot be here tonight. These questions have never been answered by him, nor by the Parliamentary Secretary, and they must involve a reflection on the administrative credit of the Minister, and indeed the credit and honour of the whole Government unless a satisfactory explanation which is signally absent up to now for reasons which on the face of it must be a most undesirable sequence of events for which the Board of Trade was responsible at every stage.
  Some questions were asked on this matter a short time ago. The acting Leader of the Opposition asked a question and I asked questions to which I received an astonishing reply, which I hope we shall not have from the Government spokesman tonight, from the acting Leader of the House. I asked:
  "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?"
  How can it be anything else but a reflection on the Minister, especially after what the hon. Member below the Gangway said tonight. I received this strange reply from the acting Leader of the House:
  "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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July, 1947; Vol. 440, c. 607.]
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite thought that that was a very good joke. Is it really, when facts are brought out, as they have been brought out in three Debates, reflecting upon the Minister, and indirectly, if not directly, upon the hon. Member below the Gangway, as he admitted in his speech. He said that statements had been made reflecting upon him personally. Is that a matter for laughter? Is it the way to treat the House of Commons to take the attitude, "Of course the silly noble Lord wants an inquiry, ha, ha, ha." It may be that I or some other speaker on this side of the Committee excites the ridicule of hon. Gentlemen opposite. We do not object to that; they frequently excite ours. With all respect, because although I might not always show it, I have considerable respect for hon.

  561
  Gentlemen opposite, I do not believe that any responsible Member opposite can deny, in his heart of hearts, after the recital of the facts tonight by my right hon. Friend, and the speech made by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, and the speeches made on three occasions in Debates, that these are matters which ought to form the basis of a proper inquiry.
  We have had, on the whole, a very good-natured Debate. The Committee has shown itself alive to the importance of this matter, as is indicated by the crowded benches. I think everyone will agree that the fountain of public life is purer and cleaner in this country than in any other country in the world—that is a rather banal expression but it is true—and there should be no suspicion of a taint about it. I say that if the Government refuse an inquiry after this evening's Debate, there will be such a suspicion. Already there are ugly rumours, I hope that they are quite untrue, going around in the country about this matter. I will end on this note, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will, in his reply, deny it and say that there is not a word of truth in it. I heard the other day from an eminent man who had nothing to do with any firm which has been mentioned in this case that: "Of course the real reason why the Government are refusing an inquiry is because if they have a proper inquiry such a scandal would be caused by the Government's handling of the matter that they might endanger their positon."
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Deer: I intervene in this Debate because a number of my constituents have worked for Grantham Productions and, as a result of the redistribution of constituencies which is to take place, a number of the constituents of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) will come into my constituency. I cannot see how this squabble between rival claimants will help the working people of Grantham. In this view I am supported by my trade union colleagues. In Grantham they feel that if this factory with its hundred key workers can be placed into early production, the obvious thing for the Government and for the Department concerned is to give the opportunity to the people who are there
  562
  on the job to have a shot at it. I am not interested in the gentleman named Mr. Cotton. I do not know him. However, I do know that it is no new thing for financiers to wreck industries. It is no new thing for rival industrialists to stake claims of this character.
  I want to impress upon my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade that if a long drawn out inquiry means that these people who are anxious and willing to work in Grantham will be kept out of work, he should refuse it even though the hon. Member for Grantham asks for it himself. Surely, production is the first consideration. I want to reply to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) when he asked, "Why should not industrialists have first claim to it?" That depends upon what use the industrialists are going to make of the work. In my constituency we had a great industrial firm, Babcock and Wilcox, who bought out Clayton Boilers. They said what they were going to do but the moment they got there they shut the firm down and transferred Clayton Boilers to Glasgow. We do not want that to happen in Grantham. I impress upon the Board of Trade the importance of seeing that, whatever the allocation is, it shall be made to the people who intend to produce goods and not the people who intend to close down factories. Let us have a guarantee that these factories will not become warehouses, and that they are not to be used in order to prevent the development of a new tractor firm because that would impinge upon the financial and economic interests of somebody who is already making tractors.
  It is a singular fact that my friends on the regional board who advised the Parliamentary Secretary—and I refer particularly to the trade union representatives—are all in favour of the allocation being granted to Grantham Productions. Why? Because Grantham is a one employer town. They believe that two employers will give them greater security. It would mean that if workers get the sack from one monopoly, at least they have a chance of a job somewhere else, whereas if there is only one firm, the sack means that they must go out of the industry altogether. For that reason the people who represent the unions in Grantham, the people who have worked for Grantham Productions,

  563
  insist that we should, not allow any inquiries to stop the possibility of getting men back to work in a place where the key men and the plant are available. I hope and trust that, whatever may be the private quarrels between financial and industrial firms, the Government will see that the right thing is done to the workpeople of Grantham.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: I hope the Committee will believe that, in what I have to say on this matter, I am not seeking in any way to raise an issue between the parties in this House, because I do not think this is a question which does involve, or which ought to involve, party differences. I also hope that the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) will not consider that I am casting any reflections upon him, because, as he well knows, I have no reason to do so, and have only reason to bear him goodwill.
  The question to which I wish to devote attention, and to which I think the Committee should devote its attention, is the question whether a case has been made out for a Select Committee of inquiry into the circumstances which have been revealed this evening. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Deer) said that his main interest, which one appreciates, was for the well-being of the workers in Grantham, but I do not think we should take too narrow a view of this matter. Quite obviously, what has happened up to the present, moment has not been in their interest, and, quite obviously—and I am sure the hon. Member for Lincoln will be the first to agree with me here—supposing that there is a prima facie case for inquiry, the very last thing which it is in the interests of the Grantham workers to have is the hushing-up of facts which demand inquiry. That cannot be in their interest, and, when the hon. Gentleman urged the Parliamentary Secretary, simply on the grounds of delay, to refuse an investigation, I could not help thinking that he was taking a wrong view of what the interests of those whom he genuinely desires to assist really are.
  As it seems to me, there are two separate lines of complaint before the Committee, each of which separately demands an inquiry. There was the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for
  564
  Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), and the impressive speech of the hon. Member for Grantham. As I understood the speech of my right hon. Friend, it was not, on any material consideration, really inconsistent with the speech of the hon. Member for Grantham. Each proceeded on parallel lines and they made allegations which seem to me to demand some reply.
  Dealing first with the speech of my right hon. Friend, the first point is that, for reasons which I think must be conceded to be adequate—at any rate, at first blush and in the absence of explanation—both the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Conservative successor, had, in fact, rejected the application of the hon. Member for Grantham. That, in fact, involves no reflection on the hon. Member for Grantham whatever. The hon. Member replied that he had been subjected to improper pressure for motives of an ulterior character, and had been prevented either from raising the necessary finance to support his venture, which was technically sound, or which he claimed to be technically sound, or even from retaining the advantages which he had properly secured by allocation from the Ministry. That demands an inquiry. Again, my right hon. Friend said—and it seems to me that the two cases are perfectly consistent with one another—that it is all very well for a technically sound project to be put before the Board of Trade, in which the hon. Member for Grantham honestly and honourably believes, but it is the duty of the Board of Trade, before they make an allocation, to satisfy themselves that the project is not merely technically sound, but that it has a sufficient financial backing in order to make it practically possible. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to say whether or not he accepts that view?
  The charge made by my right hon. Friend proceeds from that point. It is that, at no stage, was there ever in existence any financial backing which would make this project—which the hon. Member for Grantham claims to be technically sound—a practical possibility. That is the charge. Therefore, the first question which arises for inquiry is, what was it that led the present occupant of the office of President of the Board of Trade to change the decision arrived at, to reject an allocation, in respect of a project

  565
  which, however technically sound it might be, did not prove to have sufficient financial backing? Nor am I impressed with the kind of reply which seems to be adumbrated from the benches opposite. It may have been a thoroughly unfortunate thing that the necessary financial backing for this venture was not forthcoming. It might even be suggested that Government money ought to have been produced to support it. It might have been that the hon. Gentleman was right, that the financial backing had been refused for improper reasons, and as the result of intrigue, but that only strengthens the case for an inquiry. What cannot be justified, at first sight, is what happened, namely, that the Board of Trade gave an allocation which had a financial backing which was admittedly insufficient.
  The next thing which seems to me to demand an inquiry—and, again, no reflection is cast upon the hon. Member for Grantham—is that after, I think, 12 months of operation, this project failed for the reason that my right hon. Friend forsaw, not because it was technically unsound, but because it had not a financial backing. It may well be that the hon. Member for Lincoln is perfectly right in saying that the proper course then was to see to it that the Grantham productions, with further backing, should continue their allocation. But, if so, it was not done, and that is the next matter which arises for inquiry. What was done was something radically different, and something which, I think, demands an inquiry more than all the other circumstances. What was done was to accept at its face value, a syndicate of financiers whose assets did not prove anything like adequate for the project which they desired to finance.
  I cannot believe that it does not demand an inquiry of the most stringent character. Whatever the technical merits of the project, and whatever the truth, which I accept, of the allegations made by the hon. Member for Grantham, I cannot accept that it does not demand an inquiry into how a group of financiers, headed by a man who, for whatever reason, happened to be a recent bankrupt, should have got a valuable Government contract, which, in fact, they sought to sell at a profit without carrying on any useful work. That, I think, de-
  566
  mands an explanation. I do not think that the honour of this House, or the serious administration of public affairs, can be put off with anything short, either of a complete explanation of all these circumstances, which at first sight demand an inquiry, or else the inquiry which this Committee demands. After all, the Parliamentary Secretary has had the opportunity of listening to this Debate, and much has come out in the course of it which, perhaps, was not known to him before. It would involve no loss of status, or no admission of guilt on his part, if he has authority to yield to this request made from these benches and by the hon. Member for Grantham himself, who is rightly jealous of his own reputation and who properly desires to put on record the pressures to which he says he has been subject. I cannot think that any loss of prestige to the Government could possibly be involved by yielding to this request. I call upon hon. Members opposite, when they see an issue which does not involve deep differences of principle, to regard a question of this kind on its merits alone, to forget their party affiliations, and my own, and to consider whether or not here is a case where the demands of efficient administration require that the inquiry, which is all we ask for, should be granted by the Board of Trade.
  9.16 p.m.
  Mr. Lipson: I hope hon. Members will agree with me that the issue which has to be decided tonight is one which ought not to be regarded from a party point of view. I think it would be disastrous if a question of this kind was voted upon on that basis. One of the advantages, or, perhaps, I should say effects, of being an independent Member of this House is that, when any matter is before us, one has to acquire the habit of seeing how it is viewed not only from one side but from the other side too. I wish to ask hon. Members, and the Government in particular, in deciding what they should do in this matter, to consider what would be their attitude supposing the position had been somewhat different. Supposing it had been a Conservative President of the Board of Trade who had had the power to allocate a factory, and had allocated it twice over in circumstances similar to those which have been revealed to us tonight, with similar results, would hon. Members then have supported a demand for an in-

  567
  quiry, or not? Before hon. Members vote on this matter—and I hope there will not be a vote, because I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to accede to this request for an inquiry—they ought honestly to ask themselves what they would have done if the position had been reversed.
  Mr. Haworth: Surely, there is a corollary to that proposition?—Would hon. Members opposite have supported an inquiry in those circumstances?
  Mr. Lipson: If they had refused an inquiry in those circumstances, would the hon. Gentleman have thought it right to do so? If hon. Members opposite choose to follow the example of hon. Members on this side of the Committee, I suggest they might follow the example when they think it is right to do so, and not when they think it might be wrong. Powerful arguments have been advanced in favour of an inquiry. Not a single argument has been advanced against it. After all, the power of the Minister to allocate factories, at a time when factories are in short supply and in great demand, is very great. It is a power which ought to be exercised with the greatest possible care and discretion, and with regard to the national interest only. All that the inquiry would have to decide would be whether that was the principle on which this allocation was made. If this inquiry is refused, it is bound to leave a nasty impression. It cannot be in the interest of the Government that that should be so. The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) himself has asked for this inquiry. I submit, in view of his personal concern in this matter, that when he makes that request he has a right to expect it to be granted.
  Therefore, I would say that it is in the national interest, it is in the interests of the proceedings of this Committee, that this perfectly reasonable request for an inquiry should be granted. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Deer) I would say that the inquiry would have no effect whatsoever on the date when this particular factory should go into production, because the Government have decided that now it shall not go to the particular concern to which it was proposed to hand it over; so that, whether there is an inquiry or not, that
  568
  will not be affected. The inquiry will be about what happened in the past in the allocation of these factories. Therefore, I appeal to the Government, and I appeal to hon. Members who support them, to be willing to agree to this inquiry, because I am sure that the request for it is reasonable, and one that ought to be granted.
  9.21 p.m.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I rise only to raise two points which have not been mentioned as yet. We have recently in the House of Commons been considering the provisions of the Companies Bill in some detail. I think it has been with the agreement of both sides of the House that the powers of investigation by the Board of Trade into the affairs of companies have been very considerably widened. I do not think there has been any division of opinion about that. Well, now, when we come to an instance in which a strong case, in my submission, has been made out, first by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) and then by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) for an inquiry, it would seem to me extremely odd if that joint appeal were, in fact, resisted by the Board of Trade, to whom such wide powers of investigation are to be given by the Companies Bill. I hope that we shall hear that it will not be resisted, that it will be granted, whatever the results may be; because I do not believe that the Committee, whatever party may be in the majority, can really, consistently with its dignity, let a matter of this sort rest where it does now.
  We have to bear in mind the Companies Bill and the provisions for investigation therein included. After all, in considering whether a case has been made out for an inquiry, I do suggest in all reasonableness to hon. Members opposite that the case for an inquiry into this matter is really far stronger than the case for a public inquiry into the Press. One does not know what the result of this inquiry may be. It may well be—I do not know—that the Board of Trade will be able to justify all their actions. I should have thought that the Board of Trade would have been only too glad to have had an opportunity of justifying their actions before a Committee of the House. Therefore, I do hope that, even at this late hour, the Government will decide to grant the inquiry which is

  569
  sought by the hon. Member for Grantham and by my right hon. Friend. In fairness to the Board of Trade and to the hon. Member for Grantham I hope the request will be met.
  9.24 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): I am very glad that we have had this Debate, not because I think it is a good thing that every time the Board of Trade allocates a factory the House of Commons or this Committee should debate it; but there has already been a more or less continuous debate both inside this Chamber and in the country over a period of many months about this particular allocation. I rather regret that there has been so much talk during the last few months outside the House of Commons, because I am quite certain that one of the principal reasons for the failure of people who at some stages have been associated with proposals for the utilisation of these factories—one of the principal reasons why they have fallen by the wayside, is that there have been far too much tittle-tattle and far too many suggestions that something was happening on this side or that side which should not have been happening. So far as I am aware—and I have an intimate knowledge of, at least, the later stages of the developments—so far as I know them, there is no reason at all why there should have been so much talk, and I think it is a very great pity that we have had it.
  The right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) was inclined, in his usual kindly fashion, to suggest that my right hon. and learned Friend may have been let down by somebody; that it was not because of his own personal decision, and therefore his own personal mistake, but that somebody else somewhere in the Board of Trade had let him down. I can assure the right hon. Member for Aldershot—and I hope he will accept my assurance—that this was, in every sense of the word, a personal decision of my right hon. and learned Friend and it was not a personal decision taken just on snap as a result of reading a brief about the subject. My right hon. and learned Friend has throughout kept himself closely informed of the various developments as they have taken place.
  It was suggested by the hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J.
  570
  Mellor) that Mr. F. S. Cotton had hawked the assets around. My information is that, in fact, no hawking took place, but that at a late stage in the proceedings there was an attempt to arrive at an agreement whereby the factory would be better utilised. I will deal with that point later on, but I want to pick up one or two of these questions before getting on to the main thread of my argument. The hon. Baronet asked: What experience had this group of this type of production? Well, there was the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) who, I think, is admitted by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to be a production engineer of some quality. At the time the allocation was made there was associated with the group another gentleman, who subsequently withdrew after the allocation had been made, whose name stands very high as a production engineer in both Government and industrial circles in this country. There was a great deal of experience which, surely, would satisfy even the hon. Baronet. He also asked me: Was any undertaking given by anybody to put the new Grantham Productions Limited in a favoured position compared with other established firms who are producing tractors? No, there was no undertaking given that would put them in a more favoured position than anybody else. So far as I know, no Ministry gave them an undertaking that they would receive anything in particular. But, as I shall show when I come to the main story, their merits were recognised and they were, to some extent, supported by a Ministry which agreed that, so far as the quality of product was concerned, the project was a good one.
  The hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley)—to whom, as he knows, I always listen with very great respect on these matters because of his vast experience—asked me: Did the group possess the capital to build up plant, to tool up the factory? I think, to a very large extent, that question was answered by the hon. Member for Grantham. In fact, the plant was already there; the factory was tooled up for production; and, therefore, it was not necessary to acquire capital in order to build up and re-tool. The plant was there in the factory, and the tractors were actually being produced all the time, although at a very small rate.
  Mr. Lyttelton: I do not want to take the Parliamentary Secretary off his line of thought, but is not he aware that this financial group had not even the finance to buy assets of £110,000, much less to finance any production?
  Mr. Belcher: I expected that I should be allowed to deal with the points in a continuing narrative, and I shall come to that in a moment. We did not know at that time that the group would not be able to meet their undertaking to purchase the assets. When we made the allocation, we made it on the basis of an agreement which had been arrived at between the group and the liquidator. It was the liquidator's business to sell the assets, not the business of the Board of Trade. I must emphasise that the Board of Trade only come into this picture of allocating a factory before undertaking any financial arrangements with the group——
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: The Parliamentary Secretary said that these factories were tooled up for the production of cars and tractors in particular, and that all the machines were there. Is he telling the Committee that these factories were tooled up for the job, which is a very different thing? Were they tooled up for full production, or only for a trial run of production?
  Mr. Belcher: If the hon. Member had listened, he would have heard that not only were they tooled up—I do not know whether it was for full production, but certainly for production—but were, in fact, producing, and that one of the products was found to be entirely satisfactory from the point of view of the Government Department which examined it. The right hon. Gentleman began his story by referring to the early days when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was President of the Board of Trade and when the right hon. Gentleman opposite was President of the Board of Trade. It is true that under the presidency of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer the allocation of this factory was made to the firm of Aveling-Barford. That allocation was subsequently confirmed by the right hon. Gentleman, when he was for a short time President of the Board of Trade. Upon the allocation of this factory to Messrs. Aveling-Barford, the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) objected, and I suggest that he had a
  572
  perfect right to object. It is the right of any applicant for a factory, or group of factories, on finding that it is awarded to someone else, to appeal against that decision, which is what he did. He appealed on what I would regard as rather sound grounds, namely, that he was the sitting tenant employing people in these factories, that he had his machinery there, and that the factories were not really suitable for the kind of production to be carried on by the other firm. That appeal was made to my right hon. and learned Friend, who asked my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith), to conduct an inquiry into the whole business with a view to seeing who should have the factory.
  In anticipation of this Debate, I have taken the trouble to go through the files very carefully. It will be appreciated that I was not in office at that time, and that I have, therefore, had to look into the files to find out what happened. I find that the hon. Member for Stoke, when he was Parliamentary Secretary, conducted a thorough investigation. I know the reasons which persuaded him that the decision should be changed. Quite apart from the support from the workers, and petitions from the workers, people in Grantham, local trade union branches and trades councils, there was the important point that the other firm refused to guarantee that they would employ any specific number of people, and the report from the regional organisation—I hope the Committee will take note of this—that the firm of Aveling-Barford were not even employing to the full the plant and machinery which they then possessed. If I were to decide whether or not the allocation of a factory should be made to a particular firm who already possessed a factory in that town, and I found that they were not even employing the resources they had then to the full, I should regard it as being rather illogical to add to their existing resources.
  Mr. Lyttelton: Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer concur in that view?
  Mr. Belcher: I am now discussing the reasons which prompted my predecessor to recommend a change in the nature of allocation. I do not think that what entered into the mind of the right hon.

  573
  Gentleman or his predecessor has anything to do with what actuated my predecessor when he came to conduct his inquiry.
  Two further points were taken into consideration by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke. One was that the additional finance required was shown at that time to be available and, subsequently, appeared and the firm went into production. The other was the Canadian Government contract to which the hon. Member for Grantham referred. Here was the situation. Two applicants for a factory. One of the applicants was not at that time, already employing to the full the resources at his disposal. The other applicant was in the factory, with plant and machinery, and a contract from the Canadian Government for the repair of vehicles. I suggest that there was nothing dishonourable or anything to be ashamed of in the action taken by my predecessor when he recommended to the President that the allocation should be changed as it was changed.
  Mr. Hogg: I can see the hon. Gentleman's argument so far as the reason why allocation should not have been made to one firm, but I am puzzled as to why he thinks that was a positive reason for allotting to the other firm.
  Mr. Belcher: I said that the other firm was occupying the factory.
  Mr. Lyttelton: Who was the lessee?
  Mr. Belcher: At that time it was Grantham Productions.
  Mr. Lyttelton: I think it was British M.A.R.C.
  Mr. Belcher: Production was being carried on in Factories No. 3 and No. 4 by the people who wanted to go on producing there. There was guaranteed continuity of production, in the sense that they had a contract from the Canadian Government. It is in the interests of the people of Grantham that if production is being carried on in these factories there should be continuity of production. What exercised the mind of the Board of Trade, as it does now, was to see continuous employment provided for the people of Grantham.
  Sir J. Mellor: Could the hon. Gentleman say what is the precise association between Grantham Productions Limited
  574
  and the people in occupation of the factory, who I understand were British M.A.R.C.?
  Mr. Belcher: It would take me a long time to go into all that; I did not think that the Committee would wish to go into the financial matters of two years' ago when what we are discussing is recent events, and the allocation of the factory to the people headed by Mr. Cotton. I do not see that the point made by the hon. Baronet affects the issue which we are discussing tonight.
  Sir J. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman himself made the point.
  Mr. Belcher: I was making the point that production would continue in these factories if an allocation was made, as it was subsequently made. Towards the end of last year, the creditors of Grantham Productions forced the company into liquidation. It was represented to us by the hon. Member for Grantham that he would be able to find backers who would be prepared to supply the capital necessary to recommence production at the factories, and my right hon. and learned Friend agreed to postpone any action to re-allocate them until Easter, 1947. I do not know whether that will be criticised or not. Let me point this out: Had my right hon. and learned Friend not agreed to that deferment, and had Grantham Productions been forced to get out and take their plant with them, and had the factory been allocated to some other firm, the time taken in the installation of new plant and machinery would have taken until Easter. So there was no question of losing production or putting people out of work on the part of the Board of Trade. In the meantime, Aveling-Barford came into the picture again, and they applied for a reallocation to them. It is not true, although it has been claimed by or on behalf of Aveling-Barford, that the President of the Board of Trade gave them any undertaking that he would allocate the factories to them in the event of the withdrawal of Grantham Productions. That is not true The President merely said that their application would be considered on its merits.
  On 27th May, the hon. Member for Grantham brought to the Board of Trade representatives of a new group who had made a binding offer of £110,000 to the liquidator for the assets of Grantham

  575
  Productions. The offer had been accepted by the liquidator, and £20,000 had been paid in as a deposit. It was proposed to continue to manufacture tractors only and to drop the plan for the small car. A new company to be called Grantham Productions (1947) Limited was to be formed, and we were advised as to the names of-the parties interested. The bulk of the finance was to be provided by this group, headed by Mr. F. S. Cotton. In confidence, we were told who in fact was providing the money behind Mr. Cotton. We took the trouble to go to the bankers of the group, and the bank stated categorically that Mr. Cotton was an old customer of the bank and had never failed to meet his obligations.
  Mr. Lytttelton: Is the hon. Gentleman now denying an answer which the President of the Board of Trade gave to me in reply to a Question that this gentleman completed the last composition to his creditors a month before?
  Mr. Belcher: I rather hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would ask me that question, because I did not say anything of the kind. I am merely telling him what the bank told us, and the bank told us what was subsequently proved to be wrong, but he cannot blame the President of the Board of Trade if the bank makes a mistake. [Laughter.] The noble Lord is very amused at his own humour, and he makes the criticism that we apparently are not handling financial affairs properly. May I suggest to him that his laughter will recoil on himself when he realises that I am explaining that a private enterprise bank made a mistake and gave the wrong information to the Board of Trade. There was a subsequent statement made to us by the bank, that Mr. Cotton and his syndicate were well able to provide the sum prescribed, and, indeed, their total resources were known to amount to approximately £500,000. Within the knowledge of the bank, the Board of Trade could, therefore, rest assured that ample finance was available. I suggest to the House that if there is to be criticism of anybody on these financial grounds, it is certainly not criticism of the President of the Board of Trade.
  Mr. Lyttelton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in all transactions of this kind all traders look for references
  576
  other than bankers' references, which merely relate the state of the credit of the particular customer at a particular moment, and must necessarily do so?
  Mr. Belcher: The right hon. Gentleman again does not appreciate the particular nature of the argument which is being put up, because he refers to a trader seeking references other than bank references before undertaking a deal. We are not a trader; we are an allocation Department. We are not trading with Grantham Productions. That is a job for the liquidators. They are the people who are selling the assets of Grantham Productions. All we are doing is to allocate a factory and we are not the people who bought the assets.
  The hon. Member for Stockport asked me one or two quite pertinent questions about the existence of prototypes of both car and tractor. It has been explained by the hon. Member for Grantham that the car anyhow was produced in France, but the hon. Member will have heard that subsequently the idea of producing the car was dropped anyhow. As to the tractor, the Ministry of Agriculture were asked to investigate. They agreed with the view of the new group that the production of tractors could be quickly restarted on a substantial basis, and they urged the necessity for this production. They said that the technical organisation of the factory was still available, and on the question of supplies and essential material the Ministry of Agriculture, through their regional machinery officer, were able to make a report. I want to quote this from that report:
  "There are one or two shortages but when these are closely examined they amount to very little, and I feel justified in saying that although Grantham Productions have been nominally out of production (producing perhaps only two or three tractors a week for seven months) their position on these shortages is far better than some of the Companies who have been in production continually."
  As a result of that careful inspection they were satisfied that a substantial volume of production could be built up within the ensuing six months and thereafter maintained.
  On nth June the proposed chairman of the new board came to the Board of Trade to discuss with us certain immediate possibilities. This, I hope, will meet the point which has been made by several hon. Members opposite both today

  577
  and on previous occasions. It was certainly made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield. (Sir J. Mellor). The chairman said, in view of certain inadequacies of technical equipment and on the understanding or belief that Messrs. Aveling-Barford would not be averse to an amicable settlement, his group had decided to approach Aveling-Barford with a view to an arrangement by which the two undertakings would join together to operate both factories, presumably believing that they would have more economic unity if, instead of endeavouring to produce in rivalry with one another in Grantham, they joined together for economic and efficient production.
  The reply of the Board of Trade was that we would welcome any settlement of outstanding differences, but we made it quite clear that the Government could not be in any way associated with any approach of this kind at the present. In other words, these negotiations were purely and simply a matter between Grantham Productions and the group of Messrs. Aveling-Barford. We asked quite rightly—and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will applaud us for asking—and we received an assurance that no attempt would be made to use the allocations of the factories as a bargaining counter. We asked that that should not be the case and we were given a firm assurance that it would not. In fact, I do not believe that any one would suggest for one moment that the Board of Trade would ever be a party to any such proceeding. They came to us through their chairman, or the man they proposed to nominate as chairman, with this proposal that the group should approach Messrs. Aveling-Barford with a view to joint operation, and I imagine that it is from that approach that the story has arisen that the group endeavoured to hawk around the assets which they had purchased. There is all the difference in the world between trying to enter into an amicable arrangement with another firm working side by side with you and taking the items and that plant which you have bought from the liquidator out of the factory which you have been allocated and selling it to someone else in the City of London or elsewhere.
  On 7th July, the time for the payment of the purchase price of the assets set by the liquidators lapsed, and because we could not be satisfied that there was a
  578
  reasonable possibility of the group coming along with the money to purchase the assets we decided to withdraw the allocation. It was announced by my right hon. and learned Friend in the House about 10 days ago that we had in fact withdrawn the allocation. The situation now is that it is competent for any firm which is interested in these factories at Grantham to make an application for their use. In making the allocation we shall be guided by the nature of the proposed production and by all the other relevant factors which are taken into account—[An HON. MEMBER: "Including finance?] Yes, except that on this occasion perhaps we shall ask the nationalised Bank of England and not a private enterprise bank.
  In conclusion, I would only say these few words. I have endeavoured during my speech to give a distinct, clear and frank recital of the facts as I know them. I do not consider that at any stage during the course of what I have had to say to the Committee this evening I have shown that there has been either negligence or undue partiality by officials of the Board of Trade or by the Ministers of that Department. It has been our anxiety, as it was that of my predecessor the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith); and as it is still that of the Board of Trade today, to see that all Government factories which become available are allocated with regard to the needs of the country for the production of certain types of commodities, and bearing in mind the needs of the particular locality for the employment possibilities for the people there. I regret very much that these factories, which during the war became famous for the quantity and quality of their production under the leadership of the hon. Member for Grantham, which was so helpful towards winning the war, have not been available to the nation during the past seven or eight months——
  Mr. Lyttelton: Whose fault is that?
  Mr. Belcher:—while all this coming and going has been taking place. I only hope that it will be possible in the very near future to establish in these factories in Grantham a firm which will give to the people of that town an opportunity of returning to those factories and displaying in the national interest the very high degree of skill they displayed throughout the war years.
  Earl Winterton: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
  I do so because of the refusal of the Parliamentary Secretary to grant an inquiry and because of the fact that he has not made a single reference to the request, which came from all quarters of the Committee. May I tell the Government, and I include the Deputy Leader of the House, that this is by no means the last that they will hear of this question, either here or outside?
  Mr. Kendall: I have no wish to embarrass the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, but would he tell the Committee whether very heavy pressure has recently been brought to bear upon the Board of Trade in relation to the allocation of these factories and in relation to today's Debate.
  Mr. Belcher: The answer is that ever since I first became aware of the existence
  of the Grantham factories, which was very shortly after I arrived in the Board of Trade, there has been pressure coming from many directions almost constantly. My aim has been to avoid the pressure and to deal with the matter on its merits. My answer to the noble Lord is that I have not acceded to the request for a public inquiry because, without being unduly conceited——
  Earl Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is afraid.
  Mr. BelcherI think that the case which I have placed so frankly before the Committee is one which would lead most hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to conclude that an inquiry of the nature suggested is not necessary.
  Question put: "That a sum, not exceeding £24,969,250 be granted for the said service."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 263.

  Division No. 344.]

  AYES.

  [9.58 p.m.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Haughton, S. G.

  Osborne, C.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Head, Brig. A. H.

  Pickthorn, K.

  Barlow, Sir. J.

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

  Pitman, I. J

  Beamish, Maj. T. V H

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Beechman, N. A

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Hogg, Hon. Q

  Prescott, Stanley

  Birch, Nigel

  Hollis, M. C.

  Raikes, H. V.

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

  Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Bossom, A. C.

  Hurd, A.

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

  Bowen, R.

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

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Bower, N.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Kendall, W. D.

  Scott, Lord W.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Snadden, W. M.

  Bullock, Capt. M

  Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Butcher, H. W

  Linstead, H. N.

  Spence, H. R.

  Challen, C.

  Lipson, D. L.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Channon, H.

  Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Lucas, Major Sir J.

  Taylor C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Teeling, William

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Crowder, Capt. John E

  MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Macdonald, Sir P (I. of Wight)

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Digby, S. W.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

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

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Macpherson, N (Dumfries)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Wadsworth, G.

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

  Manningham-Buller, R E

  Wakefield, Sir W. W

  Drayson, G B

  Marlowe, A. A. H

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Drewe, C.

  Marples, A. E.

  Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Marsden, Capt. A

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J

  Erroll, F. J.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

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

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Glyn Sir R.

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

  Nield, B. (Chester)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

  Commander Agnew and

  Grimston, R. V.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H

  Major Conant.

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  NOES

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Ayles, W. H.

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Attewell, H. C.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs B

  Alpass, J. H.

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Baird, J.

  Balfour, A

  Hall, W. G.

  Pearson, A

  Barstow, P. G.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Piratin, P.

  Barton, C.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Belcher, J. W.

  Harrison, J.

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Proctor, W. T.

  Beswick, F.

  Haworth, J.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H

  Binns, J.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Ranger, J.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Rankin, J.

  Blyton, W. R

  Hewitson, Capt. M

  Rees-Williams, D. R

  Boardman, H.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Holman, P.

  Richards, R.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  House, G.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

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

  Hoy, J.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Brook, D. (Halifax)

  Hubbard, T.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

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

  Sargood, R.

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Scollan, T.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

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

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Bruce, Major D. W. T

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Buchanan, G.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Sharp, Granville

  Burden, T. W.

  Irving, W. J.

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Burke, W. A.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A

  Shurmer, P.

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

  Janner, B.

  Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

  Castle, Mrs B. A.

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Chamberlain, R. A

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

  Simmons, C. J.

  Champion, A. J.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Cobb, F. A.

  Keenan, W.

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Kenyon, C.

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

  Coldrick, W.

  Key, C. W.

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

  Collindridge, F.

  Kinley, J.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Collins, V. J.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Kirkwood, D

  Sparks, J. A

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

  Lavers, S.

  Stamford, W.

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J

  Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Crawley, A.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Crossman, R. H. S

  Leslie, J. R.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Cunningham, P

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Sylvester, G. O

  Daggar, G.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Daines, P.

  Logan, D. G.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Lyne, A. W.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Thomas, D E (Aberdare)

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

  McGhee, H. G.

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Davies, R. J (Westhoughton)

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

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

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Deer, G.

  McKinlay, A. S.

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

  Delargy, H. J.

  Maclean, N (Govan)

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Diamond J.

  McLeavy, F.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Dobbie, W.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Tiffany, S.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Titterington, M. F

  Donovan, T.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Tolley, L.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Mann, Mrs. J

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. D.

  Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich)

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Ungoed-Thomas, L

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Marshall, F (Brightside)

  Viant, S. P.

  Durbin, E. F. M.

  Mathers, G.

  Walkden, E.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Mayhew, C. P

  Walker, G. H.

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Medland, H. M

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Edwards, W J. (Whitechapel)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Messer, F.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Middleton, Mrs. L

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Ewart, R.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Farthing, W. J.

  Mitchison, G. R

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Fernyhough, E

  Monslow, W

  West, D. G.

  Field, Captain W. J.

  Moody, A. S.

  Westwood, Rt. Hon J

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

  Morgan, Dr. H. B

  White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Follick, M.

  Morley, R.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Forman, J. C.

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Wigg Col. G. E

  Foster, W. (Wigan)

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

  Wilkes, L.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

  Moyle, A.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Gaitskell, H. T N.

  Mulvey, A.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Gallacher, W.

  Murray, J. D.

  Williams, D J. (Neath)

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S

  Nally, W.

  Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)

  Gibson, C. W.

  Naylor, T. E.

  Williams, W R. (Heston)

  Gilzean, A.

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

  Willis, E.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Wills, Mrs. E A

  Gordon.-Walker, P. C.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Woods, G. S.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Yates, V. F.

  Greenwood, A. W J (Heywood)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Young, Sir R (Newton)

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Orbach, M.

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Grey, C. F.

  Paget, R. T.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Grierson, E.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Palmer, A. M F.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gunter, R. J

  Parker, J.

  Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell.

  Guy, W. H.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Question put, and agreed to.

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

  INDIA (GOVERNORS' ALLOWANCES AND PRIVILEGES)
  10.9 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I beg to move:
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provsions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act. 1935, praying that the Government of India (Governors' Allowances and Privileges) (Amendment) Order, 1947, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
  The object of this Order is to provide for certain increases in the allowances for the Governors of the various Provinces of India. The reason is that the increased cost of living has necessitated an overall 25 per cent. increase in the amount laid down in the Order of 1937. When I say that this has received the approval of every one of the provincial governments, I think the House will readily accept it.
  Earl Winterton: On behalf of this side of the House, I would say that seems to be a reasonable proposal, and we feel that these allowances should be paid. I understand that there has been an attempt to make it retroactive. Could the right hon. Gentleman, with the permission of the House, say whether they are retroactive, and explain when they start and when they will end?
  Mr. Henderson: They are retroactive to 1st April this year, and will continue in operation until 15th August and thereafter, unless and until they are repealed by the respective Governments of India and Pakistan.
  Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Snow.]
  Debate to be resumed upon Friday.

  BURMA (GOVERNOR'S SALARY, ALLOWANCES AND PRIVILEGES)
  The Under-Secretary of State for Burma (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I beg to move:
  584
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (Governor's Salary, Allowances and Privileges) (Amendment) Order, 1947, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."
  This Order is similar to the one we have just discussed, and applies to Burma. It has received the approval of the Government of Burma, and is for the same reason, namely, increases in the cost of living which have necessitated these increases of allowances for the Governor.
  Earl Winterton: The same considerations apply to this Order as to the last. Although perhaps it does not matter now very much as we shall not be having these Orders after 15th August, I would draw attention to the fact that it was impossible to obtain printed copies of the Order anywhere in the House, and they were only available later in the day. In view of the complicated character of such Orders, perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see in future that they are printed earlier?
  Mr. Henderson: I wish to apologise to the noble Lord, and to the House for this delay. I was only made aware of it a few moments ago.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: May we have some indication of what the Order does? I have not seen it.
  Mr. Henderson: As regards the Governor of Burma, the same considerations apply as in the case of the Provincial Governors in India in regard to increases in the cost of living. The allowances for the Governor of Burma in the principal Order of 1937 had been found to be insufficient. The matter has been considered by the Government of Burma, who have decided that there is a case for giving these increases.
  Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Snow.]
  Debate to be resumed upon Friday.

  BURMA (HIGH COURT JUDGES)
  Mr. A. Henderson: I beg to move:
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (High Court Judges) (Amendment) Order, 1947, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."

  585
  This applies particularly to one judge, Mr. Justice Blagden, who, during the occupation of Burma by the Japanese forces, was given an appointment in the High Court of Calcutta. Unless this Order is made, he will be debarred from the allowances that are payable to judges of the High Court of Rangoon. It is to regularise the position that we seek approval of the House to this Order.
  Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Snow.]
  Debate to be resumed upon Friday.

  ELECTORAL REGISTRATION REGULATIONS
  10.15 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Oliver): I beg to move:
  "That the Electoral Registration Regulations, 1947, dated 2nd July, 1947, a copy of which was presented on 3rd July, be approved."
  This Order is to secure that the names which appear on the civilian residents electors' lists, which form the basis of the Civilian Register which will be published on 15th October, shall be treated in a similar manner to the way in which the lists were compiled in prewar days, that is to say, that the persons who are newly qualified, and those who have ceased to be qualified, shall be listed separately. That is necessary in order to facilitate the compilation of the jurors' list for 1948. The House will no doubt be aware that the rating authorities must, for the purpose of compiling a jurors' list, mark off the names of the people who have the requisite qualifications to act as jurors. Last year, which was the first year since 1940 in which a jurors' list was prepared, it was necessary for the rating authority to go through the whole of the names in the civilians' list for the purpose of ascertaining who had the right qualifications. That has already been done. Under the proposal contained in the Motion now before the House, it will only be necessary for the list of newly qualified people to be provided to the local authorities, who will then be able to see whether the newly qualified electors have the necessary qualifications. By that means, a considerable amount of labour will be saved.
  10.17 p.m.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: There is, in my view, a serious omission in this list. I do not know whether the House will recollect that about three weeks ago I presented a Petition on behalf of a large number of wives, daughters and sisters of serving men in Germany. I have since written to the Home Secretary upon the subject, and have not yet received his reply, but as that was only two or three days ago I could hardly have expected one. I would like to ask the Under-Secretary of State why it is when this Order, purporting to provide for electoral machinery over the course of the next few months or years, is brought before the House, no mention whatever is made of the position of those English people who are resident overseas, and who, during the General Election in 1945, were unable to vote? It is a serious problem, and the Government ought to give it consideration. I deplore the fact that it has not been found possible to include provision for these people in this Order. I ask that another Order be made to provide it for them.
  In this Order provision is made for a Service electors' list, that is to say that every man of the requisite age is entitled to vote overseas. Since the end of the war, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of British women have gone overseas to join their husbands and their relatives. Are they not to be entitled to vote at any forthcoming by-election? We are told that there is a possibility of a General Election in the course of the year——
  Mr. Speaker: The noble Lord's proposal could not be carried out without amendment of the Act, and I am afraid that his speech is out of Order.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: If it cannot be done by an Order, might I ask the Home Secretary for the amendment of the Act as soon as possible?
  Mr. Speaker: No, that is out of Order. We are discussing the Order: the Act cannot be discussed.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I understand that it is within the Act. If that is the case, can it be done by an Order?
  Mr. Speaker: I am afraid it is not. i gather that it is not within the Act, and unless the noble Lord can prove to me that I am wrong I am afraid he is out of Order.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I very much regret that I have not the necessary documents with me at the moment to prove that to you, Sir. Therefore, I accept your Ruling. I hope I have made my point and that the Government will consider it.
  10.21 p.m.
  Mr. Keeling: As I understand it, this provision seeks to continue for one year, with some modifications, the wartime practice whereby the Register of Electors is, in effect, prepared from the food cards instead of from a house to house canvass as was the prewar practice. I would ask the Under-Secretary or the Home Secretary whether he will give an assurance that this is the last time this wartime procedure will be adopted and that in the next Session of Parliament we shall have something different, perhaps on the lines of the recommendations of the Electoral Registration Committee.
  10.22 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Williams: I only wish to ask for an explanation of a point on which I am not clear; this is not a subject on which I can say much. On page 2 of this Order it is stated:
  "Provided that where since the publication of the register in force the area of a registration unit has been altered, the area of that unit may for the purpose of the publication of the civilian residence electors list be deemed to be the area of the unit as constituted at the date of the publication of the register in force."
  I have no particular wish to raise any point in regard to the last words, but I am not used to seeing the words describing the area of a registration unit. It may be that those words are always in these Orders. Is the area of a unit the area of a constituency or of a smaller portion, such as a parish or a polling district? If it is the area of a whole constituency, of a unit of electors, then a very much bigger and different question is raised. I think those words should be explained by a Government spokesman. If it merely means the area of a registration unit, such as a polling district, I think there is nothing really which we can say about it. Probably it is the ordinary alteration of a polling district which may take in rather more or less than before, but we ought to be perfectly clear that it is not referring to a wider area. If it does refer to the wider area of the constituency, I think there ought to be some further
  588
  explanation. I do not see any great harm in having a new register. I think it is something we all want to have as soon as possible. I would like an explanation on the matter.
  Mr. Ede: The area of a constituency can only be altered by Act of Parliament. Therefore, as there has been no Act of Parliament since the last Register was compiled which has altered the boundaries of constituencies, it is quite clear that this reference must be to some smaller unit, such as a parish, an urban district, a ward or one of those convenient units into which constituencies are sub-divided. I think the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) considerably underrates his powers when he says that this is a subject on which he could not say very much. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling), it is not for me to anticipate the Gracious Speech which will be made from the Throne in the course of the next few weeks, but I should be disappointed if the present method of compiling the register and these orders were to continue for any undue length of time in the future. I will endeavour, so far as my powers will carry me, to see that we get a more satisfactory method of compiling the register at the earliest possible moment.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Has the right hon. Gentleman no word to say about the disfranchisement of those women to whom I referred?
  Mr. Ede: Mr. Speaker ruled the noble Lord out of Order, and I do not want to get into bad company.
  Resolved:
  "That the Electoral Registration Regulations, 1947, dated 2nd July, 1947, a copy of which was presented on 3rd July, be approved."

  FIRE SERVICES BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  FIRE SERVICES BILL

    CLAUSE 1.—(Provision of fire services.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 10, leave out from beginning to "have" in line 14 and insert:
    "(2) For the purposes of such arrangements as are mentioned in paragraph (d) of the last foregoing Subsection, any member of a fire brigade maintained in pursuance of this Act shall, if authorised in writing by the authority maintaining the brigade."
    10.27 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    I may point out that I shall move a similar Motion regarding all the Amendments on the Order Paper. This Amendment is a drafting Amendment.

    CLAUSE 2.—(Arrangements for mutual assistance.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 13, leave out from beginning to "for" in line 16, and insert:
    "(4) A reinforcement scheme may make provision."
    Mr. Ede: I think it would be for the convenience of the House if we were to take with this Amendment, the Amendment in page 4, line 47, at end, to insert:
    "(4) Save as expressly provided in this Act, a fire authority shall not make any charge for services rendered by the authority."
    The purpose of providing expressly that a fire authority shall not make any charge for services rendered by the authority is to make it quite clear that the fire authority shall not be entitled to require the owners or occupiers of property on which fires occur to make any payment in respect of services rendered by the brigade. The Fire Brigades Act, 1938, which is now being repealed, provides for the abolition of such charges, and it is feared that some doubt may arise as to the intentions of Parliament if the Amendment to Clause 3 is not made. Fire authorities are allowed to make charges for special services and for arrangements with another fire authority under Clause 12. The Amendment to Clause 2 (4), is consequential on the other Amendment.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: May I ask the Home Secretary what would happen in those cases of what I might call vexatious calls on a fire brigade? If any expense is caused, can it be put upon the people?
    Mr. Ede: If the vexatious call is a false alarm, there are powers under the Bill to deal with it. The special charges relates to circumstances where a fire brigade is used for some purpose other than putting out fires, if, for instance, the engines were used to pump out a flooded cellar, or in
    590
    other ways in which the brigade might render service to a private citizen which is not part of its normal functions.
    Mr. Charles Williams: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having accepted this Amendment, because it is an improving Amendment and one which makes the Bill, which is not a good Bill, better than it was. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on accepting the wisdom of another place.
    Mr. Ede: May I tell the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) that I suggested the Amendment which was moved by the noble Lord in another place. May I also say that the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston), on the last occasion when we discussed this Bill, thought that it was a good Bill.

    CLAUSE 4.—(County and county borough councils to be fire authorities.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 20, leave out "Subsection" and insert "Section."
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment is necessary to correct an error.

    CLAUSE 13.—(Transitional provisions.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 1, leave out Clause 13.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is the most substantial Amendment which has been made in the Bill. It is perhaps less substantial than would appear, because, in fact, the Clause virtually reappears as the new Fifth Schedule to the Bill, which will be the last Amendment I shall move. It was suggested in another place, on behalf of the Association of Municipal Corporations, that this should be the form in which this particular enactment should be made. It is more usual to put transitional powers into a Schedule to a Bill rather than into a Clause of the Bill; and the Parliamentary draftsmen regard it as an improvement in the structure of the Measure.

    591
    There is one respect in which a point of substance is latent in the redrafting which has occurred in moving the new Clause into the Schedule, and perhaps it might be convenient to the House, now that I am moving the omission of the Clause, if I indicated the way in which it will be found to be slightly varied when we find it again in the Schedule. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the new Schedule have been drafted in such a way that we can provide, in any class of case in which it is desirable under the regulations, not to vest property in the new fire authority, but instead to enable the new fire authority merely to use it on terms to be agreed between the old and new fire authorities, or, in default of agreement, determined by the Secretary of State. Our attention has already been drawn to classes of cases in which this is desirable. First, this is so in the case of premises used both for fire service and other purposes. This was raised by the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) both in Committee and on the Floor of the House on the Report stage, and we did make one or two efforts to try to get the matter sorted out. I hope that the way it is now being done will enable a considerably greater amount of elbow room to be available in the negotiations between the two authorities.
    Secondly, there is the case of premises which were originally acquired by the old fire authority for another local government service, which were turned over to fire brigade use in the hectic days of the Auxiliary Fire Service, and later transferred to the National Fire Service, and have been used for that purpose ever since. I think that here, again, we want to give the authorities a reasonable discretion, with an appeal, in the way in which they finally dispose of these premises. The Schedule also provides for what may be called a reverse class of case, namely, that in which a building is used principally by the Fire Service, though part is in use by the local authority for another purpose. In that class of case, the regulations may provide for the whole building to vest in the new fire authority, the old authority being given the right to use the minor portion of the building on terms to be agreed. This provision will, I think, make the transitional powers a great deal more easy of application, and I think that by leaving out Clause 13, and re-enacting the
    592
    idea as the new Fifth Schedule, with the modifications I have indicated, we shall make for the smooth working of the most difficult phases of the operations.
    Mr. Grimston: I dislike disagreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), but I cannot share his opinion that this is a bad Bill, largely for the reason that we had a good deal of discussion in Committee and the Home Secretary showed himself very well disposed to accepting Amendments on matters we raised. Let us be fair. The effect of the modification proposed here is to give more flexibility in coming to an arrangement where there might be a conflict of interest with regard to the user of buildings. I would put one point to the Home Secretary. I gather that in the case we put with regard to buildings, if it cannot be resolved, an appeal is to the Minister of Health. I think that is so. But if there is a difference of opinion with regard to pension matters, then it is the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
    Mr. Ede: I think it is the Secretary of State in both cases.
    Mr. Grimston: Paragraph 9 (3) of the new Schedule says that anything arising thereunder shall be determined by the Minister of Health. In the case of pensions, I think I am right in saying that the appeal goes to the Secretary of State, either the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Home Secretary. I think that this new arrangement is an improvement in the Bill, and I am glad that the alteration is made.
    Mr. C. Williams: I have no wish whatever to enter into any controversy with my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston). I have no doubt whatever that what he said about the Bill is undoubtedly due to the fact that he has had a very considerable part in shaping it since it first came to the House. Apart from saying that, I will leave the matter of the value of the Bill. What I wish to deal with is the wisdom of moving this Clause into the Schedule. The right hon. Gentleman said that this is a substantial Clause. I am supporting the Government on this particular matter. I hope that this does not mean that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will get up and attack the Government, but I think that, as the right hon. Gentleman says—and I have

    593
    had some correspondence on the subject with him—this provision will give wider power to local authorities. It will give them a wider power and greater discretion. That is an unusual thing to be given to local authorities by this Government and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on doing it. It does, however, give greater width to the position of local authorities and, from that point of view, great responsibility, and without trying to lay down who gets the credit for this, I would undoubtedly like to say that it is probably mainly due to another place. I know the Home Secretary is frightfully jealous about any credit that is going, but if he wants credit, I will give it to him wholeheartedly.

    CLAUSE 27.—(Firemen's Pension Scheme.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 39, leave out "service" and insert "employment."
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is an attempt to differentiate between service and employment.
    Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 44, leave out from "excluding" to "injury" in line 47 and insert:
    "or modifying, in the case of an injury in respect of which an award is made under the Scheme, being an injury sustained in the execution of duty in such circumstances as may be specified in the Scheme, any other right against the Crown or other authority in whose employment the injury occurred to compensation or damages in respect of the "
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The Subsection amended in this way was intended to re-enact substantially the existing provision in the Fire Brigades Pension Act which is being repealed, and which is that a fireman could not prosecute an alternative claim for damages under, say, the Compensation Acts in respect of an injury sustained on duty and draw a pension under the Act in respect of that injury. The provision could not be re-enacted without alteration because a fireman must, in future, get his pension under the regulations relating to industrial
    594
    injuries insurance under the Act of 1946. The Subsection was too widely drawn and an Amendment was necessary in any event. That being so, when the Subsection was amended in another place, opportunity was taken to modify it so as to enable the Secretary of State either to exclude any form of compensation other than an injury pension or to abate in respect of the injury pension the amount of compensation. The Government have under consideration the intention eventually to deal with the matter, and the Home Secretary must have sufficient freedom of action to make the Firemen's Pension Scheme agree with the eventual decision of Parliament.

    CLAUSE 37.—(Application to Scotland.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 35, line 17, leave out from "State" to "a" in line 18 and insert:
    "before the first day of January nineteen hundred and forty-eight or such later date as the Secretary of State may in special circumstances allow."
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Fraser): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is rather more than a drafting Amendment. It was originally proposed that joint committees should submit administration schemes within three months, and the question of establishments should be worked out later. During the Committee stage, however, we agreed that establishments should be part of the administration schemes and it seems appropriate to extend the limit to three months, as indeed Clause 20 does for England and Scotland, where it is provided that joint committees shall submit schemes by January 1, 1948.
    Lords Amendment: In page 41, line 8, after "grants" insert:
    "in respect of expenditure incurred by them."
    Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is purely a drafting Amendment.
    Mr. C. Williams: If this is a drafting Amendment, and is in the decision the hon. Gentleman has just announced, can

    595
    we be told why it is re-drafted and for what purpose?
    Mr. Fraser: These words were inadvertently omitted at an earlier stage. The provision as it reads without these words is not very clear, and they are necessary to make the matter clear beyond any doubt.
    Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to [Several with Special Entries].

  MANPOWER AND PRODUCTION
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]
  10.49 p.m.
  Mr. Sparks: I am very glad to have this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House a subject of very great significance and importance to the country. In fact, the nature of the subject is so wide and so deeply affects our welfare that it is quite impossible to deal adequately with it in the space of time available in an Adjournment Debate. Therefore, I must content myself in the time at my disposal with making a few comments upon manpower and production, and a few suggestions as to how I think some of our difficulties can be overcome.
  I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman the Paymaster-General (Mr. Marquand) is present to answer for the Government. First, I think it is most important that we should recognise certain very significant manpower trends. The working population, or rather the population of working age, steadily declines. During the period between the two wars, we experienced a considerable volume of unemployment, and significant in that period of time was a reduction in the birth rate. Now and in the next two decades we shall be reaping the fruit in our manpower problems of the seeds which were sown in the inter-war period. It is very interesting to know that last year the population of working age was 31,659,000, but in 1951 there will be a fall of 124,000 to the figure of 31,535,000.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: What does the hon. Member mean by working age?
  Mr. Sparks: Working age means the age groups, in the case of men, of from 16 to 64 and in the case of women 15 to 59.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is that in Great Britain?
  Mr. Sparks: Yes, it is the United Kingdom. It is most important that we should realise that in this period 1946 and 1951 there will be a drop of 890,000 in the population of working age in the age groups 15 to 39. However, there is a rise in the population of working age, between the ages of 40 and 64, of 770,000. That indicates quite clearly that the older population of 40 upwards are living longer, but the younger population from 15 to 40 are a shrinking and diminishing quantity. Therefore, as the older population pass off, their places are not being taken by the younger population. In the next generation or two that is going to be a serious factor for us in replacing our existing manpower.
  As I said, in 1951 we shall find ourselves 124,000 short in our population of working age. The actual working population in 1951, however, will be, in regard to men, 14,540,000, or 90.7 per cent. of the men between 15 and 64. We shall have women totalling 5,320,000, which is 34.3 per cent. of the women in age groups 15 to 59, making a total manpower of 19,860,000. That means a decline of 95,000 on last year; but the most significant thing is that in these figures there will be 355,000 fewer women in industry in 1951 than there was last year, because of the general decline in the lower age groups and the increasing reluctance of women to enter industry. That means we shall have to fill the places of those women with men whom we can inadequately spare from other work. It is, therefore, important to bear in mind that our manpower forces are a definitely diminishing factor.
  On the other hand, our production needs are increasing and have been increasing for a considerable time. We are told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others that if we are to hold our own in the world and if we are to balance our imports and exports, we must export at least 75 per cent. more than we did in 1938. This means that we must have in the export industries approximately 2,000,000 workers. In 1939 we had

  597
  1,150,000 workers in the export industries, and if we are to put up production by 75 per cent. we should need 850,000 more workers. From where are they to come? It is interesting to note that, in 1939, the working population was 19,750,000, and if we take that as a basis, plus the necessity to increase our exports by 75 per cent., we shall want 850,000 more men. This will make the total labour force needed 20,600,000, but we had in April, 1947, a working population of only 20,210,000, and that figure includes the sick, the invalids and those incapable of working. As I said, we are short at the moment on 1939 standards, plus the necessity to export, of 390,000 workers to meet the export needs of the country. Here I would like to draw attention to what I consider to be a very wrong policy in these days. I have here a letter from one of my constituents, and he says this:
  "I and 19 other men employed by a well-known firm of aircraft engineers in this district (N.W.10) and part of a large group, have been discharged because we are over 65 years of age. This became operative now as the firm have renewed a prewar rule.
  "The action seems all the more serious as the majority of us, according to the director's farewell to us, stated that the quality of our work was excellent. The appeals of Mr. Bevin and Sir Stafford Cripps are being flouted. We are all anxious to help the speedy recovery of Britain but what hope have we at this age to appeal to a new firm for employment, even if it happens to be in the same occupation. Perhaps you might be able to stop this rot from spreading."
  This is symptomatic of the change taking place in many of our industries. This is an aircraft firm engaged on export trade and here are twenty men, excellent craftsmen, turned out of their jobs at 65 and their places are going to be filled by young men. Where are these men of 65 and over to get other jobs? It is important, to recognise that we should appeal to industry to retain men over 65 for so long as they can possibly be employed, especially where they are skilled craftsmen.
  In addition to our export needs, what is the demand for additional labour in the home market? The housing programme provides for 750,000 permanent houses in three years. If we want 75 per cent. more production in our export industries, that means additional factory development to provide for that increased capacity. There are new town developments, especially for London and our great cities. New towns, new factories,
  598
  new industries and new schools are all required; and all this means an increased demand for labour. In the building industry we need at least 200,000 more men than the industry has at the present time if we hope to achieve the programme within the next few years. Then, of course, there is the question of consumer goods—furniture, bedding, linen, household goods. There is hardly a household in the country but what is threadbare and urgently in need of replenishments of many kinds. We must grow more food. That means an intensification of our agricultural production, which in turn means more labour and mechanisation.
  I would like to draw the attention of the House to the very serious under-strength of many of our basic industries. They are short of the 1939 strength by the following percentages: Tin plate and sheet steel, 40 per cent., cotton, 26, iron foundries (not engineering), 22, wool, 21. clothing, 21, silk and rayon, 15, footwear, 15, coal, 6, bricks, tiles, etc., 30, hosiery, 36. I am anxious to know how we can improve this problem and where the solution lies. Here I might say I am sorry to see there is some confusion in the ranks of the trade union movement. We hear some trade union leaders talking about the direction of labour, some talking about the partial direction of labour, some disagreeing with direction and advocating incentives whilst others oppose incentives. I believe it is important that the trade union movement shall speak at this moment with a very clear and effective voice. I do not believe the workmen of this country need spoon-feeding and soft-soaping. They need a clear and definite lead. I believe they are quite capable in the trials ahead of bearing the burdens and shouldering the responsibility of pulling our country through its difficulties. They were quite capable of doing this during the war years and will do so in times of peace. What they need, in my view, is a clear unchallenged lead, especially from their own people in the trade union movement, as to what should be done to meet the situation.
  There are obviously limitations to the direction of labour. I hope this House and the Government will not resort to the direction of labour. If they resort to it, it must be universal, otherwise it is bound to be a failure. I do not believe you will get the best out of men

  599
  by compelling them to do work they do not like. I believe the most important way of encouraging an increased industrial output is by the output bonus system. During the war we had an output bonus system in many of our war factories. The men knew that the more they produced and the greater the volume of their production, they correspondingly earned bonuses. Therefore, I believe we must resort to some extent to the same practice. If the workers realise that increased production is absolutely essential in order that the nation may live, I believe they will be ready and willing to respond.
  I want also to say this. I believe we must look more to increasing the productivity of labour by standardisation, by the rationalisation of industrial processes, by the mechanisation of production processes and by scientific and technical research. Here, again, I would draw attention to the technical colleges. In my view they are not serving a full and proper purpose for the needs of this day and generation. They are doing excellent work, but the technical colleges are not sufficiently concentrated, upon the basic industries of mining, transport, engineering, textiles and iron and steel. Therefore, I believe it is necessary for us to expand our technical colleges and technical institutions. They have at present insufficient accommodation. I believe it is very important that in every way we should encourage into our technical colleges a larger number of students.
  I think the Minister will be interested in some information I have on this matter. In 1937/1938 the number of full-time students and part-time students in technical colleges of the country was 1,311,549. In 1945/46 the number was about 16,000 fewer—1,295,566. It means that our technical colleges are not serving the wider purpose of our main generation. There is a lesser number of students, part-time and whole-day, entering our colleges for technical instruction. Take mining, one of the most important basic industries. Only 0.8 per cent. of full-time day students in technical colleges of the country were studying the technology of mining whilst 34.5 per cent. were studying art. I could give a whole list which would show that the technical
  600
  colleges are not really in line with the urgent needs of industrial technical research.
  I would like to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. Obviously time is short, and I cannot say all I would like to say, but must leave him some time. I ask the Government whether they will consider drawing up a three-year plan. I think it is most important at this time, facing the difficulties we do, that the Government should draw up a three-year plan which should be presented to the country and to all concerned, giving them an object, a target, and an ideal for which they could work. I would suggest that the basis must be, not the direction of labour or the forcing of men compulsorily into jobs, but that we should base it upon a rationing scheme of labour supply. We have rationed our foodstuffs to ensure equitable distribution. I believe that with our manpower being a shrinking quantity, if we are going to meet the increased productive needs of the nation we must acknowledge the necessity for the rationing of what is in short supply. This rationing could be based by the Government upon absolute priority to essential industries in the question of labour supplies. The secondary industries would have a lower priority and the non-essential and luxury industries should be run down and production suspended for at least three years.
  We cannot afford to see our productive workers being diverted to non-essential and luxury industries merely because those industries can always go one better than the basic industries in wages or greater inducements to the workers. I believe it would be possible to arrive at common agreement if the Government would consult the employers' organisations and the trade union movement with a view to an equitable basis for drawing up a three-year plan of priorities to essential industries in the supply of labour power. I am not saying that we should drive people out of non-essential luxury industries and send them elsewhere but that we should fix a standard of priority. Then, if they are above that priority level, there should be no replacements as workers leave for one cause or another. The employment exchanges could control the supply of labour to non-essential and luxury industries in that way.
  Mr. Carmichael: Is that not directing labour? If a person is employed in an industry and does not like the job and leaves it and makes application, then because he is in a low-grade priority industry, the employment exchange will not redirect him. Surely, that is direction of labour?
  Mr. Sparks: No, that is not direction of labour. You are not forcing a man to go to a specific job. All you are saying is that there is too great a labour supply in that industry and if a man leaves that job there should be no replacements sent to it until it has reduced itself to the required standard. But any man would be free to leave and enter any other industry provided it was an essential industry. If you are not going to accept that, you will have a flow into the pools and all luxury, industries and non-productive trades, and that is where the labour is going. With a serious shortage of labour power and serious prospects ahead, if we are not prepared to utilise our labour supply to the best advantage, how can we hope to cope with these problems?
  I would say this in conclusion. It is, I think, a great testimony to this Government that in the two years they have been in power only 3¼ million days have been lost in strikes, whereas in the first two years after the 1914–18 war there were lost 39½ million working days. I think it is a tribute to the Government and to its policy that we have been able to reduce the time lost in industrial disputes to such a small figure. I am afraid I have taken up too much time and I have left my right hon. Friend inadequate time to answer on this very significant, deep and complicated question, but I realise and I hope that he will carry back to the Government some of the points I have raised, and so help us all.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Concerning the letter the hon. Gentleman cited, does he mean these were men who left employment at 65 or were not up to working at 65 and were, therefore, asked to discontinue work?
  Mr. Sparks: In regard to the letter I read out, all these men were at work and were competent and skilled. But the firm reinstated a prewar rule which provided that all workers, whether good, bad or indifferent, had to leave their employment at 65.
  11.12 p.m.
  The Paymaster-General (Mr. Marquand): The hon. Gentleman said he had left me inadequate time to reply. If it was impossible for him to deal with all these subjects in 25 minutes, it is all the more impossible for me to deal with them in five minutes. I do, of course, agree that the hon. Gentleman has been drawing attention in what I recognise is a most helpful and constructive spirit to many facts which the Government have already placed before the employers. I do not dispute the figures he gave on the decline of the working population. These were taken from an article in the Ministry of Labour Gazette of May, 1947, to which I am glad he has called attention. Perhaps I may draw the attention of the House to what is, in some ways, the most important problem of all. Between 1936 and 1939 on the average 662,000 boys and girls entered the main industries of this country every year. In 1945–1946 the number was 562,000 and because of the decline in the birth rate between the two wars, these numbers will go on declining for some time to come. It is estimated that in 1950 only about 525,000 boys and girls between 14 and 17 will enter industry.
  These are facts which employers as a whole ought to know if there are any who do not know them yet. They should adjust their employment to that prospective shortage of juvenile labour and therefore I emphasise what the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has said about it being a wrong policy to discharge elderly employees where there is a shortage of labour. It is a wrong policy. It is not, of course, the policy of the Government, which has appealed to employers wherever there is a shortage of labour, to continue those people in employment, and has indeed adjusted the Insurance Act to give some incentive to older workers to stay on in industry.
  I agree there is still need for some increase in the numbers working on exports, though I think, we have not yet seen the full output from the numbers already so employed. The hon. Member was right in emphasising the shortage of manpower, which was the whole burden of the argument in the economic White Paper. He was right also in emphasising that if the workers are given a clear lead they are capable of dealing with the situation, and giving the increased productivity which

  603
  the situation requires. I am glad he indicated his own willingness to help in giving that lead, for it cannot be given by the Government only; it must be given also by Members like himself who have had wide experience in trade union matters. We welcome the assistance all hon. Members on this side can give in this matter, and confidently rely on the support of all men of good will in trying to increase the productivity of the working population—[An HON. MEMBER: "And on the Opposition side."] I said all men of good will. If the cap fits I am glad the hon. Member has put it on.
  In regard to the decline in the numbers of people in technical colleges, I am not sure that the hon. Member took fully into account the decline in the juvenile population. I suspect that if he examines the figures he may find that part of the explanation is simply the decline in the
  604
  number of young persons of an age to go to technical colleges. I am glad to say that the Government are doing their best to encourage the study of industrial technique at these colleges, and that there are courses in progress at 601 colleges, covering 100 specialised trades. But there are so many matters to touch on, and so little time in which to do it, that I can only say that in calling on the Government to draw up a three-year plan he was asking them to carry out what they have announced their intention of doing, but whether it is a plan for three years or four I am not going to prophesy.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order made upon 13th November.
  Adjourned at Nineteen Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.

  REPATRIATION INCIDENT, BOLOGNA
  REPATRIATION INCIDENT, BOLOGNA
GERMANY
  Repatriated Men (Ration Cards)
  Repatriated Men (Ration Cards)
  Control Commission's Cars
  Control Commission's Cars
  Interned Persons (Release)
  Interned Persons (Release)
  Level of Industry Plan
  Level of Industry Plan
  Bizonal Economic Council (Membership)
  Bizonal Economic Council (Membership)
  Intelligence Service (Officers' Nationality)
  Intelligence Service (Officers' Nationality)
  ADEN (HOUSING)
  ADEN (HOUSING)
  PALESTINE (BRITISH CASUALTIES)
  PALESTINE (BRITISH CASUALTIES)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Rural Building Workers (Special Rations)
  Rural Building Workers (Special Rations)
  Wine Manufacture (Fruit and Sugar)
  Wine Manufacture (Fruit and Sugar)
  Bacon Factory Offals
  Bacon Factory Offals
  Bread and Flour Ration
  Bread and Flour Ration
  Jam
  Jam
  Shopping (Aged People)
  Shopping (Aged People)
ROYAL NAVY
  Target Ships
  Target Ships
  H.M.S. "Venerable"
  H.M.S. "Venerable"
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Kiosks, Plymouth
  Kiosks, Plymouth
  Telephonists
  Telephonists
POST OFFICE
  Deferred Printed Papers
  Deferred Printed Papers
  Dismissed Postmen, Glasgow
  Dismissed Postmen, Glasgow
  "Business Reply" Letters (Postmark)
  "Business Reply" Letters (Postmark)
  Delivery Delays, London
  Delivery Delays, London
  B.B.C. PUBLICATION ("LONDON CALLING")
  B.B.C. PUBLICATION ("LONDON CALLING")
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Night Flying, Booker
  Night Flying, Booker
  Llandwrog Airfield (Use)
  Llandwrog Airfield (Use)
  Missing Personnel (Search)
  Missing Personnel (Search)
  Corporation Aircraft (Petrol)
  Corporation Aircraft (Petrol)
CIVIL AVIATION
  London-Cornwall Service
  London-Cornwall Service
  Yeadon Aerodrome
  Yeadon Aerodrome
  SOMALILAND (CHRISTIAN MISSIONS)
  SOMALILAND (CHRISTIAN MISSIONS)
  EMPLOYMENT (ELDERLY PEOPLE)
  EMPLOYMENT (ELDERLY PEOPLE)
  CLEARING DEPOT KELSTERN (STORAGE)
  CLEARING DEPOT KELSTERN (STORAGE)
  INDIA (BOUNDARY COMMISSION)
  INDIA (BOUNDARY COMMISSION)
  INVALIDED POLICE OFFICER
  INVALIDED POLICE OFFICER
  VETERINARY INSPECTORS (RECRUITMENT)
  VETERINARY INSPECTORS (RECRUITMENT)
EDUCATION
  Teachers (Responsibility Allowances)
  Teachers (Responsibility Allowances)
  Junior and Infant Schools
  Junior and Infant Schools
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Belgian Gelatine (Imports)
  Belgian Gelatine (Imports)
  Production (Variations)
  Production (Variations)
  HOUSING, KENT
  HOUSING, KENT
  IDENTITY CARDS
  IDENTITY CARDS
  ARMED FORCES (AUXILIARY UNITS)
  ARMED FORCES (AUXILIARY UNITS)
  BOMBED SITES (FENCING)
  BOMBED SITES (FENCING)
Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Prayers.
4.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Amendment be agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 15, leave out ("or good estate management") and insert ("whether as respects good estate management or good husbandry or otherwise").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, on a point of Order, may I ask whether it would not be for the convenience of all your Lordships, if, when dealing with the next Amendment, we deal at the same

783
time with the three which follow? The arguments either in favour or against will be along the same lines.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved, in subsection (3), after paragraph (b), to insert:
"(c) where the tenancy was created after the passing of this Act, that the landlord proposes to terminate the tenancy for a purpose, specified in the contract of tenancy, for which the interest of the landlord was held immediately before the creation of the tenancy, and that."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think this is the Amendment which the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has in mind. I suggest that it would suit the convenience of your Lordships if we considered the Amendments together. This would include those which have been put down by my noble friends Lord Hastings and Viscount Bledisloe.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, it would entirely suit my convenience to have one debate on these matters, but that must not be taken to mean that I would withdraw my Amendment with the mass.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, what I propose is that we should have one discussion on these Amendments, and then vote on the Amendments separately. This matter was discussed at some length on the Committee stage. The issues involved are considerable, and in the previous discussion there was a certain obvious divergence of views between the two sides of the House. Since then we have considered very carefully the speeches which were made by noble Lords in the Committee stage and the points which they raised. We have tried to meet noble Lords to a very considerable extent, and your Lordships will see that a number of Amendments have been put clown to this clause which do, I think, widen the provisions as originally suggested to quite a considerable extent. I hope that after examination your Lordships will agree that we, have in fact gone quite a long way in this matter. The first Amendment provides that after the Bill has become an Act then where a landlord specifies a definite intention when he enters into a tenancy agreement and writes that intention into the agreement, the Minister may grant consent to a notice to quit if greater hardship would be caused by withholding it. At this point I should, per-
784
haps, apologize because on the Committee stage I might not have made it clear that hardship was involved in every case. I considered that it was in the context and I meant to say so. If there was any misunderstanding, I apologize for the ambiguity of the words which I may have used.
The second Amendment at line 26 deals with a person who owns or acquires land before the Bill becomes law and who intends to give notice to quit to a tenant. It gives the Minister power to consent to a notice and widens the whole intention of the clause. It has been pointed put on Lord Hastings' Amendment that hardship might arise where the owner of land before the passing of the Bill, whose intention was that his son might eventually farm that land, dies subsequently to the Bill being passed, and the son is unable to dispossess the tenant. The Minister would not have the right to give consent to a notice to quit in these circumstances. Hardship might arise in such a case but, on the other hand, looking at the broader picture, your Lordships must appreciate that the great principle underlying the Bill is that of giving the farmer security of tenure. If a tenant-fanner dies, the owner can get back the, land without any application to the Minister and without even paying compensation. That is again a hard case against the son Of the tenant-farmer, just as we have mentioned a hard case against the son of an owner. Your Lordships may not agree, but it can be discussed. If we admit the principle embodied in Lord Hastings' Amendment it would open the door very wide indeed, and if we accepted Viscount Bledisloe's Amendment on the question of blood relations it is wry hard to say where it would stop.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, that was put down before the Amendment moved from the Woolsack by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor was put on the Paper. Had I known that Amendment was to be submitted, I would have substituted for "blood relation" words to cover such persons as were intended to be covered by the Amendment moved to Clause 16.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: This is really a compromise as to how wide the clause should be opened. As it is, I feel that we have gone a long way to meet opinion on the other side of the House,

785
in that we have given landowners the right in the case of a new tenancy to insert in the tenancy agreement what their intention is, which will give them a chance to get rid of a tenant at some future date. In regard to the son, I should like to say that, supposing the owner dies and the son succeeds and he wishes to dispossess one of the tenants, then there will be two lines of action which he may follow. If he can prove he is an efficient fanner and an enterprising man with experience, it will be quite possible. Alternatively, he could wait for a vacancy, when a tenant on the estate dies and he could take over. I hope your Lordships will agree that we have evolved a reasonable compromise. We have given what we can, and I hope your Lordships will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 21, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I for my part should like cordially to thank the noble Earl and the Government for attempting to meet us to a very considerable extent in trying to obtain fair treatment for at any rate a member of a landlord's family who is a more competent and, from a national point of view, a more desirable person to occupy part of the estate as tenant. The small point I am putting is the case where, between the date of the passing of the Bill and the giving of notice, the landlord dies. The new owner, let us say his son, might well be a trained farmer and the sitting tenant may be a far less competent husbandman than the landlord's relation. I feel rather strongly about this.
We are coming to a time where the Government of this country will have to fix some sort of criterion of good farming. I know it has been said that something like only 5 per cent. of sitting occupants of agricultural land are incompetent. I would venture to say. with some considerable knowledge of farming in other countries, particularly in Holland, Denmark, Belgium and New Zealand, that the average standard in those lands is considerably higher than it is in this country. I am not at all sure that we, as a nation, can afford to keep on the land men who are not capable of obtaining the maximum output of food and timber—a fact to which the
786
Lord Chancellor referred in somewhat dramatic terms this afternoon. That toting so, where you have a member of a landlord's family who inherits his estates an I is a trained agriculturist, maybe trained for a long time on the farm of a competent farmer or at an agricultural college or agricultural department of a University, surely you must compare the value to the nation of that man and of the relatively incompetent sitting tenant. I say that in the national interest you ought to swing the balance in favour of a member of the family who is a trained farmer.
That brings me to the second point which I intended to raise, what is called greater hardship. I feel inclined to ask, greater hardship to whom? If you mean greater personal hardship, I venture to suggest that that is not the criterion which should govern the policy to be pursued under this Bill. What we have to consider is what is in the public interest, not what is likely to create a particular hardship as between one individual mud another. That is why I venture to acid the, words "or public disadvantage." I do not think I can say anything more, but I want to impress on the noble Earl and the Government that most noble Lords on this side and those who are not merely landlords but also practical farmers want to make a success of this Bill. We want to help the Government in every way to get the maximum output. We realize, and I am sure the Government realize, what a black picture is facing us to-day in regard to the provision of an adequacy of food for the feeding of this nation. I for my part have put down these Amendments in order to present the picture to the noble Earl. To those of us who are out not only for fairness to the landlord and family, but also for what is best in the public interest, it is a grim picture.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I feel that these two Amendments which are rut down in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, indicate how complete is the failure of the Government to realize the revolutionary character of the proposals which they are attempting to embody in this Bill. It is the first time in any civilized country that an attempt has been made to enact that the rights of ownership do not take priority over the rights of occupation. The noble Earl indicated—if that were possible—an even greater failure to realize how fundamental these matters

787
are when he talked about the hardship caused by a tenant's son's inability to succeed automatically to his father's tenancy. He mentioned that in the same breath as the hardship inflicted upon an owner's son in not being able to occupy the land which he owned. If that does not indicate a perversity of mind, I do not know what does. It would cause my hackles to rise, if I had any! But we had all this out on the Committee stage, and it would be a waste of time to go over it all again.
What I think I am justified in doing now is to point out to the Government the inevitable consequences upon the operations of their own county agricultural committees of the framing of these clauses. When you have to determine a matter of hardship you get away from points of fact into the realm of opinion; and, of course, opinions are formed on the basis of ideologies. At the present time these county agricultural committees may—and do—contain representatives of various interests. But the members do not represent only those interests when they get into committee. Their object then is to improve the standard of farming in the area for which they are responsible, and to act as one body, reasonably directing their activities towards that end. If you are to compel these committees to discuss questions of hardship, you will immediately range the landowner members on one side, and the farming members on the other. The ideology of the landowner will be to hold that ownership has priority, and that the right of an owner to occupy the land he owns is fundamental; and the farming community will hold, quite naturally, that the right of the occupier is one which ought to rank at least equally with that of the owner, and should be judged solely upon the basis of whether or not the occupier is an efficient farmer, and, if he is, he ought to be allowed to remain where he is. Those things are patent and apparent.
Instead of having committees who will be able to devote the whole of their time and intelligence towards the purpose for which they have been formed, you will have them scrapping between each side about what is and what is not a case of hardship. Who are these committees to determine social questions of that kind? You will place upon them a burden which will be impossible for them to bear. After
788
all, these county agricultural committees are the basis upon which the effort to build up an efficient agriculture is to be made.. The Government, and the country as a whole, are going to be dependent upon these committees to an increasing extent in the future, far more even than was the case during the war. You do not want to rot away their time by making them debate social questions which they are wholly unqualified to consider. That is what you are going to do.
I beg the Government to make tip their mind to accept, what I know is unpalatable in some quarters—the principle of giving some direction to these committees, which would enable them to get on with their own jobs, by saying that where the owner wishes to occupy his land the Minister shall not interfere, bearing in mind all the time that there are at the beginning of the clause the words, "Without prejudice to the discretion of the Minister," which reserve to the committees and the Minister absolute power to debar an undesirable owner from entering into occupation. At the end of the clause there are other provisions whereby either the owner or occupier can, if he feels aggrieved, take his case to the agricultural land tribunal. There is a complete safeguard against the bad man entering into occupation. If only the Government would admit the principle, they would simplify the work of their county agricultural committees, because they would not then have to determine these questions which are impossible of determination.
I recognize to the full that the Government have gone a long way to meet the very strong feeling which has been germinated on this question, and I do not want to stress too much the case of the landowner per se. What I do want to stress—and I think I have stressed—is the immense difficulty which the Government are placing in the way of the functioning of their county agricultural committees. I would dearly like to see that simplified, so that we should not have our county agricultural committees wasting their time on subjects with which they were not qualified to deal. I shall reserve to myself the right to move my Amendment, if I so please when this debate is over. For the moment I shall be content with what I have already said, hoping against hope that that particular argument will have weight with the Government, for I confidently believe that it is a very strong one.
4.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two on this, as at an earlier stage I moved the original Amendment for which this is a substitute. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, when he moved his Amendment, said something on the question of a tenant's son not having the right to follow his father—from which I assumed that his argument was that there should be, so to speak, equality of treatment as between a tenant farmer and a landowner. I think he entirely forgot that that equality of treatment is not there. The tenant can give his landlord one year's notice in any year that he likes, whereas the landlord cannot give his tenant notice in any year that he likes; he has to go through a great deal. I would add, as a further argument on this point, that when he takes on a farm and signs the agreement the tenant knows the circumstances, and knows that his son is not necessarily going to succeed him when he dies.
The noble Earl also said that this was a workable compromise. I am not certain what he meant by the word "workable." As the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, pointed out, it will not be easy to work, although it may come within the meaning of "workable." I am afraid, as is the noble Lord. Lord Hastings, that in their attempts to decide any questions which may arise under this Amendment, if inserted in the Bill, the committees will be split from end to end, and I am also afraid that they will be split with the owners of the land upon one side and the farmers and the workers on the other side. The latter will be in the majority and the owner will get—to put it in ordinary language—"the dirty end of the stick" every time. That is my fear.
There is one other remark I want to make, and that is with regard to something my noble friend Viscount Bledisloe said. He said that the average standard of farming in this country was very much lower than in other countries.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: In certain other countries.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: In certain other countries. But I do not think the noble Viscount is right. I believe that the average yields in this country in all forms of produce are higher than in any of the countries which he mentioned. I will say this, that there are far too many
790
indifferent farmers—I have not the figures with me—and, indeed, there are so ma ay indifferent farmers that I think it cm be placed to the discredit of the county committees.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I am afraid the noble Earl must allow me to contradict him, because statistics are against him. The statistics with regard to food output, certainly in Holland, certainly in New Zealand, certainly in Denmark, and, I believe, in Belgium, show that the average output per acre is considerably higher than the average output per acre in this country. I do not want to discuss it now, but I cannot let it pass without some comment. If I may venture to say so, I am not condemning the farmers of this country. I think we have some of the best farmers in the whole world, but the average yield, both of our farms and livestock, leaves a great deal to be desired.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am not going to argue with the noble Viscount, because he knows his figures much better than I do, but I was under the impression that what I said was right, although I agree with him that there are far too many indifferent farmers in this country now, even after the pressure which was put upon them during the war. It is said that half a loaf is better than no bread. I suppose the same would apply to a quarter loaf being better than no bread, because I do not look upon this as being more than one quarter of what we want. That word "hardship" was not mentioned before, and when the noble Earl was speaking during the Committee stage I did not realize that it was all going to be dependent upon that word "hardship." I would have the House realize that not only is it dependent upon that word "hardship," but that it is still at the discretion of the Minister. The owner of land has absolutely no discretion at all in this matter beyond appealing to the Minister; and it is left to the Minister to say whether there is hardship or not. As somebody said, hardship for whom? For the country? For the individual? For the land? Or what?
That is why I feel that this is just one-quarter of what we wanted, and nothing like what we ought to have. It does not touch the fringe of the problem, and it course of time it will result in every

791
tenancy agreement having the saving clause provided for. It will also tend, I think unduly, to make owners farm their own land and not put their head into the noose. Whether that is good for tenant farmers, and whether it is good for farming in this country, I do not know; but it will be the inevitable tendency, and in that way you are not safeguarding the tenant in the way in which you hoped. In those circumstances, as I know that the noble Earl has done everything he can to meet our point of view, I am prepared to support this Amendment, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Hastings will not press his Amendment, because I know that it will be unacceptable and I do not believe that we could ever get it.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I think in the normal course of events, when we are going to accept an Amendment, it is generally better to do so right away, without saying anything more. I am glad that I have the concurrence of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. But this is rather an exceptional Amendment; it is one on which I think it only right that this House should put its views on record before we do in fact make a most unwilling acceptance. In saying "unwilling", I do not want to seem in the least ungrateful to the noble Earl and to the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, who I know have done their best to get clauses drafted which would meet our point of view. Undoubtedly these Amendments as they stand will make the Bill slightly better than it was before.
The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said this was a quarter loaf—I was thinking he might say one-eighth, but we will not quarrel over that. We on this side of the House, although many of us are landowners ourselves, have tried very hard not to put ourselves purely on the side of the owner, but to look after the agriculture industry as a whole. Clause 31, as it will finally reach the Statute Book, is going to be a boomerang for the farmer himself. We do not believe that this is just a case of a victory, shall we put it, of the National Farmers' Union over the Central Landowners' Association. I believe it is something which is ultimately going to be a source of hardship to the farmer himself.
792
We said these things on the Second Reading and, I think, on the last stage of this Bill, but I feel that it is important to repeat them. The farmer has his sons coming along, wanting to find new farms, and it is farmers who are going to be affected. Few farmers have against the private landowner security which they have not got against the State. I will give two instances. Under the New Towns Act there are known to be men looking for farms, and there is the case mentioned by the noble Earl himself on Committee stage of new blood coming into the industry; I think he had an engineer friend who was interested in it. None of that class of farmer is going to find it very easy in future—not half as easy as in the past—to find a vacant farm. If and when such men do come upon a farm of which it is possible to get vacant possession, as often as not they will find that they have to pay heavily for that possession. The farmer who has a tenancy will say, "Yes, I am prepared to give up this tenancy, but only in return for a very heavy payment," and that payment will amount to far more than the one or two years' rent which is mentioned as compensation in the Bill.
That is one set of reasons why I think the farmer will not gain by this clause. But there is another. Let us remember the distribution of the profits of the industry of agriculture at the moment and the fact—I think the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has already mentioned this point—that it is far more profitable to-day, and is likely to be for a long time to come, to farm than to own land. That is bound to be so; that has been the case for many years, and it is likely to continue so. Let us remember, also, that it is a great deal more profitable today to sell your land than to let it.
Are we quite sure that we are not driving the landowners into the position of saying that when a farm becomes vacant they will have to consider very carefully whether they are going to let it or farm it themselves, or put it up for sale and obtain the economic sale value? They know perfectly well that if they let it they are not going to get an economic rent, because none of us ever does. I feel, and I think a great number of other noble Lords feel, that this is likely to be a very unwise victory against the landowners. We should record that as our view—at the same time making it clear

793
that we recognize that this is certainly as far as the Government are prepared to go, and that the advice already given to your Lordships by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and others, is wise.
LORD HAZLERIGG: I wonder if I might make one suggestion? Is it possible that any special case can be made out for the home farm? There are cases where a man dies as a comparatively young man. His widow may live in the house with a boy of perhaps six or seven, and when that boy becomes a young man of, say, twenty-five years of age or so, he may want to have the farm. It seems to me a very special case, and as the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, and the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, have been so friendly, I thought they would not mind my making that suggestion.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: We naturally welcome a suggestion from such a distinguished farmer as the noble Lord who has just spoken. I must also pay tribute to noble Lords opposite for the generous way in which they have accepted the fact that we have gone a long way to meet them. We have done our best to meet noble Lords on a very difficult and controversial point. I should like to deal with one or two of the points raised in this extremely interesting discussion. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, raised the question of public interest. I think that that would be covered by efficient farming. In fact one of the reasons why we brought in these words "efficient farming" was to give the Minister much wider power. We do not want "efficient farming" just to mean the actual farming of the holding, but that farming in general, throughout the country, shall be covered by the expression. I do not think, therefore, it would be necessary to bring in the question of public interest, because it is already fully covered under the Bill in this way. I am glad to see that the noble Viscount does not propose to press his Amendment on that matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, raised some interesting points, and I do not want to join issue with him on the problem of fundamental rights, on which we all feel very strongly. The discussion might go on far into the night if we started on it. I might say, however, that conditions this country are changing very
794
considerably. We all admit that. We hope that this Bill will bring about an absolutely dynamic change in the whole farming industry. If it does not—if conditions are not very different from what they were between the two wars—we shall have failed. There was a particular point which Lord Hastings raja d in connexion with the committees. He pointed out that there were, after all, a certain number of people whose sympathy might be with the landowners, and others who might incline more towards the farming interest; and that there maybe a division of loyalty which will make judgment and decisions difficult in hardship cases. The committees admittedly are going to have an extremely responsible and difficult task to carry out, and on them hangs very largely the success of our policy in agriculture. But these cases of hardships which would come up to the committees might well in time divert their energies from tackling the day-to-day problems, and one hopes such cases will be extremely few. I do not think you are going to get a large number of cases of people who were owners before the war and who are giving notices to qui. There will be a few, but not a tremendous number. Also I do not see why the committees should not act in a judicial capacity on these different cases, just as our exemplary legal system acts in a completely impartial manner. The find responsibility will not, however, rest on the committees. They may make certain recommendations, and then either side will be at liberty to appeal, not only to the Minister but to an impartial tribunal. That may ease very largely the peace of mini of the committees.
There was a point mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr—and I could not help thinking that some noble Lords are thinking rather in terms of the past than of the future. It is perfectly true to say, I imagine, that, anyway for a long period of years, farming profitability has been extremely low, and the return to the landowner from farm property has been, one might say, miserably low. But the whole of our intention is that it should not go on being miserably low. We want to see farmers prosperous and producing all the food we need and getting a real return for their ingenuity and labour. At the same time we want to see the landowner who manages efficiently, who provides the goods and

795
equipment needed, get a proper return. And for that purpose we have instituted what we hope and believe will be a live system of arbitration which, in the event of disputes between the landlord and the tenant, will produce an economic, sound basis on which rents can be fixed.
LORD HASTINGS: There is nothing in the Bill instituting a new arbitration system. It is a mere repetition of the 1923 Act system.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I think the basis is different though I agree that the system is not new. We know that in the past it has happened, through the fact of the depression of the agricultural industry, that rents have not perhaps been what they should have been. We intend to do everything we can to help the agricultural industry to achieve prosperity, to give us the food we so badly need, to give the farmer a fair return, and at the same time compensate the owner in the form of rents and management. That is our intention and one sees no reason why the arbitrator should not be fair and reasonable on these subjects. Certainly that is our intention. I stress that point particularly because many noble Lords seem to look at the matter in the old light, that farming never has been profitable.
Let me say again, however, that I do recognize that noble Lords have been extremely generous. Having explained that we have done our best to meet the points of the noble Lords in this matter, I earnestly hope that the noble Lords, Lord Hastings and Viscount Bledisloe, will withdraw their Amendments—and that the House will accept what may be half-a-loaf .
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I have just two remarks to make. The noble Earl in introducing this Amendment spoke of hardship in the case of a tenant who died and the son who succeeded being turned out; he used that as an argument against this right being given to the landowner. Ire all the proceedings that have gone before in this Bill, I do not think that any of your Lordships has ever denied that that might be a hardship and, speaking entirely for myself, I would gladly consider conceding compensation as well as notice in such a case in return for something rather wider than this Amendment.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, might I remind the Government of an old French saying. I am not going to cross swords with Viscount Bledisloe on manures and so on; there is a French saying that "the best manure is the owner's foot." If you want really to produce the greatest amount of food in this country that you can, do not forget that old saying.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS had given Notice of an Amendment to insert:
"(c) That the notice to quit is or is proposed to be given by a landlord who acquired his interest in the holding to which the notice relates before the passing of this Act or who acquires that interest by inheritance after the passing of this Act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have had our debate, as we agreed, upon these Amendments. I have no intention of pressing my Amendment or even speaking to it, but I would like to endorse what the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said, and, perhaps, to put it more strongly. Security of tenure is a thing without which a farmer cannot do. But, if you overdo security of tenure, you change it from an incentive to do good work to an incentive to do nothing, and it is my belief that by insisting upon this Clause 31, those who represent the farmers' interests have driven more nails into their own coffin than anything else they could possibly have done. I regard it as the height of folly that this clause should find its way into the Agriculture Bill. With those remarks, I will leave the matter.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 26, at end insert—
("(d) where the tenancy was created before the passing of this Act and the same person was landlord at the passing thereof as at the time when the notice to quit was given or, if the application for the Minister's consent is made before giving the notice to quit, at the time of the application, that greater hardship would be caused by the Minister's withholding than by his granting his consent to the operation of the notice; or").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I do not propose to move the Amendments which I had put down to this Amendment, but I do want to say this. The

797
noble Earl just now said that the landowners must look for their reward for their management to this Bill. I venture to suggest that they will expect a little more remuneration for their management. As long as agricultural land remains private property, if they are going to equip their property properly, they must have some return.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I beg to move that the proviso in subsection (3) be omitted.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, leave out lines 35 to 35.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I beg to move that these words be inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 4, after ("substitution") insert ("(except in so much of paragraph (d) of the said subsection (3) as relates to the application for the Minister's consent)").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.16 p.m.
Clause 36:
Variation of terms of tenancy as to permanent pasture.
the Minister may, after affording to the landlord and to the tenant an opportunity of malting representations to the Minister, whether in writing or on being heard by a person appointed by the Minister, direct that the contract of tenancy shall have effect subject to such modifications of the provisions thereof as to land which is to be maintained as permanent pasture or is to be treated as arable land, and as to cropping, as appear to the Minister expedient as aforesaid and are specified in the direction.
LORD HAZLERIGG LORD HAZLERIGG moved, in subsection (1), after "aforesaid", to insert: "having regard to the character and situation of the farm and to all other relevant factors." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is one which was moved before, and one which does not seem to have met with much favour in the eyes of the noble Earl or of the Government. It seems to me quite non-political and one which merely points the way to what these county agricultural committees should do. After the really friendly way in which the noble Earl who is conducting this Bill and the Leader of the House have met us,
798
I do not want to make a long speech and press this Amendment which may, perhaps, be met by some assurance being given that some directions will be put in to guide the county agricultural committees. I believe something was issued when the Bill was first introduced, which Lord Cranworth called the "Apocrypha"; I am not very familar with the "Apocrypha", but I imagine it is something to make the Bill more plain to the ordinary person.
As regards the Bill as a whole, I feel very much the same as when a person used to quote a saying to me: "The more, I see of some people, the more I love my dog." The more I read this Bill the more I love the liberty of action which is being taken away from the landowners, good, bad or indifferent. I would not like to differ from the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe; I know he praised this Bill when it first came in; it seems to me that he sang the nunc dimittis of the squires. There was never a time when squires were more needed. Even though he got another gold medal this morning—a non-political one; he was told this morning that he was not only the old man of agriculture, but the grand young man of agriculture; I was hoping that someone would say "the Peter Pan"—I believe that in a few years' time he will be writing the obituary notice of the tenant farmer. It seems to me that people will in future be very careful how they let their land when a tenant dies.
I do not wish to make a long speech, but I do feel that it would be worth while if some direction could he put in about this question of ploughing up permanent pasture. We have been told to-day, once or twice, that it is quite easy for a landowner to go to arbitration. I can tell you of a case where a fine grass field was taker. by a farmer in the second year of this last war, which was worth £4 or £5 an acre as pasture, and he got the war agricultural committee to let him plough it up. He then went to arbitration because he said that the plough was not so valuable as the grass, and he got his rent reduced. He has that land for four or five years, when he makes money out of ploughing up good permanent pasture, and then it goes back to the landlord. That does not seem to me to be a very fair way of doing things, and I am inclined to think that arbitration is not going to do us a great deal of good in the

799
future. However, I say no more. I move this Amendment and, if I can get any assurance that something will be done to direct these county agricultural committees, that will satisfy me. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 15, after ("aforesaid") insert ("having regard to the character and situation of the farm and to all other relevant factors").—(Lord Hazlerigg.)
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I have been asked to answer for the Government. We are very much in sympathy with the object which lies behind the noble Lord's Amendment. The reason why we cannot accept it is that it would have a limiting effect upon the discretion which is given to the Minister by the clause. To take one example: if, for instance, the farmer has a grass farm, then the maximum power to make an order might very well be cut down by that fact, and, at any rate, it would be doubtful whether he would have the power to reduce the amount of grass by a variation of the tenancy agreement, because of the words which the noble Lord asks should be inserted. On the other hand, as I say, we are very much indeed in sympathy with the object behind the Amendment, and I am able to give the noble Lord the assurance for which he asks, in that the Minister will, in fact, when he issues his advice and instructions to the committees, make it quite clear that they are to take all these matters into account, and that, in particular, they are to pay regard to the character of the land before they reach a decision. With that assurance, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, when this matter was discussed in Committee, I expressed very strong sympathy with the Amendment, particularly coming from the noble Lord opposite, who has, I think, a very strong case to urge, coming, as he does, from a county which is supposed to contain the most fertile grassland in the whole of this country. We certainly should have liked to see this provision inserted in the Bill, but, failing that, I imagine that my noble friend is about to withdraw the Amendment on the definite assurance that we now have, that instructions will be issued covering this particular point to all the county agricultural committees.
LORD ASHBURTON: My Lords, I would like to ask one question of the noble Earl. I do not understand why the Government are not satisfied with this Amendment because, after all, at the end of it there are the words "and to all other relevant factors." We did try and put this point before, and I cannot understand where they see the red light. We are only asking that the committee, who will be the body who have to consider this point, will bear in mind the character of the farm. If, having borne that in mind, they think that other relevant factors override it, they have still got the discretion, as I see it. Therefore, I cannot see where they are running any danger.
I venture to suggest to your Lordships that there has been some rather loose consideration of this particular Amendment. In fact, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that when this clause was being considered in another place, a most peculiar statement was made by no less a person than the Minister of Agriculture. I think I practically quote his words, although I do not happen to have the paper with me. He said, "I think of course it will work like this: that when a tenant farmer wishes to plough up some permanent grass he will make application to the county committee, which will, of course, inform the local authority." I suggest that that is a most curious and peculiar relationship to envisage between tenant and landowner, if the first the landowner is going to hear of it is from the county agricultural committee. I think this Amendment is well worthy of serious consideration, and I would beg the Government to see if they cannot think again.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, before we close the discussion on this Amendment, it seems to me that any Government assurance which may be given on this point ought to have regard to the question of buildings which might have to be provided by the landowner in the event of a direction being issued of such a kind that it would be necessary, in the interests of good farming, to alter the buildings. Earlier on in the discussions in this Bill we talked this matter out at some length on, I think, Clause 15, and before the noble Lord replies I would ask that any reply that he gives should take account of this point as well as the other points that have been raised.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I am divided between, on the one hand, fury at the inadequacy of the reply and, on the other hand, the feeling that really the thing is not worth quarrelling about too much. We have been told frequently, after a fashion, that this is going to cut down the powers of the committee, but we have not had a single word explaining why that is so. Why should the fact that they should have regard to certain instructions, in any way limit their powers? Is it suggested that the instructions from the Minister may not be obeyed? I really do think, before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment (if he is withdrawing it), that we are entitled, out of respect to the House, to some explanation on those two points.
MARQUESS TOWNSHEND: My Lords, I would point out that we are always getting assurances. I live in the County of Norfolk, where we have at the moment some feeling in regard to the Stamford battle area. Those people got a great deal more than an assurance that they would be returned to their land, or that the land would be returned to them. At the moment, they are in a very awkward position. They have not got the land back and, as far as I can see, they are not going to get it back. We are asked to accept assurances here. Admittedly, I think it may be said that this Government did not give these assurances, but members of this Government were all parties to the assurance given to the people in the Stamford battle area. I do not see why we should go on accepting assurances when we have such extraordinarily patent cases confronting us now. "This Amendment is not political in the very least. It makes no difference to politics. It is purely and simply a common-sense Amendment, moved, I may say, by Lords who know what agriculture is all about, and I think the Government would do well to pay attention to what they say. I would very much like the noble Lord to press this Amendment.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I wonder whether, with the leave of the House, I might say this. Some of us are very anxious not to have any Divisions on the Report stage of this Bill, but we do feel very strongly in regard to this particular point. I want to make a final appeal to the noble Lord and his col-
802
league as to whether something car riot be done on the Third Reading to satisfy us in this respect. It is a material point. Some of us have seen holdings altered by a tenant in this respect, and the whole, thing being thrown up, and a reversion to the more traditional method of farming upon that farm when a new tenant comes in. That is the sort of thing that will happen again.
LORD CHORLEY: With your Lordships' permission, might I reply to the points which have been made? This question, of course, is purely a question of law, if I may say so, and the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, is quite wrong in saying that I did not explain this. I am very sorry if I did not explain. it as clearly as he would have liked me to do. As the clause stands, of course, it gives the Minister a wide discretion. The words in the Amendment cut down I hat discretion. It is true that the Amendment refers at the end to "all other relevant factors," but I am advised that in suite of that fact it does cut down the discretion. There are legal rules of construction and one of them is the rule called ejusdem generis, which comes into play when the word "other" is used. It means that it is to be construed in relation to the preceding words. I am certainly not going to lay down the matter as being one that is absolutely clear. But I am advised that the Amendment, as drafted and tabled, does in fact cut down the discretion of the Minister.
I should have thought that the illustration I gave was a good illustration, in that dealing with a grass farm the Minister's discretion might at any rate be held to have been cut down in such way as to Make it doubtful whether he had, in fact, the power to reduce the amount of grass by a variation in the tenancy agreement. The noble Lord referred to difficulties in connexion with war-time arrangements relating to civil defence and training, and matters of that kind, which are outside the scope of the Bill, and which, with great respect. I should have thought were hardly relevant here. On behalf of my right honourable friend the Minister I have given an explicit assurance which I understood the noble Lord who moved the Amendment would be content to accept. I am glad to repeat it, and to say that it has been given in the light of the discussion which

803
took place during the Committee stage of this Bill and with the full intention that such an instruction shall be given and that the county agricultural committees shall act in the light of it. In those circumstances I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down could he answer the question put forward by my noble friend and myself? In what way is the Minister's discretion less fettered by an instruction than by putting this in the Bill?
LORD CHORLEY: In an Act of Parliament it must be construed according to strict legal rules of interpretation, and it might have to go before a court of law. In the case of an instruction it is a circular from the Minister setting out the sort of way in which agricultural committees shall act.
LORD LLEWELLIN: May I put in just a word or two here? It seems to me that a number of noble Lords are anxious to have these words in the Bill, and the Government do not wish to put them in because of the ejusdem generis rule. May I suggest that this should be looked at between now and the Third Reading, and may I also suggest that the addition of the four simple words: "of any kind whatsoever" added at the end of the Amendment might well get rid of the difficulty relating to the ejusdem generis rule? The Government might well look at this again, and see if it is possible to put down an Amendment which will meet the point. An Amendment of this character will not do any harm in the administration of this Part of the Bill, for, as I understand it, it would only be in accordance with the intention of the Government; it would certainly give satisfaction all round and I gather that it would enable noble Lords opposite to avoid any legal difficulty.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, it is only by leave of the House that I may speak again but if I may have that leave, might I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that the words in the Amendment are: "having regard to the character and situation …" In the assurance which he gave he mentioned only "character." Was that an intentional omission or a slip?
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I was reading the actual words which have been given me. I say quite frankly that I read the words accurately. They were: "relevant considerations including the character of the land." I imagine that character and situation of the land would both be included, but I am not in a position to say more than that.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, assurances are bad enough but if we have now to rely on imagination I feel that we are getting to a rather difficult pass. I think that the Minister should be able to say "Yes" or "No" upon this.
LORD CHORLEY: I shall be glad to accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, that this matter should be looked at again. Your Lordships will appreciate that my own position in regard to this matter is simply that I am holding the fort for my noble and learned friend.
LORD HAZLERIGG: My Lords, I feel that this discussion has gone on long enough. I am willing to accept the assurance which has been given, and I shall be glad if the Minister can give favourable consideration to the suggestion which Lord Llewellin has made. I am not going to argue a point of law. I am only a Chairman of Quarter Sessions, and of course I would not know anything about such things. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.35 p.m.
Clause 41 [Power of tenant to obtain charge on holding in respect of compensation]:
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, the next three Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 42, line 27, leave out ("a person") and insert ("the tenant of a holding");
Page 42, line 28, leave out from ("landlord") to ("fails") in line 29 and insert ("and the landlord");
Page 42, line 31, leave out from the second ("the") to ("shall") in line 32 and insert ("tenant").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 48 [Acquisition by smallholdings authority of land for smallholdings]:
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, this next Amendment is to meet

805
a point which was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, on the Committee stage. We have had to alter slightly the words of his original Amendment—to give power to turn out an undesirable tenant. I hope that in view of the fact that we have gone a long way to meet him he will accept the new wording. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 42, at end insert—
("(45) Where a smallholdings authority have been authorised to acquire land for the purposes of smallholdings they shall not, except where in special circumstances it appears to them requisite so to do, exercise their powers of acquisition so as to require any person farming the land to give up his occupation of the land before such time as the authority are satisfied that the land is required, and can be adapted, for the purpose of smallholdings")—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl. His Amendment probably meets the case much better than the words which I put down. It certainly seems to go as far as one would think that it should.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 68:
Establishment of Agricultural Land Commission and Welsh Agricultural Land Sub Commission.
(6) The persons appointed to be members of the Commission and the Sub-Commission shall be persons appearing to the Minister to be qualified as having appropriate technical, commercial or administrative qualifications, and one of the persons appointed to be a member of the Commission shall be a person appearing to the Minister to be qualified as having special knowledge and experience of agriculture in Wales.
5.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (6), after "appropriate" to insert "scientific." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, you will remember that I moved this Amendment during the Committee stage. Its purpose is to make it possible to include in the personnel of the Agricultural Land Commission one person who is a scientist. According to Clause 68 (6) the persons who will help the Minister in managing and farming land and advising and assisting him in regard to the management of agricultural land will be people "having appropriate technical, commercial or administrative qualifications." When I submitted this Amendment on the Committee stage the
806
noble Earl gave me to understand that his advisers had told him that the word "technical" included "scientific." I am afraid that I shall never quite agree with that proposition, and I doubt whether any of our research stations in this country would admit that it was so.
I should not have put this Amendment down again but for the fact that when I had moved it before I saw a very emphatic and affirmative nod iron the noble Lord who is the Master of Balliol. I thought that if an affirmative nod came from such an authoritative source it would be calculated to induce the Front Bench to alter their interpretation of the word "technical" and might induce them to accept "scientific," so that I might stand a chance on the Report stage if I moved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59. line 22, after ("appropriate") insert ("scientific").—(Viscount Bledisloe.)
LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: My Lords, you cannot have technical qualifications without being a scientist, but you can be a scientist without having, in the meaning of this clause, technical qualifications. The question is whether you want on this hoard people who are fundamental scientists. It seems to me that what is wanted are applied agricultural scientists, and I should have thought it extremely desirable to have on the board, if you can get them, people who are by profession fundamental scientists, physicists or chemists. I hope the Government will accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I am in rather a difficult position, coming under fire from both sides of the House on this Amendment. My information is that "technical" would cover a practical scientist but not a pure or research scientist. I should like to say to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that I agree completely with his point of view that, in future, science must play a very important part in all our agricultural production, and I should be the first to support him in that respect. But actually the functions of the Land Commission are to manage land and deal generally with land taken over, to find tenants and so on, and only in very rare cases would they have to do practical farming. I suggest that a research chemist would not be the most appropriate person

807
to place on such a management committee, while "technical" would cover the practical scientist. I hope the noble Viscount will appreciate that and withdraw this Amendment.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, in spite of the valuable help I have received from the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay—incidentally I would say I had in mind not only the pure scientist; it is applied science we want so badly in our agriculture—I should not like to take the responsibility of inducing your Lordships to go into the Lobby in support of this relatively unimportant Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 70 [Annual report of Commission]:
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, this Amendment meets a general point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 24, leave out from ("shall") to ("prepare") in line 26 and insert ("as respects each financial year").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 29, leave out ("in that year") and insert ("and accounts showing separately the results of the discharge of the said functions in relation to farming and in relation to the management of land").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, this Amendment also follows. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 34, at end insert—
("(3) The accounts for each year shall be in such form as the Minister may with the approval of the Treasury direct.
(4) The report and accounts for any year shall be submitted to the Minister at such time as he may with the approval of the Treasury direct.
(5) The Minister shall, on or before the thirtieth day of November in any year, transmit to the Comptroller and Auditor General the accounts prepared by the Commission under this section for the financial year last ended.")—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, this is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 36, at end insert ("and the Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine and certify the accounts of the Commission transmitted to him under this section and lay before Parliament copies of the accounts, together with his report thereon").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 71 [Establishment and functions of County Agricultural Executive Committees]:
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, this is a very obvious Amendment dealing with the County of London. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 5, leave out the second ("and") and insert—
("(c) the county of London shall be treated as if any such part thereof as the Minister may direct were included in such adjoining administrative county as he may direct, and").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 73:
Establishment, constitution and procedure of Agricultural Land Tribunals.
(3) The Minister may by order make provision for the procedure of Agricultural Land Tribunals, for the sitting of a Tribunal in two or more divisions and for the assignment of the work of a Tribunal among the divisions thereof.
(4) Any order made under this section shall be laid before Parliament forthwith after being made.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, this is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 23, leave out from ("determining") to ("matters") in line 24.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.47 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (3) to leave out from "Tribunals" to the end of the clause and insert:
"and in particular—

(a) for the taking of evidence on oath, affirmation or otherwise and the cross-examination of witnesses, and for the summoning of witnesses in like manner as for the purposes of an arbitration under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923;

809

(b) for the recording and proof of the decisions of the Tribunals, and for enabling the Tribunals to decide by a majority;

(c) for the sitting of Tribunals in two or more divisions, and for the assignment of the work of a Tribunal among the divisions thereof.

(4) An order under the last foregoing subsection may make different provision for the procedure on different classes of reference to the Tribunals."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during Committee stage considerable discussion took place as to procedure before the tribunal, and my noble and learned friend gave the assurance that he would look at the matter and try to put down an Amendment which would improve the position. The Amendment now tabled has been framed for that purpose. It does, in effect, three things. It provides that the rules may deal with the question of evidence, the bringing of witnesses before the tribunal, their cross-examination, and other matters of that kind to which such importance was attached during discussion. Secondly, the Amendment provides that rules may be made for different types of procedure for different types of cases. I think it amply fulfils the assurance given. There is a third point which was not, to my recollection, discussed at the Committee stage, and which provides that the tribunal may come to a majority decision. Your Lordships are possibly aware that there has been a recent case of pensions arbitration in which it was decided that there must be a unanimous decision. In this type of case it is obviously necessary that the tribunal should be able to reach a majority decision, and this matter also has been covered in the Amendment. I hope your Lordships will accept it and regard it as satisfactory. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 30, leave out from ("Tribunals") to end of line 34, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Chorley.)
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I wish to thank the Government, and particularly the noble Viscount on the Woolsack, for this Amendment in regard to the agricultural land tribunals. I would have preferred the rules to have been in the Bill rather than in orders of the Minister, but I recognize there is difficulty owing to the variety of questions which may come before the tribunal, and sometimes, different procedures are required. I think the Government have met our point so
810
far as they can do so, and I am grateful to them. I hope that not many questions will be decided by a majority. The tribunal consists of only three members, and it is not too much to expect that they may occasionally agree.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 84 [Acquisition of land by Minister to ensure full and efficient use thereof]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, to insert:
"(2) Before proceeding with the acquisition of land under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of the last foregoing subsection, the Minister shall refer to the Agricultural Land Commission for their report thereon the question whether the conditions are fulfilled as to which under the said paragraph (a) or (b), as the case may be, the Minister must be satisfied before acquiring the land, and shall take into consideration the report of the Commission.
(3) On any such reference the Commission, after inspecting the land in question and making such other enquiries as appear to them requisite, shall prepare a draft report to the Minister on the question referred to them, containing such information as to work to be carried out, or fixed equipment to be provided or maintained, as mentioned in the said paragraph (a) or (b), as appears to the Commission necessary for indicating whether such work or equipment can reasonably be expected to be carried out, provided or maintained without the exercise by the Minister of his powers under subsection (1) of this section.
(4) The Commission shall publish, in such manner as appears to them best suites for informing owners, lessees and occupiers of land to which a draft report under the last foregoing subsection relates, a notice stating a place where copies of the draft report may be obtained by owners, lessees or occupiers of any of the said land, and the time within which representations may be made to the Commission by any such owners, lessees or occupiers, either orally or in writing, as to the question referred to the Commission.
(5) The Commission shall consider any such representations as aforesaid duly made, and any technical or other evidence adduced on the making of the representations, and shall then submit a report to the Minister, either it the terms of the draft or subject to such modifications as appear to the Commission expedient in the light of the said representations and evidence.
(6) The Minister shall cause any report of the Commission under this section to be published."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, you will remember how this arose. It is with relation to land which, in the opinion of the Minister, requites some very special treatment in order that it may be properly developed, and your Lordships were frightened lest this power

811
might be used to such an extent, as I or somebody said, that it would be "nationalization by a side wind." I wanted to give your Lordships what assurance I could in regard to that. I suggested that this was, perhaps, the best scheme: to say that this clause will be applied only within those limits with which I think we shall all agree, and not be extended unfairly. The proposal I make is this: that where the Minister is going to avail himself of the powers under this clause, he first of all shall refer the matter to the Agricultural Land Commission for their report on whether conditions are fulfilled under paragraph (a) or (b) as the case may be. The Commission, after inspecting the land in question, prepare a draft report. It is merely a draft report, but it contains such information as to work to be carried out, or fixed equipment to be provided or maintained, as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b). They then express an opinion as to whether that work can reasonably be expected to be carried out without the exercise by the Minister of his powers.
The third step is this. They then publish that report in such a way as to inform owners, lessees, and occupiers—telling them where they can see the report, so that an owner who is being attacked in this way will have precise details of what is said. They will not be vague or indefinite, but precise details. Having seen the report, he then has an opportunity of making his complaints, and the Commission then have to consider the complaints which the owner makes. They may amend their report in the light of the information they get, or they may adhere to the report. It is in the light of that second report that the Minister has to pronounce. I think that goes a long way towards complying with the assurance and satisfaction which your Lordships quite reasonably wanted. It gives a wider and more effective protection than the Amendment which was put down and discussed on the Committee stage. If your Lordships think this is satisfactory, the Minister of Agriculture is quite pleased to carry it out on those lines. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 23, at end insert the said new subsections.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I should like very briefly to thank the noble and learned Viscount for moving
812
this Amendment, and for the trouble which I know he has taken in getting it drafted. For myself, I would have liked at the end to have a reference to the Agricultural Land Tribunal. However, we cannot have everything we want in life, and I think this goes a long way to meet our fears.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 95 [Special directions to secure production]:
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 12, leave out ("nature of the land") and insert ("character and situation of the land and other relevant circumstances").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 98:
Prevention of damage by pests.
(3) In the proviso to Section eight of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911 (which allows the putting down of poison for destroying rats, mice or other small vermin so long as reasonable precautions are taken to prevent injury to domestic animals and wild birds) for the words "rats, mice" there shall be substituted the words "animals, other than deer or hares, to which Section ninety-eight of the Agriculture Act, 1947, applies."
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved to leave out subsection (3) and insert:
"(3) Section four of the Prevention of Damage by Rabbits Act, 1939 (which allows the use in rabbit holes of poisonous gas, and the placing in rabbit holes of substances generating poisonous gas by evaporation or in contact with moisture) shall apply to the use of such gas and the placing of such substances in any hole, burrow or earth for the purpose of killing animals to which this section applies."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this point was very strongly debated in the Committee stage, as noble Lords will remember. We have looked very thoroughly into the question, and we hope we have been able to meet the noble Lord, Lord Courthope, and others. There is now no question of using poison in the open at all, and it is restricted to gas. This, of course, deletes subsection (3), so that no additional power is given to people to put down poison. All the powers taken are for gassing animals, which, after all, is one of the more humane ways of

813
killing them. I hope that by putting down this Amendment we have gone a long way to meeting noble Lords, and that the House will accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 10, leave out subsection (3) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
LORD COURTHOPE: My Lords, having moved in Committee the deletion of subsections (3) and (4), I should like to thank the noble Earl. I am sure that all lovers of animals and birds will join me in my gratitude. There is only one point I would like to raise. I was a little surprised that no Amendment was proposed to subsection (4) because, as I understand this, it definitely restricts the use of poisons to gases underground, and yet subsection (4) is left in, extending the range of birds of which special destruction is allowed. I would like to be assured that that will not be by poisoning.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I think it is obvious that it is definitely restricted to earth and burrows underground, and I presume that no birds will be affected.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, perhaps it might be possible for subsection (4) to be reconsidered before Third Reading in order to see whether any Amendment is necessary to bring it into harmony with subsection (3). Certainly very few birds live in burrows.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, is it not the case that subsection (4) relates to subsections (1) and (2) as well as to subsection (3)?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: That is the case.
LORD BINGLEY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for the trouble which he has taken. I am sure he has made the anxiety of those who live in the country very much less, and I hope this will achieve the object of coping with vermin.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, there is a further Amendment coming later on Clause 106. This one is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 28, leave out ("the proviso referred to in").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 100 [Supplementary provisions relating to Sections ninety-eight and ninety-nine]:
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 11, leave out ("upon giving due notice").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 103 [Schemes for provision of agricultural goods and services]:
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 36, leave out ("commencement Of this Part of this Act") and insert ("coming into operation of this section").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 104 [Provisions as to representations]:
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I think the Amendment which is on the Paper in my name is entirely covered by Amendment put down by the Government and therefore I will not move it. I should like to thank the noble Earl for meeting the point.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved to insert:
"(5) No officer or servant of a county agricultural executive committee, or any subcommittee or district committee thereof, shall be appointed under the last foregoing subsection to receive representations relating to land in the area of the committee."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, ibis Amendment is to meet the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and I hope the House will agree to it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 25, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.58 p.m.
Clause 106 [Provisions as to entry end inspection]:
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved to insert:

815
(4) Save as provided by the last foregoing subsection, admission to any land shall not be demanded as of right in the exercise of any such power as aforesaid, other than the power conferred by paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Section twelve of this Act, unless notice has been given to the occupier of the land that it is proposed to enter during a period, specified in the notice, not exceeding fourteen days and beginning at least twenty-four hours after the giving of the notice, and the entry is made on the land during the period specified in the notice:
Provided that where the power of entry is being exercised for the purpose of taking measures to secure compliance with a direction or requirement under the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, and notice is given in accordance kith this subsection on the first occasion on which the power is exercised, no further notice shall be required before entering on the land on a subsequent occasion in connexion with the taking of the measures.
(5) Where notice is served in a case falling within the proviso to the last foregoing subsection, and the person to whom the direction therein referred to was given, or on whom the requirement therein referred to was imposed, is not the occupier of the land, a like notice shall be served on that person.
(6) Any notice served in pursuance of the last foregoing subsection or the proviso therein referred to may be served in like manner as the notice giving the said direction or imposing the said requirement."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, there was a considerable discussion on the Committee stage on this point, and if I remember rightly there was a Division on it. We went into the matter very carefully, and came to the conclusion that there was a lot of justice in what noble Lords said. We have therefore gone as far as we can to meet the House on this matter, on which such deep concern is felt. The Amendment as now drafted provides that notice shall be given to persons in all cases except of persons under supervision. We feel that in the cases of persons under supervision, who are actually being advised and directed, and possibly inspected quite frequently, if a member of a committee were obliged to serve notice every time he went to a farm, it would hinder the work by creating too much delay. We have conceded the point in every other case in which land is inspected, or when people enter on to land, that notice will be duly given. In the circumstances, I hope that this Amendment will be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 87, line 13, at end insert the said subsections.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
LORD HAZLERIGG: My Lords, as I moved the Amendment on this point, and there was rather a muddle about it, which was probably my fault, I feel it is only right for me to thank the noble Earl for everything inserted in these four subsections. I had to read them over about four times before I was certain what they meant, and I came to the conclusion that they did mean exactly what the noble Earl has said they mean. I was wondering whether any county agricultural committee would really be able to understand them. I hope that this will also be put into the "Apocrypha" . But I am very grateful and feel perfectly satisfied. So far as men under supervision go. I should imagine that what would happen is that they would be told to meet the supervisor on the farm twice a week, at seven o'clock on Monday and seven o'clock en Thursday, to go round the farm with him.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I would like to add one word of thanks to the noble Earl. I think it meets us to a greater extent than we met ourselves. There is just one point upon which I should like him to give us an assurance—I would not think of asking him to alter the Amendment. One agrees that when an estate is under supervision it would be unreasonable to ask for this giving of notice, but I think there is one occasion when due notice should be given, and that is the final inspection which there must be before the decision is taken for the removal of the supervision order and the actual dispossession of an owner. If the noble Earl could give us an assurance that instructions will be given to Committees on that particular point we would be quite satisfied.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I am very gratified that these Amendments have met with such general approval. In regard to the noble Earl's last point, I would be very happy to give the assurance that the committees will be instructed that in the event of a final inspection before dispossession the owner should be given due notice of time and date before the inspection takes place.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 108 [Regulations and orders]:
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, these Amendments refer to the question of the negative Resolution procedure which, we agreed, should apply

817
to the Minister's order laying down the rules of procedure for the Agricultural Land Tribunals. I suggest for the convenience of the House that we take these six Amendments together. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 88, line 6, after ("Act") insert ("and any order made by the Minister under Section seventy-three thereof")
Page 88, line 8, leave out ("are") and insert ("or order are or is")
Page 88, line 10, after ("regulations") insert ("or order")
Page 88, line 13, after ("regulations") insert ("or order")
Page 88, line 15, after ("regulations") insert ("or order")
Page 88, line 16, at end, insert ("or a new order").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 109 [Interpretation]:
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 1, leave out ("out") and insert ("on").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 110 [Repeals]:
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 20, after ("are") insert ("save as provided in Part III of this Act").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Seventh Schedule [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, this again is mainly a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 99, line 31, at end insert:
("12. In Section forty-one of the Act of 1923 (which relates to the recovery of compensation where the landlord is a trustee), for the words from 'and of all costs' in paragraph (iii) to the end of the section there shall be substituted—
'(iv) a charge under this section shall charge the holding not only with the amount of the sum due as aforesaid but also with all costs properly incurred in obtaining the charge;
(v) a charge under this section shall be created by order of the Minister in favour of the landlord or tenant, as the case may
818
be, and of his executors, administrators and assigns, and the order shall make such provision as to the payment of interest and the repayment of the sum charged by instalments, and shall contain such directions for giving effect to the charge, as the Minister thinks fit.'").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Twelfth Schedule [Provisions as to schemes for adjusting farm boundaries, or amalgamating farms]:
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, this Amendment is to meet a point which was raised in Committee by noble Lords. The effect will be that notice must be served on all owners and occupiers except where the names and addresses of such persons cannot be ascertained, in which case the notice would have to be affixed to the property or delivered to some responsible person on the land. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page III, line 36, leave out from ("(b)") to ("serve") in line 37.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, this last Amendment is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 112, line 1, leave out lines 1 to 11—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I have no comment to make on this Amendment, but if it would not be out of order, as this is the last Amendment before the House, I would like on behalf of noble Lords on this side to thank the noble Earl for the very thorough way in which he has endeavoured to meet us on this stage of the Bill.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, by leave of the House on behalf of my right honourable friend, le Minister of Agriculture, I would like to say that we are very gratified by the way in which noble Lords on the Benches opposite have expedited this stage of the Bill, and have very generously recognized our efforts to meet them. I think we have in that way been able to complete our proceedings in almost record time.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Prayers.
  LORD CROOK.
  Reginald Douglas Crook, Esquire, having been created Baron Crook of Carshalton, in the County of Surrey—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

  LORD AMWELL.
  Frederick Montague, Esquire, C.B.E., having been created Baron Amwell of Islington, in the County of London—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
  The Marquess of Bute—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
  The Lord Blackford—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

  TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed and returned to the Commons.
  LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION AND CONSOLIDATION.
  2.25 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I beg to ask a question of which I have given private notice—namely, Whether His Majesty's Government are aware that the work of Statute Law revision and of consolidation, is gravely in arrear, and whether they have any remedial measures in contemplation.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): His Majesty's Government have for some time been gravely concerned by the chaotic condition of the Statute Book and have had under consideration plans for reducing it to order. The problem is no new one, for intermittent attempts to improve the form and arrangement of the Statute Law can be traced at least to the time of Edward VI, but under modern conditions the public interest is becoming increasingly affected. It is no longer lawyers alone who are mainly concerned in ascertaining the aw but a much wider section of the public, comprising central and local government administrators, representatives of employers and workers, and officers of public bodies and private associations. For all such the Statute Book has become a necessary "tool of their trade" and, is our opinion, it should be made an efficient one.
  A study of the long history of previous endeavours in this field shows clearly that no real improvement can be accomplished until the business of Statute Law reform receives a definite place among the duties of Parliament and of the Executive Government of the day. This Government is determined to give it such a place. The first step will be to establish in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel a separate branch devoting its whole time to the preparation of Consolidation Bills and Codification Bills, for in the recent past the main difficulty has been the fact that Parliamentary Counsel and Departments concerned have been so much occupied with current legislation that it has been impossible for them to find the necessary time for such work. This branch will be an integral part of the office, and members of the professional staff of the office will pass in and out of it as occasion requires; but those members of the staff who are for the time being engaged in that branch will not be employed upon of other work. I am glad to say that we have been successful in securing the services of Sir Granville Ram, who is retiring from the Office of First Parliamentary Counsel, as head of the new branch, and I do not doubt that under his leadership the branch will give a good account of itself.
  There is a separate body of Scottish law in no less urgent need of consolidation than the law relating to the United Kingdom, or to Great Britain, or to England

  739
  and Wales. The United Kingdom and Great Britain Acts which are to be consolidated will also raise questions of Scottish application. My right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate are arranging for the appropriate organization in the Lord Advocate's Department to enable progress to be made with the consolidation of Scottish law and the application to Scotland of Consolidation Bills relating to the United Kingdom or to Great Britain to be undertaken.
  It must, however, be emphasized that the work of Statute Law reform has so fallen into arrear that continuous effort extending over ten or fifteen years will be necessary before the Statute Book can be reduced to a condition which may be regarded as satisfactory. This is not to say that no results can be expected before the expiration of that period. On the contrary, when the programme of legislation for next Session is announced I hope it will be found to comprise several Consolidation Bills dealing with a variety of subjects of importance to many sections of the community, but I am expressing a hope and am not giving any sort of promise. This, if it can be done, will be a beginning, but it is essential that after that thou work should proceed upon a carefully considered long-term plan which can only be prepared after detailed examination of the Statute Book, and must be subject to constant revision and readjustment as the work proceeds. Moreover, it will be necessary also to make short-term plans Session by Session so that the work which will fall upon Government Departments in connexion with consolidation may be fitted in with the ordinary current legislative work of the Session.
  The Statute Law Committee, first appointed by Lord Cairns in 1868 "to make the necessary arrangements and to superintend the work of preparing an Edition of Statutes Revised," has of recent years made recommendations on the subject of consolidation, and the superintendence of the development of Statute Law reform should be entrusted to this body. I have, however, decided that in view of the wider interests now affected by this subject the Committee should be reconstituted, and in particular that its membership should comprise three members of each House of Parliament. The
  740
  membership of the reconstituted Committee will be as follows: The Chairman, myself, the Deputy Chairman, Sir Granville Ram; the Attorney General, the Lord Advocate, three Peers (including one Lord of Appeal in Ordinary), three members of the House of Commons, Counsel to the Lord Chairman of Committees, Counsel to Mr. Speaker, First Parliamentary Counsel, Legal Secretary to the Lord Advocate, Permanent Secretary, Treasury, or representative, Permanent Under-Secretary of State, Home Office, or representative, Permanent Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office, or representative, Permanent Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, Secretary of the Cabinet or representative; King's Printer of Acts of Parliament, and a solicitor.
  I propose also to revise the terms of reference of the Committee, which will in future be as follows:
  "To consider the steps necessary to bring the Statute Book up to date by consolidation, revision and otherwise, and to superintend the publication and indexing of Statutes, Revised Statutes and Statutory Instruments."
  Besides asking the Committee to give their first attention to the preparation of a programme of consolidation, I propose to ask them also to consider measures for catching up the arrears which have been occasioned by war conditions in the indexing work which they superintend, and for publishing a new edition of the Revised Statutes at the earliest possible date.
  In conclusion, I feel I ought to utter two words of warning. First, the work of consolidation is not concerned with improvements of the substance of the law, but only of its wording and arrangement. Tasks such as the simplification of Income Tax law, which so many people desire to see put in hand, fall outside its province. Secondly, no amount of Statute Law reform will ever produce Bentham's ideal code of law readily understandable by every citizen. However well arranged it may be, the law relating, for instance, to the computation of the capital and profits of inter-connected companies for purposes of taxation will not be mastered without severe intellectual effort, and the effort required is that of a specially trained intellect. Laymen will benefit from Statute Law reform, but it will only lead to future disappointment if the setting up of the machinery now proposed gives rise to expectations that the law could be so

  741
  improved as never to call either for hard thinking or for expert assistance.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his statement. Your Lordships will perhaps permit me to say one word of mixed congratulation and encouragement to him in the very considerable and very important task which he has now set afoot. No one who has any familiarity with the Statute Book—and who in these days is not either from choice or from necessity to some extent familiar with some of the outlying portions of that work?—will expect that the operations which are now to be undertaken will produce Statute Law without tears. But it is high time that this work was started and it will, I do not doubt, be of the greatest satisfaction to all those interested in the subject that Sir Granville Ram has been made available to undertake the chief part in the execution of the work.

  CONTROL OF INDUSTRY IN SCOTLAND.
  2.35 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
  [The question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government, whether, in view of the tendency in present day legislation to centralize the control and administration of industry and commerce in Whitehall and to prevent the establishment of responsible resident direction and management, they will now, having regard to the strong Scottish feeling in these matters, set up a Commission of Inquiry to examine the principles for securing effective devolution of control and administration in Scotland, and make recommendations.]
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, His Majesty's Government do not agree that present-day legislation tends in the direction suggested. In the many fields of industry and commerce which are in private hands, the determination of the appropriate administrative centre for any particular undertaking is a matter for the industrial and commercial interests concerned. In the case of industries which have been or are about to he socialized, His Majesty's Government have been at
  742
  pains to ensure that within the arrangements for Great Britain as a whole there is the greatest practicable devolution of authority and provision for dealing with special Scottish conditions.
  As regards the machinery of the Central Government itself, all the Departments for which my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, is responsible. are administered in Scotland, and the Departments of Ministers whose functions extend to the whole of Great Britain are represented in Scotland by responsible officers to whom is delegated authority to enable Scottish business to be settled on the spot. The arrangements for the conduct of Scottish business are, and will continue to be, kept under close review so as to ensure that the machinery of the various Departments and of the boards of socialized industries is properly related to Scottish needs.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I have an answer to the last part of my question, which was whether the Government will set up a Commission of Inquiry? The noble Lord in his reply has not even referred to that very important part of my question, which was the gist of it.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I ask the noble Lord if he can quote one instance of any nationalized industry in which any effective devolution of responsible or executive management has been brought into force by any Statute in the last two years?
  LORD WOOLTON: May I point oat that what the noble Lord has just said is in direct contradiction to what was said yesterday on the Transport Bill?
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Before the noble Lord replies to the other questions, I would like to have an answer to my question regarding a Commission of inquiry which the noble Lord has not answered. Perhaps there may be other questions to follow.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I think it might be for the convenience of the House if I answered the noble Viscount's question and gave it priority. Before one can set up a Commission of Inquiry I suggest it is necessary to be clear what it is desired that the Commission should examine, and whether it is specifically a Scottish issue alone. May I draw the

  743
  noble Viscount's attention to the words of the Prime Minister on this point in another place on October 10, 1945? The Prime Minister said:
  "… any question as to what is the most suitable form of government for Scotland in post-war years raises political and economic issues involving other parts of the United Kingdom and can therefore only appropriately be raised as part of a general measure for the revision of the machinery of government for Great Britain."
  I hope the noble Lord will agree that in the light of that statement a hasty decision should not be made, but that full consideration should be given to the wider issues involved.
  LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: My Lords, arising out of that answer, may I ask His Majesty's Government whether, having solved with comparative ease some of the most difficult political and administrative problems in the world, they would welcome a discussion in the following terms: To ask His Majesty's Government to appoint a Committee or Commission (as they think best) to inquire into the problems of devolution and decentralization in nationalized industries? That refers specifically, but not exclusively, to Scotland. If His Majesty's Government would agree to that I propose, if I may be allowed to say so, to put a question on the Order Paper as soon as I can in the autumn sittings, and I hope the Leader of the House will give us lots of time to talk about it.
  LORD MORRISON: I can only make a personal reply on the spur of the moment. I am unable to speak for the Government. Personally I should welcome such a Motion because it would enable fuller discussion to be given than is possible in reply to a question in this House. As I am sure all noble Lords will readily agree, this is not in any sense a Party political question.
  LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, arising out of the answer, in which the noble Lord rather intimated that Scotland should be bunched together with other members of the Commonwealth, is not Scotland in a unique position? I do not think that what might apply to another part of the Empire would necessarily suit Scotland, and I feel that the noble Lord, being a Scot, should have more responsibility
  744
  than he has at the moment in regard to the carrying out of any legislation which is agreed to in Whitehall and here. I do hope that the request of my noble friend will be granted, because although I am far from being a Scottish nationalist I feel that we can go a long way to satisfy the ambitions of the Scots to manage their own affairs.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker, does put down such a question as he mentions, I hope he will not confine it to nationalized industries but will extend it to the whole range of Government administration and apply it to all the other affairs of the nation with which Government Departments are concerned, not only with regard to Scotland but with regard to the whole of the rest of the country. There is a great problem to be discussed concerning administration and all the work done by the Government Departments. I hope the noble Lord will word his question with that in view.
  LORD MORRISON: In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, what I tried to say was that it appears to me that before this question can be thoroughly examined it will be found to involve other parts of the United Kingdom as well as Scotland. You cannot specify Scotland separately on an issue like this, therefore I am looking at it from a wider point of view. It is necessary to give full consideration not only to Scotland but to the wider implications involved.
  EARL HOWE: In view of what the noble Lord says, what is the explanation of the Government's attitude in the discussion on the Transport Bill to the proposal to set up a Transport Council for Scotland? How does he harmonize the responsibilities?
  LORD MORRISON: I am afraid the question of harmonizing responsibilities is not one of my responsibilities.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Could I have an answer to my question? This question refers specifically to industry and commerce, and particularly to the nationalization of transport. It is the question of de-centralized control, responsibility and administration.
  LORD MORRISON: The noble Earl is trying to lead me into a long discussion,

  745
  which would be against the rules of the House. I could probably give him a reply which would not satisfy him. It is, I am aware, an arguable question. I repeat that this is not a Party political question, and I hope that no noble Lord would desire that it should be made so. It is entirely non-Party and I cannot add anything to what I have said.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord cannot say "Yes"?
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: In the whole course of the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, he tried to lead us to assume that the Government were in full touch with Scottish feelings in this matter. Is it not a fact that their heads are buried in The sand so far as Scottish feelings are concerned?
  LORD MORRISON: I am sure the noble Viscount would not expect me to admit that the heads of the Government are buried in the sand.

  GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR.
  2.45 p.m.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty s Government the question standing on the Order Paper in my name.
  [The question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government how many German prisoners of war have been repatriated respectively from the United Kingdom and from the Middle East since January 1; how many German prisoners of war still remain in the United Kingdom and in the Middle East; and by what date it is expected that the repatriation will be finally completed?]
  LORD AMMON: My Lords, approximately 93,700 German prisoners of war were repatriated from the United Kingdom and 16,800 from the Middle East, between January 1 and June 30. At the latter date approximately 267,200 remained in the United Kingdom and 77,200 in the Middle East. If present rates of repatriation are maintained all German prisoners of war will have been repatriated by the end of 1948.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: While thanking the noble Lord for his statement of facts as to the present rate
  746
  of repatriation, may I ask whether, in view of hardships involved, His Majesty's Government would consider speeding up the rate with a view to completion of the repatriation by June 30 next?
  LORD AMMON: It is impossible to give any specific date, but the Government are endeavouring to speed up repatriation.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: If any of these prisoners of war desire to stay this country instead of going back to their native land, will they be permitted to do so?
  LORD AMMON: That is a matter which I believe is being dealt with by the Home Office.

  ELECTORAL REGISTRATION REGULATIONS, 1947.
  LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Motion standing in my name be agreed to.
  Moved, that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 17th instant, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  PARSONAGES (AMENDMENT) MEASURE, 1947.
  2.47 p.m.
  The LORD BISHOP OF EXETER The LORD BISHOP OF EXETER moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Parsonages (Amendment) Measure, 1947, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.
  The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, this Measure carries further the efforts now being made to free the clergy from the now intolerable burden of large houses, totally unsuited to the domestic needs of the time. It is a matter upon which any Bishop might be eloquent for a long time. It frequently happens—it has happened in my own diocese—that an opportunity arises to purchase a Rote modest house, more suited to the times and to the income of the clergy, but there is no money with which to purchase that house, and it is not always possible to carry through the sale of the larger house in time to raise the money. This Measure

  747
  gives Queen Anne's Bounty power to buy the house, the clergyman, in most cases, being either unable or unwilling to make the venture for a profit, or to risk a possible loss, by the exchange. This will enormously increase the speed with which a clergyman can be delivered from the burden, and the Measure provides that Queen Anne's Bounty shall purchase at the price which has first been agreed by the Bishop of the diocese and the diocesan dilapidation board. If there is a profit on the transaction then the benefice benefits by it. The Measure gives power to Queen Anne's Bounty to use the profit, if any, in paying off any loan or interest due on grants originally made for the erection of a house. The Measure has passed the Assembly, where it was welcomed, without opposition, and the Ecclesiastical Committee recommend that it be passed. I beg to move.
  Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Parsonages (Amendment) Measure, 1947, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—
  (The Lord Bishop of Exeter.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  AGRICULTURE BILL.
  2.50 p.m.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 10:
  Good estate management.
  10.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, an owner of agricultural land shall be deemed to fulfil his responsibilities to manage it in accordance with the rules of good estate management in so far as his management of the land and (so far as it affects the management of that land) of other land managed by him is such as to be reasonably adequate, having regard to the character and situation of the land and other relevant circumstances, to enable an occupier of the land reasonably skilled in husbandry to maintain efficient production as respects both the kind of produce and the quality and quantity thereof.
  THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1), to insert "economic
  748
  and" before "other relevant circumstances." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is exactly the same as the one I put down on the Committee stage. I do not propose to weary your Lordships at length with the arguments I advanced on that occasion. I would, however, like to make two points. First, I would remind your Lordships that the purpose of the Amendment is to get the word "economic" into the Bill, so far as it affects land-owning, because there is nothing in the Bill which recognizes that there is a certain necessity for the landowner to have some economic return. Secondly, I wish the House and the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, to realize that my insertion of the word "economic" will apply to the land and not to the personal circumstances of the landowner himself.
  The whole subsection deals with the land, and the purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the word "economic" shall apply to the circumstances of the land under consideration. The noble Earl on Committee stage definitely agreed that he would look into the matter. He made no promise as to the results of his looking into it, but I did at that time withdraw my Amendment and I said I would put it down on the Report stage in order to hear the results of his reflections and his looking into the Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 8, after the second ("and") insert ("economic").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, we have very carefully considered the noble Earl's Amendment. I should like to emphasize once more at the start of the proceedings this afternoon that we have indeed looked very carefully at the whole of this Bill; in fact, I think it is almost true to say that on a measure about which there has been so much agreement "Never has so much discussion been conducted by so many people for so long a time." Long before the Bill came to this House or to Parliament, we had consulted every section of the industry and tried to get agreement or a compromise; certainly I can say that no section was left out. On the whole we reached a very considerable measure of agreement, but we have to recognize that

  749
  there were some points outstanding where, either through the economic interests of landlord and tenant or because of political considerations, we failed to reach complete agreement.
  Finally, however, this Bill went to another place where two days were spent on Second Reading, twenty-five days in the Committee stage, two days on Report and one day on Third Reading, making a total of thirty days. That was, I think, a quite adequate time for an agreed measure! It then came to your Lordships' House for your expert scrutiny, which it has received. After the Committee stage, we examined the different suggestions made by your Lordships. I should like to emphasize that we considered extremely carefully all the points that were raised and the suggestions that were made, and, wherever we found it possible to meet noble Lords on the opposite Benches, we have done so. I think that in all fairness, noble Lords will admit that we have gone a very long way indeed towards meeting them—in fact, as far as we could possibly be expected to go. As we consider these Government Amendments on Report stage, I hope the feeling of the House will be that we have done our best to meet the points raised by your Lordships, whose judgment and wisdom on agriculture we respect very much indeed, and to make this as good a Bill as we possibly can. If your Lordships will forgive that brief introduction, I will now deal with the noble Earl's Amendment.
  First, the noble Earl pointed out in his speech that he did not wish the financial circumstances of the owner to he taken into consideration. Therefore I gather what he has in mind is that the relation of the rents and the value of the land should be taken into consideration in that regard, and not the personal financial position of the owner. I think we have got that. I should like to point out that this will be done because, if the noble Earl will turn to Clause 109, at page 90 of the Bill, he will read that:
  "'relevant circumstances,' in relation to an owner or occupier, includes all circumstances affecting management or farming other than the personal circumstances of the owner or occupier."
  That is to say, that when we take into consideration "relevant circumstances," not only economic but all other circumstances will have to be considered.
  750
  I submit further that if we put in the word "economic," which the noble Earl would like inserted, that would, in a way, be putting the cart before the horse. We do not want owners to say "The value of the returns from my land for so many years has not been what I expected; therefore, it would be unreason. able for me to have to bring about such improvements." What we want to do is to have the improvements brought about and then if, as would presumably be the case, the value of the land has increased through those improvements, it is up to the owner to put up the rent relative to the increase in value. Should there be any difficulty in doing this, he is, under Clause 35, enabled to go to arbitration and have the rent decided. I want to point out to the noble Earl that we mean this arbitration to be recognized procedure that will give equitable and fair treatment to the capital invested in the industry. Considering all those circumstances, I am afraid that we are not able to accept this Amendment. I hope that the noble Earl will appreciate the reasons and will be willing to withdraw it.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, may I just ask this? The noble Earl has covered the point fairly well but there is one gap in his argument. He said that in fact he did not want the landowners to be in a position of deciding before it was done whether or not further investment of capital in land in the way of improvements of conditions would be remunerative. His approach was that some function of land management was to be carried out by direction or by persuasion and then subsequently the rent could he raised. It is perfectly true that the machinery for that is there, but I think that he is putting people in rather a difficult position if he is saying: "Although it was a bad investment in the past, you are to spend so many hundreds of pounds, regardless of whether it is going to bring an economic return." I hope he can cover that point, and indeed I think the definition he has referred to in Clause 109 probably does. But I thought that part of what he said was a little disturbing and not in fact related to the ordinary atmosphere in which people invest money in any enterprise.
  THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Earl for his

  751
  reply and for his drawing attention to the definition in Clause 109. I must confess that I had overlooked that. But when one comes to the end of a Bill containing 110 clauses and one reaches Clause 109, one is liable to overlook an occasional point like that. I should like to assure the noble Earl that I know the care which both he and the right honourable gentleman, his Minister, have taken in order to get as near agreement on this Bill as possible. Indeed we were grateful for being taken into the confidence of the Ministry at the very earliest stage of the Bill, long before it first saw the public light of day. By the time it leaves this House, I think it will be not too bad a measure on the whole, though I will not say it will be a good one.
  With regard to his reply to my Amendment I think it is a satisfactory one. But this is the kind of circumstance I had in mind, and I do not know whether it will be covered. Take for example, a small farm with a rental which is perhaps low to-day, where there is a demand or an order to spend a great deal of money which would perhaps even double the rent. It may be, in the first place, that the owner has not got the money, secondly, that he cannot get his tenant to pay the additional rent; and, thirdly, that even if he gets a tenant who is prepared to pay the doubled rent, that tenant would still be in a position to give one year's notice and to get out, leaving the farm on the owner's hands. If you are going to get an economic return for that farm you have to double the rent that you received two years previously and you are, therefore, limited so far as the tenants that you may be able to get are concerned. You may indeed increase the rent charged upon a farm to a figure quite beyond the ordinary means of that farm to carry, though the individual tenant sitting there at a time may be prepared to pay it. That is a point which comes in, and I rather hope that it is covered by the definition of "relevant circumstances." In any case I am assuming that, in such cases as that it will be within the rights of the owner of the land to make the necessary representations. If that is so, I am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 15:
  Supplementary provisions as to directions.
  (2) An owner to whom notice of a proposal is given under the last foregoing subsection may require that the proposal shall be referred to the Agricultural Land Tribunal established under Part V of this Act, and the provisions of the said Part V shall apply accordingly, in any case in which the owner proves to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that—

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

  (b) the cost borne by the owner of any other work for providing fixed equipment on the agricultural unit carried out within the two years immediately preceding the service of the notice, being work requisite for compliance with the owner's responsibilities to manage in accordance with the rules of good estate management,

  together exceed the annual value of the land owned by him and comprised in the agricultural unit.
  (4) Where, for the purposes of determining whether a direction under the last foregoing section is to be given to the owner or occupier of land which is let, it is necessary to ascertain the respective liabilities of the owner and occupier under the contract of tenancy in relation to fixed equipment, the Minister may by notice in writing served on the owner or the occupier require him within twenty-one days from the service of the notice if there is an agreement in writing relating to the said liabilities to send or produce the agreement or a copy thereof for inspection by such person as may be specified in the notice, and in any case within the said twenty-one days to furnish in such manner and to such person as may be so specified such information as to the said liabilities of the owner and occupier, in so far as they do not depend on an agreement in writing, as may be so specified, and—

  (a) if where a requirement is made under this subsection an owner or occupier fails to comply therewith, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, and to a further fine not exceeding five pounds for each day after conviction on which the failure continues;

  (b) if in purported compliance with such a requirement an owner or occupier knowingly or recklessly furnishes any copy of an agreement or any information which is false in any material particular, he shall be liable to the penalties specified in subsection (7) of the last foregoing section.

  3.3 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved, in subsection (2), after "agricultural unit," where that phrase last occurs, to insert:
  "or in any case in which either an authority or person has at the time when the notice is given power without further authorisation

  753
  to acquire compulsorily the land to which the notice relates or at that time that land is designated by a development plan under the enactments relating to town and country planning as subject to compulsory acquisition, or designated by an order under Section one of the New Towns Act, 1946."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, during Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, moved an Amendment which we considered and accepted subject to redrafting. This Amendment is the result, and I hope it is to the satisfaction of the noble Lord. We particularly wished to alter the wording so that the New Towns Act, 1946, should be covered. In view of that, I hope that the noble Lord will accept the new Amendment, and I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—.
  Page 13, line 24, at end, insert the said words.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, if I may say a word on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I think this does really meet the point for which our Amendment was put down, and I thank the noble Earl.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment, and I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 33, leave out subsection (3).—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT moved to add to subsection (4):
  "Provided always that where it can be shown that a financial loss will be caused to the person contravening the order or where, by reason of the weather or for any other good and sufficient reason, the order could not be carried out, then the court shall rescind the order and make such order as to costs as it may think fit."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Earl mentioned just now the question of politics. There is no question of politics about what I. am going to say. Before I move the Amendment, I will explain to the noble Earl why I am doing it. I want to raise a particular question which is important around where I happen to live. Some of your Lordships may remember that, some years ago, there was a most unfortunate episode, where there was a misunderstanding between a farmer and the authorities, as a
  754
  result of which there was shooting and the farmer was killed. Naturally that has not been forgotten, and there is a great feeling of apprehension now with regard to the question of carrying out orders, and what will happen if they are not carried: out. I move this Amendment really in order that the noble Lord may have an opportunity of thoroughly reassuring the farmers in what are their quite genuine apprehensions.
  I have had sent to me a very large number of signatures as the result of a meeting that I did not attend, and did. not know was going to take place. There was anxiety on their part with regard to orders, and particularly in regard to the question of what is and what is not good husbandry. That, of course, is always a very controversial question, but I rather feel that Clause 73, with the new Amendments which I understand the noble Viscount is bringing in, ought to do very much what they want. There is no doubt that sometimes there are orders which are very stupid. We all know of them. I have had instances where a man is to ld to plant potatoes on land that will not grow them economic ally. There it is, the man has to grow his potatoes and loses money by doing so; and so on. So there is, as the noble Earl well knows, probably a considerable amount of anxiety in that regard, and also in regard to what tie farmer feels that he has not got, the right of appeal to the courts. I rather feel he is barking up the wrong tree there in a way. So far as I can understand, the independent tribunal is probably a better court for him to appeal to than the law court, because he is there appealing to a court or tribunal which has all the qualifications for dealing with any subject that he might wish to bring before it.
  Again, there is the judgment which was delivered by Lord Caldecote, you will remember, in the case of Price against the Minister of Agriculture in regard to the obeying of orders. It was quite clear there, as far as I can understand the reading of the judgment, that, while the order had not been obeyed, the Court in that case had no jurisdiction to go into the question as to why it was not. It seemed to me that that raised quite a reasonable apprehension in the minds of farmers. Now, however, I think Clause 73 with the additions thereto will put tie farmer right in that regard. At the san e time I would quite shortly like to-state

  755
  the position as it appears to the farmer who, after all, is not conversant with all the intricacies of the law and of this Bill. He really lives a rather secluded life. At present, whether he is supervised or not, he gets an order, or he gets an agreement, as to how he is going to conduct his farm, and I want him to feel that if any untoward circumstances—and we do have untoward circumstances in farming, as the noble Earl well knows—make it impossible for him to carry out the order, he will be able to appeal to somebody who really understands why he was unable to carry it out.
  Behind that, of course, is the idea that, whereas in other walks of life the citizen has always the right to go to the courts, in this case the farmer has not got that right. And, after all, as one of them said to me the other day: "A murderer has the right of appeal; why should not I have the right." I hope that the Government and the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to this point of view, and if he can—which I am sure he will be able to do, because it is only a question, as far as I can see, of common justice—give me a reassuring answer to the Amendment. I shall not, of course, press it. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 20, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Teviot.)
  LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: My Lords, may I, speaking as a mere Don, ask the noble Lord a question about the English of this Amendment?
  LORD TEVIOT: The noble Lord, I know, is a great professor. I do not wish to enter into any controversy with him regarding my English. I have no doubt that it is quite appalling.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I understand that the purpose of the noble Lord in moving this Amendment, as he has done with great eloquence, is really to get an assurance—to clarify the substance of the Bill as it affects this matter. I do not wish to go into detail regarding Clause 73 until we reach it but there are two points upon which I would like to give the noble Lord an assurance straight away. He brought up the question of crops and suggested that under supervision direction might be given for growing crops upon unsuitable
  756
  ground, or crops which were unsuitable to the character of the particular farm. I think I can give him an assurance that that is very fully covered by the definition of "good husbandry." If we turn to Clause 11 (1) we see there the definition of "good husbandry." I need not read the whole subsection, but noble Lords will see that it sets out very fully the obligations of the farmer in regard to his husbandry, and that good husbandry is defined very clearly. In Clause 12 (1) your Lordships will find laid down what is to happen if responsibilities with regard to good estate management and good husbandry are not fulfilled. Therefore I maintain that it would be impossible for the Minister—or in this case the committee—to direct the farmer to grow unsuitable crops, because this would undoubtedly be against the rules of good husbandry as defined in Clause 11 (1).
  With regard to the matter of appeals, a farmer under supervision would have an appeal to the independent tribunal before he could be dispossessed. There is a question whether there should be a further appeal to the Courts of Law. The actual intention of my right honourable friend, the Minister, was rather to keep these courts less formal than the High Courts. In practice these courts would be considering questions of fact—questions of whether the farm was or was not being well managed, whether the rules of good husbandry were being followed and so on. These courts would not normally consider points of law. Therefore we did not think that in normal circumstances there should be an appeal to the law courts. But I suppose in the event of a tribunal exceeding its power, or something of that sort, there would be a further appeal. I would, however, rather leave such a point to be dealt with when we come to deal with legal and technical matters in connexion with Clause 73. I hope that on the matter of the crops and of the general right of appeal I have managed to satisfy the noble Lord.
  LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, there is one further point on which I should like the noble Earl to say a word, if he will. Should unforeseen circumstances arise to prevent a farmer carrying out an order—bad weather, for instance—would that fact be taken into consideration?
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, if by leave of the House I may speak again, I would draw the noble Lord's attention to the words "relevant circumstances" which I submit, would include such matters as the weather.
  LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, and in view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 16:
  Dispossession on grounds of had estate management.
  (2) Where the Minister proposes to purchase any land under the last foregoing subsection and is satisfied that it is necessary for the purpose of securing the proper management thereof that he should acquire any other land which is being managed by the same person, and certifies accordingly, the Minister shall subject to the provisions of this section have power to purchase that other land compulsorily in accordance with the provisions aforesaid.
  (4) The Minister shall not give any certificate under subsection (1), (2) or (3) of this section until, after affording to any such person as is specified in subsection (6) of this section an opportunity of making representations to the Minister, whether in writing or on being heard by a person appointed by the Minister, the Minister has given to any such person as is so specified notice in writing of the proposal to give the certificate.
  (6) The persons referred to in subsection (4) of this section are—
  (a) in the case of a proposed certificate under subsection (r) or (2) of this section, every person on whom under paragraph 3 of the First Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, and apart from any direction under that paragraph, a notice would be required to be served of a proposed compulsory purchase order under that Act authorising the compulsory purchase of the land to which the proposed certificate is to relate;
  (7) No certificate under subsection (1) or (2) of this section shall be given before the expiration of twelve months from the coming into operation of the supervision order in question, except where the person who for the time being is the owner to whom the order relates has failed to comply with any direction under the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act given to him as the owner—
  3.15 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), after "person" to insert "in conjunction with the first-mentioned land." The noble and learned
  758
  Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to wove that these words be there inserted. This was an Amendment which was places. on the Order Paper by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, at the Committee stage. It was not then moved by him, so I now find myself, not for the first time, in the position of picking up a crumb or two that has fallen from his table. And I am very pleased to do so. The Amendment has little more than a clarifying effect. ft points what we certainly intend here when we refer to "person"—namely, that we mean in conjunction with the first-mentioned land. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, line 28, after ("person") insert ("in conjunction with the first-mentioned land")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, for picking up one of my discards. It was put forward in conjunction with three of her Amendments, of which I hope we shall hear something presently. I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that his does clarify the clause.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved to add to subsection (4):
  "together with such particulars as appear to the Minister requisite for informing him of the general grounds on which the Minister is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1) of thus section."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to meet a point which was raised by Lord O'Hagan in the Committee stage, and I hope it does so. In moving it I should like to clarify the issue a little. We are providing for representations to be made, and also for informing the owner of land of the nature of the Minister's disapproval with regard to any aspect of his farming or management. The reason we have arranged for that after representations and not before—and this I think was the noble Lord's great point—is that it is according to the procedure of the committee.
  In the case of bad farming or estate management, as the case may be, a man will be put under supervision. He will be advised and guided, and, if necessary, directions may be issued. If it is then found that the farmer or the person responsible for the estate management

  759
  does not show any improvement in his work, he will finally be given the opportunity of making representations to the committee. An important point in this connexion is that it will not be a tribunal sitting in judgment on him, so to speak; this procedure will be followed in order that practical discussions may take place with the man concerned. The committee will be able to say to him: "You have not done this, that or the other," and he can reply, "Well, what I propose is this," and presumably he will do his best to present a good case. The case he makes would obviously be considered by the committee and it may very well be that after the discussions they will decide not to proceed with dispossession. In other words, one does not want to prejudge the issue in that respect. If, after full investigation, and discussions with the man, they find that dispossession should be recommended, they will give him particulars of why they are dissatisfied with him in a general way, so that if he wishes to appeal he will know exactly on what grounds the Minister is dissatisfied with him, and therefore on what grounds he can base his appeal. I hope that this meets the noble Lord's case, and beg leave to move the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 16, line 13, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
  LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, and to ask him one question. Do I understand that the particulars to which he has referred are to be put in writing?
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Yes.
  LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, in that case I am glad to accept the Amendment which the noble Earl has moved. It seems to me to meet the case, and I am very much obliged to him.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert in subsection (6), after paragraph (a):
  and
  (b) if the certificate relates to land which is settled land within the meaning of the Settled Land Act, 1925, any other person entered on the register kept for the purposes of this Part of this Act who is a trustee of the settlement or who under the settlement
  760
  has a vested interest in the land immediately following upon the interest of the person beneficially entitled to the land in possession, or who being an infant is beneficially entitled to the land in possession."
  The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, you will remember where these words come in. We are dealing with Clause 16, which relates to dispossession on grounds of bad estate management. Several of your Lordships raised the point that it was indeed hard that, because you might have a person who at the relevant time was an unworthy owner not looking after his land, the land should be taken out of the family altogether. It might be land which has been held by one family for centuries or it might be land held by a family of yeomen or held under the Settled Land Act. I was rather sympathetic to that point of view and I wanted to see if I could devise some machinery to deal with it. I think it is here. Your Lordships will remember that subsection (4) held that before the Minister gives any certificate he has to consult all those persons specified in subsection (6), and in subsection (6) I am putting in an Amendment making it quite plain that where it is related to settled land he must consult the trustee. By a later clause, Clause 21, I am providing that a register shall be kept so that you can see at a glance who are the people the Minister has to consult. He will thus be in a position to consult the people who ought to be consulted. There I think I have the machinery. Now I want to see how much further I can go to meet your Lordships. I cannot give an absolute guarantee that in all cases the heir will be the person who will be selected, but I can give this guarantee. The Government recognize that where land has been in the possession of a family for many generations, and the owner who has failed to show satisfactory improvement in his management during supervision is willing to hand over the management to his son or heirs and further that that son or heir is a fit and capable person to take over the management, it would in the normal way only be reasonable to give the son and heir a chance instead of proceeding immediately with dispossession.
  As has already been explained, there is already machinery provided in the Bill to enable the Minister to direct the appointment of a manager instead of proceeding with dispossession, and if the

  761
  owner is willing to appoint his son or heir and that son or heir is a suitable person, it will be possible to arrange for the son or heir to be given a chance to show his worth in this way. Moreover, if a Minister decides not to use his power of directing the appointment of a competent manager, but to proceed immediately with dispossession under Clause 16, the owner will have the right of appeal to the Agricultural Land Tribunal. I think that assurance goes a considerable way to meet your Lordships, and, coupled with the fact that we have here the necessary machinery, I hope it will give your Lordships considerable satisfaction. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 16, line 29, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Viscount for what he has said and for the obvious attempt he has made to meet your Lordships on this side. I hope he will forgive me if I say I am not absolutely clear as to what his assurance really is. It is a little difficult to be certain, just listening to words being read out. Perhaps I may say how it strikes me, and then the noble Viscount can correct me. I take it that the proposed paragraph (b) means that the heir within the meaning of the Settled Land Act shall ultimately have the right of appeal to the Agricultural Land Tribunal. That is not quite what we asked for. We feel he has an inherent right to be given a chance, and not a right made subject to appeal. On the other hand, I think it is a big step in our direction and we should certainly accept that Amendment so far as it goes.
  Unfortunately—and this is where I think the assurance of the noble Viscount comes in—the very class about whom we are most disturbed, the yeoman class, very seldom have their land settled. Where an estate is not settled, it is exceedingly difficult to define the heir, who can be changed from day to day. Both sides have tried to suggest a form of words to go into the Bill. And so we come down to the assurance, which really amounts to this: that the intended or most likely heir to an estate that does not come within the terms of the Settled Land Act shall be accorded so far as possible, by request to the Tribunal, the same rights as would an heir under the Settled Land Act.
  762
  Perhaps if I am right the noble and learned Viscount will be good enough to tell me so, and if I am wrong to correct me.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl can interpret it as well as I can when he sees it in print. The words are not mine. It is a statement by the Minister. Where the owner has to be turned out and he has a son and heir who seems to be a responsible person, the Minister says that in the normal course of events that son and heir should be given an opportunity to carry on.
  VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I should like to express my cordial thanks to the noble and learned Viscount for his invaluable help in this matter and I am bound to say that if this Amendment carries out the intention as expressed from the Woolsack just now, I, for my part, would be satisfied that it is a reasonable compromise. My doubt arises on the word "immediate." The Lord Chancellor put the case of an incompetent or unworthy owner who stands the risk of being dispossessed because he does not carry out the duties of a good landlord as outlined in this Bill, and he suggested that in such cases where there was a competent and worthy heir the owner might reasonably appoint him as manager. I can visualize the case of an elder son or so-called heir being not altogether so well qualified as, we will say, his younger brother, who might be next in order of entitlement to an estate. I ask whether it would be possible so to draft this Amendment so as to bring in the son of an owner who might conceivably be more worthy and more competent not only than his father but than his own elder brother. I should be sorry to see an estate lost out of a family if there was one competent member of it with all the pride that long tradition would impart to him as a member of the family.
  LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, there is a great measure of agreement between the Government and the Opposition on this matter. In the case of the owner-occupier and small property owner, his family quite naturally would attach the same importance to the land remaining in the family. It is just as important with a small man as with a large man. We ought to try to find some specific means whereby the Minister shall, in fact,

  763
  give preference to the person who normally would have succeeded the present owner in the ownership. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack gave us a carefully worded assurance that that was the intention of the Government but, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, pointed out, there are difficulties even there. When the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, was speaking, I was listening for the use of the word "minor." He never mentioned the word "minor." The case of a minor, of course, is provided under the Settled Land Acts, but it is not provided for in the assurance. We know that in practice the owner of a great estate whose management remains productive and is properly constituted is most unlikely to fall within the provisions of this Bill for dispossession. The man who is likely to get into trouble is the defaulting owner-occupier who, for reasons of finance, age or whatever it may be, is not really adequate to remain as the owner.
  How are we to get over that? I confess, quite frankly, that I do not know. But some means ought to be found, if it is correct and generally agreed on both sides of the House that the chain of ownership in the family ought not to be broken by reason of one defaulter having found his way into temporary ownership—for everybody's ownership is a, temporary one—for protecting, not necessarily and only the eldest son, but the whole family, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, quite wisely pointed out. If the normal heir is a minor, his interests particularly ought to be protected. Obviously the Minister could not permit him to be placed in the position of a manager; legally he would not be able to do so. If the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack can help us in that regard, we shall be extremely grateful. I feel that we are all trying for the same objective, but the point is how to achieve it so as to be fair to everybody.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot speak again save with the leave of the House. In answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, I will say this. I do not think I can devise any formula which can be put in an Act of Parliament; I think it must be left to administration. I presume that the Minister would administer the
  764
  thing in this way. He would obviously lean very strongly towards the heir, if there was an heir. But supposing the heir did not quite come up to the mark, and the second son was obviously better, I imagine the Minister would show a very strong preference to the second son over, for instance, any outsider. But I do not think you can put that in the words of an Act of Parliament; it must be a matter of administration.
  VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: May I interrupt for one moment? As the Amendment is at present framed, that course would be impossible, would it not? So long as the words refer to a person:
  "who under the settlement has a vested interest in the land immediately following upon the interest of the person beneficially entitled,"
  surely that interpretation could not be put upon it?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount is confusing two things. First of all, there is this Amendment. This Amendment is simply saying, in effect, who must be consulted. Presently I shall move an Amendment providing for the keeping of a register. The undertaking I give goes beyond the Amendment. That undertaking is with regard to the Minister's recognition of the fact that it is desirable to have the heir, if at all possible: and I am now saying that, even if you cannot get the heir, the second son should obviously be put in advance of complete strangers, always provided that he is equally proficient as a manager of the land.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I can only speak again with the permission of the House. I simply rise to say that this does not quite meet every point we had envisaged, but equally it is clear that we cannot devise much better words here ourselves. I think the intention of the noble and learned Viscount is clear, and I gladly accept his assurance.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, this Amendment is submitted to meet a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, who was not quite satisfied that the minimum period of twelve months was made clear. We have now put in "until not less than twelve months has expired." I hope this makes it clear beyond any doubt.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 16, line 34, leave out from ("given") to ("from") and insert ("until not less than twelve months has expired").—(The Earl of Huntingdon .)
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Earl for this Amendment. It is obviously impossible, in the difficult circumstances, to devise words to give us exactly what we would like, and this is the best that we can expect.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  3.36 p.m.
  THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to add to the clause:
  "(8) Nothing in this section shall authorise or be deemed to authorise the acquisition by the Minister under the foregoing provisions of this section of an interest in land or in a part thereof greater than the interest therein of which the person managing the land is able to dispose."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is in substitution for four Amendments of which I moved the first, and I think the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has to-day accepted the third. They are all designed to deal with one particular and rather difficult point, of land which, for one reason or another, a landowner has let on a lease—possibly a full repairing lease. The terms of the Bill as they now stand might easily be interpreted to mean that the leaseholder is the manager and in beneficial occupation of the land. Therefore, if he defaults in some way or other, and becomes liable to dispossession under the Bill, not only is he dispossessed of his occupation of the land, but, by virtue of the fact that he is looked upon as the manager of the land, the owner of the freehold is also dispossessed of his freehold.
  There are a number of cases in which that might happen. It was made quite clear in another place, as I pointed out on the Committee stage, that it was definitely designed to catch the man who leased his land. I think that is not quite right, and I have put down this Amendment which, as your Lordships see, tries to confine the compulsory acquisition to such interests as the defaulter has in the land. I would like to draw the attention of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, to one thing in the Report of the Committee stage. The noble Earl seemed to indicate that a leasehold was an indefinite
  766
  period. Of course, a leasehold is not for an indefinite period; it is for a period of years. Personally, I can see no reason why, in the case of dispossession of the occupant of the land in those circumstances, His Majesty's Government should not be content with acquiring the interest of the man whom they are dispossessing. They would still achieve their object of getting the best use of the land for the remainder of the lease.
  It may be said that probably in such leases there are terms and conditions ensuring the proper cultivation of the land, and also, if it is a repairing lease, ensuring that the buildings are kept in proper order. I would ask your Lordships to consider what are the remedies of the owner of the land if those covenants are not properly kept. He has to go to the county committee; in fact he has to go to the Minister. If he wants to give notice he has to go to the Minister. Some of us on this side of the House have had some experience of going to committees and trying to get farmers out for bad. farming. I believe it to be a fact—I am not certain—that in only two cases in the whole of the time that that provision Las been in operation have farmers been turned out for bad farming. In fact, the ordinary land agent has for a long time past advised his principal strongly against trying to get a farmer out for bad farming. I can see very little prospect under this Bill of that being reversed. That tenant will be put under supervision straight away; he will not be removed. There will be a very considerable inhibition on the part of the owners of the land to go to the county committee against an occupant of any of their land, whether he be an ordinary tenant or a leasehold r, and it is very doubtful whether, should they take the initiative in that case, the county committee would feel disposed to take any action.
  After all, the mere fact that a landowner has to go to the county committee for this purpose must indicate to the county committee that they have failed somewhat in their duty, because they are charged with the duty of seeing that the land is made use of to the proper extent. They will, in self-defence, instead of getting rid of the man, put him under supervision, or they will not do anything at all—probably dc nothing at all, because they will be rather

  767
  offended at finding a landlord who thinks he knows more about his own tenants than they do.
  That is the position, and I think there is underlying it a matter of rather broad principle. You are proposing to dispossess a man for offending in some form or another. In so doing you are, at the same time, going to dispossess a man who has probably not offended in any way whatsoever, and who has very little remedy except through the Minister or his agents, the county committee. It is for that reason that I have again put down this variation of my original Amendment. I think the noble Earl did say that he would look into it more carefully, and I have no doubt that he has looked into it very carefully.
  I am rather reinforced in my view as to the necessity for something of this sort, by the fact brought to my notice about four days ago, that a certain large and well-known estate, anxious to try and make the estate run on rather more economic lines, had offered to its tenants two alternatives: either they should pay a percentage increase in their rents, or they should take on the whole of the repairs of their respective farms. I do not say anything about the wisdom of such a suggestion—I just mention the fact. In such a case I believe those men would, under the terms of this Bill, be considered as the managers of that land. I think so, but I should like an answer to that. They may be only on a yearly tenancy but they are, within the terms of the Bill, managers of that land. They have the control of the cultivation, they have the control of the buildings, and I think they might easily he called managers of land. There are, of course, other cases of year-to-year tenancies and there are cases of long leases, and although long leases in England are not very frequent they are very important. With that I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 6, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
  LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, there is an aspect of this matter to which I ventured to refer very briefly in Committee and to which I feel I should refer again. These cases of small pieces of detached property, let off possibly to a neighbouring landowner with permission to sub-let and
  768
  passing, to all intents and purposes, permanently under the management of the neighbouring landowner, might, if mismanaged, for all practical purposes be taken away from the man to whom it belongs without very great fear of hardship. But we have been talking about the Settled Land Acts. These pieces of detached property would almost certainly be included in a settlement, and we know it is very unfortunate fact that a very large proportion of agricultural land is held in mortgage. What would happen if a small piece of property included in a settlement were taken away by compulsion from the owner because of what we would describe as a technical offence? I am not troubled about the offence, but I am troubled about the consequences. What happens if that piece of land is, so to speak, requisitioned and is included in the mortgage? Suppose the mortgagee declined to allow the owner to repay so much of the mortgage as was attributable to the value of that particular piece of land. The mortgagee has it in his power to do these things, and there is no reason why he should not implement that power.
  Now the owner who may be losing his piece of land through no act or fault of his own, but through the default of the person who was managing, and who would, normally, suffer no particular financial or even material hardship, may and probably would, because of the operation of law, find himself in an extremely awkward position. The Amendment which the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has down would, of course, cover that decision altogether, because it would disable the Minister from dispossessing any person other than the person to whom the land belonged or for whom he was managing. I feel I must support the noble Earl in this Amendment, because I am very unhappy about the possible consequences which would arise in the events which I have ventured to describe.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has raised an extremely complicated and interesting point. We all admit that, and as it is extremely complicated, if your Lordships will forgive me I would like to read so that I give an accurate answer to the Amendment. The purpose of this Amendment is to provide that where the Minister compulsorily buys land on the grounds of

  769
  bad estate management under Clause 16 (1), or where tinder Clause 16 (2) he buys other land, necessary for the proper management of the land being acquired on the grounds of bad estate management, he should only be entitled to acquire the legal interest in that land of the person managing the land. In other words, if the person concerned is the leaseholder, the result of this Amendment would mean that the Minister would only be able to buy the remainder of the leasehold interest. The Amendment would affect subsection (1) and subsection (2) of Clause i6.
  Subsection (1) provides that where a supervision order is in force in relation to the management of land and during the period of supervision satisfactory improvement has not been shown, the Minister shall have power to buy compulsorily that land. A supervision order relates not only to the land but to the person managing the land, and under Clause 12(1) the only person who can be placed under supervision is the "owner" of agricultural land who has failed to fulfil his responsibilities in accordance with the rules of good estate management set out in Clause 10. An owner, for the purposes of Part II of the Bill, is defined in Clause 21. It means the freehold owner unless under the provisions of Clause 21 (2) that owner has agreed with some other person that that oilier person shall be treated as the owner of the land for the purposes of Part II, or alternatively there has been a determination by the Agricultural Land Tribunal that some person other than the freehold owner should be treated as the owner for the purposes of Part II.
  This means that under Clause 16 (1) the person who is under supervision and who has failed to show satisfactory improvement will in normal cases be the freehold owner. Clearly in such circumstances the Minister must have the right to acquire the freehold interest, and the Amendment could not prevent this happening. Where, however, the owner had agreed with some other person, as for example a long leaseholder, that that other person should be treated as the owner for the purpose of Part II, or where alternatively there had been a determination of the Agricultural Land Tribunal to that effect, the person who would be under supervision and would not show satisfactory improvement would not be the freehold owner but would be
  770
  the leaseholder. In that case the result of the Amendment would be that the Minister would only be able to purchase the remainder of the lease and would be debarred from purchasing the freehold interest.
  I suggest that there is no justification for such a provision in relation to subsection (1). If the freehold owner has agreed that sonic other person should be responsible as owner for fulfilling the rules of good estate management in respect of that land or if the Agricultural Laid Tribunal has, on application, so determined, the freehold owner will in effect have abdicated from any of his responsibilities as an agricultural landowner. lie will not be concerned with the land except to the extent that he is receiving a rent from it. He will therefore be purely in the position of a rent receiver or any other person who has invested money and is receiving interest on that money. If as a result of the Minister buying the land including his freehold interest he is forced to change the nature of his investment he will not be damnified in any way. He will receive the full market value for his land and will be able to put his money into some other form of investment whether that be the purchase of other agricultural land or the purchase of, far example, stocks and shares.
  If the Minister is authorized to take over land on the grounds of bad estate management, surely he should be entitled to purchase all the interests in that land so that he has a free hand to improve the property and to see that it continues to be satisfactorily managed. Suppose for example that this Amendment were carried and a lessee who had only three or four years of his lease to run had to be dispossessed on the ground of bad estate management. The Minister in such a case would have a period of only a few years in which to effect the necessary improvements and pull the estate round and might then receive a notice to quit, whereupon the lard would revert to the freehold owner who would thereupon lease it to some other person over whom the Minister would have no control. Moreover, if this Amendment were accepted it would invite evasion by the creation of fictitous leases. There would be nothing to prevent a free-hold owner from leasing the land to himself as a limited company and then agreeing with himself as a limited company

  771
  that the limited company should be treated as the "owner" for the purposes of Part II of the Bill. If this were done the result of the Amendment would be that the Minister could in no circumstances deprive the owner of his freehold interest. That, I think, is a position which we could not accept. I hope I have answered the question fairly clearly. I am sorry I have had to read such a long extract, but the case is a complex and difficult one and I wished to show the difficulties that we should be up against in accepting the Amendment. For those reasons I hope the noble Earl will see fit to withdraw it.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two on the earlier part of the noble Earl's speech. We have to deal with things that are in being. A good many of us, landowners of all sorts and sizes, have found ourselves temporarily as trustees or landlords in possession of land, a good many miles uneconomically away from the seat of operations. We wish perhaps to give to a reasonable tenant a full reasonable time of twenty years on a repairing lease. There is nothing to prevent that tenant from deteriorating, like anybody else. Or the man may die and the land be carried on unsatisfactorily by his children. But the Minister has power to take the land away from the owner. Is that not a difficult and unfair position to those who have let their land out? The same thing may well apply in the ordinary course of events in the case of a young and progressive fellow who may come along and say: "I should like to take your land and do certain improvements, and if you will give me a full repairing lease of twenty years I will go all out." And you agree. You may say to yourself that it is not perhaps your general policy, but that you think this young man has vows and you want to encourage him to get on with the job. Then something happens on which he breaks down. Are you going to penalize the owner for that fact? Is that a fair position, under this particular clause as envisaged?
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I really cannot feel that the noble Earl has met the point put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. I do rather regret
  772
  also that the noble Earl should suggest that any landlord who lets land on a full repairing lease—a perfectly legitimate thing to do; some may think it a good policy and others a bad one, but it is perfectly legitimate—should now be accused by the Government of having abdicated his duties and become a mere rent receiver. That is not so at all. It seems to me that the fair thing for the Government to do in the case of a farm mismanaged by the tenant, is one of two things: either take over the remainder of the lease or else dispossess the man and offer the farm back to the original owner. He should be given a chance to put the farm right before he is dispossessed.
  There is one other subject on which I feel rather strongly. I come from a county of rather small farms, but around me we have, particularly at the present time, a number of men who have come back from the war and perhaps have bought a small farm of about fifty acres. They are very keen and ambitious. They buy a good herd of cows and then want to extend it. They have their own small freehold farms of fifty acres and want to extend their herd. They go to a local landowner—this has occurred to my knowledge—and they say: "There is a piece of land of thirty or forty acres on the edge of your farm; it does not mean a great deal to you. Will you let it?" In the present circumstances, he puts himself out to do so, and lets one of these men have thirty or forty acres; which become attached to his farm for the time being. Then perhaps the man loses interest, something happens, something goes wrong, and in a few years' time he lets the holding deteriorate. These thirty or forty acres are let to him on a repairing lease; it is really perhaps a matter of keeping the fences in order. The Minister comes down on him, puts him under supervision and eventually decides to take over the holding.
  In the meantime, the man who has done him this good turn by letting him the thirty or forty acres is going to be dispossessed of his land, purely because of the mismanagement by the tenant of this subsidiary holding. Surely that is not only very unjust, but it is very much against the interests of small farmers, because it means that in future we are just not going to do these good turns if we are going to be penalized. It is all

  773
  very well the noble Earl saying: "There is an appeal; you can put your case before the Minister and you can go to the tribunal." Why should we put our necks into a noose and make our rights subject to appeal when it is a matter of doing somebody a good turn? We are not going to do it. I say that this is doing a very bad turn to the farming community; it is doing something which is going to destroy the spirit of mutual accommodation and arrangement between landlord and tenant and between the small farmer and the large landowner in an effort to help one another.
  I do hope that this matter will be carefully considered. I know that this is a late stage of the Bill, but this is a matter of some considerable importance and, if the noble Earl cannot meet us actually on this Amendment, perhaps he would like to make some other endeavour to meet us, for we should be very glad to undertake to discuss the matter between now and the Third Reading. I do make a very warm appeal to the noble Earl to consider this point.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I intervene to say a word? I admit that I have no particular knowledge on this subject, but I have been listening to the debate and I am quite ready to look at this Amendment between now and Third Reading, provided always that am not committed to any sort of undertaking or, indeed, to holding out any definite hope. I will look into this matter and try to find out more about it with a view to satisfying the noble Earl.
  What I feel about it, listening to the debate is this. I think we have got to take in this country a very different outlook with regard to land from that which we have taken before. Unless our land provides very much more food than it has produced hitherto, we may be in danger of starvation. A good landlord regards himself, I know full well, as a trustee of his land, but we must see that all landlords, not only the good ones, in future regard the use of the land as for the production of food and that every other consideration is wholly secondary. We cannot afford to take any qualification or hesitation about accepting that fact. Indeed, only the other day, Lord Hastings in the most round and absolute terms accepted that proposition, and I am sure that all good landlords will do the same.
  774
  If we are taking the hypothesis that there is a farm which is in neglect arid the supervision order has been placed on the man in charge, and it is still in neglect and showing no signs of improvement, then I say that you ought to give the Minister the right to say: "In those circumstances, I will take that farm over lock, stock and barrel. If that is the fact, private interests must give way to the greater public interests." You may have a situation in which a man only three, four or five years still to run. If that means that the Minister, to put that right, can only take over for those three, four or five years, he may not be; able to put it right and we have got precious little time to waste in order to, get these things right.
  I hope that I am not uttering any revolutionary doctrine to which any good landlord who cares about the land of this country would not agree; I believe he would. In those cases where you have a landlord who has, to a very considerable extent, at any rate, parted with his land—he has agreed under Part II that this man may be treated as the owner or there has been a finding to that effect—to that extent he has put this mater out of his control and in those circumstances the Minister should have the right—I do not say the obligation; the right ought to be exercised with discretion—to say: "Well, I must really take this land over and, to make the best of it, I may have to take it over altogether." On the other hand, having said that, in order that it may not seem to be revolutionary, I feel quite certain that the Minister will get on much better with his job and with the land if he gets on his side the people who know about it and if he enlists the sympathy and support of the people who have known this land from their childhood and know what it can do. If, therefore, you ask me what steps the Minister should take in a given case, I conceive that the answer should be that he should not resort to drastic measures. If you ask me to impose a limitation on the Minister's powers and say that the Minister can only take over the interests which the person in charge, being recognized for the time being as the owner, has, then I say that is too serious a limitation.
  As I have said, that is as it strikes me in this way on the spur of the moment. I do not pretend that I have given full

  775
  consideration to this matter, for I have not; I have merely heard your Lordships discussing it. Neither do I pretend that it is in any sense a subject on which I am an expert; I know little about it. I will look into this matter between now and Third Reading and see if there is any modus operandi which I can find, always bearing in mind—I am sure your Lordships will be with me on this—that I must not do anything in present circumstances which would only handicap the Minister in proper cases in exercising the wide power which enables him so to take over the land so that he can really get busy and get something done with that land. In that, I believe that I should have the support of the vast majority of this House.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, we are very grateful to the Lord Chancellor for looking at this matter. It is a very difficult point and it deserves the utmost consideration by all concerned to see that justice should be done. I was, however, I must confess, rather surprised to hear him talking about a repairing lease. I hardly think that he would attempt to maintain it in a court of law, that when you let a house, say, on a repairing lease you surrender a large part of the ownership. I have never heard such a suggestion in my life. It is merely a practical agreement between landlord and tenant.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not mean to suggest that. I referred to Clause 21, subsection (2).
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If I am misinterpreting what the noble and learned Viscount has said, I am sorry, but the Earl of Huntingdon certainly gave us that impression. We are all agreed that land must not be allowed to be neglected, but the real thing we have to consider is: Who has neglected it and who is responsible? In the course of this debate, several noble Lords have pointed out that conditions may arise where, through no fault of the landlord, the tenant has neglected the land: the neglect lies at the door of the tenant. The proper action of the Minister in those particular cases—I am referring only to the limited number of cases where the tenant is responsible for the neglect—ought to lie against the tenant, and not
  776
  against the landlord. There may be some way by which the landlord can re-enter and take over responsibility, and if he is willing and competent to do so that is obviously the correct procedure. What alarms us in this clause of the Bill, is that where even some neglect may have arisen through the tenant the landlord, under the terms of the lease, has not power to do anything about it. I would ask if the noble and learned Viscount would consider that aspect when looking into this matter: that the landlord must bear responsibility for the neglect if he is responsible for it, and, if he is not responsible for the neglect, that he should be able to re-enter into responsibility, so as to put himself into the position of carrying out his obligations to the country.
  THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate on this Amendment. Not the least interesting part is that we have had from the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, a most forthright declaration that it is necessary for us to have maximum production from our land. I do not think we have ever had that from either this Government or any previous Government, and I am only sorry that it should be followed by the words, if I am right, "or otherwise we may face starvation." To return to this Amendment, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for saying that he will look into it. When he really looks into it, he may see that there is something in it. I cannot pretend that I followed in full detail the noble Earl's statement, because it was a very detailed one, but I hope to give it a more full examination before Third Reading. However, I would like to put forward a suggestion about which I have not had an opportunity of consulting my colleagues at all. One of the difficulties about this question of taking over the leasehold interest rather than the freehold interest is that you may have to take over the land when there is only a short period of the lease to run. During that time, you may have to spend a lot of money which is not recoverable because, on the termination of the lease, you have to hand back the land in the condition in which it was originally taken over by the original leaseholder, which one would presume was reasonably good.
  That is an argument with which I have a very considerable sympathy, and I

  777
  think it is unfair on His Majesty's Government. It occurs to me that we might be able to find some words that, on taking over a leasehold, the leasehold should be deemed to be at its commencement. That would avoid taking the freehold. It would give the freeholder what we hope would be a very good leaseholder for a further full time of the lease, and it would also give the Ministry of Agriculture the full time in which not only to put the estate in order but also to recover by trading, and good farming perhaps, the money which they have so spent. I put that forward as a suggestion for consideration. Meanwhile I will withdraw this Amendment, on the assurance of the Lord Chancellor that it will be looked into.
  I would say this before I sit down: unless something is done, it will mean the end, not only of these arrangements between neighbours, spoken of by my noble friend Earl De La Warr, but it will also mean the end of all leaseholds in agricultural land. There are quite a number of people who believe that leaseholds of fourteen or twenty-one years are the one way in which to give the farmer that security of tenure for improvements and progressive farming which he needs. If you do not do something of this sort, the owners of the land will never again offer land on a long lease. When existing leases reach the end of their term they will be terminated, and we shall not make a new lease. So it will mean, if nothing is done, that the owner of land will never again make a lease, and that the existing leaseholds will just die out.
  LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: My Lords, I speak as a fool but, listening to this discussion, is not the answer to make it possible legally, if these things happened, to terminate the lease in spite of what the lease happened to be? Does that get round it, or does it not? I listened to this and, if you are responsible for giving a repairing lease to X, arid X then misbehaves himself, are you, as the landlord, not able to say that that is the end of it? I may be entirely wrong.
  EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I think I may be able to quote a case that I know. There was a property which was let, a small quantity of agricultural land, with a house which is under the Rent Restriction Act. The tenant did not look after that land properly, and the owner
  778
  then tried to terminate the lease and get him out. It will amuse the noble End learned Viscount to know that this was a matter which came before a Judge of the High Court, who said that that land was not agricultural land because it was not mown for hay. He had never heard of such a thing as land which is grazed; and, therefore, the landlord was unable to terminate the lease, and to get hat land into his possession. That is the case to-day, and that comes under this clause as a case where the landlord can do nothing. It may be that the county agricultural committee may find that this is now agricultural land, and what will happen if the case is again brought Mare the Court I do not know. That is a case that did occur; and, incidentally, I might tell the noble and learned Viscount that it is one of the things that persuaded ma that he was right in having the tribunal, which we are going to discuss later, and that the matter should not come before a Judge of the High Court.
  THE EARL OF RADNOR: In answer to the noble Lord, as I tried to explain, it is practically impossible for a landlord to get rid of a tenant without going to the county committee or to the Minister.
  LORD LINDSAY or BIRKER: Nay I be allowed just to say that though. I spoke as a fool I did not speak as so big a fool as all that! I was assuming that the proper way of dealing with these difficulties was to pass an Amendment to give landlords different powers over this matter.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, might I refer to one point? I am glad to hear that the Lord Chancellor is going to consider this. I would suggest that a case of this sort might, in the end, result in deterioration in farming and land management. Consider the case of a smallholding or a large holding let on a repairing lease in the middle of a large and well-managed estate. It is quite possible that it could happen, and perhaps in some circumstances it will happen. If that holding is taken over, as the Bill now stands it will result in an island of ownership within a large area managed systematically and properly through the office for the management of the estate itself. That would clearly be

  779
  increasing the difficulties of management, rather than helping them. I hope that when the Lord Chancellor is considering this matter he will bear in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker, has said, and that it will be possible to make provision in the Bill whereby a lease of this sort can be terminated on the order of the Minister, or by appeal, or in some other way.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.20 p.m.
  Clause 17 [Dispossession on grounds of bad husbandry]:
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, this Amendment is similar to that on Clause 16 at page i6, line 13, and provides for similar arrangements to apply to farmers. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 36, at end, insert ("together with such particulars as appear to the Minister requisite for informing the recipient of the notice as to the general grounds on which the Minister is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, this relates to the minimum period of twelve months and applies to farmers. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 43, leave out from ("made") to ("from") and insert ("until not less than twelve months has expired").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 20 [Service of notices on agents]:
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to meet a point—or partly to meet a point—brought forward by the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, on Committee stage. As I gather that the noble Earl agrees with the Amendment I will not say anything further about it. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 22, line 39, at end, insert ("Provided that where by virtue of this subsection any notice is served in connection with a direction to entrust the management of land to a person approved by the Minister, and the owner of the land is entered on the register kept for the purposes of this Part of this Act, a copy of the notice shall be served on the owner at the address entered on the register in that behalf").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Earl.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 21 [Interpretation of references in Part II to "owner" and "manager"]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is the counterpart of an Amendment which we had before. It provides for the keeping of a register in order that the Minister may know whom he has to consult. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 23, line 35, at end, insert:
  ("(4) For the purposes of this Part of this Act the Minister shall keep, in such form as he may determine, a register of owners of land and other persons who are trustees of, or interested under, settlements as mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (6) of Section sixteen of this Act, being in any case persons who in the prescribed manner apply to be entered in the register").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, may I ask if this is a new register of owners of all land which has now to be set up—a new Domesday Book? I see the first part of the Amendment reads that:
  "For the purposes of this Part of this Act the Minister shall keep, in such form as he may determine, a register of owners of land and other persons who are trustees of, or interested under, settlements… ."
  and so on. I think, if I interpret the words correctly, that this must involve the creation of something equivalent to the Domesday Book.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I point out that it applies only to those who in the prescribed manner apply to be put in the register. You need not be put in the register if you do not apply. It is merely a question of whether you are certain that you are to be consulted. Whether you go in the register is purely optional.
  LORD HASTINGS: I do not think one would have gathered that from reading the Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 25 [Measure of compensation for improvements, etc., in Fourth Schedule]:
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, this Amendment is again to meet a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, and is designed to secure that a landlord is warned of proposed

  781
  mole draining. I think this meets the noble Earl's point and I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 26, line 35, at end insert:
  "(5) A tenant shall not be entitled to compensation for an improvement specified in paragraph 1 of the Fourth Schedule to this Act unless not later than one month before the improvement was begun he gave notice in writing to the landlord of his intention to carry out the improvement."—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for having gone so far as he has done in this; but may I say that he seems to have got mixed with regard to a principle which was referred to in the discussions on Second Reading? This was that if a tenant carried out certain improvements for which grants were available he could, at his outgoing, apply to the landlord for compensation as if those grants had been paid. Here is a completely different principle. The tenant must notify the landlord of his improvement if he is going to be able to get the grants.
  I think that is very important, because it goes contrary to another principle which was mentioned in earlier discussion on the Bill. However, I have little more to say except to thank the noble Earl for going as far as he has done. I would, however, like to add that mole draining, and such works as water and electricity connexions, and so on, which are laid under ground, have become in these last twenty years what might almost be termed a new procedure having regard to the extent to which they have been carried out. So it is not merely a question of compensation, because a great many farm tenants do not apply if the amount involved is not going to be large. They prefer not to go through all the procedure which is involved. Therefore this Amendment does not entirely meet my point. I believe that a new principle should be admitted in that in all cases of mole drainage notice should be given to the landlord before any actual drainage is done at any time.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 30 [Compensation for disturbance]:
  THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, this is merely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 31, line 3, after ("tenant") insert ("contravenes or").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 31:
  Restrictions on termination by notice of tenancies of holdings.
  (3) Without prejudice to the discretion of the Minister in a case falling within paragraphs (a) to (d) of this subsection, the Minister shall withhold his consent under this section to the operation of a notice to quit unless he is satisfied—

  (a) that the carrying out of the purpose for which the landlord proposes to terminate the tenancy is desirable in the interests 0:: efficient farming or good estate management; or

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

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

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

  Provided that in the case of a tenancy created after the commencement of this Part of this Act paragraph (c) of this subsection shall not have effect in relation to the termination of the tenancy unless it is so provided by a written contract of tenancy, specifying the purpose referred to in that paragraph.

SUPPLY OF NEWSPRINT.
6.5 p.m.
LORD LAYTON LORD LAYTON rose to call attention to the inadequacy of the supply of newsprint available for the British Press, the serious consequences of the additional restrictions recently imposed, and the necessity for honouring the long-term contracts made with Government sanction between the Newsprint Supply Company and the newsprint mills of Canada and Newfoundland; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, before moving this Motion I should venture to say for the record that I am not a disinterested party, but am Chairman of the News Chronicle and Star. I feel sure, however, that your Lordships' House will accept my words in the spirit in which I shall deliver them. They will be spoken not only on behalf of the Press as a whole but also for the public good.
I would also like to say that I shall not speak to this Motion in any partisan spirit. I have collaborated with His Majesty's Government, and with the Departments concerned, for two and a half years on the problems of supply and rationing of newsprint. Such collaboration was essential and was the only possibility in the circumstances. The alternative of complete Government control over the Press would, in my judgment, have been disastrous; and I think we may claim that the co-operative action between the Press as a whole and the Government has steered us through a difficult time, with fairness to all concerned, and, until the present time, without friction.
But something more than collaboration is needed for the supply of the basic material for the British Press. It is imperative also that there should be forward planning. We owe a very great deal in this country to our insular position, but it has some disadvantages. One of those disadvantages is that we grow within our boundaries almost none of the raw materials for making paper upon which we can print, although this country is the home of printing. Practically all our raw material has to be imported and paid for by export. That fact may have political consequences in years ahead. It also happens that the need for planning coincided with a world famine in newsprint immediately after the end of the war. During the last two years there have been constant discus-
820
sions with Government Departments to ensure the supply of basic material for the newspapers and, indirectly, for the periodicals produced in this country. It is essential that the material upon which we print should be assured to this country, and that does require a forward looking campaign. Agreement was reached in the spring of last year, when the Government accepted the view that a long-range plan was necessary, and a five-year plan was brought into effect for dealing with imported newsprint and the material for making newsprint in this country.
As I said just now, I do not want to criticize His Majesty's Government, or to suggest motives or anything of that kind, but I do wish to say most emphatically that in putting aside that long-range programme they committed a grave error of judgment. The error is of two kinds. First, in cutting the Press back to the four-page paper basis they gravely underrated the importance of the Press in a democratic community in these days and deprived the Press of adequate means of doing its job properly. And, on the other hand, they imperilled one of the very few pieces of constructive planning that had been done by collaboration between Government Departments and industry in this country. In so doing, particularly in the circumstances of the day, they imperilled the future supply of the British Press itself.
This Motion is in three parts. It refers to the inadequacy of supplies at present, to the grave inconvenience that will be caused by the additional restriction that was imposed during the past month, and to the necessity of honouring commitments entered into with the full backing of His Majesty's Government. I will refer very briefly to the role of the Press. One could discuss it in general terms, but there is no need for me to emphasize in this House that adequate information is basic to the successful functioning of democracy. Recently a Gallup Poll was taken in this country on the question: "What do you rely on most for forming your opinions: magazines, newspapers, books, radio broadcasts or some other source?" The answers (sometimes duplicated and therefore amounting to a total of more than 100 per cent.) showed in the total of the Poll that 58 per cent. said that they relied on newspapers, 41 per cent. on the radio, 13 per cent. on

821
books, and 8 per cent. on magazines and a number of other sources, including direct information.
Your Lordships will note that the question was not: "What did you take your opinion from?"; but "On what did you base your opinion"? By far the largest percentage of information is drawn from the newspapers. The percentage is 61 for men, and 54 for women. Women showed a higher figure for the radio, naturally enough, as the women can "listen-in" more in the home. This, I suggest, is really a social study of considerable importance. A note was made of the newspaper read by the people who were questioned. The interesting thing about this is that when you break that down, the figure for The Times is not 6i per cent., but 49 per cent. (that does not, of course, mean that people did not collect information from The Times). But the figure for The Times readers was: books 34 per cent.; radio, 36 per cent.; magazines, 17 per cent. In other words, the class that reads The Times is drawing information from many other sources besides the newspaper. When you take the class that reads the popular Press, books come down to 10 per cent., magazines well below 10 per cent., and so forth. The figures illustrate forcibly the point which would be expected, that the mass of the people buying the newspapers with large circulations depend mainly on those papers for their information. That is a very important fact.
With regard to the six-page and the four-page newspaper, I had an analysis made of various papers. We have been publishing four-page and six-page papers during the last nine months, and I find that papers such as the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and the News Chronicle, have, in fact, been able to print two and a half times the number of columns in reporting Parliament in a six-page paper, that they can print in a four-page paper. The same would be true if you took an analysis—and after all His Majesty's Government should make a careful analysis of these matters before making quick and arbitrary decisions which have such far-reaching effects—on foreign news. It is obvious that you cannot sell a four-page paper without including certain definite things. The back page is mortgaged to sport. In The Times about the same space is given to sport,
822
and commonly equals the space given to Parliamentary reporting. You could not sell a newspaper which merely give Parliamentary reports. You must supply what the public wants to read if you ire going to induce them to read what you want them to read!
It is, therefore, absurd to talk of inducing newspapers to print more of the kind of material which you think the people ought to have. The only way you can do that is to base it upon the standard item in a four-page paper. If you do have additional pages, you will get two results: you will get additional news, and you: will also get variety. If you do not get variety, then in effect you have a poor Press which becomes stagnant and will deteriorate. After all, variety is the essence of a free Press in a democracy. I am not arguing that four pages makes. a Press not free; but it makes it ineffective, and very inadequate to do its job.
Let me pass to the second point. I have already indicated one serious consequence of the four-page paper, which is that it standardizes the paper and makes it uniform. Everybody in your Lot d-ships' House will remember how during the War people said that all the papers looked alike. The Government are going the best way to make the papers look alike again, and that is not a healthy condition either for the Press or the people. It has serious repercussions, too, on employment. I can assure your Lordships that in every newspaper office to-day the executives are examining their costs. their employment sheets, and seeing what they must do to economize. They must economize for two reasons. One is a financial reason, but there is also a further consideration. If we are to have four-page newspapers for, let us say, two years, we know for certain that many of those offices overseas which we have been building up, those staffs which we have been gradually getting together, must be partially demobilized, for the simple reason that there is no room in the newspaper to print the stuff that comes over. Not only is it useless to maintain an office in idleness, but it is bad and frustrating for the people concerned.
The cut also presents a serious financial problem. I could give the House figures, but it is perhaps unnecessary. I merely mention that in the very week whim notice of this cut was given there was a rise in price of home newsprint, which

823
adds £2,000,000 to the bill of the British Press—even on the lower consumption—on the score of price alone. Shared out on the cost sheets of the various newspapers that is a very material increase. The British Press has had to carry higher wages; it has had to carry higher costs all along the line, and now there is a big jump in newsprint costs. The papers that will feel the pinch most are inevitably the independent papers, and the papers with the smallest circulation in their respective classes.
News of this cut has been greeted by resolutions of protest from the profession, from those who are employed in the industry, and from many commercial quarters. It induces a sense of frustration. It closes the door for two years, or whatever the period may be, to any serious intake into a profession which should play a very great role in the national life. We all know of the young men who have been wishing and hoping that, when they came back from the war, they might find openings in the journalistic profession. If this decision is maintained, their chances of getting in will be almost nil. I can think of no more cogent recommendation that the Royal Commission on the Press might make—and they might well make it as an Interim Report immediately—than that the kind of Press which they are trying to see established requires, as a first condition, a substantial increase in the supply of newsprint.
I come to the third point of this motion—that which concerns the Canadian contracts. The agreements that have been made are part and parcel of the planning to which I referred a little while ago. That planning is based on at least one-third of our basic supplies coming from the North American Continent, and the balance of two-thirds coming from Europe—our sources being respectively Canada, Newfoundland and Scandinavia. The reasons for this distribution are quite obvious. The first is military. During the war Scandinavia was completely cut off, and Canada sent us newsprint in addition to pulp for use by our mills at home. Secondly, there is the political reason. One would not like to feel that the British Press was completely dependent upon material from Scandinavia; I need not elaborate that.
Thirdly, there is a financial reason. If we are dependent upon one group, who
824
before have operated as a cartel, then the position of this country is liable to be seriously affected. It is simple common sense; insurance indicates that we ought to draw at least one-third of our basic supplies of an essential industry from an alternative source. It is on that basis that we obtained permission to make these contracts, but it was no good going to Canada without something more than permission to buy; we had to have a firm undertaking of dollars and import licences. I do not propose to say anything more about that undertaking because it was accepted in the debate in another place, and I am sure it will be accepted on the Government Bench this afternoon. It was a firm undertaking; it was a definite promise that the Government would supply the licences and the necessary dollars for the programme; otherwise I could not have gone to Canada last September with any hope at all of securing a long-range contract. When I got to Oriskany, a holiday camp some 200 miles north of Montreal, where were assembled half a dozen of the leading manufacturers of Canada, who between them have a capacity for making 2,500,000 tons of newsprint a year—a substantial part of the world's production—my first task was to impress upon them that this was a world problem and that there was danger if they sold all their production in the United States.
I was fortunate enough to pick up on the way up from Montreal a copy of the local paper, and it happened that I had in my bag a complete set of the national Press of England—a copy of The Times, the Telegraph, and all the London papers, the Manchester Guardian, and so on. I produced these from my bag when I got there, and presented them to those gentlemen with my copy of the Montreal paper, which weighed one and a half times as much as, and contained one and a half times the number of pages of, the whole of the national Press of Britain. It was impressive. The next thing they required was a Government guarantee, and that I was able to produce. Then followed a number of questions as to whether it was wise on commercial lines for Canada to enter into the British market. Was Britain solvent, and would she be solvent on a long-term basis? Were the Socialist Government going to check British recovery, or not? I do not propose to tell your Lordships the answer I gave,

825
except to say that I persuaded them to sign the contracts!
There was a rider added, however. These manufacturers said, "We know of the British newspaper owners, and we would like to have the general contracts underwritten." They asked us to sign twelve-year contracts—and most of us, with Government concurrence, have done so—to the extent of the total programme. The programme to-day is not merely a five-year programme; it is a twelve-year programme, of which the first five years are guaranteed in regard to foreign currency. It is an attempt to underpin the supplies of an industry and a profession whose raw material is not produced in this country. That plan is endangered by the action which His Majesty's Government have taken. It has also the grave disadvantage that it casts doubt upon a firm promise given by His Majesty's Government. Quite frankly, I myself do not know on what sort of ground I would go back to Canada to ask them to reopen negotiations if those contracts are not kept in being and honoured.
It is reasonable, however, to say to me as an objection, "That is all very well; a long-range plan is very important and helpful, and so on, but when it comes to the pinch necessity compels," or, as it has sometimes been put, more crudely—I am sure it will not be put like that from the Front Bench to-day—"You must have food before paper." That is a very crude argument, which is based on a misconception of priorities. There is a mistake that countries have often made in their planning, both in war and in peace. It is the fallacy of priority as against allocation. Sound planning is not putting A in front of B; we all learned in the war that good planning consists of how much of A is needed and how much of B. I say to His Majesty's Government that, in my opinion, they have made an error of judgment, and that they have got the proportion wrong between what is the minimum need for the British Press and what is the minimum need for food, for petrol, and for raw materials of all sorts for other industries. It is not a matter of priority, it is a judgment of balance, and on that argument I maintain, and we all maintain, for the reasons that I have given, that the figures are entirely in the wrong proportion. We therefore insist with the utmost emphasis—and
826
other noble Lords may have something to say on this—that these long-range contracts, both in the interests of the Press and of the credit of this country as a whole, should be maintained.
Let me add that it is not only Canada that is involved in supplies to the British Press. Canada is our insurance—and mean, of course, Canada and Newfoundland. That is our insurance; but the bulk of our material comes from the home mills fed by pulp from Scandinavia. That part of our supply is in the hands of the Government. The Board of Trade buys a rid imports this pulp whereas the Newsprint Supply Company buys and imports newsprint. In view of what has happened, and of the case I have attempted to make for larger supplies of newsprint, I would like to ask His Majesty's Government what assurance they can give us that the British mills are covered for pulp for the remainder of 1947 and for the year 1948.
We have submitted under protest to an immediate cut in the consumption of newsprint which has involved the loss of one page per day, or rather one page per issue, and there has also been re-imposed a limit on sales. We would ask that this cut should be reconsidered, for the reasons I have given. I, for one, think that it will be very prejudicial indeed to the public interest if the additional page is not restored before Parliament meets again in the autumn. I do not believe that either the proceedings of Parliament or the happenings at that time—the exhortations which will perhaps have to be made when we are in the midst of a crisis—can be adequately presented to the people unless that page is restored.
It is even more serious that the situation next year is left entirely in the air. Yesterday we met the President of the Board of Trade who, it will be remembered, said in another place that he was prepared to reconsider this problem in. January in the light of circumstances then existing. January is too late for dealing with 1948, and we were able to persuade the President that some action must be taken before September 1 to inform the mills as to what they are to produce next year, and he has therefore agreed to meet us before September 1. We shall be ho further forward at all, however, if the answer about 1948 is as non-committal as that which has already been given to us, which simply and bluntly says: "We

827
can make no commitment about what you may buy in 1948."
The purpose of my Motion is to urge the Government to accept and stick to a plan to safeguard the future supplies of the British Press on a scale sufficient for them to perform the functions which they alone can perform. Until now the sizes of our newspapers have been limited by the shortage of the world's production but, subject to an availability of supplies, and in order to avoid confusion and the constant adjustment and re-adjustment of plans and employment to which I briefly referred, I would like to draw from His Majesty's Government the following assurances. The first is that the Government regards an eight page paper basis (and please remember that when I speak of four pages this applies to the popular large circulation papers and involves correspondingly different paging for other classes) as the normal standard for the British Press during the next two or three years, and six pages as the bedrock minimum in times of economic difficulty.
I said just now that I believed that planning involves allocation. You may well say to me, "We are faced with a terrible economic crisis. How can you insist on a fixed claim?" My answer is that if planning is adequately performed, in view of the circumstances of to-day there should inevitably be a two-decker import programme: (1) what you hope to maintain, and, (2) what will be the bedrock, if the worst comes to the worst. I am asking that newsprint should be considered on the basis of such a two-decker programme, and that the lower figure should be what I should call the iron ration for newsprint. That, surely, is the conception which should be applied to-day to the import programme throughout. I suggest that, in view of the purposes and functions of the Press, an eight page paper should be regarded as the normal size for the next two or three years, if we succeed in going along as we are at present. On an iron ration basis six pages is the absolute minimum.
Secondly, on that iron ration basis of six pages we want a reaffirmation of the undertaking to honour the Canadian contracts; and, thirdly, we want an assurance from the Government that the home mills are adequately covered by a supply of pulp from Scandinavia. I invite the
828
noble Lord who will reply on this debate to satisfy the Press, which is in a very grave condition of uncertainty, on those three points. I beg to move for Papers.
6.38 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will feel grateful to the noble Lord for his able and clear exposition of the grave position with regard to newsprint which has arisen at the present time. Particularly was I interested in what the noble Lord termed his non-Party approach, and his charitable interpretation of some of the aims and policy of His Majesty's Government which we, on this side, cannot exactly share. We feel—and I believe that the great body of people in this country are realizing—that the Government made a grave mistake in the step which they took in cutting newsprint supplies. The noble Lord, Lord Layton, has dealt with the home effects: I think that one might sum them up under three heads. First, the cut hits the small and independent newspapers first and hardest. It hits all, but it hits some worse than others, and the ones that can least afford to be hit are going to be hit the most. Second, the cut is going to cause unemployment in industry. Lord Layton has dealt with that. He has told us how news services throughout the world, which are run by British newspapers, will have to be curtailed. He has told us how newspaper executives are searching through their costing sheets to see where economies can be made. Third, the cut means that two years after the war this country will have the smallest daily papers in the world, except for ex-enemy countries—countries that we have defeated. And this is to be the case just at a time when we need to give the people of this country the greatest amount of information upon world events at home and overseas.
It is worth examining for a moment the reasons given by His Majesty's Government for this cut. I think it will not be disputed when I say that the reason is the need for economy of our dollar resources. That is the broad reason. But when we go a little nearer to the picture, we see that there is a disproportionate sacrifice demanded in respect of newsprint for a very small benefit. It has been calculated that the gap in our dollar needs is so great that this newsprint cut, by which it

829
is hoped, according to the figure given in another place, to save the equivalent of £2,000,000 a year, means a saving of about one-quarter of one-hundredth part of our prospective dollar deficiency. Against that we have to put the cost to the public of the lack of news. I do not think that any noble Lord can controvert the figure which I have given as to the extent of saving in relation to the problem we have to face of our dollar deficiency. There jumps to one's mind the question: Why discriminate in this way and select newsprint? It seems to me that the answer is two-fold. First of all, newsprint is an easy thing to cut. It is there, it is a big single item, from which something can be sliced, illogical as that slice may be, unjust as that slice may be. Secondly, one is driven to the conclusion that there are elements in His Majesty's Government who are not sorry that newspapers are being curtailed at the present time. A noble Lord opposite dissents. I am sure that if he will read the reports of speeches made by his colleagues in the Government, the Minister of Health, for example, in South Wales, or the Minister of Fuel and Power, railing against the Press, saying how terribly hard it is to govern with this daily misrepresentation going on, the noble Lord, in fairness, will admit that some of his colleagues do not exactly like the Press—and that it is not an overstatement. Some of his colleagues have certainly made use of expressions indicating that they do not exactly like the Press. From what they say it appears that they feel that the Press is not helping the cause of Socialism.
No other industry has been subjected to such treatment as is now being meted out to the industry connected with newsprint. And I repeat, that this is done just when we do need to convey to the people news of what is happening at home and abroad, and to give them reports of what takes place in the Houses of Parliament. I have heard many noble Lords complain, and I think rightly complain, about the inadequate amount of news space that can be allotted to reports of debates in another place and the House of Lords. The reason is, of course, that the Press have only a limited space which they can devote to reporting these matters. And it is just now, when the debates in this House and in another place ought to be adequately reported, that the reports will have to be further contracted.
830
Once I had the honour of working in a very junior capacity as a reporter on one of the daily papers owned by a noble Lord in this House. That was a good many years ago, but if you have once been a reporter on a paper, you dew lop a habit, or rather an ability, which you never lose—that is an ability to open a paper and to say that it is a good paper to-day or a bad paper to-day. I have always tried to keep up the habit of reading all the daily papers, and it does seem to me remarkable how free and fair is the general reporting of our daily Press in this country. Some may, or may not, like the editorial view-points, but, broadly speaking, most of the papers which oppose the Government to-day are giving far more space to the statements of Ministers and those who support the Government than to the statements of those who oppose the Government. Really, the only paper that does not seem to give a very free account of both sides of the debate is the paper which is tied to the Socialist Party. Look, if you like, at the Daily Herald and you will see, every day, a journalistic picture of perfection of Government. You never see any criticism. You would never think that anyone in the country spoke against the Government, and you would never imagine that any Minister did any wrong action. On the other hand, if you study other papers you will see general criticism of people irrespective of the Party to which they belong, and very free reporting of all points of view.
In spite of this cutting of daily newspapers it is worth noting that Government publications are flowing on in increasing quantities. Whereas before the war, newspapers here were absorbing approximately 1,250,000 tons of newsprint, they have recently been down to 405,000 tons. And they are now going to have a further cut. Government publications have until recently been 177 per cent. above their pre-war figure. They have been using 77,000 tons of paper. That is now being cut to 55,000 tons. But they will still be at a very considerable percentage above the pre-war level. It is not, I think, unfair to draw the conclusion flat the Government love their own publications, but do not very much like those which are produced by a free Press. I think that we might ask for a better example from the Government, as regards

831
the use of paper in their own publications and otherwise, than we have had recently.
Now I wish to touch very briefly upon a matter with which the noble Lord, Lord Layton, did not deal. That is the question of whether we are not prejudicing the position for a far longer time ahead than the Government say is likely. They say that they will review the matter in a few months, and that they may then be able to do something. The President of the Board of Trade has said that he wishes this cut to be only temporary. Now we may wish the cut to be only temporary, but when the cut is removed we may not be able to obtain newsprint again in the same quantities as before. I was able, last week, thanks to air travel, to be in Newfoundland, and I spent two days with the paper interests there. There is a real danger that we shall not get back our contracts if we delay too long—if we prolong the cut unduly. The position is this: it is a seller's market now for newsprint from Canada and Newfoundland. Canada and Newfoundland, after all, last year supplied two-thirds of the world's newsprint, and they can sell all that they wish in the United States. Buyers in the United States are willing to take everything that they can produce in that line, including the tonnage which will become available as the result of this deferment or cancellation—whichever term you may use—but the United States interests who acquire the plus of newsprint to that which they have expected are going to endeavour to do so on their own terms. They are going to say to the mills in Newfoundland and presumably also in Canada, "Certainly we will take extra newsprint, but we must weave it into the pattern of our long-term ten or twelve-year contracts." I do not know what will happen but there is a real danger and the men on the spot know that the danger exists.. Afterwards, when the Government come forward and say the position has improved, and you can have your newsprint back, the newspapers will have the greatest difficulty in re-obtaining the supplies they will have surrendered.
We think the Government have made a grave error and we think that, having made a mistake, they are somewhat obstinate in standing by their viewpoint.
832
We feel that more could be done. The whole capacity of home output which the noble Lord, Lord Layton, spoke about is at present working only 33 per cent. If our whole capacity worked at 5o per cent. output, it could turn out 420,000 tons of paper in the year, sufficient for the six-page paper three days a week. We ask the Government two things. First, to review again their decision and see if even at the eleventh hour they could not amend it and gain in stature by so doing in the general view of the public. Secondly, to review the position to make quite sure that the future is safeguarded as regards newspaper supplies, because newspapers play an essential part in the democratic world of to-day.
6.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT ROTHERMERE: My Lords, I suppose that I must follow in the footsteps of the noble Lord, Lord Layton, and disclose to your Lordships that I have an interest in the newspaper industry. Modesty prevents me from mentioning all the names of the newspapers, but I believe your Lordships' imaginations will supply them. I told the noble Lord who moved this Motion that I would support him on this occasion because I feel that your Lordships would wish as many of those in the newspaper industry as possible to he present here this afternoon, And although those of us who are personally affected would like to defend the economy and employment in the newspaper industry, at the same time I feel that the adequate paging of newspapers is just as much a problem of every single one of your Lordships sitting here as it is of those personally interested in the matter It is a subject for everyone and the newspapers, very naturally, have been unanimous in opposing this cut—a unanimity which has not been visible since the days of the war; a unanimity which has been all-inclusive—with the exception of one newspaper. Though the staff of that one paper have sent us messages of congratulation upon our efforts, they have been tied very severely to the ground, and they have not been able to protest in their columns.
The free Press of this country, however, has protested very vigorously, and I feel that it is a matter of almost national moment to see that the newspapers are able adequately to report the news of the country. When we are talking about sacrifices, I would like to remind your Lordships that during the war those who

833
are interested in the newspaper industry never made a single murmur of any description regarding the cutting down of the size of newspapers. On the contrary, we volunteered a great many cuts which were not even suggested by the Government; and when you realize that the newspaper with which I am connected came down in the course of the year from an average of twenty pages to an average of four, it shows that very great economies had to be made and dislocations corrected. There was not a murmur about that, and there never will be a murmur, either from the newspaper industry or any other industry, if it is perfectly obvious that it has to be done for the sake of the country as a whole. But when we find ourselves singled out for cuts which are very serious for the industry and which, so far as I can see, will do little to better the financial state of the country, I think we have a right to protest.
As the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has said, £2,000,000 saved in the course of a year is not going to make the difference between the solvency and bankruptcy of this country. I believe that our adverse balance is something like £450,000,000. It does not make any sense at all. If the Government had come down and said, "You see the state of affairs in the country. There will have to be tremendous sacrifices by every part of the community and the newspapers have to be on the list for this sacrifice," I assure the Government they would not have had any protests from the newspaper industry. As it is, we feel that we have been unfairly treated. That is why we come here this afternoon to your Lordships to protest.
I see no reason why we should be singled out in this manner. We are a public utility. We are endeavouring to serve the country in the best way we can, and I am perfectly certain that your Lordships would desire there to be as large a Press as it is possible for this country to afford. We know that the raw material has to be bought from abroad with dollars. I am afraid a great many things have to be bought from abroad with dollars, and we have a feeling that there has been a certain amount of partisanship against the Press. That kind of vindictive partisanship is something which is rather novel in the public and political life in this country. So far as I am concerned,
834
the Government know perfectly well that the newspaper with which I am principally associated is not of their particular colour. It never has been, and I hope that it never will be. But there it is; you cannot have all the newspapers in the country supporting a Socialist Government or you will have a totalitarian regime.
On the whole, when I look at events over the last two years, I am absolutely astonished at my moderation. I am astounded because of the mistakes made by the present Government. I think they have had a better Press in this country than any other Government I remember. They have had an extremely good run, and I am not so sure, when I look at the state of affairs, that I have not erred in seeing that they had as good a run as they have had. In my view the country is in a very perilous condition, a most perilous economic condition; and I would say to the Government that in protesting about the newspaper cut under such conditions as we are facing, I feel it is a small thing compared with the problems which are to be discussed in another place, possibly next week. But it is the unfairness of the cut which has annoyed us. It is not so much the sacrifice that has been asked, but the singling out of newsprint that has riled us. I would like 1-Es Majesty's Government to understand that.
Before I sit down I should like to touch on a further question which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and that is in regard to the position of the mills. Again I speak as being interested in mills as well as in newspapers. The position with the mills is very chili-cult. You cannot run newsprint mills on a short-time planning basis; you have to plan far ahead. If you make contracts in November, with the consent of the Government, and then revoke them in June at the demand of the Government:, you cannot expect the mills to keep news-print indefinitely, waiting for consumption in this country. Once those contracts are broken, and once other contracts are made with other publishers elsewhere, then I do not know that there will be very much chance of getting the newsprint back here. I am quite certain that the mills in Canada and Newfoundland, will all the sentiment which they have for this country, will do everything in their power to keep newsprint for Great Britain, but I do not think it will be possible for them to keep it indefinitely.

835
I would ask His Majesty's Government seriously to consider what is to be done about these contracts. They are five year contracts which have been signed with these mills, and if they are broken there will be five or ten year contracts made with other people. I would suggest that something should be done (we have not yet been able to tell them anything) so that we may tell the mills what we propose in place of the five year contracts—that is to say, how much scaling down there must be. I ask that because it is only right and courteous that these mills should be told as early as possible. That is all I have to say on the matter. I ask your Lordships' approval for intervening on a matter in which I am personally interested. I feel that your Lordships are also interested in seeing that the Press is adequate, and that even the members of His Majesty's Government, if they will search their hearts, are interested. I hope that the noble Viscount who is to reply will be able to tell us that there is going to be a businesslike arrangement.
7.2 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I want to intervene for only a very few moments. I would like to apologize to the House, and to the noble Leader of the House, for having perhaps broken the rules the other day when I asked a question. I was told from the Table that there was no chance of putting a Motion down, and that must be my excuse. A Motion has now been put down, and I would like to say a few words on it. I am not connected with any newspaper; I have no newspaper shares, or anything like that. I speak as a reader of newspapers, and one who desires to be well-informed. It seems to me that we are reeling into a crisis which will be perhaps the greatest this country has ever known in its history, and the Government, in their own interests, would do well to remember that they cannot expect to have the people of the country behind them unless they can give the real news to the papers. If there is any doubt about that, one has only to look at what is happening in South Wales, and in the mining districts of Yorkshire, where absenteeism is on the increase. Why is that? It is because the Government are not getting the seriousness of the position over to the people. If the Government could persuade the miners of Yorkshire, South Wales, Durham, or anywhere else,
836
of the seriousness of the position of the country, I am quite certain that the figures of absenteeism would go down with a bump at once. I have been connected with miners in my time, and I never wish to have to deal with a finer set of men. But you have got to tell them, and make them understand. It seems to me that it is absolutely vital for His Majesty's Government to do this.
It may be said: "We are only cutting the pages of the newspapers." But it has a much more serious effect than that. Yesterday we had a fairly extensive debate and several Divisions in this House. The Times to-day reports the proceedings in 37 lines; the Daily Telegraph is able to give a column and a half to it, I am glad to say, and very much more detail. But that is an example of how these cuts restrict the possibility of people getting information. Take the happenings in Palestine and Indonesia, or anything which is going on in the world to-day. How can you expect people to understand what is happening overseas? How can you expect them to appreciate the necessity for keeping British Forces overseas, or for having adequate Forces all over the world to carry out Government policy, unless you are able to explain the situation in detail to the people?
I have recently visited several of the countries of Europe—Belgium, France, Italy, Switzerland, and I paid a fleeting visit to Norway and Sweden. During the course of those visits I noticed one very surprising thing, and that was the extent to which people in those countries are accustomed to look to the British Press for really good, unbiased and balanced news. Only the other day in Oslo I noticed that quite a large proportion of the sales of one particular newspaper shop were of British newspapers. If we want people abroad to understand our position, surely that is a good thing. How can you expect the ordinary man in America to know what is the plight of this country unless you give adequate news? I suggest to the Government that this matter is one which calls for urgent reconsideration. I do not say that with any idea of making Party capital out of the question; I think it is much too serious and important for that. Why single out newsprint, as the noble Viscount, Lord Rothermere, has just said, while you are still continuing to import millions of pounds' worth of American films and

837
tobacco, and all these other things? If you are going to have a cut, make it an all round cut, and do not single out one particular industry like this, which, after all, is a vital industry, upon which the British people must depend in order to be able to understand the great problems of the day.
7.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT CAMROSE: My Lords, I do not wish to address your Lordships at any length of time at this late hour. I think I ought to start by saying that I, too, am an interested party—I control just one newspaper. I think it is a very good newspaper, and I will say no more than that. It is perhaps as well that when the noble Viscount, Lord Rothermere, spoke so late in the evening he did not, as he threatened to do in the first part of his speech, name all the papers with which he is connected. I am afraid we should have been here for quite some time. I would like to endorse everything that has been said by my noble friend Lord Layton in the very able speech which he delivered in moving this Motion. There is nothing much left for me to add after what the three noble Lords who have spoken have said. I would like to emphasize, however, the words of the noble Earl who has just sat down that people are not being educated by the newspapers to-day. That has been a common theme in all the speeches, and I think it is one which my noble friend opposite will have difficulty in getting over.
I would add that I personally do not believe that the Government have done this with any political motive. But I do not believe they have done it intelligently; I believe they have blundered into it. I would agree with the noble Lord on the Front Bench that there are certain members of the Government who have what I might call antagonistic or masterful feelings in regard to the great Press of this country, but I do not think the Government did anything but blunder. I do not believe they realized what was going to happen as a consequence of this cut. As my noble friend Lord Rothermere said, their tied organ has carefully refrained from even mentioning this controversial subject. I think it is the only paper in the country that has not had something to say about the iniquity of the step which the Government
838
has taken. I say, therefore, that the Government have blundered, and I hope that the noble Viscount will be able 10 say something to-night which will show that they are going to blunder out.
7.12 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, we have listened to a very remarkable debate, a debate in which representatives of three of the most influential newspapers in this country have taken part. Each of them has had to declare an interest. I really think that everyone who takes part in a debate dealing with the Press should declare an interest—not that I have any personal interest, but because we are very interested in the Press. In saying that, may I take this opportunity of expressing—I think I can say on behalf of His Majesty's Government—the thanks of the Government and the nation for the work which the Press in this country has done during a period of very great difficulty in the dark clays of the war and since the war.
Indeed, I find it very difficult to say much in this debate. It has been conducted almost in an atmosphere of agreement, and with a background such as I have, I often feel that it is better to have a little bit of a "dog fight," so that one may get away from some of the difficult posers by fixing attention upon something else. But in this debate, as I have said, three representatives of the Press have taken part—three men who have had a life-time experience in the management and administration of the Press, each of whom has given service to the State in addition. Far be it from me to pretend that I know one tithe of one per cent. as much about the subject as any one of them knows. However, in the circumstances I will endeavour to do my best.
May I say at once that though the Government's action in connexion with this matter might be regarded as a blunder or a great mistake, it was not in any way done from the point of view of political partisanship. Every member of the Government reads almost every daily paper; indeed, one of the great advantages which the Press has at the present time is that so many people do not confine themselves to one newspaper. Each of us wants to know what

839
the other fellow says. That is one of the reasons why there is such a great demand. not only for the daily Press but for the Sunday Press, because we want to see what is being said by the other side. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Layton, in his excellent speech, put the position quite clearly when he referred to the Gallup Poll. I wondered whether he did not make a mistake from a debating point of view, because he said that 61 per cent. of the people who replied to the queries received from the Gallup Poll obtained their information from the newspapers. That happened with a five-page newspaper. What is going to happen if we have ten-page newspapers?
VISCOUNT CAMROSE: Eighty-five per cent.
VISCOUNT HALL: I wonder whether it would stay at 85 per cent., and whether we want anything more than newspapers, because that would be all that was necessary for them to get all the information they wanted. I think it is a pleasing feature that there is this freedom of the Press in this country. The noble Lord referred to free expression of opinion by all papers apart from the tied newspaper. I am not going to guess which one that is, but I am tempted to compare it with another newspaper which possibly Viscount Rothermere knows without my telling him.
I think the position can be summed up almost in a nutshell. It is a question of money and obtaining the necessary dollars to meet the commitments in which this country is involved at the present time. I am pleased that the debate this afternoon was not broadened out to bring in the general economic situation, upon which I understand a debate will take place next week. I can assure your Lordships that it was not the desire of His Majesty's Government to place the Newsprint Supply Company in an embarrassing position when we decided to reduce the amount of newsprint but it was entirely a question of the difficulty of obtaining dollars. The dollar situation—and I do not want to refer to it—is a very serious one. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in another place a month ago, referred to the fact that we were using up the dollar credits which we have in America and Canada at the rate of £400,000,000 in the first six months
840
of this year, of which £40,000,000 was from Canada. If we go on at the same rate for the next six months, we shall use up £800,000,000 worth of dollars. It means that something has to be cut, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he made the announcement of the new import programme, referred to the fact that certain cuts were to take place. Newsprint has not been singled out. There are cuts in tobacco, cuts in petrol, and indeed cuts in films. The fact is that the cut in newsprint is smaller than any of the other cuts which are taking place. Indeed, His Majesty's Government started off on a basis of making a cut which would amount to something like £3,000,000, but as the result of conversations which took place between the President of the Board of Trade and the representatives of the newspapers that was reduced to the present cut. That is one of some 48,000 tons of newsprint which will not now be imported but which would have been imported under the contract, had it not been for this interference.
Let us see what this cut really means—and please do not think for a moment that I am attempting to minimize it. The cut means a reduction of one page in what is known as the "popular" news Press of this country; either a cut of one page or a retention of the size of the newspaper as it is at the present time, with a cut in the circulation. It is left to the newspaper proprietors to do one or the other, as they deem necessary. I was rather interested to see in the Sunday papers—I am afraid that I take more than one—that one paper apologized to its readers for the fact that they would have to reduce the space in their newspapers to retain the number of readers. If they retained the space they would lose 50,000 readers. Another well-known Sunday newspaper said, " We feel it is in the interests of our readers that we should retain our existing space and lose " (I think in that case) "70,000 readers."
I am not suggesting that that is not a great loss. It is a great loss, and one which a newspaper proprietor must take into consideration. The interesting thing to me—and please do not think I am criticizing them—was that both were agreed upon one thing: that it was necessary to put up the price of the two papers by a penny, making it three-

841
pence. There is, of course, a substantial increase in the circulation of newspapers at the present time, as compared with the circulation which they had prior to the increase in newsprint which was granted as a result of the agreement of last year.
Questions have been put to me as to the future, and I suspect that that was the real purpose of this debate. I am asked whether an assurance can be given, not only as to future supplies of newsprint, but also as to future supplies of the necessary pulp to keep the pulp mills going. I am fully aware of the fact that this is a very important industry, which is entirely dependent for its raw material upon imports—whether the import be in the form of pulp, in the form of timber, or in the form of newsprint. I believe that that is one of the great difficulties. With regard to home production of newsprint, I think it can be said that for this year, at least, sufficient pulp will be imported to produce 225,000 tons of newsprint for newspapers.
Let me turn now to the other question put by the noble Lord, Lord Layton, when he referred to the fact that the ideal at which the newspaper proprietors are aiming is an eight-page paper, and a six-page paper as an iron ration. Prior to the recent cut, the penny dailies consisted of live pages, while the provincials selling at two pence or more were eight-page papers. Lord Layton referred to an eight-page paper—that is the penny daily which he wishes to be put up from its present size of four pages to eight pages. This would mean increasing the provincial papers by an appropriate figure. On the present four-page basis, they require 355,000 tons of newsprint per year. That, of course, includes the 225,000 tons of newsprint produced in this country. On an eight-page basis this would need 616,000 tons of newsprint; and on a six-page basis 473,000 tons.
I am advised that at the present time it is impossible for us to recognize a six-page basis as a minimum; indeed, it would be larger than the size which was in existence prior to the cut. If six pages were allowed, and home production remained at its present figure, we should have to import 250,000 tons of newsprint per annum. That is 50,000 tons more than the figure of the contract which the noble Lord, Lord Layton, so successfully negotiated in
842
London for this particular year. An eight-page paper would mean an import of 400,000 tons. I ought to tell your Lordships that we cannot undertake that the newspapers should have an iron ration such as would enable them to produce six pages; but the President of the Board of Trade has agreed that he will do his best to tell the newspapers before September 1 what they may import in 1948. This will enable them to fix their minimum page-size and their circulations.
Let me deal with the matter of wood pulp a little more fully, because I know there are noble Lords present who are interested in this matter. Pulp for newsprint forms only a part of the total which is imported by the Paper Control, and some pulp is used for other purposes. The present sources of supply are Sweden, Norway and Finland, and to a lesser extent, Canada. So far as Norway and Finland are concerned, our supplies for 1948 are reasonably assured, but we have not yet made arrangements for our imports from Sweden; and we cannot, in any case, enter into contracts with that country until the currency position is somewhat clarified. We shall, however, be dealing with this matter in the course of a few months, and we have no reason to feel that if the currency is available we shall not be able to obtain at least the same quantity as we bought in 1947. So far as Canada is concerned, a representative of paper control is at present engaged in discussions with the Canadians for our 1948 supplies. Again, subject to currency, we should be able to meet our requirements to the same extent as in 1947.
I think that these were the two main questions put to me, and the questions in which noble Lords were most keenly interested. On the general position, again I am afraid I have to come back to the point at which I commenced. This it a question of currency. When noble Lords say: "Well, it is worth £1,000,000, £2,000,000 or £3,000,000," that is so; hut big things consist of small things out together. £1,000,000 worth of dollars means between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000. I am not for a moment suggesting twat this saving will do other than a very little to fill the gap; neither will the cuts in tobacco, the cuts in petrol and the other cuts which have been imposed by His Majesty's Government. But His

843
Majesty's Government had a very difficult matter to decide.
Were we to cut food? I am sure that there is not a single noble Lord but would say that food is more essential and more important than newsprint. Were we to cut the imports of essential machinery to be used for the purpose of increasing or improving the coal output of this country? Or, indeed, were we to cut other commodities which are so very essential to us? I think it can be said "No. It very much better that we should do what His Majesty's Government have done." I will go so far, with all due reverence, as to pray that the cuts which have been imposed will be of a very short duration. I am afraid that my reply has been a very inadequate one. The noble Lord gave me a difficult task, but I have done my best, and I hope that on the main points of the questions that have been put I have given not a satisfactory reply but a reply indicating what are the intentions of His Majesty's Government.
7.40 p.m.
LORD LAYTON: My Lords, the noble Viscount who has just spoken has really said what I was disposed to say. He certainly cannot expect me to be so dishonest as to say that I would regard his reply to my questions as satisfactory. On the pulp position, for example, we are told that we are safe for 1947, and it is hoped that we will be safe for 1948. I suggest that a great deal more vigour could haw been put into the problem of this home mill situation; for example, by the collection of waste paper. You cannot use a large amount of waste paper in making newsprint, but you can use waste paper for board and release the fibre that is brought in as pulp from Sweden or wherever it may be; it would add to the newsprint production. There is in this country a substantial source which might be used to increase the production from the home, mills—a production which is thoroughly inadequate.
The noble Viscount has told us that we cannot admit an iron ration which would
844
make possible a six-page paper basis because it would involve importing so much newsprint; but it needs a large import of newsprint because the home mills are producing only 33⅓ per cent. of their capacity. The noble Viscount has said that it would take between 400,000 and 500,000 tons a year to meet our request for a six-page paper. Before the war, we consumed 1,250,000 tons; if we had been circulating the number of papers that we are circulating to-day, we should have been consuming 2,000,000 tons. The Government have put our needs at 350,000 tons. We have asked the Government to put the newsprint requirements into the balance with other items of our prospective import programme; if the Government face that situation they will agree that their figure badly underrates our need, considering that there are no other means of providing the information required by the people of this country. I cannot pretend that I am happy or satisfied with the answer that has been given. But I moved for Papers. We have none, so I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
ACQUISITION OF LAND (AUTHORISATION PROCEDURE) (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before eight o'clock.