Sitting of 9 June 1947

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  FOOD SUPPLIES

    British Sugar Corporation (Staff)
    Wing Commander Millingtonasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the British Sugar Corporation are refusing to negotiate with the appropriate trade union to which many members of its staff belong; and whether he will consider withholding the subsidy until the refusal has been withdrawn.
    The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): No, Sir. I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service that there is established negotiating machinery on which the appropriate trades unions are represented. The question of the constitution of the workers' side is for the trades unions

    Cakes and Pastries (Prices)
    Mr. James Callaghanasked the Minister of Food what was the reason for
    684
    the recent substantial increase in the prices charged by confectioners for cakes and pastries.
    Mr. Strachey: The maximum price for cakes of a defined quality was raised from 1s. 6d. per lb. to 2s. 6d. per lb. on 16th February, to enable bakers to meet recent increases in the cost of many ingredients and to make use of some of the more expensive ones, which are now becoming available again.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that housewives do not find that the increase in prices is reflected in the increased quality of the cakes; secondly, does he know that it is credibly believed that the bakers are already making higher margins of profit than most other retail traders?
    Mr. Strachey: In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, we only allowed this increase in prices under a defined list of ingredients which must be contained in the more expensive cakes in a defined amount. We shall certainly endeavour to enforce that. I should very much like to hear of any case where that is not being complied with. With regard to the second part of the question, this means a diminution and not an increase in confectioners' margins.

    New Catering Licences, Cardiff
    Mr. Callaghanasked the Minister of Food how many licences have been granted to new cafés and restaurants in Cardiff in the last 12 months; and on what principles the grant of a licence is decided.
    Mr. Strachey: Twenty-two new licences were issued in the 12 months ended 15th April, 1947. Licences are granted on priority grounds to ex-traders who had to close businesses in Cardiff because of the war. The Food Control Committee also recommend the grant of licences where there is a public need and particularly to reduce queuing and congestion in existing catering establishments. In these cases preference is given to suitable disabled ex-Servicemen and ex-traders from other areas.

    Inshore Fishermen's Catches (Prices)
    Mr. Douglas Marshallasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that, owing to the price rise in all gear, particularly nets, the catching of mackerel, skate

    685
    and ray at today's prices is uneconomical; and if he will consider an adjustment in the maximum price of these fish which are caught by our inshore fishermen.
    Mr. Strachey: I know that the cost of fishing gear has increased, and will take this into consideration together with other relevant facts if and when price schedules are revised.
    Mr. Marshall: When the Minister uses the expression, "if and when", can he give any indication when the "if and when" is likely to come about, and will he also take into consideration the price rise in coal apart from the question of gear?
    Mr. Strachey: Prices of fish have been changed in the past, I am glad to say in a downward direction. We should be reluctant to increase maximum prices in this or any other respect. Another possibility, of course, would be to take this class of fish out of price control altogether. There are some advantages but also some difficulties in that.
    Mr. Cuthbert: Is the Minister aware that this state of affairs is affecting the livelihood of all inshore fishermen, and that unless something is done, we shall lose them?
    Mr. Marshall: In view of what I consider to be a most unsatisfactory reply, I give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

    Imported Cheddar Cheese
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Food whether he will arrange, as soon as possible, for imported cheddar to be matured after importation in order to make it more palatable to those who acquired a taste for other cheeses before restrictions on their manufacture or importation began.
    Mr. Strachey: I am afraid that, under present scarcity conditions, the time we can hold cheese in store before distribution depends entirely on the volume of stocks and arrivals
    Mr. KeelingDoes not the Minister realise that it is just as important to improve the quality of cheese as to improve the quality of cakes, and that to do so would do not a little to cheer people up and stop them from calling this cheese
    686
    "mousetrap"? Would he look into the matter again?
    Mr. Strachey: I hope it may be possible to hold the stock a little longer.

    Calorie Intake
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Minister of Food the average calorie intake per person per day for the year 1946, including all consumption of food whether at home or outside.
    Mr. Strachey: Between 2,880 and 2,890.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is the Minister able to say how these figures support the oft-repeated boast that we are better off than before the war?
    Mr. Strachey: I do not know to which boast the hon. Member refers. What I have said repeatedly is that, on the way we calculate the calorie intake—that is, per capita of the population—it is 6 per cent. less than before the war. I have added that there is now a far better distribution of foodstuffs, which means that the poorer section of the people are undoubtedly better fed.
    Mr. Quintin Hogg: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how those figures compare with the estimates of a certain calculation given in another place the other day?
    Mr. Strachey: Naturally, they are the same. [Interruption.] Yes. The figure was given as 2,880, and the actual calculation comes out at 2,887, to be exact.
    Mr. Shurmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, obviously, the housewives of this country must think that they are fed well, hence the falling flat of the great demonstration which took place in Trafalgar Square?
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Surely, it is a question of the food coming into the country, as against the total number al persons, and not in any way the individual intake of the consumers, which is what matters?
    Mr. Strachey: As I understand the point put by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman it is that certain individual consumers are obviously consuming less and certain others are consuming more. The figure I have given is an average, and that must be true of any average figure.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: But the fact is that these high figures are given for the total intake, which, of course, takes into account every single thing brought into the country, whether eaten or not. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter again? Will he agree that the result of his own dietary survey has been to show an intake of nothing like that, but a very much smaller intake?
    Mr. Strachey: I could not possibly agree with any of those statements. Of course, the figure is calculated on the total amount of food available, and the most careful allowances are made for wastage in distribution and other factors of that sort, and use for other than food consumption. That is always most carefully taken into account, and it is an average figure, and, of course, it must be true of any average figure that certain individuals were above that figure and certain other individuals below it. That is the only qualification.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Does not the Minister agree that the figure of 2,900 is very much higher than the figure of 2,300, which he gave as the result of the dietary survey?
    Mr. Strachey: I agree that 2,900 is a higher figure than 2,300. That is undoubtedly true, but the 2,300, of course, leaves out certain things, such as foodstuffs distributed to catering establishments, canteens and the like.

    Fruit and Vegetables
    Mr. Bramallasked the Minister of Food whether he will take steps to eliminate the profit margins on the sale of fruit and vegetables which are accruing to certain classes of middlemen who have ceased to perform any useful function.
    Mr. Strachey: I share my hon. Friend's anxiety to reduce the price of foodstuffs wherever possible, but I do not think that profit margins are provided under the fresh fruit and vegetable price orders for middlemen who are not performing a useful function.
    Mr. Bramall: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that the profit margins, indeed, any profit at all, should be determined by the functions performed today, and not those performed before the war and before the very considerable degree of bulk buying and selling was introduced?
    Mr. Strachey: I take my hon. Friend's point, but we believe that, on the whole, the middlemen engaged in the trade at the moment—I do not say in every instance, but by and large—are performing a useful function.
    Mr. Collins: Will my right hon. Friend look into the position regarding certain commodities, where it appears that payments are made to wholesalers who are performing no function at all, even though they may have performed some function before the war? Will he look into this point, with a view to rearranging the system or bringing this pernicious system to an end?
    Mr. Strachey: I am not suggesting that the present system will do as a permanent basis of distribution for the long-term future. That is certainly another matter.
    Mr. Rees- Williamsasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the supply of fresh fruit in Croydon is inadequate and compares unfavourably with other areas; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this situation.
    Mr. Strachey: Fruit is not plentiful anywhere at this season, but Croydon has had as many allocations of the fruits controlled by my Department as the rest of the South of England.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: In view of the fact that that statement would not be agreed to by any person in Croydon, will my right hon. Friend look into this matter again, because I think there is a definite inequality now?

    Condemned Meat, Croydon
    Mr. Rees-Williamsasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that approximately 5,388 lb. of offal, together with 3,579 lb. of beef, 978 lb. of corned beef, 440 lb. of pork, as well as other items, were condemned by the public health department in Croydon from 17th March to 19th April last and destroyed; what were the reasons for this loss of foodstuff; and what steps he proposes to take to avoid similar wastage in future.
    Mr. Strachey: These condemnations were mainly due to disease which could not be detected in the live animals. The quantities condemned represented a very small proportion of the meat and offals handled. The loss of canned corned meat

    689
    was due to the blowing of tins. The proportion condemned was one quarter of 1 per cent, which is not abnormal and would not indicate any undue deterioration because of the time or conditions of storage.

    Linseed Oil
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Minister of Food whether his Department has made any attempt to secure surplus linseed oil in Holland.
    Mr. Strachey: Recent reports that Holland had some surplus linseed proved to be untrue when we tried to buy it for sowing. Holland is short of linseed oil herself.
    Colonal Hutchison: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the allocation, as between Holland and this country, is fair in all circumstances?
    Mr. Strachey: I am seldom, if ever, satisfied with an allocation, and we are always pressing to get a higher one.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a report in a newspaper this morning that bulk purchasing arrangements had enabled us to buy linseed oil much more cheaply than our competitors?
    Mr. Strachey: I have not seen the report to which my hon. Friend refers, but it is perfectly true that many of our competitors consider that we have purchased a very much larger share of the linseed oil available and at a very favourable price.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Does not the right hon. Gentleman always mistrust what he reads in the Press?

    Special Diets Advisory Committee (Decision)
    Mr. Gammansasked the Minister of Food for what reasons his Department over-ruled the recommendation of her family doctor that Mrs. Ward, 93, Turnpike Lane, N.8, shoud receive extra meat and butter by substituting milk which, in her case, was actually harmful; why this decision was taken without consultation with her medical attendant; why two months' delay took place between the issue of the certificate and its refusal by the divisional food office; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent a recurrence of such a delay with its possible harmful effects.
    Mr. Strachey: This case was considered twice during the two months by the Special Diets Advisory Committee, on different certificates from the family doctor, but she was unable to produce any reasons for the suggestion that the usual allowance of milk would be harmful' or that there were any special reasons for an allowance of butter and meat for this particular patient. In these circumstances, I am unable to overrule the decision of the eminent medical authorities of the Special Diets Advisory Committee.
    Mr. Gammans: Is the Minister denying that his Department did, in fact, overrule the recommendations of the family doctor, and did take two months before they actually gave a decision?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, in the sense that my Department did it apart from the advice of the Special Diets Advisory Committee. They, of course, made the decision and the recommendation on which we acted. But they did not take two months to do it. During the two months mentioned, they twice considered recommendations from the family doctor, but these eminent medical specialists were unable to agree with her.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Did the eminent medical specialists, on whom the right hon. Gentleman relies, ever see the patient?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, they asked the family doctor to provide reasons why this case should be treated differently from the rules laid down for cases of this condition. In their opinion, the family doctor was unable to produce any prima facie evidence why it should be treated differently.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is not this the second occasion on which this particular Committee has bungled—the first being that on which a man died—and should not their operations be closely watched?
    Mr. Strachey: I distinctly resent that imputation. How does the noble Lord suppose that he can judge whether this Committee has bungled or not?
    Mr. Walkden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if he were to give way in the slightest degree on this matter, 30 to 40 per cent. of the people who claim

    691
    to be sick would all be producing certificates in order to get extra rations, when the whole thing would become fantastic?
    Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to certain rules which bind the Special Diets Advisory Committee; will he say what those rules are, and who makes them?
    Mr. Strachey: If the hon. Member will look up the answer I gave on Wednesday, 22nd January last, he will see a very full statement as to exactly what these rules are, that there is a right of appeal from these rules to the Special Diets Advisory Committee, and the members and composition, together with their qualifications, of that Committee.
    Mr. Keeling: Has the Minister made any inquiry as to whether this lady was benefited or injured by the treatment of his Committee?
    Mr. Strachey: The Committee did not treat the lady; the Committee made her a special allowance of milk and fats, and no doubt she benefited by that allowance.
    Mr. Gammans: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I feel compelled to give notice that I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  SOAP RATION (SUPPLIES, TAUNTON)
  Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that in the Taunton area there is an extreme shortage of white and carbolic soap for cleaning and washing, but that toilet soap is more easily obtainable; and if he will take steps to remove this inequality, so that housewives can use their soap coupons to better advantage.
  Mr. Strachey: I have asked manufacturers to increase the proportionate output of hard soap, but their difficulty is that they have not yet caught up with the production lost during the fuel crises. I believe they will be able to do so now, so that there should be a gradual improvement in deliveries to the shops.
  Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that some manufacturers of toilet soap are making offers to retailers who have no
  692
  entitlement, and is there not some connection between that fact and the present shortage of white and carbolic soap?
  Mr. Strachey: I should be grateful It my hon. Friend will give me examples of that.
  Mr. Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the general shortage of soap flakes and soap powder in this regard, and will he look into that matter at the same time?
  Mr. Strachey: I will look into that point.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: Would my right hon. Friend also make some provision for those who have not been able to get their ration during the current period?
  Mr. Strachey: We did, in past periods, extend the availability of the ration documents to the following period in order to meet those cases.

  ROADS

    Selby Toll Bridge
    Colonel Ropnerasked the Minister of Transport if he has now received the special report on the negotiations for the purchase of Selby Toll Bridge; and whether he has a statement to make.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I have received the special report for which I called, and am satisfied that there has been no avoidable delay on the part of my Department or on that of the Valuation Department. In view of the negotiations that are taking place, I do not think it would be in the public interest for me to make a statement at present.
    Colonel Ropner: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long these negotiations are likely to take?
    Mr. Barnes: No, Sir, not exactly. They are very complicated. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, I am just as anxious as he is to expedite them.

    Dismissed Roadmen, Cambridgeshire
    Mr. Stubbsasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the Cambridgeshire County Council have dismissed 30 roadmen arising out of the reduction of expenditure on Class III roads that are in need of immediate repair, owing to

    693
    damage caused by the severe winter and floods and are in a dangerous condition to the users of these roads; and if he will reconsider the matter, with a view of granting to the local authorities money from the Road Fund to keep these country roads in a decent condition.
    Mr. Barnes: I understand that a number of men engaged on the maintenance of Class III roads in Cambridgeshire have been dismissed. The council have since been informed that the amount of grant from the Road Fund for the normal maintenance of classified roads will be increased by £8,500, which, if they so desire, may be allocated entirely to Class III roads. In accordance with the arrangements outlined in my reply to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) on 19th May, my divisional road engineer is also discussing with the council how much additional money can be made available towards the cost of repairing damage to roads caused by frost, snow and flood.
    Mr. Stubbs: Is the Minister aware that these roadmen have given very valuable service to the county council, and does he think it fair that councils should be compelled to dismiss hundreds of roadmen throughout the country owing to these drastic cuts in expenditure; and, further, is he aware that the motorists, through the Road Fund, provide the money for the upkeep of the roads? Will he look into the matter again, because it is certainly a serious one so far as agriculture is concerned?
    Mr. Barnes: I would like to remind my hon. Friend that the additional grant for Class III roads was only introduced last year, which is very recent indeed. I do not think that it can be argued that these dismissals are entirely due to that.
    Mr. Lipson: Will the Minister consider making additional grants to other county councils who are being compelled, owing to the drastic cuts, to reduce their staffs?
    Mr. Barnes: I have already indicated that the discussions taking place between my divisional road engineers and county surveyors are not limited to any particular county.
    Mr. Heathcoat Amory: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that one of the greatest causes of hardship is that these
    694
    drastic cuts were made after the start of the financial year?
    Mr. Barnes: I regret that it was not possible to give longer notice, but, after all, the discussions with regard to estimates cover a fairly long period.

    Road Fund (Administration Statistics)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to publish those statistics ordinarily appearing in the Annual Report on the Administration of the Road Fund which have been omitted during the war years but of which records have been maintained.
    Mr. Barnes: The information has been obtained so far as it is readily available, and is at present being collated.
    Mr. Janner: Will this information be published in so far as the particulars are available to the Minister?
    Mr. Barnes: Yes, Sir, that is what I have tried to do, but many local authorities have not replied to the requests for information.

    Driving Examiners (Overtime)
    Mr. D. Marshallasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that his Department has instructed all driving and traffic examiners from 9th June to work overtime; that such a requirement, in some cases, will lead to severe strain; and if he will issue instructions that this order is not to be enforced where the examiner feels unable to carry out such orders.
    Mr. Barnes: In order to overtake the arrears of applications for tests, driving examiners have been instructed to work limited overtime, for which they will be paid, and I do not consider that an extra 1½ hours' work on five day a week for a fortnight at a time will unduly strain them. I cannot agree to leave it to an examiner's discretion whether he should carry out tests booked for him.

  RAILWAYS

    Holidays, Midweek Travel
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Transport whether, in addition to the staggering of hours of work and of holidays, he will urge, in order to relieve weekend congestion on the railways, that firms

    695
    should arrange for a proportion of staff holidays to start in midweek.
    Mr. Barnes: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) on 27th March.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Is not this weekend congestion being rapidly adjusted by the rise in railway fares?

    Staff, Doncaster (Tea Facilities)
    Mr. Walkdenasked the Minister of Transport if he will inquire into the reasons for the delay in providing suitable arrangements for providing the railway staff at Doncaster Central stations, numbering 180 workpeople, with cups of tea during working hours, in accordance with the request made by the N.U.R., Doncaster No. 2 branch, in February last; and if he will expedite the provision of this necessary welfare facility.
    Mr. Barnes: The staff can obtain tea at reduced prices from the refreshment room between 7.30 a.m. and 10 p.m. daily. As soon as additional refreshment room staff are available, a 24-hour service will be provided, as an experiment.
    Mr. Walkden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, during the war, excellent facilities were provided on the station for the troops and the Armed Forces, that these facilities could easily be transferred to the staff, and that his Department has failed to do that? What action does he propose to take to expedite the matter?
    Mr. Barnes: That is not a question for my Department. I cannot deal with what happened on this station during the war, but I have stated in my reply that the matter is under investigation.
    Mr. Walkden: If the Minister treats the staff with the same priority as he treated the troops, everything will be all right.

    Staff Resignations
    Mr. Thomas Reidasked the Minister of Transport how many railway employees have left the service of the railways in 1947 up to date; and if they represent a normal or an abnormally high percentage of the total number of railway employees.
    Mr. Barnes: I regret that it has not been possible to collect all the information in the time available. With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.
    Mr. Sparks: Is the Minister aware that on reaching the retiring age and electing to take their pensions, for some unknown reason, railway staffs are subsequently refused re-employment by the railway companies, and, in view of this very serious loss to the railways of experienced men and women, will he look into the matter to see if it is not possible to allow retired members to be re-employed?
    Mr. Barnes: Obviously, I cannot answer a question like that at a moment's notice. If my hon. Friend will communicate such evidence to me, I will look into the matter.

    Service Breakdown, London—Southend
    Mr. Channonasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the chaos which existed when the London to Southend railway service broke down on Whit Monday with the result that nearly 30,000 people were stranded and many of them forced to sleep on the beach: and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gunterasked the Minister of Transport, if he will make a statement on the circumstances by which 10,000 persons were marooned at Southend, on Monday 26th May, consequent upon the failure of water supplies for L.M.S. locomotives; why no assistance was asked from the Southend waterworks until 6 p.m., although the trouble was known to the railway company at 3 p.m; why the suggestion to boost water supplies to the engines by hoses with the aid of the N.F.S. was turned down; and why the restaurant room at Fenchurch Street was not kept open to provide drinks for the incoming passengers.
    Mr. Barnes: About 36,000 people travelled on, this line to Southend on Whit Monday. A failure in the locomotive water supply at Shoeburyness depot first became evident at 2.30 p.m. and the Shoeburyness Council was immediately asked for a supply from their mains. Unfortunately, this proved ineffective owing to a defect in the tanks. Arrangements made for engines to take water at Southend also failed to produce adequate supplies and it was ultimately necessary to

    697
    by-pass the meter. No suggestion to any railway official that the N.F.S. might have been able to assist can be traced. The last train left Southend at 1.48 a.m. and I am informed that there were no passengers left on the station or in nearby streets at that time. The staff serving the refreshment room at Fenchurch Street who live in the Southend neighbourhood had been on duty throughout the day and were not asked to stay after 10.30 p.m.
    Mr. Gunter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this water problem has been known to the railway company at Shoeburyness for a long time, and why have no steps been taken previously to deal with it?
    Major Bruce: Would my right hon. Friend indicate why his Department are responsible for incidents of this kind, as many of us are under the impression that the railway companies are responsible, at least until they are nationalised?
    Mr. Barnes: That is the point I have been making in my reply. In reply to the first supplementary question, I could not say, but I will make inquiries as to whether this defect was known before the incident occurred.

    District Railway Trains (Lighting)
    Mr. Somerville Hastingsasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the inefficient lighting in some of the District Railway trains, which becomes so much worse when the train is in motion that it is impossible to read; and if he will take steps to have it improved.
    Mr. Barnes: With the smaller number of lamps now in use in order to save electric current and coal, the reduction in lighting which normally occurs when a train is accelerating inevitably becomes more noticeable. The lighting in those cars in which the reduction may have been excessive is now being examined and steps have already been taken to effect an improvement.
    Mr. Hastings: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this defect is especially apparent at the ends of the compartments, because the lamps do not throw their light to that extent?
    Mr. Barnes: Yes, Sir. As I have indicated, any deficiency below the average is now being examined.

    Locomotives (Coal Traffic)
    Mr. Granville Sharpasked the Minister of Transport what is the approximate proportion of railway company engines normally engaged in hauling coals.
    Mr. Barnes: Twenty to 30 per cent., Sir.
    Mr. Sharp: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the proportion will be adequate to ensure that all the coal trucks do not remain in sidings for a long period?
    Mr. Barnes: I do not think there is any justification for the inference that coal trucks do remain in sidings for any length of time. In any case, that is not the Question I have been asked to answer.

    Charges (Increases)
    Mr. T. Reidasked the Minister of Transport what is the approximate annual loss on the running of the railways at present; by what percentage, approximately, railway fares and freight rates have been increased since 1939; and to what extent the loss is caused by transfer of traffic to road vehicles plying for hire.
    Mr. Barnes: In regard to the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) on 12th May last. Main line railway fares and freight rates have been increased since 1939 by 33⅓ per cent. for ordinary passengers and merchandise by passenger train; and by 25 per cent. in all other cases. I have no information on the last part of the Question.

  DOCK STRIKE, GLASGOW (UNDISCHARGED CARGO)
  Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Minister of Transport, if he is aware that a U.S. ship, ss. "Eucadia," which arrived in Glasgow on 18th March, carrying tractors and spare parts, was unable to unload this cargo owing to the dockers' strike; was diverted to Avonmouth, where the dockers also refused to unload it; returned to Glasgow and, as the strike was still continuing, finally sailed for New York with the tractors and spart parts still on board: what steps were taken to ensure

  699
  that this badly-needed cargo was landed, and what action he is taking to prevent a recurrence of such incidents.
  Mr. Barnes: I am informed by the Glasgow port authorities that this ship, carrying 8,225 tons of general cargo for Glasgow and 2,462 tons of steel for Liverpool, commenced discharge in Glasgow on 18th March. When the dockers' strike began on 24th March, there was still on board 1,306 tons of cargo for Glasgow, consisting of foodstuffs and 15 cases of machinery, including agricultural machinery. Authority had been given for the use of military labour to unload perishable and rationed foodstuffs, and I understand that in the circumstances at the time, it was considered that the use of military labour for unloading the machinery would be liable to add to the difficulty caused by the strike. Rather than delay the ship longer, the owners sailed the "Eucadia" for Liverpool on 26th April, but the Liverpool dockers refused to handle the cases of machinery. The "Eucadia," having completed discharge of the steel consigned to Liverpool, sailed to New York with the cases of machinery on board. The last part of the question envisages hypothetical circumstances upon which I am unable to comment.
  Mr. Dodds-Parker: Did the right hon. Gentleman's Department make any attempt to point out to the strikers that this cargo of argricultural machinery was, at least, as important as perishable foodstuffs?
  Mr. Barnes: My Department were in consultation with the Ministry of Labour and the War Office. These arrangements were made in co-operation with all the Departments concerned. As I have stated, this decision was taken because it was thought to be the best one in view of the gravity of the circumstances of the dispute.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us who made the decision that the unloading of agricultural machinery would be an aggravation of the dispute?
  Mr. Barnes: That decision was arrived at as a result of the experience and the knowledge of the circumstances of the port officials on the spot.
  Mr. Shepherd: How does the right hon. Gentleman explain the disparity between his treatment of the dockers on the one hand, and of those wretched driving licence examiners on the other hand?
  Mr. Hogg: Was this an official or an unofficial strike?
  Mr. Barnes: In so far as the Scottish Transport Workers Organisation is separate and distinct to Glasgow, it was an official strike.

  KING GEORGE V MEMORIAL (UNVEILING CEREMONY)
  Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Prime Minister what arrangements are being made for the unveiling of the Memorial to His late Majesty King George V in October next.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): His Majesty The King has graciously undertaken to unveil the memorial to His late Majesty King George V on 22nd October next. Detailed arrangements are being made by the National Memorial Committee with the assistance of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works and will be announced later.
  Wing-Commander Hulbert: In view of the world wide affection in which the late King was held, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that representatives of the Empire will be present on this occasion?
  The Prime Minister: That will be a matter for consideration and, no doubt, will be considered by the National Memorial Committee.

  INVENTIONS (EXAMINATION)
  Mr. Hastingsasked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the provision of an office to which persons can submit inventions, ideas and suggestions which they are desirous should be used for the benefit of their country rather than for themselves, so that these might be critically examined in that office and only referred to a Department of State should they seem promising.
  The Prime Minister: The whole field of patent law and inventions is being reviewed by the Departments concerned, and my hon. Friend's suggestion will be borne in mind.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE AND HEALTH SCHEMES (OPERATION)
  Mr. Viantasked the Prime Minister when it is intended to bring the rest of the National Insurance schemes and English and Scottish National Health Service schemes into operation.
  The Prime Minister: The preparatory work necessary to arrange the transition from existing schemes and agencies and to create the organisation to operate the new provisions effectively is very heavy. Considerable progress has been made with these preparations, despite great difficulties of staff and premises. The various schemes are closely linked up with each other, and with proposals for completing the break-up of the Poor Law and providing a comprehensive scheme of national assistance standing behind the insurance provisions. The Government consider that there are compelling reasons in favour of bringing all these schemes into operation on the same date. They have reached the conclusion that by giving high priority to the legislation which it is hoped to introduce next Session to complete the breakup of the Poor Law, this will be possible. On a consideration of all the factors involved, they have decided that the best date for this purpose is 5th July, 1948, which coincides with the end of the next contribution year for health, pensions and unemployment insurance.

  AGRICULTURE

    Machinery
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. YORK:
    48. To ask the Minister of Agriculture if he will obtain an increased allocation of steel for the agricultural industry for the second quarter of 1947, as he is aware that the makers of tractors, machinery equipment and spare parts and also structural engineers working on agricultural buidings are either slowed down or at a standstill through shortage of steel.
    Mr. York: Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to an error in this Question? It should read "the second half of 1947" instead of "quarter."
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I am well aware of the needs of the industry, but, in view of the general steel supply situation, it has not been found possible to increase the allo-
    702
    cation of steel at the disposal of my Department for the second quarter of this year.
    Mr. York: Is it not a fact that unless the Minister of Agriculture pushes this case, agriculture will not get more steel, and will he undertake to push all he can for a higher allocation?
    Mr. Williams: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am one of many Ministers who are pushing for steel.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: Can the right hon. Gentleman at least give an assurance that when steel for agricultural machinery arrives in this country, it will not be sent back again?
    Mr. Amory: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if he wants any help in fighting his colleagues in this matter, he can count on hon. Members on this side of the House?
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Does the right hon. Gentleman concur in the decision by which agricultural machinery was sent back to the United States, in view of the position which he has just mentioned?
    Mr. Baker Whiteasked the Minister of Agriculture what arrangements he has made with agricultural machinery manufacturers, in view of the much lowered output in February and March, to give priority to the urgent needs of home food producers for tractors and other farm machinery, thus implementing the undertaking given to them.
    Mr. T. Williams: in order to assist farmers with this year's urgent tasks, agricultural machinery manufacturers have co-operated by directing a larger volume of machinery into the home market during the last two or three months. In consequence, the estimated average value of the machinery going to the home market increased from £92,000 a day in January, 1947, to £100,000 a day in March and £131,000 a day in April.
    Mr. Baker White: Is the Minister aware that, while the home production of agricultural machinery fell from about £3,480,000 worth in January to £2,520,000 in February, the exports of tractors in the first four months of the year increased by over 3,000 tons, as compared with those in the same period of last year, and that the exports of all farming machinery

    703
    in the first four months of this year were £835,000 worth greater than in the same period of last year?
    Mr. Williams: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware that exports of agricultural machinery fell from £24,000 day in January to £19,000 a day in April.
    Mr. M. Philips Price: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the need to see that there is a sufficient supply of spare parts for the existing machinery, let alone the new?
    Mr. Williams: Yes, as fast as we can persuade the manufacturers to produce spare parts, we are doing so.
    Mr. Hogg: Does the re-export figure the right hon. Gentleman gave include the figures of the re-exports in the s.s. "Eucadia"?
    Mr. Baldwin: Would the Minister consider making application to his colleagues to stop the exportation of all agricultural machinery as long as there is a demand for it in this country?
    Mr. Williams: No, Sir.

    Milk (Regulations)
    Mr. Collinsasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that a large number of farmers are having their milk returned from collecting centres because of deficiency in butter fat content and solids; that this trouble has been largely unavoidable owing to the hard winter and lack of feedingstuffs; and if he will take steps to modify the present regulations, and so avoid a considerable waste of milk.
    Mr. T. Williams: I appreciate that the decline in the solids content of milk, which is a seasonal feature, has no doubt been aggravated by the poor harvest last year and, in particular, the poor quality of hay, as well as by the delayed growth of grass this spring; but I have no evidence that any significant quantity of milk is being returned to farmers on account of a deficiency of milk solids. The Sale of Milk Regulations, 1901, are designed as a guide to the authorities administering the Food and Drugs Acts, and do not govern the return of milk by a buyer, which is determined by ordinary commercial practice. I do not consider that any modification of existing regulations would be justified.
    Mr. Collins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the amount of milk returned in this way is not negligible, and that in one part of Somerset in one day milk was returned to eight different farmers? Will he look into the matter to see how commercial milk depots are applying the regulations, because at present there is considerable loss of food and financial loss to the farmers for reasons beyond their control?
    Mr. Williams: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have looked into this matter, and that I have found that in each case where the milk has been returned it has not been returned before the farmer has received one, two, or even three warnings of the quality of the milk, and that, despite the warnings, there has been no improvement. Hence the return, unfortunately, of some of the milk.

    Pig and Poultry Rations
    Lord Willoughby de Eresbyasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is in a position to state the basic ration for poultry during the next winter period; and whether the basic ration for this period will be less than the present ration.
    Mr. Heathcoat Amoryasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will announce as soon as possible the scales of pig and poultry rations for the next period in order to enable stockkeepers to plan ahead.
    Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir. I am not yet in a position to announce the scales of pig and poultry rations next winter, but these will be decided as soon as possible in the light of the available feeding-stuffs supplies, the national need for a steady expansion of pig and poultry breeding and of the production of pigmeat and eggs, and, in the case of poultry, the normal practice of autumn culling.
    Lord Willoughby de Eresby: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication of how soon he will be in a position to make an announcement on this subject? Could he possibly answer the last part of the Question whether the ration for the next winter will be, at least, not lower than the ration that prevails at this moment?
    Mr. Williams: I am sure the noble Lord will be aware that I am entirely in the hands of the Ministry of Food, who are responsible for importing feedingstuffs; and as my right hon. Friend the Minister

    705
    of Food is in the hands of those who sell and transport feedingstuffs, no assurances or guarantees could be given until the feedingstuffs arrive.
    Mr. Amory: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the present shortage of feedingstuffs is really the biggest obstacle of all to further output in agriculture, and that stockkeepers—pig and poultry keepers—have really had a tough time?
    Mr. Williams: I can assure the hon. Member that we are as fully aware of that as he is himself. The Minister of Food has done all he can to provide the maximum quantity of feedingstuffs from wherever those feedingstuffs have happended to be.
    Lord Willoughby de Eresby: In view of the statement the right hon. Gentleman has made about the Minister of Food, will he reconsider the suggestion that I made some time ago to remove the Minister of Food from the Agriculture Committee?

    Fowl Pest
    Lord Willoughby de Eresbyasked the Minister of Agriculture the latest figures as regards the number of cases of fowl pest which have been notified, and the number of fowls which have been slaughtered.
    Mr. T. Williams: Up to and including 4th June there have been 359 outbreaks of fowl pest in England and Wales, involving the slaughter of about 17,200 birds.

    Water Supply Schemes
    Mr. Amoryasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the slow progress being made in carrying out agricultural and domestic water supply schemes; and what steps are being taken to secure bigger delivery of pipes for these purposes.
    Mr. T. Williams: The hon. Member will appreciate that the progress of many desirable developments in agriculture, as in other fields, is affected by the over-all shortage of steel. It is hoped that supplies of pipes for farm water schemes will improve as soon as production of steel increases and it is possible to increase allocations.
    Mr. York: Is not that a further reason for taking my advice to ask for a larger allocation of steel?
    Mr. Williams: I am always taking the hon. Member's advice.

    Floods (Public Inquiries)
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Agriculture when he proposes to set up public inquiries into the cause of the recent floods.
    Mr. T. Williams: Reports have been received by my Department from all but a few of those Boards in whose areas abnormal flooding occurred this spring. Discussions with the individual Boards are in progress and will continue this month. It is clear, however, that in all areas substantial works of rehabilitation will need to be completed before next winter which will make heavy demands on the technical staffs and resources of the Boards. I am not satisfied that any general need exists to hold public inquiries, and would be reluctant to divert the energies of the Boards from the urgent and important works which are now in progress.
    Major Legge-Bourke: While I fully appreciate the point made by the Minister about the work begun by the catchment boards, and while not desiring to detract from it, may I ask him to bear in mind three things? The first is, that the destruction of people's houses in some of the flooded areas is appalling; secondly, that the Government, by giving £1,000,000 out of public money raised through taxes, virtually, I submit, are bound to give some account to the taxpayers who subscribed that it is necessary to give that amount; and third, that there are a great many people who are calling for these inquiries. Whether or not the catchment boards' report indicates it, I do ask him to have these inquiries as soon as possible.
    Mr. Williams: I do not see what the first two questions have to do with public inquiries. As regards the last supplementary question, inquiries may or may not be held later on, but it seems to me that flood prevention work is of far greater importance at this moment than inquiries.

    Baling Wire
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture how much baling wire has been allocated for use in Berkshire during

    707
    the current quarter; and how this compares with the amounts for the previous quarter and the same period last year.
    Mr. T. Williams: An allocation of 39½ tons of baling wire was made to Berkshire in the current quarter, as compared with 64 tons in the previous quarter, and 85 and 80 tons in the second and first quarters of 1946 respectively.
    Mr. Hurd: In view of that very deplorable statement that Berkshire is getting only one-third of what it had before, can the Minister give us an assurance that we shall have enough baling wire to keep pace with the coming harvest?
    Mr. Williams: I am hopeful that there will be imports from Belgium at an early date, and I hope Berkshire may have part of that allocation.
    Mr. Digbyasked the Minister of Agriculture why farmers who have invested in hay balers, are not allowed baling wire unless they certify that it is to be used exclusively for hay or staw to be sold and not used on their own farms.
    Mr. T. Williams: Because the current shortage of baling wire makes it necessary for the present to conserve supplies for the most essential purposes.

    Tillage Acreage, 1948
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture when he will notify the C.A.E.Cs. and farmers of the acreages of such essential crops as wheat and potatoes that they will be required to grow in 1948; and to what extent he intends that the total tillage acreage should be reduced next year.
    Mr. T. Williams: County war agricultural executive committees will be notified of the target acreages at which they should aim in 1948, in the course of the next few days. I hope that the total tillage acreage in 1948 will not fall below 10 million acres in England and Wales, and I am considering measures to that end.
    Mr. Hurd: How does that 10 million acres compare with this present year's tillage acreage?
    Mr. Williams: It is 10,662,000.

    Hill Sheep Scheme (Order)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Agriculture the date upon which the Hill Sheep Scheme Subsidy Payment (England and Wales) Order, 1947 (S.R. & O., 1947, No. 667) was made; the date upon which it was laid on the Table of the House; and the reason for the delay in this Order being laid.
    Mr. T. Williams: The Order was signed late on 3rd April, the day before Good Friday. Nothing further could be done till after the holiday, i.e., on Tuesday, 8th April, when the Order was sent to the Ministry's Stationery Section for printing. It reached His Majesty's Stationery Office on 9th April. Some further delay was caused, I regret to say, by a misunderstanding in my Department in dealing with the printing of the Order. As it was a short Order it was intended that it should be printed immediately after signature and without a proof, but a proof was obtained. This was received on 14th April and returned approved on the same day for urgent printing. The prints were received on 21st April and forwarded to both Houses of Parliament on 22nd April.

    Vegetables (Growers' Prices)
    Mr. Sharpasked the Minister of Agriculture to what extent lettuces, cabbages and cauliflowers are being ploughed in by growers because they cannot obtain remunerative prices; and, in view of the present high retail prices and unsatisfied public demand, how he explains this situation.
    Mr. T. Williams: I am not aware that any of the vegetables mentioned are being ploughed in by growers owing to unremunerative prices, but if my hon. Friend will send me particulars of any cases which have come to his notice I will make inquiries.
    Mr. Sharp: In view of the shortage and the extremely high retail prices of greenstuffs, has my right hon. Friend taken any action to esure that such ploughing in does not take place?
    Mr. Williams: As I understand it, there is no possibility of ploughing in, because the supplies are not too good on certain vegetables at the moment.

  KEW GARDENS (HOURS OF OPENING)
  Mr. Gerald Williamsasked the Minister of Agriculture if, in the presence of summer time, he will arrange to keep Kew Gardens open to the public after 7 p.m.
  Mr. D. Marshallasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will arrange for Kew Gardens to remain open to the public until 10 p.m. during the months from May to September in view of British double summer time.
  Mr. Skeffingtonasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will revise the closing hours of Kew Gardens from 8 p.m. until dusk, so that people can take advantage of them for longer periods during double summer time and summer time; and whether he will also arrange for the various hothouses to be open to the public later than 4.30 p.m
  Mr. T. Williams: I have again reviewed this question. The Royal Botanic Gardens are primarily a scientific institution, and adequate trained staff must be on duty whenever the gardens are open to the public in order to safeguard the invaluable scientific collections from loss or damage. Between the middle of May and the middle of August, the gardens are open until 8 p.m. This throws a heavy burden on the staff, who have to be on duty for more than 60 hours a week at this time of the year, including every Sunday and most Saturdays. Although I am anxious that the public should he able to enjoy the amenities of the gardens to the greatest possible extent consistent with their scientific purpose, I do not consider that I should be justified either in requiring the present staff to work still longer hours, or in recruiting and training the considerable number of additional staff that would be required for the sake of keeping the gardens open a little longer in the summer evenings. At this time of year the hothouses are closed at 5 p.m. on weekdays and 6 p.m. on Sundays. Certain cultural processes have to be carried out on the plants after the houses are closed, and it would not he practicable to keep them open until a later hour without endangering the plants and placing heavy burdens on the staff
  Mr. G. Williams: Is the Minister aware that there are thousands of members of
  710
  the public who derive great pleasure from their visits to Kew Gardens that that pleasure can be given to thousands by the addition of very few to the staff as extra door-keepers; and if the Minister is unable to find those few extra door-keepers, would he not transfer some people from the hothouses, or make some other arrangement for a few extra people, in order that these thousands may derive this enjoyment.
  Mr. T. Williams: I fully agree that large numbers of people do enjoy the luxury of a visit to Kew Gardens. But since the technical employees are now working a 10-hour day, with usually an extra hour per day overtime, I do not think it would be reasonable to expect them to work extra hours. Indeed, were the gardens to be kept open it is very doubtful whether those who remain between eight and ten o'clock would be able to get transport back to their homes
  Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the same consideration to the farming community as he is giving to the gardening staff, because they work very long hours?
  Mr. Skeffington: is the Minister aware that in some of the Royal Parks they had precisely this problem and managed to solve it; and if this difficulty is merely a question of staff, will he consider the possibility of getting volunteers who would undertake this work, because there are many who would want others to share their pleasure?
  Mr. Snadden: Would not it be better to abolish double summer time?

  COASTAL FISHING AREA (SERVICE REQUIREMENTS)
  Mr. Digbyasked the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries whether he has been consulted in regard to the proposal to close a large area off the Dorset and Devon coast to fishing; and whether he is aware of the grave concern among fishermen and among residents in these counties at the prospect of a serious reduction in the supply of fish available to them.
  Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir. So far as I am aware there is no proposal under consideration which would involve closing a large area off this coast to fishing vessels. Any proposals involving the permanent use of sea areas for Service purposes will come before the Inter-Departmental Com-

  711
  mittee on Services Land Requirements, on which my Department is represented, and the interests of the fishing industry will be fully considered.

  SOUTH AFRICA (DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES)
  Mr. Beswickasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what arrangements exist for the interchange of information and expert personnel between the Union of South Africa and the High Commission Territories; and whether there are any plans for development schemes in these territories, to be operated jointly with South Africa, for the improvement of agriculture, water supplies and livestock.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Bottomley): Close co-operation exists between the High Commission Territories and the Union of South Africa in nearly all fields of activity, and Union technical advisers are readily made available by the Union Government to visit the territories to give advice. Facilities at the Union Research Institutes are at the disposal of the territories, and the Administrations of the territories have representatives on various Union control boards. There are no special joint schemes of the kind referred to in the second part of the Question

  SWAZILAND (FOOD SUPPLIES)
  Mr. Beswickasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is satisfied that the food supplies of Swaziland are adequate; whether there is any evidence of malnutrition; and whether famine conditions have existed within the last 10 years.
  Mr. Bottomley: It is expected that this year's crop will be adequate for Swaziland's food requirements. There is some evidence of malnutrition in Swaziland. Further investigation is, however, necessary before the nutritional position can be accurately assessed. A Nutrition Council has been constituted in Swaziland which maintains close contact with the National Nutrition Council in the Union. Serious conditions existed in the early part of 1945, owing to the failure of local
  712
  and Union crops. In other years it has been possible to supplement Swaziland crops when necessary by importation from the Union. Grain storage facilities are being provided from the Colonial Development Funds to conserve supplies against future periods of scarcity.

  DOMINION GIFTS TO U.K.
  Mr. Rees-Williamsasked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent assistance rendered to the United Kingdom in money, food and in other ways by the Dominion members of the Commonwealth.
  Mr. Bottomley: As regards monetary gifts, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 28th April to the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison), in which he gave a list covering the period 1st August, 1945, to 1st April, 1947. Since the latter date gifts totalling in value some £1,500,000 have been received or promised from the Dominions for the Lord Mayor's Flood Relief Distress Fund, for use by the British Red Cross Society and the Women's Voluntary Services, and for other similar purposes. In this are included gifts both of money, and of food and clothing. I know that the House will wish to join me in expressing our sincere gratitude to the Governments, institutions and private citizens of the Dominions for their continuing generosity.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: What acknowledgment are His Majesty's Government making to the Dominions for their great generosity to this country?
  Mr. Bottomley: Suitable acknowledgment has been made to all the organisations and Governments for the gifts they have made.
  Sir Ronald Ross: Is Eire making any contribution towards these gifts? May I have an answer to a very simple question?
  Mr. Bottomley: There is a long list of those who have donated.
  Sir R. Ross: Is Eire on it?
  Mr. Bottomley: There are many organisations. Whether there is in Eire a

  713
  similar organisation to some of the institutions which contributed from other Dominions, I could not say at this moment.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: As regards the latter date which my hon. Friend has mentioned, would he intimate the nature and extent of the assistance given by each Dominion?
  Mr. Bottomley: It is a long list, and from time to time the Press has given reports. If necessary, of course, I will circulate the information, but I would much rather leave it as it is. I think that if we acknowledged that, it would avoid missing some.

  ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES (CIVILIAN GOODS)
  Mr. Amoryasked the Minister of Supply whether it is the intention of the Government that Royal Ordnance factories should continue indefinitely to manufacture civilian goods.
  The Minister of Supply (Mr. John Wilmot): Yes, Sir; that is the present intention.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  AGRICULTURE BILL
  Order for Third Reading read. (King's Consent signified.)
  3.30 p.m.
  The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  I do not intend to detain the House for any length of time, not because the Government regard this Bill as unimportant; on the contrary, we consider that it represents a landmark in the agricultural history of this country. This Bill is the foundation on which we can build the future prosperity and efficiency of this great basic industry. I shall not speak at length because the policy and principles embodied in the Bill have been universally accepted, not only by the representatives of the industry, but also by hon. Members in all parts of the House. I am justified in that assumption by the general support it has received from the main representative organisations and the general acceptance of its principles from all sides of the House.
  Since the Bill was originally introduced, it has been subjected to very minute examination, both in Standing Committee and on Report stage. During the 25 sittings in Committee, many constructive suggestions were made, as well as other suggestions, which were not quite so constructive. I believe that the Bill has been improved as a result of the Committee and Report stages, where many useful suggestions were made, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking hon. Members in all parts of the House for their advice and assistance. Not unnaturally, we could not accept every suggestion made by the Opposition, because there are a few points where there is a fundamental difference of opinion. Hon. Members opposite, for instance, were not over-enthusiastic about land purchase, the Land Commission, control, or even statistics. I can only deplore the fact that even my crystal-clear explanations, and those of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), failed to remove all the latent prejudices of some hon. Members, although I suppose,

  715
  with a Bill of this kind, it is too much to expect absolute agreement on every conceivable point.
  I should like to spend a few moments reminding the House of the basic principles of this Bill upon which the Government's agricultural policy is founded. We believe that if agriculture is to play its part fully and effectively in the national economy, we must provide for it a reasonable sense of stability and prosperity. We on this side—and I think there is general agreement on this—feel that by far the best method to ensure that stability and prosperity is by assured markets and guaranteed prices for its major products, and that is exactly what Part I sets out to accomplish. There has been some criticism and scepticism as to the intentions of the Government in relation to Part I. The right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), on Second Reading, said that the Opposition accepted Part I as an act of faith. What do these criticisms amount to? They can, I think, be concentrated into two points. The first is that the assured markets and guaranteed prices will apply only to commodities in the First Schedule, and that other commodities, particularly horiticultural products, are omitted. It has been said that it is unfair to apply the efficiency measures of Part II to horticulture without providing the guarantees under Part I. On Second Reading, I explained that the method of providing stability under Part I was not considered suitable for horticultural products, and that other measures would have to be devised to achieve the same object. I believe that the representatives of that section of the industry appreciate this. Moreover, Part I of the Bill covers no less than 75 per cent. of the total produce, which is a not insignificant proportion. I must remind the House once again that there is power in the Bill to add, by order, other products if it is thought desirable. I think, therefore, there are no solid grounds for criticism on that score.
  The other main criticism, which was largely levelled by Members of the Opposition, was that assured markets and guaranteed prices were meaningless because there is power in certain circumstances to limit the size of assured markets for particular commodities. On Second Reading, I explained that the national
  716
  slogan for agriculture must be, for as far ahead as we can see, "A fully efficient and productive agriculture." We hope that as we gain further experience of the system of price adjustments, this will be sufficient to steer production into those channels which will best serve the national interest, but we cannot be certain that in all cases that will happen. Nevertheless, the Government, as the House would expect from a very wise Government—there have been occasions when the Government have been chastised for taking a second view in the light of apprehensions expressed here and there—have reviewed the whole problem, and they have reached the conclusion that, as far ahead as one can reasonably see, they are prepared to accept complete liability for assuring a market for the whole output of the guaranteed price commodities, with two reservations only, namely, sugar beet and oats.
  In the case of sugar beet, the eligible quantity will be that which is sold under contract for delivery to factories; that is to say, the factory capacity will be the determining facor. The Government cannot be expected to guarantee a price for beet which cannot be processed. Oats constitute a special problem of their own. In the United Kingdom as a whole, only 23 per cent. of the total crop over the last five years has been sold off the farms. Normally, of course, the bulk of oats is used on the farms for feeding livestock. On some farms however, especially in Scotland, oats are just as much a cash crop as wheat and barley. The problem, therefore, is to fix a guaranteed price which will be fair to such farmers, without encouraging other farmers to sell off their farms oats which should be kept for their livestock. If the supplies of imported feeding grain become appreciably lower in price then there might be a strong temptation for the producer to sell all the oats he could. That is a contingency which we have to guard against, although I do not anticipate that for several years ahead there will he any possibility of large supplies of feeding stuffs at a price appreciably lower than oats which might make it necessary to limit the guaranteed market for oats.
  Another reason for some reserve power in the Bill was that later on, based upon experience, we might feel disposed to add to the commodities in the

  717
  First Schedule. Therefore, while we accept at the moment an unlimited liability for the guaranteed price commodities subject to the reservations I have made about oats and sugar beet, we cannot here and now undertake to do so for any commodity which might be added to the list. It might, in fact, cause this or any other Government to hesitate before making such additions to the list. It must be remembered that this is a long-term Bill, and that we must not by hasty action do anything that would imperil the whole system of guaranteed prices. I am sure Members will not yet have forgotten the fate of the Corn Production Act, 1921. I hope that my statement will completely remove any misapprehensions there may have been on the Second Reading or in Committee.
  Now let me turn very briefly to the other twin pillar of the Bill. If we are to give the industry stability we are entitled to expect the industry to become as efficient as possible. This is important, not only from the point of view of the industry itself, but from the point of view of the nation. It must be clear to all, particularly at the present time, that with the currency difficulties we are facing it must be a prime object of any Government to raise the standard of efficiency in such an important industry as agriculture to the highest possible degree. Therefore, apart from all the arrangements we have made, and are making, to provide landowners and farmers with all the up-to-date technical advice we can, we must have power to see that the land of this country is managed and farmed efficiently. Those in the industry who are unable or unwilling to pull their weight must make way for others who will. For this purpose, the Bill provides us with powers to insist on good estate management and good husbandry, and enables the State where necessary to take over, for full and efficient use, land which would not be developed if it was left in private hands. There is nothing terrible or drastic in these provisions. Adequate safeguards are provided for the owner and the tenant, and he can and will have his case fairly dealt with. It is a perfect example of control and discipline from within by farmers, landowners, farmworkers, and technical and scientific persons. Reasonably good owners or farmers have nothing to fear
  718
  from Part II of this Bill. On the contrary, most of them will welcome these powers, for the unwilling or incapable minority would otherwise always remain a menace to the majority.
  The other main part of the Government's agricultural policy is to provide smallholdings for experienced agricultural workers to become farmers on their own account. This is dealt with in Part IV. We believe that everything that can be done to make a career on the land more attractive is of vital importance to the future of this industry. But it is not enough merely to provide the smallholdings. The experienced agricultural worker must have a chance of climbing the farming ladder at a reasonably early age, and for this purpose the Bill gives power to the Ministry to make loans to tenants of smallholdings for working capital. In Committee, I was asked whether I could give a broad outline of how such loans would operate. At that time, I was not in a position to give a detailed answer. I am glad to say that I am now in a position to do so. As Members will be aware, the Minister can advance up to 75 per cent. of the total working capital required for the proper working of the holding. As the maximum loans may be fairly large, we must not make repayments too heavy a burden on the borrower, and I am proposing, therefore, to lay down a general rule that the amount of a loan must always be determined by the borrower's capacity to repay, taking into account his personal qualities and the productive capacity of the holding. At the same time, we want to make sure that no applicant who is really suitable is debarred simply because he has been unable to save enough capital.
  With these considerations in mind I am proposing, with the concurrence of the Treasury, to allow repayments to be spread over a fairly long period. The periods, of course, will vary with the nature of the loan. Normally, the period for repayment of a loan for seeds and fertilisers would be three years, while for fruit trees, livestock, or implements it would be six years. I hope that in most cases there will be no need to extend the period beyond 10 years, but to make doubly sure we propose to allow the period to be extended, where it is really necessary, to a maximum of 12 years.
  Brigadier Mackeson: I would suggest that as cherries take a long time to come to fruition, more than six years would be required.
  Mr. T. Williams: I hope I have covered the point by stretching the period where necessary to 12 years. The proposed rate of interest under present conditions would range between 2½ per cent, on the short-term loan of three years, and 3 per cent. on the 12-year loan. We shall expect no repayment of principal for the first year after the loan is made. This ought to help the smallholder to establish himself without calling too heavily on his own assets, or compelling him to live from hand to mouth. Where conditions are extremely difficult, we shall allow two years before the borrower starts with his repayments of principal. Interest will, of course, accrue from the date of issue of the Joan. In a word, the Government's aim is successful smallholders rather than impoverished willing slaves. As regards administration, clearly, the best bodies to advise are the smallholding authorities. They know their tenants, and can always keep an eye on them. They will examine all requests for loans and make recommendations to the Minister. They will issue the loans from funds advanced to them on my behalf, and receive the repayments in the first instance. Lastly I am considering, in consultation with the Treasury, the question of introducing safeguards to ensure that the loans will be used for the purposes for which they were advanced, that repayments will not fall into arrears and that wherever practicable security is provided. I trust that these arrangements will commend themselves to the House, and to the industry.
  During our discussions in Committee, great play was made by some Members opposite, in particular by the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York), about the question of statisticians, and their apparently insatiable appetite for information. Statisticians might, I think, be compared to ladies of easy virtue, for they are simultaneously condemned and much sought after. The statistical needs of my Department are exceedingly great, as hon. Members must appreciate. We are more or less responsible for marketing £600 million worth of food. We have to conduct an annual price review, and it would be exceedingly unfortunate, to either the farmer or the Treasury, if, for the want of essential information, we made errors in the
  720
  figures varying by £5 million or £20 million. As hon. Members ought to be aware, the perpetual questioner is always seeking more facts and figures, like the old time questioner who once asked what what was the price of wheat in England and of sawdust in Winnipeg. Because so many people want so much information the various kinds of statisticians have to be available and they do a grand job.
  That is a brief outline of the basic principles which underline the Government's agricultural policy, as embodied in this Bill. This is one of the most important Measures which this Government have introduced during their period of office. There has been close consultation with the chief representative bodies throughout the building up of the Measure and its passage through this House, and I am hopeful that the same kind of consultation will continue for the purposes of administration. I believe that this Bill provides an opportunity for agriculture to stand in its rightful place side by side with other major industries of this country, and through the implementation of this policy we shall, for the first time, be able to look ahead with confidence to a stable, efficient, prosperous agriculture. A good deal has been said in the past about the shortages of houses, electricity, water, and other amenities. These things were never provided because there was never any real confidence in the industry. Once this Bill is on the Statute Book and this real cornerstone is well and truly laid, I think that houses, electricity, water and the other rural amenities will automatically follow. It is in that spirit that I commend the Bill to the House.
  3.51 p.m.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure that the whole House will regret the absence of the Parliamentary Secretary to-the Ministry and wish him a speedy recovery. Both he and the Minister, throughout the protracted discussions we have.had on this Bill upstairs, have shown considerable courtesy to the Opposition, and we naturally feel better disposed towards a Bill where the Ministers have been friendly and accommodating, even though there have been scarcely any Amendments in its structure, than we would have felt had the Bill been in other hands.
  The right hon. Gentleman, unlike some other Ministers, has no need to say comfortable and friendly things either to the

  721
  middle-class or any other class, for he has shown throughout his Parliamentary career that he cares more than a "tinker's cuss" for every section of the community, if that section is doing its best to pull its weight in our national life. None the less, we feel that the right hon. Gentleman has pitched the case for this Bill too high, and a great number of the Bill's apologists in the country have done the same. We did not oppose this Bill on Second Reading, and we do not propose to do so today, because the main part of Part I of the Bill is to continue in peacetime the policy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) of guaranteed prices and guaranteed markets, and annual and special reviews.
  We believe, that, apart from this, the case for the Bill has been pitched far too high. Provision is made in Part I of the Bill and in the First Schedule, for example, for fixing prices based on the cost of production. About 40 per cent; of the cost of production on the average farm is the cost of labour, and the right hon. Gentleman himself said that there is nothing in this Bill about either the provision of labour or any method of bridging the alarming gap between facilities and needs; nor is there anything about the fixing of labour costs. Prices are to be fixed by the Minister according to the cost of production, but labour and wages are still to be subject to free negotiation. It remains to be shown what difficulties may arise when these twin methods are used for arriving at costs. Again, there is nothing, as the right hon. Gentleman told us, about housing. It would be out of Order to deal with that in any detail, but we all hope that the right hon. Gentleman will use his best influence with his colleague the Minister of Health to see that something on the lines of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act is again put on the Statute Book.
  Again, the right hon. Gentleman himself inferred that horticulture is to suffer all the disabilities and penalties which this Bill involves without getting any of the security of prices or markets. Horticultural production in last year's figures is valued at 100 million, and that is a pretty substantial omission. Above all, there is nothing in the Bill in Statute form about the size of the home market for which the guaranteed prices are to be given, and branches of the National
  722
  Farmers' Union, after the first acceptance of the Bill, are beginning now rapidly to realise that it is on the size of the guaranteed market that everything else depends. Really all that Part I of the Bill does is to lay on the Government of the day a moral obligation to make the production of certain certified foodstuffs profitable, but in unspecified quantities. It is, I think, as well that farmers and workers alike should realise precisely what is the situation.
  We were very interested in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in which he gave still one more assurance—that everything in the First Schedule with certain exceptions—sugar beet and oats—would be bought at a fixed price by the Government. I am sure that he would be among the first to realise that Ministerial assurances are not worth a great deal in the uncertain world in which we live. We would have been happier if we could have seen something in Statute form. What is the agricultural community getting in Parts I, II and III of the Bill? On one side, it is getting a promise of a guaranteed market and a guaranteed price for an unspecified quantity of certain products, the fulfilment of which is very largely problematical; and, on the other side, it is accepting controls and penalties which are certain and definite. Once they have been imposed, will they ever be lifted or even ameliorated? Certainly not in the lifetime of the present Government.
  It is on the size of the market that everything else depends. May I say, in opening this particular theme, that I think one satisfactory feature of the association of the Socialist Government with the agriculture has been the recognition by most of their responsible leaders that the food subsidies given today, to the tune of nearly £400 million, are not subsidies to the producer but subsidies to the consumer? If free prices prevailed the farmer would be getting far more than he is getting today. This recognition is valuable and will be, I think, of value for the proper conduct of agriculture in the years that lie ahead. The object of Part I of this Bill is stated to be the promotion of stable and efficient agricultural industry, capable of producing such part of the nation's food as in the national interest it is desirable to produce in the United Kingdom.

  723
  Throughout the Committee stage of this Bill, we have tried to elicit exactly what the Government mean by the phrase—" such part of the nation's food as it it desirable to produce in the United Kingdom. Many of us fear that the Government mean, and will mean more and more in the months that lie ahead, that part of the nation's food that cannot be bought more cheaply in foreign markets. Of course, we cannot expect this Bill to contain a Schedule of prices—that is obviously unreasonable—but we think that it is reasonable to ask the Government to say how large this assured market is to be. It ought not to have been beyond the wit of man to devise some phrases in this Bill which would have given that assurance in a form more valuable than the Minister's assurance given a minute or two ago. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), in the Second Reading Debate, gave a suggestion of his own. Many of us have ideas about that and what might have been incorporated in the Bill. That something on these lines should have been incorporated in the Bill is, I think, common ground on these Opposition benches. There is nothing at the present moment to prevent the Minister from varying, as often as he likes, or, at any rate, in two years, the quantities of specified foodstuffs that the Government will buy, merely by using the phrase lately in currency, "changing the emphasis." If this should happen, then all the rosy hopes of the farming community will be falsified, and the basis of the Agricultural Wages Bill, passed through the House recently, will be completely undermined.
  To amplify what I have in mind I would like to deal with two items that appear in the First Schedule, pigs and eggs. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently given a rather definite hint that still further cuts in certain imports may be inevitable. It is not impossible that those cuts might apply to feedingstuffs, which have already been cut so drastically that we are now well below even the ration allowed at the height of the U-boat menace. We have in the First Schedule guaranteed prices and markets for fat pigs and eggs. We know that at present we are spending millions on imported bacon and eggs, at a cost, incidentally, which has been calculated to be at least four times as much as it would have cost to import the equivalent amount
  724
  of raw material to produce the finished foods over here. Should there be further cuts in feedingstuffs, what possible value is attached to the guaranteed market for fat pigs or for eggs? The figures published only a little while ago show that in the last year the number of pigs in England has declined by 300,000, and the number of poultry by two million. What is the value of a guaranteed market if there are to be further inroads on those figures?
  Mr. T. Williams: I hate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman while he is making that case, but in view of its possible reactions throughout the country I think I ought to make it transparently clear that there never has been any cutting down of possible imports of feedingstuffs, there is no suggestion of cutting down imports of feeding stuffs, and, indeed, it is our desire to purchase as many millions of tons of feedingstuffs as may be available from anywhere. I should not like it to go forth from this House, nor would the hon. Member I am sure, that there is even a vague possibility of the Government cutting down the imports of feedingstuffs.
  Mr. David Eccles: How is it, then, that one can buy maize in France and cannot buy it here?
  Mr. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman can inform the Minister of Food that maize is available outside the European Economic Council's allocation, I am quite sure the Minister of Food will be very happy to purchase it tomorrow morning.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think the answer both to the right hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend behind me is that if we were allowed to restore the buying of feedingstuffs through private importers, and get away from the present bulk purchase, we should speedily find that particular difficulty ironed out. There are indeed large quantities of feedingstuffs available as the rest of the world knows well, outside the sphere of the allocation of the Combined Boards, and it has been this constant harping on the political nostrum of bulk purchase which has prevented the Government from allowing private people to go where the supplies are available.
  The right hon. Gentleman said in reply to my hon. Friend behind me, that if he knew where feedingstuffs were available he

  725
  should inform the Minister of Food. That leads me to the next difficulty in regard to these guaranteed prices and markets. If the Minister were himself completely in charge of the whole agricultural policy of the Government, we should be much less disturbed than we are, but we know that he is not. He is one of e number of Ministers, any we fear he is not necessarily the most powerful. I support wholeheartedly the attempts of my noble Friend behind me to get a clarification in this Bill of the rôle of the Minister of Food. We cannot forget the statement made by the Minister of Food on 11th December in this House, that we buy agricultural products at the lowest prices we can get in the world, and we very much fear the outcome of a tussle which may arise in the Cabinet between the Minister of Food and the Minister of Agriculture We remember very well the previous difficulty over wheat in October and November, or in February of last year with the Minister of Labour over manpower or again with the Board of Trade over machinery. All these things are very relevant to guaranteed prices and markets.
  Again, at the present moment, with the Geneva Conference assembled, we are very alarmed lest suddenly we may find a Government statement to the effect that in order to secure general agreement on an international plane—so it will be phrased —we have agreed to some limitation of our right of control of our home market, which will be very much to the disadvantage of agriculture here. We are afraid that this may well have been the reason why the right hon. Gentleman consistently refused to answer my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) when he asked him two or three times on the Second Reading whether the Government s policy was, first place for the home market and second place for the Empire and Colonial producers.
  Lastly, on regard to this question of prices and markets, I think on the Third Reading the attention of the House should be drawn again to Clause 92, in which the Minister takes certain very sweeping powers. It now appears as Clause 95, (Special Directions to procure production). We did our best in Committee to get this Clause deleted from the Bill. We feel that under this Clause the Minister may by direction be able to carry on the work of Clause 4 and undermine the
  726
  security which he is pretending or claiming the farming community will receive. When we discussed this Clause in Committee the right hon. Gentleman said that it was designed to deal exclusively with the sort of emergency which we encountered in 1914 and again in 1939, and he added that he hoped that 10 would be a very long time before we had to operate these provisions. Then came the Report stage, in which only a day or two ago the Minister moved Amendment strengthening the Clause, and announced that it was his intention to seek the approval of the House for the making of an order later this year—in advance o any emergency—after the appointed day has been settled and announced This is a clear indication of what does happen despite assurances quite genuinely given by the right hon. Gentleman and a clear indication of how it will be possible to undermine that guarantee of prices and markets which the average farmer undoubtedly believes he has obtained or will obtain by this Bill.
  So much for prices and markets. In return for these problematical assurances, what is the agricultural community undertaking to do? I have not time to deal with all the various obligations with which rural Britain will now be saddled, but I would like to pick out one or two. Of course, by far the most important of all the changes is that part of the Bill which relates to land tenure. Can we really say that security of tenure has been achieved? The object of the Bill is to see that the good tenant and the good owner can have peace of mind, and can plan ahead for a period of years. First let me say that if the good owner and the good tenant are to have peace of mind, we must accept agriculture, as many of us try to do, as a partnership between the State, the landowner, the tenant, the owner-occupier and the farmworker. Partnerships involves understanding each other's difficulties and problems, and so people have to understand the point of view of the landowner. Since 1939, while prices have gone up 90 per cent, and wages 120 per cent., rents have gone up only 6 per cent. That fact must be recognised, and its consequences cannot be dodged if we are to have partnership on the land.
  These new tenure proposals are based on the partnership between a good owner and a good tenant. This presupposes that there are good owners, a view which we

  727
  have naturally held all our lives and which many hon. Members opposite have also held. Can it be said that under this Bill there is security for the good owner? It is known that a large proportion of the Socialist Party are determined to nationalise the land.
  Mr. Alpass: As soon as, we can.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman says "as soon as we can." Can it then be argued that a good owner, however good he may be, is to have security under this Bill, and will be encouraged to put money into the land and to do all he possibly can to carry out the rules of good estate management, if he knows that active members on the other side are determined to take away his property as soon as they think it politically desirable to do so? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that nationalisation of the land is not, as yet, in the programme, and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture said that for better or for worse it was not in the programme last time. But a recent Fabian publication "Towards Socialist Agriculture" takes this view. "Unhappily," they say in effect, "not as yet"—but they hint that all good things come in the end. Private ownership of land, is not yet, of itself, regarded as a crime, even by tenant farmers, although they appear to regard this latter fact as almost incredible.
  How can one say that under this Bill an owner, however good, diligent and prudent he may be, can be said to have the peace of mind which is an essential part of a happy partnership? Apart from the undoubted and known threats of hon. Gentlemen opposite, this Bill, through Clause 81, would enable the Minister to do all that he wanted to do by way of nationalising the land without taking any further powers but merely by invoking the powers that are already in the Bill. So much for the position of the owner; what about the position of the tenant under these proposals? Undoubtedly some tenants who have been subject to bad landlords will have improved status under this Bill, but the vast majority of tenants in England have not lived like that. The average farm tenancy, as we have heard frequently in this House, has been 22 years, which hardly suggests a hectic, unhappy and frequently disrupted partnership between owner and tenant.
  728
  This Bill does certain things. It changes the relationship of confidence and mutual obligation between landlord and tenant into a list of statutory requirements, with all the rigidity and lack of humanity that that frequently involves. By the super-security that it gives to tenants it will mean that fewer farms will come into the market, and the chances of new capital and fresh blood being pumped into the land are diminished. It is very difficult to reconcile this part of the Bill with the very proper objectives of the Government in regard to smallholdings. I agree wholeheartedly with the Government's approach to the problem of smallholdings in Part IV of the Bill. I am glad we are to avoid the errors committed after the last war and to have people who are likely to make a success on the land planted there rather than people planted for social considerations. I speak as representing an agricultural division where, unhappily, every one of our special area tenants has packed up after some years of attempting to make a living out of the land. But if smallholding is to be a step in the ladder, then people must be able to climb higher up the ladder still and the super-security imposed on tenants under this Bill may well reduce the high hopes of Part IV and of many smallholders, and nullify their reasonable ambitions.
  Lastly, in regard to tenure, I agree with what my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) said on the Second Reading—that it may well be that many people who ought to lose their tenancies and who, under the old system, would have lost them, may continue to hold them because of the natural reluctance of their neighbours to weigh the scales against them. As he said, the cumulative effect of having tilted the balance in favour of the existing tenant may in fact lead to badly cultivated land. I think these things should be borne in mind on the occasion of the Third Reading of a Bill of this kind, for it may well result that, with the best will in the world and with every intention to do all we can to help agriculture, we may end by perpetuating, and indeed increasing, some of the very evils that the Bill is designed to remove.
  There is one other evil from which this part of what was once the United Kingdom has been happily immune, or comparatively so, though that has not been

  729
  the case in Ireland. It is the evil of the absentee landlord. Are we not perhaps introducing the absentee landlord into English agriculture? We are setting up a Land Commission with sweeping powers. We have little indication of what land will pass into the holding of the Land Commission, although we have heard about Romney Marsh and part of the Fenland, but with its great powers, which are not yet fully specified under this Bill, the Commission may well find itself a large landowner in England and, inevitably, a large and absentee landowner, with all the consequences to local and village life which absentee landlordism brings. So much for the tenure proposals under this Bill.
  As the right hon. Gentleman must be tired of hearing, if we were fairly sure that throughout the Socialist Government he would remain Minister of Agriculture, we should be less disturbed than we now are. Over all these powers hovers the Minister of Agriculture, with a large and growing staff and his share of the 13,000 enforcement officers that now owe allegiance to the present Socialist Government. Here in this Bill in his authority if he chooses—or authority for any of his successors if he should choose—to vary the markets and the prices and to remain the permanent dictator of the British agricultural industry. In addition to all the powers I have specified, he has taken power to refuse appeals on supervision orders, to refuse appeals to the High Court on dispossession orders, and to acquire land by compulsory purchase instead of allowing it to be compulsorily sold. Though he puts in safeguards to calm the public today, these can easily be withdrawn as were the safeguards in the original Clause 82 when the solemn pledges in the 1941 Act to dispossessed owners in the war were quite casually torn up in the Second Reading speech he made some months ago. In addition, he has powers—which he is using and will continue to use—to take away much of the authority of the elected representatives of the people in the county councils, and to put in their places his own nominated servants, piling on to those servants such a burden of work that only people with nothing else to do and, therefore, presumably second-rate people, will be able in time of peace to assume the responsibility.
  730
  This seems to many of us to be a very heavy price to pay for the problematical guaranteed market and price, but the land has a gift of withstanding and outliving all Ministers and all political parties. It is older than any political party, and once this Bill becomes law we shall naturally work it loyally. Then, when the time comes, we shall work it in our own way and take the fullest advantage of some of its excellent provisions. We must work together on the land and for an agricultural policy not only because of our present desperate situation—it is not, I think, realised that a 10 per cent. increase in home agricultural production would wipe out one-fifth of our total trade deficit last year—but, even more important, because agriculture is not only a profession and a living but a way of life which must be preserved despite all the efforts of party extremists to prevent it.
  4.20 p.m.
  Mr. George Brown: The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) always puts me in a dilemma. I think of all the bad points about him—and they are legion—but at the end of it all I have rather a sneaking regard for him. He began by saying that the Minister pitched the Bill too high. The hon. Gentleman will read his own speech tomorrow and he will get an idea of what he means by pitching the case too high. I heard him use such terms as "dictator," "absentee landlordism" What I cannot understand is why he is so magnanimous as not to go into the Lobby tonight and vote against the Bill. Most of his case was based on how extravagant and unnecessary was this Bill. He went to some extent with the argument as to why there should not be this power in certain circumstances of limiting the market over which a guarantee is given. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to read the leader in today's "Times." I know that "The Times" is not in great favour with hon. Gentlemen opposite these days. Nevertheless, it is excellent and it deals at some length with this point when it says:
  "What is important is that the farming community should recognise explicitly the irresponsibility for adjusting production to changing needs."
  It goes on to point out how any country would find it very difficult to get support from the east bulk of the people for a policy vastly different from that which the

  731
  Minister is commending to the House in the Third Reading.
  I will not go on very much longer to deal with what the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford said, except to say I hope he will allow me to disagree with the implication which he skilfully got into the passage about landlordism, namely that there was no fear of the questionable practices of absentee landlordism in Ireland ever arising in this country. If the hon. Gentleman meant that, some of us who have experience of the countryside would not accept the implication at all. May I say for myself how much I and other hon. Gentlemen applaud the Minister for the persistence with which he has stood by the very good parts of this Bill. We applaud the guarantees despite all that has been said about them and the courage with which the Minister has stood for the principle in them. We applaud the security of tenure. In my division there are a lot of small tenant farmers, and some of the things said by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford would ring strangely in the ears of the tenant farmers of South Derbyshire. We applaud something which the hon. Gentleman did not mention—the provision in the Bill for the advisory services. This is long overdue and it is really something which should be done in a national way and not in a cheeseparing way. We applaud the Bill because we want what the Minister called a sound and efficient agriculture.
  The first point I want to make is that when the Minister talks about a sound and efficient agriculture the operative word is, in fact, "efficient." I never believed that there was much in the talk about suspicion between the town dweller and the countryman and between the urban worker and the rural worker. Sometimes that was given as the reason why it was not possible to do so much here for the agricultural worker. But from my experience as a trade union representative of both urban and rural workers, there was always enough of the suspicion that the one was trying to get a sharp bargain at the expense of the other to justify the saying that there was something in this. What is happening under this Bill suggests to me that the countryman should never give the townsman any grounds for suspecting that he is relying on the security given by this Bill and he should never in any measure rest on his oars.
  732
  "The Times," if I may refer to that leader again, makes the point that the countryman must not use out-of-date methods in respect of marketing in particular. I hope in the operation of this Bill that the farming community will not lose sight of the important obligation that rests upon them, and, unlike the hon. Gentleman for Mid-Bedford, I imagine that if the farmer is getting a privilege and a benefit he should not object to accepting the obligation. The obligation that is laid upon him is to run an efficient industry, and I think that there is one great guarantee about all this in the county executive committees. I want unashamedly to say very vigorously that I think far too little has been said in praise of the past work and in recognition of what is about to be done by the executive committees and the district committees, who are probably the Cinderellas of all. Even a member of a county executive committee recognises that the member of the district committee is the person who gets all the running around and trotting about to do.
  I heard the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford use the term "nominated servant." It seems to me to be, of all terms, that most calculated to discourage a public-spirited man who is farming on his own account from giving up his time and helping in the most valuable work of trying to encourage his fellow farmers to do better. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not follow this business of down-grading public-spirited men. We have a tradition and special genius in all these matters, and British people seem prepared to give up their own time and at great expense work for the State, and do it unpaid. To talk about "bureaucrats" and "nominated servants" seems to me to be a horrible way of trying to secure that that special genius of our race goes on.
  I want to pay my tribute to these executive committees. I was associated with them during the war, and I know that anyone who was a member of an executive committee claimed that his committee was the best. I think I can truthfully say that there was none better than the one I was on. The members of it were first-rate fellows. Some were very small farmers, some were large farmers, some were tenant farmers, and some were large landowners, but all did very good work indeed. I would not like to

  733
  associate myself with what has been said on the other side of the House and which has been too easily said, too, by one's own' colleagues, namely, that farmers are in a class by themselves and that we cannot look with great sympathy to them or that they will not extend any great sympathy to us. Those views are entirely wrong. My fear during the war was that when it was over these fine fellows were going to give up this special work, arguing that the crisis was over and that it was time that they returned to their own farms and got on with their job. I had many talks with them about that subject, and I hope that by the passing of this Bill we will get these fellows to go on and do this work despite the fact that the war crisis has gone.
  May I say a word for the staffs of the executive committees? There again, if a farmer got angry because something could not be done the person who was chosen to go and take, the full force of his ire was a member of the staff, and I should like to say how very well these people served. I hope they will continue to give the same service in the future and that the Minister will provide for them reasonable security in the jobs that they are doing.
  That leads me rather easily to the point I want to make, in regard to the farmworkers themselves. It is fashionable and with much more sincerity nowadays to pay tribute in discussions on agriculture to the work the farmworker is doing. May I say for myself, because I think it is contrary to modern trends, that I have a strong predilection for the old-fashioned all-rounder, and I think we have elevated too much the tractor driver and suchlike men who are rather limited special men. The agricultural labourer, as we called him, was a first-rate man who could turn his hand to anything. I hope we will get away from this modern tendency of elevating some particular and comparatively easily picked up skill and overlook the old-time man who could do everything well.
  No matter how much we talk about a ladder of security—and we have done so quite a lot—and about smallholdings as being the means by which the farm-worker can climb up the ladder, it is not every farmworker who can hope to have a smallholding. If we want to convince the farmworker that there is an avenue of opportunity for him, we have to offer
  734
  something other than small holdings, something on the lines mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford by giving him a sense of partnership. It is difficult to legislate for that or to make the Bill provide for it. Farmers have to be big enough and farseeing enough to make that sense of partnership very real.
  During the war we tried to do it by farmers bringing their men into demonstrations and talks, and making them feel that they were really part of the set-up. I hope that we shall go on doing that. I do not see eye to eye with many of my colleagues on the question of executive committee representation. I hope we shall not have differences of that kind in this Debate today. I hope I shall not be too provocative if I say that that is not the important point on this issue, unless unfortunate, or perhaps I may even say irresponsible, organising methods were employed which would benefit nobody. The big issue is to identify the farmworker himself with the industry and with his part in the partnership. I appeal to all who are concerned in the industry, on one side or on the other, to see that this is, in fact, done.
  There is one matter I want to mention to the Minister before I finish. One finds up and down the country a concern which is expressed with various degrees of vigour about that part of the Bill which provides for the appointment of county committees. Some of the appointments are in the Minister's own hands in the special sense that they do not come from the panel nominated by any particular group of the industry. The Minister will be aware, without my going into details, that some folk have unhappy views about the nominations the Minister has made in parts of the country, in relation to the interim reconstruction arrangements pending the passing of the Bill. I hope that when the Minister winds up the Debate he will be able to give us some assurances on this matter, without hampering himself for the future. We are passing this Bill in a very different spirit from that in which Parliament used to approach matters related to the land. Today we are not thinking chiefly of agricultural interests but, in a very real sense, of the national administration of a vital national asset. My reason for commending the Bill is not because of the interests of this, that, or the other group in the agricultural indus-

  735
  try, but because I believe that it will benefit all in the community it the use of a vital national asset.
  4.34 p.m.
  Brigadier Mackeson: there were many remarks made by the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) with which I agreed. I should like to associate myself with the tribute he paid to the agricultural committees. If he reads HANSARD tomorrow he will find that the remarks which he attributed to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) do not quite represent what my hon. Friend said. There is a grave danger of the voluntary members being swamped by the amount of work which is being given to them and of officials having to carry it out. I agree very much with his remarks about the general agricultural labourer. It will probably interest the hon. Member to know that those views are also held by many of us in connection with the Forces, where large numbers of specialists used to receive what some of us think were exorbitant rates of pay as compared with less specialised all-round men.
  I welcome a great deal of this Bill. I have always felt that agriculture like defence and foreign policy, should be removed as far as possible from party politics. It is not always possible to do so. We get, as I suppose is inevitable, little rivulets of Socialism trickling in from the other side of the House, and there are features which I personally resent in the Bill. I cannot say I like Clause 12. By not giving a tenant a right of appeal before he is put under supervision we are putting the tenant in the position where rightly or wrongly, a slur is being put upon him for inefficiency. I speak as a farmer myself. I found it rather difficult to discover during the Report stage—I was not privileged to be present during the Committee stage—why some hon. Members opposite felt that being placed under supervision did not bring a slur. I should have thought that if somebody told an hon. Member that he was not running his constituency properly and that the Patronage Secretary was to put him under supervision, he would feel that it was a very great slur, and he would want a right of appeal to a neutral tribunal. If an hon. Lady on the other side were to be put under supervision in her own kitchen—although I think he would be a
  736
  very bold man who volunteered to do so—I feel she would think it was a slur. The implementation of the provisions in regard to dispossession is one of the vital points in the Bill, and will require to be very carefully handled by the Minister and by the voluntary members and officials who will be assisting him.
  If the Government cannot ensure the provision of the requisite houses and machinery so that the land may be farmed efficiently, the lack of those facilities must receive consideration as I am sure they will from the present Minister. The same remarks apply to such matters as fencing and wire, which are in short supply. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) referred on the Report stage to a man whose herd of cattle strayed into contact with a tested herd. The Minister should be very careful before any reflection is cast upon such a man, and should make sure that the man has not applied for fencing material, which is very difficult to get, and has failed to obtain a permit before the farmer is regarded as having been inefficient in that respect. I believe that the question of efficiency will have to be correlated with the necessity for mechanisation in view of our shortage of manpower, especially in what were formerly chiefly grazing areas such as Leicestershire and Romney Marsh.
  I view with great suspicion the shortage of machinery on the land. There was a question on the Order Paper placed by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) today and I was checking up the effect in Leicestershire over the weekend. I am gravely alarmed to see that the exports of tractors numbered 8,256 in the first four months of this year, compared with 5,406 in the first four months of last year. I hope that the Minister will get from the Board of Trade some priorities on this question of the supply of agricultural machinery to British farmers. It is equally true of threshing machines and elevators. We have doubled our exports of threshings drums, etc. If we criticise a farmer for being inefficient when he has not equipment, labour or housing, we may make a very grave mistake and inflict an injustice.
  Looking at the Third Schedule of the Bill and speaking as a man of Kent, I am not happy and I should be failing in my

  737
  duty if I did not say so. The Minister has taken power, no doubt rightly, to authorise the erection of wire work in hop gardens and the growing of herbage crops for seed. Both of those take a large share in Kentish agriculture as well as in other counties, but there is no guaranteed price. Part 1 of the Third Schedule allows a landlord to prevent the planting of fruit. There is no guaranteed price for fruit. It is fruit growing, and particularly the growing of soft fruits, which has always felt the first brunt of the tariff policy going wrong, allowing cheap sub-sidised imports from abroad.
  I quite appreciate the difficulties of the Minister, but I hope that we shall soon have further legislation in connection with horticulture. I believe we can make another £50 million a year and save imports to that extent if we get our horticulture going properly. The people of Kent will look to the Minister to take early action as they are not happy at the failure to include a promise of fair prices for wool, fruit, grass-seed and hops. It is only on broad lines and in certain aspects that I welcome this Bill. I wish there was not so much interference and bureaucracy and I hope that at some time a future Government will amend it and give more liberty to the agricultural industry.
  4.42 p.m.
  Mr. Gooch: The Minister has referred to the importance of this Bill in our national life, and I entirely agree with the sentiment he expressed. As a national service, agriculture will be able through this Bill to make an increasingly valuable contribution to the welfare of the State. Despite occasional outbursts outside this House from a few people who are more vocal than the rest, the Bill is in a great number of respects a very popular Measure. It is deservedly popular with the farming community generally because it conveys an assurance to them that the events that occurred in farming circles after the last war will not be repeated. I give wholehearted support to the Measure. I have done so all the way through, and I have done my best to popularise it in the countryside.
  I am very sorry at this closing stage of the discussion of the Bill to have to strike a jarring note. Despite what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Belper Mr. G. Brown), I want to return to the
  738
  composition of the county agriculture committees. I am extremely unhappy about the position in which this matter has been left. I raised the matter in Standing Committee and was soundly beaten by the Government and Conservative votes. I then sought to make provision to increase the number of workers' nominees from two to three, and to put them on an equality with the farmers. The decision in Standing Committee to reject my plea has been received with general dismay among farmworkers. They and others were hoping for a successful working of the Government's agriculture policy as embodied in this Bill, and they feel convinced that a mistake has been made in refusing to allow the workers to play, what I consider they were prepared to play and will still, I hope, play, a very full part in carrying out the Minister's wise policy.
  The county agricultural committees to be set up under the Bill can make the Minister's policy a success or a failure. I also have seen the working of these committees from inside. I served as a member of an executive committee throughout the war. The character of the representation on these committees had a very direct bearing in more than one respect upon the success of the food production campaign during war time, and it will be so in peace time, workers' representatives will be on these committees to assist in directing the Minister's policy, and the chief objective will be the production of more food. Farmworkers will not need much urging to make a supreme effort. They have already made a supreme effort this year and have achieved a miracle. They will not need need much spurring to continue this very fine work; but the Minister's action in regard to the composition of the new committees gives these very valuable men the impression that they are wanted when there is plenty of hard work to be done, but when it comes to handing out a few honours, they are in the back row. I am sorry the Minister has seen fit deliberately to ignore the plea I have made from time to time. In his proposals for the composition of these committees, the Minister gives no guarantee that among the other members will be found any from the ranks of the workers. I wanted the representation to be equal as between farmers, workers, and landlords. Surely, there is nothing for any fair-minded person to take exception to it the representation of three

  739
  parties invited to join in running a concern is upon an equal basis.
  It has been argued again and again by the Minister and others that the Bill does not really concern the farmworkers, but I say that it does. The committees will be big employers of labour. While the Central Wages Board will fix the national minimum wage, the committees will be called upon to make all kinds of adjustments with regard to wages and conditions of work of the many thousands of people they employ. The committees will be in a position to deal with inefficient farmers, hut their action in the granting of cottage certificates may result in the eviction of hundreds of not inefficient, but highly efficient, farm and other workers. The Minister stated that there is not a single control measure exercised by the committees which directly affects the worker, but the whole livelihood of the man who works in agriculture is dependent completely upon the success of the Government's new policy as carried through by the county committees. These are days of working parties and joint production councils, and in this regard we can make the contribution of the farmworker more effective still if he possesses the knowledge that his contribution is regarded as a worthy one, not only on the fields, but in the councils set up to deal with the running of the new agriculture. We are all anxious that the Bill should function on a basis of good will. I do not think the Minister's proposal in this regard will make for good will. I am sorry he has taken this attitude towards the men in regard to the claim they are making, when the whole structure of agriculture in the future, as in the past, will rest upon the workers.
  I call attention again to the fact that this party has for years had an agricultural policy. The Bill puts part of this Labour Party agricultural policy into effect. Some of us indulged in policy-making when the chance of translating that policy into legislation appeared to be very remote. The Minister and I were two of the individuals who indulged in that a good many years ago. At that -time we held only one agricultural seat, the constituency for which I have the honour to sit. We did not bother about landlords at that time but said that, on the new bodies to be set up under the
  740
  Labour Party's agricultural policy, there should be an equal number of farmers and farmworkers. We repeated this in further declarations of policy, and now that we have reached a stage when we are able to translate that policy into action, I am sorry that the workers are to be placed in a further hopeless minority.
  Mr. T. Williams: Before my hon. Friend resumes his seat, may I say that, while I quite expected him, as President of the Agricultural Workers' Union, to make the kind of speech he is now making, I hope he will complete the story and tell the House that in the policies to which he referred, neither he nor I, nor any other member of the Labour Party, had the faintest notion that such county executive committees as are visualised under Part 11 of this Bill would have the power of exercising control over farmers and landowners that they have. Neither the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Gooch) nor any hon. Member on these Benches, nor any member of the Agricultural Workers' Union, ever conceived that for a long time there was the remotest likelihood that we would have the power of exercising that control over the industry which is contained in Part II of this Bill; and it is due to the House and to my hon. Friends, in particular, that that part of the story should be told.
  Mr. Gooch: I am glad the Minister has taken up this point. I was just coming to it, because the Labour Party's agricultural policy of 1926, a copy of which I shall be glad to hand to the Minister if he has forgotten some of the points in if, sets out in definite language what the Labour Party proposed to when it got the chance. It has the chance, and I say deliberately that many of the points we envisaged in 1926 as being essential for the proper running of agriculture in the future have been deliberately ignored. One of them is the point with which I am concerned today. When I reminded the Minister, in Committee, of the 1926 policy, he made the astonishing statement—and he repeated it in so many words today—that:
  "neither my hon. Friend nor 1, in r926, had the faintest notion that in 1947 we should be privileged to sit here taking a Bill through the House of Commons with power to place farms under supervision, power to give farmers directions as to what they shall or shall not grow, power to dispossess farmers and to acquire compulsorily estates whose owners are not doing their job"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 24th April, 1946; c. 1094.]

  741
  I wonder that my right hon. Friend should have bothered in 1926 to draw up such a policy if he and others did not visualise the possibility of one day being able to put it into effect. When the right hon. Gentleman made that statement in Committee, this passage of Scripture came to my mind:
  "O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?"
  Surely, the Minister is not a doubting Thomas in regard to the policy which he helped to draw up in 1926? I hope he will realise the great importance of securing 100 per cent. support from the workers for his agricultural policy and all that it stands for and all that it will mean for the future of British agriculture. This is a great Measure, for which I think the country will be increasingly grateful.
  4.54 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Roberts: I, like hon. Members opposite who have spoken, welcome this Bill and wish it well. A policy of guaranteed prices and assured markets is one which we on this bench thoroughly applaud. I would like to pay a tribute to the Minister for the good temper and patience he has shown in steering this Bill through all its stages up to the Third Reading.
  The essence of this Bill is that it should bring stability and confidence to the farming industry, because that industry is different from any other industry in its dependence on uncertain factors, of which the weather, typified by the bad harvests of last year and the disastrous snow of this year, is the outstanding example. The weather and other uncertain factors play such a part in this industry that it is necessary to bring in machinery of this character in order to give the stability of a guaranteed price and an assured market. Those are essentials to the wellbeing of British agriculture, and this Measure gives the farmers and those engaged on the working of the land a new opportunity in time of peace. Much now depends on them, and I hope that both farmers and farm workers will realise that they have representatives on the county executive committees to whom they can communicate their views, and through whom they can perhaps influence the policy of the Minister as carried out in their respective counties.
  I regret there are certain things which impair the confidence that the Bill other-
  742
  wise brings. The first is the fact that there is no appeal to the High Court in matters of law from decisions of the agricultural land tribunals. An omission of that kind necessarily will impair confidence in that a man who has a grievance cannot carry it to a legitimate tribunal. It is also unfortunate that, in Clause 95, the Minister has retained his special power to give directions to farmers. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say on Report stage that there was no intention of exercising that power, and I hope it will be a long time before it is necessary to do so, because any exercise of that power in anything except a real emergency would diminish the confidence of the farming community. Therefore, I urge that, if possible, these powers shall not be exercised by the Minister.
  Referring to confidence, there is one other point of which I have experience in my constituency and which I do not think arises in other constituencies. This Bill, at more than one point, gives the Minister power to bring land into public ownership in certain cases for various reasons, of which bad estate management is only one. I do not view that with any apprehension but, once the decision to acquire land by the agricultural Land Commission, or any other public authority, has been made, and once all the various stages of objections, and so forth, have been carried through, it is vital that the take-over should be made quickly. The example in my constituency is that of the Glanllyn Estate at Llanuwchllyn. That is the first estate taken over by the Treasury under the powers announced by the Chancellor a year ago. Although a year has gone by, the taking-over is still in process, with the result that neither the agent of the old landlord is interested, nor is there as yet any agent of the new landlord, and the tenants cannot get anybody to attend to their legitimate claims or requests for repairs, and so on. That is a vital point. When making a transition in ownership, make it quickly and set up somebody who can attend to these things; otherwise, it will be found that the "buck" is being passed from the old landlord to the new and from the new landlord to the old. After so many years of war and neglect of buildings, this is a matter of very real importance in the countryside.
  There is one other element which affects confidence. I should not be in Order in

  743
  dealing with it at any length, but I refer to it because prices are not the whole of the question of stability. The Minister nay often heard me speak on this point, and I will not elaborate it, but I ask him to let farmers, in areas where there is likely to be great demands for afforestation, know promptly what those demands are, so that they may know the position. Long uncertainty is most harmful to the man who wants to develop his holding. The farmers are concerned with certainty and they also want a voice in selecting areas suitable for afforestation. Here I would like to refer to the position of the county agricultural executive committees. Up to the present, it has not been the practice for these committees to be con sulted when land has been taken by the Forestry Commission; yet these committees are the most authoritative body in any county so far as agricultural land is concerned. They are composed of practical men, and I think that more and more their staffs are winning the confidence of the farmers. They have done great work during the war in pushing cultivation up the hillsides; I have seen much of it. It would he an important step to give these committees a greater role by consulting them when a question so likely to affect agriculture, such as afforestation, is being discussed
  I wish to refer to only one other matter, that is the popularisation and the making known of the provisions of this Bill. I mentioned this on Second Reading. With all the good will in the world, this is undoubtedly bound to be an intricate and complex Measure—not, as has been suggested, because it introduces super-security for tenants. If the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) had known a little about what tenants had suffered in the past from landlords in Wales, lie would know that relation of landlord and tenant cannot be put on an "old boy" basis. It must be put on a legal basis, and I am glad that the Bill does that, because an Act of Parliament is the ultimate safeguard of the tenant. The Measure is bound to be intricate, and it would be advisable to publish pamphlets setting out what are the objects of the Bill, how it will attain those objects, the machinery, and so forth. Those pamphlets should be published in English, and, in Wales, in Welsh and
  744
  English. That step of issuing well-written pamphlets would be in accordance with the Government's policy of "Telling the people." It would bring confidence in the Bill and would be a substantial step towards making this Bill the great contribution which it can become towards prosperity for British agriculture.
  5.4 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Macpherson: With the passing of this Bill another page of "Let us face the future," will be placed upon the Statute Book. It is a piece of sound constructive legislation, and should lay the foundations for a stable and efficient agricultural industry. I believe that in days to come this Bill will be regarded as one of the outstanding achievements of this Labour Government. I am happy to think that it will always be associated with the name of my right hon. Friend, one of the most successful and popular Ministers of Agriculture this House has ever known. I cannot resist the temptation of saying that it is rather ironical that the Labour Party, which has always been derided by the Tories as being exclusively urban minded, should have produced this Bill, which it is generally acclaimed as the charter for agriculture.
  Let it never be forgotten that under successive Tory administrations agriculture was shockingly neglected and brought to its lowest ebb since the 1870's. In the 21 years between the two wars three workers out of every 10 left the land, millions of acres went out of cultivation, farmers were sunk deep in the mire of mortgages. Farmworkers were badly housed and scandalously paid. Even in 1938, the average minimum wage in England and Wales was only a miserable 34s, 7d. a week. Just as in coalmining, the children of farmworkers, when leaving school, chose other occupations—any work other than farming, where wages were so bad and prospects so poor. Is it surprising that one of the major problems inherited by this Labour Government is a acute shortage of workers in the agricultural industry—another legacy of Tory neglect? The purpose of Part I of the Bill is to promote
  "a stable and efficient agricultural industry capable of producing such part of the nation's food as in the national interest it is desirable to produce in the United Kingdom …"

  745
  In view of present-day economic problems these timely words have a new significance. They recognise also the axiomatic fact which students of this subject have been urging for many years, namely, that an agricultural policy must be part of the food policy. Note the order—not that a food policy should fit in with the agricultural policy, but that an agricultural policy in regard to home food production must be determined by the nature of our food requirements. I do not think that is how our more old-fashioned farmer friends quite regard themselves. In developing our new agricultural policy it cannot be emphasised too much that the whole raison d'etre of agriculture is food production, and, may I add, production of the kinds of food we want, in the quantity and quality we want. The fact is that this Bill might just as well be described as a food production Bill as an Agriculture Bill.
  I have been in food and agriculture all my life, and I would like to give one or two reasons why I think this Bill is so opportune and so important for the national well being. First, without the stability which this Bill will give to the industry in the shape of guaranteed prices and markets, no food policy can succeed. Secondly, there must be security of tenure, which in large measure this Bill will provide, if we are to have a planned, long-term food policy. Having provided these essential foundations for the industry, we must, without delay, set about making the fullest possible use of agricultural land in the United Kingdom. Great strides have been made during the war years, but there is still room for a big increase in production.
  I do not think we value our land sufficiently in this country. Our agricultural land ranks with coal as one of our greatest natural resources. I have just come back from a visit to Holland, when I was again reminded how the Dutch people value their land. Hardly a square yard seems to be wasted, whereas in this country there is far too much land still unemployed or not put to its best and most suitable use. Within a reasonable space of time we should be able to increase the productivity of British agriculture by at least 30 per cent. There is not a farmer in this country who could not produce more if he had the facilities. Under the conditions set out under this Bill, our first
  746
  task must be to bring every available acre into full production. May I remind the House that the land, climate and native genius of British agriculture is most suitable for the production of the very kind of foodstuffs the country most needs today? I refer to what are known as protective foods—beef, mutton, bacon, pork, eggs and milk—and it is to our own countryside that we must look for increased supplies of these products.
  In planning for this production we must remember that our present and future food requirements cannot be measured in terms of prewar figures. In those days a large percentage of our people were underfed because they were underpaid. Conditions have changed. Under our Labour Party policy of full and well paid employment with a better and more equitable distribution of wealth, we must plan for very much greater food supplies than we had before. It must be appreciated that the increased food we shall require, and which we must have if we are to get rid of queues and rationing, will require to be produced in our own country and I firmly believe it can be done.
  In a well-coined phrase, the Minister has said that the twin pillars upon which the agricultural policy of the Government rests are stability and efficiency. I wish to refer to the efficiency aspect of this important Measure. There is no doubt that in methods of production the industry generally has made great strides during the war years. British agriculture is more efficient today than ever before, but there is still much to be done. Some of the handicaps to greater efficiency will be removed as a result of this Bill; for example the insistence upon landlords performing their functions of good estate management. The English countryside is still littered with far too many antiquated broken down farm buildings. Large numbers of cowsheds and dairy buildings are in a disgraceful condition, where the production of tubercular free clean milk impossible in accordance with modern standards of efficient milk production. As soon as this Bill becomes law, I hope the Ministry will arrange for each county to make a survey of all farm buildings and stimulate the owners to put these places in order. Nevertheless, much has been done or is in process of being done. There has been a big improvement in the quality and productivity of our livestock.

  747
  There is organised tubercule testing of cows and a campaign proceeding all the time for clean milk. There has been a wonderful development in the mechanisation of our farms by the increased use of tractors and other modern forms of farm equipment. I doubt whether any other country has made such great strides in the mechanisation of its methods of arable farming as we have in Great Britain.
  There is one aspect of efficient production which I wish to emphasise strongly. I refer to the control and eradication of animal diseases. Livestock production represents the major part of home agriculture. As I have indicated, its relative importance is likely to increase. It is a lamentable fact that the loss to the country in livestock and livestock products through animal diseases has been reliably estimated at no less than £30 million a year. It may be more. At the best of times, this would be a staggering loss. It is much more serious now when it is of the utmost importance to increase food production and prevent waste. The Minister is no doubt familiar with the Loveday Report, which stated that over 50 per cent. of our dairy cattle herds are disposed of on account of disease, and that the average productive life of dairy cattle under present day conditions is no more than 4½ years—or half of what it ought to be—because of the ravages of disease. About 40 per cent. of our dairy cows are infected, to a varying extent by bovine tuberculosis.
  I do not think it is properly appreciated what an appalling waste of valuable stock and also of bulk meat, as well as labour and money, take place because of this state of affairs. What is the remedy? In my view, it is obvious there should be a wide extension and a great improvement in the number and quality of our veterinary services. I yield to no one in my respect and admiration for the handful of veterinary surgeons whose knowledge and standing is—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I am sorry to interrupt. The hon. Member seems to be getting far away from the Third Reading of this Bill. He appears to be dealing with matters of administration which can be raised on some other occasion.
  Mr. Macpherson: I would refer to Clause So of the Bill which deals with research, and conclude by expressing the hope that the Minister will interpret "research" in its widest possible sense, particularly in relation to the veterinary side. We are well equipped for research into plants and cultivation, but we are woefully deficient in regard to livestock and the prevention and cure of animal diseases. I hope the Minister will make full use of this Clause and endeavour to deal with the problem of animal diseases by the creation of field stations and animal hospitals, and in other ways.
  It is obvious to everyone that we are going to see important changes in the world supply and production of foodstuffs. We will also see changes in the general economic setup in this country. Therefore, it is vital that we should develop to the utmost our own natural resources. I think this will be all to the good. What could be better than employing the greatest possible number of people in the healthy and happy life of our own British countryside? I support this Bill, believing, as I do, that it will lay a firm foundation on which we can build prosperity for farmers and farmworkers alike, and, at the same time, secure the wealth and productivity of this fine land of ours for the nation.
  5.18 p.m.
  Major Mott-Radclyffe: I do not think there is any doubt about the great importance of this Bill. It deals with a part rather than with the whole of the urgent problems which face the agricultural industry. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) when he said that some of the claims which have been made by hon. Members opposite on behalf of the Bill were pitched a little too high. I recollect that in the Second Reading Debate it was the Minister himself who referred to the fact that in some quarters this Bill had been called the "farmers' bible." We on this side of the House did our best during the Committee stage to ensure that the revised version of the farmers' bible should be an improvement upon the original authorised version of it.
  This Bill stands or falls, in my view, in toto upon how Part I is implemented. We were disappointed by the very vague way in which the Minister defined the size of the market to be guaranteed. He told

  749
  us, in so many words, that there was no need to be really apprehensive about the size of the market because of our dollar position. That was taking refuge behind abnormal circumstances. It is interesting to note that he applied exactly the same argument the other way round in regard to Clause 15 (2 b). When we suggested that the sum spent on fixed equipment on a farm during the previous two years was rather an unfair yardstick in view of the difficulty of getting building labour, materials and licences, he replied that the Bill was not designed to deal with perpetually abnormal circumstances. We regard the reluctance of the Minister to define the size of the market to be a very serious omission, and it is so regarded by a very large number of farmers all over this country, who, when they first read the Bill and the claims that were made on its behalf, held a very different interpretation to that which they now place upon it. Indeed, if I might follow the example of the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Gooch) by quoting from the Bible, I think many will say of the Minister in the words of the Queen of Sheba to King Solomon, but in a different context:
  "Behold the half that is not told me."
  Mrs. Leah Manning: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has quoted the queen wrongly. She said:
  "The half was not told me."
  and meant it in exactly the opposite sense from that in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman used it.
  Major Mott-Radclyffe: If the Government implement to the full Part 1 of the Bill, I do not think that any sensible man would object to the rules of good estate management and good husbandry, or to the enforcement of these rules, but the question is how they are to be enforced. Are they going to be enforced intelligently, or by rule of thumb? The burden of enforcing these rules is placed on to the shoulders of the newly-constituted county committees, which are to have powers of dispossession and cropping far in excess of the powers wielded by the feudal barons of the Middle Ages. The wheel is turning a full circle, and although in the Middle Ages extreme power in the hands of one man was very properly regarded as autocracy, today extreme power in the hands of a corporate body of men is regarded as democracy; but, whether in-
  750
  justice is done by one man or a corporate body of men, the effect is the same. I am sure therefore that the Minister of Agriculture must realise how vitally important it is that only men of the highest possible qualifications and calibre should serve on-these county committees.
  I believe he would be wise to avoid pressing the analogy of the war agricultural committees too far. During wartime, there were a large number of patriotic men engaged in all branches of the farming industry who were too old to fight or were not allowed to go out of the agricultural industry, but who were perfectly prepared for the duration of the war to give service to their country by serving on a county war agricultural committee. I wonder whether it will be quite so simple today to find enough men of the right calibre to serve on these county committees for an indefinite period, as they are now being asked to do, now that the war is over? I think it may be somewhat difficult. It is also very questionable whether landowners, farmers or agricultural labourers who serve on these committees will have any time to attend to their own work in addition to the work of the county committees, and it would be rather a hollow joke if a member of a county committee got into trouble on his farm or estate because he had neglected it through spending his whole time in trying to keep his neighbours up to the mark.
  We, on these benches, take rather a different view from those of hon. Gentlemen opposite about the safeguards provided in the Bill against possible abuses, and also about the rights of appeal. On the Report stage, the Minister rejected an Amendment which we moved designed to give a dispossessed owner a right of appeal from the land tribunal to the High Court on a point of law. The Minister produced the extraordinary argument that there was no need for a right of appeal on points of law, because all dispossession questions were on points of fact. I really cannot agree with that interpretation. Surely, the right of appeal to a court of law on a point of law has hitherto been one of the most cherished rights of every British citizen, and one which he has derived throughout the ages from legislation in this House. Moreover, in view of the clamour made at the Margate Conference about the tied cottage, on the ground that, if a man loses his job he

  751
  ought not to lose his house as well, I think it is remarkable that the Government should refuse an owner-occupier the right of appeal to a court of law on a point of law, when he stands to lose his complete farm, his livelihood, his home and everything he possesses.
  The other point in Clause 16 on which the Government have taken extensive powers without, in my view, giving adequate rafeguards, is that on which they rejected another Amendment in which we endeavoured to ensure that, in any case in which the owner concerned had a son who was a minor, at least the trustees should have the right to carry on the management of the farm or estate until such time as the son was of age to look after it. Here, the Solicitor-General again gave an extraordinary reason for rejecting the Amendment, he said:
  "The trustee would be a solicitor who, having an office in some town and knowing absolutely nothing about agriculture, would be quite unsuitable as a manager, and the land, instead of being improved and brought back to efficient production and made to work really efficiently in the interests of the nation, would be allowed to continue to go down hill and get worse and worse."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June, 1947; Vol. 438, c 339.]
  That seems to be a curious remark from the Solicitor-General about a member of his own profession, and I do not see why a lawyer should not be considered as a person competent to administer the farm or estate. As a matter of fact, two trustees whom I have known personally were themselves members of their respective county war agricultural committees throughout the war. Trustees placed in the position envisaged under Clause 16 would, in fact, employ either a good bailiff to run the farm, or an efficient firm of estate agents to look after the property of the dispossessed owner, which in actual practice is exactly what the Land Corn-mission themselves would do.
  That brings me to the functions of the Land Commission. I hope the right hon. Gentleman realises the crux of the whole problem. Whether land is farmed by Mr. X or by the Land Commission, the fundamental problem and the fundamental test of efficiency is the same, namely, whether there is an adequate return on the capital invested. I think it is extremely important that, in the case of any land taken over by the Land Commission, there should be no exhibition of extrava-
  752
  gant or uneconomic farming, of money being poured in without taking into account whether it is being economically spent. Nothing could be more certainly calculated to destroy the confidence of the agricultural community and to arouse their resentment—
  Mrs. Manning: For what period of time?
  Major Mott-Radclyffe: That would depend. During the war, where county war agricultural committees farmed land, there were instances where an enormous amount of money was expended, and where everybody knew that the money spent did not produce an economic return. It may have been justifiable in wartime, but the point I am making is that, in peacetime and over a long period, that sort of farming by the Land Commission can only destroy confidence in the farmers themselves, because they have not inexhaustible supplies of capital. The logical implication of the Bill is a substantial increase in rents. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedford referred to the increase in wages and prices, as against an increase in rent. It is perfectly plain, beyond any shadow of doubt, that one cannot make large-scale improvements in these days, in view of the cost of labour and material, without, in return, increasing the rent. Indeed, the Bill specifically so provides.
  That brings me to a point which hon. Members opposite consistently made upstairs in Committee—I think it was also made on the Report stage last week—that there is plenty of capital available to landowners, and that, therefore, there is no excuse for their not keeping their buildings in order. Of course, there is plenty of capital available to them; they can go to the Land Improvement Society or the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation and borrow the money. But it is borrowed, and not given. It is borrowed at a rate of interest, and that rate varies according to the length of the period for which the money is borrowed. That, straightaway, necessitates the rent being increased to cover the interest paid by the landowner on the money borrowed to be spent on the farm buildings. That, in turn, brings me back to Part I of the Bill. Will a farm upon which £3,000 or £4,000 has been borrowed from the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation carry the

  753
  extra rent with which to pay the interest on that money? That depends on the level of prices in Part 1 of the Bill.
  Of Clause 30, I would only say that there will be a good deal of heart-searching by the legal profession and others as to the exact interpretation of the "of efficient farming," or whether "greater hardship will be caused" by the Minister giving or withholding his consent. The right hon. Gentleman has made some concessions to us in Clause 30. Some hon. Members opposite still persist in their illusion that a landowner spends his Sunday afternoons in August wondering upon which tenant he will serve notice to quit at Michaelmas. That, of course, is not the case. Even as amended, Clause 30 will have the result of putting a premium on vacant possession, and it will make it very difficult for the smallholder to climb any of the rungs of the ladder towards having a farm of his own, which is what we all want to see him do
  In conclusion, I would say that there are too many omissions in this Bill to enable it to qualify as the agricultural charter or bible. If price incentive rather than restriction of quantity were assured, if we were quite certain that only the best type of official was to be employed on the county committees, on the Land Commission and tribunals, if there were further safeguards about the right of appeal, if water and electricity supplies and houses were attended to, and, above all, if when the right hon. Gentleman talks of gaining the farmer's confidence in the Government's long-term policy, he remembers not to mention in the same breath the threat of nationalisation, then, and not till then, there might be some truth in the Government's claim that this Bill is an agricultural charter which will bring long-term confidence into the industry.
  5.35 p.m.
  Mr. Kenyon: After hearing many of the speeches delivered by the hon. Members opposite, I have come to the conclusion that they do not like this Bill but that, although they do not like it they are, for some unexplained reason, going to support it I think the reason is that it has been accepted by the farming community as a very sound basis for their future security.
  754
  Many points nave been raised, but I wish to deal only with one or two raised by hon. Members opposite and one raised by my hon Friend the Member for North Norfolk (M Gooch). On the issue of equal representation, one feels that the agricultural labourers are rather looking on the dark side Let us look at the position as it is. Hitherto, a farmer has had full powers in peacetime, and has been under no control. He has "farmed in his own way to the hest of his ability without any directions at all. This Bill places the farmer in a position where he can be under supervision. Under certain conditions, his powers are being taken away from him by the agricultural committee. Therefore, he is in the position of losing something. In the same way, the agricultural labourer has hitherto taken no part in the actual management of the farm. But he is to be given an opportunity in the future to take a hand in the directive part of agriculture. I think that my hon. Friends should look at it in that way, and accept what is in this Bill as a step towards the labourer playing a part in the higher management.
  Hon. Members opposite nave rather chided the Minister because he has not stated in the Bill what the market is to be. He has not circumscribed the market; he has given an assurance of guaranteed prices and market, hut he has not stated the extent of the market No Minister can state what the agricultural market will be. It depends on the consumption of food by the people. If the standard of life of the people is raised, they will consume more food. Therefore, it depends upon the standard of life of the people of this country what the market will be. Hon. Members opposite have also chided the Minister for retaining the power of direction. I think that is one of the most sensible features of the Bill, because, if he is to guarantee the price and the market, he will need that power. There is the possibility that agriculture may become over balanced, that is to say that farmers may begin to concentrate upon the growing of certain crops because those crops appear to them to be more profitable than others. That being so, it is necessary that the Minister should be able to direct the cropping of the land in order to keep the food policy balanced.
  Captain Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman said that he was not going to do that.
  Mr. Kenyon: I feel that the power of direction which he holds is a safeguard for the farmer and for the price and the market. I view this Bill as a genuine effort on the part of the Government to balance agriculture in the productive life of the nation and to balance it alongside, and in co-operation with, industry.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. T. Macpherson) has referred to the fact that the Government, who have always been considered as predominantly industrial, have brought in an Agriculture Bill of this magnitude, worthy of the support of the whole agricultural community, within two years of coming into power. That is a remarkable achievement. This is a food production Bill which aims at enabling the farmer to produce as much food as possible. The two principles of price and market which are laid down in the Bill are essential in any industry for security. There is enough natural insecurity in agriculture to occupy the farmers' time. I want to put in a word of warning on production. Agricultural production is not comparable with industrial production. We, as an industrial country, are apt to consider the two together. Our machines do not manufacture goods but assist in their creation, and when they are produced enable them to be dealt with quicker.
  The danger in this Bill is that with guaranteed prices and markets and with more security, the farmers will race on towards greater production to the danger of the health of the land and of the animals upon it. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford skated over thin ice when he dealt with diseases, but, in my opinion, there is that danger in the Bill. The tendency will be to force production at the expense of the land. I fear that during the war, and, in some cases, prior to the war, we forced our land to an extent that has been responsible for some of the disease now existing in our stocks. This forcing is inviting trouble, for it creates weakness in the crops and animals, and disease in the land. I hope that in the future we shall guard against this danger of forcing at the expense of health.
  However effective and efficient the administrative machine may be, the success of this Bill depends upon the practical work of the farmer; that is the secret of
  756
  this Bill. A short while ago the Minister of Education was here. I am sorry he has gone, because I would like to have told him that what we need in agriculture is an educated community. We need more education for the sons and daughters of farmers and farm labourers. We need to bring up to date scientific and technical development on the farms. At present there is no adequate education scheme to bring this into effect.
  Mr. Sidney Marshall: When the hon. Member says there is no education scheme, is he entirely ignorant of the scheme now operating in many counties, not only in farm institutes but in secondary education, which comprises the teaching of agriculture in the secondary schools?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): Even though I have allowed the question to be asked, I could not allow an answer to be given.
  Mr. Kenyon: I take note of your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I hope there will be an extension of the facilities in order that we shall have educated and trained young farmers on the land.
  This Bill gives great powers to agricultural committees, and it places a great responsibility upon the Minister. I plead with the Minister to deal with the committees with tolerance, in order that they will use sympathy and understanding in their work. Some writers in the agricultural papers over the last few months have done their utmost to discredit the agricultural, committees. From time to time the Minister has been called a dictator, and in some cases a Fascist. I very much deprecate the attempts by some of these agricultural writers to discredit the committees before the Bill has begun to operate. I hope the farmers will not look upon the agricultural committee in the way in which it has been described, namely, as "the committee with the big stick." When I was a small boy I looked upon the policeman and the schoolmaster in that way, but the child of today looks upon them in an entirely different manner, and I feel that the farming community will regard the agricultural committees in the same way as the child of today looks upon the schoolmaster and the policeman. They will regard the committees as their friends and, with understanding and

  757
  appreciation of the difficulties, the committees and the farmers, working together under the sympathetic guidance of the Ministry, will do a great deal of good.
  I have travelled in many countries and have seen agriculture in many places, but in these islands, with their varied climate, different soils and mixed types of farming, we have the most interesting type of agriculture in the world. I feel that we are living in the most interesting country in the world. I have seen what are termed the "wide open spaces" calling for men. There are thousands of acres of wide open spaces here today calling for men. They are capable of greater productivity. That productivity can be procured. I am glad to say that, under this Bill, the obligation is laid upon the Agricultural Committees to see that the land is cultivated. They have a tremendous task. There are thousands of acres with which they can begin at once that at present grow nothing—neither grain nor roots nor do they support flesh. For the health of our people, in the interests of our people, for the security of our people the agricultural community has an opportunity such as they could not find in any other country in the world. I am glad to have been a member of this party whose Government is now in power when a Bill of this nature has been introduced to place agriculture upon a firm foundation from which, secure in the knowledge that this production will not be wasted, it can make a contribution to the economy of our country that will play no small part in putting us on our feet again.
  5.52 p.m.
  Mr. Lambert: As a man occupying a wide open space at the moment, I am afraid I cannot agree with all that the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) has said. In particular, I disagree with him that the Minister requires the wide powers given him under Clause 95 to direct the crops to be grown. To my mind he can give quite sufficient inducement to the farming community by adjusting the prices. Again, I disagree with him when he says that he does not think hon. Members on this side of the House are in agreement with this Bill. I think all hon. Members are in agreement with the general intentions of the Bill, which, as I see them, are to give the farmers and farmworkers good living con-
  758
  ditions, to enable the farmers to make a sufficient profit to pay good wages, and to give the owners of the land a fair return upon their capital. But to many of us on this side of the House there is a great difference between having a good intention and putting it into effect. We remember the old saying that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
  One thing is certain, and that is that the prosperity of agriculture depends upon prices. During the vast 50 to 60 years prices have been low; the reason they were low was, I submit, a political one: the majority of voters in the country wanted cheap food. There was plenty of food in the world, and we in this country had the ability to buy it. It was not until after 1931 that serious efforts were made to raise the prices of farm produce, and, oddly enough, I think I am right in saying, all those efforts were opposed by the party opposite. Now we are told that we need never worry again about low prices because under the Bill we are to have guaranteed prices. I wonder just how much faith we can put in this guarantee.
  The great weakness of the present method of fixing prices is that they are fixed by the Minister himself, having consulted with various experts and the various representatives of the farming community. But the final decision rests with the Minister himself. He may well wish to put up prices, but he will have to stand up against pressure from the rest of the Cabinet, from Ministers, such as the Minister of Food, who are anxious to keep prices as low as possible. At present prices are kept down under the camouflage of the guarantee; and, in my view, are not economic. Only on Wednesday, during the Report stage of the Bill, the Minister, in arguing that the State should take over the land if a landlord were dispossessed, said:
  "Probably a good deal of money will require to be spent to bring the farm back to a decent state of management."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1947: vol. 338, c 323.]
  He went on to imply that a private individual would not be able to command that money. I assure the Minister that, if it were economic to put money into land, there would lye plenty of money available. I have here the figures of the rents for about 20 farms in Devonshire. The rents are actually 2s. 9d. an acre lower today than they were in 1880–2s. 9d. ower

  759
  today than they were 65 years ago. That, to my mind, shows, quite conclusively, that prices for farm produce are by no means high enough.
  Mr. Stubbs: Is it the hon. Member's policy to increase prices and then to increase rents?
  Mr. Lambert: My wish is to try to put agriculture on a sound basis.
  Mr. Stubbs: Nonsense.
  Mr. Lambert: To my way of thinking, it is impossible for an owner-occupier to keep his buildings in a proper state of repair owing to low prices.
  Mr. Stubbs: What about wages?
  Mr. Lambert: I want to see farming made prosperous. We have to get a balance. At the moment, the price of farm produce, which is kept down, does not enable a farmer to make sufficient profit to pay a wage that compares well with other wages paid in the country and to pay a sufficiently high rent to give an adequate return on the capital involved. Another thing in this Bill that causes me nervousness is that the Minister has very great powers. All through the Bill one sees the word "Minister." I am afraid that under the Bill the number of officials will increase. In Devonshire there is an agricultural college responsible for training officials and a training centre where men are taught to cultivate the land. It is an odd commentary on the state of agriculture in Devon today that the college for training officials is working to capacity, whereas, at any rate until two months' ago, the training centre could not get a single male student.
  I gather there is a shortage of people with the necessary skill to fill the various appointments. I urge the Minister not to fill the appointments until he can get men with the right qualification, I suggest that the right qualification would be for a man to have successfully farmed his own farm for a certain number of years. In Devonshire, many farmers are saying that the officials who come round have a secondary school education, with a few letters after their names, but otherwise know little or nothing about farming. If practical farmers were giving advice, I am quite convinced that the instructions would be simplified, and the number of forms and
  760
  statistics required would be reduced. Therefore, I hope that under this Bill we shall not get a large increase in officials without practical experience. I trust that my fears about the Minister putting his good intentions into effect are groundless, and that under the Bill British agriculture will be able to play her part to the full in helping this old country to become prosperous once more.
  6.1 p.m.
  Mr. Collins: I think that in most Debates on agriculture in this House it is possible, from whatever quarter the speeches come, to find a general measure of agreement. It is so on this occasion, on the Third Reading of this Bill. However, I have noticed one or two extraordinary points of view put forward by hon. Members opposite. For example, the hon. and gallant Member for Windsor (Major Mott-Radclyffe) sought to show, by the example of the tied cottage, that in not allowing an appeal from the tribunal there was some injustice to the farmer who might be dispossessed. If a farmer is adjudged by his peers not to have farmed his land in accordance with the rules of good husbandry and is given a year under supervision, if he is then adjudged unsuitable to remain in possession of the land, but has yet an appeal to the tribunal, there appear to me to be adequate safeguards. I can well imagine that if farm-workers were given treatment such as that in respect of eviction from tied cottages and if they had the right of appeal to a tribunal composed of their fellows, there would be very few evictions, and that would go a long way towards meeting their case.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Hythe (Brigadier Mackeson) spoke of the Socialist rivulets in this Bill. It is quite obvious that there are not any too many, if we are to irrigate the mud banks which have silted up during so many years of Tory administration. The general feeling of all who have taken part in shaping this Bill is that it is not merely a good job of work but, taking the long view, the most important Measure introduced in this Parliament. The Minister has, quite rightly, come in for some generous expressions of appreciation from all parts of the House, and they are very well earned. However, it leaves me slightly uneasy that during the discussions on this

  761
  Bill so many hon. Members opposite have expressed the view that they would be thoroughly happy about it so long as my right hon. Friend continued as Minister of Agriculture. One fairly certain way of making sure of that would be for them to withdraw their candidatures from the rural areas, for I can assure them that we would go on keeping him in office.
  We on these benches are very proud that it has fallen to a Labour Government to provide what the farming community has waited for for so long, but until now has waited for in vain—the machinery for a stable and prosperous future. But in this House we can provide only the set-up, the framework for a prosperous industry. The farming community must give it bones and flesh; they must use it to deliver the goods, because sweet words will not plough a single acre. Successful administration will depend on the quality and enthusiasm of the men and women who form the county and district committees, to whose work tribute has already been paid in this Debate. They, in turn, will be powerless unless the farmers and farm-workers are imbued with the spirit that commands success. I think that a considerable amount of harm has already been done by hon. Members of this House and by agricultural writers who have expressly played down this Bill and written it down in every aspect. Today, no one who has taken part in this Debate has gone so far as the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite), who last week described this Bill not as the "farmers' bible" but as Dante's "Inferno." At least there are no writers who have been as foolish and destructive as the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness who, to say something in has favour in this respect, has the advantage of knowing practically nothing of the subject he was then discussing.
  Captain Crookshank: How on earth does the hon. Member know that?
  Mr. Collins: Well, he did not show much knowledge in making that remark.
  The spirit that will command success is the spirit embodied in the realisation that farmers and farmworkers are members of the same family of producers, that their joint interest lies in working together and not in competing with each other, and in building up the industry on which the future of the nation depends. Farmers
  762
  must realise, too, that they are still faced with the formidable obstacles set up during the last 60 years of rural neglect: shortage of labour and skill, shortage of machinery, water and electric power, the handing down of inadequate and out-of-date buildings, and lack of amenities for their men. Happily, farmworkers are a race apart. The amazing loyalty which resulted in a 10 per cent. increase in output per man during the war has been evidenced anew during recent weeks, when they packed into one month work which normally occupies three. They know that their work means food for the people, and that year in, year out, they have one of the hardest jobs in the country. Despite the vagaries of the weather, and with very little help from anything or anybody, they plod on, taken for granted, like the food which arrives on the table of every home, which to many arrives as if by a miracle: It does, and usually the miracle is the farmworker.
  In my view, it would pay good dividends if it were possible to clear up some of the outstanding grievances, such as wages, the tied cottage and committee representation, and if the farmer could take his men into his councils and discuss with them the target the farm could achieve if they all pulled their weight together. Above all, we need to arouse, in all connected with the land, a sense of vital urgency in tackling the very great tasks which lie ahead, because in my view the farming industry holds in its hands one of the major parts of the responsibility for our complete national recovery and rehabilitation. But it is an unhappy fact—and we have to admit it—that since the war there has been a decline in tillage acreage and in livestock population. This has been due largely to causes beyond our control, but the farmer, the farm-worker and the Government must work together as a team in triple harness, not only to recover lost ground but to expand still further. We need to plan for a minimum increase of three million pigs, 20 million head of poultry, seven million sheep and large numbers of beef cattle. All these things would be done much more speedily if the people in our towns and urban areas concerned themselves as much with the production of food and in considering where the food comes from as they do with eating it. That applies to hon. Members inside this House as well ac people outside. Then, in my view, agri-

  763
  culture would get the top priority which it needs. All people must realise that the open door to freedom from food shortages lies in maximum production from our own soil.
  At this point I should like to say a few words about a part of the Bill with regard to which I am somewhat uneasy. It concerns the lack of certainty about horticulture. I am fully aware that it is quite impossible to include horticulture in the First Schedule. We know that the Minister has given assurances, which have since been added to by the Parliamentary Secretary. We are hoping, as a result of the conversations at Geneva, that it will be possible to produce a more settled plan for horticulture, but there is no use denying that horticulturists who formerly had the best, the most profitable and productive part of the industry, are distinctly worried, and will remain so until these difficulties are settled. Everyone in horticulture knows very well the goal he wishes to reach, but very few can say the means of getting there. There has to be a great deal of consultation and discussion between all those connected with the industry in one capacity or another and with the Government departments concerned, to hammer out a satisfactory solution to the problems confronting horticulture today.
  We shall get maximum production if this Bill is implemented to the full, but the Minister must see that no backsliding is tolerated and that the vested interests, whether they be like the owners of fishing rights who have laid waste so many thousands of fertile acres on the Hampshire Test and Avon, or the multiplicity of distributors who absorb an absurdly high proportion of the price the consumer pays, are dealt with as the national interest demands.
  With this Bill, and with the right spirit among all concerned, only one thing is lacking for complete success, and that is sufficient finance. Estimates of the new capital required vary from £700 million to £1,000 million. Whatever the sum, it must be provided, and it will be the finest investment we can make. I welcome the fact that the Minister has been able to give details of the financial proposals in respect of smallholdings. I think that they are on the right lines, and will be welcomed in the countryside. I hope
  764
  that facilities of this kind can be extended to other farmers. County committees should be empowered to issue certificates to farmers requiring loans for approved capital expansion, and interest rates should not be more than for Government loans. If this were done, it would provide the essential new stimulus and lubricant that the industry needs, and with it, in the realisation that in agriculture it is now or never, the Government can bring our land back to the idea of "Merrie England," a land of work and freedom, a land of ordinary men with a way of life which is an example to the world.
  Mr. T. Williams: On a point of Order. I have just been informed that during the course of my observations, in referring to the interest to be charged to smallholders for short-dated loans, I mentioned the figure of 2½ per cent. If I said that, it was obviously a mistake. The figure should be 2¼ per cent.
  Mr. Collins: And three per cent. for long-term loans?
  Mr. T. Williams: Two and a quarter per cent. and three per cent.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The speech to which we have just listened is an illustration of how dangerous it is to make any critical remarks concerning the speech of another hon. Member. Surely, the remark the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) made concerning the intervention by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) could be applied with equal effect to the speech of the hon Member for Taunton. Were it not for the fact that those of us who served with him in the Committee upstairs know full well his interest in agriculture and his ambitions in that direction, we might have anticipated that he was speaking purely from a theoretical basis rather than from practical knowledge of the subject. The hon. Member fell into one error into which the Minister has never fallen. The Minister has never given any indication of complacency about the future operations of this Bill or of the agricultural industry. The Minister shares with us a very full realisation of the difficulties that lie ahead.
  There is much in the Bill that is good. It has been said that we have had some

  765
  difficulty in re-orientating our views in regard to this Bill. That is not so. Much of the Bill is good. It introduces an element of stability into the industry which we welcome. It confirms a good deal of present practice which has been proved successful as a result of experience during the war, but there is also a good deal of the Bill that is not good. Particular reference has been made already to the limitations imposed upon the industry by the First Schedule. The First Schedule limits for the time being, until the Minister amends it by order, the parts of the industry to which the assured markets and fixed prices shall be applied. I believe that the limitation goes further than that. The mere fact of limiting the number of commodities specified in the First Schedule automatically limits the whole of the industry in regard to progress, development, initiative and effectiveness. In so far as progress is being held up and development stultified, the Bill is a bad thing. The more the industry is put into strings, the more it is tied down to the tracks along which it has to run, the more development is stultified and future prosperity limited.
  I want to point to another bad thing which this Bill brings about, and again it is one of the items to which reference has been made. When the Explanatory Memorandum first came out, we thought that the Bill was to be of a universal character to ensure the prosperity of the agricultural industry. Clause 1 seeks to make provision by way of guaranteed prices and assured markets for a stable and efficient agricultural industry, which is also mentioned in the Memorandum, and imposes a further limitation most effectively by giving this assurance only in regard to the produce mentioned in the First Schedule. That will have a very grave and deleterious effect upon the whole future of the industry. When we consider the question of assured markets, limited as they are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) made so clear, to the amount of production which is thought to be in the national interest, how is the farmer to be able to judge what he shall produce, and what he can produce profitably, without knowing whether or not his crop is to be included? The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) said that the only limit was the national demand, and that the
  766
  standard of living of the people would fix the amount of production. I do not see how that can possibly be, because we know that whatever the amount of our production, we can never achieve a production sufficient to supply the needs of our people. The right hon. Gentleman put it far more succinctly. He said that as far as he could foresee, we should be able to maintain a fully productive industry. If that is so, why should it not go into the Bill? He is suggesting that things which may be wrong can be taken out of the Bill in future—
  Mr. Alpass: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the articles mentioned in the Schedule, is it not specifically laid down that the Minister cannot delete any of them, but can only add to them?
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I agree, but I was not referring to those articles. I was referring to the question of full production, and to the limitation of full production by the fact that, as provided for in Clause 1 the assurance comes in only for such part of agricultural production as is in the national interest. I would like to criticise Clause 20, which has been referred to in our earlier Debates, but not today. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was his objective that the industry should be run by the industry and disciplined within the industry. We quite see the point he is making, but how can that be said in conjunction with Clause 20? The House will recall that we had a great deal of discussion in Committee about the powers of the Minister to acquire land in certain circumstances. We went into detail about the owner of land who, for some reason or other is to be dispossessed, and who also happens to have an interest in some adjacent land less than the interest of ownership. This Clause gives power to enable the Minister or, failing agreement between the parties, the land tribunal, to assume an interest of ownership in the second piece of land, so that, should the circumstances demand it, both parts of the land can be compulsorily acquired—
  Mr. Alpass: The Land Commission, not the land tribunal.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: —without any reference whatever to the true ownership of the second piece of land. How can that possibly be said to be fair to the owner of the second piece of land, or to have any-

  767
  thing to do with the industry running itself? It is a most arbitrary provision under which the industry itself will have no possible right of control.
  Mr. T. Williams: Under the terms of the Bill, the Minister would not dream of taking over such a piece of land unless he was recommended to do so by the county agricultural executive committee. These committees, as the hon. Member knows, are composed of farmers, landowners, agricultural workers, and agricultural technicians, so that the advice would come from those within the industry itself.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I appreciate the interjection, but it still does not necessarily take account of the rest of the interests. The owner of the second piece of land might be serving overseas, or not available at the time. If the matter went to the tribunal it would be taken out of the hands of the industry. I would like to say a word or two about the land tribunals. They are the sole judges of fact and law. We are getting into a difficult position here now, because we have heard, during these Debates, some very severe criticisms of people in my profession, solicitors, who seek to take an interest in agricultural affairs, or have it forced upon them through trusteeship and matters of that sort. We have been told by the Solicitor-General that they are unlikely to be successful, or even efficient, in their administration of agricultural estates. Yet it is just those people, solicitors and barristers of not less than seven years' experience, who are to be made chairmen of the land tribunals, to be judges of fact and law in connection with practically every kind of dispute which can arise under this Bill. The criticisms which have been levelled in this respect cannot be supported by the tendency of the Minister in regard to the general administration of the Bill as a whole. I can still see no reason why there should not be an appeal from the decision of a tribunal. If, as has been said, no question of law is likely to arise, what harm is there in giving a right of appeal should any question of law arise? In the interpretation of this Bill I cannot foresee otherwise than that questions of construction, which are questions of law, are bound to arise.
  768
  May I say a further word about the committees themselves? Everything in this Bill turns on their work. The right hon. Gentleman taunted me the other night with my lack of faith in these committees, but I know his taunt was in the nature of a jest, and that he knows as well as I do the need for supporting the committees. We both have the very highest regard for many of the members of these committees, whom we know personally. Therefore, I accept his taunt in the spirit in which it was offered, but are we not, in this Bill, overburdening these loyal, hardworking and practical farmers? If there is no solid nucleus of practical farmers on these committees, the whole essence and administration of the Bill will fall to the ground. The whole essence of the right hon. Gentleman's desire that the industry shall be governed, controlled, and disciplined by the industry will fall to the ground. But are we not, in the immense amount of work which we are asking the committees to do, overburdening them and at the same time rendering it almost impossible for them to carry out the administration of the Bill and also their own work as practical farmers? That is the danger I see with regard to the working of this Bill by the committees.
  I feel also that there is a further danger. The best farmers who serve on these committees are inherently of an independeat turn of mind. They would not be good farmers if they were not independent individuals. Yet how much independence are they to have in their service on the committees in the future, unless the Minister is able to give them an absolutely free rein to make their own decisions, and to carry out their own duties with the minimum of interference and the minimum of guidance from Whitehall? These men will not allow themselves to be curtailed in their decisions and 'be put into a position of being regarded as, what in fact they are, the Minister's agents. That is a difficulty with which the right hon. Gentleman will have to deal to reconcile the position these independent people who are upheld in the industry, looked up to in the industry, and regarded as the industry's independent friends and advisers, and who are, at the same time, the Minister's agents.
  The Minister has in this Bill many powers of a discretionary nature, and I

  769
  hope, as everyone in the agricultural world hopes, that those powers will be used with the utmost delicacy and discretion. Throughout the Bill the Government take powers to do all manner of things, but each time we are given an assurance that the powers are either to be held in abeyance, or used in a very limited fashion or for a special purpose and that we need not worry. The Bill is built up of these assurances, which are of the utmost danger, and I trust that the Government will deal very delicately indeed with the very wide powers and discretion that they have taken. Finally, may I again emphasise that if the Bill is to be a success, as we all wish, the whole thing will depend on administration which is based upon the relationship between the Ministry and the county committees.
  6.33 p.m.
  Major Wise: I implore the House not to be at all dismal about this Bill. The object tonight is to speed the Bill on its way. I do so with very real gratitude to the Labour Government which has brought the Bill into being. I was glad that the Minister, in his opening speech, referred to the work of the Standing Committee, and the general good feeling of friendship which prevailed in the Committee. There were many Amendments moved by the Opposition, some of which, I am prepared to, admit, were proper and appropriate Amendments, and were accepted by the Minister. We on our side of the Committee also helped to hasten the passage of the Bill. Our Amendments, few in number, were not all accepted by the Minister, but we are thankful that some were accepted, as our contribution to the Bill.
  Under this Bill the Minister is given tremendous powers—both with regard to owners and tenants. I would impress upon my right hon. Friend—and I am certain he will act in this way—that he must gather round him good practical people to man the agricultural executive committees, so that in future these committees may not be under any stigma. In my view, there are no evils in the Bill, but there are one or two points that I wish to touch upon. I am glad that in the negotiations that have taken place during the discussions on the Bill, it has been found possible, in another direction, to improve the compulsory purchase powers of the Government. There was a
  770
  good deal of hesitation in the minds of many of us about the proper amount which should be paid when the State compulsorily purchases land. The compulsory purchase procedure and the amount of compensation to the owners have been improved.
  I wish to refer to the question of compensation for farmers who are dispossessed by reason of the action of the State. It is quite possible—I think that this is an example which may be given—for the Ministry of Transport to purchase a transport undertaking—a garage and all the rest of it—adjoining a farm occupation. The compensation paid by the Ministry of Transport to the owner of the premises may be two to five years' purchase on the annual profits. If the Ministry of Agriculture purchase the adjoining farm, the measure of compensation then provided by the State to the farmer who loses his business is not in the nature of two to five years' purchase on the annual profits, but one year's rent, which is concluded to be one-third of his profits. In fact, this amounts to not more than four months' profits on the farming occupation. I hope that in future it will be possible for the Government to collect together the various pieces of their compulsory purchase Measures, and to ensure that everyone who is deprived of his business for the benefit of the State is given full and proper compensation.
  There is another matter to which I should like to refer briefly. Under the Bill an owner is protected against a tenant who exercises a high standard of farming. There is a statutory obligation whereby, before a tenant on going out can claim for a high standard of farming, a schedule of the condition of the holding must have been made during some period of his tenancy. The owner is protected by Statute, but the farmer who happens to be dispossessed is not so protected. The farmer can ask his landlord to have a record of the holding made, but there is no definite statutory obligation that that should be done. It is a matter for arrangement between the owner and the farmer, although if they disagree as to who should make the record there is, as a last resort, a provision in the old 1923 Act about the way in which it should he made. If there is statutory protection for the owner against a claim for a high standard of farming, so in the same way there should be statutory protection for the tenant who

  771
  may have a claim for deterioration of the holding or for dispossession thrown at him. That particular Clause should be amended in that way.
  I pass now to the composition of the agricultural committees. It is a difficult position in which we find ourselves. Many of us on this side of the House—maybe there are only a few, but I think there are many—are not too happy about the proposed composition of the agricultural committees. I will not go into the matter in detail, but I suggest to the Minister that it would be a very good gesture towards the farmworkers if, in regard to certain committees, he could meet them half way. In certain counties it might be possible for the number of agricultural workers on the committees to be increased. In other counties it does not apply, but—I am thinking generally in terms of the Eastern counties—if the Minister, in nominating his special representatives, could nominate an additional farmworker, it would go a long way towards mitigating the sense of injustice which the men feel at the present time. I want that to be done for this reason. Only yesterday I happened to be speaking at a meeting, and a farmworker came up to me afterwards. The only question he asked me was, "Can you tell me when the Control of Engagement Order comes off, because directly it comes off I am leaving the land?" We do not want to have men leaving the land if it can possibly be avoided. We shall be very short of labour in the future and I hope, therefore, that if the Minister can do something to keep the men on the land by meeting any grievances they have in regard to the manning of the agricultural committees, he will do it. I am certain he would be thanked by the men and by those who represent them.
  I have one final question to ask, and it is almost a hardy annual. It is a matter on which a good deal of discussion has taken place, both in the Committee and in the country, and possibly when the Solicitor-General replies he will say "yes" or "no" to it. Does the Bill provide in any shape or form for the abolition of spring traps? I mean the total abolition, both in the open and in the holes, and if not, is it the intention of the Government to amend the 1939 Act accordingly? I put that question to the Solicitor-General, and in my concluding words, I express the hope that the Bill
  772
  will have an early passage through the House.
  6.46 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas Marshall: I hope the hon. Member opposite will forgive me if I do not follow him completely, because if I followed him I might be out of Order, and in fact, drawing a red pilchard across the trail. When this Bill was before the House for a Second Reading, I did my level best to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, but unfortunately I did not get in that time. Then the Bill was whisked away from this Chamber and went to the Committee upstairs, and I had no opportunity to speak. There is a certain Clause in this Bill in which I am very interested, and I thought that when the Bill came down here on Report stage I should have my opportunity. But no, sufficient discussion had taken place already on that Clause, and you saw fit, Sir, quite properly, not to call it for discussion, and once again I was unable to take part in the Debate. What I want to say this afternoon is this. Bills are Bills, as we all know; they are introduced on the Floor of this House by Ministers, and now we have to come to the Third Reading, and many hon. Members on both sides of the House have quite rightly and properly referred to the fact that a Bill does not in itself make a healthy agriculture. That is a very important point to remember.
  There are many good points in this Bill, many doubtful points, and many points where the i's are not crossed and the t's are not dotted. I should hate to think that agriculture in this country may be looking at a mirage on this question of guaranteed prices, for guaranteed prices can ring a strange bell if they are not related in any way to costs. In passing, I would like to draw the attention of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries—I emphasise "and Fisheries"—to the maximum prices for fish. If there is a maximum price for fish it does not necessarily mean that the price cannot drop, and the Minister knows that the actual price to which it may drop may not be an economic price for the fishermen. Similarly, when we have a guaranteed price in an Agriculture Bill not related to costs, it is not of itself a guarantee to the farmer. The Clause to which I referred previously has reference to the question of horticulture. What did the Minister say at that Box this afternoon in moving

  773
  the Third Reading of this Bill? He said that 75 per cent. of agriculture was in the Bill and 25 per cent was not, just as if 25 per cent. was a small amount that did not matter. Twenty-five per cent, is a very large amount indeed, and when I think of my own Division in Cornwall, of all the horticulture carried on in the west, and of its importance, I would remind the Minister that 25 per cent. is not just a small amount to be cast aside.
  My hon. Friend on the Front Bench referred to the fact that if agriculture could increase its production by 10 per cent. it would have a big effect in saving imports, and though the right hon. Gentleman opposite has been here most of the afternoon he may have caught sight of the evening papers and the headlines they have today on the question of the restriction of imports. He knows full well the vital importance of maximum production, and would like to recall his attention to the way in which during the war years Cornwall played its full part, and from time to time carried out the instructions of the Minister knowing full well the importance of production at that time. Cornwall in the days of old may indeed have been a grain-growing country but it is not so at the present time. Yet its farmers, irrespective of cost to themselves, were quite willing to go on in the interests of the United Kingdom, and they carried out to the last every instruction that the Minister saw fit to issue.
  In the passing of this Bill the Minister would do well to bear in mind that what really matters is the spirit of the Bill and its administration. This country must have a healthy agriculture maintained in every way at the top priority. That is what is necessary, and that is what the farmers are looking for today. It is not so much the words contained in the Bill but feedingstuffs, rural housing and such things which will maintain a healthy agriculture.
  6.52 p.m.
  Mrs. Leah Manning: I am glad to have this opportunity before saying "goodbye" to the Bill, to commend it without any of the reservations we have heard from the other side of the House particularly and once or twice from this side of the House. I think it is a first class Bill. Together with the Bill for the
  774
  nationalisation of the mines, it is the most significant of the Measures that we have put on the Statute Book since we have been in power. These two great Measures represent the corner stones of the new economic policy of this country. I should also like to congratulate the Minister, though someone has said that that was heaping coals of fire on one's head. I think the Minister deserves congratulation. He has given us a Bill which is broad and statesmanlike in conception. During the period when the Bill was passing through its various stages he has been both courteous and patient with all of us. I think it was an hon. Member on the Opposition side of the House who said that this was legislation by assurance. If that is true the assurances that the Minister gave us on the Committee stage of the Bill—and they were a good many—have all been implemented as we found when we came to the Report stage.
  Captain Crookshank: With more assurances.
  Mrs. Manning: There may have been some more assurances about which we will hear more later on. It has been said by some hon. Members that this Bill is the dry bones of our policy. I should liken it to a bare field which has to be ploughed, enriched and sown before we can get the best out of it. If we are to get the good which is envisaged in this Bill we have to get together. It means that the farmers, the workers and the agricultural committees, which have today come in for some unfair criticism, but who, I believe, are doing a first class job of work, have to get together. I do not think that we should denigrate the activities of these, committees; they should be upheld by us so that they realise that we support them in their work. If we can do that then the farmers in the country will also trust them. If we do all these things we shall be able to get out of the Bill ail that the Minister envisages.
  Of course, we shall always have to come back to the matter which I have so often laboured in agricultural debates—the question of labour. In that connection I should like to suggest to the Minister that he needs more than the co-operation of those who are engaged in the industry, he needs the co-operation of practically every one of his colleagues in the Cabinet. He needs the co-operation of the Minister of

  775
  Health to give housing and water, water it the houses and on the farms; of the Minister of Education to give the people good schools for our villages without which no self-respecting worker will live there; of the Minister of Fuel and Power to give us electricity in the homes and on the farms for, without electricity a farm cannot be properly worked; of the Minister of Transport to give us buses so that our villages shall not be isolated; of the President of the Board of Trade to let us keep more of our agricultural machinery in this country so that, even if we are short of labour, we shall be able to mechanise and mechanise this great industry of ours.
  Mr. David Renton: Before the hon. Lady finishes that part of her speech, I would ask her to include the Minister of Supply to give us more than a 2 per cent, allocation of steel.
  Mrs. Manning: I have mentioned as many as I consider are necessary to show that what I am really asking; for is the co-operation of the whole Cabinet with the Minister of Agriculture to make this Bill a success. That is what I really wanted to do and no more.
  I feel that during the whole of the Debates on this Bill both upstairs and down here we have all—and by that I include hon Members on the other side of this House as well as on this side—not only been thinking of those who work on the land but have been conscious of a shadowy third listening in to our Debates, perhaps not really so shadowy for I mean all the people in this country They are all interested in this Bill because it has as one of its objects to provide food for our people. It is because it is a Bill to provide food for the people of the country that the Minister has taken so many of the powers which hon. Members opposite have resented because they are something quite new. It is because of this new conception of the land, as land held in trust for the whole of the nation, that the Minister has had to take the powers set out in Clause 95.
  It is absolutely necessary that we shall never be caught again as we were in the past, when right at the last moment with the enemy at the gate the Minister had to give directions as to policy It is also because of the great importance of this Bill to the whole of the country that the Minister has had to take the power which he
  776
  has taken in Clause 84. We cannot afford any longer to have any part of this country unproductive. I cannot agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Windsor (Major Mott-Radclyffe) and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) in the views that they take about the Land Commission. I really believe that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford was going far wide of the mark when he compared the Land Commissioners with the absentee landlords of Ireland. Are we going to rack-rent the land? Are these Commissioners going to exploit those who live in and about the great farms which we hope will be an example to the whole of the farming community? Are we going to leave those people in the same condition as were the poor tenants on the farms of Ireland?
  I do not agree either with the view taken by the hon. and gallant Member for Windsor that in taking over these lands we shall be doing something which is unfair to other agricultural owners because we are able to pour more capital into them than other farmers can afford to do. Has it not always been the case that some farmers could put in more capital than others? Have not some farmers been able to buy better equipment and erect better buildings than others, and as a result have they not been able to get better production? There are some parts of the land of this country which it would cost far too much in capital expenditure for anyone privately to bring into a state of production. Are we to allow that land to waste, because that is the only alternative. I am quite sure that hon. Members opposite, when they come to think about it, will realise that this is an extremely valuable part of the Bill. It may be we shall not get a return for our capital for a long time, but in the end it will repay one hundred fold. I would only ask hon. Members to think back what has been done in the Fens, sometimes by private enterprise and during the war by the Government. There is no more rich and fertile part of this country than our Fens and the Fen farms which have had money spent on them. I regard this as being an extremely important part of the Bill about which hon. Members opposite need not have arriére-penseés such as they have had this afternoon. I want to refer to only one other part of the Bill—one which is very dear to my heart. For many years

  777
  I have been closely connected with the young people in our villages and small agricultural towns as secretary to the rural schools advisory committee. How often rural parents have said to me, "No, my boy is not going into agriculture. Once an agricultural labourer, always an agricultural labourer." Part IV of the Bill at long last gives to the good, ambitious, hard-working and energetic young farm-worker who wants to get ahead, the opportunity to take the responsibility of owning land of his own. The announcement which the Minister has made to us this afternoon concerning the terms upon which such a young man can obtain capital make this provision infinitely more valuable than any of us had dared to hope. I feel Mat the day has now come when any young man may start on the land with the sure knowledge that he can go right up the ladder and eventually farm in his own right. For the reasons I have given, I believe that this Bill is one of the greatest and finest Measures which this Government will place before us in their whole period of office, and I hope that we shall work together to obtain the fullest benefit from it.
  7.2 p.m.
  Mr. Gerald Williams: I am glad that the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) has told us that it is essential that the whole Government should work together for the good of this Bill, and I agree with her. I only express the hope that the Minister of Agriculture will hold his own very firmly with the other Cabinet Ministers with whom he has to sit on so many occasions. While the memory of the speech of the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Gooch) is still fresh in my mind, I should like to refer to it. He complained that agricultural labourers were not having sufficient representation on the executive committees. I have met a number of agricultural labourers and have not found that that complaint is prevalent, and I have had no single letter on the subject. There is no doubt that the committees have to deal with matters which confront the farmers and the landowners, and I think that Members of Parliament should have broad minds and when they come to this House should speak as they think best for the Bill and the country as a whole rather than for one section of the community—a practice which is only too pre-
  778
  valent in some quarters of the House at the present time. It is a pleasure to be able to approve and support this Bill this evening, more especially as it was brought in originally in its nucleus state by the Coalition Government, and is aimed at supplying us with stability and security. The present Minister of Agriculture, who was then Parliamentary Secretary, played his part in helping to bring in the Bill, and I am sorry that, owing to illness, his Parliamentary Secretary is not here now to help him to pilot the Bill through the House.
  Mr. Alpass: This Bill was not introduced by the Coalition Government.
  Mr. Williams: I said that the seeds were sown by the Coalition Government and the papers were firmly established in a pigeon-hole at that time. We have the land of this country as our heritage. It is a capital asset and we are unable to change it. We cannot go and obtain another form of capital just by purchasing it. So having got the land, we have to make the best use of it. We have to employ every corner and every little piece of that land to the best of our ability, and for that reason many hon. Members on this side of the House have deplored the fact that there is a possibility of the quantity of foodstuffs to be produced being limited. That is the weak part of the whole Bill, but I am glad that the Minister has appreciated the big part which smallholdings may play in the future of agriculture. It is certain that smallholdings produce more per acre than any other form of farming; it is also true that they produce less per man, but in this age of machinery that problem is rapidly diminishing, and I believe that in future with this machinery—especially the small mechanised cultivators, hoers and diggers suitable for small plots of land—smallholdings will play a very big part.
  For that reason I welcome the fact that the Minister has told us today the conditions upon which he is prepared to lend money. I thought they were entirely satisfactory, but I can never understand why tenants who own smallholdings through smallholding authorities can obtain loans while those who hold them through their landlords cannot. It is a piece of unfairness the reason for which I fail to appreciate, but the Minister is adamant that they shall not be given loans except through the local councils. I

  779
  hope that these holdings are to be run on co-operative lines and that the Minister will keep his eye on them, because while smallholdings were a gross failure after the last war, those run on group lines, where the members have to buy through their own association at the cheapest price and sell their finished goods, also through the association, at the best price, have almost always been an unqualified success. I appeal to the Minister to bear that in mind and not to be too hasty in starting smallholdings unless those conditions prevail.
  I should like now to turn to what I do not like about this Bill. I like the principles very much, but running right through the Bill one sees signs of the frame of mind of the Socialist planners. They believe that in theory they are doing the right thing; we believe that, when practice comes to play its part, in many cases they will fail. Enormous powers are given to the Minister; to farm the land himself, to supervise it without appeal, to dispossess, in some cases unfairly, and to demand forms, which in many cases are unnecessary. On these four subjects I want to say a few words. These powers may be reasonable in themselves. The idea is good, but when there is no appeal and when there are arbitrary powers and controls which are carried out in an inconsiderate manner that does the Government no good. The question of the Minister farming himself has been described as a back door to nationalisation. There are plenty of alternatives and they have been put to the Minister. He can either put the land up for sale or find a tenant. He assured us that he means to farm the land himself only in very exceptional cases but, as we have pointed out, assurances are no good. We should have liked to see it in the Bill. If he intends to farm himself, we want to know the results of his farming, and we desire that the accounts should be included with the report of the Land Commission so that we can inquire into them, criticise them and, above all, make suggestions. I know the figures are to be published, but the Bill provides for them to be published in such a form that none of us will be able to find the results without an undue amount of unnecessary work.
  I come now to supervision. In itself that also is perhaps a good measure and
  780
  we agree to it, but when there is no appeal against it and when a new tenant going into a farm is put under supervision just because the previous farmer was under supervision, that is plainly calling a man guilty before he has had a trial of any sort. If we are to have these controls, we must have justice and sympathy with them and they must be free from politics. When we come to dispossession, in many cases the landlords may be short of materials and labour and unable to carry out the directions that have been given to them. They may be dispossessed, but the Minister assures us that it will not be done unfairly. It does not say so in the Bill. Having dispossessed them, the Minister can take over the land himself. That savours of politics, and the Minister may be criticised later for nationalising the land in this peculiar way.
  All sorts of forms may have compulsorily to be filled in under the Bill. In many cases those forms have already been demanded under other Bills, such as the Statistics of Trade Bill. The Minister will not even give us an assurance that there will be no duplication There is very serious complaint about the number of forms that we have to fill in at the present time. A case has been brought to my attention of a certain food "snooper" who came down to a farmer in Frinton and made many demands He asked the farmer how many acres of wheat he grew last season, how much corn it produced, what quantity was threshed and what number of quarters were left in the stack. He asked the farmer if he had sold it all or had he kept some for seed. The farmer explained that he had answered all those questions to the Minister of Agriculture and that it was a waste of time to give the answers over again. The food "snooper" agreed that it might be a waste of time, but said that those were his orders and he had to get the answers all over again.
  The officialdom which runs through this Bill and others will eventually, in my opinion, bring this Government down. The Bill has many weak points. It has controls, some with little justice. It gives little consideration to the farmer and the landlords who have given good service in the past. Many of these controls are being carried out without giving the people concerned "due notice." We have constantly brought this matter to the attention of the Minister during the passage of the Bill. An official can en on to somebody's land

  781
  to see that supervision orders are carried out or can go to look at land which he thinks might be suitable for smallholdings, or poison can be put down; and it can all be done without giving notice to the occupier. This is a good Bill, but it is being spoilt by so many inconsiderate controls. I have one more protest, if I may make it, and it is that under the Bill steel traps have been prevented from being laid.
  Mr. Speaker: On the Third Reading Members may talk only of what is in the Bill and not of what is outside the Bill. I nearly stopped a previous speaker on this subject.
  Mr. Williams: As that hon. Member got away with it, I thought I too was going to escape but as it was my last protest I will bow to your Ruling Sir and resume my seat.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: I wish to address myself to a narrow point which has been raised by hon. Members apposite regarding Part I of the Bill and particularly in regard to the fact that no fixed quantity is laid down. The argument of hon. Members to the Labour Government is: "You say that this is a charter for agriculture, but really it is not, because you give no guarantee whatever of the quantities for which you are going to give guaranteed prices. In all probability, those quantities, in the years to come, will become much reduced." That is their implication. If I had a jaundiced and suspicious mind, I might say that the reason for this attitude is that hon. Members opposite are a bit mortified to think that it has remained for a Labour Government to bring forward this great Bill and that they themselves missed the opportunity of doing something of that kind. Really, I have a kindly mind. I think that many of them génuinely feel there is some danger of the happenings that they suggest. They have an excuse for it, because their minds are no doubt steeped in capitalist philosophy and they have no understanding of What Socialism and Socialist planning really mean.
  What we Socialists stand for is the utmost use of the resources of the community for the benefit of the community. Our complaint against the other system is not only that the cake is so unequally divided, but that it is such a miserably small cake. That is the case because we
  782
  lamentably neglect and waste our resources. There is no question about it. We have only to look at the way we used our land in the inter-war period to see that. Our literature shows the same facts conclusively, if anybody takes the trouble to look at, it. Years ago, we asked for a planned agriculture. This idea that a flood of cheap imports is necessarily a good thing because it means cheap food is not a Socialist principle. It may possibly be a Liberal principle and part of the Liberal philosophy. It is certainly not part of the Socialist philosophy, because it cuts at the root of proper planning of our resources. What happened when we allowed cheap imports to flood in?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is going rather wide in this interesting discussion. He must stick to the Bill, which is being read a Third time.
  Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, but I was taking up points about Part I with which so many other hon. Members have dealt. I was explaining that there was no fear such as is felt by hon. Members opposite that production from the land will be reduced. I am sure that it will, on the contrary, be extended. Hon. Members may ask: "Why then does the Minister hesitate to put in any fixed figures?"—as they are so anxious for him to do. Surely, as a matter of common sense it is clear that no one can foresee exactly what the trends of agriculture will be. I believe that we must have a high output of cereals for a very considerable time to come. I believe there will also be a trend to place more emphasis on animal products and slightly less on cereal products. No one can say just what the balance will be. Therefore, to ask the Minister to tie himself down to' rigid definite figures is not sensible. When so shrewd a Member as the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) makes such a suggestion, I am inclined to wonder how serious he is and to what extent his tongue is in his cheek. I do not believe that a Government of any complexion would commit themselves to rigid figures of that kind. This Bill is a charter for agriculture so long as the Socialist Government are in power. I believe the countryside will go on from strength to strength and will never look back. If anyone has any doubt, let him study the principles on

  783
  which our policy is based and he will then be fully reassured.
  7.22 p.m.
  Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Those who find this Bill, as did the hon. and gallant Member for King's Lynn (Major Wise), almost wholly without evil, will be somewhat shaken by the last remark of the hon. and gallant Member for Sudbury (Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton), who appears to think that this Bill will only be a charter for so long as the Socalist Government survive; in which case its benefits are likely to be rather more short-lived.
  Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: I did not say "only." I said it was quite certain while the Socialist Government were in power. I do not deny that it might be made use of by other Governments.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: That will no doubt act as a great consolation to the hon. and gallant Member for Sudbury when the Socialist Government falls in due time. I have not had the same advantage as have so many hon. Members who have spoken of serving on the Standing Committee which dealt with this Bill. I was prevented from so doing by the fact that the Standing Committee on the Town and Country Planning Bill was proceeding simultaneously. Both these Bills deal with the use of land, but they have had a very different course in Parliament. Upstairs they proceeded side by side, the guillotined and the unguillotined, the bound and the free; and the result is interesting because the Minister is able to come with his unguillotined Measure to this House this afternoon and claim for it, rightly, the credit that this is a Bill which has been considerably improved by criticism and constructive suggestion from all parts of that Committee. He is getting his Third Reading unopposed, and when the Government spokesman introduces this Bill in another another place, he will not be under the same humiliating necessity as was the Lord Chancellor of apologising for the scanty treatment of that Bill in the House of Commons. That is a tribute to the way in which this Bill has been handled. As comparisons are odious, I will leave it at that.
  Various hon. Members, including the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning), have expressed the wish that
  784
  hon. Members on this side will not denigrate this Bill. I do not think that it is denigrating a Bill of this character to emphasise its limitations. After all, we cannot make agriculture prosperous by Act of Parliament any more than we can make people happy by Act of Parliament. But just as by Act of Parliament we seek to remove causes for unhappiness, so in a Bill of this nature we seek to remove things which obstruct the way to prosperity in agriculture. As we know, the two obstacles—we are getting a little tired of the well-worn metaphor of the twin pillars which seems to have been rather over used in the course of this Bill's Parliamentary history—which stand in the way, and which Part I of this Bill seeks to remove, are the obstacles of instability of price and lack of an assured market. We have heard a good deal, in regard to Part I of this Bill, as to whether or not the lack of definition of the size of the market is a considerable drawback. The Minister rightly pointed out in his opening speech that Part I is designed to give stability to the farming interests and that Part II is the method by which the Government in return for that get a guarantee of efficiency from the farming interests. It is, therefore, a question of quid pro quo.
  Mr. T. Williams Mr. T. Williams indicated assent.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I am glad to see that the Minister assents to that. The point is that whereas the Ministerial quid is absolutely defined, the quo for the farming community is left much more indefinite. The regulations and compulsive procedure of Part II are definitive and emphatic; but the extent of the market is undefined in Part I. There is, therefore, a lack of balance between the two Parts which in the Minister's view balanced each other. Before leaving Part I, I should like to associate myself with various speakers, including the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), in the hope that something more specific is shortly to be done to include horticulture in the benefits of Part I than it has so far been found possible to do.
  Part II was described by the Minister as "control and discipline from within." Of course, the ultimate compulsive sanction in all these cases is that of the Minister. Part II lays down the rules, and arms the Minister with these compulsive sanctions. I suggest that, in this democratic community of ours, an ounce of

  785
  co-operation is worth a pound of regulation and a whole ton of compulsory sanctions. It has been stated by hon. Members that this Bill will succeed in so far as it is democratically administered and administered in a Spirit of temperate conciliation and discretion, and also in so far as the basic surrounding difficulties can be met and coped with. We all know what these difficulties are—want of equipment, want of feedingstuffs, and, perhaps most enduringly, want of labour on the land.
  I make no apology for returning to the question of labour, which has been referred to by so many hon. Members. The vital question is the retention of British labour on the land, and the attraction of British labour to the land to replace the prisoner-of-war labour as it leaves. We shall only succeed in this if we can provide the rural housing and amenities of which the countryside stands so desperately in need. The Minister referred to this aspect of the question in the closing passages of his speech. I noticed that the mellifluous, even tone of his voice accelerated as he reached this inconvenient topic; and in a few hasty sentences he said that once we had this Bill in operation, rural housing and all the other amenities would follow. I do not share the easy optimism with which the Minister addresses himself to these very real problems. I have the uneasy feeling that it is more likely that a failure to deal adequately with these basic problems will prevent the Bill from doing what we hope it will do. This Bill must be viewed as a beginning and not as an ending—
  Mr. Stubbs: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I am glad that proposition commands assent from hon. Members opposite. I hope they will not be lacking in a spirit of independent initiative in pressing upon the right hon. Gentlemen who sit in front of them the needs of the countryside. I hope the Minister will regard this Bill not as a shield with which to guard himself against criticism, but rather as a weapon of offence with which to compel other Members of the Cabinet to pursue constructive policies in the interest of the countryside, particularly in regard to the provision of rural housing and amenities. I would ask the Minister to show himself not only a Minister in this House, but a man in the Cabinet, and to insist on the point
  786
  of view of agriculture being heard there. There is another factor on which the success of this Bill is dependent; a factor related to that of physical amenities, but not altogether to be identified with them. That I can best express by borrowing a phrase which is in vogue in educational circles—parity of esteem.
  Captain Crookshank: What does that mean?
  Mr. Walker-Smith: It is a high-sounding and abstract phrase, and I can well understand that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), with his precise mind, finds the phrase a little unintelligible. For his benefit, therefore, I will try to translate it into rather more concrete and specific terms. I believe that in this country we have to get back to a position where the phrase "a country cousin," instead of being one of amused tolerance, is one of admiration and even envy. That is the position to which we must get if agriculture in this country is to succeed. We have taken a step towards that in this Bill; Part IV, which deals with smallholdings, does something to create a ladder of opportunity. We may be sure that, as long as agriculture is thought to be a blind alley occupation, it cannot have parity of esteem with urban occupations; and so long as it does not get that parity of esteem we cannot hope, however good our legislative machinery, to keep labour on the land.
  We have made a start at any rate. But I would say, in conclusion, that although there is much that is good in this Bill, I believe that the Minister has not perhaps quite appreciated how utterly dependent the success of this Bill is on these other basic difficulties which surround agriculture today. Therefore, I would part with this Bill with the thought that, whatever is done by way of procedure and regulation, it is only by solving the basic problems that we can feel the confidence that we would wish in the future of British agriculture and in our national well-being, with which it is so closely involved.
  7.33 p.m.
  Mr. StubbsI have listened for the last three hours to speakers on the Opposition Benches, and I am at a loss to understand their minds. There is one word in the English dictionary

  787
  which I have heard more times than any other word I know, and that is the word "fear." All I have heard this afternoon is fear of this, or fear of something else which may arise out of this Bill. I wonder how far hon. Members opposite were expressing the minds of those engaged in this great industry? The Minister had consultations with the National Farmers' Union, which gave the Bill its blessing. From what we have heard this afternoon, it does not appear that hon. Members opposite are satisfied with the feelings of the National Farmers' Union. Conferences have been held all over the country, and those of us who attended them did not find fear of what might arise as a result of this Bill. I am wondering whether the fear is a political one, a fear that the Opposition will lose their power in the countryside as a result of the support of the National Farmers' Union for this Bill. Looking at the past 30 years, the bad old days of agriculture, when farmworkers were treated more like beasts of burden than human beings, with tied cottages in miserable surroundings and a lack of sanitation, we must remember that we are taking up a legacy of the past, of land grossly neglected for years between the two wars.
  This Bill opens a new chapter in agriculture, removing from the fanner the curse of the instability of the industry, because of the guaranteed prices he will now get. How often have I known a farmer to come back from market and, because he has received a miserable price for his stock or produce, to knock a shilling off his men's wages. I have known that happen time after time. This Bill, then, is the charter of the farmers and the farmworkers. If only those men who lived in the horrible past could raise their heads now, they would see that, as a result of this Bill farmworkers are to be treated as human beings and given a square deal. But if this new charter is to be a success, it must have the co-operation of both sides of the industry. If we are to have that co-operation, we have a right on the workers' side to claim equal representation, both on the county committees and particularly on the district committees. Since representation is provided for in the Bill, I am at a loss to understand why there should not be, equal representation. It is granted in other industries Is it
  788
  because workers are subservient to the capitalist interest? If so, the farmworker puts his whole life into the industry.
  I do not agree with the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams), who said that there was no great controversy in the countryside about equal representation. That is not true. At meetings in county after county, the workers have asked, "Why have not we got equal representation with the farmers?" I believe the Minister did what he could. I regret there is not equal representation—that is all. I think we shall get it by and by, because we are partners now in this industry—farmers and farmworkers alike. We have a glorious opportunity to bring agriculture out of despondency into prosperity. We now have one chance in a lifetime to make a great success of this industry, and it is to be regretted that we have not got equal representation.
  The success of this Bill will depend upon manpower, and where the manpower is to come from when the German prisoners and the Poles have gone, and we have to depend upon our own manpower, I do not know. Yet, as I say, the success of this Bill, and the prosperity which we hope will arise out of it, depends upon manpower all the time. That means that it depends entirely upon the amenities of the countryside. The Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture know that we must have more and more houses in the countryside. We must have water, sanitation, electricity and all the other amenities in the countryside, before we can expect the men who drifted from the land to look for employment elsewhere years ago, to come back to the land. These men will not do so unless they have equal representation on the committees, and also enjoy the amenities which are enjoyed by the workers who are engaged in other industries.
  I welcome this Bill. I have been "through the mill" in this industry. I knew what it was to fight when wages were 10s. a week, and not what they are now, when we have reached the highest wages which this industry has known. I have been in the highways and byways, standing by the farmworkers in those days of a miserable 10s. a week, when, as I have already said, they were treated like beasts of burden. That is true. Thank goodness, arising out of this Bill, we shall see that the men of the

  789
  countryside have the chance of their lifetime. I hope that in dealing with smallholdings the Minister will make the best use of the land which he took over in the war years in Fenland, splendid land which was previously neglected, but which has been brought to a high standard of fertility. I hope it will be used for these smallholdings, and that the smallholder will be given decent land, and not had land which someone else has worked out. I hope he will be given a fair chance. This Bill has faults here and there—what Bill has not? I welcome it because I believe that when it is put into operation it will, in the end, work out for the benefit of the industry, so that the economic resources of the earth shall be used for the benefit of all, and the land restored to the common people
  7.43 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Bury St. Edmunds): I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister a complaint he made against me the other day to the effect that I was complaining about the "big stick." We have talked a lot about what we think is lacking under Part I, and I feel we have a right to say something about the rules and regulations that appear later in the Bill. The Minister said that I was complaining about controls and regulations and nationalisation. I agree that a stick is a good thing to a certain extent. A prodding stick with which to push on the lazy and the laggard in the industry is to the good of everybody and to the good of the industry, and will not do the good farmer the slightest harm; but we do not want to see that stick becoming a sort of prodding interfering stick, with its statistical requirements and its tremendous number of snoopers going around. I would remind the Minister that in a hive of bees drones are bred. They do not breed to anything like a large extent in a good active hive, but the moment that hive begins to fall off a great many more drones are bred. The result is that the worker bees die off. During the winter the honey runs out, the drone then fails to get the one object of his life, and the whole colony dies. We need to remember, in relation to the multiplicity of forms, statistics, snoopers and other drones which have come into the agricultural industry, that a certain number are healthy, but that an excess will lead to
  790
  the death of the hive. That is a matter we need to keep very much in mind.
  To return to my metaphor of the big stick, the prodding or supervision phase is all to the good, but let us consider the next use of the stick, in the case of the man who does not respond—the boy who has not taken notice of that first minor beating. Then the big stick has to be used against the obstinate, useless man who has not taken notice. No one has any objection to that; it is good for the industry that he should be got out of it. But when that stick is used, first of all to beat a man out, and then to stop young new blood from coming in, in fact to put the bar up, and to say, "No; young blood cannot come in because this is now a nationalised industry; you can only conic in as a worker," it is bad for the industry. I hope that that will be remembered, and that once the big stick has been used to get out the bad man, it will then be put away and opportunity given for this lad, about whom we hear so much, to go up more than one rung, right to the top.
  In Clauses 99 and 100 we find, as I said the other day, that the Minister has listened to and taken notice of the people in his Department who are the pest officers. I am afraid that these officers are not skilled in their job. If they were they would never have made suggestions to the Minister for all this poisoning of animals and birds. I hope the Minister will think again on that point and decide that it is not really necessary None of us wants to see crops destroyed by any animal or bird, but that can be avoided if skilled men are asked to do the job of getting rid of the animal or bird concerned. It should not be done by throwing around the countryside poison which will do much more harm to our natural bird and animal life than anything else we have heard of for a long time.
  I wish to speak about the agricultural committees. Every time we have asked about the subject the Minister himself has told us that the whole Bill depends upon these committees. We agree. We must have the best blood in the committees. I ask the Minister to compare present clay circumstances with what was happening two years ago. There are good men on committees now, but they are saying, "It is not the same as it was during the war. Now we have to refer almost everything

  791
  to Whitehall," If that is said now, it is a terribly bad start. I ask the Minister whether in the next few months he cannot alter circumstances so that the men will say, "We are now able to give more decisions than ever we did during the war." If that is done, the first-class man on all sides of the industry will be represented on the committees. If it is not done, the standard of the committees must deteriorate and the second-rate chaps will be called upon to serve. Then, as the Minister says himself, this Bill will be very difficult to run.
  7.51 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Davies: It is grossly unfair to imply that the county committees or the district committees are unable to act without referring everything to Whitehall. I know from experience in my own constituency and others that during the snow and floods in the winter action was rapid and that farmers owe something to the district committees who took upon themselves the onus of judgment during the emergency. It is unfair to give the country the impression that action by these experienced people is stultified completely by red tape or by Whitehall. I also want to take up a point mentioned by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) when he was discussing the issue of the size of the market and was accusing the Minister of having failed to put into the Bill something that could be read as a formula giving the exact size of the market. That is an absolute impossibility. The size of the market depends upon the industrial and agricultural prosperity of the country. It depends upon the purchasing power of the people.
  There has been a lot of unreality about this Debate. Hon. Members have been trying to find something wrong here and there, and saying to the Minister, "Will you see that the farmer, or the agricultural worker, is protected?" I like the audacity of the Conservative Party and other parties outside the Labour Party, who are now telling us what we should do to protect the agricultural worker and the farmer. I hope that the next hon. Member to speak in this Debate will take me up on this point. I accuse the Conservative Party of having neglected agriculture. We needed Part I of the Bill to protect it. I ask hon. Members to
  792
  challenge me if they think I am wrong. It has long been a custom of British business and British economists to preach to this country that British agriculture was inefficient. Because it was inefficient it was neglected. Between 1920 and 1935, 12,000 agricultural workers a year drifted away from the rural areas into the towns. They drifted away because agriculture was neglected. Big business and industry said, "Industry is efficient. We will keep that efficiency and we will impor' cheap food."
  In 1935 the agricultural output per worker in this country was somewhere in the neighbourhood of £159. In America it was £170. There was comparatively little difference between the agricultural output per worker in Britain and in America. But in industry, American industrial output per man was £730, while the output in Britain was only £254. N big industrialist cried that because, British steel and British coalmines were inefficient they must neglect British industry. I do not think that I am twisting the argument when I say that it has been part of the policy of the party opposite to neglect agriculture. It is because of that neglect that we have to have Part I of this Bill.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that during the period of the Socialist Government, between 1929 and 1931, 35,000 men left agriculture and 150,000 acres of hand went out of cultivation?
  Mr. Davies: I appreciate that fact. I also appreciate that at present we need nearly £1,000 million of capital invested in the land because no investment took place owing to this neglect. I must get back to the Bill. In Part I we talk about the guaranteed market and prices. The Linlithgow Committee investigated the issue of the margin of prices, and in 1923 they said:
  "Our investigations have led us to the conclusion that the spread between producers' and consumers' prices is unjustifiably wide. Taken as a whole, distributive costs are a far heavier burden than society will permanently consent to bear."
  In 1939 this country spent £1,198 million on food. That amounts to over 29 per cent. of personal consumption or 26 per cent. of the national income. We spent that money, but the farmer and the importer received only £640 million. We

  793
  are trying to give guaranteed markets and a guaranteed price under Part I. Ultimately, we will have to look into the vital problem of marketing and distribution and the number of units dealing with it.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) said to the Minister, and the Minister corrected him, that we were not concerned so much with importing feedingstuffs. Under this Measure we have the possibility of providing statistics. One thing which we neglected in the past was to develop the small miller throughout the country. In 1913 we imported only £100,000 worth of cattle feedingstuffs. Bat the monopolies and combines, by 1934, were importing £7,750,000 of animal feedingstuffs and we were becoming more and more dependent on ships to bring the food. To bring stability to our agriculture we must encourage once more the development of milling on a small scale so that the offals can be available to the small farmer. With the advent of electricity to the rural areas, milling could be made an economic proposition for the farmers of Britain.
  Clause 83 of the Bill deals with research and provides for the building up of a pyramid of information to make British agriculture efficient. In connection with this Clause, I believe that rural education should be taken into account. It is pathetic and tragic to walk through the villages of England and see the sad little schools in which the children of rural England have to be educated. I maintain that, if we are to get more labour on to the land, and our people to stay on the land, we must provide for the children of the rural areas the same educational opportunities and facilities as we do for the children born in the towns. It is necessary to urge upon the Minister of Agriculture that a degree of co-operation greater than ever before must operate between the Ministers of Health, Education and Transport, in order to build up the educational facilities for the English countryside that will enable the people in the country to do the work on the land.
  I also hope that, in regard to educational research which is dealt with in Clause 83, there will one day be an investigation of the possibilities of extending our system so that we can get a national veterinary service, in order to bring about a greater purification both of milk and cattle than
  794
  is possible at present. On this side of the House we are all agreed in welcoming this Bill. On both sides of the House we are indebted to the Minister of Agriculture for the kindness he has shown to those who brought forward Amendments during the Committee stage, and we all wish this Bill well.
  8.2 p.m.
  Mr. York: I have the unenviable task, of answering in ten minutes, a case which could be answered and also making my own speech, and I think that, with the consent of the House, I had better get on with my own speech. I must say, however, that when the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) was presented with any facts, he immediately hustled off and got back to the Bill. I will do that myself, and I say straightaway that, ever since I have been in politics, I have stood for the main principles of this Bill—guaranteed prices and assured markets—and I have always been perfectly prepared to accept the corollary that we should have to prove to our fellow countrymen that the industry was efficient. Ever since 1939, nobody has ever had any doubt as to the very high general efficiency of the whole industry. I do not deny that the guaranteed prices and assured markets side of the Bill does not go far enough, nor do I deny that the control side of the Bill goes too far, but one thing which I think we should make plain to the industry is that this Bill does not and cannot give the industry security. No Act of Parliament and no politician can do that, but the nature of the position we are in today can be seen from the activities of the two parties in the House during the passage of this Bill.
  The Labour Party have refused to accept unlimited markets to which guaranteed prices apply, and have refused to concede first place for the British farmer in the home market, but they are sympathetic. On the other hand, the Conservative Party, by its action in the Committee upstairs, pledged itself to no limitation of quantities, and also, I believe, to giving the British farmer first place in the home market. Both sides of the House, therefore, are in general agreement, though they have used different methods of putting forward their particular points of view. Unfortunately, the Government of the day are unprepared to translate

  795
  sympathy into an active and actual part of the legislative programme.
  On the question of security, it is my contention that the security of the agricultural industry depends entirely upon the strength and unity of the farmers' unions in this country. If they are strong and united, and if they pursue, as they have pursued, a statesmanlike course, then the security of the industry is more assured, and if, together with that, all three partners in the industry continue, after this Bill has become law, the cooperation which has been so successful during the war, that will make doubly sure that the main weapons which the industry can use for its own security are available to it. As to the corollary, the control of prices, there is no doubt that this Bill offers two alternatives to the industry—self-control or control from Whitehall—and it is entirely dependent upon the industry itself which of these controls becomes uppermost.
  I am convinced that the whole key this Bill is the agricultural committee, and I will go further and say, to each of the three partners, that they must insist that their very best men in each county or district are placed on these committees. It is the duty of the best landowners, farmers and farmworkers to serve on these committees. I have already been told by one landowner and one farmer, "I simply cannot take on the job, as I have not the time to do this job and run my farm or estate." In spite of that, I say that it is their duty in the national interest to serve on these committees, and I can only express the hope that they will do so. If the best men are there on the committees, I do not think there is any danger of the officials getting control, but if the officials do gain control, the whole of this Bill will break down. I am convinced that the Minister must take very careful action here, because, unless the chairman of the committees is a more powerful character than the executive officer, the latter will tend to run the committee, and, if that happens, again the whole background and importance of the committee will fall to the ground. One further point in this connection. While the shortage controls still remain, these committees cannot work successfully, for the simple reason that they are entirely overloaded with work and that is another
  796
  we must get rid of these shortages.
  There are two points which I would like to make concerning management. The first is about security of tenure. Security of tenure is a very good thing, and I want to see every first class farmer given complete security. That is a good thing, but this Bill goes much too far and gives gilt-edged security to the moderate farmer, and also reduces opportunities of farms becoming available to young men. That is another reason why I think the security of tenure provisions go too far. Further, certificates of bad husbandry will be no more easy to obtain than before the war, because the county committees will have the duty of turning out a bad farmer, and they will not like to do it.
  The second point concerns the responsibilities of the landlord. Under this Bill, they are seriously reduced. Before the war, the responsibility for estate management and for discipline on the estate rested on the owner. When this Bill is passed, the responsibility will rest on the shoulders of the committee. That is a thoroughly undesirable thing. But there is another point. The income with which to maintain and to manage the estate is not available today, owing to the rise in costs and to the various measures which have caused an inflationary tendency in the cost of maintenance and repairs. Therefore, the industry will have to face an increase in rents of an order of 30 per cent. That increase should apply only to farms in thorough repair, and which have a piped water supply and electricity. I think we can justly claim that this is a new experiment in industrial democracy. But there are two dangers, either one of which may destroy it. One is party politics and the other is false economic theory. I pray to God that the industry will be preserved from the party politician and the economist.
  8.12 p.m.
  Mr. Tolley: A few days ago I was reading a speech made by the President of the National Farmers' Union some months ago. I was particularly struck by his words. He said:
  "I hope that, now the war is over, British agriculture will never again find itself in the position in which it was in 1939."
  May I assure the President of the National Farmers' Union, the whole membership of that Union and all agricultural workers

  797
  that under this Bill British agriculture will never again find itself in that position. The very fact that this Bill begins by referring to guaranteed prices and guaranteed markets is an indication that the Government intend to see that the agricultural industry, which has always been regarded as a Cinderella industry in the past, even though it was of such vital importance to this nation, will assume its proper perspective in the industrial affairs of this land.
  It was conclusively demonstrated during the war that British agriculture, though badly neglected in the past, was able to rise to the occasion when events demanded, and right well did it respond. During the war, we adopted what I would call short-term policies in British agriculture. As a result of adopting those policies, we gained great experience and valuable information. Because of that experience and information, the policy contained in this Bill is not merely a short-term one, but a long-term one which will give to British agriculture that assured success which we all desire to see.
  There are two things in particular in this Bill to which I wish to refer. The first is that I welcome the fact that all steps possible will be taken, through scientific research and development, to produce a greater sense of productivity in regard to the British soil. As a result of the information gained, we may, perhaps, by a rotation of crops, be able to double the quantity of produce produced in the past. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will see that all steps possible are taken to utilise to the full the brains and the ability of the scientific research development committee, and to encourage it in every respect because, at the present time, England needs every ounce of food that can be produced, and will continue to do so for many years to come.
  The other matter to which I wish to refer is the question of smallholdings. We all remember what happened at the end of the first world war, when tragedy came into many lives because ex-Service men were encouraged to put their war gratuities into smallholdings, only to find out when it was too late that no guarantees were given to them. From the very start, they were fighting a losing battle, Eventually, many of them found themselves out of business and faced with great hardship. Today, the position is an assured one. I welcome the fact that be-
  798
  fore any man is to be allowed to take a smallholding, he will have to have agricultural experience. As I listened to the eloquent appeal made at an earlier stage by the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), I felt a certain amount of sympathy with what he said. All things being equal I hope that if the ex-Service man has the necessary agricultural knowledge, he will be considered when making his application for a smallholding. I claim that we owe it to him for what he has done for us, and that we should give him some stake in the future of his country. But I want him to have the necessary experience, because I do not want to happen to him what happened to so many ex-Service men after the 1914–18 war, who, though inexperienced, were encouraged to take up smallholdings in which they lost their all.
  As I have listened to the Debate in this House, I have had a vision of the future of agriculture. I speak with some knowledge of the countryside. I want to see the derelict buildings removed. I want to see a sense of prosperity in the industry, and I want to see the agricultural worker housed in a decent home. More than that, I want to know for certain that the agricultural workers' wages will be assured at a decent rate, as they are today. I believe that through this Bill the farmer will be able to pay decent wages because he will be guaranteed security. I would conclude by congratulating the Minister upon having produced this Bill. It will give to the agricultural community a greater sense of security, justice and equity than it has ever enjoyed before. More than that, it will give to the people of this country the food they so much desire and need at the present time. The prosperity of this Bill will depend upon the way in which the agricultural committees operate.
  8.17 p.m.
  Mr. Baldwin: I hope that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Tolley) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his arguments. I merely wish to say a few words on this very important Bill, which is now reaching its final stage. First, I wish to thank the Minister for having met us on so many of the points which we raised during the Committee stage. I am afraid that I cannot thank him for doing the same on the Report stage. It seemed to me that the Government back benchers had got at him, and

  799
  that he then put his bat in the block hole. This Bill has been described as the farmers' charter and bible. I would rather call it the farmers' gamble. It is a gamble in that the farmers have agreed to lose their freedom for the prospect of the guaranteed prices mentioned in Part I of the Bill. I am not going to say that the farmers always had freedom in prewar days. They were always limited by the price of foreign imports. For this reason they are prepared to take this gamble, and to accept a certain amount of restriction in order to get a guaranteed market.
  This Bill is a very good machine. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins), I think it was, described it as a good framework upon which the farmers and the farmworkers were to build up the flesh. It is the negotiators at the annual price review who will be responsible for clothing the structure with flesh. The success or failure of this Bill depends upon agricultural prices, and I hope the Government will not be led away by the idea that it is because of the lack of technical knowledge and so forth that the farmers are not able to produce the goods. There is too much talk nowadays about the advantage of technical knowledge and of the benefits which will be obtained from the national advisory service. They are all very well in their place, but the main consideration is the price which the farmers will get when they produce the food. I cannot say that at the moment we, or the young men, have quite the confidence we ought to have in our future. An hon. Member said there were more young men on the waiting list to go into the technical colleges for instruction, than there were at the agricultural colleges where they were going to be turned out to do the job. That is all wrong. The men who ought to be going into the industry are those who are going to do the job on the land, and not those who are going into the national advisory service.
  What we are nervous about in Part I of the Bill are the words:
  "Such part of the nation's food and other agricultural produce as in the national interest it is desirable to produce."
  We do not think the present Minister or the Government will do anything to limit our output at present, but, if and when food from abroad can be produced more
  800
  cheaply. I would like to know whether we shall be "sold down the drain." I know the intentions of the Minister are good, but will he be able to withstand the demand for cheap food? Several hon. Members opposite have blamed Conservative governments for the neglect of agriculture. No government is responsible for that. It is the industrialist-minded members of the community who have "sold" us during the last 100 years, when we were obliged to change our old agricultural policy to the industrial policy, and when the only demand made by the country was to get cheap food in order that cheap labour might be available for industry. If that day comes again, I am afraid the Government may have some difficulty in withstanding the pressure.
  Part II of the Bill refers to supervision. The hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) became quite lyrical on the advantages to the farmer who would be put under supervision. One was almost led to believe that the farmers would he waiting in a queue to be put under supervision. The farmer is a proud man, and the last thing he wants is to be put under supervision. That is why we have endeavoured to obtain the right of appeal from the decision of the county executive committees. On the question of dispossession, we have heard the Minister say that if land is taken over from an owner, accounts will be provided. I hope they will be provided in such a way, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) said, that we can understand them. We do not want those accounts mixed up so that we cannot sort out what the county executive committees are doing in the way of making a profit or a loss. I hope that when the Minister has to take over any of these farms, he will produce accounts on a profit and loss basis in the same way as they have to be produced now for Income Tax purposes. They will serve an excellent purpose in that the Government will have some practical data when they come to decide prices. Now I understand they have to listen to the economists on both sides, and they have no practical figures in front of them, but, speaking for myself, if the Ministry take over any farms and farm them, I will be prepared to accept for the purposes of the price review whatever figures the Minister can produce on his own farms.

  801
  Part III refers to the protection of good tenants. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. York) that a good farmer should be fully protected. I think he has been fully protected in the past, but we must be careful to see that the under-average farmer is not over-protected. It will be very difficult for a county executive committee to pass a dispossession order on any of their fellow men, and that is why I think an appeal to an arbitrator would help them out of their difficulties. I am afraid that if great care is not taken, there will be so few farms corning into the market for the young and energetic men, that they will be forced out into some other industry. I want these young men with the necessary knowledge and ability to have an opportunity of taking some of these farms which at present are not turning out the produce to the extent to which they should.
  We welcome that part of the Bill dealing with smallholders, but the Minister must be realistic about the matter. Smallholdings have been provided by county councils for a good many years, but because of the prices which have been received for the produce grown on them, there are less smallholdings today than there were before the county councils started to provide them. That will happen again unless the price reviews allow such a figure for the produce that the smallholders can live. The Minister should remember that the smallholder relies mainly on the smaller aspects of agriculture such as poultry, bacon and probably norticulture in some districts. Therefore, if the Minister wishes to retain these men and let them have a reasonable living, he must ensure that the prices for their commodities are kept at remuneraive, figure
  I support my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) with regard to the provision of assistance for a smallholder who requires to go on to a smallholding which is not necessarily held by a smallholding authority. The smallholder is entitled to assistance, whether he goes into a smallholding under a certain authority or whether he goes into another smallholding. I appreciate the objection is that this might benefit some landowners, but I cannot follow the argument, because any landowner who has a smallholding can let that smallholding without any assisted smallholder coming on to his land. It would be bad
  802
  luck for a prospective smallholder if he did not have the opportunity of going on to a better smallholding than was provided by a smallholding authority. It must be remembered that today there are many smallholdings which have grown up with fruit trees and so forth, and which will be a much better proposition than any smallholding authority will be able to offer for some time. We quite agree that the smallholder should be selected by the smallholding authority.
  I hope the country will not be led to believe that because we are getting stabilised conditions, we are the spoilt darlings of the Government. All that the farming industry asks is that it should have the same kind of protection as the industrialists get. When I have been asked why the industry wants a stabilised market, or protection, and why we cannot hold our own with the other countries, my answer is: why cannot the industrialist hold his own without getting a 33⅓ per cent. tariff? All I ask is that we get a tariff or assistance similar to that which the Government give to industry.
  8.30 p.m.
  Brigadier Peto: At the end of a Debate in which so many speakers have dealt with so many points of view, and with only about five minutes to go, it is not easy to say something new. I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), who said that the size of the market depended upon the purchasing power of this country. I think that that was not answered by any hon. Friend of mine. Surely, the size of the market for this country must depend upon the policy of the Government. It must depend upon what is the Government's policy with regard to subsidies; and whether it is to pay a good price for British produce; or to buy in the cheapest market abroad, and so constrict our borne market. It also depends, not on the purchasing power of this country in general, but on the policy of the Government as to how that purchasing power is directed. It may not he directed towards agriculture at all.
  With regard to prices, and the price guarantees in Clause 5, which makes provision to enable producers to plan ahead, those guarantees are excellent as far as they go. They guarantee prices for commodities named in the First Schedule under two headings, and in Clause 5 (I,

  803
  a and b), for a period up to two years or 18 months ahead. It cannot be overemphasised—and the Minister knows this fact better than I do—that it is the price of a particular commodity which will guarantee whether or not that commodity is produced in sufficient quantities. If a good price is given—the right price, a paying price—we shall get that commodity, whether it is wheat or any other commodity, in sufficient quantities.
  The only other aspect of the Bill I intend to touch on in the time available is that of Clauses 82 onwards, which deal with Ministerial powers. During the Report stage, I was twice called to Order for mentioning the fact that the powers taken under these Clauses are leading, or could lead, to what so many of the Government desire—the nationalisation of the land. We on this side feel that that is not the direction in which we should like to be led, and, not unnaturally, we feel it grossly unfair that an owner of land or a good farmer who occupies and owns his farm, should be at a disadvantage compared with the tenant farmer, and could be turned out through no fault of his own. Clause 82 gives the Minister power to acquire land by agreement; Clause 83, to acquire land for research; Clause 84, to ensure the full and efficient use of land for agriculture by compulsory purchase or hiring; Clause 85, to obtain possession of land to ensure full and efficient use by compulsory purchase; Clauses 86 and 87, to acquire land compulsorily, by further powers; and so on, up to Clause 95, which gives the Minister power in respect of cropping, and so on; and, by making an order, he can extend those powers from year to year. We on this side do not like that. I ask the Minister whether, under those Clauses, there is security of tenure for the owner. There is none. It just does not exist.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning), in an excellent speech, said that the Socialist principle was that land should be held in trust for the nation. If I want to make a trust for my children, I am not entitled, either by law, or by authority of the Holy Scriptures, to start making that trust by stealing from my neighbour. But that is exactly what "land held in trust for the nation" under Socialist principles would appear to mean, if the Government are going to take from the owners of land their property
  Mr. Alpass Mr. Alpass rose—
  Brigadier Peto: I think there is not time now to give way. If I may summarise the Bill as I see it, it is in the main as good a Bill as we could see for the tenant of a farm or a smallholder, but it provides no guarantee of security to a landowner, even to a good landowner or to an owner-occupier. It lays great stress and importance on good estate management and husbandry, and the full and efficient use of the land. Unfortunately, as the hon. Lady the Member for Epping also said, the full and efficient use of the land, and all those very estimable objects, are completely unable to be fulfilled at the present time through lack of the necessary materials, the necessary labour, machinery, fertilisers and feedingstuffs. They are entirely unable to be fulfilled at the present time owing to the obstinate policy of the Government, which is wedded to bulk purchases of those goods to the detriment of our own industry. They have failed, in my opinion, to take any steps to attract labour to the land or to direct labour to the land. They must either attract labour to the land or direct it, and there is no step that has been taken so far to attract labour to the land.
  In conclusion, I should like to remind the House of a sentence that was used by President Truman in a speech at Kansas City on 7th June which was reported today, and which I thought rather sensible:
  "One of the great lessons of history is that no nation can be stronger than its agriculture."
  In my opinion, it is up to each one of us, and, in particular to the Government, whose responsibility, after all, it is, to ensure that no step is left untaken which could possibly render our agriculture stronger than it is. We must make quite sure—one and all of us, on whatever side of the House we sit—that this Bill does produce the goods, and that our agriculture is as strong as it can be, so that by its strength our nation shall prosper.
  8.40 p.m.
  Captain Crookshank: In the words of the old song, we have "kept right on to the end of the road." Now we come to the final speeches in this House on the Bill. I hope that I may be allowed to say two things on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The

  805
  first is that we very much appreciate the assiduity with which the Minister has explained the details of the Bill at all stages. He was most courteous and kind to us. In that I include, of course, the learned Solicitor-General, who has been so constantly at his side. Secondly, we all regret very much the absence of the Parliamentary Secretary and the reasons for it. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will take from us a message to the Parliamentary Secretary that we have missed him in the last three days of this Debate, particularly in view of the unfortunate incursions of the Paymaster-General in his place.
  The Bill has been well discussed, with two days on Second Reading, 25 mornings in Standing Committee, two days on Report, and again today. I do not think the Minister or any one else will object to the fact that it has been adequately discussed. There was a great deal in it, and I think the Minister will probably agree with me in saying that my hon. Friends who served on the Standing Committee were also very assiduous in their attentions to the Bill; and I would say that we have made it better, in some ways, than it was when first introduced, though, of course, we have not got anything like as many concessions as we would have wished. It now falls to me, in the final stages, to review some of the pros and cons of the Bill. Before I do that, I should like to say that, quite irrespective of the merits of the Bill itself, it has one general blot. In the past this House has frequently complained of legislation by reference. The Minister has been very good in this Bill, and there has been comparatively little of that; indeed, he has promised to consolidate what there is as soon as possible; but, lo and behold, in substitution for that horror we have had a new one: legislation by assurance, and that is a very bad one.
  I do not invite any hon. Member who was not on the Committee to go through the OFFICIAL REPORT Of that Standing Committee to see what all the assurances were, but I hope I may be allowed to pick out what we have had here, on the Floor of the House, in order to show hon. Members what I mean. First, on Clause 3 the Minister assured us, in column 241, that there would be as short a time as possible between announcing the change of prices and the change of quantity to which
  806
  it referred. Secondly, on Clause 18, in column 417, the Minister assured us of the reasonableness of county committees when arrangements were being made as a result of the dispossession of occupiers. Thirdly, on Clause 6, now Clause 70, in column 499, there was an assurance that the annual reports will include accounts. Fourthly, on Clause 71, in column 503, there was an assurance that there will be an estate management sub-committee of the county committees. Fifthly, on Clause 95, in column 538, there was an assurance that individual cropping directions will cease as soon as the Bill becomes law. Sixthly, on the Ninth Schedule, in column 565, there was an assurance that the county committees will be consulted as to their staffs. There were six assurances on Report, and, true to form, we had one again this afternoon. We have had a final assurance, on Third Reading, that with regard to the quantities referred to in Clause 1, the Government will accept unlimited liability for everything produced, except oats and sugar beet. That shows the technique which has been adopted on this Bill. I hope the Minister will still consider th6 possibility of writing some of these assurances into the Bill before it finally gets on to the Statute Book.
  One sees what has happened. It is so much easier, and indeed so much quicker, to draft legislation taking very wide powers, even if one is perfectly certain one does not require them, than to direct one's mind, and the minds of those busy people, the draftsmen, to pin-pointing the actual points with which one wants to deal. Such legislation has its dangers, because in after years, when new circumstances may arise and the Minister wants to legislate, some clever person will turn up and say: "Oh, by the way, you have got these powers in an Act of 1842," or something like that, and will bring them to life for purposes for which they were never intended. There have been cases of that kind. I hope the Government will not pursue this technique any further.
  Having said that, I will pass to the substance of the Bill. There are still, of course, some bad things in it from our point of view. The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) said that he did not think we liked the Bill. After listening to the speeches today, it is clear that there have been parts of the Bill which I am sure everybody did not like, to some ex-

  807
  tent. I say quite frankly that I do not like some of the Clauses. For example, I do not like Clause 98, which deals with pest control, amongst other things, because, as it stands now, it is completely unintelligible. I think I know what it means, and I think that what is in it contains same dangers to the general animal life of the country, as has been said by my hon. Friends today. I think some of the Clauses are quite objectionable. For example, Clause 84, which deals with the acquisition of land by the Minister to ensure its use; Clause 85, which is a flagrant breach of faith of the assurances—and here is the value of assurances, although these assurances were translated into legislation—given during the war about the return of certain lands which had been taken. Again, I take exception to Clause 95, which gives the Minister the power to make special directions instead of taking them when necessary under emergency powers. I will come back to that point in a minute. Those are some of the things which I do not like. Perhaps other hon. Members do like them.
  On the other hand, what can I put in the balance on the good side? We all agreed during the Second Reading, which was not divided against, that agricultural prosperity was to be sought for from a building based on the twin pillars of stability and efficiency. To that, all hon. Members, on both sides of the House, stand committed. However, I did ask certain questions at that time; questions which I said we would have to bear in mind as we went through the Bill in detail. For example, the first question that I then posed was anxiety as to the size of our agricultural production. There have been various attempts to improve the matter, but I am still not satisfied, because Clause 1 (1), still limits the general objective to
  "such part of the nation's food and other agricultural produce as in the national interest it is desirable to produce in the United Kingdom. …"
  The whole thing turns upon the question: who decides what it is desirable to produce? There is nothing in the Bill stating anything beyond the opinion of the Minister and the Government of the day to settle that problem. As I said then, and as has been repeated today, we are anxious because of the statement—possibly made in an uncautious moment; I do not know; but anyway, the definite
  808
  statement—of the right hon. Gentleman's colleague the Minister of Food that, of course, this Government would buy food for import at the lowest prices at which they could get it in the world. That is why we are anxious on that point.
  The second question I put was: is it necessary to have all the controls that are in the Bill? Some have been modified during the passage of the Bill, but I am still not satisfied that there are not too many. The third question I put was: will the county committees be able to do the job? The hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning), who has been so helpful, said just now that we on this side of the House had been unfairly criticising the committees. I do not think that is so. I do not think any of us, certainly consciously or intentionally, criticised the work of the committees. What we criticised is the possibility of putting too much on their shoulders, and the possibility of not getting absolutely the best men from all the different sections to go on the committees. My hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. York) has just made that point very well, when he said that, as we all believe, the whole foundation of the system depends upon the efficiency of those committees; they cannot be what we want them to be unless all of us, in our own spheres, try to persuade the very best men we know to go on them, because it is work of the highest importance.
  The fourth anxiety I had on Second Reading was whether we were not giving super-security to the less efficient farmers to the detriment of the land itself, as well as to the disadvantage of the younger men. The Minister has gone some way towards meeting that with the alteration he made to Clause 31. Lastly, I asked why the Minister, in dispossession cases under Clause 16, should compulsorily purchase the land and farm it through the Land Commission, and I am not satisfied with the answer to that question. These are the problems which I have been' weighing up in my mind when having to give advice to my hon. Friends and to others prepared to take it, on what to do on Third Reading. I am not entirely satisfied with the answers given to these five questions, although I recognise that the Minister has gone some way towards meeting us.
  The main conception of this Bill has been that of guaranteed prices and

  809
  assured markets. Part I, the stability portion, is not, as one might expect from some of the speeches we have heard, purely a Socialist bright idea. It is an idea which has been going on for some time, and was initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) in February, 1945. The security and stability the Government are aiming at will not—I am sure hon. Members will agree—come merely from Part I, because coupled with guaranteed prices and assured markets, from the point of view of stability comes the necessity of there being confidence in administration. Here some difference of opinion arose in Committee about the whole question of the relationship between the county committees and the farmers, or the landowners, whom they are to look after.
  The looking after comes before the question of supervision, and the Minister and some of his supporters seem to have the idea that all this looking after or supervision, using the word in its technical sense, is really a kindness done to the farmers by well-informed neighbours on the county committees, who, like Kim, are the friends of all the world. We are in doubt whether the farmer being supervised will take that view of those who are doing the looking after or supervision, even if it is being done by friends and people whom he holds in the highest esteem. The Minister says there is no stigma about it, but I have a feeling that the farmers would rather not be looked after than be looked after, to put it no higher than that.
  In assessing the question of supervision, the committees have to consider whether the responsibilities of farming or estate management are being fulfilled. We secured here a valuable concession from the Minister in regard to the necessity of taking into account "all relevant circumstances." The trouble is that even now we are not sure exactly what that covers. We tried to find out whether it included the economic use of capital and an adequate return on capital, whether it was being used for buildings or otherwise. We ought to know the answer to that, but we do not know, for the simple reason that on 4th June, in column 257 and the next eight columns of HANSARD, the Minister in two successive speeches said not only "yes" but "no." It is a very important point which should be definitely settled.
  810
  This leads me to another reflection. The committees have to settle many important questions, both practical decisions and, in many cases, interpretation. There is to be no appeal on a point of law, and yet, in describing the Bill, the Minister is unable to give an answer to a simple question of this sort. That strengthens the argument we put forward that if a question of interpretation of the law arises, there should be some method of taking a decision elsewhere; otherwise, it is really sidetracking the normal methods of justice, and is the negation of that free democratic system we all want to have adopted. I hope that even now the Minister will look again at this question of appeal. If he accepts our advice on this, then, pro tanto, it will increase the confidence which all parties in the industry will have in the committees, and the more confidence is increased in the committees, the more we shall increase that general stability which, as hon Members will recollect, is one of the two original pillars.
  There is much more needed in trying to reconcile the success of the administration than we can see so far. There is much more needed than mere regulations and stability of prices and markets. Roughly speaking, we can say that the landowners and farmers must be satisfied that if they manage or farm their property according to the rules of good estate management or good husbandry, as the case may be, they will not be harried by the minions of the Minister. If they can be satisfied on that, it will give the most confidence and stability. Therefore, we do not like quite so many threats of fines, imprisonment, supervision, dispossession, and all the rest, which are still in the Bill. The committees which are to be entrusted with the looking after, the supervising, the guiding and eventually the advising as to dispossession have themselves to comply with the Minister's directions. In many cases, as we have found out, and as is obvious from Clause 12, these committees are the judge, jury and prosecutor, which is a combination of functions comparatively rare in a non-totalitarian State. We would prefer that some other arrangement existed here.
  On the question of security, one finds great powers are given to the Land Commission to manage and farm. These powers will very likely tempt them to do

  811
  a good deal more than is wise. It will lead to a much greater increase in bureaucracy, and so security will become insecure. I am not at all sure, when we take all that into account, that we may not be buying security at too high a price. Naturally, before deciding what to do, one has to find out what all three partners in the industry now say about the Bill. The landowners still have many criticisms, but they are willing to let the Bill go forward. I still feel strongly about one point we have already discussed. I still think that something ought to be done to make it possible for a man who has bought land for that purpose to secure the use of it for his son. When an owner is dispossessed, there should be the possibility of putting the land under trusteeship in order that, if he is anxious and capable of doing so, in due course his son may be able to manage it himself. But, generally speaking, the landowners are prepared to let the Bill go forward.
  The farmers are in the same position. They are prepared to let the Bill go forward. The Minister will know, however, that farmers and landowners consider that there should be more appeal. The workers are willing to let the Bill go forward, but from what we have heard, here and elsewhere, they have their criticisms; they have complained of the composition of the committees. The House can deduce, therefore, that the three partners in the industry are pleased to let the Bill go forward. None of us here are partners it the industry, or their delegates. We are here, as Members of Parliament, to decide what we think is right in the interests of the nation as a whole Of course, the final responsibility must rest with the Minister, and the Government and their supporters, for they have the power and the numbers. Even so, the Opposition has its part to play.
  Now, may I come to my conclusion? First, are these famous twit, pillars of stability and efficiency strong enough in the Bill? On either count. I am not sure that they are. The framework is there—I am willing to admit that—and it will be possible for others, if not this Minister, to strengthen both. Therefore, on this ground I would not reject the Bill. The system of guaranteed prices and markets is, I believe, over-elaborated. I think the Minister will find himself in difficulty by trying to control the two variable
  812
  factors of price and quantity, when it could be done by a properly devised price mechanism. On that very point, the Minister has done a dangerous thing. He has put the whole basis of stability in jeopardy by his Amendments to what is now Clause 95. Quite apart from any war emergency, which, we were told upstairs, the Clause was meant for, he has taken powers to regulate grass and arable husbandry. He has gone in for too elaborate a system of price and quantity mechanism, although the idea is right. On the security, confidence in administration, side of the picture, which I have been trying to describe to the House, there are too many latent powers for the Minister The right hon. Gentleman has assured us that he does not intend to use them all fully, but they are there and, to that extent, are risky. The difficulties can be avoided by efficient and able leadership, and this Minister may well be able to give it to the industry. At any rate, I sincerely hope so. I am glad to see the Prime Minister, because he knows that efficiency and ability are far from being the hallmarks of his colleagues. It may be, however, that the Minister of Agriculture will make the very exception which proves the rule, that we may not get from him a grasping use of all the powers he has taken, but only the use of such of them as are necessary for efficiency, ability, and leadership. But that may not happen, to put it at its worst—and I do not want to put it at its worst—because, after all, we all want to see this Bill work.
  We have only certain reservations and doubts. We are all at one in wanting to see the new idea work if it can be made to do so. We have only put out warnings, and we are trying to assure the Minister that in our view, at any rate, there are certain pitfalls which he and his colleagues would do well to try to avoid. Fundamentally, as I said at the beginning of my speech and also on Second Reading, we think, that along this road something can be done. The Bill provides the skeleton, and I think the Minister is in the fortunate position now of being able to clothe it and to make practical a long-term policy for British agriculture. Because these possibilities are there, I do not propose to vote against this Bill on Third Reading, despite the fact that it is full of faults of omission and commission, because I believe that it is pos-

  813
  sible to make use of the opportunities it provides, and I hope that they will be seized as quickly as possible. I can always console myself and my hon. Friends with the thought that, the Bill being what it is, if this Government do not make good use of its opportunity, there will be other Governments in due course to take its place, and they will be able to use this Bill as a foundation—because it is a workmanlike foundation in its essentials—and drive a broad highway to prosperity for all concerned with the agriculture of our beloved land.
  9.7 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): I think that we all feel something akin to a lingering regret at saying "goodbye" for the time being, at any rate, to a Bill of which I think most of us have grown rather fond. I would like on my behalf and on behalf of my right hon. Friend to express our appreciation of the spirit in which the Bill has been received, and to thank hon. Members in all parts of the House for their helpful and useful contributions, made both during the Committee stage discussions of, this Bill; on the Report stage and today. We are, after all, dealing with a basic industry—an industry which is fundamental to the welfare of this country. Some one and a quarter million of our citizens are engaged in it in one way or another. It has not had altogether a happy past. For some 18 years before the war, there was a steady drift away from the industry, and millions of acres of land which could have been brought under cultivation lay derelict.
  Times have changed. We are no longer a creditor nation. We cannot rely on buying overseas with our investments the excess of our food requirements above those we can produce ourselves. All these things have to be borne in mind. Rising standards throughout the world bring it about that other countries have less to sell to us, and the net result is that, more than ever, we are dependent on what has always been a fundamental industry of this country. Therefore, there was need of an urgent and drastic attempt to put that industry on its feet. By saying that, I do not mean to imply, in any way, a reflection on British farmers. On the contrary, particularly during the war, we made immense strides in mechanisation
  814
  and in increasing the scientific and technical knowledge of the agricultural industry. For that we are largely indebted to the war agricultural executive committees. In framing this Measure, we have had the inestimable advantage of seeing exactly how they worked, and how they tackled the war problems. We can profit by their example and their experience, in setting up what is a basic feature of the present Bill, the agricultural executive committees. May I echo the words uttered with very great emphasis by the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) who said that in his view it was the urgent and imperative duty of the three partners in the industry to provide their very best men for the committees. That is a sentiment which I would cordially repeat.
  As hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, this Bill depends upon how it is operated—not only how it is operated by the Government, but how it is operated by the three partners in the industry through their mouth-pieces the executive committees. That is why it is so urgently necessary that the very best men should again be called upon to come forward and give unstintingly of the service which they gave during the war ordeal. It is, I know, asking a lot of them, but there is after all a very great tradition of service in this country, and we have every confidence that once more we shall not ask in vain for the members of the committees to give of their very best in making this most important Measure work for the common good.
  Fears have been expressed that they may be over-burdened with work. With regard to that, I would say that if one compares the measure of the volume of work which will be upon their shoulders when this Bill is in operation with that of the work which they so admirably carried out during the war years, the likelihood is that as time goes on they will have less work under the provisions of this Bill than they discharged during the war. After all, during the war they had a great deal of work in connection with the allocation of priorities on various materials, recommending licences, fertilisers, feeding-stuffs, and so on; and as the materials position gradually eases that particular burden should gradually he lifted from their shoulders, and they will be able to con-

  815
  centrate more closely upon the pure administration of the functions imposed upon them by this Bill.
  Criticisms have, of course, been expressed of the Bill. Points of detail have been discussed, and, indeed, in certain respects the Bill has been attacked. When I heard the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) this afternoon making the opening speech for the Opposition, I rather wondered for a moment whether the Opposition were going to divide against the Bill, but we are reassured to hear from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that they have decided not to do that, and that we shall accordingly pass the Bill unanimously without a Division through its Third Reading Stage in this House. Of course, broad questions do arise under the Bill. The Bill is based upon what have been described as the twin pillars of security and efficiency. Nobody would dispute that if the Bill does secure safety and peace of mind for the farmer, the country has the right to ask of the farmer and of the landowner, that they shall manage their land efficiently, particularly in present day circumstances.
  The first question asked therefore is whether the Bill really does provide for security. We say unhesitatingly that it does. As far as one can see ahead in the future there will be a demand—and, as my right hon. Friend indicated, the Government have accepted the responsibility—for all the output that can be produced of those goods which are mentioned in the First Schedule to the Bill. That is a very considerable measure of security, and will go far to implement the policy of guaranteed prices and markets. That has, of necessity, to be subject to two qualifications indicated by my right hon. Friend in the case of sugar-beet and oats. Each has its own particular characteristics. With sugar beet the limitation will be the quantity that can be processed in the factories, but the factories at the moment are already catering for the whole available output of sugar beet.
  The Minister explained the peculiar circumstances which obtained in the case of oats and also why it was necessary that there should be some limitation in the future in regard to them. In the case of other commodities not at present in the First Schedule, but which can be added,
  816
  it may also be necessary to impose a limitation, and it is in the interests of those persons who produce these commodities that there should be the power which is contained in Clause 4 to impose a limitation on output, because if the Government have not that power, they might hesitate to add to the First Schedule commodities which could be included when the time comes.
  As has been pointed out by several hon. Members, horticulture is not included. My right hon. Friend has explained the reasons why. They are because of its seasonal character and the perishable nature of its products. Other methods must be found for horticulture, and the Government are seeking and are actively discussing how the general benefits of this Bill can be extended to that branch of agriculture. It takes time and the problem is entirely different. Whether it will be marketing or some other method which will be adopted, I am not in a position to say at the moment.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford and the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) were concerned about the words in Clause 1
  "such part of the nation's food."
  They asked what was the meaning of those words, and they implied that there was some sinister significance to be attached to their use. No such meaning is to be attributed to them. What is the object of those words? The object is that we cannot hope in this country to produce all the agricultural produce which we require. We have not got enough land and land here is scarce. We are not like the United States, or Australia or Canada. We can only produce a certain proportion of our own food, and, therefore, when those words are used in Clause 1 of the Bill they refer to the fact that we must decide and guide our agricultural industry towards the production of that part of our agricultural produce which is within our compass. That is the only reason those words are there inserted, and I cannot repeat too often that we will take all those articles of agricultural produce which are in the First Schedule. We must bear in mind that we can never aspire to produce all the food we consume in this country, and so we used what to our mind was the natural descriptive phrase to outline the general purpose and scope of the Bill.

  817
  I should like to call attention to one statement made by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford which I think was rather unfortunate. He said that the feeding-stuffs position now was worse than at any time in the worst days of the war. I am sure that he did not wish to mislead the House, and he is not quite accurate in that suggestion. Because his words might give a misleading impression I propose to state the real facts. In point of fact, the ration allocation during the period of the war was based on one-eighth of prewar numbers; it is now one-sixth. It is on the upgrade, and the Government have announced that farmers may retain up to 20 per cent. of their wheat and barley crop for the 1948 harvest for the feeding of their own stock.
  Mr. Hurd: That is 15 months hence.
  The Solicitor-General: Certainly, but I can tell hon. Members now that the incentive effect of that is shown in conditions in the industry. The price of young store pigs has been progressively rising, which indicates that there is a considerable measure of confidence in pig production in the industry.
  Mr. Hurd: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the returns for last March, which are the latest returns available, show a sharp drop in the number of pigs and poultry compared with a year ago?
  The Solicitor-General: Certainly, I am quite aware of that, but nevertheless the fact is that the prices of young store pigs have been going up which, as I have said, indicates a considerable measure of confidence. [Interruption.] I do not know what else it indicates. However, the main burden of my argument is to correct a misleading impression which I thought the hon. Gentleman might unwittingly have produced. Those are the facts. The feedingstuffs position is certainly not at its worst and, in fact, it has improved and is still improving.
  With regard to the security which the Bill provides reference has also been made to the statement by the Minister of Food on 11th December. Too much importance has been attached to that. What that statement meant in its context was simply that as we had to buy abroad—we cannot, as I have said, produce all we require—
  818
  clearly it is to our interest not to pay more than we have to pay for what we need to buy. That is the only significance to be attached to that statement, which has really been magnified out of all proportion by an exaggerated apprehension in the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the Geneva talks, and with regard to them I can only repeat an assurance which has been given before that we are keeping ourselves free to develop unhindered the agricultural policy first outlined by my right hon. Friend on 15th November, 1945, and now embodied in the actual terms of this Bill.
  Closely allied to that question is the old Clause 92—the present Clause 95—and the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough accused my right hon. Friend of some measure of inconsistency. If we look at the language actually used by my right hon. Friend, and not that which has been attributed to him, we find that he has been completely consistent throughout. I would invite hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider carefully what he said, which was that it would be used for crises comparable—"comparable" is the important word—with the crises of 1914 and 1939. He was simply instancing those by way of illustration as being crises of the kind of gravity which he had in mind. The Clause is for use equally in the case of a national food crisis in peacetime. In the event of war, obviously the likelihood is that there would be wartime legislation which would be appropriate to the actual conditions, the precise nature of which I cannot and would not attempt to foretell. The right hon. Gentleman has been completely consistent on that. The Clause is for use in a peacetime food crisis. As he had already announced, it is his intention, directly after the appointed day, and, indeed, probably some time early next year, to bring forward an order under that part of Clause 92 introduced by the Amendment which deals with the tillage area and the acreage which can be kept under grass, in order to maintain the food crop area. My right hon. Friend announced that on the Report stage, and it is an instance of how he intends to operate the Clause.
  I want to pass from the security aspect to the other aspect of the Bill which deals with the terms of tenure. The hon. Gen-

  819
  tleman began his observations with regard to that part of the Bill by saying that the owner of land was left out in the cold because whereas rents have not gone up wages and costs have. Of course, everybody knows that rents in agriculture follow slowly behind. The reason that wages have gone up is that they were so disgracefully low before the war. Agricultural wages then ranged between 30s. and £2. I did not know, and I could not gather from the words of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, whether he was lamenting the fact that those rates had gone up. It sounded to me as though he were lamenting the good old days when you could get an agricultural labourer to work for you for between 30s. and £2 a week. The Bill has dealt with that situation. The House will see that in Clause 35 arbitration machinery is provided for adjusting the rents of agricultural holdings. It provides that they can be re-assessed by a process of arbitration before one of the arbitrators appointed under the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, an official arbitrator appointed from the panel set up by the Lord Chief Justice.
  The right hon. and gallant Gentleman went on to complain about the old Clause 81. He asked whether that was a covert way of beginning nationalising the land. I can assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that if we intend to nationalise the land we will not do it in that hole-and-corner fashion. That Clause is essential to ensure that land will be brought into efficient production. It can be used when the private owners of it, or those who are running it under private enterprise, cannot reasonably be expected—the emphasis is upon those words in the Clause—either to provide or to maintain the fixed equipment necessary to run that land. It is for that purpose, in the event of it being impossible for the private owner to provide the fixed equipment, that the Minister is given power to acquire land compulsorily, in order, and solely in order, to maintain it in efficient production in the general national interest.
  I believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite and my hon. Friends are satisfied with the Amendment which was made to Clause 30 dealing with security of tenure and im-
  820
  posing restrictions upon the operation of notices to quit. We feel that the Amendments we have introduced in the Clause should have the effect of enabling young farmers to acquire agricultural holdings. We hope that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House are satisfied that the grounds of criticism which were advanced against the Bill in that respect have been disposed of.
  Mr. Alpass: No. [Interruption.] My hon. and learned Friend said "both sides."
  The Solicitor-General: Perhaps I should substitute "The House, with one exception." The suggestion was made that the Land Commission might give rise to a system of absentee landlords, but it is intended to operate the Minister's functions, so far as they are vested in the Land Commission, through the agricultural land service; that is to say, they will operate through fully paid civil servants who will have experience and qualifications as land agents, and will be fully employed for the purpose of operating the Minister's functions. There are many other aspects of the Bill on which I should touch, had I the time, but I relinquish them with the less regret because they have been exhaustively gone through already during the Committee Stage and, so far as many of them are concerned, during the Report Stage.
  I commend the Bill to the House for Third Reading as a Measure of great importance to our national economic wellbeing. The right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough described it as a mammoth Bill. None of us has ever seen a mammoth but no doubt it was a useful and beneficent animal. This Bill certainly is a giant Bill. We believe it really opens a new future to British agriculture. We believe it contains a new charter. It depends how it is operated, but we believe we can rely with confidence upon the co-operation with the Government of the three partners in the industry. The Bill has been fully investigated and fully discussed and, despite some reservations with regard to details, the House thoroughly approves its general purpose and scope.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

PENICILLIN BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read
9.31 p.m.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneur, Bevan): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I hope it will not he necessary to spend very much time on what is a small but nevertheless important Measure. As the House is aware, penicillin is a very important substance indeed which has had a most beneficent effect on the wellbeing and health of the population. Some time ago it was in short supply. While it was in short supply, it was necessary to try to control its purchase and distribution. For that purpose the Government used the Defence Regulations. The Government now take the view that it would be inappropriate to control the sale and distribution of this drug by making use of Defence Regulations and that it ought, to be controlled, if at all, by a Measure passed by the House. As soon as it became obvious that there was enough of this substance for general use, the Government had to make up their mind whether it should he controlled at all. We were not anxious to control a substance of this kind if it were not absolutely essential so to do.
We have consulted a number of eminent persons who have very special knowledge about this substance. They are: Sir Alexander Fleming himself, Professor of Bacteriology at St. Mary's Hospital Medical School, who discovered the substance in the first place; Professor R. V. Christie, Professor of Medicine at Bart's; Colonel L. W. Harrison, Adviser in Venereal Diseases to the Ministry of Health; and Sir Philip Panton, Consultant Adviser in Pathology to the Ministry of Health. Their view is unanimous that there would be very grave dangers to the public health if this substance were in unrestricted sale and consumption. They base their conclusions upon their knowledge that this substance, among others, can, if consumed over a long period of time in small quantities, establish in the organism a resistance to its beneficent effects. Consequently, if any person took this substance over a period of years, or even a shorter period, and established a degree of immunisation to its good effects, later on, if he needed it in an operation or in any other therapeutical form, it would be of no value at all.
822
Therefore, it seemed to us to be highly undesirable that this very valuable substance should be the plaything of quacks with all sorts of ways of advertising it and selling it—penicillin lipstick, penicillin rouge, penicillin powder, and even penicillin waistbands, as we had iodine waist bands years ago. That would be highly undesirable, because hon. Members who have studied the subject will agree that this is one of the most beneficent discoveries in the history of medicine. It would be an appalling thing if, as a consequence of its misuse, the population might, in a period of years, receive no advantage at all from it because it would have developed resistance in those who take it. Therefore, it was decided that we should have a short Bill which would empower the Ministry of Health to control its sale and distribution. However, we are concerned only about controlling the sale of the drug to the individual consumer. We are not concerned at all about influencing its wholesale distribution. We do not, for example, want to impose any controls whatever on the sale of penicillin in bulk or for export. We have sufficient of it. We are not afraid of any shortage of supply, so we are really concerned about restricting its use where it comes into touch with the individual consumer.
For that purpose the Bill lays it down that penicillin can be given only on the certificate of a qualified medical practitioner or veterinary surgeon, or, on his certificate, by a chemist. That, in our view, is all the restriction which is required. We also take power in the Bill to deal with other drugs that may, later on, be found necessary and to which the same definition will apply. There is one which has received a great deal of publicity and, I must say, has caused me considerable trouble, called streptomycin. Very many things have been claimed for it but they have not yet been established. I am afraid great expectations have been carelessly aroused, and we know that in some instances the giving of this drug has caused definite harm, whereas in other instances it is still claimed that it has a healing effect, but that has not yet been established. There are other investigations of an analogous kind going on which, if they prove successful, will transform the whole field, but we are anxious that when they come along we shall at the same time have in our possession power to enable us to prevent

823
their thoughtless consumption and their commercial exploitation in a manner injurious to the public. Therefore, the Bill takes power to control those by regulation after we have received the advice of the Medical Research Council about them. Clause 3 deals with offences and penalties, and the remaining Clauses cover interpretation.
The Bill has been discussed in another place and since then, a number of suggestions have been made about Amendments. When the Bill goes into Committee, I am prepared to move a number of Amendments dealing with some of the criticisms which have been made—many of them have points of substance I hope that with that short explanation the House will give me the Second Reading of the Bill which, I am quite sure, is to the general public advantage.
9.39 p.m.
Sir John Mellor: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health that this is a very important Bill, and I hope it will not be hurried unduly in its passage through this House. In the few observations I shall offer upon the Second Reading, I should make it clear that I do not pretend to any medical or scientific knowledge. I recollect a soldier in my company who objected to being vaccinated, saying that he did not hold with it though he had always been a medical man. Knowing that by trade he was a tailor, I asked him what he meant by saying he was a medical man. He replied, "Sir, my brother is a dentist." Although I cannot even claim to be the third cousin of a chiropodist, none the less, from the Parliamentary angle, I have taken a great deal of interest in this Measure.
I would like to congratulate the Minister on the point that by this Bill he is doing his best to make an honest woman of the Minister of Supply, because he has in the past most scandalously misled that Minister. The Ministry of Supply, under Statutory Rule and Order No. 731 of 1946, controlled penicillin on the ground of scarcity. That was a perfectly legitimate use of the Order that was made under the Defence Regulations, but the scarcity passed away. When it did so the Minister of Health desired that control should be retained, and he persuaded the Minister of Supply, in my submission, quite impro-
824
perly, to retain the control for an entirely different reason. We had one Minister obtaining control for one reason at one time, and later the control was retained at the instance of another Minister for a purpose entirely different, and one which had never been approved by Parliament. That situation still continues. I notice that the Minister of Health did not announce that it was proposed to revoke the Order. I assume that it is the intention to revoke it when this Bill becomes an Act. The Minister of Health has persuaded his colleague to retain that most drastic Order, which is more drastic than the provisions of this Bill, and it is still in force.
Mr. Bevan: I think the hon. Member will agree that it would be entirely improper to discontinue those powers until this Bill has been obtained.
Sir J. Mellor: It might be desirable in the public interest, but I still submit that from a Parliamentary point of view it is most improper. Be that as it may, this Measure is a pretty tall order. To proceed to control a therapeutic substance that cannot be described as a poison or a dangerous drug is a novel step. I think the Minister will agree with that.
Dr. Haden Guest: It is a novel drug.
Sir J. Mellor: I quite agree I do not say that it is a step which is unjustified, but in my humble submission, in the light of what knowledge we have while I would say that some measure of control should be retained, I think we should be particularly careful to see that the measure of control does not go beyond what is absolutely necessary, and that it is not retained longer than is necessary The Minister of Health stated that this Bill was approved by some very eminent authorities, whom he quoted. I do not dispute their eminence, but I note that under Clause 2 the Minister is given power, by regulation, to bring under control certain other similar substances, after consultation with the Medical Research Council. I should like to ask him whether the Medical Research Council was consulted, in addition to the eminent authorities he mentioned, in regard to the provisions of this Bill, because I certainly think that the Government, before introducing a Measure of this sort, should have taken the fullest possible and most authori-

825
tative and responsible medical opinion? But it would appear, as tar as a layman can gather, that medical opinion has not vet crystallised upon this matter.
I should think that those who know most about it would be probably the first to admit that knowledge in regard to penicillin and its effects is in its infancy. It is quite impossible at present to know how far it is necessary to control the use of penicillin. For that reason, I am proposing to move an Amendment in Committee to limit the operation of this Bill to five years so that Parliament, towards the end of that time, can have another look at it in the light of the medical knowledge which may have been obtained. This Bill proposes to control the use of penicillin in any form whatever. In Clause 1, it not only controls the use of penicillin but
"… any preparation of which any such substance is an ingredient."
I have heard considerable difference of medical opinion in regard to whether the use of penicillin in certain forms ought to be controlled. I think it was my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pudsey and Otley (Colonel Stoddart-Scott), who is a qualified medical practitioner, who said, in a Debate we had on a Prayer, that in his view penicillin toothpaste, and in the form of ointment, and so on, ought to be free from control. I do not know who is right or wrong in this matter.
Mr. Baird: Does the hon. Member realise that the whole of the dental profession says that that would be completely wrong and would cause disaster?
Sir J. Mellor: I was not expressing an opinion. There is difference of opinion whether penicillin need necessarily be controlled in all its forms. That is another reason I say that we should have a time-limit to the operation of this Bill so that, when medical knowledge is more extensive and we have had practical experience, Parliament can reconsider the matter and see how far it is necessary to continue control. I have one further criticism to offer in regard to the provision contained in Clause 3 (2). I submit that this Subsection goes too far. Under it, if an assistant at a branch of, say, a company like Boots or Timothy White's commits an offence by supplying penicillin without a doctor's prescription, any
826
"… director general manager secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or was purporting to act in any such capacity, shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence unless he proves that the offence was committed without his consent or connivance and that he exercised all such diligence to prevent the commission of the offence …"
That seems to be much too drastic and, in Committee, I shall propose to, delete that Subsection. It is the duty of the House, while recognising that control may well be necessary, to see that in the course of the passing of this Bill no greater degree of control is imposed than is absolutely necessary, and that we should enable the public to enjoy the widest possible measure of freedom which can be allowed with safety.
9.48 p.m.
Dr. Haden Guest: I do not want to pose as a great scientific authority on this question. However, I can tell the House that in the opinion of all responsible chemists, doctors and dentists and other professional people who understand this subject, penicillin is not only a very valuable drug which can cure diseases otherwise very difficult to cure, and cure them quickly, when otherwise they might be extremely slow, but if it is used in the wrong way it becomes a very dangerous drug. The germ which can be cured by penicillin when it is properly used, can be made immune if the drug is used in the wrong way. What is called "penicillin resistance" can be built up. This situation has already arisen in Japan in regard to certain diseases. As the Minister has said, we might have a situation where people are treated so much with penicillin that, in a short time, the people concerned—in this case, Service men—are no longer able to be helped by the penicillin when they fall victims to disease.
It is because of the existence of this peculiar quality that penicillin must be safeguarded by this method of control in its administration to the individual. It is not sought to establish control of its sale. I myself was inclined to query, from the reverse point of view to that of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), the question of its control. There is no control of wholesale dealing, and no control of its export, but it must be controlled by a registered medical practitioner to see that it is used in its curative way and not in its dangerous way. I can assure the hon. Member that,

827
if he will ask representatives of the medical profession in the Services, and anyone who has had practical experience of.it in the war, he will find that all responsible opinion agrees that control of penicillin must be very rigid; otherwise, it will lose its effect as a very valuable remedy, as it is now, and will cease to be a remedy at all.
9.52 p.m.
Mr. Linstead: I welcome this Bill, and I agree with my hon Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) that, with an innovation of this kind, there is a considerable onus on the Minister to prove his case. We have not much left that belongs to us nowadays except our own bodies, and the freedom with which we are able to doctor ourselves is something that ought not lightly to be given up. In an instance like this, I think the Minister has proved his case. Not only is it possible for an individual to build up a resistance to penicillin, but, as the experience of the treatment of venereal disease among our troops in Italy—
Dr. Guest: And in Japan.
Mr. Linstead: —has shown, it is possible to build up a penicillin resistant organism, with the result that penicillin becomes of no use in treatment. I think the Minister has discharged that onus, but I was very glad that he indicated that he hopes, in Committee, to move a few amendments that will not only make the Bill more acceptable, but also more workable. One or two of these points have occurred to me in studying the Bill, and I will rapidly draw attention to them. A case having been made out for the close control of penicillin, it has occurred to a number of people who have studied the Bill that most of the control seems to be given away by the exceptions in Clause 1 (2), and in another place there was evidently considerable misapprehension as to the effect of these exceptions. It appears from Clause 1 (2, d) that anybody who is running an institution which he describes as a nursing home is free to purchase any quantity of penicillin which he desires, and t is not until one turns to the definition of "supply" in Clause 4, that one finds that use by such purchaser of the penicillin is, in fact, prohibited under the Bill. It is a very obscure interpretation from which to find out what is meant by the Bill. I hope the Minister will look
828
a it and see whether he cannot make clear, to those who want to know what the law is, exactly the effect of the limitation upon these exceptions.
Then I would draw attention to Clause 2, where the Minister takes the power to control additional substances. As Clause 2 is now drafted, these substances must be produced by living organisms, and it is more than likely that research laboratories may find that this substance may be produced by chemical action. I think it would be desirable to look at that definition again, unless the scientist who produces them is to be regarded as a living organism, and, therefore, covered by the Clause as now drafted. The only other point to which I wish to draw attention is the lack of any specific power of enforcement. I would like the Minister to consider whether the inspectors appointed under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act might not be used for the purpose, in the course of their other duties, of securing that the provisions of this Act are, in fact, observed. They are there, they cover, more or less, the same territory, and it would be useful if they were used for this purpose. With these few observations. I commend the Bill to the House.
9.56 p.m.
Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: We on this side of the House have made it clear that the case for some measure of control of this great and important substance has been made out. At the same time, we ask the House to recognise that we are very much in the early stages with regard to this drug, and, therefore, we consider there is a case for putting a term on the operation of this Bill. Those are the two main points we desire to make this evening. We would request the Minister to clarify, at some future time, Clause 1 (2, f) and (3). These are points for the Committee Stage. As I have said, it is our view that the Minister has made out his case.
9.57 p.m.
Mr. Christopher Shawcross: I only want to welcome this Bill in a very few words, particularly as the pioneer and the main factory, if not now the only factory that makes penicillin in this country, is in my constituency. Unlike hon. Members opposite, I do not think there is any onus at all on the Minister. This Bill speaks for itself. The only defect

829
is that it does not go far enough. I hope that the definition of "other substances" may be enlarged so that when it comes to the Committee stage more restrictions will be inserted than are in it as at present drafted, on what is probably the biggest, the most harmful and certainly the most shameful racket ever organised by private enterprise, namely, the patent medicine industry. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has not taken an earlier opportunity of introducing legislation in that regard. I hope that, if the scope of this Bill cannot be enlarged sufficiently to cover that matter in Committee, he will take steps to do so at the earliest opportunity.
9.58 p.m.
Mr. Sidney Marshall: For many years I have had experience of medicaments which have been discovered and which have never received such cheap publicity as has penicillin. I remember the discovery of adrenolin and of insulin. In the case of these medicaments, which have been of great service to the community, has it ever been decided that they should be controlled by Act of Parliament? I cannot understand why penicillin, in some respects a perfectly harmless preparation, should be the subject of an Act of Parliament. Penicillin, which comes with a great deal of false approbation from the medical profession, suddenly receives great attention because it is supposed to achieve miracles. I am afraid that is because it is supposed to be a specific in regard to the treatment of venereal disease. At one time, arsenic preparations were supposed to be the only specifics in regard to the treatment of venereal disease. Now we are told that penicillin is the one great specific which can cure that disease. I think it is most inopportune that this particular medicament, which has had so many false claims made in regard to it, should receive the attention of Parliament in the way it has. It is not a very excellent specific; it has failed in many—
It being Ten o'Clock the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

WAYS AND MEANS [4th June.]
Resolution reported,
WAYS AND MEANS [4th June.]

  INCOME TAX: ARMED FORCES OF THE CROWN
  "That—

  (a) the Income Tax (Employment) Act, 1943, shall extend to pay, pensions or other emoluments in respect of service in or with the armed forces of the Crown assessable to income tax under Schedule E;

  (b) regulations under Subsection (1) of Section two of that Act may make such special provision in relation to members of the armed forces of the Crown or women serving in any of the capacities mentioned in the Sixth Schedule to the Finance Act, 1946, as may appear appropriate."

  Resolution agreed to.
  Instruction to the Committee on the Finance Bill that they have power to make provision pursuant to the said Resolution.—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

WAR PENSIONS (PARENTS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]
10.1 p.m.
Mr. Collins: Since this Government took office one of the most gratifying features of its administration has been the large scale and widespread improvement in pensions and allowances. The one serious exception is in the pensions payable to the parents of sons and daughters who gave their lives in the 1914–18 war. There has been some small improvement, but the objectionable means test has still been retained, and the qualifying income limits are so low that many people in urgent need are excluded from benefit. For nearly two years hon. Members have urged the Government to reconsider the position, and recently I presented to the House a petition bearing the signatures of nearly 100,000 bereaved parents. So far, unfortunately, nothing has been achieved, and my purpose tonight is to show the effects of the present system, because I am convinced that when the facts are fully known this House will demand that His Majesty's Government should make a radical change at the earliest possible moment.
The system in operation after 1918, which was altered in 1922, was the payment of a basic parents' pension of 5s.

831
a week to the parents of unmarried sons who were not more than 26 years of age at the date of enlistment. This pension was supplemented by grants based on loss of income to the home, and the average pension actually paid was about 15s. a week. There was no test of pecuniary need, and many parents are still drawing pensions from the first world war. The present system under the new Royal Warrant bases pensions on proof of pecuniary need, and the income limit is 40s. for one parent and 60s. for two which, for all practical purposes, eliminates from benefit any parent who is still working. These limits are loaded in various ways, and certain types of income are disregarded in assessing need. But, in any case, the standard is pitiably low, and the maximum pensions payable under any circumstances are 27s. 6d. for one parent and 40s. for two, and only one pension is payable irrespective of the number of sons and daughters who have given their lives in any one family. The comparatively small number of parents who benefit under present arrangements is indicated by the fact that up to December, 1945, there were only 75,000 applications for parents' pensions, and of these, 37,500 had received awards at a total annual cost of £1,371,000—an average of 14s. a week, less than parents are obtaining from the first world war. The remaining 50 per cent. were informed that they had proved their entitlement, but could not be given a pension unless, their financial circumstances deteriorated.
In a letter which I received last November from my right hon. Friend the former Minister, it was stated that the Government regarded the present system as allowing substantial pensions to parents in real need, and added that it was the policy of the Department to apply as generously as possible the principles laid down by Parliament. Let us see how generously this system works out in practice. I would like to quote a few examples of cases which have come to my knowledge within recent weeks. They have not been specially selected, but they do illustrate various types of cases.
First of all, there is a case of the widow of a man who gave his life in the 1914–18 war. She is drawing the widows' pension of 35s. a week. She had one son who worked from the time he was 14 years
832
of age to help his mother, and between them, by hard work, they paid off the mortgage on a small bungalow. The son joined up in this war and the mother received a Government allowance of 7s. per week while he was serving. He was killed in action at the age of 32. Last month the Ministry of Pensions wrote to say that the 7s. was to he reduced to 5s. a week. She has been fined 2s a week because her only son followed his father's example by giving his life for his country. She is elderly, and has a bad leg, and cannot go out to work. Is it possible that any civilised community should tolerate such treatment of the dependants of those who saved civilisation? Is that generosity?
Then there is the case of Private George Mitchell who was killed after being awarded the V.C. His parents are both old age pensioners and have been receiving the parents' pension of 15s. 10d. a week, which was recently reduced to 12s. 4d. a week because they recently received an increase in their old age pensions. Both are old age pensioners. The Minister is quite powerless in this matter so long as the Treasury insist in acting in this way, a way which is quite abhorrent to public opinion. Another case concerns a widow aged 59 who had two sons who were both killed in the war. They were her sole support. She was awarded the maximum special pension of 275. 6d. a week. I referred this case to the Minister, who replied that he was paying the exceptional maximum, and he concluded his letter by saying:
"The case is, indeed, a hard' one, but, much as I sympathise with Mrs. Sheffield in the great loss that she has sustained in the death of her two sons, I have no authority to increase the existing award or to grant a second pension."
There are scores of cases of families who made tremendous sacrifices just to give their children an education and a chance in life. Now the children are gone, and they find themselves in late middle age, broken down in health, needing a special diet, in many cases through illnesses due to worry and grief directly attributable to their tragic losses. But the Minister cannot help them. Indeed, I can quote cases of the withdrawal of a paltry 5s. pension merely because of a microscopic increase in superannuation, microscopic increases given because of the increased cost of living. The Minister wrote in respect of one case:

833
"I am very sorry that in present circumstances there is nothing I can do to help"
It is incredible that a British Minutes should be compelled to carry our these things. Another constituent, a widow aged 68, lost her only son ace was awarded a pension of 15s. later increased to 205. She recently took up part time domestic employment, and because of that her pension was cut to 5s. a week, with the proviso that if her circumstances deteriorated—in other words, if she gave up work—the matter would be reviewed. That is not only inhuman but idiotic.
I do ask the Minister and the House, can anyone seriously maintain that these pensions are substantial, or al c generously applied? These people did not receive substantial help, when they were bringing up their families. There were no family allowances, no free milk or school meals—things to which today, as taxpayers, they willingly contribute for the benefit of the children of +heir parents. They made endless sacrifices to give their children a chance in life. In many cases they entered into heavy financial commitments, such as better housing and living conditions, to which their sons and daughters contributed substantially. When the children left to fight, the parents bore this burden alone. They are now deprived of the small comforts, the easements to old age, which the children might have provided. Here is a typical case which reached me this morning. The father is earning £2 19s. 6d. and the mother £1 6s. 4d., and the son used to give them 17s. 6d. a week, and his firm made an allowance of 15s. They lost this income of 32s. 6d., and still cannot qualify for pension. Had their lives been lost in a munition factory there would have been statutory provision for the parents.
A beneficent Government pays compensation to the owners of Alsatian dogs and carrier pigeons lost in the service of their country. I cannot believe that a Chancellor of the Exchequer who pays for these things with a song in his heart cannot spare something for the benefit of war bereaved parents. It is no part of my case to suggest that any payment could make good the loss of one's child. I ask for justice, not blood money. I maintain that this country, and particularly this Government, cannot afford to add to irreparable loss by permitting financial hardship to arise from it. I maintain that
834
those who went away to fight went away secure in the belief that if anything happened to them we would look after their dear ones. We cannot let them down. The payment of parents' pensions should be regarded as a recognition of their sacrifice.
I urge the Government that immediate action should be taken to review the situation with the object, first of all, of providing a basic pension of 10s. a week to these parents, to be applied for in the same way as family allowances; and secondly, of providing an economic supplement based on loss of income, either actual or potential, and for exceptional circumstances, such as mortgage interest and those kinds of things, which were taken into account as valid considerations for war service grants. If this were done it would provide for those in the greatest need. I hope that when the Minister comes to reply he will not say that the present system does it better than the system I have suggested, because that is nonsense; it does not do it better. The means test, which should be abolished at this stage, is the very antithesis of the policy of the Labour Party. A basic pension of 10s a week for all these parents would amount to less than £8 million a year: less than half one day's cost of the war. That would be the peak figure, and would be constantly declining. The cost of payment in respect of unmarried sons only would be less than £5 million.
I do not say this suggestion is the only way of dealing with the problem. But common humanity demands that the situation should be reviewed, and injustice wiped out. I hope the Minister will give us some encouragement and hope that his Department will urge upon the Treasury the necessity for dealing with this in a humane way. Of course, we have his sympathy, because I know he once wrote of his determination "to ensure that the parents of those men who made the supreme sacrifice in the war should not be allowed to suffer further anguish." I am sure everyone in the House will join with me in asking the Minister to strive to overcome whatever obstacles lie in the path of securing justice and recognition for the dependants of those people but for whose sacrifice we should never have had the opportunity of building the world anew.
10.13 p.m.
Major Haughton: It would, be easy to argue the case for parents' pensions on sentimental grounds; but I do not think there are many, if any, parents, proud of their sons who died during the war, who would thank any of us if we debated this matter on any basis other than that of fair play and justice. I do not want to repeat all the points that have been put so admirably by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins), but I should like to reiterate that at present the parents must be in pecuniary need by reason of old age or infirmity, or other adverse conditions, which are not merely of a temporary character. To the best of my knowledge, the Minister has never disclosed what he or his Department deem to be "pecuniary need," or what is the standard upon which they work. I know other hon. Members want to speak, and I will sum up what I wish to say in two questions to the Minister. First: Will he explain the standards on which he works in assessing need? Secondly: In view of the increased cost of living, will he consider raising the standard?
10.14 p.m.
Mrs. Castle: I am sure we all wish that there was a great deal more time than we have tonight to discuss this very important and rather complicated question. I have not a great deal of time, but there is one point I should like to put forward, because I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins), feel very strongly on this matter, and I have a number of very hard cases in my constituency among the parents of men who lost their lives. We would admit, I think, that the Ministry could argue that to introduce a flat-rate pension at this point might be to divert some of our resources from those who need them more to those who need them less. The category of person with whom I am concerned tonight comprises those who are already getting more than 10s. a week, but who are still not getting enough because their need is such a severe and hard one. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that, whatever he may have to say about the merits or demerits of flat-rate pensions, he should face up to the inadequacy of his own means test scale for securing decent assistance where there is the most need for it. He can argue, quite rightly, that considerable improvements have been made by his Ministry and that the minimum to-
836
wards which he now makes up the income by means of pension has been raised. As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton has said, it is now 40s. a week for one parent or 60s. a week for two, plus additions graded according to the contributions made by the son before his death. But because we have got a maximum pension above which payments cannot be made, however great the need, we find that in cases of most stringency the Minister's own minimum standards are not being reached.
Let me take a case in my own constituency of a widow of 50 who has a widow's pension of 10s. Because the maximum parent's pension is 27s. 6d. a week, that woman's income can be made up to only 37s. 6d. regardless of her son's contributions in the past. Yet according to the very complicated and illogical scale of the Ministry, if that woman had an income of 30s. a week and the son had been making certain contributions before his death, despite the fact that she has already 30s. she would still have received 20S. pension in order to give her a minimum income of 50s. a week. Again when the same widow becomes 60 years of age and draws 26s. pension she will still get 20s. pension, bringing her up to 46s. If she gets 46s. at this age, why not now? It can only be that she is expected to go out to work until 60, but we maintain that that is too much to ask of these mothers who have given their sons for this country. I ask that the maximum limit should be abolished and the pensions given at least according to the Ministry's own standards.
10.17 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Blenkinsop): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) for having raised this subject tonight. I know that this is a matter about which there is very real feeling, and very naturally, it is a subject upon which Members in all parts of the House have different views. My hon. Friend has rightly taken the opportunity to raise it tonight.
I should like to say one or two words about the way in which our present parents' pension scheme came into existence. It is of some importance in relation to the remarks made by my hon. Friend and the hon. and gallant Member for Antrim (Major Haughton). It is not

837
true to say that after the 1914–18 war there was merely a flat-rate pension paid. There were, in fact, three types of pensions in payment, one of which was a flat-rate pension of 5s. a week, paid only in cases where a parent had lost a married son of 26 or under. That pension was not added to, but was a flat rate of 5s. a week. There were two other schemes under which parent pensions were paid. One of these was pensions paid on the basis of prewar dependence—rather similar to the proposals under the Industrial Injuries Act. The third scheme was the needs pension, which was on rather similar lines to the scheme we operate today. It was found that these three schemes simply could not be operated together. They were causing hardship and anomalies on all sides, and the Select Committee on Pension Administration, set up just after the end of that war, recommended that these three schemes should be assimilated into one scheme based upon need broadly interpreted. That was brought in in 1922, so from then until the present day we have operated the parents' pension scheme on the basis of need.
When this Government came into office a review was made of the whole of our pensions administration, and I think Members on all sides recognise that sweeping changes have been made. Among the matters that came under review was this question of the parents' pension. It was decided by the Government that we should maintain the needs test, but that we should review the basis on which the needs test was to apply. I would like to quote, in support of that decision, the remarks made by the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) on this point, in a major Debate on pensions administration in 1944. The hon. Member said:
"I do not believe that hon. Members in any part of the House can really say that the Government should take the responsibility, for all time, of paying pensions to all parents, whatever their situation. Ought we not to relate our Governmental action to the view which would be taken by ordinary people in such an eventuality?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 7th July, 5944; Vol. 401, C. 1508.]
Dr. Morgan: That was a Tory Member.
Mr. Blenkinsop: As my hon. Friend has just said, that was the view of a Member on the other side of the House, but it was supported by Members on this side of the
838
House, in particular by a Member who had himself experienced loss in his own family. It is true that there was some division in the House as to the best way of operating the scheme, but the great majority agreed that there should be some review of the scales on which the means limits were based. The Government did review that position, and considerable changes were made in the basis of these means test regulations. I suggest that the Government cannot accept responsibility for paying in cases where the son, had he lived, might, in all probability, not have been called on, or have been required, to make any contribution himself. It is the responsibility of the Government to try, so far as we can, to meet the responsibility that would otherwise have fallen on the son who has died, and it is our view that we are meeting that fairly by insisting that we are at all times ready to meet any cases of hardship as they arise.
Many different proposals have been made for a flat rate pension. Some propose that there should be an ordinary flat rate pension of 10s. a week, or something of that sort, without any economic supplementation. My hon. Friend has not supported that view tonight, but some do. If that were done, we would fail to meet the cases which the Ministry of Pensions is able to meet today. The Ministry is paying some 44,000 parents' pensions, based on the 1939–45 war, and the average amount we are paying is something like 15s. a week.
Mr. Thomas Macpherson: Is there a means test?
Mr. Blenkinsop: Yes. Under the regulations I have mentioned, including the needs test, we are paying an average figure of 15s. a week.
Mr. Macpherson: Disgusting. Shameful.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Therefore, it is quite clear that an all-in flat rate of 10s. a week would not meet the need, and it is essential, as the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) has suggested, that, if we are to meet the need, to add to the flat rate pension another form of needs test of some kind in order to meet the case.
Major Haughton: Will the Parliamentary Secretary answer the point as to whether the ever-increasing cost of living is being taken into account?
Mr. Blenkinsop: I want to make clear the point made by the hon. Member for Taunton. If he is saying that he is prepared to advocate an economic supplementation to a flat rate, he is surely admitting the need for some form of needs test, and the only difference between us is that he is prepared to pay out the flat rate pension to a large number of people, who, one must admit, do not, in fact, need the flat rate which is proposed. We must, I think, face the fact that, in any event, if we are really trying to meet the hardship cases, we have to establish some form of needs test. There are some proposals that a basic flat rate should be only payable for a short period of years. I would make quite clear—I do not know if any hon. Member here has put it forward, but this is being canvassed outside—
Mr. Leslie Hale: Is it not the duty of the Parliamentary Secretary to answer the case put tonight instead of answering cases which he says have been put on other occasions?
Mr. Blenkinsop: I am anxious to answer the point raised and to put this matter in its proper perspective. We are paying out 44,000 pensions at the moment, and a further 40,000 have established their title to apply for pensions at any time should need arise. Another 103,000 pensions for parents are being paid in relation to the 1914–18 war. The majority of these are based either on prewar dependence or upon need.
May I say a few words on the subject of the scheme we are actually adopting today. We maintain that the basis of the scheme is a flexible one. First of all, it is not essential that there should be prewar dependence. We are assuming a certain contribution from a young man who probably is only serving his apprenticeship at the time he goes into the Forces. We assume that he would, had he lived, have contributed to his home, and we
840
assume, in some cases, a fairly large contribution. That means that we can add to the basic needs of the family a considerable supplementation on the basis of our assumption of a contribution from the serving man. Secondly, we can even pay in cases where a serving man is married when he goes into the Forces. Even though we may be paying a widow's pension in addition, we can, in certain circumstances, pay an allowance to the parent. A further point that is of real importance is that there is an indefinite period for making claims. This means that should at any time, due to old age, ill-health or for any other reason circumstances worsen, it is always possible for us to review the claims that are made.
Since this Administration came in we have been able to revise the needs basis and so bring in many thousands of claims that before were not admitted. This means, for example, that in the case of a widow having an income of 30s. a week from any source, if her son, before the war, was paying a contribution of 35s., it is possible for that widow to be paid by us a further 20s. in addition to her income or earnings. Even though the son has made no contribution whatever, and there was no prewar dependence, it is possible for us to make a contribution of at least 10s. and probably more. I suggest that many hon. Members who have raised this subject in the House are raising it on general grounds of hardship in the home when it is really a civilian hardship. I think that the main difficulty of many hon. Members is that they are apt to confuse the two forms of hardship.
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 Twenty-nine Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

FOOD SUPPLIES
  Catering Establishments (Racial Discrimination)
  Catering Establishments (Racial Discrimination)
  Meat Subsidy
  Meat Subsidy
  Sugar Consumption
  Sugar Consumption
  Tea Subsidy
  Tea Subsidy
  Scotch Seed Potatoes (Transport)
  Scotch Seed Potatoes (Transport)
  Bacon and Ham
  Bacon and Ham
  Prices
  Prices
  Fish
  Fish
  Isolated Areas (Reserve Stocks)
  Isolated Areas (Reserve Stocks)
  Milk (Children's Allowance)
  Milk (Children's Allowance)
  Domestic Jam Making (Sugar Allowance)
  Domestic Jam Making (Sugar Allowance)
  Confectionery (Distributive Margin)
  Confectionery (Distributive Margin)
  Colombian Coffee
  Colombian Coffee
  Lentils
  Lentils
  Bread, Sunderland
  Bread, Sunderland
  Retailing and Catering Licences
  Retailing and Catering Licences
ROADS
  Indivisible Loads (Obstruction)
  Indivisible Loads (Obstruction)
  Parades (Petrol)
  Parades (Petrol)
  Excursions (Peterborough Area)
  Excursions (Peterborough Area)
  Traffic Regulations, Central London
  Traffic Regulations, Central London
  Aust-Beachley Ferry (Delays)
  Aust-Beachley Ferry (Delays)
  Motor Vehicles (U.S. Manufacture)
  Motor Vehicles (U.S. Manufacture)
  Temporary Bridges (Thames)
  Temporary Bridges (Thames)
RAILWAYS
  Punctuality
  Punctuality
  Reserved Compartment (Waterloo Train)
  Reserved Compartment (Waterloo Train)
  Liverpool Street—Bishop's Stortford
  Liverpool Street—Bishop's Stortford
  Charges (Increases)
  Charges (Increases)
  Treforest (Station Amenities)
  Treforest (Station Amenities)
  Children's Tickets
  Children's Tickets
SHIPPING
  U.K.—South Africa
  U.K.—South Africa
AGRICULTURE
  Tenant Farmer (Notice to Quit)
  Tenant Farmer (Notice to Quit)
  Woodlands Census
  Woodlands Census
  Fen Floods (Dutch Pumping Plant)
  Fen Floods (Dutch Pumping Plant)
  Executive Committee, Bucks (Officials' Cars)
  Executive Committee, Bucks (Officials' Cars)
  Flood-Damaged Land (Acreage Payments)
  Flood-Damaged Land (Acreage Payments)
SWAZILAND
  Anti-Erosion Measures
  Anti-Erosion Measures
  Land Settlement
  Land Settlement
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Agricultural Machinery (Steel)
  Agricultural Machinery (Steel)
  Motor Cars (B.E.A.C. Employees)
  Motor Cars (B.E.A.C. Employees)
  Atomic Energy (Information)
  Atomic Energy (Information)
  Commercial Vehicles (Manufacture)
  Commercial Vehicles (Manufacture)
  Nickel Spectacle Frames
  Nickel Spectacle Frames
  Cooking Apparatus (Production)
  Cooking Apparatus (Production)
  Heavy Industries, South Wales
  Heavy Industries, South Wales
  Factories, Bootle and Drigg
  Factories, Bootle and Drigg
  Hay Forks and Hand Hoes
  Hay Forks and Hand Hoes
  Motor Vehicles and Drivers (Ministers)
  Motor Vehicles and Drivers (Ministers)
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  SOUTH AFRICAN TERRITORIES (DEVELOPMENT)
  SOUTH AFRICAN TERRITORIES (DEVELOPMENT)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Building Alterations, Leicester
  Building Alterations, Leicester
  I.C.I. House (Electricity Charges)
  I.C.I. House (Electricity Charges)
  Cement
  Cement
  Mobile Labour Force (Working Hours)
  Mobile Labour Force (Working Hours)
  Requisitioned Dwellings (Release)
  Requisitioned Dwellings (Release)
  Building Repairs (Licensing)
  Building Repairs (Licensing)
  Rubbish Disposal, Hyde Park
  Rubbish Disposal, Hyde Park
  Sports Stadium, Rayleigh
  Sports Stadium, Rayleigh
  Crockery (School Canteens)
  Crockery (School Canteens)
  New House of Commons Building (Radio Reception)
  New House of Commons Building (Radio Reception)
  Staunch Buildings, Edinburgh (Release)
  Staunch Buildings, Edinburgh (Release)
  Temporary Houses (Stocks)
  Temporary Houses (Stocks)
  British Embassy, Rome (New Building)
  British Embassy, Rome (New Building)
INDIA
  Imported War Stores
  Imported War Stores
  Indian Army (Temporary Commission)
  Indian Army (Temporary Commission)
  Home Civil Service Candidates
  Home Civil Service Candidates
  Transfer of Power (Commercial Treaty)
  Transfer of Power (Commercial Treaty)
BURMA
  War Damage Claims
  War Damage Claims
  Civil Services (Compensation)
  Civil Services (Compensation)
  GREECE (GUERRILLA ATTACKS)
  GREECE (GUERRILLA ATTACKS)
  HUNGARY (POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS)
  HUNGARY (POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS)
GERMANY
  Denazification Proceedings
  Denazification Proceedings
  Illegitimate Children (British Fathers)
  Illegitimate Children (British Fathers)
  UNITED NATIONS (HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION)
  UNITED NATIONS (HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION)
  EUROPEAN VOLUNTEER WORKERS (DOMESTICS)
  EUROPEAN VOLUNTEER WORKERS (DOMESTICS)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Anglo-Soviet Trade Talks
  Anglo-Soviet Trade Talks
  Household Linen
  Household Linen
  Catering Establishments (Crockery)
  Catering Establishments (Crockery)
  Paper Supplies (Foreign Publications)
  Paper Supplies (Foreign Publications)
  Rubber Dump Fire, Mitcham
  Rubber Dump Fire, Mitcham
  Parachute Material (Disposal)
  Parachute Material (Disposal)
COAL INDUSTRY
  Durham Mineworkers (Ex-Gratia Payments)
  Durham Mineworkers (Ex-Gratia Payments)
  DURHAM WINDING ENGINEMEN' S STRIKE
  DURHAM WINDING ENGINEMEN' S STRIKE
  Coal Board (Minister's Directions)
  Coal Board (Minister's Directions)
  Vested Property
  Vested Property
  RUMANIAN OIL
  RUMANIAN OIL
BRITISH ARMY
  War Graves (Visits)
  War Graves (Visits)
  Vehicles, Knole Park Depot
  Vehicles, Knole Park Depot
  LIBYA (FOOD SITUATION)
  LIBYA (FOOD SITUATION)
  FOREIGN TOURISTS (STERLING NOTES)
  FOREIGN TOURISTS (STERLING NOTES)
  WAR DAMAGE REPAIRS
  WAR DAMAGE REPAIRS
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY (LIVING STAGE)
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY (LIVING STAGE)
  REGISTERS OF ELECTORS (PRINTING)
  REGISTERS OF ELECTORS (PRINTING)
  POLICE FORCE AMALGAMATIONS (CHIEF CONSTABLES)
  POLICE FORCE AMALGAMATIONS (CHIEF CONSTABLES)
  UGANDA (BUGANDA DEPORTEES)
  UGANDA (BUGANDA DEPORTEES)
  COLONIAL RESEARCH SERVICES (CANDIDATES)
  COLONIAL RESEARCH SERVICES (CANDIDATES)
Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  HELSTON AND PORTHLEVEN WATER BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed.
LONDON, MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

TRANSPORT BILL.
4.5 P.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD MORRISON: On behalf of my noble friend, Viscount Addison, I beg to move that this House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Moved, That this House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Morrison.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, on the Motion to go into Committee on this Bill, I desire to call attention to a matter with regard to which I have given private notice to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House. In a sentence, I want to enter a protest against what I, and I think some of your Lordships, consider the entirely insufficient reasons which were given to your Lordships for the presentation of this Bill, and against the completely unsatisfactory (as I thought) answers to the criticisms which were given. If the noble Viscount replies that the proper way for your Lordships to indicate your disapproval of a Bill, or your disapproval of the reasons which were given in support of it, is by voting against it on Second Reading, I must point out that, as I understand it, the reason your Lordships gave it a Second Reading was not on its merits, but because we considered the Bill which had
280
come to us from another place, supported, to some extent, by a mandate from the country, was one to which it was our duty to give a Second Reading. I think this is a somewhat new point, and one which is worth calling to the attention of your Lordships.
But the fact that we gave the Bill a Second Reading does not diminish in any way the duty which lies upon your Lordships' House to probe into the circumstances of the Bill, and to try to extract from the Government the most complete information about it and answers to any objections we have to put forward. The duty of your Lordships' House has always been that of a revising chamber, but I venture to say that, in the situation which is before us to-day, we have one, if not two, new duties put upon us. The first is the duty of elucidation, because nobody can say that this Bill was fully elucidated in another place. I am quite certain we shall have numerous questions to put to the Government about the Bill, questions which the guillotine rendered it impossible even to put in another place, still less to have answered. In addition to the duty of revising and of elucidating, there rests upon your Lordships more than ever the duty of education—the education of the country, and, I might perhaps venture to suggest, to some extent the education of noble Lords who sit behind the Government. I venture to say that this great Constitution of ours is developing before our very eyes. In the centuries that have gone by it has developed to meet the changing needs of circumstances, and I am quite confident it will continue so to develop in the future.
Turning to the Bill, I would point out that the noble Viscount and other noble Lords on the Front Bench told us that the reason for the Bill was that to-day transport must be run by a monopoly and that a monopoly must be in public ownership and not in private hands. In the course of my remarks I ventured to put forward the argument that there was a perfectly good alternative. Obviously I cannot go over the ground again, but I suggested it would be better, instead of acquiring the ownership, for the Government to retain control and for the competition between rail on the one side and road on the other, with the traders' "C" licences in between, to be main-

281
tained. In his reply, the noble Viscount referred to the alleged inadequacy of the Liverpool Street Station and said he had some notes on what he called my "apologia," but he did not give your Lordships the benefit of his reflections upon it. He ended that part of his remarks by saying that this Bill was clearly necessary—and that was that. The noble Viscount may say that if I was dissatisfied with his reply I ought to have interrupted him. I did not interrupt the noble Viscount because in the early stage of his remarks, in answer to an interjection from one of my noble friends opposite, he asked that we should not interrupt. If the noble Viscount would prefer that I should interrupt him, he has only to give me a hint, and on future occasions I will do my best to oblige.
If the noble Viscount says that there are difficulties and dangers inherent in the plan which I put forward, I would like to call his attention to the fact that these are nothing compared with the difficulties and dangers inherent in the Bill to which your Lordships have given a Second Reading. I only wish to mention three—they were mentioned in the Second Reading debate, and none of them, I submit, was replied to adequately. The first is the danger of lethargy and stagnation in the public transport services of this country which will inevitably result from the establishment of this vast monopoly. There will be no competition, and before very long the whole public service will descend, as I say, into lethargy and stagnation. The second great danger to which this Bill opens the door wide is that of political jobbery, with large numbers of important appointments to be made by the Minister and, as I maintain, constant day-to-day interference in the running of the transport system. How very different from the system of public corporations which we have hitherto understood was advocated for the nationalization of transport by the Labour Party. The third great danger is the terrific centralization which is to take
place in this vast transport monopoly, with road, rail and waterways all in one hand. That centralization is bound to have the most maleficent effect, both as regards human relations with the staff and in the efficiency of the services. I venture to submit that those are all perfectly good Second Reading points, and not one of them was
282
adequately answered by the noble Viscount.
The fact is that the Government do not know what they are letting themselves in for in introducing this Bill. If I may say so, without disrespect to the noble Viscount, the bland optimism which he displayed on Second Reading is coming in for some painful surprises. If I may say so, too, he reminds me of an irresponsible small boy who finds himself in the switch room of some power station. The noble Viscount is going to pull a switch which he fondly hopes will send a great current surging through the transport system of the country. Let him beware that the switch he is going to pull is not that one which will completely fuse the whole works.
4.14 p.m.
THE MARQUESS or SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to support what has been said so powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. As he has explained, it is not the purpose of the Opposition this afternoon to stimulate another Second Reading debate, nor to raise again all the points that were discussed on that occasion. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, pointed out, there was one vital question asked on Second Reading—I think by nearly all speakers on this side of the House, and particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, himself—to which, in effect no real answer was given by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House. We therefore feel justified in pressing the noble Viscount now for more definite information on the question.
That question, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, said, is a very simple one. It is this: Why are the Government bringing in this legislation? What is the real motive behind the nationalization of inland transport? The country was given to understand by the Lord President of the Council, in a speech which he made some months ago—and it was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, on the Address—that the criterion of all proposals for nationalization was to be the efficiency of the industry. It seems to us, therefore, that it is up to the Government to make out the case for nationalization—to show, first, that inland transport has been inefficiently managed in the past, and, secondly, that it would be more efficiently managed under Government ownership.

283
As your Lordships know, I was not present at the Second Reading debate, but I have read it very carefully in Hansard. What did I then find? I found that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House made no real attempt to give a detailed justification of the proposals. He made no attempt to controvert the very powerful arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. All he said, on the main broad issue, was this:
"I think we can all agree that, in the main, discussion of the past two days has not really challenged the main purpose of the Bill."
From that I can conclude only that the noble Viscount's mind was not entirely on the debate which was taking place. I would not criticize him for that, because we all know how heavily over-burdened he is with work at the present time, but evidently he had not understood the gist of the remarks made. Secondly, he said that it was clearly necessary that this thing should be done, whereas the whole argument of the Opposition was that it was clearly unnecessary for this to be done. To treat noble Lords so lightheartedly as that is surely not fair to the House or to the country. As the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has so truly said this afternoon, the main function of this House is to educate public opinion, and if the Government have any case at all why do they not take us and the country into their confidence?
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, gave five powerful reasons why nationalization of inland transport would be disastrous in its results. I do not intend to re-open all those points but I would remind the House of one of them. I quote the noble Lord's words:
"By control, we can centralize policy and delegate administration, and the whole system can be kept human and free from political pressure. Ownership will create a vast bureaucratic monopoly"
—a monopoly, I may add, very susceptible not only to jobbery of the type to which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh has referred, but also to political pressure. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House made no attempt to reply to this argument and yet to many of us it is fundamental. In our view State ownership is bound to lead this great transport industry into the maelstrom of political controversy, which, in our view will be fatal to its efficiency. The Minister and
284
the Government will be subject to perpetual political pressure.
No doubt some modus vivendi must be found to co-ordinate the activities of road and rail transport. I believe that in the debate on the Address the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, himself—as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said the other day—pointed out that it is co-ordination, not ownership, that is the fundamental problem. But surely it is not beyond the wit of man to find some machinery not open to the dangers to which I have referred. It is not merely that the Minister is likely to become a sort of political Aunt Sally to the various interests concerned; there is the even greater danger that he will have far too much to do, and that he will be far too heavily over-weighted. It is true that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, attempted on the Second Reading debate to reassure the House on this point. He said:
"It is not the intention that the Minister of Transport, on behalf of the Government, should interfere with the administration of the Transport System or with the discretion of the Commission and the Executives."
But the fact remains that in a nationalized industry the ultimate responsibility must rest with the Minister. It is he who stands on the pinnacle of this great and, in our view, top-heavy structure which the Government are building up.
Does not the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, with all his Parliamentary experience, realize that if anything goes wrong it is on the Minister that Parliament will turn. He will not be able to deter Parliament by referring them to the members of the Commission. It is the Minister who will have to defend the Commission, the Executives, and everybody else; and he will have to do that in addition to all his ministerial and other duties. As a result, he will have to insist that all really important decisions shall be referred to him. I think any of us who have been Ministers know that difficulty. If there is an important
decision which we shall have to defend later on we must have our say in that decision; we cannot leave it to somebody lower down in our office. That will happen in this office just the same as in any other. Will that constant stream of questions which will have to be brought to the Minister for a decision make for efficiency in the industry? I cannot believe—and I hope to be for-

285
given for saying so—that it is the interests of efficiency which impel the Government to take this step. I still believe it is slavish adherence to a political theory; indeed, that is not only my view, but undoubtedly the view of so important a man as the present Minister of Health.
In a speech at Blaenau Festiniog only a month ago, on May 5, he said, quite frankly, referring to the iron and steel industry—but it applies equally, or even more, to inland transport:
"We are taking it over, not because it is inefficient, but because we think that it contains too much power to be left in private hands."
The right honourable gentleman said "We," and he was, presumably, speaking for the Government. In the light of those words we in this House and, I think the country, are entitled to ask: Where do the Government stand? What is the motive behind this; policy of nationalization? We are the more entitled to ask it in this House because the Minister of Health added in the same speech that the Government anticipated that they might have trouble with the Transport Bill when it came to the House of Lords, and he used these words:
"But if Labour faces up to the future and the House of Lords attempts to frustrate the Bill, we shall set their resistance aside. Speaking for myself, I would set the House of Lords aside anyway."
I think that is a little ungracious of the Minister of Health. The Labour Government have been in power for over two years up to now and the House of Lords has frustrated no bill on which the electorate are assumed to have expressed a view at the General Election. We are fully conscious that many of the electorate are beginning now to feel that they were a little precipitate when they made their vote. We have amended Government Bills and, if I may say so, by our joint efforts we have improved Bills when they have come here. We propose to take exactly the same action with this Bill. We shall examine it in a way which was not done in another place. We shall endeavour to amend it, where necessary, so as to make it more workable. I appreciate that even this rather moderate policy is unpalatable to the Minister of Health, who does not appear to believe very much in Parliamentary Government. I should add that, in any case, the speech to which I have referred was made at a May Day
286
celebration in his native country of Wales, where no doubt he felt on the top of his form and justified in letting himself go; and much must be forgiven for a May Day frolic of that kind.
But at the same time, before we proceed to the duties which the Constitution imposes upon us in this House, I feel we may fairly ask for the information, both of ourselves and of our fellow citizens, who are directing the policy of the Government today and what that policy really is. Are we to believe the Lord President of the Council, or are we to believe the Minister of Health? Is the criterion to be efficiency, or is it a mere desire for autocratic power? That is the question which was not answered by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, on the Second Reading, and in view of what the Minister of Health has said I feel sure that he will see the absolute necessity of answering it this afternoon.
4.25 p.m.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, I do not wish to delay the I louse for more than a few moments, but in those few moments I should like to associate those who sit on these Benches with what has been said by the two noble Lords who have just spoken. We on these Benches also feel that we received a very inadequate reply to all the arguments which were put forward. I think that I myself may claim the distinction, in relation to the length at which I spoke, of having had the least reply of any noble Lords. We put forward from these Benches a view slightly different, but with the same object, as that of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh—that one should have real competition between road and rail transport. The spokesman for the Government made no answer to that whatever. I think the Government rather thought that I had been answered by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, but I shall have an opportunity of saying that that was no answer.
I am glad that we shall have an opportunity of suggesting, in this Committee, means by which effective competition between rail and road transport, on fair terms, combined with any necessary co-operation, can be brought about; and I hope that when these, propositions are made the Government will endeavour to answer them by reason and not by assertion of their will. For these reasons I want to associate myself with what has

287
been said about giving this House serious reasons as to what is best for the country —irrespective of political views and political doctrine—in transport.
4.27 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, as an old Parliamentarian listening to these speeches I have been asking myself into what form of procedure it seems to fit and, quite frankly, I find it difficult in my own mind to frame any sort of answer. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, is not satisfied with the reply he received to his speech, but I have often been in that position myself. I think that large numbers of us who entertain a view, to which somebody who entertains a different view replies, are quite commonly dissatisfied with that reply. That is human nature, but I do not see that that is any particular reason for altering the general form of our Parliamentary procedure, and I am still perplexed as to the inner meaning of this—what shall I say—demonstration. I was exceedingly entertained and interested in the quotations which the noble Marquess made from the speeches
of the Lord President of the Council and the Minister of Health and, in one case, in certain animadversions upon your Lordships' House. But I do not quite see what is the connexion of those observations with the Transport Bill, and it was that which added to my perplexity.
I should have said myself—but I admit I am a prejudiced person, because I believe in this proposal—that the speeches on the Second Reading were exceedingly capable speeches. My noble friend Lord Pakenham and my noble friend Lord Walkden made speeches in favour of the principle of this Bill which seemed to me, as I read them again, exceedingly capable speeches, directed to the fundamental questions with which this Bill deals. Quite honestly, I am always most solicitous to do everything I possibly can to please the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and I am sorry that he is displeased. But, as I have already said, the Second Reading debate was, in my opinion, at any rate, an excellent debate, and dealt with the case very fairly. So far as this particular proposal is concerned, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh,
288
seemed to be treading on rather a dangerous slope when he meditated upon the functions of this House with regard to the other. I am not pursuing that, but I should have said—and in this I am glad to find some reinforcement in what the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition said—that if the representative Chamber, with a large majority, in fulfilment of longstanding engagements and in execution of an undoubted mandate, passed a Bill, that was a good reason and not an insufficient reason. It was a very good reason indeed, at all events, for your Lordships giving the Bill a Second Reading with a view to examining it in detail. It is not part of the proposal itself, but it is a good reason.
I entirely agreed with what the noble Lord said as to the function of this House, and I think we are greatly indebted to the noble Marquess for all that he has done during the last two years to make it clear to everybody how this House does its work. It certainly improves Bills, and I think that he and I have had a hand together on certain occasions in improving Bills. I am following the thought of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. He said that he hoped that members of the Government would themselves be susceptible to further education. I accept that. I am an old man myself, but I always keep trying to learn. I hope the noble Lord will not shut himself out from that desire for education. I hope that he too will be willing to learn—even something about transport. I should have said that if there is any subject of the Labour Party's programme which has been debated in season and out of season for a generation, it is transport.
The noble Lord has forgotten, and the noble Marquess has forgotten (or he wisely omitted to mention) that the Leader of his own Party championed this proposal in 1918; and he had many good reasons for doing it. But this is a proposal that has been discussed in season and out of season for more than a generation. There is no doubt of that—and it was in fact supported by Mr. Churchill, so far as railways are concerned, in 1918. Now we are confronted with a gradual increase, by the circumstances of the case, in the growth of a great monopoly in transport. That has been going on during the last generation, and it is inevitable, in the course of the improvement in means of

289
locomotion, the development of road transport and so forth, that we should have more and more of a monopoly in transport. In the case of the big railways, 120 were consolidated into four under Sir Eric Geddes' proposals, and the process has gone on. The railways have acquired interests in various other concerns—and quite rightly; I am not blaming them for it.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, seems to forecast the necessity of the development of considerable competition between road and rail transport; in fact he extols it in his speech. We do not agree with him, but we think that these things should be consolidated and that all forms of transport should work together, should be harmonized and directed together. The necessity of harmonizing road and rail transport must have been realized by the railway companies themselves; if not, why have they acquired great road transport services? We do not want a glorious scramble; we want transport to be dealt with as a whole. The railway companies themselves seem to have taken the view of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, otherwise why did they acquire these road transport undertakings? The noble Lord admitted, indeed extolled, the necessity for public control. You cannot adequately exercise control unless you have ownership, and personally I do not believe control cannot be exercised at all in the public interest unless there is ownership. That is why this Bill is presented in the form it is.
The noble Lord forecast that if this great monopoly is set up there will be an immense development of civil servants, as well as of people carrying their own goods. The question I ask myself is, not what the situation will be in the future, but why has there been in the past this immense development of "C" licences? Why have hundreds of thousands of traders spent money in vehicles for transporting their own goods? It is because they have not been satisfied with the services otherwise available. Whether this Bill will make for a diminution of that will depend on its development. I hope it will be well developed and well managed, so that traders will be glad to make use of the public transport service instead of buying vehicles of their own. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I think the case for this proposal has been abundantly made. I think, notwithstanding his dis-
290
appointment, that the speeches on the Second Reading were excellent ones, and to me anyhow were very convincing.
I do not wish longer to trespass upon your Lordships' time. For my own part I have never known a case argued more fully and better established. I hope that after this diversion your Lordships will now consider the matter in detail.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Would the noble Viscount kindly tell us whether we are to accept the statements of the Lord President of the Council or the Minister of Health, because their opinions are diametrically opposed.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am sorry I have not the quotation before me, so that I cannot express an opinion.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: Could the noble Viscount give us a definition of "monopoly"? He quoted transport. According to my information, which may be incorrect, there are about 47,000 "A" and "B" Licences and about 140,000 "C" Licences. Does the noble Viscount consider road transport is a monopoly?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: What I said was that there has been an increase in the last twenty-five years, up to this year, in the monopoly of road transport. There were 200 railway concerns, which were consolidated into the four main ones; previously there had been even more. And what applies to them applies to road transport. I did not say there was a complete monopoly now because, of course, there is not, but there is a greatly developed monopoly.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: Can the noble Viscount give any figures to show that the number of "C" Licences is larger than a few years ago?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I do not think that the development of the internal combustion engine has anything to do with it.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I should like to ask the Leader of the House one question. In Clause r it says that members of the
Commission shall be appointed by the Minister. May I ask whether that involves power of dismissal of each of the members of the Commission by the Minister?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I think those points will arise later, when we reach the Committee stage. I hope the noble Lord will wait until then.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of Drogheda in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
The Commission.
1.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, there shall be a public authority to be called the British Transport Commission (in this Act referred to as "the Commission").
(2) The Commission shall consist of a chairman and four other members, all of whom shall he appointed by the Minister from among persons appearing to him to be persons who have had wide experience and shown capacity in transport, industrial, commercial or financial matters, in administration, or in the organization of workers.
(7) The Commission—

(a) shall pay to the members thereof such salaries or fees, and such allowances, as the Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine; and

(b) on the retirement or death of any of the members as to whom the Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine that such provision should be made, shall pay to or in respect of them such pensions as he may so determine.

LORD BEVERIDGE LORD BEVERIDGE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "four" and insert "not more than nine." The noble Lord said: I rise to move the first Amendment standing in my name. The object of this Amendment is, of course, the same as that of an Amendment standing in the name of another noble Lord immediately following; that is, to increase the possible size of the Commission. In the Bill, as it stands, the Commission are limited absolutely to five. This is a smaller number than is common to any business concern or any body of directors, and if the Commission are to be regarded as a business, a body limited to five is obviously wrong. From the discussion which occurred in another place, I understood the ground on which this number of five were to be exclusively engaged on committee work was that the executive work was to be done by the Executive, and that the Commission should be men of policy, like the candidates we used to have in the First World War.
There is a great deal to be said for having people who are not concerned in daily tasks in the right place, but I suggest that it is absolutely wrong in this kind of body, because transport must be the concern of the Minister and cannot be the responsibility of anybody else.
292
Therefore, the Commission ought to be regarded as a business policy, and not simply as a policy body of people not doing business. For that reason, I very much hope that your Lordships will in this House take a more accepting attitude and change the character of the Commission. These Amendments in my mind, and similar Amendments in the names of other noble Lords, are tied up with the position of the Executive. In our view on this side of the House, we think the Commission ought to be an executive body, in charge of everything which falls to it, and that the Executives to be appointed to it should be capable of breaking themselves up into committees. For that reason I think it should be enlarged. I beg to move the Amendment in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("four") and insert ("not more than nine").—(Lord Beveridge.)
4.42 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: I beg to support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, and might I suggest that the next Amendment to page 1, line 10, be also discussed? That Amendment is to increase the number of members from four to ten. The Bill as drawn requires that the members of the Commission shall have wide experience of transport, industrial, commercial and financial matters, in administration, or in the organization of workers. I suggest that it would be almost impossible to combine all those in a "Big Five," including a chairman. In the Transport section alone, it would be highly unlikely that one person could be obtained who is an expert in road and rail transport and docks and harbours. It is laid down in the Bill that the Commission are to prepare schemes covering road haulage, passenger vehicles, docks and harbours, all of which are matters of immense complexity, and I strongly suggest that the whole operation of the Bill will be defeated unless the Commission is enlarged beyond the very small number which is laid down in the Bill. The members will not be fully aware of the effects of the policy decisions which are made, and unless you give the policy makers someone who knows what the effects will be, wrong decisions undoubtedly will be made. I do consider that a very important point.

293
The Commission is not only a policy making body; it is a co-ordinating body. It will have to co-ordinate everything, and in fact it will be the largest hotel keeper in the world. It is not intended by this Amendment that all of the ten should be filled by whole-time members, because I know that it is essential that at least one or two of the Commission should have other interests as well and know what is going on, for instance, in the financial world. A further Amendment in my name seeks to insert a new subsection (3), and is designed to ensure that if the first Amendment is accepted, at least five of the members of the Commission and the Chairman should be full-time members. That is a very necessary provision in view of the work that will be carried out by the Commission. A third Amendment is designed to ensure that if the first Amendment is not accepted, all the members shall be full-time members in view of the vast amount of work they will have to carry out.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I thank the noble Lord for his suggestion that the Amendments on the first page of the Order Paper should be taken together, because, as he very rightly points out, they are all part of the same suggestion. I have discussed this point very carefully with my right honourable friend, the Minister of Transport, and on his behalf I am going to make a suggestion to the noble Lord Which I hope he will be able to consider. I think there is a great deal of substance in his contention that in a vast business like this the number of persons on the Commission is on the small side. We are all subject to human failings; one of them might be ill or off duty for some reason, another might have to travel, and one, as we know, will be on the consultative committee, which will take up a great deal of time when it gets started. My right honourable friend, therefore, proposes, and is agreeable to, an enlargement of the number on the lines suggested, but we hope the noble Lord will be willing to consider a little fewer than ten; I would suggest enlarging the Commission to eight.
I consider that the point the noble Lord raised in the new Subsection (3), that not less than five should devote their whole time to the affairs of the commission, indicates a very sound point. I am suggesting, however, that the mem-
294
bers of the Commission should number eight instead of ten. Therefore we might be able to accept the second Amendment if the number "four" is inserted instead of five. That would leave the Commission with four persons who might be part-time members in the way the noble Lord suggested. The words of the Bill require the Minister to select persons with wide experience in transport, industrial, commercial or financial matters, in administration or in the organization of workers, and I do respectfully suggest that those words are wide enough. They are very wide indeed. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, attaches great importance to the fact that one of them at least should be a man of experience in commercial matters. I assure him that that will be so, and I give that undertaking. With that understanding, I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to accept my suggestion. If he is I would suggest that the proposal might be altered in this way: Page 1, line 10, leave out "four" and insert "not less than four nor more than eight." That makes it eight. In place of the words lower down; I suggest the Amendment should read: "and of whom the Chairman and not less than four other members shall be required to render whole-time service to the Commission." That meets the whole-time point. I have supplied the noble Lord with a copy of the amended form and I hope he will be willing to accept it.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think this is a very auspicious beginning to our Committee stage, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the practical and conciliatory way in which this point has been met. I do not suppose that any of my noble friends attach any sacrosanct importance to the figure "9" or to the figure "10," or even to the sacred figure "7." What we all wanted to be assured of in this were one or two things; the first being that we should have a body large enough to do its work effectively, for it is a tremendous task which this Commission have to undertake. Another matter on which we wished to be assured was that the Commission should be large enough to have both whole-time and part-time members. I agree that it may be important to have several members who are part-time and have special knowledge which may be of great value. We are aware of the value or a board of the

295
sort of knowledge that I mean. We have all known of a man of great experience who gives the benefit of experience to a board without being himself a whole-time executive member of the Board. In the same way, an elder statesman, like the Leader of the House, will give his assistance to a Cabinet Committee. While he does not himself assume executive responsibility, out of the wealth of his experience he contributes a great deal. I take it that all these points are met by the proposal of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, but I should like to be clear about this. The Amendment which he has suggested is to the effect that there shall be a Chairman and not less than four or more than eight others. He said that that means eight in all. In fact, of course, it means nine.
I do not cavil at the words "not less than four or more than eight" because, clearly, from what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has said, it is the intention that there should be nine persons, out of whom there will be not fewer than four who will devote their whole time to the work of the Commission. The noble Viscount has given me in advance an undertaking which I think is implicit in the words of the clause as it stands; that is, that at least one member will be a man who has had wide commercial experience. In all these circumstances, and in view of the assurance which the noble Viscount has now given me across the floor of the House, I think that my noble friends on this side, and possibly also the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, will be content to accept this. I thank the noble Viscount warmly of the way in which he has met us.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Before we leave this Amendment I wonder if I might ask the noble Viscount if he could give me some information which I think would help us in deciding about the right number: some information about how this set-up will work. We have been told that the Commission are a policy-making body. I think it is quite clear that policy over a very wide range will have to be considered not only by the Commission, but by the Minister, and also by the Executives. What I want to ask the noble Viscount to do, if he will—because it is vital to the understanding of this Bill—is to give us some information
296
as to what are to be the dividing lines of policy as between the Minister, the Commission and the Executives. I could give the Committee innumerable examples, but I think that a little later, when we come to the question of the Executives, we may have to go into some detail. If I may, I will give four examples: First, the question of staff relations. On the low level, such relations will clearly be a matter for the individual Executive; but on the higher level who is to attend to them, the Minister or the Commission? Or are the Commission going to do it after submitting the matter to the Minister? Then, as to rates and charges: Will these be a matter solely for the Commission? That is something I would like to know. My third example relates to the question of modes of traction. The whole question of tractive power is very much in the melting pot at the moment. We have a choice between steam, electricity, the diesel engine, the diesel-electric engine, and maybe others. In due course, doubtless, there will be jet-propulsion and atomic power. There are tremendous questions of policy with regard to traction existing at the moment. Who is to deal with them?
Then, too, a function which has been attributed to the Commission is that of co-ordination. How are they going to carry that out? The Executives, according to the Bill, are functional. How is functional co-ordination to be carried out by the Commission? I do not desire to take up unnecessary time, but your Lordships will see that without any information about the way this set-up is going to work it would not be right to part with Clause 1.
LORD BEVERIDGE: The Government have agreed to accept "Not less than four and not more than eight" which, of course means nine altogether. In those circumstances, I shall be happy to withdraw my Amendment, so that the Government may move the Amendments of which they have given notice. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Before that is done, I think the Minister should be given the opportunity of replying to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I think that the answers to a good many of the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, addressed to me will necessarily

297
emerge in the discussions of the various Amendments that we have before us on Clause 1. With regard to the functions of the Executives, and their relations to the Commission, information will certainly emerge in the discussions that we shall have on some of the noble Lord's own Amendments. I should have said that it is clear that the general scheme here is to have a policy-making body unencumbered with duties of an executive kind—a small policy-making body which will advise the Minister and take account of the various things that fall within their duty. I do not think it would be possible for me to answer in advance how the various questions which will arise will be dealt with. For example, industrial questions will clearly be within the immediate scope of the Executives, but it is clear that from time to time major questions of policy will emerge which the Executives will refer to the Commission; or the Minister himself may refer to them for advice. It will depend on the character of the particular problem how it will be dealt with and who will deal with it.
Generally, the idea of the Bill is that you will have this small policy-making body at the top with the functions set out in these and following clauses, and it will be kept, so far as possible, divorced from the detailed administrative questions. For instance, it will be their duty to have schemes framed, as the noble Lord has indicated, with regard to various matters. It will be the duty of the Commission to initiate procedure, to get schemes, to appoint people to draw them up and consider them. Those schemes will subsequently be discussed in the Commission and, as required, matters will be referred to the Minister. With regard to Charges, there is a special machine set up to deal with them—a consultative council, a tribunal and all the rest of it. I should have thought the right thing to do would be to discuss the details of that machinery as we reach the relevant clauses. It is the duty of the Commission to see that those different bodies are brought into existence and that this machinery is created, and I imagine that so far as possible the Commission will adopt the policy of referring questions relating to charges and rates to the elaborate machinery that will be set up in the Bill for that specific purpose. It is far more difficult to answer in advance precisely the question
298
of the noble Lord; in the main I have given an indication of the policy of the Commission as apart from its functions.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the information given, but may I return to the charge on just one point, the question of functional co-ordination, to which the noble Viscount did not refer.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Between the different Executives?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I have studied what was said in another place about the relationship between the Commission and the Executives, which is a matter of first importance. The Minister said:
"The Commission's job is to fulfil the purpose which Parliament has in view in passing this Bill. It will be responsible for co-ordination, it is true, but it will not have to carry out the task of co-ordination. That will be done from day to day by the executive bodies. The Commission will be responsible for seeing that the Executives work together for a common purpose."
Perhaps it is unfair to ask the noble Viscount to do it to-day, but perhaps at a later stage he will tell us something more about that. If the Executives are functionless, I do not see how the Commission can co-ordinate them. This statement seems to leave the matter in such a vague way that we are entitled to more information.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am afraid I did omit that in what I said, but I know that some of the Amendments in the name of the noble Lord and of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, raise the whole question of the relationship of the Executives to the Commission on Clause 5. If the noble Lord will look at the bottom of page 7, he will see there it says clearly:
"Each Executive shall, as agents for the Commission, exercise such functions of the Commission as are for the time being delegated to them by a scheme made by the Commission."
I would have thought that a practical scheme must provide for proper co-ordination between the different Executives: it would not be a proper scheme unless it did. I should have thought it was the duty of the Commission in framing schemes for delegation of duties to Executives to take care that that very vital point was dealt with. I think the

299
Amendment submitted by the noble Lord himself to leave out the words "approved by the Minister" in that particular section, will give rise to a discussion on that very point.
LORD BEVERIDGE: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("four") and insert ("not less than four nor more than eight").—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I beg to move my second Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, at end insert ("and of whom the Chairman and not less than four other members shall be required to render whole-time service to the Commission").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEYNHAMmoved at the end of subsection (1) to insert "and of whom one shall be selected by the Minister from persons having a special knowledge of trade and industry." The noble Lord said: I venture to point out that if membership is not large enough to cover the various fields controlled, there will be insufficient experience among the membership as a whole to be aware of any defect of any decision at which they may arrive. It is of vital importance to the functioning of the Commission. This Amendment seeks to provide that one member has special knowledge of trade and industry, a man actively engaged in a large business and well known in the industrial world and not merely a sit-at-home planner. If the Commission are composed of perhaps only those with Civil Service qualifications, trade and industry is bound to suffer through lack of practical knowledge.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Teynham.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I thought I had dealt with the two Amendments in our general review. I am sure that the words in subsection (2) of Clause I really cover all that is wanted. I give noble Lords the assurance that this will cover the point.
LORD TEYNHAM: In view of the assurance of the noble Viscount, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved at the end of subsection (1) to insert:
"and one of whom shall be appointed by the Minister from among persons appearing to him to be persons who have had wide experience and shown capacity in harbour administrations or in the commercial use of harbours as shipowners or traders."
The noble Lord said: The shipping industry, allied with harbour administration, is one of the most important industries in this country. It is a specialized one, requiring expert knowledge, and woe betide the landlubber who meddles with its intricacies with a superficial knowledge gained on the beach at Margate! The noble Viscount will realize the importance of this appointment on the Commission.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Teynham.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I hope the noble Lord will not press me to put these words in the Bill. A person who has shown experience and capacity in commercial matters will certainly fill the bill. I give him the assurance that the Minister is fully aware of this necessity, but we are averse to putting a catalogue of qualifications in the Bill. My noble friend has authorized me to say he will bear it fully in mind.
LORD TEYNHAM: In view of the noble Viscount's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEYNHAMhad given notice that he would move at the end of subsection (7) to insert:
"Provided that the Minister shall inform Parliament upon the first appointment of the chairman and other members of the Commission and at the end of each financial year of the Commission of the amount of the salaries, fees and other allowances payable to each of them on appointment and paid to each of them during each financial year."
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I should like to make two alterations to the last two lines: after the word "allowances" to insert "or advantages," and after "payable" to insert "or to be granted." It is a matter of public interest that the fullest possible information should be given to the country in regard to salaries, pensions, allowances and fees in regard to public corporations. Unless these facts are disclosed, I feel that rumours and untruths will surround the members of the Commission concerning their salaries and

301
emoluments. The people of this country have a right to know how their money is being spent. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 32, at end, insert—
("Provided that the Minister shall inform Parliament upon the first appointment of the chairman and other members of the Commission and at the end of each financial year of the Commission of the amount of the salaries, fees and other allowances or advantages payable or to be granted to each of them on appointment and paid to each of them during each financial year.")—(Lord Teynham.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I think the proposal of the noble Lord—and what the noble Lord is aiming at—is fully met by our existing Parliamentary arrangements. The Minister is answerable to Parliament, and can be questioned at any time about such appointments. He is required to inform Parliament as to the appointments he makes and the salaries which are attached to such appointments. I am sure there is no disposition whatever to hide those facts. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that the public should know about them. I think it is fair to say that matters affecting salaries, allowances and other emoluments will be revealed in the statement made by the Minister, and, if they are not automatically revealed, he can be questioned about any given individual and will have to give a reply in Parliament. I do not think the words proposed by the noble Lord are necessary. We all agree with the noble Lord that these things should be revealed to Parliament—as they will be in the ordinary course.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I hope that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will not leave the matter there. He himself said that the whole of these emoluments and considerations should be fully disclosed to Parliament.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Yes.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: He says that somewhere in the Bill (with great respect, I think he is wrong) there is something which causes the Minister to disclose them. I have read the Bill with great care, and, unless he can point: to a provision which says that the Minister has to disclose those matters—to disclose them year by year, and to disclose variations of them—I would say that I do not think there is any such provision. There is nothing about it in the report which is to be rendered to Parliament, and there is nothing
302
about it in the clauses dealing with accounts. It would be entirely unsatisfactory that this should be left to questions and answers in Parliament. It is not right. It is not a regular system. The moment you begin asking questions in Parliament you raise the suggestion that a man is being paid too much or that there is something unsatisfactory. That is a very undesirable thing, from the point of view of Parliament, of the Minister and of the Commission.
I would also ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to observe another fact. After many weeks of discussion we have just sent the Companies Bill to another place. In that Bill, on the proposal of the Government, we have readily agreed to new provisions being put in as to the disclosure to shareholders, in the accounts which are rendered every year, of all remuneration which is paid directly or indirectly to directors. The words were most carefully considered and this requirement was agreed to by this House. I am sure that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House would not for moment suggest that what should apply to the chairman and directors of the board of any public company should not apply to this Commission, who are the exact equivalent of the chairman and directors of a board of an ordinary public company. If this is the right way of doing it, surely the right thing is to put this into the Bill as it stands. If that is not done, then inevitably the Government appear to suggest that they wish to have those whom the Minister appoints as his directors of one of these nationalized corporations in a different position from the directors of any public company. I am sure that is not the intention of the Government, but unless this clause can be accepted, it will go out —and rightly go out—to the people that the directors of a nationalized undertaking are to be treated in one way and the directors of a normal public undertaking are to be treated in a different way.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I entirely agree with the noble Viscount; I can give him a complete assurance. I was under the impression that what is provided for in Clause 7 (a) really meets the point: that the Commission "shall pay to the members thereof such salaries or fees, and such allowances, as the Minister may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine."

303
I am assured that it does mean that the Minister himself will inform Parliament as to all the appointments that are made.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: At all events, I will give the noble Viscount this assurance—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: May I interrupt the noble Viscount. I am sure he is wrong about this. If he will read subsection (7) he will see that it says: "The Commission shall pay to the members thereof …" But the Commission do not pay.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: With the Minister's approval—with the approval of the Treasury—they will be instructed in making the appointment. However, the point that we are now seeking to make clear is that the public are informed as to how these people are paid.
LORD WOOLTON: Automatically?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Automatically—certainly. I will give this undertaking: If the noble Lord will agree to this course, I will consult further with our advisers and if the point is not clearly and fully met—as required, for example, in the Companies Bill—I will consult with the noble Lord to see if it is necessary to put in some words on Report. As I am advised, I do not like accepting these words as they are. We both have the same intention. The Government have no desire to evade this. If the noble Lord will allow me to take that course, I should be much obliged, and we will consider the matter further.
VISCOUNT SIMON: May I be forgiven for saying a word? It is possible that with the best intention there is a little confusion. The proposal that is made by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, is that at the time of the appointment of the Chairman and the other members of the Commission Parliament shall be automatically informed. There would be an announcement made from the Box in this House, and a similar announcement made automatically in another place when these appointments are made. I do not think that anyone could say that the meaning of subsection (7) (a) is to that effect at all. Subsection (7) (a) (I am sure that the noble Viscount with his long experience will agree) is merely an authority to the
304
Commission as to the extent of the appointments that are to be made. It has nothing to do with an announcement to Parliament at the time when the appointment is made as to the terms of remuneration. It is a perfectly distinct circumstance.
There is also a further element. I think the confusion is very natural, and I am not, of course, criticizing anybody. Speaking subject to the correction of my noble friend Lord Teynham, I understand that his proposal would include an announcement to the House that the Chairman would be provided with a house to live in rent free, that he would be provided, without payment, with two motorcars, and with drivers and petrol. None of these would arise under subsection (7) (a). I entirely accept what the noble Viscount has said; I am sure it is true that everybody concerned wants to make a perfectly full, clear, and candid statement, and that everybody agrees that publicity at the beginning is very much better than it coming out afterwards—possibly by rumour which involves reflection upon people who do not deserve reflection upon them. But the point is that these two things are not the same. This Amendment provides that at the time the appointments are made, and the names notified, automatically, and as a matter of course, there should be information given to both Houses showing not only what the men are going to be paid, but also what are to be the advantages they will receive from the appointment.
That is what my noble friend Lord Teynham had in mind (though I am not sure that is what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has in mind at the moment) when he moved his Amendment in a slightly different form from the form on the Paper, and included not only fees payable but the allowances granted, the advantages, and that sort of thing. The real point is whether we shall put, on the face of the Bill, that it is intended that in this matter there shall be complete candour at the beginning so that nobody shall have any grumble, or suspicion, or unpleasant allegations to make afterwards. I am sure the noble Viscount opposite agrees with me that that is the object we all have, and I respectfully suggest that the Treasury having to approve the amount to be paid by the Commission has nothing to do with the point made.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I hope the noble Lord will press this Amendment. I can give an instance of my own of the point made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. At one time I happened to hold one of these offices, and rumour had it amongst my friends and others that my salary had reached a most astonishing figure. Of course, that was totally untrue. The question we are debating is: What is the proper way of doing this, and I do not think there is a wish on any side of the House to hide anything. We want to make quite certain at the outset that there shall be no misunderstanding.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am sure the noble Earl is not the only one who has suffered from misrepresentation, and I can give a complete assurance that when these people are appointed their salaries and allowances will be announced to the House by the Minister. I am authorized to give that assurance. I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that subsection (7) (a) is another matter, but I thought the discussion ranged a little wider; that is all. I can give a complete assurance to noble Lords, and I hope they will be satisfied. I do not think it is necessary to put it into the Bill; we shall certainly do it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I appeal to the Leader of the House to meet us on this point. We feel very strongly that it ought to be put into the Bill. After all, it is all very well to have an assurance given in Parliament, but there is nothing in writing, and if another Government came in they might not hold themselves bound by the same assurance. It is no good saying that an assurance given in Parliament is the same as a statutory obligation; it is not, and as obligations have been imposed by Parliament on public companies there is no reason why these obligations should not be made equally applicable to nationalized industries. I have a suggestion to make to the noble Viscount. Why should we not put this Amendment into the Bill? I understand the Leader of the House does not like it in its present form, but if we put it into the Bill now we could discuss i with the Government between now and the Report stage and see whether we could not find an amended form of wording. We feel that something of this kind should be in the Bill, and we would like to have it put in on the Committee stage to enable
306
us to have one more stage in which to conduct further negotiations.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The noble Marquess and I have been in these negotiations lots of times, and he knows that if I give an assurance I shall keep it. I think that the right procedure, in view of the misgiving I have mentioned with regard to the wording, is the procedure that I have suggested. I will discuss it entirely bona fide with the noble Marquess between now and Report stag:, and if the point is not fully met, we can agree on some wording that will meet it, and put it into the Bill in the form of an Amendment on Report stage.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Is it clear that the Goverment are prepared to put something to this effect into the Bill? At an earlier stage the noble Viscount said he did not think it necessary to have it in the Bill. If they are prepared to put something in the Bill, and will discuss it with us before the Report stage, we shall still have the opportunity, if we are not satisfied, of putting a similar Amendment to this on the Report stage. But if the Government are going to say that, after all, they think it unnecessary to have it in the Bill, I think we would rather proceed now to get it through while we can.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The noble Viscount knows very well that in our talks we may convince noble Lords that it is not necessary. If we did not succeed in doing that, and I am entirely at one with the general contention, then my assurance would hold good.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I add one word on this question which is largely a question of law and the normal practice of Parliament with regard to the salaries payable to great public servants? I venture to think that some such words as those contained in the proposed Amendment are absolutely necessary to carry out the wishes of the House. It is true that the precise wording may have to be amended. For my part I object, and I have objected a dozen times in other cases, to the notion that the House ought to be urged to accept a promise by a person, a body of persons, or a Cabinet, all of whom are mortal like ourselves and who will not always be there to carry out the promise which is being made. It is for that reason, with all respect to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House.

307
that I do not agree there should be left on this occasion the loop-hole that the words are not necessary. The majority of the House are absolutely convinced by what my noble and learned friend, Viscount Simon, and other noble Lords have said, that some such words are necessary. I propose that we fortify that by passing the Amendment. There is a pledge given by the other side that we can alter the words if there is any advantage to be gained by an alteration as a result of a talk between the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition, but I think, now that we have discussed it at great length, that we may just as well decide, once and for all that some such words have got to be there.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I will not make any further trouble. I am advised that the words will require some adjustment, but if in the circumstances noble Lords do not feel sufficiently confident without it then we accept the words, subject to the necessity of a frank discussion.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. I would say that we are not pressing this for purely cantankerous reasons. There is a genuine anxiety in the country, and not in one Party alone, that the full facts as to these great new nationalized industries should be exposed. I should have thought, even from the Government's point of view, that it is better that that exposure should be made. I think it is important that it should. I am grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, and I shall be prepared to discuss it with him at any time.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House one question, which I do not think he will have any difficulty in answering? Clause I says:
"The Commission shall consist of a chairman and four other members, all of whom shall be appointed by the Minister."
Then it says later on:
"Every member of the Commission shall hold and vacate his office in accordance with the terms of his appointment."
Might the terms of his appointment include the statement that he shall be required to resign his office if the Minister
308
so instructs him? I think that really ought to be cleared up. I do not know that there is any special occasion to object to the appointment by the Minister, but I do think that if he has that power of dismissal it is a rather serious matter. I think the noble Viscount will agree that it is a very bad thing that the Minister should have what are vulgarly termed "Yes men" about him. If this penalty was looming in the background it must, to some extent, affect the independence of the members of the Commission.
I remember very well a similar case arising on the Education Bill, when the noble Viscount and myself were present (I am not sure that the noble Viscount and I did not tell against the Government of the day in the year 1944) when a question arose of a consultative committee to be arranged by the Minister of Education. The noble Viscount and myself, and others, of course, objected to that. I remember his speaking very strongly, and nodding the most distinct approval of my own words, on that occasion. Unfortunately the Minister of Education, although defeated in your Lordship's House, was able to get the other place to allow him to have his way. But I do think it is a point of real substance that these Commissioners should feel themselves thoroughly independent, and that they should not be removable by the mere decision of the Minister.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am quite sure that men of the calibre of those on the Commission would not be men who would be likely to accept office unless they were satisfied that their tenure of office, security, and other matters were in consonance with what they felt was due to them. In subsection (3) of Clause 1 it says:
"Every member of the Commission shall hold and vacate his office in accordance with the terms of his appointment."
I think myself that is as far as you can expect an Act of Parliament to go. I am afraid I am unable to say in advance what will be the conditions under which these gentlemen accept office. I am sure that no self-respecting man of the calibre you would expect to find on this Commission would accept office unless he was satisfied of the terms under which he accepted. That is as far as I can take the matter.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: It may be that the best men will not accept office if they are liable to dismissal.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Then the Minister will have to make his terms so that he can get the best men.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
5.35 p.m.
Clause 2:
Powers of Commission.
2.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Commission shall have power—

(a) to carry goods and passengers by rail, road and inland waterway, within Great Britain;

(b) to provide, within Great Britain, port facilities and facilities for traffic by inland waterway;

(c) to store goods within Great Britain, whether or not those goods have been or are to be carried by the Commission, so, however, that facilities for the storage of goods shall not be provided by the Commission except at places where such facilities are required for the storage of goods carried or to be carried by them;

(d) to consign goods on behalf of other persons from any place in Great Britain to any other place, whether in Great Britain or elsewhere;

(e) in places within Great Britain where their passengers may require them, to provide both for their passengers and for other persons hotels, hostels, other living accommodation and places for refreshment; and

(f) to provide in Great Britain such other amenities and facilities for passengers and other persons making use of the services provided by them as it may appear to them requisite or expedient to provide:

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the powers conferred by subsection (1) of this section include power—
(a) to construct, manufacture, purchase, maintain and repair anything required for the purpose of any of the activities of the Commission specified in that subsection;
Provided that—
(i) the Commission shall not by virtue of this subsection engage in the building of ships, except lighters, barges or like vessels of a gross tonnage not exceeding one hundred and seventy-five tons, or engage, otherwise than for purposes of experiment or research, in the manufacture of chassis for road vehicles;
(3) Where, whether by agreement or otherwise, the Commission acquire the whole or any part of any undertaking of any other person, they may, subject to the provisions of this Act, carry on any activities, whether mentioned in subsection (1) of this section or not, which were theretofore carried on for the purposes of that undertaking or part of an undertaking or were authorised by any statutory provision to be carried on for the purposes thereof.
(4) The Commission may dispose, whether absolutely or for a term of years, of any part
310
of their undertaking or any property which in their opinion is not required by them for the discharge of their duties under this Act, including, without prejudice to the generality of the preceding words, any part of their undertaking which is carried on outside Great Britain and any property situated outside Great Britain.
(5) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that the preceding provisions of this section relate only to the capacity of the Commission as a statutory corporation, and nothing in the said provisions shall be construed as authorising the disregard by the Commission of any enactment or rule of law.
(6) The provisions of this section shall not be construed as limiting any power of the Commission conferred by any subsequent provision of this Act.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (1) (c), to leave out "whether or not those goods have been or are to be carried by the Commission." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to obtain from the Government a statement regarding their intentions on the question of storage and warehouse. The Commission will be taking over very large storage and warehousing facilities, and we on this side of the House feel it is essential that the Commission shall not have powers to enter into the whole storage and warehouse industry apart from where it is necessary for the efficient operation of transport. In another place the Minister gave an assurance that it was not the intention of the Commission to set up warehouses divorced from transport facilities in all parts of the country, and said that he would in fact consider whether some Amendment might be necessary to make this point clear. But this was not implemented. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 41, leave out from ("Britain") to ("so") in line 43.—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD MORRISON: There is a conflict between the noble Lord and myself with regard to his last statement. The noble Lord said that, this matter was raised on the Committee stage in another place; that the Minister then gave an assurance that it was not the intention of the Commission to enter into the storage business anywhere in the country, and offered to put an Amendment on the Paper in order to carry that out. My information is that that was done. Perhaps the noble Lord has overlooked the fact that the assurance given that an Amendment would be made was in fact carried out.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Which clause is that?
LORD MORRISON: It will be found in the Bill at the top of page 3. The words are:
"except at places where such facilities are required for the storage of goods carried or to be carried by them;"
These words were put in with the intention of carrying out that assurance. In the circumstances, perhaps the noble Lord would not wish to pursue his Amendment.
VISCOUNT SIMON: With great respect, is that explanation quite right? I appreciate the reference that is made to the top of page 3, and also that the words put in were intended to meet the criticism. But the words put in are:
"except at places where such facilities are required for the storage of goods carried or to be carried by them;"
The limitation, therefore, is a limitation to places. Is not the real question: What is the ambit of the storage service in any place which the Commission may now assume and undertake? Let us take Manchester. That is a place if ever there was one. It is all very well to say that the powers of the Commission to store goods within Great Britain are to be limited, let us say, to storage at Manchester. But is not the real question whether or not the Commission are to have power to act as warehousemen for anybody and everybody, and for any purpose, though quite unconnected with inland transport, so long as it is at Manchester? If, for example, I wish to store my furniture in a furniture store,
that has nothing to do with transport. Yet I suggest to the noble Lord that, as these words now stand, the authority which the Commission are given is to have power to store goods within Great Britain, whether or not those goods are to be carried by the Commission, but stores shall not be provided except at places where such facilities are required for storage of the goods.
LORD WALKDEN: It says: "goods carried or to be carried by them."
VISCOUNT SIMON: Yes. But the question is not where are the places required for the facilities of goods carried, but what is the extent of the service which may be rendered at that place. I do not at present see—I may be wrong—that the Amendment which was introduced in another place really meets the point. The point
312
is whether the Commission should have power to carry on the business of being warehousemen in any place—I suppose it means any town—where facilities are required for storage of goods carried or to be carried. I do not deny that they can store goods that are going to be carried by them, but why should they store goods which are not going to be carried by them at all?
LORD HAWKE: I submit that this Amendment touches a point of principle, because in all these nationalization Bills we have to ask ourselves: Where is the line to be drawn? We all know that the line must be drawn somewhere if the powers of the Executive are not to be omnipotent. As we suspect, and as I have often heard it alleged, the first thing an Army Staff Officer does when he takes up a new job is to see whether he cannot get more scope for his efforts and more people under his command and thus be able to go up in rank. That is what is going to happen throughout this Commission and its gigantic pyramid below it. Every man in charge of a department is going to try to enlarge that department, and will produce abundant reasons for being able to do so unless the line is drawn here and now.
A great many of the warehouses in this country have been destroyed and it may well seem a public duty to the Commission to supply warehousing which previously had been supplied by private enterprise. They will have a very good case, but carried to its logical conclusion there is practically nothing in this country that they could not do. If you have the warehouses, then the next step is to insure the goods in the warehouses and then to insure goods elsewhere in the country in order to get a proper spread of risk. If you have warehouses, you are justified, sooner or later, in going into the packing-case manufacturing trade. Once you are in that you go in for importing wood and manufacturing nails. Once you are in the nail making trade you go in for iron and steel, and so forth. Unless the line is drawn somewhere, this gigantic octupus will sprawl over the country.
LORD CROMWELL: In supporting this Amendment I do not wish to argue the merits or demerits of nationalization in its general principles, but I think that in this particular Amendment there is a

313
great deal more than meets the eye. What I think this Amendment seeks to do is to prevent nationalization being brought in by the back door. Let us swallow as much as we can and are able to digest. The cure for a glutton may well be a pill and not a Bill. The question raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, as I understood it, was to this effect. I would not go so far as to say that I would agree with him that the intention of this clause is that if you had a building in Manchester on the north end of the city, which you were operating yourself, you could in fact apply this Amendment to another building in the south end of the city; but I do think the effect can be brought about in the same way. You may have a building set up in which you store one candle or one gallon of petrol which is used in the service of transport, and thereby you are able to set up a general store for the storage of millions of pounds worth of goods for which facilities already exist in the private stores.
I do not consider that this Government have the mandate to set up a home for lost dogs or stray cats, and this Amendment might well be used to set up such a thing and it will develop into a complete kennel. Now we have been informed by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House—I think I am quoting him correctly—that the operations of Carter Paterson will be automatically taken over when the railways fall under the powers of the Commission. One might easily suggest that the natural consequence of this will be that eventually the "Co-ops" will find themselves in the same boat.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I rise for only one moment to support what my noble friend has just been saving, for the reason that this same principle underlies two Amendments on the Order Paper with which my name is associated, those referring to hotels and catering. Surely we are on a very important principle here. We can limit ourselves to the nationalization of the transport industry of the country—which I believe was the purpose of this Bill—or we can allow what you might call these cards of re-entry into various other industries. If we are doing that, then we are not dealing with a Bill for the nationalization of Transport but we are dealing with the nationalization of any industry which any Minister in the
314
future chooses. For that reason I support my noble friend.
LORD MORRISON: I think the whole of the brief and interesting discussion we have heard really boils down to the point made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. I explained, and the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, explained before, that when this matter was discussed on the Committee stage in another place an undertaking was given that words would be inserted to cover the point which was raised, and I pointed out the words. Now the narrow point we have to consider—and I would not set myself up in the same category as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, in judging the meaning of words in a Parliamentary Bill —is as to whether the words are required. In regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, I should have thought that the words as they stand are fairly plain:
"Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Commission shall have power … (c) to store goods within Great Britain, whether or not those goods have been or are to be carried by the Commission, so, however, that facilities for the storage of goods shall not be provided by the Commission except at places where such facilities are required for the storage of goods carried or to be carried by them."
I cannot, for the life of me, see how under that clause it would possible for some one to store furniture when they have no intention of having their furniture carried. It is obvious that the Commission will take over many of the premises which have been used and will be used under this Bill for the storage of goods, but I am advised—and again I come back to the narrow point—that in the wording, as it stands in the clause now, the Commission would be effectively prevented from entering the storage business anywhere in this country. That is my interpretation.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I think we are reaching an agreement. The noble Lord has just told us, however, that he is advised, and presumably that the object of the Bill is, that the storage facilities provided by the Commission shall not be such as would enable the Commission to store, save for purposes of transport. That is the substance of it. The whole question is what the section as it stands implies; what is the meaning of the word "place"? It really cannot mean anything but a town. There is no other

315
meaning. I do not think there is any dispute between us; it is a matter of finding the right words. What is provided is that the Commission have power to store goods within Great Britain, whether or not those goods have been or are to be carried by the commission.
LORD MORRISON: The practical difficulty in regard to the point the noble and learned Viscount has raised is that administratively it will be found almost impossible to insist that every person depositing the goods with the Commission should sign a guarantee that he proposes to use the Commission services for taking those goods to their ultimate destination.
VISCOUNT SIMON: We are really trying to get the matter stated in plain words. I do not think we differ, but my real anxiety is not so much about those words (though I agree that it would be better to have them out) but about the words that follow, and which the Government put in in accordance with their intention of achieving the idea at which we are aiming. When I read that the power to store goods is to be such that facilities for the storage of goods shall not be provided by the Commission except at certain places, I assume that means that the facilities may be provided at certain places if they fulfil what follows. What is the only qualification to "place"? It is that it is to be a place where facilities are required for the storage of goods carried. I think I can satisfy the noble Lord how much clearer rather different words can be. Supposing the passage were worded to the effect that "facilities for the storage of goods shall not be provided by the Commission except as required for the storage of goods carried or to be carried by them."
Otherwise, it is perfectly consistent with the existing words—though, I am sure, not the intention of the Government—to take a place and say "I am entitled to set up a warehouse here for the storage of goods, but there is no intention whatever of their ever being transported by the Commission, simply because I am setting it up at a place where facilities are required for the storage of goods carried or to be carried by them." That will not do, because it does not express what it is intended to express. The question is whether we are limiting, as I am sure we
316
mean to do, the facilities authorized by this subsection. My submission is that if we put it in the form I suggest the thing would be quite clear. I have not put down any Amendment to that effect—I am not sure whether I am allowed to move a manuscript Amendment—but it is my belief that if you were to strike out the words "at places where such facilities" on the top of page 3 of the Bill and substitute the word "as" and then strike out the last word in the first line —the word "are"—then we should secure what the Government in another place told us they meant to say. The passage would then read:
"facilities for the storage of goods shall not be provided by the commission except as required for the storage of goods carried or to be carried by them;"
I humbly but confidently submit that those words have a clearer meaning, whereas if you use this expression about "place", the test becomes: Is the place one where there is a railway centre; if it is you have authority to store goods, whether or not it is contemplated that they are to go on by train or not; and that is not what you intend to do. You do not intend that the Government can turn itself into a Harrod's Depositories.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I add that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has shown me his suggested words, and I am confident that the words will carry out what the Government desire in connexion with this clause?
LORD CROMWELL: May I ask whether this suggestion includes the passing of the Amendment as moved? If not, it does not seem to carry out the purpose.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My view is that it should be included.
LORD MORRISON: I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, to whom I am indebted for the constructive contribution he has made, will not expect me on the spur of the moment to accept these actual words. As he has rightly said, the difference between us is so small as to be almost indistinguishable. The noble and learned Viscount admits that under this Bill a great many storage buildings will be taken over and become the property of the Commission. He also agrees that they will have to be used for some other purpose, and not be allowed to stand idle; and that it is not the inten-

317
tion of the Government to go into the general storage business but to confine the use of these buildings, so far as may be practicable, to the storage of goods in transit or to be put into transit. It is just a question whether his words are better than the words of the Bill for carrying out our purpose. I have not had an opportunity of considering the effect of the words, but if the noble Viscount between now and the Report stage can think out some better words and put them down I will see that they receive attention. I cannot go any further than that.
VISCOUNT SIMON: That seems to me to be entirely reasonable. I could not expect the noble Lord, without consideration and maybe consultation, to accept the suggestion I have made. But I ask that he and his advisers should look at it seriously. It is a question of getting the right words. I think the best plan would be for the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, to withdraw his own Amendment.
LORD TEYNHAM: But that would be on the clear understanding that on the Report stage we can put down our suggestion on the point, subject to what we hear from the Government.
LORD MORRISON: If the noble Lord would care to withdraw his Amendment for the present, I would undertake to keep in touch with him before the Report stage, and if alternative words can be thought out we can put them down.
LORD TEYNHAM: I think the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has really put his finger upon the spot. If he could find time to recast the Amendment in the form in which he thinks it ought to be, then it can be submitted to the Government before the Report stage, and we can get an agreed form of words. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, in view of the assurance given.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT RIDLEYmoved, in subsection (1) (d), after "Britain" to insert "or from any place to which the Commission have themselves carried the goods in question." The noble Viscount said: This is not a controversial Amendment, nor does it have any point of principle in it. It is a detail that is intended to allow for a matter of working. At the present moment there are agreements between the railway companies and the transport
318
companies to forward from this country —say to Ireland—or to act as an agent of somebody who wants it forwarded, an article consigned to some port which is not the port of arrival in the foreign county—again, such as Ireland. The intention here is that the Transport Commission should still continue to be able to do that; by the words in subsection (1) (d),"from any place in Great Britain," they would be precluded from doing so, because in the case of the railway steamship services themselves, as opposed to the cases where they are using an independent steamship line, they still carry goods to the ports abroad, and consign from there; and it says in this subsection that they should not be able to do so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 5, after ("Britain") insert ("or from any place to which the Commission have themselves carried the goods in question").—(Viscount Ridley.)
LORD MORRISON: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for having moved this Amendment which, in our opinion, is a distinct improvement in the Bill. As we have a lot of work to do, I will not go into any further reasons but will say that I am prepared to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEYNHAMmoved, in subsection (1) (e), at the end to insert: "in so far as such hotels, hostels, other living accommodation and places for refreshment can be carried on out of the receipts therefrom without loss or in so far as no such provision at reasonable prices is otherwise available in such places and the Minister is satisfied that it is requisite in the public interest that such provision should be made." The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure, in the first place, that the Commission should make use of established hotels and restaurant houses by sub-contract before embarking on their own establishments, and that they should be run without loss. Hotel management is, of course, a very specialized occupation, and I think the Commission would be well advised to make use of the specialists concerned in this business. In the Bill as at present drawn the Commission could go into general competition with the hotels of the country. It is true, of course, that an assurance was given in another place by

319
the Minister that the Commission would not go into any wholesale competition with the hotels of this country, but I feel that this assurance should be put into the Bill, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 10, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Teynham.)
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I should like to support my noble friend who has just moved that Amendment, and in doing so I should like to make one other point which I think comes into the Amendment: that is, the possible question of subsidizing publicly-run refreshment houses and hotels and so forth from other sources of revenue. Let me explain what I mean. It is always possible for the Transport Commission to subsidize the railway refreshment rooms at a loss, and if they do so they are then competing with outside industry in a way which your Lordships might not think would be very fair. I think it would be hard, when these accounts are published, to detect whether a profit shown on docks or harbours is being used to conceal a loss on catering. If that loss on catering is to be subsidized, that catering establishment itself, in turn, is competing with outside establishments. That is another reason why we feel that this Amendment would be justified.
LORD MORRISON: If I may first reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, as to the question of subsidizing refreshment facilities, that opens up a very wide line of argument. I am sure that the Commission would not desire to subsidize refreshment facilities, but there are places, as we all know—those of us who travel a lot on the railways—where one would like to have some refreshment facilities on arriving at an outlying place. If I may use a slang expression, there is a good deal that the Commission will have to do in "gingering up" the refreshment facilities in certain sections of our transport to-day. My objection to that Amendment is that there is no period laid down as to when the loss should occur, and over what period. If it means that in every place where there is a loss likely to be made the premises are to be closed down, the public are going to be very greatly inconvenienced; and I doubt whether the noble Lord meant that. Is the period of loss to be a day, or a month, or a year, or what? The Commission could not
320
continue to provide such establishments or open new ones in any place where such accommodation at reasonable prices is otherwise available. The Minister would have to satisfy himself in all cases that "it is requisite in the public interest that such provisions should be made" before the Commission could operate such an establishment.
The Commission's powers to provide hotels and so on are limited to places where their passengers require them. In fact, most railway hotel and refreshment rooms form part of or adjoin railway stations. The Commission's undertaking as a whole must pay its way, and it is unthinkable that they would embark upon a programme of opening new hotels with out first satisfying themselves that there was a real need for them, and that there was a real prospect of the new hotels being financially successful. It is the Commission's responsibility to determine what hotels are necessary in the interest of the travelling public, and there is no reason why the Minister should be required to endorse their decision. It seems that to single out individual parts of the undertaking for exceptional treatment is unacceptable, and I regret that I am not able to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I see the difficulty with this Amendment but I am glad it has been put down in order that we may ventilate this situation and see what really is intended by the Government. I take note, in passing, that when all these hotel and refreshment rooms become nationalized they are all going to be "gingered up" and that we are to get a lot to eat in them—and no doubt in Scotland a lot to drink. I understand that the Minister is holding out to us the hope of this rare and refreshing improvement. It looks as if he has already been able to put through a measure for undue preference with the Minister of Food. I can assure him, although I have nothing to do with the administration of railways or hotels in this country, that the fact is, one can seldom get enough to eat, and never enough to drink. That is not the fault of the railways' administration or the hotels' administration. It is due to the scarcity of food and drink in this country. I will not say who is responsible for that, at the present time, but I certainly have never yet found a

321
hotel or refreshment room where I could spend the day and get my 3,000 calories.
This is a difficult question. Obviously you cannot say that any one particular hotel or refreshment room has necessarily to make a profit. If you are in business you have to take the rough with the smooth. There are places where it is necessary to provide a refreshment-room but where many people do not go, and you run the place at a loss—exactly as you run some trains at a loss and others, I hope, at a profit. But people who are in the hotel business, as such, and have no other source of revenue, have to pay their way. As I understand it, the whole object of this Bill is that these undertakings should pay their way. I do not believe that you can lay that down in any sort of detailed way in black and white, in the way in which it has been sought to be done in that clause. I believe that the way we have to get at this is through the accounts clause, which was never even discussed, I understand, in another place. I would venture to suggest that to my noble friends, especially as we have now drawn from the Minister a firm assurance that it is not the intention of the Government to go into the catering business when the railway transport undertaking does not require it as a reasonable and necessary ancillary to the business of transport.
Having had that clearly established, I think that the Committee would be well advised to make quite sure, when we come to the accounts clause, that the accounts of these different undertakings are kept and presented to Parliament in a form which will show clearly whether each branch of this business, whether run by Regional Boards or separate Executives, is being conducted at a profit or at a loss. This is really what is most necessary, and is is what everyone in ordinary business is extremely keen to see done. In our own businesses, we do it and we have monthly returns in order to see how the different sections of our undertakings are doing. One thing which I am sure people are anxious about is whether there is to be a concealed subsidy passing from one undertaking to finance another. That is not merely anxiety lest you should have subsidized Government competition with ordinary outside undertakings—though that is a wrong thing in any case—but in the interests of transport itself, as a
322
servant of industry and the travelling public, that is equally important.
There is a very great danger when you create a monopoly, whether it is a monopoly in private or in State hands. There is a great temptation to go on and make easy money, when easy money can so be made, by eliminating other people who you find are your competitors. When you do that you can keep your charges at whatever level you like, as there is no alternative to them. You can, in fact, put up prices in one side of your business, and using the excessive profit which you make in that section, you can subsidize another side. In doing that, you are not only engaging in unfair competition by means of subsidies, which in this case would be at the expense of the taxpayer, but you are not rendering that service to the travelling and the trading public which can be the sole justification for a Bill of this kind. For these reasons I suggest to the noble Lords who have moved and supported this Amendment that they may well think it wise at this stage to withdraw this particular Amendment. We shall, I am sure, concentrate with very great care, and I hove, with common purpose, upon the clarification of matters relating to accounts when we come to the accounts clauses.
LORD BARNBY: In view of the desirable and laudable aim which has just been emphasized by my noble friend Viscount Swinton, I would like to ask if it is the intention of the Government, in connexion with this vast diversification of commercial enterprises, to have an accountancy review periodically, the task of carrying, out which shall be in the hands of a recognized firm of commercial accountants. Or is this to be done entirely, as it so often done in the case of Government undertakings, in the form of accounts set out by the Treasury? However genuine the intention of avoiding subsidizing one branch of an undertaking from another, it would not be easy, if the latter course were pursued, to stop mistakes creeping in so that losses of one branch might be covered by profits from another. In common with other noble Lords who have had the experience of being a temporary civil servant, I know what a shock it is to a civil servant, who is under the direction of the Treasury, to suggest that there should be supplementary financial statements quite apart from

323
the Treasury's own published accounts—that there should, in fact, be adopted some kind of commercial system of presentation of accounts for the purpose of meeting the points to which reference has just been made.
LORD MORRISON: I did not intend to make any further reply because I understood, after the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that his colleague, Lord Teynham, was about to accept his advice and withdraw his Amendment. I would only say to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, that, no doubt, when we come to the accounts the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, will take the opportunity of amplifying the speech which he has just made, and there will then be opportunity for going fully into this matter.
LORD TEYNHAM: On the understanding that we can discuss this matter again when we come to the accounts clauses, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY THE EARL OF DUDLEY moved, in subsection (I) (e) to leave out "and" and insert:
"(f) to provide houses, hostels and other like accommodation for persons employed by the Commission; and".
The noble Earl said: This is in no way a controversial Amendment, and it has been put down in order to make certain that the Commission have under this Bill, power to provide houses, hostels and so on for all their staff. As I have been advised—and, I think, well advised—the Commission have not that power, except in the case of railwaymen. I am sure that noble Lords opposite will agree with us that it is very necessary that the Commission should have such powers in order to provide proper housing accommodation for transport workers who, owing to the exigencies of their work, require rather special facilities in that respect. Many of them, for instance, are obliged to live near their work. Such workers as station masters and gate-keepers are on duty all round the clock. Many of them start and end their duties at hours which mean that they are unable to live in their own homes, and special accommodation in hostels and so on has to be built for them.
The railways have special statutory provisions to provide housing accommodation, and this will pass to the Government and will devolve on to the Commission under Clause 2 (3) and Clause 14 (4), but they will apply only to railwaymen. They will apply only to the Commission in connexion with that part of their undertakings which corresponds to the undertakings of those companies—that is to say, to railwaymen. This point was raised in Committee stage in another place and the Parliamentary Secretary gave the following reply:
"It is our intention that the Commission should be empowered to provide houses, hostels and other accommodation for their employees. We believe that the Bill, as it stands, gives the Commission full power to do so, particularly under subsection (I) (d)."
I think, with due respect, the Parliamentary Secretary made an error, because that subsection does not refer to this matter at all. I think he meant subsection (2) (d) which empowers the Commission to do all other things which they believe are necessary to facilitate the proper carrying on of the business of the Commission. I am advised that that does not give power to the Commission to provide houses, except for railwaymen, for which they have power under the present Statutes which will devolve upon the Commission. This ought to be looked into carefully, in order that the Commission may have these important powers. The subsection now under discussion—which says: "In places within Great Britain where their passengers may require them, to provide both for their passengers and for other persons hotels, hostels, other living accommodation and places for refreshment"—does not refer to employees. I hope the Minister will either accept my Amendment or look into it very carefully before the next stage. It is a rather legal point, and I hope after the Minister has replied noble Lords more deeply versed in law than I will give their views.
LORD MORRISON: It is true, as the noble Earl has said, that certain railway companies have power to provide houses. I am informed that no fewer than 50,000 houses are owned by the railway companies at the present time. With regard to whether the powers are conferred in this Bill, I am advised that the powers held by the companies will be taken over by the Commission and therefore to that extent the Commission will have power.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I am advised that even in that case there is doubt whether they will have any power to provide houses for new entrants after the vesting date.
LORD MORRISON: I was not aware of any doubt. I thought it had been taken for granted that these powers would pass to the Commission. The attitude I was going to take was that the Government would prefer to leave the question to the discretion of the Commission to decide. But as the noble Earl has asked me that this matter shall be further considered, I will certainly see, in the light of the new information he has given, that it is brought to the notice of the Department and see if any further reply can be given or any further words inserted to make clear that the Commission have power to provide houses.
VICOUNT MAUGHAM: I have considered this matter with great care. It appears that there is no question at all as to the wishes of the Government and their strong determination that the Commission shall have power, when they think fit, to exercise the powers mentioned in the Amendment; and therefore the only question is whether the Bill as it stands gives them that power. It is the sort of point that is arguable. At the same time it is clear that what the noble Earl desires is to have a clear decision as to what the Bill intends. I do not understand his reference to desiring to understand what the Commission want. As I understand it, the Government are clear that power to construct these houses for their own employees is one that ought to be conferred on the Commission. Is it clear they have that power in the Bill as it stands? And I answer, without the smallest hesitation, that it is by no means clear that they have the power; and although I am not willing, as a rule, to decide questions of law without hearing the argument on both sides, my present impression is, they hay. not the power on the words as they stand. The clause, as it stands, relates to providing "in Great Britain facilities for passengers and other persons making use of the services provided by them as it may appear to them to be requisite…. "That does net include houses for employees, who are not persons making use of the services; they are persons who make the services possible.
326
There is subsection (2) (d), which includes the powers conferred in subsection (I) (d): to do all other things width in the opinion of the Commission are necessary to facilitate the proper carrying on of the business of the Commission." I venture to say that no company in the land has ever thought it sufficient authority to build houses for employees that they can do what is necessary to facilitate the carrying on of their business. There are thousands of businesses in England and Scotland carried on quite properly without providing the accommodation which it is desired to give the Commission power to provide in this case. I am satisfied that it is not clear as it stands, and I respectfully urge the noble Lord to accept the proposed Amendment.
LORD MORRISON: I find myself in exactly the same position as I was a few moments ago. I am advised that the words just quoted in subsection (2) (d) cover the points raised by the noble Earl. The noble and learned Viscount does not take that view, and who am I to decide between the noble and learned Viscount and the Government's legal advisers? I can only repeat what I think the noble Earl was about to accept, that before the next stage I will make certain that the words in the Bill cover the point; or, if not, other words will be substituted.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I do not think the noble Lord appreciates the point in paragraph (d). It says: "necessary to facilitate the proper carrying on of the business." It does not say "proper," "convenient," or "expedient" but "necessary." That is not sufficient, in my opinion, to justify the view that houses and hostels can be built.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: On this point, following on the noble and learned Viscount who has just spoken, I want only to emphasize one fact. It may well be said that a house for a level crossing keeper, or a station master stationed in a remote district, was necessary. But a great number of the houses owned or provided by the railway companies are not, strictly speaking, necessities. Very often people promoted from one rank to another are moved to different parts of the country, and, as we all know, it is very difficult for them to get houses. But it could not be stated that the provision of those houses was really neces-

327
sary for running the business, although it is extremely helpful to have them. I would suggest, if there is any possible doubt about this, that it would save everybody a great deal of trouble to put such a provision into the Bill. Then we would know that the point was being looked after. I do not know how this could be left to the Commission to decide, as suggested by the noble Lord speaking on behalf of the Government, because all they could do would be to build a house somewhere and see if it was challenged in the courts. That is possibly not so simple a way of deciding it as by having a modification of the Bill.
LORD WOOLTON: If I may intervene for one moment, as a person who has some interest in railways (I disclose that fact straight away; I am a railway director) I have had occasion to go round and see particularly these hostels in which men who have to make long journeys away from home have some accommodation. I am sure, from what I know of noble Lords opposite, that they do not wish that there should be any sort of doubt as to whether that sort of accommodation is to be provided. I hope that the noble Lord will not rest on subsection (2) (d)—as to whether the Commission think these things are necessary. It seems to me—and I speak with great humility on the subject of the interpretation of documents—that it quite specifically does not apply to railway servants, because it says "other persons making use of the services." I should have thought the Commission would be excluded from providing these facilities. The matter is of so much importance to railwaymen that I hope on Report stage the noble Lord will give us a clear assurance that there will be specific provision in the Act, so that we shall be quite sure these facilities are provided.
LORD MORRISON: Certainly. Without any hesitation, I give a definite assurance that if we find the words are insufficient, I will see if the noble Earl and I together can find some words that will more adequately meet this point, and I will take steps, in conjunction with him, to see that they are inserted into the Bill on Report stage.
LORD HAWKE: Would the noble Lord give me an assurance on a point that has not yet been raised this afternoon? That
328
is the question of ex-employees. I understand, from reading the newspapers, that there has been a certain amount of trouble with the Coal Commission, because there have been ex-miners and others occupying houses belonging to the mining companies. Many mining companies are human. Those ex-employees, who have spent the best years of their lives down the mine, have been allowed to live on in those cottages with every expectation of staying there until they die. I believe that in some instances they have been turned out. I am not a director of a British railway company, and I do not know the exact practice or legal obligations of the railway companies, but I do know from experience that the railway companies frequently allow employees who have left their service, or their widows, to remain in cottages provided by them. Is the Bill, as now drafted, such as will enable the Commission to carry on that Christian work? Because the majority of Bills that pass on to the Statute Book do not take any account of that type of thing.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the assurances he has given me. I shall gladly accept his invitation to meet him and discuss this point, but, with respect, I think that perhaps more headway might be made if his legal advisers met the railway companies' legal advisers. If he will look into the point before the Report stage, I shall be very glad to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: Would the noble Lord give me an answer to the point which I raised?
LORD MORRISON: The only answer I can give (and I am sure every noble Lord would agree) is that there is no reason for any apprehension that the people to whom the noble Lord referred will be more harshly treated by the Transport Commission than they are at present by the railway companies. I have yet to hear of a case in which the railway companies have harshly treated any of their employees living in houses provided by them, and I have no reason to think that as a result of the changes that are going to take place under this Bill a new reign of terror will start.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
THE, EARL OF DUDLEY THE, EARL OF DUDLEY moved, in subsection (2) (h), at the end to insert "to make housing loans to persons employed by the Commission for assisting them to acquire housing accommodation." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is very similar in principle to the one which I have just moved, but I hope that the noble Lord will see his way to accept it, because I think it is quite clear that provision for making housing loans is not sufficient in the Bill as it stands at present. The railway companies, in the matter of providing houses, housing accommodation, hostels and so on, have statutory powers under the Acts of 1932 and 1944 to enable them to make such loans where they are necessary in the case of their employees who wish to build their own houses.
Many such loans have been made by the railway companies under these statutory powers. These powers pass to the Commission only in so far as the main railways are concerned. They will not apply to the rest of their staff, or indeed to the other railways which the noble Lord earlier described as "trimmings." For example, as I am advised, a man employed on the Southern Railway— or what is now the Southern Railway—will be able to get a housing loan; but a man on the Kent and East Sussex Railway, which does not come under the present statutory powers, cannot get a loan, nor will any employee on the canals, roads, and so on which the Government are taking over. I hope that as the powers are so nebulous under present circumstances, the noble Lord will he able to accept this Amendment. I think it is quite clear that under subsection (2) (d) the powers are insufficient, because otherwise what would be the object of putting in subsection (2) (h) which we are now discussing, which gives, or intends to give, the Commission all sorts of special powers, but which does not mention housing loans? The Government could hardly argue that they had powers under subsection (2) (d) because, in that case, what would be the object of putting in subsection (2) (h)? I hope that the noble Lord is in a position to accept this Amendment right away.
Amendment moved—
Page 4. line 22, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Dudley.)
LORD MORRISON: My position is almost exactly the same as it was with
330
regard to the previous Amendment moved by the noble Earl. I have to point out that my advice is that the Amendment is unnecessary, but we need not again go into the whole question. I am perfectly prepared to accept the views that have been put forward, and to say that there may be some doubt about this. The only point I would bring to the notice of the noble Earl is that sine the railway companies obtained these powers there have been considerable changes in the law of the country with regard to this matter. There has been the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act passed through Parliament, and there has been the tremendous growth of the building society movement. The railway companies Were largely the pioneers, and there are now a great many more facilities for workpeople to obtain loans for this purpose than there were before. But, as the noble Earl thinks it important, may I save time by saying that while I am unable to accept the actual wording, I am quite prepared to accept the spirit of the Amendment?
Tar EARL or DUDLEY: When I was speaking, I was assuming that the Government wished to have this provision in the Bill, but the noble Lord now seems to think it is not necessary because there are so many other facilities. That raises quite a different point. We feel very strongly that there should be this provision, and I would like the noble Lord's assurance that there will be.
LORD MORRISON: I seem to have made my explanation more clumsily than usual if I gave the noble Earl that impression. But, without accepting the actual wording, we accept the spirit, and if we find these words are unsuitable we will agree on suitable words.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I think we want to be quite clear what is the assurance we are being given. Let us take the case of a canal with its canal workers. Is the advice which the noble Lord has received from his advisers that, without these words being inserted, it is possible for the Commission to make a housing loan to a lock-keeper? If so, where is the authority so to do? If I may say so, I do not quite follow the hesitation of the Government about this matter, because they are in favour of the views which, I have understood, were held so warmly by noble Lords on the other side. It is a provision that a great body which,

331
in any event, is going to provide a number of houses, should have authority to make loans, let us say, for people employed by a canal. With great respect, may I ask the Socialist Ministers, why not? What a curious attitude, that the Government should boggle at this, when we only want to make sure that provision is made.
LORD MORRISON: I think the noble Viscount is reading more than I intended into what I said; perhaps it was my fault. I was indicating that the railway companies had these powers, and I was not referring to the other elements. May I repeat that, subject to a review of the wording, I accept the noble Earl's Amendment?
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I am perfectly ready to accept the noble Lord's assurance that he will look into it between now and Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, wthdrawn.
6.54 p.m.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA LORD BRABAZON OF TARA moved, in subsection (2) (h) (i), after "chassis" to insert "or bodies." The noble Lord said: We now come to the famous sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (h) on page 4, which says that the Government cannot manufacture chassis. The Minister made a speech in another place in which he said the Commission will not be able to manufacture chassis for road vehicles, yet, if one reads on for another half page, this is flatly contradicted. At the top of page 5 it states that the Commission can take over a company, and if that company manufactures chassis, then chassis can be manufactured. That point, of course, will be dealt with later by an Amendment to be moved by my noble friend, Lord Hacking. The purpose of my Amendment is to add to the word "chassis" the words "or bodies." It is rather curious that the word "chassis" should be included in the Bill, and not "bodies," because it was stated by the Government that they did not wish to use this particular Bill to nationalize any particular industry. They said they did not want to make chassis, yet there is nothing in the Bill which says they cannot make bodies. Bodies are an integral part of road vehicles; in fact. half the value of a motor bus is the body.
332
it is an industry where there is a bottleneck to-day, and it would be a tragedy if the Government announced their intention of making bodies because it would absolutely stop many manufacturers from supplying the bodies for the vehicles which the Commission are about to use.
There is another reason why the word "bodies" should be put in, and that is because the word "chassis" has never been defined. "Chassis," of course, is the French word for "frame," and it would be quite possible, within the meaning of this word, for the Commission to manufacture motors, back axles, front axles, and everything which goes in the frame. That, of course, would be rather technical and out of the way. But there is a type of vehicle coming in which is known as the "chassis-less," where the actual weight is taken by the body
itself. This chassis-less vehicle is gaining favour in America, and if it came into this country then the whole vehicle would be included under the heading of "body" and, without my Amendment, the Government could make the whole vehicle and would not contravene against the Bill. If the words "or bodies" are put into the Bill, then the whole thing is cleared up. If the Government are going to nationalize the body-making business, then, at a later stage, we must have a very strict definition of what is meant by the word "chassis."
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 29, after ("chassis") insert ("or bodies").—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
LORD WOLVERTON: I would like to support my noble friend, Lord Brabazon. I cannot see why the Government should not accept this Amendment. The Bill says that they will not take powers, except for experimental purposes, to manufacture chassis. Obviously you cannot have a chassis without a body.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has called attention to a very important matter. As a result of the discussion we had on the Second Reading, I have myself put down an Amendment to give effect to the undertaking I then gave. This Amendment it is proposed to insert at the end of subsection (3) which, as the noble Lord said, would enable the Government if they took over a concern which had the ability to make these things, to go beyond what was the clear intention

333
of subsection (2). That is true, and I hope that when we come to it the Amendment will be deemed to be adequate to carry out the undertaking. I shall have to add, when I come to it, that we are in process of negotiating another addition to that provision which will still further restrict opportunities for work of this kind. We wish to have them restricted in this particular case because there is no desire whatever that the Commission should enter into the body-building business any more than is the case with the undertakings they take over.
I am not in the least disposed to enter into a discussion with the noble Lord as to the meaning of the word "chassis"; he knows a great deal more about these things than I do, and far be it from me to challenge his knowledge. At the same time, a chassis is a big engineering undertaking and is made in engineering shops, and it is entirely different from the body. The body is much more vulnerable, and it wears out and has to be repaired much more commonly. Therefore, it is quite clear that it would be sensible and right that the Commission should be able to use the facilities that they have for repairing or remaking bodies in a practical way. Otherwise the whole thing might be held up in an unreasonable way. But, apart from that, I can assure the noble Lord that we have no intention whatever of going into, shall I say, the body-building business.
I can say for my right honourable friend that he would encourage the Commission to enter into long-term engagements with the people who do build bodies, so as to make sure that the business is continued on a proper footing. We do not like the complete veto (owing to the character of the wording) which would follow from the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. But I am quite willing to consider with him whether we cannot find words which would, without unreasonably restricting the opportunities of the Commission, cover the point, to make sure that we are not entering into competition, as we have no desire whatever to enter into competition, with the ordinary manufacturers. I am willing to consider that, but the Government cannot accept a complete veto, which is what this Amendment would mean.
VISCOUNT SIMON: May I just point out that inevitably there is a little difficulty in
334
piecing this together, because of the Amendment which I am very glad to see the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has put down in fulfilment of his undertaking to me and to others. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Brabazon will observe in the list of Amendments that the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, is proposing to move an Amendment which will secure that the Commission are not to have any power, under any part of the Bill, to construct or manufacture any thing which is not required for use for tae purposes of their undertaking. I thoroughly recognize the importance of that decision, which agrees with what we are urging. The result, I take it, as regards bodies, as distinct from chassis, is that the proviso which it is now sought to urge is a proviso which says that, so far as manufacturing chassis for road vehicles is concerned, the Commission shall not make any of them except for purposes of experiment or research. Whether or not that fits in with the whole scheme, I am waiting to see. At any rate, it can only he read in connexion with the Amendment which the noble Viscount is shortly going to move.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for what he has said. Frankly, I think that section (a) of my Amendment completely safeguards the position—at least, I hope the noble Lord will feel that it does; it certainly was intended to do that. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will not pursue this Amendment.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: If every-thing was according to the intentions of the noble Viscount, everything would be well in this world. But this is a Bill which is to become an Act, and it has to be interpreted later on in the Law Courts. Here we have the same thing occurring as we have with the chassis. The Government are going to take over undertakings which run buses, that have works attached to them which make bodies, and there is nothing at all to stop the Government from building up those subsidiary works into a national business for making bodies. I have seen what my noble friend, Viscount Simon, has referred to—the Amendment later on in the name of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House but even there I have put down an Amendment to add "bodies" to "chassis." So that point is still borne in mind, even if

335
we accept the Amendment of the noble Viscount later on. This is a big industry—I only wish it were bigger at the present time—and it does mean that unless we insert the word "bodies," under this Bill it will become a nationalized business. I think it is right that it should be made clear up and down the country that the Government have used this Bill for a purpose for which it was not introduced—that is, to start nationalizing another industry.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Brabazon in this Amendment. After all, this is a point which is arising all the time, as to what extent the Government are going to nationalize industries or not. We constantly have clauses, or parts of clauses, in these Bills which leave one under an absolute misapprehension as to what may or may not happen in the particular industry or section of industry concerned. The particular Amendment to which the noble Viscount has referred states that
"the Commission shall not have power to construct or manufacture anything which is not required either for use for the purposes of their undertaking or for the fulfilment of a contract made."
As my noble friend has pointed out, chassis and bodies are required by the
companies for use all the time. Under the clause, the Government, in the hard word of the law (as my noble friend has said, it will have to be interpreted in the Courts later on), would have full power to manufacture bodies and chassis—perhaps not chassis, but certainly bodies, because bodies are required, and chassis are required, in the ordinary business of the company. Therefore, in order to make this matter quite clear, I hope the noble Viscount will accept my noble friend's Amendment, and not leave the matter to be defined in the Courts. In the course of these various measures we receive many undertakings from the Government to which I personally, with great respect, do not attach any confidence, because we know—those of us who have been engaged in legislation for the number of years that some of us have—that when the Ministers have passed on and another Government has come in, these matters are brought into Court and interpreted according to the printed word which is contained in the law. I do hope the noble Viscount will see his way to accept my noble friend's Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Without taking sides in this controversy at the moment, I would like to clear up one matter which is a question of fact. We are here dealing with two separate things, however closely connected they may be. The chassis and the body have a good deal of connexion, it is true, but still they are dealt with separately here, and actually may be manufactured by separate people. The object of the Amendment in the name of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is, I understand, to make sure that nothing can be done under any part of the Bill which is precluded from being done by virtue of this subsection. Let us take the chassis, to start with. I understand the Government admit that they have given an undertaking that they will never, either directly or indirectly, under this Commission make a chassis except for the purpose of experiment.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That is so.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Therefore, they cannot do it under this subsection. Under the noble Viscount's Amendment they cannot make a chassis either for use or for sale and, therefore, not under any part of the Bill. What they are doing is to say, "We. will not give you the same undertaking"—they may be right or wrong; I am not arguing that—" with regard to bodies." They are taking over a lot of undertakings which make bodies. Tramways have made bodies and the noble Lord's undertaking has made bodies for his own company. They are saying, "We will not make bodies that we do not require for our own use."
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That is right.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: In paragraph (b) of the noble Viscount's own Amendment it says in effect: "We will not make more bodies than we made a year ago."
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That is right.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That has this effect. The Government are going to take over more and more of this inland transport, and therefore what the noble Lord is making for his own quite large undertaking may bear no relation at all to the much larger operations the Commission undertake. If they make all the bodies required by the Commission they might put everybody in the body-making business out of business, because they are

337
going to run 90 per cent. of the transport of the country—at any rate they are going to try to—and they are going to make all the bodies they require. I should like that made clear before I make up my mind whether to support the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, on this Amendment. There are, of course, the "C" licences, but the whole idea is that the Minister is going so to cut into the "C" licences business of providing cheaper, better and bigger transport—
VISCOUNT SIMON: And both-way traffic.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: And both-way traffic, and we shall not need the "C" licences any more. I want to know what is the exact effect of paragraph (b) in the noble Viscount's Amendment. If he could tell us that in quite simple language now, I think it would influence a good many of us as to how we are going to vote. He must have some idea of the figures. May I put it to the noble Viscount crudely in this way: Give us a sort of general figure. What was the output of motor bodies in this critical year, which is the year of test? And out of that, what was the proportion which were made, for the use of the kind of motor transport the Minister is going to take over, and what will there be for outside? If the noble Viscount tells us that all the Minister is going to make is about 5 per cent. or 10 per cent., and 90 per cent. or 95 per cent. is going to be left over for the ordinary industry, then I do not think the matter is very important. If, on the other hand, he is going to launch out into this business and maybe take over half the business, then I think there is a good deal to be said for the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am obliged to the noble Viscount for putting those questions. I am informed that the powers to do this kind of thing which are now held by the bodies that might be taken over—and which are, therefore, limited so far as expansion is concerned (intentionally limited) in paragraph (b) of my Amendment—cover a very small proportion indeed of the total number of bodies which are required. The whole of the bodies for "C" licences—I think there are 350,000—would be outside altogether. Then I understand that the total number of vehicles with "A" and "B" licences which are likely to be taken over,
338
is some 20,000, and there are likely to be 70,000 which are not taken over.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: These are lorries.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Yes. The number of vehicle chassis and bodies for the purposes of the undertaking would be a very small proportion of the total number now on the road, or likely to be on the road. That is point number one. The second point—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount. I can see his argument about lorries, but a lorry body is a pretty cheap and easy thing to construct. I quite agree that as regards lorry body-building the great part will still be going into private hands. One is really interested in the bus bodies and the passenger vehicle bodies, which are of very highly specialized manufacture. A bus body costs ten times to twenty times more to manufacture than a cargo vehicle. We want to know about the service vehicles, the vehicles which carry passengers.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I still think that the information given me as to the smallness of the proportion holds good. As the noble Viscount is aware, so far as passenger transport is concerned that would have to be provided for in the scheme which would have to be drawn up in consultation with those concerned. I was going on to the point that not all the organizations taken over do this kind of thing—nothing like all of them. If lour or five concerns are taken over and they had some power or other of this kind which might not be exercised all in one pace, it might be convenient to do it in one place instead of four places. The Amendment which I put down is designed to make quite sure that whatever is done shall not, in the aggregate, be more than it was.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Bodies or chassis?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: It applies to whatever they are making.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Whether chassis or bodies?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Chassis are limited anyhow, except for the purposes of experiment. I am talking in terms of bodies.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am sorry to interrupt, but if the noble Viscount tells us that paragraph (b) is intended to cover bodies, I have nothing more to say.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: It goes further than chassis. I gather that this would involve powers of manufacture in the undertakings before they were acquired. If it does not, it is intended to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We were told a moment ago that there were to be no chassis manufactured. Now I see in the noble Viscount's own Amendment he says:
"where any such activities consist of the manufacture of chassis for road vehicles."
We were told that none were going to be manufactured at all. There were certain bodies which were going to be manufactured, but not chassis. But in the noble Viscount's Amendment it says that they will not make any more than in the last year.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: It is perfectly clear—although the Government do not seem to be clear—that although they say they are not going to make chassis, they are going to make chassis. They are going to take over a very big manufacturing concern, the Bristol factory, which makes chassis, and they have now given the undertaking that they will not make more chassis in that works than have been made before. That is the Amendment we are coming to in a few minutes but which we arc discussing now—a very curious arrangement, but that is what we are now discussing. The Minister now comes along and says, not only with regard to chassis, but with regard to everything else, "We will not make any more than we made before the introduction of the measure." If that is his pledge, what is the reason why you cannot insert the word "bodies"?
LORD HACKING: I would like to ask the Leader of the House this one question. Would he repeat what I understood him to say just now, that in no circumstances would the Transport Commission be responsible for manufacturing chassis except for purposes of experiment or research?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I think there is no doubt at all that the manufacture of chassis has hitherto been and will therefore be, with the limitations specified in my Amendment, of a different order from
340
the manufacture of bodies, and I am advised that we cannot surrender all power over the manufacture of bodies as the veto of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, would require. But I have given an undertaking, and will make good on it, and if the words are not adequate they shall be made adequate to express the fact that we do not propose to increase the business, or to do the business at the expense of others who do it as their nomal trade I can assure the noble Lord that the Amendments I have put down were put down in complete good faith to try to give effect to the undertaking I gave. Perhaps, seeing that it is seven o'clock, noble Lords might like to reserve the rest of their remarks and we can afterwards have a general discussion on the Amendments in my name as well as this one. If this is agreeable I suggest that your Lordships should now adjourn.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I entirely agree. I have put two points specifically to the noble Viscount, Lord Addison: the first was a simple one concerning chassis. In subsection (2) he says in effect "I promise I will never make a chassis except for experimental purposes; not for use, not in limited quantities; I will never make a chassis except for experimental purposes." He said to me that the whole object of the Amendment was to make sure that he did not do it, not only under subsection (3), but under any power in the Bill at all. If that is so—and I am sure it is the undertaking he wishes to carry out—it must be nonsense, with great respect, to put down an Amendment which says in effect, "I won't make more chassis for use than I made in the year 1946." There is a second question, concerning bodies. I hope the noble Viscount will get his experts to look at this and make sure that he does not propose an Amendment which allows him to make chassis for any purpose other than experiment.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: We can discuss the whole matter together, and I suggest that we now adjourn.
[The sitting was suspended at a quarter past seven o'clock and resumed at half past eight.]
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, now that we have for an hour and a quarter been indulging in "body building," perhaps we might get back to the

341
actual Amendments before your Lordships, which is to insert the words "bodies or" after "chassis." The debate we have had so far has scarcely touched my particular Amendment; it has ranged on Amendments to be discussed later. The Leader of the House, in some remarks before we adjourned, said that after dinner we should discuss the whole subject. I do not quite know what procedure is to be indulged in, because the next Amendment by my noble friend Lord Hacking limits the particular insertion; but the purport of it is to stop building chassis at all; and then, of course, we have the long Amendment by the Leader of the House—
LORD HACKING: My Amendment is not to prevent the building of chassis but to allow them to be built for experimental and research purposes.
LORD BRABAZON: But it is a major point. I would like to ask the noble Lord whether it is his pleasure, and the pleasure of your Lordships, that all these matters shall be discussed together; or how are we to proceed? Because it was the Leader of the House whose idea it was that we should discuss the whole topic.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I daresay it would be to the convenience of the House if we discussed the whole subject. It is the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, that is before the House, and it must remain, but there is no reason why the whole subject should not be discussed now.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I think that was the suggestion I made, and for the reason that it is still not easy, it seems to me, to separate "bodies" from the rest of the Amendments. It is practical, therefore, to have discussion on the subject of manufacture and limitation of manufacture, after which the Amendments can be dealt with without discussion. Quite inadvertently I made a mistake, and I should like to correct that before we go any further. In answer to one noble Lord I said that the limitation on the manufacture of chassis was to experiment and so on, as set out; but I was incorrect in that. That power is limited to the new powers which are acquired under subsection (2), but it is true that under subsection (3) (at the top of the fifth page), the power of making chassis may be acquired. In representing
342
otherwise I was not quite right in my reading of it. I regret that I made that misstatement, but in the face of the numerous interjections I did my best to reply. It is clear, I think, that in the limitation of manufacture I have shown in the Amendment in my own name, as a result of the discussions we had on Second Reading, that whilst the limitations in (a) were clearly limited to not making anything that is not required for the purpose of the undertaking—that is to say not for sale in general business—paragraph (b) prescribes a limitation in terms on chassis only. That is because some of the concerns taken over may have been manufacturing chassis before they were taken over, and the intention there is that there shall not be an increase of such manufacture; it shall be limited to the output in the previous twelve months as set out in the Amendment.
Two points arise on that. I understand from the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that he is under the impression that the pledge given by the Minister in the other place was to the effect that there was not to be manufacture of chassis except for experimental purposes. I was not aware of that, and, of course, I will inquire into it. In respect to bodies, and the Amendment of my noble friend, Lord Brabazon, I have had the opportunity of consulting the Minister in the interval and he authorizes me to say two things. He is not prepared, for the reasons I gave, to accept the complete veto which would follow (if we accepted the noble Lord's Amendment) on the manufacture of bodies, but he is prepared, with all good wine to enter into discussions between now and the Report stage with those concerned to secure words which will limit his power of manufacture to bodies, in so far as that power is taken over. If possible, we can have an Amendment before us on the Report stage. But, so far as chassis are concerned, it is as set out in (b), which I did not correctly represent.
I should make one other statement on this, as to negotiations now in progress—leaving out the point put by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, about which I shall have something to say later on. It will happen is some cases that among some of the firms taken over there will be perhaps a small number of concerns in the road transport part of the business. Such a concern would be one of that kind where a man will have one or

343
two lorries carrying on long-distance traffic (which will be taken over, of course) and will also have a garage or some place where he does repair work, and it may be has also a petrol pump, these things being ancillary to his major work. That automatically would be taken over if the man's business were taken over as a whole. The Minister has no desire to engage in that kind of work, and he is in negotiation with the motor traders concerned to try and arrive at an agreement which will be embodied in an Amendment to limit that. But I should say on that point that I am advised it clearly would not be reasonable, in cases where a concern of that sort might be running a little repair shop outside a village, to close the whole thing down. That would be a loss to the community, and the Minister is contemplating some other effective limitation. But that is involved in the Amendment of my noble friend, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and in one or two other Amendments. I only mention it in passing as connected with the manufacturing problem.
At all events, for the present, my right honourable friend is not prepared to accept a complete veto in regard to bodies. He is willing and anxious to enter into negotiations with those concerned to arrive at some formula which may be embodied in an Amendment which will limit operations of manufacture in that regard. I was authorized so to tell the Committee. With regard to the manufacture of chassis this must be looked into again, in view of what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has told me.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not want to intervene. I shall have a good deal to say at the appropriate moment about chassis, but I think I am pretty clear in my understanding of the Minister's pledge in another place. I am very clear on the undertaking of the noble Lord on the Second Reading debate, and that we must obviously discuss in detail on the appropriate Amendments. I think the statement the Leader of the House has made—and he was good enough to have a word with me before the House resumed—makes it plain that we cannot discuss any one of these Amendments, either of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, or the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, without bring-
344
ing into discussion the long Amendment the Minister has put on the Paper and the Amendments of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, to that Amendment. On behalf of this side of the House, I agree that we should take a general discussion, and if noble Lords make their points on their particular Amendments in that way I think the House will arrive at a concensus of opinion of what it wants to do, both as regards bodies and chassis, and then the Amendments can be either passed or passed with Amendments.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: When are we to have this discussion?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Now, I suggest.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: Then I would like to say a word. In the Second Reading in another place the Minister gave a pledge. Nothing was more plain. He said: "There are two specific limitations on its powers" (referring to the Commission). "It will not be able to manufacture chassis or road vehicles." That is about as plain a statement as could possibly be made by a Minister. As was pointed out, and as the Leader of the House did not appreciate, within half a page of his Bill he flatly contradicted all he said. It laid down that if you take over an undertaking you may go on with the manufacture of chassis. There is a possibility, if you get a bin firm, that von might improve it and make it bigger until it swamped the whole manufacturing resources in that direction in the whole of the country. The Minister submits this Amendment, which says you may make only as many vehicles as you made in the year previous to the passing of the Bill. That of course, still belies the promise the Government gave, that they would not manufacture chassis. Even if you manufacture as many as the firms made before this Bill you would still be manufacturing chassis. What sort of business is this going to be which cannot expand like an ordinary business and can go up only to a certain quota?
The Labour Government which were responsible for the London Transport Bill were wise in their generation. When they saw that they had power to manufacture rolling stock, they thought they could have a large export, but all the great railways were doing was looking after themselves, and we were deprived of big export business. It was laid down in the London

345
Transport Bill that London Transport should not have power to manufacture. That was a very wise decision, and I cannot understand why it is reversed in this Bill. I cannot understand why they want to go in for manufacture of vehicles.
The noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, says that, as regards chassis, he is going to limit the number by his Amendment later on, and he is prepared to go into this question along the same lines with regard to the manufacture of bodies. If it will clear the air, I will withdraw my Amendment now, because a similar Amendment is to be moved as an Amendment to the Amendment of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House. It might well be more convenient for me to leave it there, as the pledge has been given that the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, is prepared to consider the limitation of body manufacture. Perhaps he might insert the words in his Amendment. He has given his pledge with regard to chassis, and if he put in the words "or bodies" the whole thing would work without the need for another Amendment later on. If it would be convenient to the Leader of the House I will withdraw my Amendment, and move it later on.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Let us have a general discussion.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: The position seems to be that we have decided to have a discussion.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I ask one question? A number of municipalities have a considerable manufacturing plant. Glasgow manufactures one of the finest tramcars in the world, and they recently acquired powers to manufacture bodies of buses. What is their position to be? It may be that they will be taken over this year, next year, or it may be five years hence. During that time they may greatly increase their manufacturing capacity, and I think the Government should state clearly what is their intention. Do they desire to take over manufacturing facilities which are as large as possible, or any that exist, because Glasgow has a large tram manufacture and a very small bus body manufacture? It is desirable that in the meantime we should know what it is the wish of the Government to take over.
LORD HACKING: I feel in somewhat of a difficulty because this Amendment
346
now before the House deals with bodies, and the whole of the discussion has been centred around chassis. My Amendment dealt with chassis, and I beg noble Lords not to talk about bodies when they are dealing with my Amendment because that will create a still greater difficulty when we come to a decision with regard to the quite clear position as to whether or not this Transport Commission should be empowered to manufacture chassis for purposes other than experimental work and research. My Amendment deals with chassis, and I hope we shall consider chat part of the road vehicle. I should mention that I have a special interest in a firm of manufacturers to which reference has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, namely, the Bristol Tramways and Carriage Company. Before we adjourned I asked the noble Viscount the Leader the House whether the Commission would be debarred from making a chassis except for experimental and research purposes The reply that he gave the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, was not very complete. I think the Leader of the House said that, although he was going to move his Amendment at a later stage, it was not complete, and further restriction, would come along. I think those are the words he used. He then went on to say that it is quite proper that the Commission should be restricted in this matter with regard to manufacture. The previous Amendments this afternoon dealt with the storage of goods. Again, if I might quote the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, he said that clearly the Commission would not be able to go into the warehouse business.
VISCOUNT SIMON: That was agreed to.
LORD HACKING: That was agreed to with acclamation by the Government Front Bench. It was certainly cheered by members of the Government Front Bench. I want to know why It is necessary in a Transport Bill to enter into the manufacture of chassis, when is is quite improper, apparently, for any undertaking which at present owns warehouses to extend or develop in any way the use of the warehouses which they might properly in the eyes of some members of the Government be called upon to use. If either this Amendment which I have tabled or the two which follow it, which have the same effect, arc accepted, the Transport Commission would be enabled to manufacture

347
chassis for road vehicles only for the strictly limited purpose of experiment and research. In other words, proviso (i) of Clause 2, subsection (2), will operate in all such cases.
As a matter of fact, as has already been stated, this proviso itself goes much further than the Minister of Transport indicated was his intention during the Second Reading of the Bill in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has actually quoted what the Minister of Transport said in the other place. That was a clear statement that the Commission would not be able to manufacture chassis for road vehicles. What did he mean? If the Minister meant what he said, then I take it that his pledge ought to be implemented; and if he cannot implement it himself, it ought to be implemented in this House. If, on the other hand, the Minister did not mean what he said, then he ought never to have used those words, for the effect was undoubtedly to mislead another place. Although it has often been said during this debate this evening that it is what is in the Act that matters, I think we also ought to make it quite clear that when any measure it still in the form of a Bill it is very largely what the Minister says, and how he describes that Bill, which matters. If there is any difference between what the Minister said is the intention of the Bill, and what we read into the Bill, then, in my submission, what the Minister's intentions are should be put into the Bill to make that quite clear.
But, far from implementing the Minister's statement that the Commission would not be able to manufacture, his representative in this House, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, said on Second Reading that the Commission would be able to manufacture, but not for sale. Apparently the Amendment which is going to be moved by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House at a later stage prevents the manufacture for sale. But what it does do is to allow the Commission, on taking over an undertaking which itself has a chassis building part, to continue to manufacture the chassis as they had been manufactured before; the manufacture in future will continue under the authority of the Commission and not under the authority of private enterprise, as was previously the case. It appears that the
348
Commission will be taking over the undertaking known as the Bristol Tramways and Carriage Company. As that Company at present manufactures motor vehicles and chassis, the manufacture of these vehicles in future will be controlled by the
Commission. But, as is now announced by the Amendment in the name of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, the number of chassis will be limited to the number previously made. Well, if it is right to take over the manufacture of chassis, even though it may be a limited number, I should think it would have been right to take over a larger number. But if it is wrong to manufacture a large number, surely it is equally wrong to manufacture a small number.
What does this limitation mean? It means, as has already been hinted by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, that there can be no expansion of a factory, however excellent the chassis, and however economical the process of manufacture. This next point is very important. There can be no export trade of what is at present a very fine machine. The Bristol Company, in which, as I say, I am interested, has already contracted to sell in 1949 100 chassis to go overseas. Now what will happen with that export trade? Of course it goes; it disappears, and it may not be possible for any other firm to take up the contract. This is indeed the dead hand of nationalization when it cripples, as it is bound to cripple, the export trade of the country. My alternative is to give freedom to the manufacturer and freedom for the export of chassis and motor vehicles by whomsoever they now are made in this country. In giving that freedom to the manufacturer I desire to do nothing more and nothing less than accept the Minister's own pledge when he says that the Commission would not be able to manufacture chassis for road vehicles.
LORD GIFFORD: I reel very strongly that the Minister really is most loth to undertake the manufacture of chassis at all, and that he is rather embarrassed by the fact that, by accident, he is going to be "let in" for manufacturing chassis. Surely, the right answer is that some provision should be put into the Bill so that if the Commission by accident acquire an undertaking which makes chassis, they should within reasonable time sell that undertaking to private industry and let them get on with the job. Obviously.

349
a flourishing chassis industry, limited to the number of chassis it is going to make, is going to be a most difficult and uneconomic thing to work. Surely, then, that is the answer: that that undertaking, acquired by accident, should be sold off. There is only one other question 1 would like to ask the Minister and that is: What is a chassis? I presume he means by "chassis" what is meant in the transport industry as a whole, which is practically everything except the body. It means the engine as well, but not, strictly speaking, the frame of the vehicle.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I should like to intervene for a few moments in an endeavour to clarify, as I see it, the rather confusing issues which are before us. I must say that it seems to me that my noble friend Lord Brabazon and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, have made absolutely good the point that the Minister has given assurances that the manufacture of chassis will not be within the power of the Commission save for experimental purposes. It seems to me that that has been made absolutely good by quotation of chapter and verse. But if you look at manufacture generally it does it not stand in that way? We are discussing what it is agreed should be the width of the powers of the Commission to manufacture.
One possible view would be that they may exercise all the powers of the different undertakings which they acquire or control as a result of this Bill, which would mean that they would be able to manufacture for sale. That is the widest view. And the Leader of the House in the Amendment he has put down—whether exactly right in form or not does not matter—is obviously trying to provide in the Bill what he promised at the Second Reading, that that should not be the case. It is worth while to quote the actual words, which I have no doubt the Leader of the House has in mind. He said this, at the end of the debate, after an intervention from my noble friend Viscount Swinton and myself:
"It is not the intention of the Minister to do other than manufacture for the purposes of the undertaking. He told me that I could assure the noble Viscount that it is not his intention to manufacture for sale."
I ventured to say it would be better to put it in the Bill to make it quite clear, and the Leader of the House then said:
350
I do not object to that; my right honourable friend has authorized me to say that he would be willing to accept the proposition that he would not be manufacturing for sale. He is entirely wishful to act bona fide within the intentions mentioned, and not to manufacture except for the purposes of the undertaking."
I am leaving aside for the moment the special case of the chassis position. I have no doubt that the Amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, is intended to carry that out, and the only comments I have to make on that are one or two quite minor points as to its form. It plainly provides that however the Commission comes by the powers, it is not authorized by this Statute to use those powers except to construct or manufacture, as the noble Viscount said on the Second Reading, for the purpose of its undertaking. I think my noble friend behind me, before the adjournment, spoke of the difference between chassis and body, and raised the question whether either, or a locomotive, was required for the use of the undertaking, and whether therefore the Commission would have power to manufacture that class of thing and sell it. It is quite plain that that is not the intention. It does not say "to construct or manufacture anything of a sort which is not required." It has reference, I think, clearly, to the actual articles produced. I am sure that is the intention, and if there is any doubt about the words they might be made a little plainer. I myself, apart from this point about chassis and, it may be, bodies, entirely accept that it is not the intention of the Government to make this proposition. On the other hand we on this side feel sincerely grateful to the Leader of the House because he has obviously made a great and sincere effort to make good the words he used at the end of the Second Reading, and to a very large extent he has done so.
The reason for the small Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, put down on the Order Paper is, in the first place, that the Commission may find itself in a position to benefit by the manufacture of one of the instruments of transport, perhaps because it acquires an undertaking direct—usually a company. That would mean that the company went into liquidation. and that the liquidator would then, either by contract or by compulsion, hand over to the Commission, and would receive the appropriate compensation which he would hand over perhaps to his shareholders, and that

351
would be the end of the undertaking and the shareholders too. But there is a second way in which I think the Commission might put themselves in the position where they might, in effect, sell to the public; and that would be, not if they acquired the undertaking themselves but if they acquired the controlling shares in it, or all the shares in it. Since some of the railway companies, for example, own all the shares in subsidiary undertakings, and the Commission would acquire those shares under the powers of the Bill, the Commission would not indeed be manufacturing, but would be holding all the shares in a subsidiary company which does manufacture.
I do not for a moment believe that the Government intend to draw a distinction between those cases. I do not think it at all fair to do so. They are merely two ways of acquiring the same thing, and therefore my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh and I put down the words "directly and indirectly ". If you do not have those words in, or something corresponding to them, it might be said" it is not the Commission which are going to manufacture, it is the subsidiary company"; and they will own all the shares. Therefore I think it is manifest that what the Government really mean is that, whether directly or indirectly, by acquiring the undertaking out and out or by acquiring the controlling shares in the company, they do not intend as a result of this acquisition to have anything to do with the sale of these things to the public. That is a very fair way of meeting our criticism. I think it is entirely justified, and I am sure a great effort has been made to meet us, and I am truly grateful. That is why I put in the words "directly or indirectly"—to meet the two possible ways in which the Commission might obtain control of the two businesses.
The second Amendment which we put down was to substitute, or rather to add, in the fifth line of the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, the words "or carry on any activity." What happened was that the draftsman has used the words "to construct or manufacture"; but there may be cases where the Commission acquire the undertaking which does not in itself construct or manufacture. For instance, an agricultural establishment neither constructs nor manufac-
352
tures; it grows things and sells them. Of course, it is not really intended to draw a distinction between the Commission selling what they construct or manufacture to the general public, or selling to the public something which, generally speaking, they do not construct or manufacture. The word which is used in the Bill is the wider word "undertaking," and therefore it seemed to us that really in the fifth line we ought to add after "to construct or manufacture anything," the words "or carry on any activity." It is not intended that the Commission should carry on any activity by acquisition which would involve making sales to the general public, either in the export trade or otherwise; it is purely a logical correction of the words which happen to be used. If I may say so, it is a reasonable point.
The third point is a point which has been already mentioned, certainly by a noble Lord behind me, and it is very important. If the Commission acquire an undertaking which has previously had the power to do a larger variety of things than the Commission, under Statute, are entitled to do—if they acquire an undertaking which previously could either supply to the railway companies or could sell to the public at large—then the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment is to prevent them selling to the public at large. The Commission will have bought something of which they cannot make use. They will have bought the power to sell to the public, but cannot use that power because this clause provides that they should not. The way in which this is usually provided for—and I should have thought that would have been the proper way in this case—is to say that on the acquisition of any undertaking the Commission shall discontinue or dispose of such portion of the undertaking as they have no power to carry on.
During the Second Reading debate I gave instances, mentioning among other matters the concern of Thomas Cook and Sons. I understand that the railway companies acquired all the shares of Thomas Cook and Sons, because, as a matter of fact, in the pinch of the last war, when the firm's foreign business full away to nothing because no one wanted to travel abroad and no one wanted to know about foreign hotels, the railway companies were urged by the Government to take over the shares of the concern and they agreed. When the Commission get

353
the business they will not be able to carry on the activities of Thomas Cook and Sons, so far as they have nothing to do with our internal transport. What they ought to do, I suggest, is to offer what they have acquired, and cannot use, to the best bidder. There cannot be the slightest doubt that one or other of the travel agencies would be glad to have the opportunity of acquiring the shares on reasonable terms. I hope that I have made plain to your Lordships what the Amendment is which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh has moved and which I thought would meet the proposal of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, so far as paragraph (a) is concerned.
Paragraph (b) of his Amendment, if I may say so respectfully, deals with another matter entirely. It has nothing to do with my interest in the Bill. I learned of it incidentally. I learned that the Government were quite prepared to give an assurance to the chassis makers that, though they took their businesses over, they would not claim to make use of the power to make more chassis for the railway companies or for the road transport companies than they had made in the previous twelve months. That is my understanding of this. I suppose that is the reason why my noble friend proposes to put (b) in the Bill. As regards that, all I say is that it is a very serious question. I venture to ask whether he is really justified in putting in the Bill paragraph (b), which undoubtedly carries the rights of the Commission beyond what you find in the limitation in the proviso to which the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has referred.
There is no doubt, as Lord Hacking said, that here you find in the Bill—at any rate as regards Clause 2 (2)—that the Statute provides that the Commission shall not use any powers they may he thought to have acquired for making chassis beyond the point of making experimental chassis. There cannot be any doubt of that. I recognize perfectly that that provision is introduced with the words "The Commission shall not by virtue of this subsection "—and this subsection is subsection (2). I quite recognize that the claim
which the noble Lord makes about chassis for a wider power of manufacture does not arise under subsection (2), but under subsection (3). I follow that. The assurances given by the Minister have been quoted here more than
354
once, but here the Minister gave an absolute promise not qualified in any way. I shall listen to the arguments which may be put forward on this and if necessary, when the time comes, I shall vote as I believe it is my duty to vote, having heard all the arguments.
I interpose to make it plain that we are grateful to the noble Viscount for having put down the Amendment, obviously in fulfilment of his pledge. The truth is that in any sort of legislation, when you are creating a Commission which are to have new powers, those powers may be classified under three possible heads. The widest set of powers would he that they may use their new facilities for manufacturing and selling to all and sundry. The noble Viscount has repudiated that by his Amendment. The second is that though they provide only for the Commission's undertaking, nevertheless they may do that without restriction. That is the middle position. That would be true as regards railway locomotives. They can make the whole lot if they please. The third position is to. say that you will not go so far as that and in respect of certain kinds of product, chassis or bodies, to put in the Bill deliberately a further limitation, either to make chassis only for the purpose of experiment and leave the private trader to provide the market, or alternatively to limit the number they will supply.
We ought to be sure that the main Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, which I am sure in principle we shall all accept, is put in such a precise form that it will cover the operation of an undertaking whether for manufacture or construction, or an undertaking of another kind—a railway company may run a farm, for instance, and we should make it plain that it applies to both, whether the Commission acquire an undertaking directly or indirectly through the acquisition of shares. There should be a provision authorizing the Commission to dispose of that portion of the undertaking which they are not allowed to use for their own advantage. It would be stupid to sterilize it, and it is quite common, where a statutory body acquires things that it cannot itself use, to provide that it must dispose of that portion. There is the hundred years old illustration, under the Railway Clauses Act of 1845 where, if a railway company
acquire additional land for

355
the purpose of siding or doubling their lines, but do not within a reasonable limit of time use the land, they are bound to sell it back first to the person from whom it was bought; and, failing that, in the market. Exactly the same principle should exist here. If the Commission acquire powers which are wider than the powers allowed by Statute, the proper course is to dispose of what is surplus to those willing to buy.
LORD HACKING: May I ask the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, what would happen if the Commission had to take over an undertaking which was partly concerned with manufacturing bodies for home and partly for the export trade? It would be very difficult to divide that.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I think so, and that is an additional argument for what my noble friend, Lord Hacking, has been urging. This is a special case, but these are the points I wanted to make. I do not wish to detain your Lordships at this most unusual hour, but I hope that I have made plain the reason why I commend in principle the Amendment of the noble Lord. On the other hand, the reason I myself put the case of chassis and bodies is that it is a special case which is entitled to the special provision which it is proposed should be made in this Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I intervene for a moment to ask the guidance of the Lord Chairman. The noble and learned Viscount, by introducing his Amendment to the Amendment which is to be moved by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has widened the discussion past chassis and bodies into the field covered by the Amendments which I have upon the Order Paper. May I ask, my Lord Chairman, whether you will allow these to be discussed now, or whether you will leave it until the chassis and the bodies have been cleared away?
VISCOUNT SIMON: I understood it was the general wish of the House—certainly it was indicated by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House—that we should, on Lord Brabazon's Amendment, survey the whole field. This, of course, includes what the noble Lord opposite has proposed. I hope I have not been going round
356
that understanding, but I thought it was regarded as being the convenient thing to do.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if I now speak on the Amendments that I have on the Order Paper. The noble Viscount, quite rightly, has pointed out that, as subsection (3) of Clause 2 stands, the Commission can, by acquiring a concern, engage in activities far removed from the purpose for which the Transport Commission has been set up. The noble Viscount has mentioned farms, but these activities can range over a huge field from roadside cafes to farms, greengrocery and merchanting, and I know of no sphere of activity so diversified as those ancillary to road haulage. The main point of that was the intention of my first Amendment.
The second Amendment in my name on the Order Paper is an alternative, because if there is one activity closely allied to road haulage it is the motor trade, the reason being that, one largely sprang from the other and the other from the one. My information is that 58 per cent. of the road haulage contractors operating ten vehicles and over (which are largely those to be acquired under this Bill) engage in all the activities, to a major or minor degree, of the motor trade, ranging from selling new and used vehicles, wholesale and retail, retailing spare parts, retailing motor cars for the general public, and owning and retailing petrol and oil from filling stations. I know that it is not the Government's intention to nationalize either retail distribution in general or the retail motor trade in particular. I would beg the Government not to dismiss this as being a light matter, it is a very serious matter, and one which has far wider ramifications than arc apparent. I will not mention names, but some of the largest retail distributive concerns in the motor trade are owned at the present time by the railway companies, via Pickfords and people of that description. It is quite obvious that they will divorce themselves from acquisition.
But you come right down the scale, from firms that are doing a turnover to-day of £2,000,000 to £3,000,000 a year, to the concerns the noble Viscount mentioned, owning perhaps one petrol pump in the village. But between those two extremes it is a sizeable thing, and I do suggest that it is not the intention of the Government to bring those concerns

357
under this Bill, and for the National Transport Commission to engage in buying and soiling the secondhand cars of noble Lords opposite, or repairing their motor cars or selling their petrol. I do not know what my noble friend the Leader of the House will do, but the two Amendments down in my name cover those points, one in general terms and one in specific terms. I think they should be covered, as well as the other activities mentioned by the noble Viscount; because we all know that these haulage contractors have, as I have said before, a great diversity of occupations. You see on every road wayside cafes— "Reg's Rendezvous," "Alf's Arbour," or something like that. Surely it is not the intention of the National Transport Commission to nationalize and enter into that class of trade. I do not know what my noble friend the Leader of the House will do, but if he will accept the principle of this Amendment, I am quite satisfied.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I should like to add one word with the object of clarification of the debate. I begin by saying that I fully agree, so far as I understand them, with the various propositions that have been put forward by my noble friend Viscount Simon. I also thought I understood the proposed Amendments by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. The matter which I think requires clarification in any drafting Amendments which are agreed is the true meaning of the words" use for the purpose of the Commission's undertaking," because I have a very strong conviction that my noble friend Viscount Simon uses that phrase in a different way from that in which it is used by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. The words appear in two places: in paragraph (a) of the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, and in the third line of paragraph (b) of the same Amendment.
I do not think everybody has realized—though the noble Lord who has just spoken does—that the Bill is not concerned with transferring to the Commission railway and road haulage alone; it also transfers to the Commission all undertakings—with exceptions that need not be mentioned here—which are possessed by any of the persons whose general undertakings are acquired by the Commission under the terms of the Bill. That is to be found in Clause 2, subsection (3). Their
358
powers are there defined (they may be altered later on of course) as, subject to the provisions of the Bill, to
"carry on any activities, whether mentioned in subsection (I) of this section or not, which were theretofore carried on for the purposes of that undertaking or part of an undertaking, or were authorized by any statutory provision…."
Therefore they are acquiring the businesses prima facie of a quantity of companies and bodies and activities of a most multifarious kind—Is my noble friend opposite has pointed out. Among those activities and those uses are the manufacturing of things and, selling of them. Prima facie, when you get the words,
"The Commission s riot have power—(a) to construct or manufacture anything which is not required either for use for the purposes of their undertaking or for the fulfilment of a contract,"
you are in effect saying that the Commission are to have power—if one of the bodies whose undertaking has been bought had power, which it always had—to use vehicles, to crake vehicles, bodies or chassis, to sell those to the public, to compete with them and to do anything they like that the previous company could do.
All I am intervening for now is to say: For goodness sake lit us make it clear what meaning is attributed to the words "for use for the purposes of their undertaking." I venture to think, with great respect, that different noble Lords have been using that phrase with different intentions as to its meaning. Others have argued what the Government should do, and there are other noble Lords who will no doubt add to that question. I confine my intervention simply to the observation: Let t s know, in any Amendments which we pass, exactly what we mean.
VISCOUNT SIMON: May I just ask my noble and learned friend this? Does he not understand, "for the purposes of their undertaking" as meaning for the purposes of exercising powers which the Commission are given in Clause 2?
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I would not have thought so. I would have thought that subsection (3) means something acquired by them.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I certainly do not propose to intervene in an interpretation between two ex-Lord Chancellors,

359
but I confess that I had the same impression as that of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, as to what these words really referred to; I cannot go beyond that. There were two or three issues generally discussed in this group of Amendments, and I will do my hest, without repeating myself any more than I can avoid, to reply to them. First, let me thank the noble and learned Viscount for his remarks about the Amendment, or at all events about my good intentions, to which I tried to give effect in the Amendment I put down in fulfilment of the pledge I gave on the Second Reading. Subject to certain qualifications which the noble and learned Viscount attaches to it, I think on the whole he accepts that paragraph (a) does bona fide give effect to that promise. I am advised, with regard to the criticism he makes as to power held directly or indirectly, that the noble Viscount has a good point; it may be that the control of a concern may be acquired indirectly. I can say to the noble and learned Viscount that there is no intention or desire to use the power indirectly, any more than there is directly. I understand it needs rather more words than those to give effect to it, but I will undertake to give effect to it, and perhaps we can confer with the noble Viscount as to precisely what the words should be.
With regard to the second, I am not very clear, because it is a fact that some of the concerns that would be taken over under subsection (3) would have as part of their ordinary business a number of these ancillary jobs to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has referred. It would not be sense that they should simply be thrown on to the scrap heap or brought to a standstill. There must be some practical sensible way by which the Commission can divest themselves of duties which are not proper to their undertaking.
VISCOUNT SIMON: That is what my third Amendment was intended to cover.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I understand that, and the discussions which I hope to have with our advisers between now and the Report stage are intended to cover that particular point as well. But it is clearly not sensible that the Commission, having acquired an undertaking, a part of whose business was not road haulage or whatever it might be, should expect to have to throw it on the scrap heap and to
360
abandon it, because naturally they would not expect a fair value for it if they did. It must be done in a sensible and fair way, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will not press the point now. I will acid to my Amendment words to cover that particular type of case.
Now I come to the biggest difficulty of all, the controversy about chassis and bodies. I have already said that in the animated interchange of question and answer which went on before the adjournment I was guilty of making some statements which require revision. But I find that when my right honourable friend in another place gave the pledge referred to, subsection (3) was then in the Bill, and the statement referred to the new power of the Commission. All I can say is that it was new to me when the noble Viscount mentioned it, and I will certainly have it looked into in all good faith. My Amendment under (b) was intended to limit the power acquired by the taking over of a concern that was in fact manufacturing chassis; it was intended not only to prevent their being sold but to prevent the extent of their manufacture—namely, by limiting it to that of the previous twelve months. That is why those words were included.
With regard to the question of bodies, my right honourable friend is unwilling to accept, as I said before, a veto on bodies because of the different circumstances attached to them. He has told me that he is desirous of entering into negotiations with those concerned to see whether an acceptable form of Amendment cannot be arrived at with regard to bodies. I cannot go any further than that to-night. With that undertaking I hope the noble Lord will not ask us to insert the word "bodies", because it may prejudice the negotiations. As to the pledge to which the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has referred, all I can say is that the matter shall be looked into in entire good faith.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The debate which we have had, and the helpful speech the Leader of the House has just made to us, I think shows how wise was his advice that we should take a full debate on the whole of these dozen or so Amendments, and I think the ground has now been covered fairly and fully. As I see it, there are really two issues before us here in regard to what we shall do with this clause and all the Amendments to it, and I do

361
not believe that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will differ from either of the proposals I am going to make, or that he will not agree completely with the conclusions I draw from them. The first is that whatever pledges have been given must be kept, and I am sure they will be; but the other, and I was going to say the more important—nothing, however, is more important than carrying out Parliamentary pledges—but equally important, at any rate, is that the Commission should do what is best in the interests of the transport of this country in the vast job which it is going to assume.
I am sure the Leader of the House will believe that in what I am going to say on that head I am not thinking for one moment about the nationalization of this or that industry; I am simply speaking from all my experience, administrative and business, of what I believe is the real interest of a transport undertaking, whether it be a nationalized undertaking or a private enterprise undertaking. The aim should be to give the best results in transport, and the best results to the community. I want to say only one word about the pledges. With regard to chassis quite frankly I regard that pledge as absolute. I think that anybody hearing that pledge given—I will not quote it again; it was read out by Lord Hacking—would understand it to mean that the Commission would not manufacture chassis at all except for experimental purposes. It was absolute. The Leader of the House has said that when that pledge was given subsection (3) was in the Bill. Of course it was, but I draw the exactly opposite conclusion from that which the Leader of the House has drawn. It was because there was that apparent discrepancy between subsection (2) and subsection (3) that the question arose. If the words had been perfectly general words, and we had never had that funny little phrase "shall not by virtue of this subsection," but it had simply read "shall not manufacture chassis except for experimental purposes," the question would never have arisen.
LORD HACKING: I happen to have the quotation in front of me, and when the Leader of the House said that subsection (3) was still in the Bill, and that the members of another place knew it was in the Bill, that is quite true; but so did the Minister know it was in the Bill,
362
because the Minister was then dealing with the first eleven clauses of the Bill that deal with the powers and duties of the British Transport Commission, and he gave one of the limitations to its powers. He knew it was in the Bill.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think that confirms what I have said. The question could not have arisen if there had not been that apparent discrepancy in the undertaking that was given: the undertaking that the Commission will not manufacture chassis except for experimental purposes. Indeed, I think it would be something rather like sharp practice, or, shall I say, curiously inconsistent and illogical, if you took over 95 per cent. of whit you are going to take over, by parts 3, 4, and 5 of the Schedules, or whatever they are, and said that all those things that were to vest in you would be subject to one form of limitation, while something acquired by a side wind was to be subject to another. It would be almost as though one limitation was applied to what you acquired by hook while another was applied to what you acquired by crook. I think that the limitation was perfectly plain, and I feel sure that on consideration the noble Viscount will feel that he must give effect to it and make the limitation absolute.
With regard to bodies, I agree that there was no pledge—I do not think anybody contends that there was. No pledge was given about that in another place at all. The noble Viscount, the Leader of this House, gave an undertaking here that when we came to the Committee stage he would put down an Amendment to ensure that the Commission should only manufacture for use. That is not complicated by the chassis distinction. I consider that the Leader of the House has fully implemented the pledge which he gave about limitation of manufacture for use. That is all I want to say about the pledges themselves.
But in all these circumstances, these very complicated circumstances, what is the wise thing for the Commission to do? There is the manufacture by this or that undertaking of chassis or of bodies, or of new developments such as we have heard to-day. We have heard of a body which does not require a chassis but is somehow integrated into itself These things are all developments of one kind or another. Many of these matters were referred to

363
by the the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in the very interesting speech which he made. I say, frankly, that I think the railways not only had the right but were right to engage in motor transport. In view of the way in which things were acquired, I do not think there was any other way of doing it. But I think the railways themselves would say that they got hold of far more than they really wanted. It does happen like that. If you want to buy a share or the whole of a transport undertaking you may well find that you have to buy everything that goes with it. You may, as Lord Lucas said, find yourself obliged to buy a caravanserai or an hotel. You often have to take junk along with what you want. You may also have to take something that is not junk at all, but something that is quite alien to your purpose.
Now this Commission is going to have far and away the biggest job of its kind ever given to an undertaking. I pray that they may not fall down in carrying it out, but I really do shudder at the size of the undertaking which it is proposed they should acquire. If, to all that, they are to add the manufacture of this or that, or the retailing of this or that, they will never get on with the job of transport. I, in my own business experience, have had perhaps my greatest success in disintegrating businesses, rather than in integrating them. I hope that the Commission will have learned a little from some of the mistakes which private enterprise made after the last war. There were businesses which grew far too large. They acquired every sort of thing conceivable, many of which things were quite unnecessary. This was partly the result of megalomania and partly due to the mistaken idea that if you engaged in one form of enterprise you ought to engage in every form of ancillary enterprise that served it. Nearly all those businesses had to be reconstructed and recast. All the surplus stuff which was not essential had to he got rid of.
Let me give the illustration of Vickers. Under the Chairmanship of Sir Archibald Jamieson it was reorganized: this was discarded, and that was got rid of to somebody else; and the result was that Vickers again became a great success. That story can be repeated over and over again. I have absolutely no doubt that the right thing for this Commission to do is to con-
364
centrate upon transport, and to avoid taking over, in the first instance, anything which is not transportation; and if they cannot avoid taking it over, to get rid of it as soon as possible. I know people think they can be very good manufacturers but I do not know any transport system which is a good manufacturer. I want to have the world to go and buy from, and to choose the best. As soon as you begin to manufacture, you may think you have something good—and certainly your engineers will think you have—but you become a tied house. You want to be able to go where you can buy most efficiently. You may engage in research, but I am sure it is folly to engage in manufacture. When the Lord President, Mr. Herbert Morrison, was passing the London Transport Bill (it fell to my lot in another Government to complete the work he began, and I was told that I was the only person who could get it through another place—one of the sins on my head!) he wisely provided that manufacture should be discarded. I am sure the London Passenger Transport Board to-day would not take on manufacture if you offered it to them.
I have been, and am, concerned with great electrical power undertakings. If you paid me a million I would not go into the manufacturing business. It would he madness. I want to buy where I can buy best. We buy our boilers from Babcock and Wilcox. We would be fools to manufacture. I am convinced this is a sound policy for this Transport Bill. Do not clutter up transport with all these industries which have nothing to do with transport. I beg the Government, in giving effect to their pledge, without having any prejudice in their minds about this, to take it back and reconsider it to see if the wise thing is not to discard the idea of manufacture, which they did not want to undertake, but had to, simply because of acquiring certain ancillary undertakings which they want to get rid of. If they do not get rid of them, these undertakings will lead them deeper into the mud. If this Bill is to succeed it must be transport and transport alone; manufacture must be done by the manufacturers, whether it is nationalized industry or not.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: This very interesting discussion, culminating in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord

365
Swinton, on his business activities and political career, has left me, as I have no doubt it has left many other noble Lords, in a position in which we are not quite clear what we are going to do. I apologize for having moved my Amendment because it is so very simple. It is quite true that no pledge was given about bodies, so that it would satisfy me if the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, would just limit the number by his subsequent Amendment. The point is: is he ever to get his Amendment? We have just had an Appeal made to say we shall not manufacture chassis at all, and if the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is passed, we cannot at the same time have part (b) of the Amendment of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House.
That is the trouble I am getting into in the matter, and I do not quite follow how we are going to get out of this trouble. Perhaps a lead from the Leader of
the House, or from the Leader of the Opposition. may tell us what we are to decide, or settle how we are to meet the situation. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, comes after mine, and that will decide whether or riot the second part of the Amendment of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House can be put in, because it becomes a definite contradiction if the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is carried. Perhaps the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will inform us what procedure we are to follow.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: It is true that if the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is carried, it would not be possible for me to move the whole of my Amendment. I was acting on the assumption that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, would not move his Amendment.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: Optimist!
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I was trying to carry out an undertaking, and when I put my Amendment on the Order Paper, the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, was not there.
LORD GIFFORD: Earlier in the debate on this clause, I asked the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, a question that I thought important. I asked for a definition of a chassis.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am afraid I must refer the noble Lord to the experts.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We have got into an extremely difficult position, although I do not say that it was not wise to have this general debate. It has cleared the air a good deal, but we are left with the result that it has cleared the air almost too much. We have to take into account the pledge given by the Minister in another place, into which the noble Viscount the Leader of the House said he would look further. He has given us all the issues which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and, as a result, we are left in a position where we cannot vote on any of the existing Amendments. I suggest, with all deference to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, that it would be by far the best plan, if, in the light of this discussion, he considered the whole question raised by this discussion to see whether he could not produce another amendment which would meet all the points that were raised. I do not think it would be possible, even now, to vote first on one Amendment and then on another.
It would perhaps be possible for the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to take the original wording of part (a) of his Amendment, and then part (a) with the Amendments to it moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and leave out part (b) That would meet the case to a certain extent. The effect of that would be to prevent the Commission from constructing or manufacturing anything which was required, either directly or indirectly, for purposes other than their undertaking; and it would wash out the part which deals with the manufacture of chassis beyond the pre-Bill standard of the undertakings they are taking over. That would give effect to the Minister's pledge in another place which said they should not be manufactured. That would be one way of dealing with it.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: May I interrupt the noble Marquess? Something would have to be put in instead of the second part; otherwise they would be able to manufacture as much as they like.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think that if we carried the first part of the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, as amended by the noble Vis-

367
count, Lord Simon, and did not pass (b), with the definite understanding that on Report the noble Viscount the Leader of the House would put down an Amendment, affecting the manufacture of chassis and also the number of bodies to be manufactured—on which he has not given a commitment—the Amendment might be withdrawn.
LORD HACKING: Certainly on that undertaking.
LORD BRABAZON of TARA: Could we not get some decision except on Report? We have dealt with only four pages of the Bill, and we have already referred about six matters to the Report stage.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I do not think the statement of the noble Lord is accurate, but still it is picturesque. I think the suggestion of the noble Viscount is really a way out of this tangle. There seems to be general agreement, subject to the Amendments suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that paragraph (a) of my Amendment is desirable and carries out the undertaking, and it would prevent the manufacture of chassis, bodies or anything else, except for the purposes of the undertaking. If your Lordships would like it, we can accept that Amendment. I would not proceed with paragraph (b), on the definite understanding that by the usual negotiations we should arrive at an Amendment to be dealt with on the Report stage covering both chassis and bodies; and we shall use our best efforts to get some kind of agreement. As to that I cannot say any more. If that suggestion commends itself to your Lordships, I think it is the best way out. We may leave the other Amendments on that understanding. May I say, with regard to the observations of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that I accept the words "directly or indirectly" at the beginning. I am not quite sure whether the words at the end would not be too comprehensive as they are, because I am advised that they might have to carry on some activities for a time. Perhaps the noble Viscount will not ask me to accept that for the moment.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I should be content to accept that on this Committee stage, it being understood that we would look further into it. If the noble Viscount
368
thinks fit to ask the House to accept his own Amendment, so far as paragraph (a) is concerned, adding "directly or indirectly" after the word "power," I think that we have made a little progress. I would reserve, as the noble Viscount would reserve, the question of whether there was not something else to be added.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May I make one suggestion to meet the difficulty to which the noble Viscount referred about the carrying on of activities by an acquired undertaking? It seems to me that instead of saying, "the Commission shall not have power either directly or indirectly," we could say, "neither the Commission nor an acquired undertaking shall have power either directly or indirectly."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think this is a satisfactory way out of our difficulties. I would make it clear to the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, that we must reserve our position until we see the amended form. There is also one thing I would like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, who was a little critical just now. He said that we postponed everything to the Report stage. The truth is that we in this House do not like to divide against each other if it can possibly be avoided. Our method since the beginning of this Parliament always has been to try and get nearer and nearer; and if we do not get near enough on Committee stage, we try to get nearer to each other between it and the Report stage. I really think that is the most satisfactory way from the point of view of the House as a whole. I am obliged to say that, because the noble Lord's words might give the impression that the House of Lords was funking the issues or was not doing its job properly. I think it is doing its job admirably.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: I understand that on Third Reading in your Lordships' House we can also move Amendments.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Only if notice is given.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I would point out to the noble Lord that we have substantially amended Clause I, and that is not being referred to the Report stage.

369
That is a very substantial and highly important Amendment. I understand that the Motion is that after the word "power" in my Amendment we should accept the words of the noble Viscount, "either directly or indirectly." As to the rest we will discuss the form of words later.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Can I help my noble friend by thanking him very much for the assurance he has given that he accepts the principle in my Amendments; and to make the way clear I will not move them.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HACKING: I do not wish to move my Amendment, on the undertaking that has been given.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I beg to move the first part of my Amendment with the addition of the words "either directly or indirectly." I do not move part (b).
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, at end insert—
("Provided that, notwithstanding anything in this subsection or in any subsequent provision of this Act, or in any scheme, order or regulations made under any such provision, the Commission shall not have power either directly or indirectly—
(a) to construct or manufacture anything which is not required either for use for the purposes of their undertaking or for the fulfilment of a contract made, before the acquisition by the Commission of the undertaking or part of an undertaking, by the person theretofore carrying it on; or."—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I do not move my Amendments to the noble Viscount's Amendment, on the understanding that the points are still open and will be further considered.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: In view of the undertaking given by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, I withdraw my Amendment on page 5, line 8.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The next Amendment makes it rather more watertight. It adds at the end of line 22, "other than the proviso to subsection (3)."However, that may be subsequently modified. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
370
Page 5, line 22, after ("section") insert ("other than the proviso to subsection (3)").—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: This Amendment is purely formal.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 23, after ("by") insert ("or under").—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I feel a little doubt as to whether, when we read the words which we have inserted, the subsection will agree with the rest of the Bill, because of the provision which has now been made in the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison. At first blush it looks as though there was something inconsistent.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I Will certainly look into that, but I was advised that the words tidied up the proviso.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [General duty of the Commission]:
LORD ROCHDALEmoved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"(3) Where the Commission intend to discontinue permanently the provision of any regular goods transport service by road between any particular points, they shall, before discontinuing that service, give not less than one month's notice of their intention, in such manner as appears to them best suited for bringing that intention to the notice of the persons who, in the opinion of the Commission, are likely to be directly affected by the discontinuance."
The noble Lord said: In explaining this Amendment I would like to draw attention to the bottom of the page in the Bill where it mentions the fact that where different forms of transport are provided by the Commission the users may choose which type of transport they like. On the other hand there is no obligation on the part of the Commission either to retain any particular form of transport or to add any form, and it has been frequently represented by the Ministry and elsewhere that there are probably a number of cases throughout the country where there are services that are unnecessary, redundant or overlapping.
It would seem obvious that one of the tasks of the Commission, when they come to carry out their directing to form an integrated transport service, would be to have a survey of all the transport services with a view to arriving at a decision as

371
to which of the various services can be cut as unnecessary. And it would seem extremely likely that the axe would fall in a large number of cases on regular road transport services. This Amendment, therefore, seeks to ensure that in cases where these services are to be cut out there should be a pause or time lag of one month, so as to enable the existing users of these services to consider the alterations and to make representations to the Consultative Committees, and from them to the Commission, and also to make other arrangements for their own transport requirements. I want to emphasize that this Amendment refers only to alterations to regular road services and to an absolute cancellation of them. It does not refer to cases where services may be cancelled merely because of bad weather or shortage of fuel or black-out, or any purely temporary cancellation. Without this Amendment it does seem that users of transport would be embarrassed if they found suddenly that their services were removed from them, and that they had no tune to make representations or other arrangements. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—.
Page 6, line 11, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Rochdale.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I would like to support what my friend Lord Rochdale has said, because I think it is a reasonable and very simple request that the Commission should give one month's notice before discontinuing the service. But I would like to point out one further point; that is that in fact the Commission are incurring no legal liability by accepting this clause at all. If your Lordships would look at subsection (4) it will be seen that nothing shall be considered. either directly or indirectly, as forming any liability enforceable before any court; so that the liability incurred by the Commission in accepting this subsection is really not very great. However, I think it is a convenience to the general public which the Legislature has a right to request from the Commission.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, the noble Lord and the noble Earl have outlined this Amendment so clearly that very little remains for me to do beyond saying that the Government attach considerable importance to this Amendment, and they are obliged to both the noble Lord and the
372
noble Earl for having put it forward. On their behalf I have pleasure in accepting it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert:
"(3) In the performance of the duty imposed by this section of providing an efficient and economical system of transport of goods the Commission shall have regard to the facilities available for that purpose by the appointment of road transport clearing houses as agents of the Commission."
The noble Lord said: my Amendment, like the one last moved, is a short and simple little one, and not so complicated as that to which we have listened since we resumed after the adjournment. It seeks only to get the Commission to have regard to the facilities available and made available by the Road Transport Clearing Houses. The Road Transport Clearing Houses, both before the war and certainly during the war, when I knew of their activities, performed a useful service. They were there to clear what goods were available for transport, to tell the traders what transport was available for the goods, and to see that the goods were put on the appropriate lorries going to the place where it was sought to take them. I think that this Commission should have regard to those facilities.
These bodies, as I say, did extremely good work to my own knowledge during the war. They have done it for a long time, and what your Lordships have got to bear in mind, if I may suggest it, is this: that a lorry does not always have a complete load, and it wants some clearing house so that it can go with a complete load. These road clearing houses accept the goods, and make the arrangements on which they shall be transported by a partly empty lorry that is going in the direction in which it is necessary to take the goods. I do not say they will have any real function to perform between the railways and the Government's own long-distance hauliers; but we are still going to leave, whether with just a forty-mile limit or whether with an extended one—that is for subsequent discussion in this House—a certain number of local road hauliers. They should have some place to take the long-distance goods; and the clearing house which will make the provision to take them on from the local collection, which will largely be done by these people with a small radius of activity, should put them

373
on the long-distance transport system, to take them to their ultimate destination. I hope all this will not be sought to be done by some new Government office, because if so, human nature being what it is, the little local short-range haulier might not get very much chance. His goods might very well be held up. Some other goods collected by the Government system to go into this stream might get some priority, and the goods collected by the people who are going to be restricted to the short-range activities might not go into the stream in the proper way.
These road transport clearing houses have done an extremely good job in the past. To my knowledge they did it in the war. All my Amendment seeks to do—and if it does anything beyond this it is wrongly worded—is to draw the attention of the Commission to these services so that they may make use of them wherever they are the proper services to use. I do not say that the Commission should be bound to accept the services of every road transport clearing house. If my Amendment means that it goes too far. All I want to say is that in all appropriate cases this machinery, which has proved itself both in peace and in war, should be made use of. In these circumstances I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 11 at end, insert the said subsection.— (Lord Llewellin.)
LORD MORRISON: The noble Lord said that his Amendment was a simple one, and I am bound to say that I agree with most of what he said. But there was a matter which he did not explain, although I think it may have been in his mind because he referred to it in almost the last sentence of his speech. He rather suggested, I gathered, that perhaps he might have gone too far. What he did not explain was why, in view of the fact that at least some members of the Commission will be people of very considerable experience in transport, he had some reason for thinking that this matter would be overlooked by the Commission to such an extent that it was necessary, in his view, to put down a special instruction in the Bill drawing the attention of the Commission to the fact that there are road transport clearing houses which serve a very useful purpose.
374
I am advised that the Amendment might effect more than the noble Lord intends. The noble Lord said he did not desire to press his Amendment if his words might be held to place upon the Commission an obligation to make use of the facilities in question. The noble Lord, I think, specifically said that that was not his intention. Clearly, this is a matter in which the Commission must be entirely free to do as they think best. I am therefore unable to accept the Amendment, though I do not say that the noble Lord has given no reason why this should be specially drawn to the attention of the Commission. Perhaps, in view of that explanation the noble Lord may not desire to press his Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I thank the noble Lord but I can assure him that these people are feeling rather anxious. There is no doubt about that. When I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport I came into contact with them, and I know what good service they did. Now they are wondering if they will not be overlooked, and it would give them considerable satisfaction if some special mention could be made of them in this measure. I quite see that the words of my Amendment may be thought to go a little too far. But, as I said, these people who have done very good work are most anxious that they shall not be overlooked. I think that perhaps if I could have a few words with the noble Lord opposite between now and the Report stage, we might be able to agree on the inclusion of some reference to them—for instance, by putting in some such words as: "by the appointment, in appropriate cases, of such road transport clearing houses as agents of the Commission." If he would indicate to me that at this stage of the Bill he would be prepared to have a talk with me before Report stage as to whether they could be mentioned, so that it would bring them to the notice of the Commission, then I would be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD MORRISON: I am quite willing to explore with the noble Lord the possibility of any middle way between not mentioning them at all and specifically drawing attention to them, to see whether something on the lines he suggested could be introduced.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I do not see what the middle way is between the two. What I suggested was that we might mention them without putting any definite compulsion on the Commission to employ them but giving them the right to the service on appropriate occasions. But on the noble Lord's promise to look at it, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Powers of the Minister in relation to the Commission.
4.—(I) The Minister may, after consultation with the Commission, give to the Commission directions of a general character as to the exercise and performance by the Commission of their functions in relation to matters which appear to him to affect the national interest, and the Commission shall give effect to any such directions.
(2) In framing programmes of reorganisation or development involving substantial outlay on capital account, the Commission shall act on lines settled from time to time with the approval of the Minister.
(3) In the exercise and performance of their functions as to training, education and research, the Commission shall act on lines settled as aforesaid.
(5) Without prejudice to the preceding provisions of this section, the Minister may, after consultation with the Commission, direct the Commission to discontinue any of their activities, dispose of any part of their undertaking, dispose of any securities held by them, call in any loan made by them or exercise any power they may possess to revoke any guarantee given by them, and the Commission shall give effect to any such directions.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in subsection (I), to leave out "which appear to him to." The noble Lord said: I do not know if the Leader of the House is still here. If not, I am in a position of some embarrassment, because I have some questions I particularly wish to direct to the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill. I do not know whether your Lordships wish to proceed or whether we should adjourn. I had better proceed and if the questions cannot be answered to-night they can be answered tomorrow. Subsection (I) of this clause reads:
(1) The Minister may, after consultation with the Commission, give to the Commission directions of a general character as to the exercise and performance by the Commission of their functions in relation to matters which appear to him to affect the national interest, and the Commission shall give effect to any such directions."
376
That provision is one which I think supports my contention that the Minister will have a great deal more than he ought to do with the day-to-day running of transport. My Amendment is one which was put down in another place and was not called and therefore has never been discussed. The point was referred to on Second Reading when the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, speaking with the full authority of the Front Bench, gave us some confirmation affecting this point. Lord Nathan, speaking of the Minister, said:
"He also has power to give, from time to time, general directions if in his opinion the national interest requires it. I believe I may say for him that that is a power he will exercise sparingly. Indeed, he must necessarily do so, because it is a power which can be exercised only when, in his view, the national interest requires it."
The noble Lord went on to say:
"Those words, 'Where in his opinion the national interest requires it,' are very stringent words of limitation. They are not words of extension; they are words Which limit the power of authority of the Minister."
A moment later Lord Nathan gave us an example which in his opinion would justify the Minister in making use of this power. He said that the Minister would be justified in considering it in the national interest that he should give the railways instructions to grant precedence and priority to the conveyance of coal in such circumstances as the recent emergency and fuel crisis.
The questions that I want to put to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House are: Does he accept that interpretation which was given from the Front Bench on the Second Reading? It will be noticed that the words do not entirely correspond with the words which were used by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, but this, of course, is the clause to which he was referring—with a slight difference of wording. What I want to ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is this: Does he agree that this is, in fact, a power which the Minister will use sparingly? Does the noble Viscount agree that these are words of limitation? Because I do not think they are. Finally, does the noble Viscount the Leader of the House accept the example of the coal crisis as being the sort of thing which would justify the intervention of the Minister under these powers to give directions in matters which affect the national interest. If the noble Viscount does not accept that

377
example, would he kindly give us other examples of the sort of thing which would justify the Minister in intervening under this clause? The noble Viscount the Leader of the House is now here. I am sorry that I had to ask these questions when he was not here, but the questions are quite brief and if the noble Viscount would like me to repeat them I will.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Yes, please.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I would remind your Lordships that we are dealing with my Amendment to Clause (4) Subsection (1), and I mentioned the reference which the noble Lord, Lord Nathan made on Second Reading. I asked the noble Viscount the Leader of the House if he would tell us whether he agrees that these words "which appear to him to affect the national interest" are words of stringent limitation, or whether he thinks that they would justify the Minister in intervening in circumstances other than those of extreme crisis? If the noble Viscount does not agree with that view, perhaps he would give us other examples of the sort of occasion on which the Minister would be justified in intervening. If the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, was right in what he said, then I think it is perfectly clear the Government have no option but to accept the Amendment which stands in my name. That would have the effect of leaving this tremendous issue of whether the matter affected the national interest, which is of grave import, a matter which could be brought before the Court. If Lord Nathan was wrong (as with great respect, I think perhaps he was) then I think the words in the clause give the Minister far too great a power of intervention. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, lines 28 and 29, leave out ("appeal to him to").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
VISCOUNT SIMON: I feel a great deal of sympathy with what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, although, at the same time, I see that it is a difficult point. It works out practically in this way. If we keep these words then, in effect, the decision of the Minister that a matter affects the national interest to such a degree that it is right this most exceptional and violent power should be used, ends the matter. It is well understood that
378
wherever an Act of Parliament says that something may be done if, in the opinion of "X", a condition is satisfied, the question is not whether the Court or the Court of Appeal is satisfied, or whether the evidence might show the contrary; the question is what is the opinion of "X." That is the end of it. There are many such cases, of course, where the whole discretion is given to the person who originally expresses the view.
Manifestly, if you have an expression which says "in the opinion of so arid so the situation is such and such," you do not do any good by appealing, however violent the view may be, because the court will say, and say quite rightly: "It is not for us to say. The question is as to what is the language of Acts". It cannot be denied that that may be a very extreme provision. I see, on the other hand, the difficulty—it is a difficulty; one must be quite candid about it—of substituting different words. It will need a good deal of thinking about, and I intervene only to say that, for my part, I do sympathize with what has been said by the noble Lord who has just spoken, because you may have someone (I do not say that you have) who exercises this discretion in much too free a way; and if you keep the words as they appear there is no means at all by which he can be legally controlled. I will, therefore, listen with the closest attention to what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has to say about it. Frankly, I consider there is considerable difficulty, however it is dealt with.
LORD MORRISON: The noble Viscount the Leader of the House previously asked me to reply to this point. Much of the reply I was going to give has already been given by the noble and learned Viscount in what he has just said, in directing attention to the fact that if a question has to be decided as to whether or not a certain action is necessary in the national interest, the effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be that the decision would be transferred from the Executive of the Government to the Judiciary. As the noble and learned Viscount has just said, he does not think that any Judge would feel competent to decide that question.
VISCOUNT SIMON: No, I did not say that.
LORD MORRISON: The effect of acceptance of the Amendment would be that any direction given by the Minister would be subject to challenge in the courts, either by the Commission or by anybody else. This would lead to delay and uncertainty. If, for example—and this was the example which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, gave—a coal crisis were unhappily to occur again, and the Minister were to issue a general direction that priority be given to the movement of coal, some disgruntled passenger might, by taking legal proceedings, delay effect being given to such a direction. The question of whether or not a direction relates to the national interest must rest with the Executive arm of the Government and is not appropriate to the Judiciary. The present subsection conforms to all recent precedents, and the real safeguard against abuse is the obligation, first, to consult with the Commission, and, secondly, that a direction has been given that it must be published unless it is against the interests of security. Publication will ensure that the subject matter of any direction can be fully debated in Parliament.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: With the very greatest respect, we cannot leave the matter like that. We were told on Second
Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, with all the authority of the Government Front Bench, that he could assure us that the Minister was going to use this power sparingly. I do ask the noble Viscount, or somebody speaking for him, to tell us whether that is so. I do think it is time we began to get to grips with the relationship of the Minister, the Commission and the Executives. What is to be the difference in policy making? The noble Viscount told me at an earlier stage to-day that it was not the moment to deal with it. Is it now the moment to state whether or not the Minister is going to use these powers sparingly or not? Is the example of the fuel crisis—it was not given by me, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison said, but by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan—a correct example of the sort of moment to intervene or not? If it is not, what are examples of occasions on which the Minister is to intervene?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I would like to support my noble friend, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in what he has said,
380
and in doing so I would quote what the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said in the course of Second Reading. He said:
"I myself, I think I may say, have in no wise exercised my powers, because of that very proper limitation noon the exercise of them."
I think anyone who has had any dealings whatsoever with any of the three corporations knows that the influence of the Ministry of Civil Aviation is present with him the whole time. One thing I do ask, whatever we decide, is that we should make it quite clear what exactly the Minister has to do with this Commission. The Minister may question this point, and I would ask one question of him alone. He says that he exercises his powers in a very limited way. Why is it that no member of the Corporation can go to a manufacturing firm without being accompanied by a representative of his Ministry? Is that upon his instructions, or is it not? I do not know which it is, but I am told that that is a situation which exists at the present time. I do ask that we try and define exactly what the Minister has to do.
LORD NATHAN: As it is a statement made by me to which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, has referred, perhaps I may be allowed to make some observations upon it. I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, without entering into the questions to which he refers with regard to ordering aircraft, that such things have not been as a result of any order made by me by virtue of my statutory powers. The statutory powers that are in my Act are analogous and I think in the precise terms of the powers vested in the Minister as set out in Clause 4 (1) of this Bill. I stated on Second Reading that these powers will be used sparingly, and I stated that on the authority of the right honourable gentleman, the Minister of Transport, speaking as I was for the Government.
I stated that the words "matters which appear to him to affect the national interest" were words of limitation. If the. noble Lord who moved this Amendment will read the subsection with the omission of those words, he will see how stringent that limitation is. Those words involve the Minister on each occasion, in considering whether or not to make an order, in asking himself this vital question: Does this matter affect the

381
national interest? If those words were not there he would be able to act on his own judgment alone. I gave an example to your Lordships as to how, speaking in general terms, I thought that that power might be exercised in a particular instance, and I repeat that I believe the example I gave to have been an example apt in the circumstances of the case. Speaking from this place I confirm what I said upon that occasion.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I really fail so understand how what is an enabling subsection can possibly be described as a restrictive one. This begins, "The Minister may," and if those words were not there presumably the Minister could not. Therefore, it must be an enlarging and an enabling clause. But I cannot help thinking that we are getting on to the most vital and, in some ways, the constitutionally difficult part of the Bill. The Commission which have been set up have enormous powers, but now, when we come to this question, apparently the Commission are not to be trusted. Surely the Commission, with their sense of responsibility, will interfere, and will interfere with good reason when the national interest is affected; but instead of going by the responsibility of the Commission you want to go simply by the inner consciousness of the Minister, and I submit that this ought not to be allowed. As we are getting into these matters I should have thought it was almost time the House resumed.
LORD BEVERIDGE: May I quite shortly add a few words on these Amendments? I find myself in complete agreement with the Government on the first Amendment, as I think do most of my friends on these Benches. That is to say, when it is a question of controlling the action of the Minister the right body to control it is Parliament and not the Law. In other words, you ought to retain the words "which appear to him" and challenge him if he appears to have taken the wrong position. Personally, I view with greater sympathy the two Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, mentioned, which bring the Minister into all sorts of detailed work, reorganization, development, training, education and research. I should be inclined to support those Amendments.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am sorry if I am thought to he perti-
382
nacious, but I am not inclined to accept the answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. The reason is that the words quoted by him were wrongly quoted. Secondly, I find myself with the greatest respect unable to accept the answer on this matter, because I addressed my question to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House. Does he agree with the statement which has been made as to whether the Minister is going to use these powers because the rational interest requires it? Is the Minister going to use them sparingly or not? We are entitled to an answer from the Leader of the House on that.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am sorry I was not in the House in the first place. I can give the noble Lord an unqualified assurance. Yes, it is the intention that the power should be used sparingly. And if these words were omitted. it would mean that in cases where they might be used in an emergency an Executive might be challenged in the courts. It is for Parliament to challenge him. Frankly I hope the noble Lord will not persist, but I give him an unqualified assurance that the powers will be used sparingly.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Can the noble Viscount give us one or two examples of the sort of occasions on which the power will be used? Does he think the fuel crisis would be a good example?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I do not think the noble Lord could have given a better example. That is the sort of emergency that might arise.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord. With that assurance I shall be very happy to withdraw my Amendment.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I did not give that as an assurance, I gave it as an illustration, I cannot give an assurance in a form of words on the spur of the moment, but I gave an illustration in good faith. That is the kind of occasion upon which the power would be exercised. I am afraid I cannot no any further.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am sorry that the noble Lord should have gone back a little from the answer which he gave. I should like to make one suggestion at this point as we are

383
dealing with the Commission although it is perhaps a Second Reading matter, and that is as to the name which the Commission should take and the initials which should be put on the transport. I hope the Commission will call itself the National United Transport Service, because I think the initials would not only look extremely well on the engines but would provide a one-word epitome of what I think of this Bill. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed.

SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
The King's Consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
FELIXSTOWE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

SWINDON CORPORATION BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
House adjourned at seven minutes before eleven o'clock.