Sitting of 12 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
  Read the Third time, and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Clothing Coupons
    Mr. Stanley Prescottasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will reconsider the refusal of his Department to grant the issue of supplementary coupons to the Manchester City Mission for the provision of uniforms as worn by the deaconesses of the mission.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): I am giving this matter further consideration.
    Mr. Prescott: May I say how much obliged I am to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his reply, and express the hope that he will give very favourable consideration to this very worthy cause?

    Exports and Imports (Statistics)
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what percentage of our exports for the first quarter of this year was represented by N.A.A.F.I, and U.N.R.R.A. supplies;
    (2) what percentage of our imports for the first three months of this year came from the hard currency area; and what percentage of our exports went to this area.
    Sir S. Cripps: Full information about N.A.A.F.I. and U:N.R.R.A. supplies will be found in the Board of Trade Journal for 26th April; and about our trade with hard and soft currency areas in the Board of Trade Journal for 24th May.
    The approximate percentages are:

    Per cent.

    U.N.R.R.A. exports

    2·5

    N.A.A.F.I. exports

    ·9

    Hard currency imports

    47·5

    Hard currency exports (including re-exports)

    21·25

    Mr. Shepherd: Is it not a fact that when calculating the difference between our imports and exports, these uncommercial exports are included, and ought they not to be excluded?
    Sir S. Cripps: I presume the hon. Member refers to the U.N.R.R.A. and N.A.A.F.I. figures. If the U.N.R.R.A. exports do not go under the ægis of U.N.R.R.A., they may well go under some other ægis.

    Surplus Service Boots (Disposal)
    Mr. Attewellasked the President of the Board or Trade if he is aware that Government surplus officers' field boots, sold by the Government at £1 7s. 6d. per pair under condition of sale that the boots be exported, were retailed on the home market at £3 5s. per pair: if the rice between £ 7s. 6d. and £3 5s. is within the price margin fixed by him; if Purchase Tax has been paid on the sales of these boots; and what steps he is taking to prevent future evasion of conditions of sale.
    Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. I am aware of this unsatisfactory transaction. The difference between the Government surplus sale price and the retail price charged does exceed the total of distributors' permitted margins for footwear and it is not yet established whether Purchase Tax has been paid on any or all of these boots. These matters are being looked into, but steps have been taken to ensure that future sales of this type are confined to traders whose full observance of conditions of sale can be guaranteed.
    Mr. Attewell: How was it possible for my right hon. and learned Friend's Department to give the answer on 3rd April that they were aware of the sales, and justified them on the ground that they were in accordance with the method of disposal of Government surplus articles,

    1315
    when the answer now proves that they could not have been in possession of that information?
    Sir S. Cripps: After further inquiry, we have come to the conclusion which I have stated.

    Oversized Tyres
    Mr. Granville Sharpasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the shortage of 25 by 6 tyres required by many local authorities for vehicles engaged in refuse disposal and cleansing work; what action he is taking to persuade tyre manufacturers to meet this urgent need; and when it is anticipated that outstanding demands will be met.
    Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the shortage of this and other sizes of giant tyres. Tyre manufacturers are giving as much priority as possible to the needs of local authorities for their sanitary vehicles, but they have also to provide for new sanitary vehicles and for the competing needs of many other essential transport services. It is not possible to anticipate when outstanding demands will be met.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that local authorities cannot get tyres for their ambulances, and would he give attention to that matter also?
    Sir S. Cripps: That is another question. Ambulances take a much smaller tyre than the oversized tyres mentioned in the Question.

    Trade with Japan
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any decision has yet been made with regard to the right of British firms to trade with Japan; and what arrangements have been made so far as the payments in dollars or sterling are concerned.
    Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. As my hon. Friend will have read in the Press, an announcement was made by General MacArthur in Tokyo on Monday last authorising the resumption of private trade with Japan, with certain limitations, from 15th August next. The Orders relaxing the United Kingdom trading with the enemy restrictions have already been issued. As regards the second part of the
    1316
    Question, negotiations on these and other points, including the size of the quotas of business men from each country to be permitted to enter Japan, are still proceeding with the American authorities.
    Mr. Davies: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer, may I ask whether the 11 nations concerned with the set-up in Japan have met to discuss the possibilities of fixing the international commercial rate for the yen; and could he also state whether the United States Commercial Corporation will control this trade in Japan, as some of us are given to understand, after 15th August?
    Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put those Questions on the Paper.
    Mr. Walter Fletcher: On which system are these men to be allowed to go to Japan? Will it be by selection, or will it be open to anybody?
    Sir S. Cripps: It will probably be on the basis of allocating certain numbers from each nation. That has not yet been settled, but anybody who wishes to go should communicate with my Department.

    Flannel Trousers
    Mr. Keenanasked the President of the Board of Trade, why tailors and clothing outfitters in Liverpool are unable to obtain supplies of men's flannel trousers; and why there is an abundance of women's flannel slacks for which there is little demand.
    Sir S. Cripps: I am not aware that tailors and outfitters in Liverpool are not obtaining their share of the supplies of men's flannels. There is a general shortage because, while demobilisation led to a large increase in demand, the output of cloth especially of worsted flannel trouserings is increasing only gradually and is still well below prewar. So far as women's garments are concerned, I have no reason to suppose that manufacturers will continue to produce in any quantity those types for which there is little demand.

    Rubber Wellington Boots
    Mr. Sutcliffeasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that large quantities of new rubber Wellington boots have been cut up and delivered to mills for fuel in recent weeks; under what authority this is being done; and if he will take immediate steps to stop such waste.
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. I am not aware of any such waste of new rubber boots; but if the hon. Member can give me any detailed information, I will certainly look into the matter immediately.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there were very large quantities of new boots, some of them marked "Dunlop"? I will do my best to produce some for him.

    Tobacco (Consumption)
    Mr. Osborneasked the President of the Board of Trade by how much tobacco consumption has been reduced since the Budget; whether the reduction is as great as was anticipated; and what steps is he taking to substitute Empire-grown for U.S. tobacco.
    Sir S. Cripps: There was a substantial drop in tobacco consumption immediately after the Budget, but it is too early yet to estimate accurately whether consumption will settle down at a level above or below the target of a 25 per cent. reduction set by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are already buying al] the Empire tobacco that is available.
    Mr. Osborne: Is the quantity of Empire grown tobacco sufficient to make up for the 25 per cent. the Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes to save on imports from America?
    Sir S. Cripps: No. That will be taken off what is left.

    Woolcombing (Soda Ash)
    Mr. Sharpasked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to ensure increased production of soda ash; whether he is aware that woolcombers in the wool textile industry cannot increase their 1946 output without increased allocations of soda ash; and whether he will arrange for such increased allocations to be made.
    Sir S. Cripps: Production of soda ash is at present limited by coal supplies. I am examining the position as to woolcombers' supplies.

    Refuse Collection (Waste Paper)
    Mr. Derek Walker-Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade what procedure is now in force in regard to the separation of paper from other refuse col-
    1318
    lected by local authorities; and by what regulations it is prescribed.
    Sir S. Cripps: The Directions under Defence Regulations 54B, served on local authorities requiring them to collect certain salvage materials, including waste paper, and keep them separate from ordinary refuse, still remain in operation. Local authorities for the more populous areas are being urged to see that the work is effectively carried out.

    Tailoring Alterations (Maximum Charges)
    Mr. Walker-Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade what are the maximum amounts of expenditure allowed to be incurred for alterations to ready-made, utility, and non-utility garments, respectively; by what regulations they are prescribed; and for what purpose.
    Sir S. Cripps: Subject to certain exceptions, the maximum charges for alterations to ready-made garments are 20s. for utility and 20s. for non utility. It was necessary to prescribe maximum charges for alterations to ready-made garments in order to prevent evasion of price control. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the orders which prescribe these maximum charges.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: While appreciating the reason which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given for this, may I ask whether he realises that very little alteration can, in fact, be done for those maximum sums? Does he not think some up-scaling of them may now be required?
    Sir S. Cripps: This matter has been considered, and, in order to prevent evasion, we think the present sums ought to be stuck to.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: Does the maximum sum fit the maximum size?
    Following is the list:
    General Apparel Furnishings and Textiles (Wholesalers' and Retailers' Maximum Prices and Charges) Order, 1946 (S.R.&O. 1946/1747).
    Utility Apparel (Maximum Prices and Charges) Order, 1945 (S.R. & O. 1945/184).
    Utility Apparel (Women's and Maids' Outerwear) (Consolidation) Directions, 1946 (S.R. & O. 1946/795).
    Utility Apparel (Men's Youths' and Boys' Outerwear) (Consolidation) Directions, 1946 (S.R. & 0. 1946/794).
    Fur Apparel (No. 9) Directions and Licence, 1946 (S.R. & O. 1946/1162).

    Shirts and Scarves (Boy Scouts)
    Mr. George Jegerasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the shortage of shirts and scarves for Boy Scouts; and whether material can be diverted from army purposes to help alleviate the situation.
    Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that these difficulties are no greater than in other cases. It is impossible to make any special arrangements for diversion of surpluses to meet this case, but such surpluses as do arise are distributed through the normal channels of trade, and manufacturers of Boy Scouts shirts and scarves can purchase such surplus material.

  COAL INDUSTRY

    Imports from U.S.A.
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much coal from the U.S.A. is to be imported into the United Kingdom by the end of 1947.
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): As a result of the recent application made by the United Kingdom to the European Coal Organisation, an allocation of American coal has been made to this country for the third quarter of 1947. This allocation, which amounts to 600,000 tons for the quarter, is contingent upon the total U.S. availability of export coal to Europe attaining and exceeding 3,000,000 tons per month. Provision has also been made by the European Coal Organisation whereby, in certain circumstances, the United Kingdom will be entitled to secure tonnages of U.S. coal in excess of the 600,000 tons, and in certain other circumstances, to secure some coal if the U.S. availability is below 3,000,000 tons. The allocation of American coal to European destinations for the fourth quarter will not take place before August, and it is not possible to forecast what the position will be at that date.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can the Minister give the House an assurance on two points? First, that the maximum quantity of coal available to this country will be imported from the U.S.A. to avoid the possibilities of another fuel crisis? Secondly, that future information about these matters will be given to this House in the first instance?
    Mr. Shinwell: As regards the amount of coal, we shall, of course, secure the maximum amount of imports; but there is a limit to what we can receive. As regards furnishing information, we always do furnish information to the House on these matters in the first instance.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: What is likely to be the price of that imported coal? What will be the equivalent of 600,000 tons in terms of daily output from our own mines?
    Mr. Shinwell: As regards the first supplementary, I shall answer a Question on that matter later on. As regards the second, I should like to see it on the Paper.
    Mr. Martin Lindsay: How does the Minister reconcile his statement that he always gives publicity with his refusal to give publicity to the salaries paid to the members of the Coal Board?
    Mr. Shinwell: That is wholly irrelevant.

    Local Fuel Overseer's Decision (Appeal)
    Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Minister of Fuel and Power under what authority a local fuel overseer acts in forbidding a consumer from changing his coal merchant; and if any appeal lies against the decision of the fuel overseer.
    Mr. Shinwell: The power to grant or refuse a change of registration for coal supplies is vested in local fuel overseers by Article 30 of the Coal Distribution Order, 1943. An appeal against any local fuel overseer's decision on this matter may be made, under Article 55 of the same Order, to the regional coal officer.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think the time has come when these fuel overseers—little Hitlers—should be dispensed with?
    Mr. Shinwell: I think not. The local fuel overseers render very valuable service.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Is there any machinery of appeal from the ruling of a regional officer to the right hon. Gentleman to get satisfaction?
    Mr. Shinwell: Of course, there is always access to the Minister.
    Mr. Quintin Hogg: Is there any facility for getting rid of our Fuel Minister?
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman does not care a tinker's cuss.

    Short Weight Consignments
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware of complaints by retail coal merchants that trucks are arriving seriously short of the declared amount carried; that this is adding to the difficulties, both of retailers and domestic consumers; and what action will be taken to avoid this in the immediate future.
    Mr. Shinwell: Yes, Sir, but short weight may be due to one or more of a variety of causes, and I can hold out no hope of an early or comprehensive solution of this long standing and difficult problem. As far as colliery weights are concerned, however, I am informed by the National Coal Board that they already have the matter under consideration.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is alleged in some parts that this abuse is increasing? In view of that, could not something specially be done, at least, to get back to the normal rules of supply?
    Mr. Shinwell: It would require the removal of a great many defects—in the loading of coal at collieries and in the tare of wagons; and we should require to ensure that the coal was not pilfered in transit.

    Coal Purchases from U.S.A.
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Bossom:
    26. To ask the Minister of Fuel and Power how much coal Great Britain is arranging to purchase from the U.S.A.; and what is the price per ton that is being paid for this.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: On a point of Order. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) is not here to ask the Question which you have just called, and as I asked a supplementary seeking this information just now, is it not right that the Minister should answer it?
    Mr. Speaker: If an hon. Member is not here to ask a Question I am afraid it cannot be asked.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: Further to that point of Order. As the Minister stated definitely
    1322
    that he would deal later with the supplementary of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) when we reached this Question, cannot he now answer it?
    Mr. Speaker: We cannot have a Question answered that is not asked.
    Mr. Stewart: It was only the other day, was it not, that a Minister answered at the end of Questions a Question which had been passed by? May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it would not be fitting that the Minister should take that course on this occasion?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me at all.
    At the end of Questions:
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: On a point of Order. May I ask the Leader of the House if he will now invite the Minister of Fuel and Power to make his promised statement on the price to be paid for imported American coal?
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I do not think it is for me to invite Ministers to answer particular questions. The fact is that the hon. Member who put down the Question was not here, and it would really be rather unusual for a Minister to reply in those circumstances.
    Mr. Stewart: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the Minister of Fuel and Power, in answer to my supplementary question, indicated that he intended to make a statement, and further that his statement about the importation of American coal is quite incomplete unless the House knows what the price is going to be.
    Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member rose to a point of Order, it should be addressed to me and I must deal with it. The blame lies upon the hon. Member who was not here when the Question was called. We cannot expect the Minister to look round to see whether a Member is here; he is quite entitled to say that he has a Question down and is going to answer it. It will, of course, be answered in due course in HANSARD.

    Opencast Mining (Restoration)
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will give the number of cases, showing acreages

    1323
    and periods in excess of four weeks, where opencast coalmining has ceased and restoration has not begun.
    Mr. Shinwell: I regret that information in the form requested by the hon. and gallant Member is not available, and could not be obtained without special inquiry. If, however, he has in mind any particular case where restoration seems to have been unduly delayed and will send me details, I will look into the matter.
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Fuel and Power what were the total estimated yields of opencast coal from sites already restored, and from sites where working has finished but which await restoration; and what were the actual yields in both cases.
    Mr. Shinwell: On 28th May, 1947, the latest date for which the information is available, 15,091,197 tons of coal had been produced from worked out sites, as compared with original estimates before working started of 18,767,346 tons, or an overall recovery of 80.4 per cent. The information available does not distinguish between sites already restored and worked out sites awaiting restoration.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Would the Minister say whether some of the sites which originally were considered not to be worth working, in the light of the quality of the coal, are now being worked, in view of the yield being considered adequate?
    Mr. Shinwell: Of course, the quality of coal varies on these opencast sites. We must go on working them.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Is it not a fact that sites which were likely to produce poor quality coal are now being worked, despite the fact that it was not intended to requisition them earlier on; and is coal of poor quality now being used for some other purpose that was not possible before?
    Mr. Shinwell: It seems as if the hon. and gallant Member has some particular case in mind. I wish he would let me have it.
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he Will, on application, provide owners of land re-
    1324
    quisitioned for opencast coalmining with a copy of the conditions as to restoration contained in each contract affecting their land.
    Mr. Shinwell: Yes, Sir.
    Brigadier Mackeson: Have the county agricultural executive committees also given some information, in view of the importance of ensuring that proper drainage is instituted when restoration work takes place; and will the right hon. Gentleman consider that?
    Mr. Shinwell: I will look at it but I should imagine that every owner of requisitioned land is furnished with a copy, and that is as much as I could do.

    Carbonisation, Yorkshire
    Mr. David Griffithsasked the Minister of Fuel and Power how much coal has been carbonised per week in Yorkshire ovens owned by the National Coal Board since 1st January, 1947.
    Mr. Shinwell: The average quantity of coal carbonised weekly between 1st January and 31st May, 1947, at coking plants in Yorkshire belonging to the National Coal Board amounted to 58,165 tons.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that I am firmly convinced that there would be a considerable increase in output with carbonisation on a full throw-out; and that, furthermore, I am firmly convinced that some of them—even under the coke-oven plant owned by the N.C.B.—are not doing as much as they might do?
    Mr. Shinwell: We have, on the basis of this weekly average, carbonised 1,250000 tons since the beginning of the year. But I will take note of what my hon. Friend has said and see what can be done.

    Output Figures
    Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) why, in view of the great public interest in coal production, he has instructed the National Coal Board to discontinue the publication of weekly output statistics;
    (2) why he has decided that coal-production figures should henceforth be given on a national instead of a divisional basis.
    Mr. Shinwell: Weekly figures of current coal output are normally given in the

    1325
    Ministry of Fuel and Power's monthly Press announcement. Provisional estimates of coat output have recently been given at weekly intervals because of the public interest in the effect on output of the five-day week. Provisional estimates of this kind are, however, subject to considerable margins of error, and it is not proposed to continue to publish them regularly. Weekly figures will, however, continue to be given in the monthly Press announcement, both on a national and on a regional basis

    BRITISH ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY (DEPUTY CHAIRMAN)
    Mr. Peter Thorneycroftasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the reason given by Mr. Hobson for declining the position of Deputy Chairman of the British Electricity Authority.
    Mr. Shinwell: In the letter he wrote to me Mr. Hobson gave no reason for declining a proposal I had made to him that he should be a Deputy Chairman of the British Electricity Authority when it is set up.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Is the Minister aware that this Mr. Hobson was formerly one of the most experienced men in this particular field in this country; and is it not a fact that he would not serve under this particular authority?
    Mr. Shinwell: There is no indication of that in Mr. Hobson's letter, which I have before me.

    FUEL OIL SUPPLIES (CONVERSION PROJECTS)
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has any further statement to make regarding conversion from coal to oil.
    Mr. Shinwell: In my previous statement I explained that the annual rate of oil consumption represented by schemes of conversion already approved would be increased to five million tons a year, equivalent to an annual saving of coal of eight million tons by the middle of 1948. This programme, which is the maximum that can be achieved in that time, has been reviewed, and the Government have decided against any further general extension of
    1326
    the programme for the time being. The matter will, however, be considered again in the autumn, when the trend of coal output will be more clearly established.
    In the meantime, to provide in appropriate cases for applications that are now awaiting consideration, arrangements will be made to import another one million tons of oil a year. After meeting these cases there will be some margin for special cases where it can be shown that the amount of coal saved would be exceptionally high in proportion to the amount of oil burnt, but no other new applications can be entertained. The additional import of one million tons of oil a year will not begin to be available before the third quarter of 1948, but it is not anticipated that most of the firms whose applications may now be authorised will be able to complete conversion before that quarter: any exceptional case where earlier conversion is possible will be given special consideration. In the result, unless it is decided in the autumn to increase the whole programme, the consumption of fuel oil on coal-oil conversion projects will attain a rate of six million tons a year, and will result in an annual saving of ten million tons of coal by the calendar year 1949.
    Mr. Henry Usborne: During the course of his reply the Minister stated that the programme to use up to five million tons of oil was the maximum that can he achieved. Why is it the maximum? Is it because that is the maximum amount of oil that can be imported to this country; or is it because in the estimation of my right hon. Friend it is the maximum amount of oil which can be burnt by the equipment which can be supplied in the time?
    Mr. Shinwell: We must have regard to several factors. One is the element of uncertainty about the imports of fuel oil in the next few years. In addition, there is difficulty regarding the supply of steel for the purpose of manufacturing the equipment. Apart from that, we must have regard to the possibility—I would not put it higher than that—that in 1949 we shall be producing a larger amount of coal, and, to that extent, would not require fuel oil.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my right hon. Friend also continue to bear in mind

    1327
    the necessity for making and keeping ourselves as self-supporting as we possibly can, in the event of there being another national emergency?
    Mr. Shinwell: We are doing what we can to safeguard supplies, but supplies are obviously affected by a great many considerations, some of which are out of our control.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Could the right hon. Gentleman give special consideration to those cases in which the preliminary work is practically completed, and where they are ready to convert except for the oil? Surely their case should have first consideration?
    Mr. Shinwell: I think I can give an assurance on that point at once. If the work is already in hand, of course, the fuel oil will be supplied.
    Mr. Lipson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is in the nature of a gamble to assume that there will be sufficient coal available in 1949 to render a large extension of this conversion programme unjustified; and would he consult with the firms engaged in this work, who are very anxious to see a very much bigger scheme than he is prepared to agree to?
    Mr. Shinwell: We are in constant consultation with the manufacturing firms in this matter. Of course, we use as our medium the Petroleum Board, who are experts in this regard. As regards the future of coal supplies, the hon. Member will have taken note of the fact that we are seeking to achieve a saving of 10 million tons in 1949.
    Mr. R. S. Hudson: It is not very clear, but perhaps we shall understand it better when we read the terms of the Minister's answer. It would appear that this position is a reversal of the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman earlier on. Are we to take it that with regard to any individual firm which placed orders on the strength of the Minister's appeal, the necessary machinery will be allowed to be installed when delivered?
    Mr. Shinwell: So far as I know, this is no reversal of the programme originally arranged.
    Mr. Hudson: Could the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of my supplementary question? Where firms or
    1328
    individuals have placed orders for machinery, on the strength of the right hon. Gentleman's earlier appeal to do what they could to convert coal or coke burning installations into oil, and got the machinery delivered, are they to be allowed to instal the machinery or are the orders to be cancelled?
    Mr. Shinwell: If the scheme has been approved by the Department the oil will materialise.

    DELINQUENT FAMILIES (HOME VISITS)
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the increasing number and variety of officials who have been given rights by the Government to demand entrance to the homes of the people throughout the country, he will give an assurance that no system of inspection under which psychologists visit delinquent families in their homes will be permitted.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I have no knowledge that any such system of inspection is contemplated.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British public is very long suffering? That must not lull the Government into believing that they can interfere more and more with the daily life of the nation. Our people merely want to lead their own lives in their own way — [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Never mind about "Speech." What about an answer?
    Mr. Ede: I told the hon. Member that no such appointments are contemplated.
    Mr. Dc la Bère: Can I have a definite assurance?

    CHILDREN'S OFFICERS (QUALIFICATIONS)
    Mr. Dumpletonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Cambridge County Council is inviting applications for the post of children's officer at a salary of £360 per year; whether he has given guidance to local authorities as to the qualifications and experience desirable for this work; and whether, in view of the

    1329
    recommendations of the Curtis Report, he is satisfied that local authorities are aware of the need to offer salaries which will attract applicants of the requisite high standard for this important and responsible work.
    Mr. Ede: My attention has been drawn to this advertisement, and I am in communication with the county council. It is of great importance that the salaries offered for posts of children's officer should be such as to attract candidates with a high standard of qualifications, as recommended in the Report of the Care of Children Committee. I intend shortly to issue guidance to local authorities on this and other matters bearing on the implementation of the Committee's recommendations.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: In laying down the qualifications, will the right hon. Gentleman see that undue stress is not placed on academic qualifications, and that proper emphasis is placed on humane and humanitarian qualifications?
    Mr. Ede: I shall endeavour to see that the qualifications required are well balanced. I accept the general principle contained in the hon. Member's remarks.

    NATIONALISED UNDER-TAKINGS (SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES)
    Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that it is the practice of Ministers of His Majesty's Government to decline to disclose to Parliament the salaries and allowances paid to members of the boards and executives of national undertakings, when they have power under the Statutes to obtain that information; and if he will issue instructions that this practice is to cease and full information be given.
    Mr. H. Morrison: I have been asked to reply. Salaries and allowances of members of the boards of socialised industries have been disclosed to Parliament. Members of these boards are appointed by the Minister concerned, he determines the terms and conditions of appointment, and in respect of these he is responsible to Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is aware that information has been declined in respect of executive staff of such undertakings. They are
    1330
    appointed by the board concerned, and the Minister has no responsibility. Appointment and remuneration of staff are functions of management, and the Government believe that socialised boards should have the same freedom and privacy in this respect as does any other commercial undertaking.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: Is it not a fact that under the Companies Bill the salaries of all executives will have to be disclosed? Is not the maintenance of this secrecy entirely opposed to a democratic system, and is it not a scandal that Parliament are not to be kept informed on these matters?
    Mr. Morrison: I understand that that is not so under the Companies Bill, but in any case it is not yet law. If the House wanted this information, they should have made provision for it in the Bills, but there was considerable pressure from the Opposition side that the Government should not have excessive powers of interference.
    Mr. Harold Macmillan: Will the figures be given in the published accounts of these boards?
    Mr. Morrison: I could not say. I do not think there is any obligation on the boards to give them. On the face of it, it is clear that there should be no more obligation put on them than in the case of any other commercial undertaking.
    Mr. Macmillan: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the combination of the words "desirability of privacy" with "expenditure of public money"?
    Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman really ought to know better. These boards are not spending public money, but money which comes out of their revenue.
    Mr. R. S. Hudson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his colleagues, in the course of the discussions which took place on the Bills to which he has referred, definitely refused to allow provisions to be included for the publication of these figures?
    Mr. Morrison: In that case, it shows how well they responded to the doctrines and policy of the Opposition, and hon. Members opposite ought to be grateful.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: To the extent that public money is involved in these undertakings, whether by subsidy or not, will the Public Accounts Committee and the Select Committee on Estimates have a right to make these investigations?
    Mr. Morrison: It is clear that if public money—I am talking about money voted by Parliament—becomes involved then Parliamentary accountability arises.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Opposition not wanting the Ministers to have increased powers over these boards, but is he aware that this question suggests that the Minister should give to Parliament information which is already in his possession, or should be?
    Mr. Hogg: Is not the real reason for the reticence in this respect the obvious discrepancy between the Socialist Government paying salaries of £40, £50 and g60 a week, and what they have been telling us for the last 50 years?
    Earl Winterton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any precedent, except in the case of members of the Secret Service, for refusing to Parliament information about salaries and allowances coming out of public funds?
    Mr. Morrison: The noble Lord is hopelessly wrong. He really ought to know the first elements of this. These salaries are not paid out of money voted by Parliament, but out of the revenue of these business undertakings. Therefore they are in a different category from the Civil Service, where money is paid out of Parliament. These are not Civil Service undertakings, but commercial bodies.
    Mr. R. S. Hudson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any precedent for a Minister refusing to give information in the possession of his Department when the public interest is involved?
    Mr. Morrison: I have no idea whether the information is in the possession of the Minister or not; in fact, in some cases Ministers have specifically stated that they have not the information.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: In view of the grossly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the subject on the Adjournment.
    Mr. De Ia Bère: It is thoroughly unsatisfactory.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Bread Rationing Administration (Staff)
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Labour what plans and arrangements he has made for the absorption of the 2,000 people who are at present employed by the Ministry of Food in the administration of the bread rationing system when that system comes to an end.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): When employees of the Ministry of Food become redundant through the abolition of bread rationing, the facilities offered by local offices of my Department are available to assist them to find further employment.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am not going to make a speech about this? Is he further aware that the tragic farce the Government made of bread rationing leaves me absolutely speechless?
    Mr. Isaacs: If the consequence of the "tragic" legislation passed by the Government is your silence, I think it would be a good job if we had some more.
    Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the gross attack the Minister has just made in addressing you. He said that it would be better if you kept silent. Is that in Order from a Minister? [Interruption.] It is time you obeyed the Rules of the House.
    Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that it missed me.
    Earl Winterton: It is not the first time the right hon. Gentleman has been grossly disorderly, or perhaps rude in addressing you, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Dumpleton: Is it in Order for the noble Lord to say that it is about time "you" learnt the Rules of the House?
    Mr. Speaker: I think we might call it even—it is a Roland for an Oliver.
    Earl Winterton: Further to that point of Order, may I most humbly apologise and express the hope that the Minister of Labour will have the courtesy to follow my example?
    Mr. Isaacs: If following the noble Lord's example is courtesy, I shall avoid doing it.
    Mr. De la Bère: I am quite happy. Nothing would ever keep me speechless.

    Football Pool Staffs
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Labour if his talks with the football pool promoters are now completed; what labour they expect to employ in the coming season; what reductions they have made in their staffs and to what industries has the labour gone; and if he is now satisfied with the position.
    Mr. Isaacs: In reply to the first and last parts of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Monslow), on 17th April last. Information to enable replies to be given to the remainder of the Question is not available.
    Mr. Osborne: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is satisfactory now, in June, to give me an answer as to the state of his mind last April? Is he satisfied with the position today, in view of the bottleneck in labour in the textile industry? Cannot he get more labour from the football pools to put into this industry? Is he satisfied with the position?
    Mr. Isaacs: I was not asked whether I was satisfied or not; I was asked about the position.
    Mr. Osborne: I did ask whether the right hon. Gentleman was satisfied.
    Mr. Isaacs: I referred the hon. Member to the answer I gave to another hon. Member, which sets out all the information I have at my disposal.
    Mr. Osborne: On a point of Order. The Minister said, Sir, that I did not ask whether he was satisfied with the position. Can the Minister read and understand King's English?
    Mr. Speaker: Whether a Member likes the answer that is given to him or not is not a point of Order.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that between now and the next football season this matter will be most actively pursued, as there is a widespread feeling among those who are in no sense spoilsports that there is a great waste of manpower in connection with football pools?
    Mr. Isaacs: I have no authority to intervene in what should or should not be the activities of these football pool associations. The answer I gave earlier, and the conference I had with them, showed that they were most anxious to co-operate, and are carrying out the undertaking they gave me.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: Due, I am sure to a misunderstanding, the right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of the Question.
    Mr. Isaacs: I said that I had no further information beyond what I have already given.
    Mr. Osborne: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied? That was my question. He is afraid of it.

    Further Education and Training Grants
    Mr. Kingasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the continuing reductions in the period of service in the Armed Forces, it is proposed that grants for further education and training will be perpetuated along existing lines.
    Mr. Isaacs: Some changes are to be made after 30th September next; but as the detailed statement is long I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    It has been decided that men who begin their period of national service under the National Service Acts after the 30th September, 1947, will not qualify for grants for full-time courses of training for which awards are administered by the Education and Agricultural Departments. Financial assistance in the form of scholarships and bursaries is available from public educational funds to enable suitably qualified persons to attend universities, technical colleges, agricultural colleges, etc. There will be a number of men in process of being called up on 30th September who cannot be enlisted by that date because of unavoidable delays in procedure and whom it would be unfair to exclude from eligibility on that account. Those men whose applications for deferment (in order to enable them to begin or continue courses of higher education in the autumn of 1947) are not decided by the University Joint Recruiting Boards in time to permit of the completion

    1335
    of medical examination and other preliminaries to enlistment by 30th September will not on that account be regarded as ineligible for an award on the completion of their service with the Forces.
    Awards for training which are at present administered by the Ministry of Labour and National Service, and for which comparable financial provision is not available, will continue to be made by that Ministry to those called up before 1st January, 1949, subject to the following restrictions:—

    (a) awards will not be granted to applicants who could have obtained deferment of their calling up to enable them to complete their courses before begining their national service, and

    (b) awards will be granted only to enable applicants to begin or complete courses in respect of which they can show prevention or interruption by their calling up. No award will be made to enable an applicant to change from a part-time to a full-time course.

    Wool Textile Industry (Women Workers' Pay)
    Mr. Sharpasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the need for attracting more women workers to the wool-textile industry, any negotiations have yet been made, and with what success, to give women men's rates of pay for equal work.
    Mr. G. Isaacs: I am not aware of any such negotiations, which would, of course, be a matter for the two sides of the industry.

    RETAIL PRICES (INTERIM INDEX)
    Mr. Hardyasked the Minister of Labour whether he has yet fixed the date for the introduction of the new Interim Index of Retail Prices as recommended by the Cost-of-Living Advisory Committee.
    Mr. Isaacs: The Government have decided, in accordance with the recommendation of the Cost-of-Living Advisory Committee, to introduce the new Interim Index of Retail Prices forthwith. The Technical Committee of this Advisory Committee which has been working out the detailed plans for utilising the information obtained by the 1937–38 Budgets
    1336
    Inquiry has recommended that prices for the new Index should be collected on the Tuesday nearest the 15th of each month instead of the 1st of each month, as has been the practice with the existing Index. Accordingly, 17th June will be the base date of the new Index, which will then start at 100. On that day, also, prices will be collected for the last time for the purpose of the existing Cost-of-Living Index. On 15th July, and monthly thereafter, prices will be collected for the new Index only. The results of each calculation will be announced as soon as known and published in the next following issue of the "Gazette." Thus the calculation as at 15th July should be known about mid-August, and published in the August issue of the "Gazette." This will mean that any industries whose wage agreements contain provisions for adjustment according to movement of the existing Cost-of-Living Index will have something over two months in which to consider the question of amending those provisions. I would add that the Technical Committee to which I have referred will be issuing a final comprehensive report at an early date. In the meantime, for the information of all those interested, a leaflet has been prepared explaining, as simply as possible, the main difference between the new Interim Index of Retail Prices and the old Cost-of-Living Index. Copies are now available to Members in the Vote Office.

    CIVIL SERVICE (OPEN RECONSTRUCTION COMPETITION)
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many candidates entered for the Open Reconstruction Competition for the clerical class of the Civil Service in November, 1946, and how many were successful; what were the comparable figures for the limited competition for minor and manipulative grades of the Post Office in December, 1946; and what were the passmarks required for Sections 1 and 3 and Section 2 in each examination.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Skinnard: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the discontent among members of the minor and manipulative grades of the Post Office, at what they consider to be unfair discrimination against themselves in these two examinations?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: They should not have that feeling, because they have a chance of entering for the open competition, as well as the restricted competition. We must keep our promise to the ex-Service men who enter for the other one, and who have certain prior rights.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Can my right hon. Friend answer the last part of the Question, about the passmarks?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The passmarks were: Section 1: Civilian, 400; Service, 355; Section 2: 400 in each case. Section 3: Service, 355. For the limited competition the passmarks are higher, because Service candidates are not entering. The pass-marks are: Section 1: 435. Section 2: 465. Section 3: 435.
    Captain John Crowder: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the percentage of failures, because my information is that it is over 50 per cent.?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is true of the limited competition. The number of candidates entering was 5,645, and only 751 passed.
    Mr. James Callaghan: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the number of candidates who present themselves, for the open competition and their quality, are sufficiently good to preserve the standards in the Civil Service?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: An examination is set to give a standard which, we hope, will give us the kind of candidate we want.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: In view of the high standard demanded in the Civil Service, will my right hon. Friend discuss this matter further with the Civil Service Commissions, because there is a great deal of dissatisfaction?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I realise that. These people have the chance of entering for the open competition, as well as the rather harder limited competition.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: Is it not the case that the proportion of vacancies in the clerical grade, which are allocated to be
    1338
    filled from various sources of recruitment, is agreed by the National Whitley Council for the Civil Service, which is representative of both sides?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is so, and not only by the Whitley Council, but also by this House.
    Following is the information:

    CLERICAL CLASS OPEN RECONSTRUCTION COMPETITION, NOVEMBER, 1946.

    Number of candidates entered, 7,521. Number successful, 3,826.

    Section I.

    Section II.

    Section III.

    Passmarks:

    Civilian

    …

    400

    400

    —

    Service

    …

    355

    400

    355

    LIMITED COMPETITION, DECEMBER, 1946.

    Number of candidates entered 5,645. Number successful, 751.

    Section I.

    Section II.

    Section III.

    Passmark

    …

    435

    465

    435

    DEFACING WALLS, METROPOLITAN AREA
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many policemen were sent on 3rd June to delete the words "Tinker's Palace" from a house in Beechcroft Road, Tooting; and what are the present instructions to the police with regard to the removal of slogans of this character from walls and buildings in the Metropolitan area.
    Mr. Ede: The answer to the lust part of the Question is, "Four." No specific instructions about the removal of slogans have been issued by the Commissioner of Police.
    Lieut. - Colonel Bromley - Davenport: Would the right hon. Gentleman use what influence he has to restrain Ministers of the Crown from making provocative and blasphemous statements, which are liable to lead to retaliation?
    Mr. Ede: It is my duty, as being responsible for the Police, to see that the King's peace is preserved, and that when people break the law, as was done in this case, by defacing walls, that proper steps are taken to preserve the peace.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most objectionable Communist slogans have been painted on

    1339
    the walls of Bayswater Road facing Kensington Gardens, and that they have been there for some time?
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Would my right hon. Friend look into the possibility of the culprit in this case being a member of the Housewives' League?
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Can the Minister confirm or deny the rumour that motorists passing this residence have developed the habit of giving two hoots?

    MEETING, ROYAL ALBERT HALL (DISORDER)
    Mr. Sparksasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what report he has received from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police upon the disorders which arose at the Royal Albert Hall on the occasion of the recent meeting of the British Housewives' League.
    Mr. Ede: I have received a report on this meeting, from which it appears that about half an hour after it started organised interruption of the speakers commenced. After this had been going on for some time, police, at the request of the organisers of the meeting, asked the interrupters to leave, and the majority did so. At a later stage an attempt by two members of the audience to gain access to the platform led to some disorder.

    VISAS (SWISS CITIZENS)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visas have been granted to Swiss citizens in the last three months to enable them to visit this country; and how many refused.
    Mr. Ede: The last three months for which complete returns are available are February, March and April. During that period the number of visas for the journey to the United Kingdom granted in Switzerland was 5,223 and the number refused was 43.

    LETTER BOMBS
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if evidence has been obtained to prove what body is responsible for sending letter
    1340
    bombs recently to certain citizens in this country.
    Mr. Ede: Police inquiries into this matter are still proceeding, and I am not in a position to make any statement at present.
    Mr. Lipson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any evidence to justify the present statements associating this with terrorist activities?
    Mr. Ede: In the present state of the inquiries, I think that any information which I gave as to the line the investigators are pursuing might hinder their work.

    CIVILIAN RESPIRATORS (COLLECTION)
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange to have civilian respirators collected and the materials utilised for more useful purposes by the salvage organisation.
    Mr. Ede: As many as practicable of the bulkier and specialised types of civilian respirators, which were not personal issues have been collected and these, with unissued stocks of all types, are being held in central storage as an emergency reserve. The salvage value of the materials of which these ordinary types are made would not, I am advised, justify special collection, and on balance it is preferable that these respirators should still remain entrusted to the custody of the public.
    Mr. Sorensen: In view of the probable nature of the next war, is it not a waste of time and labour to gather and store these objects.
    Mr. Ede: I am not going to prophesy about the nature of the next war, or whether some of the horrors of the past may not be repeated if we had such a misfortune.

    PARLIAMENTARY BOUNDARIES COMMISSION (REPORT)
    Lieut.-Colonel Geoffrey Clifton-Brownasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the report

    1341
    of the Parliamentary Boundaries Commission, extracts from which were recently published in the Press, will be available.
    Mr. Ede: Full provisional recommendations for England with the exception of the counties of Lancashire, Cheshire, West Riding, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Lincolnshire and Rutland will, I understand, be published tomorrow and a copy will be placed in the Library. The recommendations in respect of the English counties I have just named will be available next week and those in regard to Wales will follow at an early date.
    Professor Savory: What about Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Ede: I will make inquiries as to when the proposals with regard to Northern Ireland will be available.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: What about Scotland?
    Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: Can the Home Secretary say how it is that a statement was given to the Press two weeks before it was available to this House?
    Mr. Ede: A copy of the recommendations was not given to the Press, but in view of the general interest in the overall arrangement the Commissioners decided to give to the Press the figures there would be in each of the new constituencies. The full recommendations will be much more detailed than the statement issued to the Press.
    Captain Crowder: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether maps will be presented with the report showing the boundary alterations?
    Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. I hope that I shall not be accused of having an undue privilege, but I have seen the recommendations relating to the administrative County of London in which a map is included, and a map will also be included, I understand, with each of the other county reports.
    Mr. Dumpleton: I understood my right hon. Friend to say that copies of the report would be available in the Library. Will they not be available to Members at the Vote Office, and will there not be an opportunity for discussion by Members of
    1342
    this House before the recommendations are confirmed?
    Mr. Ede: Hon. Members have no more right in this matter than the people who aspire to be Members. That was laid down in the last days of the last Parliament, when a somewhat similar situation arose with regard to the 25 new constituencies. The procedure followed will be that, after the publication of the recommendations there will be one month in which objections may be lodged by people who have the right to lodge such objections, and after that the Commissioners will consider the objections and submit a final report.
    Mr. Marlowe: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the right of objections, the period for which, I believe, is a month. As the report is being published in parts, can he say when the time will begin to run? Will it begin to run in respect of those parts published tomorrow, from tomorrow, and in respect of those published next week, from next week?
    Mr. Ede: From the date of the publication of the part of the report referring to the particular constituency. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that when we had a similar report about a year ago, the various counties were dealt with over a much longer period of time than appears to be likely in this week and next.
    Mr. Nicholson: When the right hon. Gentleman says "publication," does he mean publication in the sense that copies will be available at county halls, or publication in the local Press?
    Mr. Ede: When the report is published —I am judging from the copies I have seen with regard to London—there will be a statement made with regard to each Metropolitan borough as to the places at which the document can be seen. Adequate publicity will be given as to those places, and persons interested will have the opportunity of inspecting both the report and the maps.
    Mr. Maclay: To make the position clear, will the Home Secretary confirm that after the report of the public inquiries, if any, are known the Boundary Commission reports back to the Government, and the report will be made into a form of Bill which will be debated in that form in this House?
    Mr. Ede: When the report is received, the Government will have to consider it, and judging by what happened in 1918—I am not going beyond that—the probability is that it will appear as a Schedule to a Representation of the People Bill, or some such Measure.
    Mr. Cocks: Why cannot the report be published as a White Paper so that anyone can have it?
    Mr. Ede: I will consider that. It certainly was not done at the end of the last Parliament.

  HOUSING

    Unoccupied Dwellings, Metropolitan Boroughs
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of unoccupied houses and flats in the Metropolitan boroughs of St. Marylebone, Chelsea, Kensington, Paddington and Westminster.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): The figures are 1,341, 302, 1,568, 1,297, 1,564 respectively. Of the 6,072 houses 3,603 are either incapable of repair or not capable of economic repair in our present circumstances. Eight hundred and ninety-eight of them are under requisition, and either in course of repair or conversion plans are being prepared.
    Mr. Sparks: Will my right hon. Friend say whether any of these empty premises are fit for use as half-way houses and hostels for homeless families, who at the moment have to be accommodated in public institutions?
    Mr. Bevan: A very large number of them would not be capable of that use, as my hon. Friend knows.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, as he is able to give the number of unoccupied houses, why his Department were unable a few weeks ago to give the number of occupied houses?
    Mr. Bevan: With regard to requisitioned houses we are able to give the information, and it is in the monthly return.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The right hon. Gentleman's Department said that they could not give me the figures.
    Mr. Bevan: I will look into that, but I think the hon. and gallant Member will find that they are in the monthly return.

    Homeless Families, London
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Health how many families made homeless as a result of court orders are now accommodated in public assistance institutions in the London and Greater London areas.
    Mr. Bevan: There are four such families, including two in the area of the London County Council.

    Private Builders' Licences, Mangotsfield
    Mr. Alpassasked the Minister of Health why the Mangotsfield Urban Council has issued 126 licences to private builders for houses for sale, of which 72 have been completed, whereas only 16 to let have been completed under their own authority.
    Mr. Bevan: The figure of 126 licences quoted by my hon. Friend should be reduced by 43 which have lapsed. The Council were in March, 1946, prohibited from issuing further licences without prior consent. They hope to have completed 156 Council houses by the end of the year.
    Mr. Alpass: Is my right hon. Friend aware that very great dissatisfaction has been caused in the district by this unfair allocation of licences to private builders, and in view of the very great need for houses in that district will he see that in future a fairer proportion of houses to let will be built by the local authorities?
    Mr. Bevan: It is because the local authority had, in my view, exceeded their powers that I withdrew their powers to confer the licences. The number of licences for houses for sale out of the overall total for the country is rather less than one in five.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: In order that the House can get a complete view of the situation referred to in this Question, could the Minister also give the number of houses started by the local authorities as well as the number of houses completed?
    Mr. Bevan: That information is in the monthly return. It is really rather nonsense to issue these documents every month if hon. Members will not read and study them.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Is the Minister aware that that extremely discourteous reply altogether misses the point? Is he aware that all I was concerned to do was to assist him to give the House a picture of this situation while it has the matter in mind?
    Mr. Bevan: I am very grateful for the hon. Member's offer of assistance, but he knows very well that there is no industry in this country, with the exception of the coal industry, about which more statistics have been given to the House over the last 20 months, and I am bound to say, even if it is discourteous, that the questions sometimes put to me from the other side of the House show that hon. Members do not read the returns when they are issued.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the Business for next week?
Mr. H. Morrison: Before I deal with the Business for next week, will the House permit me to say with what very deep regret all of us, in all parts of the House, have noticed that it was necessary for the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to undergo an operation, and with what delight we have read that the operation has been a success? We all hope to see him back soon with his accustomed vigour, and that everything will be completely successful.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Morrison: The Business proposed to be taken next week is as follows:
On Monday, 16th June, and Tuesday, 17th June—Conclusion of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
On Wednesday, 18th June—Supply (5th Allotted day); Committee; Debate on Housing in Scotland.
On Thursday, 19th June—Supply (6th Allotted day); Committee; Debate on Foreign Policy in Europe.
On Friday, 20th June—Second Reading of the Agriculture (Emergency Payments) Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
During the week it is hoped that there will be an opportunity to obtain the Committee and remaining stages of the Public Offices (Site) Bill; the Second Reading of the Probation Officers (Superannuation)
1346
Bill, and to make further progress with the Penicillin Bill [Lords].
Mr. Eden: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his opening statement, which it will give me great pleasure to convey to my right hon. Friend who, I was glad to hear an hour or two ago, is going on very well after an excellent night.
As regards next week's Business, may I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman about Thursday, the subject for which has been put down at the Opposition's request as it is a Supply Day? Is he aware that we had it in mind that we would not on this occasion debate the administration of Germany, but rather foreign affairs in general, and we hoped it might be possible at a later date to make a day available for the problems of administration in Germany, so as not to confuse political issues with administrative questions.
Mr. Morrison: I am sure that any question of further Debate on Germany can, of course, be discussed through the usual channels.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: I wish to raise the question of Scottish affairs. We are to have one Supply Day for a Debate next week, and I gather only one further day will be available this Session for the discussion of Scottish business. That is not sufficient. In the last few weeks we have had issued a very important White Paper on the economic position of Scotland, and I think it is the desire of all Scottish Members to have a special day allotted by the Government to the discussion of that supremely important matter.
Mr. Morrison: It is quite customary—it is a matter for the Opposition—for two clays to be taken on Scottish Supply, and often for two subjects to be taken. The White Paper has been published as a matter of convenience to Scottish Members and for the information of the people of Scotland. There is no obligation on the Government to provide facilities to debate every White Paper that is issued, but it was understood right the way through that if a Debate were desired on the White Paper it would be taken on one or other of the Supply Days.
Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Does not the Lord President remember that a day was given out of Government time for England, and

1347
a day was given out of Government time for Wales? Surely, a day ought to be given out of Government time for Scotland? May I further ask him to reconsider this matter, because this White Paper involves a large number of Departments and is not a suitable subject for a Supply Day. Furthermore, if the Opposition were to devote one of the two Scottish Supply Days to this White Paper, it would mean that there would be no discussion this year at all of the very important matters of Scottish education, Scottish agriculture, or Scottish fisheries. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give Scotland a little more of a show than he has sometimes given in the past.
Mr. Morrison: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is all wrong about his facts. The three days' Debate on the economic situation was about the United Kingdom, and Scottish Members were perfectly free to put the situation about Scotland as were Welsh Members about Wales, and I am sure they did so. The Welsh day was specially given because Wales has no Estimates at all that can be debated, and, therefore, in some way some special provision ought to be made. I think it is for the representatives of Scotland themselves to make up their minds about the use that can be made of the two Supply Days customarily given to Scotland; I am sure they appreciate that the publication of the White Paper gives a lot of valuable information about the economic situation in Scotland.
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of suspending the Rule for an hour or so next Thursday, to allow a few more back benchers to speak?
Mr. Morrison: I should like to meet my hon. and gallant Friend, but during the week some minor Measures have to be taken, and it may be that some of them will have to be taken at night so I am afraid I cannot give an undertaking about the matter.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Returning to the subject of Scottish Business, the right hon. Gentleman said that the previous White Paper was a United Kingdom matter and that, therefore, we as Scottish Members could have discussed matters affecting Scotland. A White Paper in regard to Scotland we knew
1348
was to come out in the near future, and we held our fire until we knew what was in that White Paper. Because the previous Debate was a United Kingdom one does not seem to me to be a reason why we should be debarred from having a Scottish day, especially as the White Paper which is published discusses Scottish affairs.
Mr. Morrison: I was not here, but my recollection is that Scottish Members did take part in the Debate as I think they usually do on United Kingdom topics as they have every right to do. As regards the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and Kinross (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) I would give this hint to him—and he can follow it or not as he chooses—that he should try to persuade the leaders of his party on the Front Bench opposite themselves to choose a third Supply Day in respect of Scotland.
Mr. McKinlay: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he is under an obligation to the 37 Scottish Labour Members, and that we resent the suggestion that it should be left to our opponents to provide a day to discuss Scottish affairs.
Mr. Morrison: In my capacity as Leader of the House I have got obligations to the whole House, and I have to do things as best I can, but I see my hon. Friend's point. This right of choosing the subject of Debate on a Supply day is a traditional right of the Opposition, and I think it is right from the Parliamentary point of view as they are the minority and this is a means of challenging the executive administration of the Government of the day.
Mr. David Eccles: Will the Government give a day to debate the statement on equal pay?
Mr. Morrison: I do not think that is necessary.
Mr. Warbey: Reverting to Thursday's Debate on foreign policy, I cannot, of course, interfere with any ideas the official Opposition may have on the subject, but I wonder if the Leader of the House will take into account the need to have as soon as possible a Debate on the dollar situation, or in other words a Debate on foreign economic policy, which I do not think we have really had. We ought to have it fairly soon.
Mr. Morrison: I think it would be premature at the moment.
Mr. Gallacher: Would the Leader of the House not consider if it is necessary to suspend the Standing Order for Wednesday, because it might be that very many Scottish Members would want to participate in that Debate.
Mr. Chetwynd: Would the Leader of the House consider giving a day to discussing the recent Select Committee Estimates Report on Development Areas and then perhaps Scottish Members would say what they want to say on Scottish industry?
Mr. Morrison: I will be frank with the House. I cannot see any spare days knocking about at the moment because of the Business we have in hand.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am sorry to have to press this Scottish matter but I must refer to it again as it is important for us. Does the Leader of the House recognise that the economic situation in Scotland is much worse proportionately than in England, and that all Members of all parties in Scotland are experiencing the gravest concern? The question of the economic White Paper is not one that could be suitably brought up on any of the two Supply Days, and even if it were brought up on such an occasion we would thereby neglect one or more of the half dozen major topics which every Government in the past has given this House an opportunity to discuss. Is it that the real object of the Government is to neglect Scottish affairs?
Mr. Morrison: I quite appreciate the political tactics which are being followed by the hon. Gentleman, and it really does not worry me. If the hon. Gentleman feels so deeply about the economic situation in Scotland, that is all the more reason why a second Supply Day should be used for the purpose.

HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY (MISSING BOOKS)
Earl Winterton: I desire to bring a matter to your notice, Mr. Speaker, affecting this House, and I would ask if you have any comment to make upon it. On 15th May of this year the following letter was issued, as I understand with the approval of the Library Committee and the Librarian, headed "Return of Books to the Library":
1350
"By means of a subscription taken out with Harrods Library, the Library of the House of Commons is able to obtain such current publications as are not permanently acquired by it. Of the books thus borrowed during the last six months, one half are missing, and it will not be possible to continue the subscription unless they are returned. It would be very much appreciated if you would return any books on the attached list, which may happen to be still in your possession."
The only comment that I would make upon the matter at this juncture is that it discloses a serious state of affairs concerning this House. I have made inquiries in the appropriate semi-official quarter, that is from the, Librarian and from the hon. Gentleman who is Chairman of the Library Committee, and I understand that since this document was issued only five books have been returned. I have also been informed, though I have been asked by the appropriate semi-official authorities not to disclose the actual figure, that there has been a very grievous loss' during last year of the periodicals from the Library. The serious point about this is that the missing books would presumably have to be compensated for out of the public purse. I would submit it is not the amount but the principle involved which is so serious. It may well be that you, Mr. Speaker, will not feel it right to make any comment upon the matter until there has been an inquiry through the usual methods of procedure into the matter. In that event, I will direct the question to the Leader of the House and ask for a Select Committee to be appointed to inquire into the whole matter.
Mr. Speaker: I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I made a statement. I would remind hon. Members that I placed a notice in the Library drawing their attention to the continued disappearance of books and periodicals belonging to it. The rate of their departure caused me some concern. Since the posting of that notice, further inquiries have been made, and I can now inform the House that the number of books acquired by the Library, which have disappeared, has fallen considerably. The last check carried out in April showed that out of a total of 554 newly purchased volumes, eleven were missing, or 2 per cent. This compares favourably with the loss of 5 per cent. noted before I placed the notice to which I have referred in the Library.
On the other hand, the loss of borrowed books, provided on a subscription taken

1351
out with a lending library, as distinct from books permanently acquired, has of late increased to such an extent that it was found necessary to send all hon. Members the circular letter to which the right hon. Member refers, and of which the terms were approved by the Chairman of the Library Committee. Hon. Members should be aware from notices posted in the Library that all books borrowed from it and taken away, should be signed for on cards provided for the purpose. While I have no doubt that the great majority of hon. Mem-follow this rule, there are evidently some who do not—hence these losses. Should they continue, it will, I think, be my reluctant duty to suspend subscriptions taken out with lending libraries, for I must remind hon. Members that all losses have to be met out of public funds.

HUNGARY (POLITICAL SITUATION)
The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement on the situation in Hungary. As the House was informed on 9th June His Majesty's Government have been awaiting further information about the recent happenings in Hungary, which have caused grave anxiety in this and other countries. Accordingly, we instructed His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow to discuss the whole position with M. Molotov, the Soviet Minister for Foreign Affairs, and if possible to obtain from him a clarification of Soviet policy towards Hungary. Our Ambassador was instructed to point out that under the Armistice Agreement the Soviet Government recognised the right of His Majesty's Government to share in the control of Hungary during the Armistice period. It was further provided under the Statutes of the Allied Control Commission that the United Kingdom representative should have the right "to receive copies of all communications, reports and other documents which might interest His Majesty's Government." Despite this the British and American Representatives have so far failed even to obtain copies of the documents recently communicated by the Soviet chairman of the Commission to the Hungarian Government without their knowledge, and which led to the resignation of the former Hungarian Prime Minister.
M. Molotov, in reply to these inquiries, said that our desire for knowledge in these matters constituted an interference in Hungarian internal affairs. That further he was not prepared to admit our contention that as one of the Powers represented on the Allied Control Commission we were thereby given a right to the information for which we had asked. Accordingly M. Molotov refused to give any details of the situation but maintained that the policy of the U.S.S.R. was to refrain from interference in Hungarian internal affairs. These misrepresentations and inaccuracies, as the House is aware, have already been rebutted in another place. His Majesty's Government regret our Ally's response to our inquiries. For it was because His Majesty's Government desired to avoid

1353
possible misunderstandings, that information was sought. We made no accusations against our Ally. We were asking for information of what was happening in Hungary in order that His Majesty's Government might form a just and accurate opinion on the position. My right hon. Friend is surprised and greatly regrets that our proper and measured inquiries should have been met with accusations that they constituted a renewed attempt on our part to interfere in Hungarian internal affairs. Because we are co-signatories to the Armistice Agreement, and because also of our Treaty of Friendship with the Soviet Government, we shall continue to press both our Ally and the Hungarian Government for the full information on developments in Hungary, to which we are entitled.
Mr. Eden: I think that the House will have heard the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made with concern and with regret, but also, I think, with general approval of its tenor. If I may be allowed to do so I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, as the Minister responsible for negotiating the armistice terms which are now under discussion, just three brief questions. First of all, was it not as the result of that armistice agreement that the Allied Control Commission was set up, and should not all information have been made available to that Commission without any request by any of the Governments who were members? May I further ask him on that issue whether in Italy, where the arrangements were precisely the same as those in Hungary except that we were the major party whereas in Hungary we are the minor party, we did not in fact consistently furnish such information and never refused any information for which we were asked? If my assessment of these matters is right, may I also ask him to convey to the Soviet Government on behalf of everyone in this country that, however strongly we desire friendly relations with them, disrespect of engagements we have entered into in good faith in the past years must shake confidence between Allies, and that that is a factor which we in this country would regret but which we cannot fail to note?
Mr. McNeil: I must compliment the right hon. Gentleman upon the restrained manner in which he has addressed him-
1354
self to this matter. The answer to the three questions which he has put to me
is, "Yes" in each case. In Hungary, however, the Soviet have been in the chair, but under an Article—I think Article 6C—it is expressly provided that, automatically and without request, all relevant documents should be made available to all the elements of the Commission. That, of course, was the pattern of the agreement which we followed in Italy without offence or departure.
Mr. John E. Haire: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is to be regretted that there has been considerable misrepresentation on the part of Press correspondents and others in reporting the events in Hungary of the last few days? In view of the fact that this present situation has arisen out of the resignation in exile of M. Nagy, the former Prime Minister, is it, not highly desirable that we should seek full information from him by every possible means, and is it not somewhat curious that in seeking to obtain support from the British Government the ex-Prime Minister of Hungary should have written to Lord Vansittart for his support? Would my right hon. Friend say whether he considers that in Hungary there is not also considerable pressure from Fascist elements, particularly the right wing of the Smallholders Party, which, unfortunately leads to reciprocal action from the Left? In seeking full information with regard to the Hungarian situation from our representative there, will my right hon. Friend call for evidence of these Right Wing activities in Hungary?
Mr. McNeil: Of course, His Majesty's Government are bound under the agreement to co-operate in preventing the arising of any Fascist elements, and one of the means prescribed under the agreement was the availability of all relevant documents. It would, therefore seem inappropriate that we should address ourselves to the former Hungarian Prime Minister when machinery and official documents are available. As to the Press, I am certainly not prepared to subscribe to the assertion that they have misrepresented the situation, but if the documents had been available there would have been no need for the Press correspondents to speculate upon the situation. As to the statement by Lord Vansittart, no one deprecates more than my right hon. Friend

1355
the number of unofficial Foreign Secretaries we have to put up with.
Professor Savory: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that President Tildy, a former student of the Queen's University of Belfast, was induced to remain in his present position only by the threat of deportation to Russia acording to the statement of his own Prime Minister?
Mr. McNeil: Of course, on this subject as on the other related subjects, I prefer to have the facts.
Major Cecil Poole: Since attempts are being made to besmirch the name of the late Prime Minister of Hungary without any full knowledge of the facts on either side, and since it has been alleged that he fled the country in order to escape arrest, may I be permitted to say, as one who was with him on the evening before he left, that he disclosed to me quite freely and frankly that he was going to Switzerland for a fortnight's holiday? Might I ask the Minister if it is not correct that Hungary is now functioning as a complete police State and that the police do not belong to the Fascists or the Right?
Mr. McNeil: I certainly think it is true that there are two of these political police forces operating in Hungary, neither of which I approve of, and neither of which I know to be associated with the Right.
Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: If very reasonable requests to Moscow are not complied with, will the right hon. Gentleman consider referring the whole matter to the United Nations organisation, particularly in view of the fact that a number of counter-charges have been made against this country?
Mr. McNeil: I do not want in any way to seem to be minimising our anxiety on this subject but I hope that I shall not be pressed even by my hon. Friend to affirm what action is contemplated, because until we know the facts we do not know what action is seemly, appropriate and legal.
Mr. Wadsworth: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was reported to me in Budapest in May, 1946, that these circumstances would arise on 1st May this year and that events have proved that my information was accurate on that occasion 12 months ago?
Mr. Gallacher: In view of the questions which have been put from the Opposition, I want to ask if it is not the case that this was a Government crisis which was solved—[Interruption.]—and solved with the least possible trouble? Have we not the glaring fact before us that this Prime Minister telephoned his resignation from abroad and left others to carry on? Why did he not go back? [Interruption.] I do not care what anyone says. Any man with courage and with a clear conscience would go back to his own country and face his accusers. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] I ask the Minister if it is not the case that in going back to his own country to face his accusers—
Professor Savory: He would have been deported to Russia.
Mr. Gallacher: —he would have had the support not only of this country, but of every other country to ensure that he got fair treatment?
Mr. McNeil: I do not want to be drawn into controversy, but I must point out that a colleague of this former Prime Minister has been in prison since February, despite the representations of this Government, without a charge being preferred against him. Moreover, I cannot deny that this political crisis has been solved with great speed and great thoroughness. That was a facility which Hitler displayed.
Mr. Gallacher: I have been in prison several times and I would go again rather than run away.
Mr. Blackburn: May I ask my right hon. Friend, in the interests of Anglo-Soviet friendship, to point out to the Soviet authorities that their failure to produce evidence in accordance with their obligations under the Control Statutes will force most people to draw the worst conclusions possible, even worse than they ought to be?
Mr. McNeil: I am sure that the House and the Soviet Government will appreciate that we have acted with the maximum restraint here. We are not seeking a quarrel. We are seeking the facts and legal methods. I hope that even at this stage the Soviet Government will be so persuaded.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: While I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his moderation combined with firmness in the

1357
statement he has made, would he not agree that it is a great pity that other parties involved in this matter did not show the same restraint instead of rushing in with charges that this matter was an outrage before ever they had made any request for information or had any evidence at all?
Mr. McNeil: I am responsible for the activities of this Government. I find that quite sufficient.
Mr. Nicholson: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to give the House about cognate happenings in Bulgaria?
Mr. Haire: Will my right hon. Friend make a further effort with the authorities in Moscow and press for the early trial of Bela Kovacs out of whose arrest most of these events have arisen?
Mr. McNeil: I have indicated that we will continue to press for information.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,
from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]
The House divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 104.

Division No. 253.]

AYES.

[4.5 p.m.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Gallacher, W.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (L'wish'm, E.)

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S

Mort, D. L.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Moyle, A.

Alpass, J. H.

Gibson, C. W

Mulvey, A.

Anderson, A (Motherwell)

Gilzean, A.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Attewell, H. C.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Ayles, W. H

Goodrich, H. E.

Oldfield, W. H.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Oliver, G. H

Bacon, Miss A.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Balfour, A.

Grenfell, D. R.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

Grey, C. F.

Parker, J.

Barstow, P. G.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Parkin, B. T.

Barton, C.

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Battley, J. R.

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Pearson, A.

Beattie, J. (Belfast, W)

Gunter, R. J.

Peart, Thomas F.

Bechervaise, A. E

Guy, W. H.

Piratin, P

Benson, G.

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

Berry, H.

Hall, W. G.

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Beswick, F.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Proctor, W. T

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

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Pryde, D. J.

Bing, G. H. C.

Hardy, E. A

Randall, H. E.

Binns, J.

Harrison, J.

Ranger, J.

Blackburn, A. R.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Rankin, J.

Blenkinsop, A.

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Rees-Williams, D. R.

Blyton, W. R.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Reeves, J.

Boardman, H.

Herbison, Miss M

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Bottomley, A. G.

Hicks, G.

Rhodes, H.

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Hobson, C. R.

Richards, R.

Bramall, E. A

Holman, P.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Brook, D (Halifax)

House, G.

Rogers, G. H. R.

Brooks, T. J (Rothwell)

Hoy, J.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Brown, T. J (Ince)

Hodson, J. M (Ealing W.)

Scott-Elliot, W.

Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

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

Shackleton, E. A. A

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C)

Sharp, Granville

Buchanan, G

Irving, W. J

Silverman, J (Erdington)

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

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A

Silverman, S S. (Nelson)

Byers, Frank

Janner, B.

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

Callaghan James

Jay, D. P. T.

Skinnard, F. W

Carmichael, James

Jeger, G (Winchester)

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

Castle, Mrs B. A

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

Snow, Capt. J. W

Chamberlain, R. A

Jones, D T. (Hartlepools)

Solley, L. J.

Champion, A. J.

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Sorensen, R. W

Chater, D.

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Sparks, J, A.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Keenan, W.

Stamford, W.

Cluse, W. S.

Kenyon, C.

Stephen, C

Cocks, F. S

King, E. M

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)

Coldrick, W.

Kinley, J.

Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)

Collindridge, F

Kirby, B. V.

Stross, Dr. B.

Collins, V. J.

Kirkwood, D.

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

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

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J

Swingler, S.

Corlett, Dr. J.

Lee, F (Hulme)

Sylvester, G O

Cove W. G.

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Symonds, A. L.

Crawley, A.

Levy, B. W

Taylor, H B. (Mansfield)

Cunningham, P

Lipson, D. L.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Daines, P.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

Lyne, A W.

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

McAdam, W.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

McEntee, V. La T.

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

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

McGhee, H. G.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Timmons, J.

Deer, G.

McKinlay, A. S.

Tolley, L.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

McLeavy, F

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Dodds, N. N.

McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

Usborne, Henry

Driberg, T. E. N.

Mallalieu, J. P. W

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich)

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Viant, S. P.

Dumpleton, C. W.

Marquand, H. A.

Wadsworth, G.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J C

Martin, J. H.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst

Edelman, M.

Mathers, G.

Warbey, W N.

Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)

Medland, H. M.

Watkins, T. E.

Fairhurst, F.

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Watson, W. M.

Fernyhough, E.

Mikardo, Ian

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Field, Captain W. J.

Mitchison, G. R

Weitzman, D.

Fellick, M.

Monslow, W.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Fool, M. M.

Moody, A. S

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Forman, J. C.

Morley, R.

West, D G

Westwood, Rt. Hon. J

Williams, W R. (Heston)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.

Willis, E.

Willey, F. T (Sunderland)

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Woods, G. S

Mr. Simmons and

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Wyatt, W.

Mr. Popplewell.

Williams, J (Kelvingrove)

Yates, V F

NOES.

Amory, D, Heathcoat

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Nicholson, G.

Astor, Hon. M.

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

Baldwin, A. E.

Harvey, Air Cmdre. A. V

Osborne, C.

Barlow, Sir J.

Head, Brig. A. H.

Ponsonby, Col. C. F

Baxter, A. B.

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

Prescott, Stanley

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Raikes, H. V.

Birch, Nigel

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Ramsay, Maj. S.

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

Hogg, Hon. Q.

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

Boothby, R.

Hope, Lord J

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Bossom, A. C.

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

Sanderson, Sir F.

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr J. G.

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J

Savory, Prof. D. L

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

Hurd, A

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T

Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'gh, W)

Snadden, W. M.

Bullock Capt. M

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

Spence, H. R.

Challen, C.

Jennings, R.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O

Channon, H

Lambert, Hon G

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col G

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Crosthwaite-Eyre. Col O E

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Crowder, Capt. John E.

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

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

De la Bère, R

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Teeling, William

Digby, S. W

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Thorneycroft, G. E. P (Monmouth)

Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W.

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

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

MacLeod, J.

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

Drayson, G B

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Wakefield, Sir W. W.

Eccles, D. M.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W

Walker-Smith, D.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A

Marlowe, A. A. H

Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

Fletcher, W (Bury)

Marsden, Capt. A

Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

Fox, Sir G.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

White, Sir D. (Fareham)

Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Gammans, L. D.

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Glyn, Sir R.

Morrison, Rt. Hon W. S (C'no'ster)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

Mullan, Lt. C. H.

Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studholme.

Grimston, R. V

Neven-Spence, Sir B

Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FIRE SERVICES BILL
  Order for Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
  4.15 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move,
  "That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 5, page 6, line 26; Clause 13, page 14, line 16; Clause 13, page 15, line r; Clause 13, page 15, line 17; Clause 13, page 16, line 2; Clause 13, page 16, line 6; Clause 18, page 18, line 43; Clause 26, page 24, line 6; Clause 26, page 24, line 12; Clause 26, page 24, line 14 and Schedule 5, page 44, line 5, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Secretary Ede."
  It is necessary to recommit the Bill in order that I may carry out some of the undertakings I gave to the Committee upstairs.
  Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the recommittal Motion, at the end, to add:
  "and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 3, page 4, line 25, and Clause 13, page 15, line 16, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Grimston."
  Colonel Wheatley: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. Ede: I have no objection, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that, while I agree to these Amendments being discussed, I cannot give an assurance that I shall accept them.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Symonds: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the recommittal Motion, at the end, to add:
  "and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 4, page 5, line 24, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Symonds."
  Mr. David Jones: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. Ede: I do not resist this Amendment on the same understanding as on the previous Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Bing: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the recommittal Motion, at the end, to add:
  "and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 26, page 24, line 39, and Clause 26, page 25, line 4, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Bing."
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot second this Amendment; he has already spoken to the Motion.
  Mr. John Beattie: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. Ede: I do not resist this Amendment on the same understanding.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  FIRE SERVICES BILL

    CLAUSE 3.—(Supplementary powers of fire authorities.)
    Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 4, line 25, at the end, to insert:
    "(f) to employ the fire brigade if requested so to do by the Health Committee of the local authority in running the local authority's accident ambulance service and in that event to have full responsibility for that service."
    I do so chiefly to find out the present position with regard to this matter, having regard to the discussion which we had in Committee on the running by the fire brigade of the accident ambulance service if requested to do so by the health committee. During our discussion in Committee the Home Secretary said that the spirit of the Amendment was accepted, and that between then and the Report stage he would look into the question of making an appropriate Amendment to the Bill.
    Under Clause 3 (1, e) the powers of the fire authority are to include power to call up the fire brigade maintained by them for purposes other than fire-fighting. Subsection (3) provides that before making any standing arrangements for the exercise of powers conferred by that paragraph, they shall obtain the approval of the Secretary of State to the proposed arrangements. That would cover the provision of ambulance services by the fire authority. In Committee we were all agreed that it was desirable, because in many cases it led to speed and economy in manpower, that the ambulance services should be run by the fire authority. That being so, it seems to us that, where it is

    1365
    desired by the local authority, they should be able to do it under the terms of the Bill without having to refer the matter to the Secretary of State. As I say, the right hon. Gentleman promised that he would consider this matter. He accepted the principle of the Amendment and I now give him the opportunity of telling us how the matter stands.
    Mr. Rees-Williams: I wish to support the Amendment. I had some correspondence with the Home Secretary some months ago on this point, when the Bill was first printed. In my area, when we ran our own fire brigade, we found it most convenient to have the fire brigade also running the ambulance service. It was also an economy I agree that the case is probably covered by Clause 3 (1, e) but I ask the Home Secretary to make this point clear beyond any shadow of doubt.
    Mr. Ede: I am grateful to hon. Members for raising this matter again. Since we had the discussion upstairs, I have had further negotiations with the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association, and also with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, whose Department will also be involved, as the ambulance services are part of the health services. Simultaneously, the Ministry of Health have been engaged in negotiations on these matters with those associations. I think all parties are anxious that there shall be economy of manpower and appliances, and also economy in the giving of Governmental consent which I regard as quite as important as the other objects.
    In the consultations which have taken place between the Minister of Health and myself, there has been general agreement that these two services should be combined, but we have not yet reached complete agreement as to the precise form which the combination should take. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is issuing to local authorities a circular under Section 20 of the National Health Service Act in which he will ask that the proposals of national health authorities in regard to ambulances shall be submitted to him for approval by the 30th of this month. When he receives those schemes, he will go into them, and my Department will also be consulted. I do not expect that the final arrangements will be
    1366
    the same in every area. There will be some areas where there are no local fire stations with firemen continuously employed, and it may be that a very different arrangement may have to be made there from that in the county borough represented so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams). I have no doubt we shall find that the arrangements will vary.
    The primary responsibility for the ambulance services rests on my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. We hope that it will be possible in the great majority of cases to arrange that the fire services personnel will be available to drive and to man the ambulances. In order to avoid duplication of consent, I am proposing at at a later stage this afternoon, in an Amendment to Clause 3, page 4, line 45, to add at the end, with regard to these standing arrangements that they shall obtain the approval of the Secretary of State to the proposed arrangement:
    "unless they have been approved by the Minister in charge of any other Government Department."
    That will mean that if the Minister of Health gives his sanction to any scheme of amalgamating the fire brigade and ambulance service, it will not be necessary for a separate approach to be made to my Department, and a second consent to be sought. Of course it will be arranged that before he gives his consent in any case he will notify me that he proposes to do so. I hope that hon. Members will feel that the explanation I have given enables the existing machinery in the Bill to operate so that duplication will be avoided, and that in the circumstances the Amendment is unnecessary.
    Mr. Sidney Marshall: There is a distinction in the ambulance services. This Amendment applies particularly to accident ambulances, which provide quite a different service in many respects from the full ambulance service which is to be operated under the Health Services Act by the county authorities. That has no need to be associated so closely with the fire service. Whatever arrangement is come to, it should be understood that powers will be given to have them carried out by the fire service quite distinct from the ordinary ambulance service which hospitals employ, and which is not required for the same emergency need as accidents.
    Colonel Wheatley: As the Minister explained, we cannot lay down any absolute rule for a local authority because they are not all the same. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall) described, the hospitals have an ambulance service, but in many cases hospitals are dependent on the town ambulance service. The Minister's suggestion carries out what we want in this Amendment. He realises that we cannot lay down any definite regulations for every ambulance service throughout the country.
    Mr. Ede: I have been associated with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam {Mr. S. Marshall) in the government of Surrey for many years, and it is something new for me to be replying at this Box to the chairman of Surrey County Council. Many people have replied to me from this Box, and now I begin to understand how comfortable a feeling it is to reply to a chairman of a county council. The point made by the hon. and gallant Member for East Dorset (Colonel Wheatley) should be borne in mind. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) spoke in regard to a county borough, and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam speaks for a county which is considerably, but not completely urbanised. The hon. and gallant Member for East Dorset has spoken for a county that is even less urbanised than Surrey, though part of his constituency, the borough of Poole, is itself fully urbanised. It would be very difficult indeed to put into the Bill words which would enable us to cover the elastic kind of arrangement that must be made to deal with such diverse conditions. I hope the words which I propose to insert in page 4 will prevent duplication of applications to Government Departments, and I hope that the general words in the Bill, in the light of the negotiations which we have had with the local authority associations, and with the Ministry of Health, will enable us to meet all the points that have been raised in the discussion this afternoon.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Grimston: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his response. I presume that it any points occur in reply to the circular which is going out from the Ministry of Health,
    opportunity will occur in another place to embody anything that is necessary. It seems to me
    1368
    that the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to introduce later covers the point which we have in mind, and in the circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 4.—(County and county borough councils to be fire authorities.)
    Mr. Symonds: I beg to move, in page 5, line 24, at the end, to insert:
    "Where, on the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, the population of a non-county borough, as estimated by the Registrar General, exceeded one half of the population of the administrative county comprising the borough as so estimated, the provisions of this Act shall apply to the borough as if it were a county borough, and references in this Act to county boroughs and to non-county boroughs shall be construed accordingly."
    When my right hon. Friend reads the wording of this Amendment I hope he will recognise his own child, because it is exactly the same as the wording of Section 17 (1) of the Police Act, which was inserted by my right hon. Friend in that Act in 1946. The provision applies only to two non-county boroughs in the country. It is so drawn up that no others can qualify under this Clause. These two are Peterborough and Cambridge. Both of these non-county boroughs happen to be greater in population than the balance of the counties in which they are situated, so that were they, as non-county boroughs, to surrender their powers to the county council, it would mean that the greater authority was being absorbed in the smaller. During the progress of the Police Act, my right hon. Friend recognised this point and 'allowed for it. In Standing Committee he used these words, speaking of Cambridge and Peterborough:
    "In those two cases I am making special arrangements to deal with the peculiar position presented by the fact that at the moment the borough has more than half the population of the county."—[Standing Committee B, 24th January, 1946; c. 706.]
    If, in the Police Act, it was found desirable to make special provision when this kind of situation occurred, I hope that my right hon. Friend will realise the justice of making a similar provision now.
    I hope that he will not argue in relation to Cambridge that the Police Act is not

    1369
    an exact parallel. I hope that he will not bring in the University, and say that special arrangements were made in regard to Cambridge in the Police Act because of the existence of a large undergraduate population with special disciplinary arrangements. The case made on the Police Act, which I am repeating here, is embodied in Clause 17 (1) of the Act, and of course Peterborough qualifies as well. There is no university at Peterborough, and the essential part of the case is that the non-county borough is greater than the rest of its county.
    There may be a certain amount of argument as to the exact relative figures. The last official ones we had are the Registrar General's estimate in June, 1939, which gave the borough a superiority of several thousands. Whatever the figures are now, there is another vital factor, which is that even now the borough is paying about two-thirds of the county rate. The changes promulgated in this Bill, if not amended, would mean that the authority paying two-thirds of another authority's rates would surrender completely all its powers to that other authority with regard to this service. For years past the borough of Cambridge has "fire serviced" the county, so to speak, and there has never been any question of the county or the county districts relying on their own resources.
    If my right hon. Friend asks whether, if the borough is given the equivalent of county borough status, the balance of the county will be able to provide such services for itself, my reply is that that is not the suggestion at all. The suggestion is the fairly obvious one that there should be a combination scheme of some kind, as there was under the Police Act, so that the two authorities, roughly equal in numbers, should be given representation on that authority more in proportion to their strength, and it should not be the case of the larger authority disappearing inside the smaller. During the Third Reading Debate on the Police Act, my right hon. Friend said that he had had to see the representatives of the borough and of the county separately, because he understood that had they been assembled in one room it would have required more than the combined police authority to keep the peace.
    Mr. Ede: More than the combined police force.
    Mr. Symonds: There must be some basis for that feeling. I hope that my right hon. Friend realises the feeling inside that non-county borough, which, larger in numbers and paying two-thirds of the county rate, steadily sees its powers passing one by one to that county, and out of its own control.
    Earl Winterton: Will not that position be considered under the new proposals now being considered in relation to the redistribution of local government boundaries?
    Mr. Symonds: The whole question at local government boundaries in that area is very much in the melting pot. There are claims and counter-claims from all sides, and what the final decision will be one cannot say. The Amendment which I am moving would preserve some sort of balance between the powers of these respective authorities, and would prevent this anomalous situation of the larger surrendering its powers to the smaller. The principle has already been accepted in regard to the police, and I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will see, his way to accept the same arrangement in regard to the fire service.
    Mr. Ede: It is true that I recognise the countenance of this child. It is a twin, because I was responsible also for inserting the same words in the Education Act. 1944. Hon. Members may have seen that yesterday a gentleman in Haifa was informed that his wife had given birth to quadruplets, and he said that he could not stand this mass production, he could not afford such luxuries. I have consented to twins, but I jib at triplets. Let us face the fact that the fire service is a very different one from the police in its administration. My hon. Friend misstates the situation. Cambridge borough is a part of the county of Cambridge. It is a non-county borough. This is not the case of the lesser absorbing the greater. It is the fact that Cambridge is not a fire authority at the moment, and in the new layout of the fire services we have to consider what is the best arrangement for the area. My hon. Friend said that there never has been a, fire station anywhere in the county of Cambridge outside the non - county borough of Cambridge. That is the place where most of the fires, especially those deliberately started, have occurred. Forty

    1371
    years ago I took some part in starting one or two. It is too long ago now for me to be brought up for them—and other people were caught.
    Outside the non-county borough, there are only eight part-time stations, even under the National Fire Service. It is clear that while the boundaries remain as they are, the county of Cambridge must get its fire service from the non-county borough. Adequate services from the eight part-time stations, or such other number as the Cambridge County Council choose to have, must be organised from the centre of Cambridge. This Bill differs in its local government provision from either the Education Act or the Police Act. I will discuss it on the assumption that the New Clause, (Fire brigade committees in counties), which I have put on the Order Paper will be adopted. I propose there, in order to meet this and similar situations, that the county council shall have a majority on the fire brigade committee. On the Cambridge County Council there is a substantial number of members representing the borough. It is safe to assume that some at least of those members will get on to the fire brigade committee. The county district councils, including the non-county borough of Cambridge, will have the right of appointing certain persons to sit on the fire brigade committees. Therefore, I think 'it is fairly safe to say that a very substantial proportion of the fire brigade committees will consist either of representatives of Cambridge borough on the county council—they will get on by appointment by the county council—or of representatives of this large non-county borough which has more than half the population of the whole county.
    In that way, I think they should get quite adequate and sufficient representation on the committee which will be responsible for organising the fire brigade. That is not the position under the Police Act where, had the ordinary law applied to Cambridge, a very different situation would have arisen and the Cambridge town council would have had no right to appoint any member to sit on the police authority for the county. I am disappointed at the very slow rate of progress which has been made under the Police Act. I do not want to say more than that. The very generous arrange-
    1372
    ments I made in the matter have not proved acceptable to those two authorities—the county council and the non-county borough—and I cannot contemplate leaving the fire service in the same state of suspense.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Symonds: Surely my right hon. Friend recognises that the cause of the delay in the police arrangements is the complete uncertainty in regard to future local government boundaries and the status of the borough in relation to the county?
    Mr. Ede: Precisely the same excuse could be pleaded if I advanced the non-county borough of Cambridge to county borough status for the purpose of this Bill. Exactly the same argument could be used. One cannot contemplate leaving the county in that position. As a result of the concessions I have made owing to our discussions in Committee, the local government set-up under this Bill is different from the set-up under the other two Measures. When the scheme for the county is prepared, both Cambridge and Peterborough will have the right to make representations to me if they are not satisfied. I say frankly that I could not contemplate having two fire brigades, one for Cambridge non-county borough and one for Cambridge county, one for the City of Peterborough and one for that part of the Soke of Peterborough not within the city boundaries. The county brigade, in both cases, would have no centre from which to work. I could not contemplate allowing such a state of affairs to exist.
    I hope my hon. Friend will feel that the new Clause which I have placed on the Order Paper completely alters the local government set-up. It is one which the non-county boroughs, urban and rural districts, and the county have been willing to accept. I think it adequately covers the situation created for the present by the position of Cambridge and Peterborough in boroughs in which they represent more than half the population.
    Mr. Symonds: I hope my right hon. Friend will make it clear that I did not suggest for one moment that there should be two separate fire authorities. All I suggested was that an arrangement, which had Worked very well, should continue. He has said that for an indefinite period of time the fire brigade must be run from

    1373
    and be stationed in the borough of Cambridge. If that is so, why not leave its control and management in the hands of those people who, in the past, have run it very effectively?
    Mr. Ede: Because the county council under this Bill becomes a fire authority and it was not under any previous legislation. The non-county borough of Cambridge is a part of the county of Cambridge, at any rate until local government boundaries are revised. The previous arrangements were not made with the county. They were made with the adjoining rural district councils or, before the Act of 1938, I have no doubt they were made with the parish councils. The situation is entirely altered by the creation of the county council as a fire brigade authority and by the local government arrangements I introduce in the new Clause which is on the Order Paper today.
    Mr. Scott-Elliot: I wish to support the Amendment. Indeed, I would like to go a good deal further, because, as my right hon. Friend knows, I feel very strongly about the position of the large non-county boroughs, including the borough of Accrington which I represent. The position of the non-county boroughs is rather anomalous. There are some very small boroughs, and I do not think that they could defend the various powers which they have had in the past. Then there are non-county boroughs like Cambridge, Peterborough and Accrington and certain others. There are not very many of substantial size. Some are as big as perhaps bigger than some of the old county boroughs, and yet they are deprived of their powers altogether by reason of the fact that Government Departments have decided that the units of administration must be purely county councils and county boroughs. I very greatly deplore that, I recognise the Home Secretary's point that fire, police and education services each need very different types of administration. That is, of course, a reasonable point, but I do feel that some consideration should be given to the comparatively small number of non-county boroughs of substantial size, such as Cambridge and Accrington.
    Mr. Ede: I do not think anyone would suggest that Accrington possesses more than half the population of Lancashire.
    Sir Ralph Glyn: May I ask the Home Secretary one question? He mentioned the non-county borough of Peterborough and the Soke of Peterborough, and said they were in a peculiar position vis-a-vis the county of Northampton.
    Mr. Ede: I have not mentioned Northamptonshire.
    Sir R. Glyn: But the right hon. Gentleman says that the county will be the fire authority in that area.
    Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman should have been here the other morning when we were discussing Peterborough in relation to cinemas. There is the most extraordinary position in England here, where we have an administrative county smaller even than that of Rutland—the Soke of Peterborough. It is a county area, with a separate county council, and it will become the fire authority. Within that county is the city of Peterborough, which is a non-county borough sending members to sit on the Soke of Peterborough County Council. In that respect, it is exactly the same as Cambridge sending members to sit on the county council of Cambridgeshire. It is a quite distinct local government entity from the administrative county of Northampton, although it is included in the county of Northampton, and generally, is shown in the same colour on the maps of England. Nothing I have said this afternoon applies to Northamptonshire.
    Sir R. Glyn: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but I wanted to be clear that the Soke of Peterborough was being kept as a separate county and was not being merged in Northamptonshire.
    Mr. Ede: No. I am not saying what the Local Government Boundary Commission will do, but, so far as this matter is concerned, it is an administrative county as much as the West Riding of Yorkshire.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Voluntary schemes for com bination of fire authorities.)
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 6, line 26, to leave out from "incurred," to" as," in line 27, and to insert:
    "in connection with the provision of fire services."

    1375
    Clause 5 (2, d) deals with the transfer of liabilities to a combined authority formed after the appointed day. As the Clause stands, it will be possible to transfer liabilities incurred under the Bill, but not any continuing liabilities that may have been incurred by the 1938 Act. This Amendment is necessary to enable liabilities such as these to be transferred to the new fire authority.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 13.—(Transitional provisions.)
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 14, line 16, at the end, to insert:
    "and for the making, by any such authority to an authority which in pursuance of this paragraph is substituted therefor for the purposes of the last mentioned Act, of such payments in respect of liabilities thereunder transferred from the one authority to the other as may be so prescribed."
    The object of this Amendment is to provide for the transfer of pension assets and any kind of rateable deduction in cases where a pensionable fireman is away serving in the Armed Forces at the appointed day, and, on returning, has to join a brigade which has absorbed the brigade in which he was formerly serving. Unless we are able to do this, the man will lose all his pension service and will be regarded as a raw recruit coming into the service, and I am quite sure that no one would desire that that should happen.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 15, to leave out lines i and 2, and to insert "or pension."
    This is consequential on an Amendment made in the Committee upstairs, and it deals with the possible case of a former local authority employee who does not secure fresh employment on the appointed day. He may suffer not only the loss of his salary, but also the loss of his pension which he had expected to enjoy, and there should be power in assessing the compensation to have regard to this loss of pension.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 15, Line 16, after "employment," to insert: "in the National Fire Service."
    1376
    This arises out of an inconclusive discussion which we had on the Committee stage. We consider that a man should be compensated on the basis of the rank which he attained in the National Fire Service, and not a rank—which might be lower—which he might have had in the fire brigade service before the war. We had a discussion on this point, and I think it was generally, agreed that it is reasonable to assume that, had a man spent the intervening period in his own brigade, instead of in the National Fire Service, he would have attained promotion and a higher rate of pay. In the Committee discussions, the Under-Secretary said that the point was not quite so simple as I had suggested because, in some cases, men in the National Fire Service who were taken over enjoyed higher rates of pay than in the service to which they belonged before they were taken over, and that, therefore, in these cases, the Amendment would operate in a manner detrimental to these men.
    I am advised, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, that the point made by the Under-Secretary is not correct, because I understand that all those in the fire services who were transferred to the N.F.S. got what was known as "preserved pay," even if they were in a lower rank when transferred, so that it would appear that the grounds on which the Under-Secretary turned down this Amendment are not valid. Eventually I withdrew my Amendment on 'the understanding that we would raise this matter again at a later stage. Having regard to the information which I have received, I would suggest that, whatever the rate of pay may have been in the old fire service, if it was lower than that in the N.F.S., the man will benefit by the Amendment. I think that this is the intention of the Home Secretary, but we think that if he put it in the Bill it would be very much better, so that the compensation paid to the men is on the basis of their rank in the N.F.S. It seems to me that this Amendment should be accepted also in order to make the position quite clear.
    5.0 p.m.
    Colonel Wheatley: It is quite true that we had a long discussion on this matter upstairs in Committee, when the Under-Secretary of State undertook to convey our views to the Minister. We felt that a

    1377
    man should not lose by coming into this new service, and that, as it would not affect many men, the Minister might be generous and give them the best of both worlds, whether they lost or gained by not getting promotion in their own service. If, as my hon. Friend explained, these men had their pay made up, the case is not so glaring as it appeared to be when we discussed it in Committee. I hope that the Minister will accept this Amendment as being fair and doing justice to these men, which I am quite sure is what he would wish to do.
    Mr. D. Jones: Before my right hon. Friend replies, I should like to raise one point. I understand that a number of men belonging to the administrative staff of the National Fire Service have been circularised by the chief regional officer with a memorandum dealing with transfer under this proposed legislation. Sections 3 and 4 of that memorandum say:
    "That they may be employed on duties not connected with the fire brigade and, in any case, will probably not be employed in a uniformed capacity."
    "That their remuneration will be in accordance with the grade of salary adopte4 by the local authority for the particular employment in which they will be engaged."
    It seems to me that it might conceivably happen that they will be offered positions in local government service which are not commensurate with the positions they occupy in the National Fire Service at the present time. I should like to know whether, in those circumstances, provision will be made to compensate these people for loss of office, or whether it will be considered that the obligation to them will have been fulfilled if they are merely offered a job in local government service for less pay and under conditions worse than they enjoy at the moment.
    Mr. Keenan: I wish to ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether there is any obligation on the Home Office, or whoever is responsible for the fire services to maintain the positions which obviously came into being as the result of the National Fire Service, because it seems to me that many thousands of posts will now become redundant? Will men be compensated for loss in this connection?
    Mr. Ede: With regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepr, ols (Mr. D. Jones), I do not
    1378
    think that matter arises on this Amendment, because the men concerned were not firemen before they were taken over, but were engaged on services connected with the Fire Service. Arrangements have been made with the local authority associations whereby those men will be returned to their appropriate employment in the service of the new fire authority, and will be able to use the particular skill that led to their transfer to the National Fire Service when the municipal services were nationalised at the beginning of the war.
    Mr. D. Jones: They are a section of administrative officers in the National Fire Service who have been recruited to the Service since it came into operation.
    Mr. Ede: But they do not come under this Amendment. With regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan), I do not think that we shall be faced with the large redundancy of staff that he anticipates. I believe that. by the time we hand back the fire service, we shall have got down to about the appropriate establishment.
    I want now to direct my observations to the remarks of the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) and of the hon. and gallant Member for East Dorset (Colonel Wheatley). This is a very difficult and complicated matter. There is a class of person who was not mentioned by the hon. Member for Westbury, who, in fact, owing to something which happened in the National Fire Service, is now getting less than he was getting in the old service There are a few people in that position, and it would be better for those people to get what is called their preserved pay "rather than the National Fire Service pay They are people who have gone up the ladder and who have then gone down it rather further than the point at which they started in the Service.
    I am very anxious, not that people should get the best of both worlds, because that is a promise which no politician can ever keep if he is foolish enough to make it, but to do something, which represents a little more generosity than justice. At the moment, I am hampered by the fact that the local authority associations are very reluctant to go beyond the preserved pay. They are the people who have to pay in these cases, and I have not finished my negotiations with

    1379
    them. As was explained to the Committee upstairs, I propose to make regulations, and I hope that, by the time they are framed, I shall be able to do something that will enable me to deal with the case of the men who, in justice, would appear to be entitled to something more than their preserved pay in these matters. I hope to be able to include something in the regulations to secure that.
    The regulations will have to be submitted to the House, and if I were to insert these words I might have the gravest difficulties with the National Fire Service over the whole range of our negotiations. I have given the Committee an indication of what is my own line in the matter, and, if when the time comes, the regulations do not conform with the wishes of the House, the House, will then have the opportunity of considering them, and of rejecting them if they are not in accordance with what it feels to be just. The issue is not a simple one, and cannot be stated as simply as the hon. Member for Westbury stated it this afternoon. It must be clear that when men from all sorts of local authorities, who have no standardised conditions of wages or hours, or anything like that, are brought into a national service, and are allowed to preserve the emoluments they previously received while holding the rank that they held at the time of transfer, and who are then transferred back to the municipalities, the position is bound to present complications.
    I doubt whether prior to nationalisation any two fire services in the country had exactly the same conditions with regard to emoluments, hours of work and the other things that go to make up a contract of service. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will be prepared to leave the matter at this stage. I have made known my mind and the mind of the Government in regard to it, and I hope that the Committee will leave us to carry on our negotiations with the local authorities, and to submit the regulations to the House when the new service has been constituted. If it will help hon. Members—I know it is complained that a good many regulations are made from time to time—I will undertake to communicate with the hon. Member for Westbury, and with any one else who may be closely associated with this matter, when I make the regulations so that they shall not merely slip through
    1380
    because it was not noticed that they had been made before the 40 days had elapsed.
    Mr. Grimston: I am much obliged to the Home Secretary. Do I understand that the purport of his remarks is that he is concerned about preserving the position, so that a man in certain circumstances may acquire a higher compensation than he would if these words were inserted in the Bill? That is really what it amounts to. It is to preserve for him a better compensation, which may be better than the N.F.S. rate, and that rate can only be the N.F.S. rate if this is put into the Bill.
    Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Grimston: I am much obliged to the Home Secretary especially for what he said about the regulations. It will be obviously in the interests of the men themselves that I should beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 15, line 17, at the end, to insert:
    "(c) to persons who immediately before the eighteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-one were employed by a local authority, or engaged in war service (within the meaning of the Local Government Staffs (War Service) Act, 1939) having left employment with a local authority to undertake such service, and immediately before the appointed day were employed for the purposes of the Fire Services (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1941, otherwise than as members of the National Fire Service, and who either—

    (i) become employed on the appointed day by a local authority and suffer a reduction in emoluments in comparison with the emoluments determined by the regulations to be appropriate as aforesaid, or

    (ii) do not on the appointed day become employed by a local authority."

    This Amendment proposes to extend the compensation provisions in Subsection (6) to cover certain former local government employees. Some of the people for whom my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) was concerned earlier on will come under it.
    When the fire brigades were nationalised, many local authority clerks in the fire brigade offices of local authorities were transferred to the employment of the National Fire Service for similar clerical duties, but they did not become actual members of the National Fire Service. When the fire services return to local

    1381
    authority control, these officers will return to local employment. Some of them were employees of county district authorities who will no longer be fire authorities. Anyone who was serving a non-county borough, such as Cambridge or Accrington, will, of course, not go back to those authorities. There may, nevertheless, be employment for them with the district authorities, or arrangements may be made for their transfer to the county councils. Should no suitable employment be available, however, or only employment at a lower salary, it may be right to pay compensation.
    A similar position may arise as regards former local authority employees who were employed on duty in connection with fire brigades, but who had joined the Armed forces. On demobilisation some of those men have been taken into the employment of the National Fire Service which, so far as they are concerned, is the successor at the moment to their former localauthority employer, accepting the employer's obligations under the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act. These persons are covered in the Amendment. Usually, these local authority clerks have been paid by the National Fire Service at the rate of pay which they would have received if they had remained in local authority employment. Accordingly, no difficulty will arise in determining the appropriate emoluments for purposes of compensation. It is clear that we must include adequate provision to cover these people, and I am advised that the words now proposed will do it.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Marlowe: I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would clear up one point which occurs in line 8 of the Amendment. At the beginning of what will now become paragraph (c, i) are the words:
    "become employed on the appointed day by a local authority."
    I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could tell me precisely what is meant by "the appointed day" in this connection. It presupposes continuity of employment. The man is employed in one service. At a particular moment he becomes employed by a local authority. What would happen if he had a gap of a day or two, and if he were employed by the local authority a day or two after the appointed day? As I
    1382
    understand from Clauses which appear later, "the appointed day" is a day appointed by the Secretary of State. The various references to an appointed day may refer to different days. I take it that the appointed day in the case I have mentioned is not the same appointed day as in Clause 2, which is a day that the Secretary of State may appoint under the appropriate paragraph. Otherwise, the position may be that if the man who is employed does not get re-employed immediately, he will not qualify under the Subsection as it stands.
    Mr. Ede: I contemplate that the appointed day will be the same throughout the Bill. I do not think there will be any need for more than one appointed day. This is what will happen. The man is in the service of the National Fire Service at the moment as a clerk, or in some ancillary occupation, or as a fitter, or in connection with the vehicles. On the appointed day the National Fire Service will come to an end, and we hope that the man in question will go into the service of the fire authorities. There may be cases where the fire authority may not want to employ him because they have an adequate number of men of that qualification. He can be transferred, not necessarily to a fire authority, but to the service of a local authority.
    The case which we have mainly in mind under the proposed new Subsection concerns the local authority which was previously a fire authority in a non-county borough, or urban and rural district, but will cease to be a fire authority under the Bill. If the man goes back to that service, his former service, or to the service of any local authority, whether it be his former local authority or not, and suffers a reduction in emoluments, he is entitled to compensation. It may be that the words proposed do not cover the case where the man is not wanted by the county council. Let us assume that the appointed day is 1st April, 1948, and that the man does not get back to a local authority until 8th April. That is the kind of case which the hon. and learned Member opposite has in mind. I fully intend that man to be covered. If he is not covered by these words, I will undertake to see that an appropriate Amendment is inserted in another place so that the man shall not be deprived of his rights merely because, in the shuffling that he has gone

    1383
    through in the last six or seven years, he cannot just be fitted into the proper niche, but has to wait for a short time to get in. Where the continuity of employment is quite reasonable and can be traced, I will try to find words to cover the matter, if it is not covered by the words which I have proposed.
    Mr. Marlowe: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I think he will find that as the words stand at the moment, the man would have to be employed on the appointed day, so that I think it does require some amendment on the lines I have suggested. The same point occurs with reference to line 13, but as we have passed it, I cannot deal with it now.
    Mr. D. Jones: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for having cleared up that part of the point, but I understand there are in the country 400 members of the administrative staff of the National Fire Service who were not previously employed by a local authority, but who have been recruited to the National Fire Service. Will my right hon. Friend explain what is to happen to those people? Will they be forced to accept employment of an inferior character with a local authority, or will their existing status be protected?
    Mr. Ede: I am not sure that point arises on this Amendment, but I will have the position examined. If there should be any difficulty about it, and if those men have any rights, I will endeavour to see that the appropriate words are inserted.
    Colonel Wheatley: Taking the right hon. Gentleman's hypothetical case of 1st April and 8th April, I would like to know who will pay the man during those eight days. Will he continue to be paid by the State, or who will be expected to pay him?
    Mr. Ede: We are now getting rather beyond the subject of compensation. I hope we shall be able to find some way in which such a man could be transferred on the appointed day to the service of the new fire authority if it has not been possible to sort him out into some other job before. I will have that particular complication examined also.
    Mr. S. Marshall: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain on what basis compen-
    1384
    sation will be paid to the class of persons mentioned for having had to accept a lower-paid post with the same local authority by whom they were previously employed? How long will that compensation last? It is conceivable that in a year a man might get a higher post with the same authority.
    Mr. Ede: That matter will be dealt with in the regulations which will flow from the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 16, line 2, after "fireman," to insert" in the case of."
    I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I also dealt with the next Amendment in line 6. These are mainly drafting Amendments. They deal with the case of the fireman who is serving in the Armed Forces, and the object of the Amendment is to make certain that his pension rights are preserved, whether he comes back and resumes service as a fireman or whether he is prevented from doing so because of injury while on war service. These Amendments preserve his rights, and I am sure the Committee would desire that that should happen.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 16, line 6, leave out from "1938,"to end of line and insert:

    "(a) engagement in service in the National Fire Service shall be treated for the purposes of the said Acts of 1939 and 1944 as resumption of service as a constable;

    (b) if he is prevented as mentioned in those Acts from engaging in service in the National Fire Service or a fire brigade mantained in pursuance of this Act, he shall be treated for the purposes of those Acts as having been so prevented from resuming service as a constable."—[Mr. Ede.]

    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 18.—(Conditions of service.)
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 18. line 43, at the end, to insert:
    "References in this Section to the conditions of service of persons employed as aforesaid include references to welfare arrangements for such persons."
    The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) will recollect that in Standing Committee an Amendment was moved to ensure that among the points to be considered should be welfare arrangements. I gave a promise that,

    1385
    at this stage of the Bill, I would move an Amendment to ensure that that should be done, and I hope the words of the Amendment fully carry out the pledge which I gave.
    Mr. Grimston: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. It appears to me that this Amendment fully carries out the pledge which he gave with regard to welfare arrangements in connection with an Amendment which was moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson).
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 26.—(Firemen's Pension Scheme.)
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 24, line 6, to leave out "transfer to,' and to insert" entry on service with."
    Here, again, I think it would be convenient if I dealt also with the next Amendment, in line 12. These are both drafting Amendments providing for the transfer of pension assets, including rateable deductions, in cases where a professional fireman who has been away on war service joins a completely new brigade; that is to say, not his old brigade and not one which has absorbed his former brigade. As at present drafted, the Clause provides only for payment between authorities where the fireman transfers directly from one brigade to another, and, accordingly, does not cover the case of the fireman who enters a new brigade from war service in the Armed Forces.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 24, line 12, leave out "transfer to," and insert "entry on."—[Mr. Ede.]
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 24, line 14, at the end, to insert:
    "(f) for the reimbursement of payments under the last foregoing paragraph out of any superannuation fund to which contributions have been made in respect of the previous service to which the payments related;
    (g) for the making, where a person enters on service with a fire authority in a case where no payment falls to be made under paragraph (e) of this subsection, of payments in respect of previous service with that authority out of any superannuation fund to which contributions have been made in respect of the previous service."
    1386
    This is a purely technical Amendment which arises out of the extreme complexity of the arrangements which have been made for the fire service during recent years. This Amendment deals with the case of the professional firemen who opted to remain under the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, or the corresponding Scottish Act. The essential point is that under those Acts small local authorities frequently do not maintain their own superannuation funds, but pay into a joint superannuation fund because they have not in their own service sufficient people to warrant their having a superannuation fund.
    Mr. Marlowe: The right hon. Gentleman is moving to insert paragraphs (f) and (g).
    Mr. Ede: Yes.
    Mr. Marlowe: There are already in the Bill, at lines 15 and 21, paragraphs (f) and (g). I do not see anything on the Order Paper with regard to those paragraphs. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what will happen to them, because it is not clear to me?
    Mr. Ede: In a case like this, we move to insert two new paragraph (f) and (g), and before the Bill is sent to another place someone—I do not know whether it is the Clerk at the Table, or somebody who is more capable of manipulating the alphabet than we are—changes the original paragraphs (f) and (g) to (h) and (i), or whatever they should be.
    Mr. Marlowe: I did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to move the deletion of the original paragraphs (f) and (g).
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: No. The purpose of this Amendment is to insert new paragraphs (f) and (g), and the original paragraphs will then become (h) and (i), I think; I am not certain. The Bill as it stands would not allow the payment of a transfer value in such cases, since the authority administering the fund would not be the authority employing the men. The Amendment is, accordingly, necessary to make these payments possible. Provision is also made, in the case where a person becomes a fireman with the same local authority, for the necessary payments to be transferred from the superannuation fund of the fire brigade to the fire brigade

    1387
    pension fund. He was in one pension fund before he goes to a new one, and if he is to get the benefit of his brigade service we must provide for the transfer of the value to him from the original fund to the fund to which he will contribute in future.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Bing: I beg to move, in page 24, line 39, at the end, to insert:
    "(i) for reckoning, for all or any of the purposes of the Scheme, the period of service of a person in the Armed Forces of the Crown, or in the Mercantile Marine, or the period of war-time service of a person on duties connected with the provision of fire services, as may be specified in the Scheme, as.if it were service as a member of a fire brigade maintained in pursuance of this Act for twice such period, or any less time than twice such period, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as may be so specified and either as respect the whole of the service so specified or as respects such fraction thereof as may be so specified."
    I ought to apologise to the Committee for having my Amendment in the wrong italicised alphabetical order, and for not having moved it in Committee. The object of the Amendment is to make it permissible for the Home Secretary to weight pension schemes in favour of those people who have done war service of some sort or another. First, a regular fireman who has served side by side with a man who has done war service gets no gratuity, while the man who has done war service and gets the same pay enjoys a war gratuity by an extra period being counted for pension., He is able in this way to get the gratuity. The second ground on which I urge this Amendment on my right hon. Friend is that, while it is not altogether possible to determine the degree of sickness occasioned by war service, if one looks at actual figures one sees there has been a considerable increase during the war years in the number of firemen who have had to leave the service owing to sickness during the war period, as compared with the period prior to the war. The rate of discharge during the war period and the post-war period has more than trebled. The rate of discharge with pension has increased from somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10 per cent. to somewhere in the neighbourhood of 33 per cent. I do not hold out this Amendment as the best solution of the matter, but in the hope that my right hon. Friend
    1388
    will be able to do something to meet the anomalies.
    Mr. Ede: This new proposal, as far as I know, is a complete innovation in the pension law and in the relationships between local authorities and their servants in the matter of war service. I cannot help thinking that if anything like this is to be done, it must be done as part of general legislation and not brought into a Measure of this kind. I am sure that if we bring it in here it will create far more anomalies than it will cure. I do not think that at this stage anyone could apply to these rates only, the doctrine that one year in the Forces has to count as two years in civilian life in reckoning service which qualifies a man for pension. If that is to be done, clearly it cannot be done for firemen only. I am sure it would be quite wrong for this Committee, on a Bill like this, to start a movement like that without having given the matter the very fullest consideration. I am sure the Committee will require a solution of that matter before such a principle is inserted. There are powers within the Pension Acts to deal with some of the cases, and I suggest to my hon. Friend that, having ventilated this matter on this Bill, he should, if he desires to see the principle applied, put it forward as a matter of general policy. If we were to insert this provision in the Bill for these particular people, we should create differences and difficulties that would not make the future working of the service any easier. It is not possible to accept this Amendment.
    Mr. Bing: T beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Bing: I beg to move, in page 25, line 4, to leave out "twenty-five," and to insert" fifteen."
    In view of the argument made on the last Amendment, I have much greater hope of succeeding with this one, for this, far from being a departure, is a return to precedent, and if my right hon. Friend is basing himself on precedent, then I have great hopes that he will support me in this Amendment. What I and my hon. Friends seek to do here is to restore to the fire services as a whole what I believe was a very satisfactory principle that was adopted in the London fire service before the war. The object is to

    1389
    make it possible for a man to be pensioned after a period of 15 years. The present pension scheme is devised on the analogy with the police force. Hon. Members will know that we could not be better served by the police than we are by those in the House, but we have only to look around to realise that, however suitable they are for the duties they are doing at present, they might be unsuitable for scaling a ladder during a fire. After a period of 15 years, individuals, by reason of corpulence, or for other reasons, cannot continue in the service of the fire brigade without danger to themselves, or even to their rescuers. I hope the Home Secretary will accept the plan in the Amendment, which was extremely successful in the London fire service, and make it possible to arrange for a man to retire after 15 years' service.
    Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend has not quite accurately stated the case. I understand that under the old London fire service a man had to be 47 years of age before he could claim to retire in the way that has been suggested, and that did not mean, if he came in at the latest possible age under the scheme, he would have had 16 years' service before he could do it. Here, again, I do not think one should contemplate asking the ratepayers of this country to agree to allow a man to retire without a medical certificate. I suggest that a man, if he is physically unfit—a corpulent man, for instance—should have to get a medical certificate to say so. Certainly, some of the fittest men I have known have been rather more corpulent than myself. The man has to get a medical certificate. I suggest to my hon. Friend that this Amendment goes a great deal farther than he would get any reasonable local authority in this country to go, and that it would be very ill-advised on the part of the Committee to insert such an Amendment. After all, the number of years' service that a man is now required to perform before he can retire on full pension is 30 years.
    I suggest that we should leave this figure as it is. If, in the course of years, experience proves that it works harshly, I have no doubt that local authorities and the representatives of the men will be able to make appropriate representations to get it altered. But I have no evidence in front of me that so drastic an Amendment as this is required.
    Mr. Henry Wallace: On the previous Amendment my right hon. Friend pointed out that if he accepted the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) he would be setting up a precedent for the whole of the Government service outside the fire service. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that there are many precedents which would support the reduction to this period of 15 years. I could give him precedent for 10 years.
    Mr. Ede: Without a medical certificate?
    Mr. Wallace: With a medical certificate.
    Mr. Ede: Yes, I agree, with a medical certificate.
    Mr. Wallace: My right hon. Friend accepts that?
    Mr. Ede: I want hon. Members in all parts of the Committee to understand what I have said. This Amendment is designed to give men the right to retire after 15 years without a medical certificate. If it were accepted it would give a man the right to say: "I have served in the fire service long enough. I want to leave, and I claim my pension. "I do not think there is any other service in which that happens, certainly under the Superannuation Acts. Of course, after 10 years a person can get a small allowance with a medical certificate, and the same thing can be done in local government service and in the police, but that is not the proposal in this Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Colonel Wheatley: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will remember that on a previous occasion I raised the question of firemen being allowed to retire at the age of 50. I wonder whether that is covered in Subsection (3, b). A man may not be medically unfit, but firemen have to climb over high buildings; it is very strenuous work, and when they reach the age of 50 they are not really capable of doing that sort of work. Would that type of case be covered under Subsection (3, b)?
    Mr. Ede: We cannot allow the man himself to say: "I no longer feel that I am fit to do this particular part of the

    1391
    job; therefore, I claim to draw my pension "—on a fund which is based on the idea that a man can only claim a pension before completing a certain number of years if he can get a medical certificate. If we give him the right to clear out earlier it would destroy the whole actuarial basis of the fund. If a fireman feels that he is ageing prematurely he must go to the medical officer and get the certificate which will support his application for a pension.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Enactments repealed.)
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 44, line 5, at the end, to insert:

  1 Edw. 8 & 1 Geo. 6. c. 68

  The Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937.

  In the First Schedule, in Part II, paragraph 2.

  1 Edw.8 & 1 Geo. 6. c. 69.

  The Local Government Superannuation (Scotland) Act, 1937.

  In the First Schedule, in Part II, paragraph 2.

  Clause 26 (2, a) makes it possible to exclude from a firemen's pension scheme certain classes of persons who, although members of fire brigades, will not be active fire fighters. The object of this Amendment is to ensure that the provision in the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, and the corresponding Scottish Act, which was directed at professional firemen, will not operate to exclude those persons from superannuation rights under those Acts. Professional firemen were excluded from the Local Government Superannuation Acts except for a handful of special cases. It is thought that the definition of "professional firemen "might unintentionally cover members of fire brigades excluded from the firemen's pension scheme and, therefore, deprive them of superannuation rights. We desire to avoid that.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: There is a later Amendment to exclude Scotland from the Bill, but I notice that part of this Amendment refers to Scotland. I take it that by accepting this Amendment we shall not be prejudicing our position so far as the main Amendment later is concerned. Perhaps that
  1392
  could be made clear. If that is so, I have nothing more to say. Otherwise, we might have to pursue the matter on this Amendment.
  The Deputy Chairman: That later Amendment will be called.
  Mr. Ede: I did make some remarks in Standing Committee about the desirability of Home Rule for England.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill reported, with Amendments.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-commital), considered.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Fire brigade committees in counties.)
  (1) Every fire authority (other than the London County Council) which is the council of a county shall constitute a fire brigade committee in accordance with the following provisions of this Section, and—

  (a) shall refer to the fire brigade committee for report and recommendation all matters relating to the authority's functions under this Act, except such matters as the authority may with the approval of the Secretary of State determine, and shall unless in their opinion the case is urgent receive and consider the report of the committee with respect to any matters referred to the committee before taking action in relation to those matters;

  (b) may delegate to the fire brigade committee, either with or without conditions or restrictions, any of the authority's functions under this Act other than powers of raising a rate or borrowing money.

  (2) Until the coming into force in accordance with the provisions of this Act of a scheme (hereafter in this Act referred to as a "management scheme") determining the constitution of a fire brigade committee under this Section, the constitution thereof shall be such as may be determined by the fire authority, and thereafter such as may be determined by such a scheme.
  (3) As soon as may be after the appointed day every such fire authority as aforesaid shall make a management scheme in accordance with the provisions in that behalf of the First Schedule to this Act.
  (4) A management scheme shall provide for the appointment to a fire brigade committee by the fire authority of such number of members of that authority as may be specified in the scheme, and for the appointment to the committee by or on behalf of councils of county districts comprised in the area of the fire authority of such less number of persons representing those councils as may be so specified.
  (5) A management scheme shall be submitted to the Secretary of State, and shall come into force when approved by him, either as submitted or subject to such modifications as he may direct.
  (6) A management scheme may be varied by a subsequent scheme made in the like manner and subject to the like provisions as the scheme varied.
  (7) If as respects the area of any fire authority such as is mentioned in Subsection (1) of this Section—

  (a) before the expiration of three months from the appointed day, or such later date as the Secretary of State may in special circumstances allow, no management scheme has been submitted to the Secretary of State, or

  (b) at any time it appears to the Secretary of State, whether on the representations of the council of any county district comprised in the area of the fire authority or otherwise, that the management scheme in force is not satisfactory,

  the Secretary of State may, after affording to the fire authority and to every such council as aforesaid an opportunity of making representations to him, make a scheme.
  (8) The provisions of Subsections (4), (6) and (7) of this Section shall apply to a scheme made under the said Subsection (7) as if it were a management scheme submitted to and approved by the Secretary of State.
  (9) The foregoing provisions of this Section shall, subject to the provisions of the Second Schedule to this Act, apply to a fire authority—

  (a) which is constituted by a combination scheme,

  (b) the area of which includes one or more counties, other than the County of London, as they apply to such authorities as are mentioned in Subsection (1) of this Section.—[Mr. Ede.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will know that we gave a considerable amount of time in the early discussion to the problems that would arise in local government when this Bill became law. That was a reflex of what happened in the House on Second Reading, when there were two main objections to this Bill. The first objection was the local authority set-up; and the second, the question of the size of the grant. We were unable to pursue the question of the grant in Standing Committee, so that we were able to concentrate with a single mind on the problem of local government. In the Second Reading Debate I said that there was one thing I would not do, namely, to agree to the appointment by district councils of members of the committee of the county councils. Now, that chance remark of mine caused the most tremendous enthusiasm to be aroused among county district councils for exactly
  1394
  that solution to the problem. That enthusiasm became so great that it was obvious that I was going to give the greatest pleasure to the greatest number by retracting from the position that I adopted in the House; and I decided, in these sad times, that it was as well to make somebody happy if one could. This new Clause does what, I frankly confess, I said I would not do on Second Reading.
  At the third sitting of the Standing Committee the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) moved an Amendment—on which we had a long and good-tempered discussion—proposing to give power to county councils to delegate their functions to county district councils. That Amendment was defeated, after a long and friendly discussion, by 25 votes to 13. In that Debate I indicated my intention to seek a solution of the problem in the following two directions: By giving the county districts an appropriate representation on county fire brigade committees; and by giving the county districts an opportunity of making representations on schemes proposed by county councils for the establishment of fire brigades. Subsequently I held a conference with representatives of the County Councils' Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the Urban District Councils Association and the Rural District Councils Association, at which almost complete agreement was reached on the details of a plan on the above lines. As far as the second part was concerned, I was able to make the necessary Amendments upstairs, because we had not reached that part of the Bill when my decision was made. Clause 20 and the First and Second Schedules show
  how that has been carried out. I could not deal upstairs with the representation of county districts on county fire brigade committees, because an involved Amendment to Clause 4 could not be moved in view of the stage we had reached. I propose to put that matter right in this new Clause.
  The substance of the new Clause is contained in Subsections (4) and (5). They provide that county councils shall submit for approval by the Secretary of State schemes to secure representation of district councils on the county fire brigade committees, subject to the county councils retaining the majority of members on

  1395
  the committees. County councils dissent from two points in this matter. In the first place, they think that the representatives of the district councils should be nominated but not appointed. My own view is that a county district council is a responsible body, and one must expect it, when it chooses people to serve on a county committee, to choose a fit and proper person. I do not think it should be left to the county council to have the right to say that they do not like one of the nominees, and decline to have him in the county hall on one of their committees. I do not think they should have the right to say, "Will you please think again and send us along another nominee." I am bound to say that the power to reject a nomination would hardly ever be used, but the county district councils set considerable store on the power of appointing, and as their nominees would undoubtedly be appointed, it would be very foolish to quarrel over words when we have got so near to agreement.
  Their second objection was that they thought that county councils should have a two-thirds majority on the committee. I want to make it clear that the Bill does not require that the difference between the number of members appointed by the county councils and the number appointed by the district councils shall be a difference of only one. There will be some counties where there are substantial numbers of important county district councils, in which case it may be desirable that the proportion shall be very high. There may be other counties where the number of county district councils is small, and it may well be that the proportion representing district councils will be low. As we found on one of the first Amendments we discussed today, it is very difficult to lay down a hard and fast rule, when dealing with the structure of local government, in a country where the population is so unevenly spread, and the size and importance of local government authorities are so different. I told the conference, therefore, that I proposed to give to county district councils the power to appoint, and that the maximum number of members to be appointed under any scheme would be one fewer than half the whole of the committee.
  It will be for each county to prepare its own scheme in the matter. I can
  1396
  imagine this kind of thing happening, although this is not to be taken as a uniform pattern. There will be some large and important district councils, entitled to have at least one direct representative on the Committee; there will be smaller county district councils which will have to be grouped into "electoral colleges," for want of a better word, having the right to choose two, three or four members to represent them on the county committee. A scheme will have to be considered by each county council in the light of the circumstances in their area. I have no doubt that with the good will which prevailed at the conference, these schemes can be brought into operation without very much difficulty.
  There are a few other matters on this new Clause to which I ought to draw attention. The provision for the appointment of district council representatives on county fire brigade committees is not to come into operation until after the appointed day. The procedure required by Clause 20 for the settlement of establishment schemes leaves little margin of time, if the work is to be done before 1st April, 1948. The following steps will have to be taken before establishment schemes can be settled. Firstly, the county council will have to appoint a fire brigade committee and instruct it to provide an establishment scheme. Second, that Committee will have to circulate a draft scheme to all the district councils, giving them one month in which to submit their representations. Third, the fire brigade committee will have to consider any representations received from district councils, and then submit them, with final recommendations, to the county council. The county council will have to obtain a report from its finance committee, because a county council cannot incur expenditure of more than £50 unless the finance committee submits the estimate. Lastly, the county council will have to submit the scheme to the Secretary of State for approval by 1st January, 1948. The establishment schemes can come into operation on 1st, April, which I hope will be the appointed day. It is quite clear that if that programme is carried out, it will not be possible to constitute the fire brigade committees contemplated under this Clause.
  Mr. Grimston: It will be necessary for the county councils to constitute fire brigade committees at once to get on with

  1397
  the job. Will they include members of the county district councils?
  Mr. Ede: I have tried to explain that. I think we can assume that this Bill will become law before 1st August. I need not say anything about the Government's legislative programme, but we hope that this Bill will cause no controversy after it has been considered today. I think that that is a reasonable assumption. If these establishment schemes are to be got through, and the negotiations satisfactorily conducted, I am sure that it would not be possible to wait until the appointment of district council representatives on the committees had time to operate. August and the early part of September is not a very busy period usually in 'local government circles. The provisions as to fire brigade committees will apply also in the case of any combined area which includes the administrative county, and an Amendment which I shall propose, in page 40, line 41, will enable the necessary provisions to be made before the appointed day by way of amendment to a combination scheme after the appointed day.
  6.0 p.m.
  I would direct the attention of the House to the provision of Subsection (7), which allows direct action to be taken by the Secretary of State, although I think it improbable that any necessity will arise for the exercise of these powers. When the Bill was before us on Second Reading the problem of the future local government of the fire services appeared likely to cause great controversy, and very considerable heartburning, no matter what solution might ultimately be found. I have been much impressed by the cordial spirit in which the county representatives and county district representatives have approached this matter, and I commend this Clause to the House in the full knowledge that all the associations concerned are hoping to work it to their mutual advantage, for the benefit of the service and the community which the service exists to serve.
  Mr. Grimston: As the right hon. Gentleman has said, there were two main points of controversy when the Bill was introduced, and he has exhibited strength in respect of both of them. He tied the Financial Resolution up so tightly that there was no more to be said about that, and on the question of delegation and
  1398
  bringing in the county district councils he has changed his mind. This Clause is part of the general framework, the other part of which was introduced in Committee, whereby county district councils are brought into the making of the schemes and the administration of them afterwards. In his discussions with representatives of the various local authorities, the right hon. Gentleman arrived at a scheme which met the objections which we and they had when the Bill was introduced. It was feared that many local authorities who had run their fire services well in the past would not get them back at all, and that a great deal of prestige, local pride, and efficiency would be lost in this new setup. Through the introduction of a new Clause and Schedule in Committee, and the introduction of this new Clause now, that position has been covered. The associations of local government bodies are, I think, agreeable to the set-up of the Bill, and I would like to express our appreciation of the way in which the Home Secretary has handled this matter.
  Mr. Maclay: I hate to raise a point which might not be so friendly and delightful as what we have just heard, but I would like to know whether this Clause is to apply to Scotland? I do not think it will, but I cannot find, anywhere on the Order Paper, a consequential Amendment which would mean that it would not apply to Scotland.
  Mr. McLean Watson: I wish to raise the same point. My right hon. Friend will remember that several times in Committee I drew attention to the difference between the local government system in Scotland and that in England. While the district councils in England seem to be bodies of some consequence, they are bodies of no consequence in Scotland. I hope it will be made clear, before we part with this Clause, whether it applies to Scotland. I cannot think that it does. The Home Secretary has moved a new Clause to meet representations which were made to him about English conditions, but the provisions laid down in the Clause do not fit in with Scottish conditions.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): Perhaps I may intervene to clear up this point. We have

  1399
  an Amendment down, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, in page 37, line 34, at the end, to insert:
  "(c) section (Fire brigade committees in counties),"
  which, if carried, will mean that the new Clause will not apply to Scotland.
  Mr. Maclay: That Amendment is such a long way after the new Clause that I could not find it.
  Mr. S. Marshall: I would like to add my congratulations to the Minister. As one who is still engaged in county and local government, I would point out that I was concerned, when the Bill was first introduced, at the entire absence of any power of delegation to the county district authorities. I am a great believer in the delegation of powers by a county council to its district authorities, wherever it can, but I could not see how such powers might be delegated, because it became obvious that effective fire services could only be carried out by a central authority. I am, therefore, glad that a way has been found by which district authorities will have some representation, or some say, in the question of carrying on the fire services in their counties. For many years, it has been one of the great privileges of parish, district, and borough councils to give a great deal of attention to their fire brigades and fire services. This work has formed a very large and interesting part of local government. There was dismay at the thought that these authorities might lose all their privileges, and the solution which the Minister has found will be gratifying to them, because they will still have a finger in the pie.
  Mr. Sparks: I am glad that my right hon. Friend has been able to retract somewhat from his previous position on this question of bringing county district councils into the scheme of responsibility for the fire brigade services. I think that in putting down this new Clause he has acted very wisely. I need not remind the House that it is the local ratepayers Who will have to provide the finance for the county councils in the administration of their fire brigade services. I believe that they have an important part to play in the development of those services in their own localities, as well as in the larger geographical area of the county. Having
  1400
  gone so far, will he go a step further? As I understand the Clause, the idea is to set up a fire brigade committee which will be responsible for the administration of the fire services for the whole of a county area. My right hon. Friend said that in deciding upon the representation upon that Committee of the county district councils it would not be possible owing to the differing nature of those councils to provide a representative from each county district, and some of the county districts would have to be brought together for the purpose of electing one—
  Mr. Ede: Or more.
  Mr. Sparks: —to the county fire brigade committee. Is it possible for the county fire brigade committee to have powers to delegate certain functions of a local character to sub-committees formed on a geographical area basis? In some cases the county is a very large geographical unit, and this would involve a considerable amount of time in travelling for county district representatives. In the Town and Country Planning Bill that principle has been embodied, and I think that it would be conducive to the maximum of interest and efficiency if in cases where the county was a large geographical area there could be sub-committees of the county fire brigade committee to which each county district within that area could send one representative, each of these geographical sub-committees being responsible to the county fire brigade committee.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will find it possible to look at that point. I think that we should try to bring the county district councils, however small, into this general scheme. There is a tendency to get away from close contact with a locality and the local ratepayers of that locality. We need to knit the county district councils into the functions not only of the fire brigade service, and I think that this will help to bring the county and district councils together and provide maximum efficiency in the organisations which we propose to set up to provide fire fighting services.
  Mr. D. Jones: I think that it is only right that as one of the people who offered some criticism of this Bill on Second Reading, I should join in congratulating my right hon. Friend on having devised

  1401
  this method The Home Secretary can be trusted at all times to find an ingenious way of changing his mind. After all, it is the Home Secretary's job to make the maximum number of people happy. By this Clause the county district councils are enabled to take part in the administration of the fire brigade affairs of a county, and for that, I believe, they will be grateful. The scheme which the Home Secretary has propounded is certainly an improvement on a former scheme with which he was actively associated. He has learned by experience from a previous Act of Parliament. Unfortunately, there are county councils and county councils in England and Wales. Consequently the view expressed by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall) does not find expression in a large number of counties in England and Wares. I agree with the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) that the fire brigade affairs are, after all, domestic affairs. They are matters which concern the people of the district, and the more interest one can engender into the management of fire brigade affairs the greater will be the efficiency of the fire brigade as a whole.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Pargiter: An important part of the new Clause which will be most satisfactory to local authorities is, I think, the very definite right which it gives them to make representation to the Home Secretary with regard to the preparation of the scheme. I do not envisage very much trouble, after the experience I have had of fire brigade authorities, in dealing with matters of administration. The question of dealing with fires is technically one for the officers and men concerned, and it is the duty of the authority to see that they are properly trained for that purpose. There is one question, however, on which I think there will be some heart burning. It is important that the county districts should be able to make representations to the Home Secretary because many of them will be losing their fire stations as the result of the new set-up. In the interests of economy and in view of the present type of fire appliances for which the ratepayers have to pay, it is highly important that they should have the most effective economic system of fire fighting consistent with safety. For that reason, I think it is very wise, in view of the "little breezes" which I am sure will
  1402
  come along when the proposals of the fire brigade authorities are submitted to the Home Secretary, that there should be an outlet on the part of the county districts, and if the fire authority has erred in any way against the interests of any county district, they should be able to make the appropriate and necessary amendments to the scheme as submitted.
  With regard to the question of representation by local authorities, it is obvious that there would have to be some grouping. In a county like mine with 26 local authorities, if there was one representative of each, the fire brigade committee would consist of 52 members which, of course, would be unwieldy and quite unnecessary. In addition, if that was conceded one could imagine some of the larger boroughs saying that if a smaller district was to have one representative, they should have two, and there would be no limit to the size of the committee. I do not consider that in any of the built-up areas, at any rate, a case could be made out for area committees for the purpose of administration. It is a single job, and if you take the experience of London as a built-up area, there has not been found any need at all, in what was probably the most efficient fire brigade in the world, to have anything other than a central committee for the purposes of management.
  Therefore, I feel that this Clause goes as far as may reasonably be expected in order to meet the two opposing points of view. We ought to remember that had it not been for the promise that was made that fire brigades would go back to the local authorities, it is doubtful whether we should have had this Bill before us at all. It may be taken that a lot of people have their minds made up about the type of organisation for fire fighting services, and it is because of that promise, and because of the need for compromise, that we have the Bill and also the provision for the additional representation under this Clause, which I am satisfied will meet all reasonable points of view.
  Major Legge-Bourke: I was not a Member of the Committee on this Bill and I do not, therefore, know whether the point I want to raise has been covered. I am afraid I missed the opening remarks of the Home Secretary when he was moving this new Clause,

  1403
  but there is one point on which I am in some confusion. The right hon. Gentleman will see that in this new Clause there is a mention of a "management scheme," and a "management scheme" is referred to the whole way through. In Subsection (3) we are referred to the First Schedule, which I understand refers to an "establishment scheme" with reference to Clause 20, where again the phrase "establishment scheme" is used. I wondered whether the differentiation between the two phrases was deliberate, or whether they should not be the same?
  Mr. Richards: The introduction of this Clause has given universal satisfaction to the people who have been discussing the matter upstairs, but there is one point I should like to have cleared up. The Home Secretary has recognised the claims of the county district authorities to be represented along with the county councils on the fire brigade committee, which I think is all to the good. I had in mind, however, a very large rural district, and a very populous one, at the centre of which is a large borough where, in former days, they had a very efficient fire brigade. Is there to be any representation for a borough of that kind on the fire brigade committee? Hitherto the borough provided fire services for the whole of this rural area, which is now to be represented, along with the county, in the new set-up, and they want to know if they are to be represented in any way.
  Mr. Ede: I should like to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for the way in which they have received this new Clause, and to express my thanks also to the representatives of the local authorities for the way in which, when they realised that this Bill was really to be promoted and was to go through, they got together and reached a mutually satisfactory solution. There are really only two points with which I need deal now, the first being that made by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). If he will look at the Amendment Paper he will see at the foot of page 3728 some Amendments to page 40 to insert the words "and management schemes." That I think answers the point he raised.
  With regard to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr.
  1404
  Richards), in future, in the county of which he represents a part, the fire authority will be the county council, which will be responsible for the whole of the county. This new Clause provides that when they are constituting their final fire brigade committee they shall have regard to the various county district councils and arrange for them to be represented on the fire brigade committee, and I have no doubt that the part which gives its name to his constituency, representing, as of course it does, a substantial slice of the population and rateable value of the county, will get appropriate representation. The knowledge that their members can bring with regard to the way to deal with the surrounding rural area, which they had previously covered by arrangement with the rural districts or parish councils, will be brought to the county committee and placed at the disposal of that committee, which will in future be responsible for providing fire protection for Wrexham and for the parishes adjoining it, as well as for all the other parishes situated in the administrative county. The arrangement which the local authorities have finally accepted provides for bringing to the county fire brigade committee the very great experience of the men who have served on a borough fire committee which has undertaken the duty of affording protection to the surrounding areas.
  Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

  CLAUSE 1.—(Provision of fire services.)
  Mr. Maclay: I beg to move, in page line 6, to leave out "Great Britain," and to insert "England and Wales."
  There are three other Amendments on the Order Paper in my name and in the names of other hon. Members—in page 32, line 7; in page 38, line 32, and in page 42, line 16, all of which are linked together, and I would like to deal with all of them in my speech. The effect of the Amendment I have moved would be to make this Bill apply only to England and Wales, and leave the way clear—and I say this deliberately—for a separate Bill for Scotland. I do not necessarily imply that Scotland should go back to the status quo, or should go on as they are now, but the case I want to make is

  1405
  that there is a real need for a separate Bill for Scotland on this occasion.
  Legislation for Scotland by means of a Scottish application Clause is very often justifiable. It may be justifiable on grounds of urgency, or because all that is necessary is to make the Bill applicable to Scotland in accordance with Scottish law, or perhaps to adapt it in points of minor detail to the peculiar circumstances of Scotland. A Scottish application Clause cannot, however, be suitable when it contains a very different principle from that which is embodied in the English Clauses, and that I submit is the case in this Bill. I should like to make that clear to hon. Members, because I think that not only my Scottish colleagues on both sides of the House, but even English Members as well will be interested in this matter, and I hope they will all support what we are doing when they see what has happened owing to this peculiar method of legislating for Scotland.
  Clause 5 of the Bill makes provision for the making of schemes of combination by fire authorities, and Clause 6 gives the Home Secretary power to make schemes where he considers it expedient and if the local authorities have not produced a satisfactory scheme, or any scheme at all. Even that power of the Home Secretary is subject to a numerical qualification which I will not go into—it is all in the Bill—and still further it is subject to a public local inquiry if there is objection. That is all very reasonably democratic. The principles in these clauses have been dealt with with considerable unanimity on all sides of the House and with the local authorities concerned, but these Clauses do not apply to Scotland. In Scotland the areas are laid down by Clause 36 and by the Fourth Schedule to the Bill, and there is no conceivable right' of public inquiry or anything of that sort. That is the fundamental difference between the English and the Scottish parts of the Bill, which makes the whole thing unsuitable for application to Scotland by means of the application Clause.
  6.30 p.m.
  During the Committee stage, owing to the work that was going on in the House and owing to the fact that only a small number of Scottish Members could be appointed to the Standing Committee, this Scottish application Clause could not be gone into in great detail. It is a difficult
  1406
  thing to do when one has cross-references back to English Clauses, and where there is inadequate representation, not in quality, but in numbers, on the Standing Committee. The issue in this case is one of self-determination. England has been granted self-determination in this matter to a large extent. Self-determination is a principle we all subscribe to, although we may except reluctantly certain people who may not be sufficiently mature politically for the right of self-determination. I would not like to hear either the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Joint Under-Secretary of State argue for one minute that the people of Scotland are politically less mature than the people of England. I really think it is more than a little hard that Scots should be denied in this matter the right of self-determination, which is granted to their cousins across the Border. I hope the Secretary of State will deal clearly with that matter.
  I want now to come to another point which it is very important we should get clear. Clauses 19 and 20 apply to Scotland, but we can follow what has happened in relation to these two Clauses in recent months so that hon. Members will 'see why we in Scotland are disturbed about this matter. Clause 19 is concerned with the procedure and qualifications for appointments and promotions, and is linked up with the appointments of fire masters or whatever they may be called. The Clause applies to Scotland. This point was discussed in Standing Committee upstairs, but I should like briefly to refer to it because it relates to my next point. We find, as was pointed out in Standing Committee, that in spite of this Clause being applicable to Scotland, which would imply that areas in Scotland have the right to choose their own fire masters, something happened in Scotland to suggest that these men had been appointed by the Secretary of State under the title of "firemasters designate." I see that that was ingeniously and properly answered by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in the Standing Committee upstairs when he said:
  "The fire authorities in the future will be empowered to make their own appointments subject to certain procedure."
  He then went on to say, further down the column:
  "I repeat, therefore, what the Secretary of State has done in Scotland today, he was

  1407
  perfectly free to do with the National Fire Service and no one has said that he is not free to do that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 13th May, 1947; C. 266.]
  In other words, the point made by the Joint Under-Secretary of State was that these firemasters designate were appointed in relation to the continuing National Fire Service in the interim period, and were not necessarily applicable to the new scheme when this Bill goes through. That is a good enough point, but one wonders whether it is not a case where the performance of the hon. Gentleman was slightly in advance of his desires. When we come to Clause 20, it becomes more interesting, because Clause 20 deals with fire brigade establishments to be determined in accordance with approved schemes. During the Committee stage the Home Secretary withdrew the original Clause 20 and substituted the present Clause 20, which seems to give the right to areas to make their own establishment schemes and submit them to the Secretary of State. What has happened in this respect in Scotland? I am afraid that this was something which was not mentioned upstairs, but it relates to my argument. So far back as 15th February, a letter was sent by the Scottish Home Department to a town clerk of a town in the East of Scotland, from which I would like to quote the following paragraph:
  "I am directed by the Secretary of State to refer to previous correspondence about the proposed transfer of the fire service to local authority control…"—
  those are the operative words, "local authority control"—
  "and to say, for the information of your town council, that, after careful consideration of the fire risks to be covered in the proposed Angus (No. 9) Fire Area in the light of the best technical advice available regarding the appropriate standards of fire cover and of the actual experience of the National Fire Service, it appears to him that the following disposition of men and appliances would be appropriate for the peacetime requirements:"
  Then follows a complete list of establishment, including firemen, leading firemen, section leaders and company officers, etc. I would be glad to show this letter to the Under-Secretary of State if he desires to see it. Then I turn over the page and I find this,
  "In order that the recruitment of suitable permanent firemen up to the approved establishments may be completed, the Secretary of State will be glad to receive as soon as possible any observations which your council
  1408
  may wish to offer on the proposed disposition of whole-time men in the area."
  That is all very handsome, but it is not Clause 20 of this Bill. The point there is that we know that Clause 36 is in the Bill and we know that Clauses 19 and 20 apply to Scotland. However, something has already happened, and it looks as if the whole issue has been prejudged, and I submit that under both Clause 19 and Clause 20 the same thing has happened. One might say that we are always pressing the Scottish Office to get on with the job and not waste time. On this occasion they have certainly got on with the job four months in advance of the Bill. While possibly commendable in certain conditions, I do not think it makes good sense here. What I want to make clear, before I come to my main point, is that with these things happening one can understand that the local authorities in Scotland are thoroughly upset, unlike their English counterparts, who seem to be content. The Scottish local authorities do not know whether the fire masters are appointed by the Secretary of State, and they do not know whether the establishment scheme laid down in February of this year, or suggested by the Department, is going to be maintained. One can hardly blame them for being upset, nor will the Secretary of State be surprised that the council of an ancient burgh long famed for its interest in freedom should have broken off diplomatic relations on this subject. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take a lesson from the Foreign Secretary in his own Government and will continue to hold out olive branches to try to establish even distant relations through emissaries if he cannot get diplomatic relations in full restored.
  I come to the final and main point. Here we have a Bill dealing with local authorities who have up to now handled the fire problems of the country. Surely, it is essential, if we are going to get a workable Bill, to take the local authorities reasonably along with us. It is not good enough to say, "We can never get agreement with them and we must impose something on them." That appeared to be the position in England and Wales where it also looked as if no solution would be found. However, it seems now that a solution was forthcoming. It is essential that the Scottish application Clause should be deleted from the Bill, and that the Secretary of State should

  1409
  present to this House a separate Bill for Scotland. In the interval before doing so, he should get the opinion again of the local authorities and work out some workable proposition acceptable to them.
  There are two bodies which represent the local authorities of Scotland. One is the Convention of Royal Burghs and the other the Association of County Councils. Between them they represent nearly all the county councils and local authorities in Scotland. Both have placed it flatly on record that they do not like this Bill. I quoted at some length upstairs a statement by the Convention of Royal Burghs. I do not propose to repeat it here, but since that date there has been a further statement by the Association of County Councils of Scotland, dated 20th May. In this statement they say flatly that that association also has reached the conclusion by a large majority that "rather than accept the provisions of the Bill" —in other words, they turn the Bill down altogether. They then go on to make a proposal which would not necessarily be harmonious with that of the Convention of Royal Burghs, because the Association of County Councils say that they prefer that the service should be maintained on a national basis.
  All I am asking is that the Scottish Clauses should be taken clean out of the Bill, which should be made applicable to England and Wales only, and that the Secretary of State should make a new attempt to come to some sensible working arrangement with the local authorities in Scotland. If he does not do this, he is really overriding the wishes of the elected representatives of the people, because the local authorities are the bodies appointed by the electors to deal with fire matters. I think that that is a correct statement from the technical and constitutional position, and here we have the Government ridingroughshod over the elected representatives of the people, and I cannot believe that the Secretary of State will wish to go down into history with that kind of reputation.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I beg to second the Amendment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) has put his case so clearly that it will require very few words of mine to support it. I think
  1410
  and hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will realise the depth of feeling that exists on this subject among local authorities of Scotland, both burghs and counties. I want to make it perfectly clear that I and my hon. Friends on this side of the House do not oppose the principle of the Bill, but we certainly wish to have the matter of Scottish application reconsidered and a Bill introduced separately for Scotland. I ventured to say on Second Reading that this was a perfect example of the mixing up of legislation for Scotland and England which could only end in trouble. There is row the state of trouble which one foresaw at that time.
  The fact that both the local authority organisations in Scotland object strongly should be sufficient evidence that all is not well, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will give this point real consideration. I hope he will agree that the Bill should be withdrawn so far as it concerns Scotland and quickly reorganised into a new Bill which will be produced as a brand new Measure. We cannot afford to ignore the local authorities in matters like this because it is they who have to run the show, and those who run the show should, after all, have the greatest possible consideration. I for one am not at all satisfied that there was proper or, certainly, sufficient consultation with the local authorities before the areas specified in Schedule 4 were decided upon. I realised that there was consultation with what I believe is called the Fire Council, but that was not from the fire fighting point of view and did not, I suggest, really give full voice to the local authorities as a whole.
  We have listened this afternoon to what I may term pæans of praise from English Members to the British Home Secretary. What were they praising? They were praising the Home Secretary for giving to England the very thing which the Secretary of State for Scotland denies us in Scotland, and I think, having heard that, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State should realise how pleased the English Members are that the Home Secretary should have done this and how pleased we should be if the Secretary of State had the same consideration for Scotland. I support this Amendment very

  1411
  sincerely because I believe that it is essential if the administration in Scotland is to be efficient and the local authorities are to have proper recognition as the authorities who have to do the job. I hope that the smile on the face of the Secretary of State indicates that he will be as kind as the Home Secretary has been to the English hon. Members, and I have great pleasure in supporting my hon. Friend's Amendment.
  Mr. Niall Macpherson: I should like to support the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends. On the Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State justified the inclusion of Scotland in this Bill on the grounds that there was no vital departure on the matter of principle. I submit that my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) has already shown that there has been a vital departure. After all, the English system lays down the means for voluntary combination between local fire authorities and goes on to establish a method of compulsory combination by the Home Secretary on three conditions. The first case in which this compulsory combination can take place is after a local inquiry has been held; the second after the matter has been laid before the House; and the third where at least one of the bodies which it is proposed to combine does not represent a population of more than 100,000.
  6.45 p.m.
  The difference between that and the application to Scotland is enormous, because for Scotland the groups have already been decided. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman who is to reply will tell us that this was done only after full consultation. No one will deny that there was consultation, and I know that the Joint Under-Secretary was at pains to have consultation. What happened in fact, however, was that he laid his idea before the bodies concerned, and although they did not express any violent opposition at the time, on second thoughts—without any propaganda or any violent campaign—both the convention of Royal Burghs and the Association of County Councils have seen fit to place on record the fact that they are opposed to this Bill. The Joint Under-Secretary may say, "Well, if this is the view which is taken, it was always open to you to
  1412
  amend the Schedules. If the form of administration that is proposed for Scotland is not in accordance with the wishes of Scotland it would have been possible to put down Amendments to the Schedules." That is not the point. The point is that this has been imposed upon the local authorities. As my hon. Friend has already stated, in actual fact it would have been extremely difficult to carry any kind of Amendment or to examine in detail in the Committee upstairs or, indeed, here in the House, the form of administration that is proposed in the Fourth Schedule or to make any suggestions which would have enabled hon. Members on either side to debate the matter as intelligently as would have been possible if there had been a local inquiry and a scheme had been specifically laid before the House.
  The next thing we shall be told is what will be the effect if this Amendment is carried. Quite obviously the effect is that, for the time being at any rate, the National Fire Service remains in operation in Scotland. What is wrong with that? It simply becomes the Scottish National Fire Service, and it can operate until some new Bill is brought in to produce an answer more in keeping with the wishes of the people of Scotland if the people of Scotland decide that they do not wish the National Fire Service to operate under the control of the county councils. During the Committee stage upstairs the Joint Under-Secretary said this:
  "It will be found that the rateable value in the areas of the joint committees in Scotland bears a comparison with the rateable value of the bigger county councils in England and Wales, and, indeed, with some of the bigger burghs that are to be fire authorities in their own right."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 20th day, 1947. c. 334–5.]
  That is true, but the rest of his case was based upon the fact that the areas to be covered in proportion to the population and rateable value are so very much greater. Therefore, what is really being done is to impose on Scotland. perhaps through geographical necessity, a very much larger fire cover for a very much smaller population.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland said in the Second Reading Debate:
  "It is remarkable, and a great credit to the local authorities concerned, that upon this unsatisfactory basis"—

  1413
  which was the rateable value—
  "so adequate an auxiliary service was built up before and immediately after the outbreak of war."
  He went on:
  "But wartime experience showed clearly that in Scotland, as in England and in Wales, a broader-based organisation was essential …"[OFFICIAL REPORT. 27th March, 1947; Vol. 435, c. 1492.]
  "Wartime experience." Therefore, if it was to meet normal peacetime requirements it should be a burden on the national authorities and not local authorities. In other words, quite definitely a different scheme is required for Scotland. In fact, a different scheme for Scotland is contained in the Bill. I, therefore, very strongly support the suggestion that there should be a separate Bill for Scotland. This is one of the cases in which a separate Bill for Scotland ought to be produced. Scotland should not be treated as it is in this Bill where a separate scheme is provided in a Measure also dealing with England and Wales.
  Mr. Watson: I served on the Standing Committee which considered this Bill. As has already been said, while we had assurances from the Home Secretary that he was on terms of cordial relations with the representatives of the English local authorities and that there had been adequate discussions and also agreements, we could get no assurances that such a situation existed in regard to Scotland. I am not going to say at this stage that I am prepared to support the Amendment, but, at the same time, I have to confess that this Measure is a most unsatisfactory one for Scotland. I read the Hill when it came out first, and when we discussed it in Committee I found the greatest difficulty in applying the Clauses to the conditions in Scotland. It was not until the Chairman reminded me that the Clauses did not apply to Scotland at all that I was relieved of trying to fit in the proposed arrangements with our Scottish conditions. That is not a satisfactory way of dealing with the situation in Scotland.
  The Bill tells us that the Secretary of State will consult the Scottish local fire authorities with regard to the appointment of the fire officers. That is all very well, but I drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that without the Bill being an Act of Parliament, without any consultations with the fire authorities, which
  1414
  cannot take place until this Bill becomes an Act, the Secretary of State had appointed his firemasters. He had divided Scotland into areas and appointed fire-masters to each of those areas. It is all very well to say that these men have no prescriptive right to the offices they hold after this becomes an Act of Parliament. but if the Secretary of State considered that in his judgment the men he has appointed were the best men for these offices, he will have some difficulty in explaining why he can pass them over when the time comes for him to make these "firemasters designate," as they are at present called, into firemasters. That matter gives me some little concern. It is the most unsatisfactory Measure applying to the whole of the United Kingdom that I have yet seen.
  In the last Clause on which the Home Secretary spoke we find a considerable amount of reference to local government conditions in England. Those conditions do not apply to Scotland. Our Scottish conditions are entirely different. I am certain that a much better scheme could have been devised and that we could have had a Bill applying only to Scotland. There is so much in this Bill which describes English conditions—English county councils, English non-county boroughs and so on. What do we in Scotland know about non-county boroughs? What do we in Scotland know about county boroughs? We have large burghs and we have small burghs. It is true that we have district councils, such as they are, with practically no powers, looking after such things as rights of way and doing odd jobs about the parish. The district councils in Scotland are bodies of practically no consequence. Yet in the last Clause passed by this House, we have the district councils in England, bodies of some consequence, given representation on the fire authorities to be set up under the English scheme. The conditions in Scotland are entirely different, and it would have been very much better to have in another Measure a description of Scottish local government conditions comparable with the description of English local government conditions in this Bill.
  I do not want to detain the House, because the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr Maclay) has gone fully into-the matter. The only other thing I want to say is that whereas 75 per cent. of the

  1415
  cost of running this scheme has to be borne by the local ratepayers, the control will remain pretty much in the hands of the central body. I do not mind the central body having a say in the running of such a scheme, but when 75 per cent. of the cost of running it has to be borne by the local authorities, I think they are entitled to a great deal more say in it than they have under this Measure. With regard to training, not only has the central authority the power of setting the standard of the scheme, 75 per cent. of which has to be borne by the local ratepayers, but the local authority will have to come up to that standard before getting the 25 per cent. promised under the scheme. As far as Scotland is concerned, this is a most unsatisfactory Measure, and while we have gone too far now with it to have any hope of getting a separate Bill for Scotland, the Measure is certainly not the sort of Measure that we ought to have had to deal with the situation in Scotland.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. McKie: I rise to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay). I am bound to say, in passing, that while I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Watson), I was discouraged to hear him say that, although he approved of the Amendment, he thought it was now too late to give it his support in the Division Lobby. I am particularly disappointed because he is an expert on local government matters in Scotland. He has served for a long time on a local body and anything he says by way of criticism must be taken seriously to heart by hon. Members on both sides of the House. In view of what' the hon. Member said about the inadvisability of including Scotland in this Bill, I should have thought that he could have taken the bold course, if there is to be a Division, and have given us his support in the Division Lobby. Thereby he would have interpreted the wishes of the large majority of people in Scotland, and particularly of the hon. Gentleman's own constituents, in the way that we on this side of the House believe that those wishes could best be interpreted, namely, by supporting this Amendment in the Division Lobby, if the Secretary of State for Scotland is not prepared to accept it.
  1416
  I hope he will be with us, but I have no great faith that he will go into the Lobby.
  After listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs and to the pleas from this side of the House, hope the right hon. Gentleman will be more seized than he has been up to the present of the strong feeling engendered, and still felt, in all parts of Scotland about being included in this Bill with England and Wales. Particularly has the feeling run high, because it is undoubtedly true that the right of self-determination, as the application Clause and the Fourth Schedule stand, is being denied to the people of Scotland and not to the people of England and Wales. It is hardly necessary to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, with your great knowledge of Scotland, that the principle of self-determination has been strongly cherished there, and I am indeed surprised that the present political representatives of the Scottish Socialists, who claim to be good democrats, should sponsor a Measure—that is, if they deny us the acceptance of this Amendment—which seeks to deprive the people of Scotland of something in the way of self-determination which the Home Secretary and his English colleagues are prepared to give to England and Wales. All the great bodies, burghs, and county local authorities, in Scotland have declared against the inclusion of Scotland in this Bill. Only four weeks ago I was addressing a meeting in an important centre in the part of Scotland the representation of which I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Macpherson) who spoke a few minutes ago. My chairman, who is one of the baffles of Dumfries, when questions were invited, subjected me to long heckling—which is unusual for a chairman—about including Scotland in this Measure.
  If this Amendment were accepted, what would happen? It would merely mean that, so far as Scotland is concerned, things would go on as they are for some months until the Government brought in a separate Measure which, while it would embody the principle contained in this Bill, would make the necessary modifications and applications to Scotland. This is not a very long Measure, but it is interesting to note that the application Clause for Scotland covers some six pages. That is ample evidence of the contention we make that it is inadvisable to include

  1417
  Scotland in this Measure by way of application Clause. If the right hon Gentleman is not in a position to accept the Amendment, I hope that my hon. Friends will press for a Division, when they will certainly have my support in the Lobby.
  Mr. Carmichael: I hope the House will not think that, because of our geographical position here, the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) and I are in political agreement on this subject. I rise first to clear up a point which should be cleared up, and then to be guided on another. I do not accept the view that there is serious indignation in Scotland about the Bill. I think that is false. I speak of the fire brigades service in Scotland with some little experience extending over some 17 years. I am not asking for a separate Bill for Scotland, although only a few weeks ago I was associated with a proposal in the House that Scotland should be excluded from an important Measure. I do not remember getting any support from this side of the House on that occasion, although it would appear that the principle I enunciated at that time is now being accepted by this side. I think it should be said that the old fire service in Scotland prior to the war was a bad and haphazard service. All kinds of chances were taken. There was no equipment of any kind in the counties to deal with emergencies. I know, as a member of the Glasgow authority, that we were called upon time and time again to assist areas which had no equipment. I am equally satisfied that the National Fire Service had many faults. Democratic control at times was almost completely divorced from it, and there was a tendency up and down the country for many little Hitlers to grow up as fire-masters, fire chiefs and fire commanders. The Bill, at least, tends to bring about a form of organisation in Scotland Tat will give us a decent fire service with democratic control. Having said that, I do not deny that it might have been possible for the Scottish Members to have evolved a much better Bill completely divorced from the English Bill, but that, of course, is a matter for the Government.
  The point to which I wish particularly to draw the attention of the Secretary of State concerns Glasgow. I have looked through the Bill, I have examined the Fourth Schedule, and Glasgow is not
  1418
  mentioned. However, I am not so ignorant as to assume that Glasgow is completely neglected. I regret that in this new arrangement the financial position is as it is, and that the Government should accept 25 per cent. of the responsibility, and leave 75 per cent. to the local authority. They could have applied the principle that is applied in the Police Acts. The police have a grant of 75 per cent. If there is any possibility of making a concession in regard to finance, all local authorities in Scotland would appreciate it. In many ways, the Measure is a big advance on any former Measure, although I have a slight sympathy with hon. Members who think that we could have evolved a better Bill than our friends across the Border.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: It is remarkable that all Members who have addressed the House from all parties have expressed grave dissatisfaction with the Bill, the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Watson), the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael), and hon. Members on this side of the House included. This seems to show that the argument we have been putting forward for a long time against tacking Scotland on to English Bills is not, as has sometimes been represented, a sentimental or political argument, but a practical argument. I have no doubt at all that if we had had a separate Scottish Fire Services Bill, and taken it upstairs to the Scottish Grand Committee, we would never have got into this tangle. It is not too late to do that now. It does not matter if we get a year out of step; there might be some slight financial adjustments, but after all, that would not be serious. It would be much better to drop Scotland out of this Bill, and let matters go on as they are for another few months. Then the right hon. Gentleman could come forward at the beginning of next Session with a new Bill. There is always time at the beginning of a Session to get a small Bill through, and it could be more in accord with democratic sentiment in Scotland.
  I do not want to overstress the importance of local authorities. I would not say that the views of a local authority ought to be decisive on questions of international, or even national magnitude but, when we come to questions of this kind, questions which formerly were within their province, it seems unjustified

  1419
  to go ahead in face of united opposition. Surely, it is a unique thing to have local authorities coming forward and objecting to being given functions. Local authorities frequently object on many grounds to being deprived of functions, but I have never heard of a case of local authorities coming forward with such unanimity and saying "Do not impose this function on us in this way." It cannot be supposed that local authorities do not wish to have these functions; of course they do. They have set aside their natural desire because they feel that if this function is given in this way, it is worse than useless.
  7.15 p.m.
  There are two main lines of criticism. The first is that there has been, and is to be, too much central control. This seems to be another example of what has appeared in several connections in the last couple of years, of the central authority trying to have it both ways, to push the administration on to local authorities, and to keep the reins in its own hands. That is a bad thing. If we are to give our services to local authorities, we must trust them, and not keep the central direction, which I am afraid the Scottish Office likes to have in these days. That is one objection to the Bill. The other is that the finance is all wrong. It is not a bit of good saying that local authorities had to pay for their fire services before the war. First, they were their own masters; secondly, the cost was not anything like so great; and thirdly, the plight of the rates had not arisen, except, perhaps, in a few areas. Now, things are very different, and to try in the present state of overburdened finances to justify putting a new and expensive service on to those finances, and only to make a grant of 25 per cent., seems to be something which the Secretary of State should not accept from the Treasury. On those grounds, it seems to me that there is ample objection to the Bill proceeding on the footing that it includes Scotland. My final word is this: whether the grounds of objection are good or bad, there is no doubt that they are very widely held, very widely held geographically, and very widely held politically. That being so, I beg the Secretary of State not to let this new service begin under that cloud. Make a fresh start. It may be that with further negotiation he may be able to convert
  1420
  local opinion to something like this scheme. At least, one must take local opinion with one in a matter of this kind. I beg the Secretary of State, before it is too late, to accept this Amendment and to take the next six months to clear the thing up. He could then come forward at the beginning of the next Session with a new Bill. If he can get a Bill like this, good luck to him, but, if not, let him adapt it to democratic sentiment in Scotland.
  Mr. Buchanan: I must apologise to Members for intervening in this Debate. I did not sit in the Standing Committee. My colleague the Joint Under-Secretary attended all the meetings of the Committee, and it is only because he has had to be in the honourable and ancient borough of Perth today at a conference on certain matters concerning road safety, that it has been thought desirable that I should take his place here on this occasion. I cannot approach this matter with anything like his knowledge but I will seek to give what I hope will be a courteous reply to the Debate. I would say, first, a word to the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay), who raised this issue. I think that nowadays the habit of always making excuses for our existence in Scotland should stop. I constantly hear of the hon. Member saving something like this in the Committees: "We are small in numbers, and we cannot do this and that." That is an excuse and not a reason, and, indeed, is somewhat of an admission of inferiority on his part. The Opposition are represented on these Committees much more strongly than was the case of many Oppositions in the past.
  Mr. Maclay: I was not referring at any point in my remarks to the Opposition. Members. I was speaking of the Scottish Members from both sides of the House on Standing Committees.
  Mr. Buchanan: Even so, the number of Scottish Members far exceeds the number which formerly frequently considered other Bills. Indeed, in the past, there have been Bills dealing with Scotland which have been considered by Committees on which scarcely a Scottish Member sat. There was on the Committee a fair representation, which, with ordinary activity, ought to have been able to accomplish their task reasonably well.

  1421
  The question of the unpopularity of the Bill in Scotland is really the main issue here. It is about the only thing that has been stated. I would say to the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) with whom I share representation of the great city of Glasgow—we represent different parts of it—that that great city has expressed no dissatisfaction about the Bill at all.
  Mr. J. S. C. Reid: It is an area to itself.
  Mr. Buchanan: Yes, but it has not expressed the slightest dissatisfaction with the Bill. Consequently, the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot speak in a sweeping fashion about wholesale dissatisfaction. Let me deal with the question asked by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) about where Glasgow is mentioned. If he looks at the Fourth Schedule he will see that 10 areas are defined. They have to be defined because they include more than one district. As Glasgow is a district by itself it does not need a definition in the Fourth Schedule. That is the answer.
  The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) said that the Bill was, on the whole, welcomed at the start. Another hon. Gentleman said that there were second thoughts. Only one issue has really disappointed, not only Scotsmen, but all those affected, that is, the 25 per cent. grant. This Bill, introduced by the Home Secretary with a Scottish application Clause, would have met with comparatively little or no criticism had it not been for the question of the 25 per cent. grant. Shorn of that issue, where was the opposition? Is it to be said by hon. Gentlemen opposite that Scotland is to get a different standard of grant from that given across the Border, because even if we had a separate Measure tomorrow, so long as the 25 per cent. grant was retained, strong opposition would he felt in Scotland. So, unless the Opposition are to insist that Scotland should have financial treatment different from that given south of the Border, then the right hon. and learned Gentleman's case about unpopularity falls.
  Let me deal with the other matter which has been raised, this idea of the central Government at St. Andrew's House being the strong man, guiding everything and interfering. What are we doing in this Bill? We are returning
  1422
  the fire services to the position in which they were in 1938. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot escape responsibility, to some extent, for what happened in 1938. If my memory serves me aright, he was Solicitor-General in the then Government. I do not place upon him the major responsibility, but he must have some. What did the 1938 Measure do? We seek to have less power—and this is my reply to the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs—we seek to do far less interfering than did his then leader who represented Leith, Mr. Ernest Brown. Under that Act the then Government set up a commission, which had the right to go round and inspect every local authority in Scotland and if they thought that they were inefficient they had the power to recommend their suppression as fire brigade authorities. That was an autocratic power. We have not taken that power here, yet these are the people who come and complain of the power we are taking, when they took a power about which, if we had retained it, we should have been challenged, and quite rightly—a power which was exercised on the recommendation of an outside body, not a Parliamentary body.
  It is true that we now propose a 25 per cent. grant. What was the pledge made by the Coalition 'Government? If the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead had wanted a higher grant than 25 per cent he would have said so when the pledge was given The present Government are improving upon that pledge. All that was agreed to by the Coalition Government was to return the service to the 1938 standards We return to the 1938 standards plus something which we never undertook to do—a 25 per cent. grant.
  I wish to deal with the question of firemasters, which has been raised. hope no one will disagree with two things that I am a bout to say. One is that in the present interval we must have our fire brigades running efficiently. We cannot allow them to run inefficiently if that can be avoided. Secondly, if the State is to hand fire services back to local authorities, they ought to hand them back in an efficient state. No one could look back on the 1938 type and feel terribly proud of our fire services. Indeed, in Scotland they were sometimes not up to the best standards. Many of the hon Gentlemen opposite took the same view of that point

  1423
  as we are taking today. What did the Secretary of State do in order to hand them back in an efficient state? He sent a letter to the local authorities involved, saying that he was thinking of appointing men so that when the brigades were taken over they could be taken over as an efficient and going concern The letter asked "What have you to say about appointments? What recommendations have you to make?" Indeed the assurance was given that the appointments would be designated ones—
  Mr. Maclay: That is all very nice, but it is not the Bill.
  Mr. Buchanan: I am saying that that is what we have done as an administrative act. Any responsible Government must administer. We did what every Government does when a Bill is going through the House. On the assumption that a Bill will pass every Government takes administrative steps to make it work. That is what we have done. We sent a letter to each local authority involved saying "We are proposing in the Bill to make certain appointments. Kindly give us your comments, kindly consult or come and see us and join with us in seeing that the men appointed are the proper men." We even went so far as to say, "In view of the fact that the Bill is not passed we will only make them designate appointments so that when you take over if you find the man is not suitable then there is nothing to keep you from getting rid of the appointment."We did that as an administrative act. I think it was proper.
  7.30 p.m.
  Almost on every occasion, it is argued that we must have a separate Scottish Measure. I hope that in these matters I am no less Scottish than my hon. Friends. I would say to those who are members of my own party and who made that demand that they, like me, have been elected to carry out a policy of big social change. If this Government are to go through with it, we cannot on every issue have a particular Scottish Measure. To other hon. Members I say that it has never been their practice to do this in the past. In the past the administration of Poor Law benefit was abolished throughout the country and centralised in London. When hon. Gentlemen opposite give me what amounts to a lecture on local government,
  1424
  I ask them who are they to lecture? Each case must be taken on its merits. This Bill can be properly applied through the application Clause. Even the English Conservatives who sat on the Committee which discussed this matter upstairs could not reconcile themselves to this, because only two of them voted on it.
  I think that in relation to Scotland this Government are carrying out their pledges in full. We are returning the brigades to the local authorities. In addition, we are granting them the same local autonomy they had in 1938, and also we are giving them from the central fund, the National Exchequer, with the same conditions attached as there were in 1938, a 25 per cent. grant. Far from the Government being criticised, I think that Scottish Members are entitled to say that this Government have acted with decency and much more generously than most other Governments would have done.
  Mr. Maclay: I hope I am right in believing that with the permission of the House I may be allowed to say a few words in reply?
  Mr. Buchanan: If that is so, I will ask for the same opportunity.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): It is in Order for the hon. Member who moved the Amendment to speak again.
  Mr. Maclay: I am relieved by the Joint Under-Secretary's interjection because It restores my self-esteem a little. Every time I am in conflict with the hon. Gentleman he goes for me good and hard and I feel very humble and ashamed. He does that, however, I sometimes suspect, because he is not very sure of his own case. He is really a rather good merchant in dealing with herrings, particularly red ones. Properly speaking, he should be a constituent of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), who would be very useful to him on the subject of herrings.
  I do not think that the hon. Gentleman answered the main charge which we have made. This is a technical job. It is one which is essentially for the local authorities who know the work because they have always done it. My personal charge is that, whatever may be the merits of the scheme, the Secretary of

  1425
  State has failed to convince the local authorities in Scotland. It has been suggested that there has not been all the outcry about which we have spoken. The fact remains that we have the two documents to which reference has been made—those from the Convention of Royal Burghs and the Association of County Councils. They are, or appear to be, in total disagreement. I do not think that the Joint Under-Secretary said anything which was useful. He made some very good points which, in certain circumstances, would have been valid. In this case, they are not valid. I do not think that he has been able to meet the charge that, whatever the merits of the scheme, he has
  completely failed to convince the local authorities in Scotland of those merits. In this matter the local authorities must collaborate. All we ask him to do is to go back and have another shot. We ask him to see whether he can knock sense into the local authorities. It is even possible that the local authorities may knock sense into him and the Secretary of State. I gather that he is not willing to try again and, therefore, we will have to divide on this issue.
  Question put, "That the words 'Great Britain' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 60.

  Division No. 254.]

  AYES.

  17.36 p.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Lipton, Lt.-Col M

  Adams, W. T, {Hammersmith, South)

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Lyne, A. W

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)

  McAdam, W.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Fairhurst, F.

  McAllister, G.

  Ayles, W H

  Field Capt. W.

  McEntee, V. La T

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

  Fool, M. M.

  McGhee, H. G

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Forman, J. C.

  Mack, J. D.

  Balfour, A.

  Gallacher, W.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

  Ganley, Mrs C. S

  McKinlay, A S.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Gilzean, A.

  McLeavy, F.

  Barton, C.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Battley, J. R.

  Goodrich, H. E.

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Berry, H.

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Mathers, G.

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

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Medland, H. M.

  Binns, J.

  Grey, C. F.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Blackburn, A. R

  Griffiths D (Rother Valley)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Griffiths, W D. (Moss Side)

  Mitchison, G. R

  Blyton, W. R.

  Guest, Dr L. Haden

  Moody, A. S.

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W

  Gunter, R. J

  Morgan, Dr. H. B

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Guy, W. H.

  Morley, R.

  Braddock, T (Mitcham)

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Bramall, E. A.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Mort, D L.

  Brook, D (Halifax)

  Hardy, E. A

  Moyle, A.

  Brooks, T J (Rothwell)

  Harrison, J.

  Murray, J. D.

  Brown, T J. (Ince)

  Hastings Dr Somerville

  Naylor, T- E.

  Bruce, Maj. D. W. T

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Buchanan, G.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Burke, W. A

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S)

  Hewitson, Capt. M

  Oldfield, W. H

  Barmichael, James

  Hobson, C. R.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Champion, A J.

  Holman, P.

  Orbach, M.

  Chater, D.

  Holmes, H E (Hemsworth)

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Chetwynd, G. R

  House, G

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hoy, J.

  Pargiter, G. A

  Cobb, F. A.

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

  Parker, J.

  Docks, F. S.

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

  Parkin, B. T.

  Collins, V J

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Colman, Miss G. M

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Pearson, A.

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Irving, W. J.

  Peart, Thomas F.

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

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Corlett, Dr, J.

  Janner, B.

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Corvedale, Viscount

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Cove W. G.

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

  Proctor, W. T.

  Crawley, A.

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

  Pryde, D. J.

  Grossman, R. H. S.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Randall, H. E.

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

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Ranger, J.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Keenan, W.

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Deer, G.

  Key, C. W.

  Reeves, J.

  Delargy, H. J

  King, E. M.

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Diamond, J.

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E

  Rhodes, H.

  Dodds, N. N

  Kinley, J.

  Richards, R.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Leslie, J. R

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J C

  Levy, B. W

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Edelman, M.

  Lewis, A W, J. (Upton)

  Shackleton, E. A. A.

  Sharp, Granville

  Taylor, H B. (Mansfield)

  Westwood, Rt Hon. J.

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

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

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

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Wigg, Col. G. E

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Skinnard, F. W.

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

  Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Williams Rt. Hon T. (Don Valley)

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

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Snow, Capt. J. W

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Willis, E.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Woodburn, A.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Viant, S. P.

  Woods, G. S.

  Stamford, W.

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Wyatt, W.

  Steele, T.

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

  Yates, V. F.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)

  Warbey, W. N.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Strachey, J

  Watson, W. M.

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Symonds, A. L.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Mr. Collindridge and

  Mr. Hannan.

  NOES.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Raikes, H. V.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Bennett, Sir P.

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

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Boothby, R.

  Hurd, A.

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

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

  Sanderson, Sir F.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T

  Keeling, E. H.

  Scott, Lord W.

  Carson, E.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Shephard, S. (Newark)

  Cole, T. L.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Lucas, Major Sir J.

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Snadden, W. M.

  Crowder, Capt. John E

  Macdonald, Sir P. (Isle of Wight)

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J (Moray)

  Davidson, Viscountess

  MacLeod, J.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Digby, S. W

  Manningham-Buller, R E.

  Thorp, Lt-Col. R. A F.

  Drewe, C.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Walker-Smith, D

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Marsden, Capt. A.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walte

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  White, Sir D, (Fareham)

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

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  Gage, C.

  Mott-Radelyffe, Maj C E

  Galbraith, Cmdr T D

  Nield, B. (Chester)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Mr. Maclay and

  Colonel Gomme-Duncan.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Supplementary powers of fire authorities.)
  Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, to leave out from the beginning to "and," in line 15.
  I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House if we were to take together this Amendment and the next Amendment, in page 4, line 37, at the end, to insert:
  "(b) the said powers shall not be exercised except after consultation with the chief officer of police for the area in which the fire alarms are to be placed."
  Clause 3 (2) was amended in Standing Committee to provide for a county district council to be consulted by the fire authority before fire alarms are maintained in its area. Clause 3 (1, c) contains power to maintain fire alarms, and it includes a requirement that the chief officer of police shall be consulted. The Amendments which I am proposing are merely drafting Amendments to bring together all the consultation provisions in this respect.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Sparks: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Are we
  1428
  taking all three Amendments together, or will they be put separately?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, they will be put separately.
  Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 4, line 37, at the end, to insert:
  "(b) the said powers shall not be exercised except after consultation with the chief officer of police for the area in which the fire alarms are to be placed."
  7.45 P.m.
  Mr. Sparks: There is one point on this Amendment on which I would like further enlightenment. My right hon. Friend will notice that in the Amendment it is provided that these powers shall not be exercised except after consultation with the chief of police. I am told that it is rather exceptional for a statutory power of this kind to be given to an officer in his official capacity, and I wonder whether the Home Secretary would agree to substitute the words "police authority" for the words "chief of police." If the police authority is willing to delegate its powers to the chief of police that is another matter, but I am told that it is rather unusual to place an official in a statutory

  1429
  position of responsibility of this kind. If that were accepted, the Amendment would mean that the local fire authority would have to negotiate with him, to the exclusion of the police authority as such. Would not it be better that the fire authority should be under an obligation to consult the police authority rather than an official?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: I have a good deal of sympathy with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). I think it is undesirable to name an official rather than the authority in a matter of this kind, for it may be that the official, if he were at loggerheads with his committee, might take up a curious attitude, because he would be the authority, who would have to deal with the matter. Unfortunately, however, in my area, if the Home Secretary did what my hon. Friend wants him to do, we would be in a worse position than ever, because it so happens that, in the interpretation Clause of this Bill, the "police authority" and the "chief officer of police" are to have the same definition as is given to them in the Police Pensions Act, 1921. Under that Act, in the Metropolitan Police District in which Croydon lies, the "police authority" is my right hon. Friend or one of his colleagues in the Cabinet. The "chief officer of police" is the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. We are, therefore, in the awkward position under this Amendment that we would have to go to the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis over any triflng thing that has to be done in Croydon. That seems to be going to a high authority over slight matters, and it is a question whether the administrative difficulties really justify that course of action. On the other hand, if the course suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) is pursued, we should then have to go to my right hon. Friend himself, and burden him with the work. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend can throw any further light on the matter, but I would caution him to beware of accepting my hon. Friend's advice.
  Mr. Pargiter: I should be glad if my right hon. Friend would further elucidate the point about the chief officer of police for the area, because it is in the Metropolitan Police area where an inspector may virtually be in charge of an area. In
  1430
  the County of Middlesex, as such, there would be no one chief police officer who would be readily available for consultation. As a matter of fact, there are many people of that rank all over the place who could not be readily contacted, and if this particular reference is left as it is there will be some doubt as to its interpretation.
  Mr. Ede: There is no doubt that to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), at any rate so far as the Metropolitan Police area is concerned, would make the provision worse than it is under the Bill, because, undoubtedly, the police authority for the Metropolitan Police District is the Secretary of State. The chief officer for the Metropolitan Police District is the Commissioner. What would happen in the administration of this Measure would be that when the application was received by the Commissioner as the chief officer of police, he would refer it to the superintendent in charge of the division in which the proposed alarm was situated, and would get his report, and in most cases I should imagine that would be final. Because of these difficulties, the same form of words was used in the 1938 Act. It is not unusual to refer to officials in Acts of Parliament. Certain certificates have to be given by people like the county surveyor, who generally thinks that he is too big a man to be called by that title and insists on calling himself the county engineer. There are other instances where it is an administrative act involving the technical experience and knowledge of the officer. In those cases—and I think this falls well within that category—this is the usual formula that is applied. I think the House would be well advised to repeat in this Bill the nomenclature used in the 1938 Act.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 4, line 45, at the end, to insert:
  "unless they have been approved by the Minister in charge of any other Government department."
  The House will recollect that when we were in Committee earlier this afternoon, I drew attention to the fact that these words helped us out of one of the difficulties that had been brought to our notice by the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston).
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 4.—(County and county borough councils to be fire authorities.)
  Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 5, line 25, to leave out Subsections (2) and (3).
  The new Clause which we discussed at the beginning of the Report stage this afternoon provides for all the things that we originally intended to have covered by these two Subsections.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Power of Secretary of State to make combination schemes.)
  Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 7, line 26, after "any," to insert "area or areas of a."
  This is a drafting Amendment. There can be no population of a fire authority. The population is of the area controlled by the fire authority, and this Amendment would make the necessary correction in the wording of the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 8.—(Constitution and powers of fire authorities constituted by com- bination schemes.)
  Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 8, line 29, to leave out from "scheme," to the end of line 31.
  This Amendment is also consequential on the new Clause moved at the beginning of the Report stage.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 13.—(Transitional provisions.)
  Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 12, line 32, after "may," to insert:
  "after consultation with such associations representing local authorities as appear to him to be concerned."
  We had a discussion on this point on the Committee stage. It will be remembered that the local authorities were concerned that, when the right hon. Gentleman was making regulations with regard to the transfer of property, and so on, he should consult them. At the time, the right hon. Gentleman gave a pledge that he would so consult them. It happened that he received the local authorities that afternoon. He told us that he had given them the pledge, and that he would consider, later on, the necessity for putting the words into the Bill, if we desired it. In my own view, I think it would be a good thing to put the words into the Bill having regard to
  1432
  the fact that he has given a pledge. I hope, therefore, that he will see his way to accept this Amendment.
  Mr. Ede: It is true that I had a consultation with the local authorities, and, indeed, our proceedings were so harmonious that afternoon that they did not press me to do anything. I regret that the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) should be more distrustful of me than were the local authorities. But, nevertheless, I have a great respect for his estimate of my character, and I realise that it is desirable to protect oneself from one's frailties, and, therefore, I accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Grimston: Might I say that if I were assured that the right hon. Gentleman would always remain the Home Secretary, I would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 13, line 30, at the end, to insert:
  "Provided that any property vested in a local authority being a fire authority for the purposes of the Fire Brigade Act, 1938, and used only partly for the purposes of the National Fire Service shall not be transferred to fire authorities except with the consent of the local authority which shall not be withheld unreasonably and which may be given subject to reasonable terms and conditions and if any question shall arise under this provision it shall be determined by the Minister of Health."
  This Amendment raises a slightly different point, which was also discussed on the Committee stage. It is that on the transfer of the buildings to the fire authority, some of those buildings will have been used in the past both for the fire service and as depots, or for other purposes, by the local authorities. The local authorities are concerned about this. The question of the ownership of a site or building arises. The local authority may have to transfer a property which is in part use by them and for which they have paid. The object of the Amendment is to put local authorities in a strong position to assert their rights in this matter, with the proviso that in the event of a difference of opinion it should he submitted to the Minister of Health. This matter was discussed in the Committee, when the Home Secretary said he would look into it again. I am now inquiring what result has come from the talks he has had with local authorities on the matter.
  Colonel Wheatley: I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment. It is very reasonable and it gives the authority protection which they want if their property is likely to be taken away. The fire engine may be kept in the building which is also used for other administrative purposes, or for the storage of council property like carts or lorries. It will be very inconvenient if it is taken away from them without consultation. We ask that they should be consulted. My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr Grimston) has asked that the Minister of Health may give a decision, so that local authorities will not be holding up any arrangement unreasonably. The Amendment would give them full protection.
  Mr. Ede: We discussed this matter in Committee and I undertook to consider the best way of dealing with the situation. I have very considerable sympathy with the point of view of the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) but I do not think I could include the Amendment in the Bill. Let us be clear on the point. If the depot of the urban or non-county-borough has been partly used for fire services, the whole depot cannot be transferred to the county council, but only that part which has been used for the fire services, or the laying out of which has been charged to the fire service account. It would be almost impossible in the old days to spot what was charged to fire service account, unless there had been a loan. Expenditure on the fire service was part of the general district rate and was lumped in with all the other general expenditure of the area. Therefore, only the part which was in fact used for the fire service can be transferred under this Clause.
  The appropriate thing to do is so to frame the regulations as to provide that there shall be consultation, and that, if there is no agreement, the matter shall be submitted to arbitration. I would not welcome this matter being submitted to the Minister of Health. After all, this is a fire service, and you might just as well say that a dispute with a police authority should be referred to the Minister of Health, or that when he has a dispute with a health authority it should he referred to the Secretary of State, or that a question of doctors' remuneration should come up with a health authority, the Secretary of State should settle it.
  1434
  That is not the way we conduct our administration in this country. The appeal should lie to the Secretary of State. It should be made clear that where that kind of situation has arisen, in which part of a building belonging to the county district council has been used for fire services, the county council will either have to find a new building or will have to rent the part of the old building, which can sometimes be done without any detriment to the county district council's-services.
  Sometimes a fire station is part of the municipal offices or the municipal depot. It should be easy to arrive at the appropriate rent for the new fire authority to pay to the old fire authority for the use of those premises. I hope that we shall be able to cover by regulation the points raised in the Amendment. I do not think, except in one or two cases, great difficulty is likely to arise.
  We might get up against the kind of thing which has arisen in Lancaster with regard to the police offices, and which also arose curiously enough in Lancaster also with regard to some of the school buildings which had been given to the old non-county borough, and might have passed to the county education authority, when the non-county borough education powers were withdrawn. I do not think we shall come up against this kind of thing in the fire service. Certainly, it would be most exceptional, in view of the fact that the fire service has been a much more co-ordinated service in those non-county boroughs than either police or education. The arrangement that I suggest will enable us to deal with the practical situation.
  Mr. D. Jones: A large number of county districts have in the past used a centralised repair depot for their fire service vehicles. What will happen in the event of a dispute about the occupation of the repair depot when the services are transferred? I do not quite agree with my right hon. Friend when he argues that disputes ought to be referred to the Secretary of State, who, in this case, is an interested party. The arbitrator should be a disinterested party. There is the other point in regard to a building used for administrative purposes by more than one service of the local authority. There again, there may be difficulties. Indeed if my

  1435
  information is correct, there is some difficulty now in regard to the transfer of part of one building, as a consequence of the Police Act, 1946. Perhaps my right hon. Friend would like to say a word about that matter now.
  Mr. Pargiter: There is a further point upon which we should like elucidation on the question of paying rent for part of a building. It will involve some difficulty in the case of a building used both as municipal offices and as fire station. If the fire station was on separate premises, they would be transferred to the new authority. But the fire station may be in part of a building used for other purposes. All the loan charges on it may have been paid off, and, consequently, if the building is to continue to be used by the fire service, there ought to be no rental charge. I hope my right hon. Friend will elucidate that point.
  Mr. Ede: With the leave of the House, I will reply to the points which have been raised. I think where a new fire authority has to use rooms or buildings which are part of the equipment of a county district council and which cannot be divorced from the equipment of the county district council, some financial arrangement will have to be made, because it is so difficult in these cases to trace what was bought out of fire service money. It is not like the police station, the school or the education offices which, in the main, were built out of a loan, in respect of which the authority had to get the sanction of the Ministry of Health or some other Government department to the raising of the loan for that specific purpose.
  My hon. Friend the Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) asked what would happen in the case of a county district—and it would have to be a fairly large one—which had its own vehicle repairing depot, and so on, part of which was used by the fire service. Every case will have to be examined on its merits, and I should have thought that in that case, if the county desired to use those facilities, they might very well do so on a customer basis. That is to say, they might make some arrangement whereby vehicles which they wanted repaired could go to the county district council's depot and be dealt with there on some agreed scale of charges. I think generally an
  1436
  arrangement in respect of labour and materials plus a certain percentage for overheads is agreed between the two authorities, and this is regarded as a suitable arrangement. But, of course, there is a variety of arrangements which can be made. I think the same principle applies to the other points which my hon. Friend raised with regard to the relationship between the old and the new fire authorities.
  I hope that in the spirit which now prevails, we shall be able to launch this new system without any great difficulties with regard to these problems of the joint use of buildings, some of which will only be required for joint use for quite a short time until the county can make the appropriate arrangements. During the existence of the National Fire Service, arrangements have had to be made, and reimbursements from the National Fire Service to the county district councils have been made without, so far as I know, raising any difficult questions between the county district councils and the Home Office. I imagine that the same kind of spirit will prevail between the county district councils and the county councils.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Grimston: I think this short discussion has shown that many general problems will arise, but, so far as the Bill is concerned, the position we have reached appears to be this: The Home Secretary will have to have consultations with the local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman has given a pledge that in these particular cases also he will have consultations, and has also given a pledge that in the regulations there will be provision for arbitration in the event of complete deadlock. They will have to come before the House, and so it seems to me that we have covered the position as far as we can. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 13, line 31, to leave out paragraph (e), and to insert:
  "(e) for the reimbursement of interest and redemption charges incurred, by an authority for the purposes of the said Act of 1938, in respect of moneys borrowed in connection with property vested in pursuance of the last foregoing paragraph for rendering the fire authority in which the property is so vested liable for

  1437
  the reimbursement, and for the determination by the Minister of Health of questions arising under this paragraph."
  This is a drafting Amendment, designed to meet certain criticisms of the wording of the Bill which were made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) when we were in Standing Committee.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 19.—(Procedure and qualifications for appointments and promotions.)
  Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 20, line 9, to leave out from "officers," to the first "of," in line 11.
  I think it would be convenient if we took with this Amendment the next Amendment, in page 20, line 12, at the end, to insert:
  "(b) the procedure for the appointment by a fire authority of members, other than the chief officer, of any such brigade."
  In the Standing Committee my hon. Friends the Members for South Salford (Mr. Hardy) and Gorton (Mr. Oldfield), moved an Amendment the effect of which would have been to deprive the Secretary of State of power to make regulations regarding the method and qualifications for the appointment and promotion of members of fire brigades other than chief officers. In the discussion I satisfied the Committee, I think, as to the need for retaining the regulation—making power contained in Clause 19 (1, b and c) relating to qualifications for appointment and promotion procedure. I undertook to draw a distinction between the method of appointing chief officers and the method of appointment of other officers of fire brigades, to make it clear that the appointment of persons other than chief officers should be the responsibility of the fire authorities.
  These Amendments have been discussed with the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations. The latter body is satisfied with both of them. The County Councils Association are satisfied with the first, but are not particularly enamoured of the second. I am bound to say that I attach considerable importance to the second Amendment. I think it is important that a man who is brought into the service of a local authority, especially where his entry into the service involves him in entrance into a specialised superannuation fund
  1438
  like the fire service pension fund, ought definitely to be appointed by the authority, and not by the chief officer. Therefore, I am glad to think my views on this matter are shared by the Association of Municipal Corporations. I think they are sound, and should be embodied in the Bill. That matter is provided for in the second of the Amendments to which I am directing the attention of the House. The chief officer of the fire brigade would be appointed by the local authority, subject to the approval, after the appointment has been made, of the Secretary of State. These two Amendments, I think, carry out the whole of the pledges I gave to the Committee in this matter, and I commend them to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 20, line 12, at end, insert:
  "(b) the procedure for the appointment by a fire authority of members, other than the chief officer, of any such brigade "—[Mr. Ede.]

  CLAUSE 20.—(Fire brigade establishments to be determined in accordance with approved schemes.)
  Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 21, line 14, at the end, to insert:
  "and if in connection with the making of a scheme under paragraph (b) of Subsection (5) of this Section the fire authority so requires, the Secretary of State shall cause a public local inquiry to be held before he makes the scheme."
  Hon. Members who served in the Standing Committee will recollect that on 22nd May I accepted the principle of an Amendment moved by the Opposition to replace Subsection (8) with a new Subsection, the effect of which would have been to make it compulsory on the Secretary of State to hold a local inquiry if the fire authority asked for it in any case where he proposed himself to make an establishment scheme because he thought the scheme in force was not satisfactory. I asked that I might be allowed to consider the wording. I have done so, and I think this Amendment carries out the desires of the Opposition, and in a form which is approved by the draftsmen. I am sure the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) knows how important it is in these matters that the best ideas should be clothed in language which is approved by the draftsmen.
  Mr. Grimston: We are obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I agree with him that good intentions are better clothed when approved by the draftsmen.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 21, line 20, after the second "provisions," to insert "ancillary thereto."
  This Amendment is consequential upon the new Clause to which the House agreed earlier today.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 23.—(Training centres.)
  Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 22, line r, to leave out Subsection (2), and to insert:
  "(2) The arrangement to be made for the central training institution established under this section shall secure that the institution shall be under the general direction of a board—

  (a) consisting as to half of persons appointed by the Secretary of State and as to the remainder of persons appointed by such bodies as appear to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of fire authorities, and

  (b) having as chairman such member of the board as may be selected by the other members with the approval of the Secretary of state,

  and that before appointing the person having control of the administration of the institution the Secretary of State shall consult the board."
  I am afraid I shall have to ask the House to listen to me for a little longer on this Amendment. On the last day on which the Standing Committee sat, I indicated that on Report I should have to ask the House to consider the wording of Subsection (2) as it now appears in the Bill. It was inserted in the Bill against the advice of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. It was not a point on which, in principle, we desired to resist the wishes of the local authorities and the Committee, and I hope that the form in which the Subsection will appear if this Amendment is accepted will prove to be satisfactory. One objection, which I regard as fundamental, to the Subsection as it now appears in the Bill is that if it remains, the people employed in this central training institution will not be eligible to participate in the pension funds. Quite clearly, it is desirable that the people who will be engaged in this central training institution shall be people who have been in the fire service. Some of them will probably come to the institution for a few
  1440
  months, will take part in the courses there in giving instruction, and will then return to their fire authority and be replaced by other people from other fire authorities. It would be deplorable if we were handicapped in getting the best men together, merely because they thought: "Well, if I go there and stay for a year, I lose one year of my pensionable service." That would produce results which might be very harmful to the efficiency of the institution.
  Therefore, I propose that this central training institution shall be managed under arrangements which will secure that the board, who direct it generally, shall be constituted half by persons appointed by the Secretary of State and half by persons appointed by the bodies who appear to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of the fire authorities—that is, the County Councils Association and the A.M.C., as far as England is concerned. I shall also have to have representatives of the Scottish local authorities, because, in spite of what has been said today, I am hoping that we may be able to have one training institution for the United Kingdom. I am assured that a fire in Northumberland is not very different from a fire in Berwick-shire, although there was a time when people used to try experiments on both sides of the border to ascertain whether that was true; I understand that it is now an accepted fact. As I say, I hope that we shall have one institution for the United Kingdom. The chairman will be selected by the others, and his name will be submitted to the Secretary of State for approval. Before appointing the principal of the institution consultations will take place to ensure that the person nominated is acceptable. I hope that these suggestions will enable an efficient institution to be established.
  Mr. Grimston: As the Bill was originally drafted, there was no provision for the fire authorities to be brought into consultation in the management of the Central Training College. I appreciate why the right hon. Gentleman cannot leave this Subsection as it is in the Bill. If men were denied pension rights for the time spent in the college, it would be very detrimental. The right hon. Gentleman has met the feelings of the Committee, and we are pleased to accept the Amendment
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 30.—(Powers of firemen and police in extinguishing fires.)
  Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 30, line 9, after the first "fire," to insert "wheresoever it may occur."
  I have put this Amendment down to raise a point which is a matter of concern to the Fire Officers' Association. There have been cases in the past where a fire has occurred in a barracks, or dockyards, or even on a ship, where the commanding officer has thought that he should take charge. If there were a possibility of a dispute of that sort fire-fighting might be hampered. The Fire Officers' Association are of the opinion that it ought to be laid down in the Bill that the senior officer in charge should be in charge of the fire wherever it might occur. Of course, he would go for advice to people who know the place, and who were perhaps in charge of bodies of men there, but there should be no doubt that it should be the chief fire officer who was in charge. If the words of my Amendment are not suitable, I feel sure the Home Secretary will take steps to make the point clear, perhaps in another place.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I am not sure that the Amendment is necessary to secure the object which the hon. Gentleman has in view. The words of the Clause are "at any tire," and I do not think it will make them stronger by adding the words "wheresoever it may occur." However, I appreciate the difficulty, and I will have the matter carefully examined, so that if there is any doubt about the position of the senior fire officer on the job, it shall be removed in another place. The words of the Clause already remove another difficulty which used to be felt sometimes. I understand that it was customary, in the old days, for the senior officer present at a fire to be the person in control. It has come within my experience that a person in control of fire fighting was changed four times in the course of a single fire because, as neighbouring brigades came in, another man, who was senior to the man in the area where the fire occurred, was put on to the job. Unless a special arrangement has been made to the contrary beforehand, the person in charge at the fire will be the senior officer belonging to the brigade in whose area the fire has originated. I
  1442
  hope that the language we have used is plain enough to cover the old difficulty, plus the one suggested by the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston), but if his point has not been covered, I undertake to see that the Clause is corrected in another place.
  Colonel Wheatley: Supposing there is a fire in a factory which has its own fire brigade, controlled by a very junior officer; supposing that in the town there is a county fire brigade; will it be clear that the officer in charge if there is a fire in the factory, will be the junior officer of the factory brigade?
  Mr. Ede: I should have thought that that would be covered by the words:
  "or, if any arrangements or reinforcement scheme."
  The hon. and gallant Member will remember that in Committee we discussed the position of the private brigade. I assume that time will be taken by the forelock in these matters, and that if a publicly-supported brigade goes into a factory the officer in charge will be known. It may be either, if an arrangement has been made. I hope that in all these cases an appropriate arrangement will be made. The fire authorities will be advised to see that they are made before such a contingency such as the hon. and gallant Member described arises.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: Is the right hon. Gentleman fully satisfied on the point about the military fire squad in barracks? Who would be the senior officer there? It is not a question between one brigade and another or a works fire brigade and a municipal brigade.
  Mr. Ede: I think that point should be covered by the answer I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for East Dorset (Colonel Wheatley). It will be known that there is a barracks, with a certain amount of fire risk, or a naval dockyard, in an area, and I would have thought that on the passing of this Bill, when we come to the scheme for dealing with fires, it would be desirable at that stage for the local fire authority to get in touch with the Navy, Army or Air Force authorities to make quite certain who is to be in charge in the event of a fire. Recently I have been having conversations with my noble Friend the Minister of Civil Aviation with regard to what is to happen and who

  1443
  is to be responsible when there is a fire on a civil aerodrome. I cannot help thinking that in these cases, where the contingency could be so clearly foreseen, arrangements ought to be made beforehand so that there is no doubt when the fire occurs who is to be the person responsible for directing the fire fighting services.
  Mr. Grimston: In view of the assurance which the Home Secretary has given, and for which I am much obliged, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 30, line 9, after "senior," to insert "fire brigade."
  It would be to the advantage of the House if we took together with this Amendment the Amendments—line 9, and line 34. These Amendments are of a drafting character and are designed to improve the construction of the Clause by referring only to the senior fire brigade officer whose status is defined in the new Subsection.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In line 9, to leave out from "present," to "shall," in line 14.
  In line 22, to leave out "or other person."—[Mr. Ede.]
  Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in line 31, after "fire," to insert:
  "or in the absence of any officer of police the senior fire brigade officer present."
  This was another matter raised by the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) in Committee. There was some danger in the form in which the Opposition Amendment was put down that there might have been two people directing traffic at the same time, possibly in contra ways. I think the form of words now suggested carry out what the hon. Member had in mind to ensure that there shall be one person responsible for the direction of the traffic. It will be the senior officer of police while there is any officer of police on the spot, and if there is no police officer the senior officer of the fire brigade present will take over the duties until a police officer arrives.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In line 34 at end, insert:
  "(6) In this section the expression "senior fire brigade officer present." in re'ation to any fire, means the senior officer present of the fire brigade maintained in pursuance of this Act in the area in which the fire originates, or, if any arrangements or reinforcement scheme made under this Act provide that any other person shall have charge of the operations for the extinction of the fire, that other person."—[Mr. Ede.]

  CLAUSE 36.—(Application to Scotland.)
  Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 33, line 43, to leave out "fire authorities," and to insert "councils."
  This Subsection is for the purpose of making it clear that a fire authority cannot really be a fire authority until it is so constituted, and the Amendment is to introduce the more appropriate term by calling them "councils."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendments made.
  Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 35, line 37, to leave out "hold land or to."
  This is a drafting Amendment Subsection (11) of Clause 36, to which this Amendment relates, sets out the conditions under which fire authorities and joint committees may exercise borrowing powers. Subsection (9) also provides for the Secretary of State to confer on fire authorities the power to hold land, but the reference to this latter power which has been included in that Subsection is not relevant to the purpose of the Subsection, the drafting of which would be improved by the omission of the words proposed to be left out.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 36, line 27, to leave out Subsection (15), and to insert:
  "(15) Section one of this Act shall have effect as if for Subsection (2) thereof the following Subsection were substituted:—
  (2) (a) Any member of a fire brigade maintained in pursuance of this Act authorised in writing by the authority maintaining the fire brigade shall, on producing, if so required, some duly authenticated document showing his authority, have a fight to enter any premises at all reasonable hours for the purpose of obtaining such information as is mentioned in paragraph (d) of the last foregoing Subsection:

  1445
  Provided that admission to any premises in which persons are employed otherwise than in domestic service shall not be demanded as of right unless twenty-four hours' notice of the intended entry has been given to the occupier.
  (b) If it is shown to the satisfaction of a sheriff or a justice of the peace—

  (i) that admission to any premises has been refused, or that refusal is apprehended, or that the premises are unoccupied or the occupier is temporarily absent, or that the case is one of urgency, or that an application for admission would defeat the object of entry; and

  (ii) that there is reasonable ground for entry into the premises for any such purpose as aforesaid,

  the sheriff or justice may by warrant under his hand authorise the authority maintaining the fire brigade by any member thereof authorised as aforesaid to enter the premises, if need be by force:
  Provided that such a warrant shall not be issued unless the sheriff or justice is satisfied either that notice of the intention to apply for a warrant has been given to the occupier, or that the premises are unoccupied, or that the occupier is temporarily absent, or that the case is one of urgency, or that the giving of such notice would defeat the object of the entry.
  (c) A member of a fire brigade authorised as aforesaid entering any premises by virtue of this Subsection, or of a warrant issued thereunder, may take with him such other persons as may be necessary, and on leaving any unoccupied premises which he has entered by virtue of such a warrant shall leave them as effectually secured against trespassers as he found them.
  (d) Every warrant granted under this Subsection shall continue in force until the purpose for which the entry is necessary has been satisfied.
  (e) If any person who in compliance with the provisions of this Subsection or of a warrant issued thereunder is admitted into a factory, workshop or workplace discloses to any person any information obtained by him in the factory, workshop or workplace with regard to any manufacturing process or trade secret, he shall, unless such disclosure was made in the performance of his duty, be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.
  (f) A person who wilfully obstructs any person acting in the execution of this Subsection or of any warrant issued thereunder shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds and to a further fine not exceeding five pounds for each day on which the offence continues after conviction thereof."
  This Amendment is in pursuance of a promise given by my colleague the Joint Under-Secretary during earlier discussions. Clause 1 of the Bill confers on members of fire brigades the power of
  1446
  entry to premises such as is conferred upon authorised local authority officers under the Public Health Act, 1936. There is no corresponding up-to-date provision in an English Act giving powers of entry in a Scottish Act, and in the Standing Committee the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Macpherson) objected to the reference to the 1936 Act on the ground that Scottish lawyers would find it inconvenient to have to refer to an English Act of which they might not have a copy. This Amendment proposes to substitute for the reference to the Public Health Act the actual provision concerned.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Buchanan: I beg to move, in page 37, line 34, at the end, to insert:
  "(c) section (Fire brigade committees in counties)."
  I explained this Amendment earlier on. The new Clause moved by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would, if this was not inserted, apply to Scotland, and the purpose of this Amendment, therefore, is to prevent that Clause operating in regard to Scotland.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 38.—(Interpretation.)
  Amendment made: In page 38, line 20, leave out "land," and insert "lane."—[Mr. Ede.]
  CLAUSE 39.—(Short title, extent, repeals and savings.)
  Amendment made: In page 38, line 38, leave out "paragraph (f)" and insert "paragraphs (f) and (g)."—[Mr. Ede.]

  FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Making, approval, and variation of establishment schemes for counties.)
  Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 40, line 3, at the end to insert: "AND MANAGEMENT SCHEMES."
  This Amendment, and all the remaining Amendments on the Order Paper in my name, are consequential on the new Clause adopted earlier this evening.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In page 40, line 5, leave out from "authority," to "send," in line 7, and insert:
  "proposing to make an establishment scheme to which this Schedule applies or a management scheme shall, before making the scheme." —[Mr. Ede.]

  SECOND SCHEDULE.— (Application to Combined Fire Authorities of provisions as to establishment schemes.)
  Amendments made: In page 40, line 36, at the end, insert "AND MANAGEMENT SCHEMES."
  In line 40, after "matters," insert:
  "or to which management schemes relate (hereafter in this Schedule referred to as 'management matters')."
  In line 41, at the end, insert:
  "Provided that in the case of an authority constituted by a combination scheme so as to become a fire authority on the appointed day, provision for management matters may be made either in the scheme constituting the authority or by the variation of that scheme as soon as may be after the appointed day.
  (2) In this Schedule references to a fire authority constituted by a combination scheme shall be construed, in relation to management matters, as reference to such an authority the area of which consists of or includes one or more counties other than the County of London."
  In page 41, line 2, after "twenty," insert:
  "and Subsections (3) and (7) of Section (Fire brigade committees in counties)."
  In line 6, after second "authority," insert:
  "and in the case of an authority being the council of a county the management scheme for the authority."
  In line 11, after "establishment," insert or management."
  In line 15, after "establishment," insert or management."—[Mr. Ede.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  8.47 p.m.
  Mr. Grimston: Before we pass the Third Reading of this Bill there are one or two things I should like to say. I should like to express appreciation to the right hon. Gentleman for the way he has met us in the Committee stage and on Report both in the matters we have discussed this afternoon and on other questions. The coming into law of this Bill will mean the demise of the N.F.S., and I do not think one ought to let the occasion of the Third Reading of this Bill pass without paying a tribute to the magnificent Work done by the National Fire Service. In saying that I am quite persuaded that the set-up under this Bill, whereby the
  1448
  fire-fighting services pass back again to the local authorities, is a far better arrangement for peacetime.
  One of the consequences of this Bill compared with prewar is that there is going to be a higher expenditure both in money and manpower. Whereas the strength of the full-time firemen before the war was 6,000, at present it is 22,000. I was glad of the assurance that the Home Secretary gave us during the Committee stage that the figure will be considerably reduced, although, of course, the level left will be higher than before the war, and I think he said today that by the time the appointed day came the figures would be down somewhere in the neighbourhood of the envisaged establishment for peacetime.
  The real answer to the fire menace is not an expensive and large fire-fighting service. It lies in the old proverb, "Prevention is better than cure." What we look for is the improvement of building structures, the segregation of dangerous processes, the installation of sprinklers, and other preventions against fire. I only express the hope that a good deal of attention will be given to that side and that the knowledge of the existence of a far better fire-fighting service will not diminish the efforts being made in that direction. I will not refer to Scotland. We have had a discussion about that, and I would conclude by saying that it will be agreed that, as far as England is concerned, we spent our time well on the Bill, which leaves this House a much better Bill than when it entered it. I again thank the Home Secretary and I commend the Bill to the House and to those who have to work it
  8.50 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I must thank the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) most sincerely for the generous words which he used about me. It has been a very great pleasure to pilot this Bill through the Committee and through the House. We had rather a rough passage on the Second Reading, but I was very gratified at the way not merely the Members of the Committee, but also the local authority associations buckled to the task of making as good a job of this Measure as we possibly could. I join with him in his tribute to

  1449
  the National Fire Service, and I was very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, who was the father of the National Fire Service, came in to be present at this preliminary stage in the funeral of the child which has done him so much credit. I am not at all sure that if my right hon. Friend had had his way we should have got away with this Bill quite as easily as we have in the matter of cutting the throat of this very promising and efficient child. At any rate, the Government are one and united and the views of the Government have been put before the House most emphatically by me at all stages of this Measure.
  It must be borne in mind that the National Fire Service saw this country through the greatest ordeal by fire it has ever had to face. It enabled reinforcements to be brought to the aid of very sorely stricken districts in a way which the previous system would not have contemplated, let alone have expected to perform. I join with the hon. Member also in expressing the hope that those measures which deal with the prevention of fire will receive more attention in some places than they have hitherto. I hope that one effect of a more efficient rural fire service will be that the fire authorities themselves will undertake instruction in various forms in order to minimise the risk of fire. I consider that the new service, whose shaping we have now finished so far as this House is concerned, will prove worthy of the very high traditions that have been set for it by the work of the National Fire Service during the period when the service has been withdrawn from municipal control.
  I regret that we have not been able to have today's proceedings without a Division, but at any rate those of us who represent English constituencies are not responsible for any delays which may have occurred today. I want to thank my hon. Friends on this side who were in touch with local authority associations and who took part in our deliberations upstairs for the very helpful way in which they brought to the notice of the Committee the points that were perplexing those associations. There are one or two matters in this Bill which are of very great complexity, particularly the effort to rewrite the pension and compensation schemes for these people who have had
  1450
  so varied a life in the last six or seven years. I am quite sure that the House will realise that the regulations which will have to be made to carry out as far as one can the points that have perplexed the House today will need very careful study.
  I have undertaken to let the hon. Member for Westbury know when these regulations have been tabled so that we may have ample opportunity of discussing any points which are still doubtful after the regulations have been drafted. I desire that every person who came from the municipal service into the national service and now returns to the municipal service shall have nothing but happy memories of his time in the national service and shall not be prejudiced in his future municipal service because of this second transfer in the course of what, for many of these men, is a comparatively short professional career. I thank the House for the response it has given to the Bill.
  8.55 P.m.
  Colonel Wheatley: I do not want to encourage any further internecine strife on the Government Benches, but I think the Lord President of the Council should be very grateful to the Home Secretary for the way he has undoubtedly satisfied the local authorities over the contentious point of what was meant when the Lord President, as Home Secretary, said, "I am going to hand the fire brigades back to the local authorities." No doubt most local authorities thought they would get back the ones they had before, but the Home Secretary very cleverly got round that difficulty. I think everybody will now be quite happy and satisfied over that. The First Schedule will clear up that difficulty and everyone will be satisfied that all will now be well.
  We have, quite rightly, heard praise of the National Fire Service, and we might also say a word of appreciation of what the old fire brigades did. Many of them were extremely efficient, and the local authorities responsible for them were rightly very proud of them. I only hope that the local authorities will take the same pride in the new fire brigades. I have one word of warning for the Home Secretary on the question of expense. The local authorities are very worried about the undoubted extra expense of this new system, and responsibility rests with the Home Secretary

  1451
  in making his schemes to see that the authorities, especially in the country districts, are not too ambitious in having too big a brigade or too many brigades, or too many buildings out in the country. Fires take place mostly in the towns. We may get houses burnt down in the country—Himley Hall and Lulworth Castle were examples—but such incidents are few and far between compared with the dangers in the towns. I am sure the local authorities will be very contented if the Home Secretary will bear that in mind. I would add my word of thanks to the some Secretary for the very sympathetic and amiable way in which he has accepted our Amendments. I hope he will agree that the Opposition have been able to assist him in improving the Bill
  8.58 p.m.
  Mr. Maclay: I find myself in rather a quandary because, as far as I understand, 38 Clauses out of the 39 Clauses in this Bill have a very reasonable degree of support in all parts of the House, but unfortunately there is no harmony or agreement about the 39th Clause—39th not in number but in total. Owing to the peculiar device of the Scottish application Clause which produces a scheme which is not acceptable in Scotland, whereas the English Clauses are acceptable, one is left wondering what on earth to do about it. I do not really want to divide against the Third Reading in these circumstances. The only thing I can do to meet my position—the Procedure of the House does not fully provide for the quandary I am in—is to stop speaking at once, collect my papers, and, with as much dignity as possible get out of the House before I can be accused of having agreed to this Bill.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  ISLE OF MAN HARBOURS BILL [Lords]
  Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  9.1 p.m.
  Mr. E. P. Smith: I make no apology for claiming the attention of the
  1452
  House for a few minutes on the subject of this Bill, and I do so for two reasons: first, because I consider that 29 minutes, which was all that was allocated by the Government to the Second Reading of this rather important Bill was so short as to be almost a travesty.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Oliver:) The hon. Gentleman is speaking on the wrong Bill.
  Mr. Smith: I appear to have hatched my egg too early, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  Bill reported, without Amendment, read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

  PENICILLIN BILL [Lords]
  Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [9th June], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  Question again proposed.
  9.2 p.m.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I think it unnecessary for me to repeat what I said the other evening. Owing to an inadvertence, we did not get the Second Reading, although I believe it was the intention of hon. Members in all parts of the House to let us have a non-contentious Second Reading of this important Bill.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The right hon. Gentleman ought to ask leave of the House to speak again.
  Mr. Bevan: Of course, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I can speak only with the leave of the House and I do not propose to make my speech over again; otherwise I should once more be guilty of repetition. However, I commend the Bill to the House. Hon. Members who spoke on the last occasion all said that they agreed with the principle of the Bill, though there may be one or two points with which we shall have to deal in Committee and, as I indicated on that occasion, I have already agreed to certain Amendments which I hope will satisfy some hon. Members in all parts of the House who think the Bill can be improved. I hope, therefore, that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading without much ado.
  9.4 P.m.
  Mr. E. P. Smith: I rise again—this time at the appropriate moment—with the intention of making a few remarks in regard to what the right hon. Gentleman has justly called this important Bill. I do so for two reasons: the first is because I think the Government were amiss in allocating only a bare half hour, which eventually turned out to be 29 minutes, for the Second Reading. Secondly, because I did put down and move a Prayer against Statutory Rule and Order No. 731 of 1946 which this Bill seeks to supersede. On that occasion, although I furnished the Ministry of Supply with the points I wished to raise beforehand, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply came down to the House so badly briefed that he was unable seriously to answer the points I raised, and he returned no adequate reply to my considered objections. I had hoped that the Minister of Health might have condescended to read my remarks on that occasion, and to inform his mind with regard to my views on the subject. I am not unlike Mrs. Caudle who said:
  "It's seldom I open my mouth, goodness knows! But when I do, I expect you, Mr. Caudle, to flatter me with a little attention."
  Alas, the right hon. Gentleman is not unlike:
  "the deaf adder who stoppeth her ears,"
  because this particular Bill enshrines the very points to which I took objection in the original Order. I do not object to the control of penicillin. I think it has been clearly demonstrated, particularly in regard to the comparatively new discovery of "penicillin resistance," that a control is necessary. But I object very much to Clause 2 (1), where it states:
  "The substances to which this Act applies are penicillin and such other anti-microbial organic substances produced by living organisms as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister of Health…."
  I regard that as an omnibus Clause, and I am, as I think the House knows, very strongly opposed to omnibus Clauses. It gives the Minister power to control substances which at present may not even have been discovered. He arrogates to himself the powers of a god, and that really is something which no human being should ever do. My main objections to the Bill are objections which, perhaps, I may describe as being of technical prin-
  1454
  ciple. First, the Bill limits the use of penicillin to, amongst others,
  "a duly qualified medical practitioner."
  What is
  "a duly qualified medical practitioner"?
  Now, the normal man would say that a duly qualified medical practitioner is a doctor who holds certain medical degrees and busies himself with the practice of medicine. But that is not what the law says. The law says that a duly qualified medical practitioner is a person registered under the Medical Practitioners Act, 1858. The Medical Practitioners Act, 1858, is a dreary and desolate legislative wilderness, as anyone can discover who has taken the trouble to study it as I have done. Therefore, in this Bill, it is really a question primarily of his registration, and only secondarily of his qualifications. The term "a duly qualified medical practitioner" is verbally a misnomer because a medical practitioner who happens to have been struck off the Register by the General Medical Council cannot dispense penicillin, however duly qualified he may be in regard to his medical degrees and his personal skill.
  I would point out that this Bill will personally affect me very adversely because in the matter of doctors I am essentially politic. I observe three rules in regard to them. I make it a rule, first of all, never to employ a family or personal physician. I employ a doctor by the simple combination of two things, first of all, a relative knowledge of my own symptoms, and secondly, my knowledge of various doctors by the results they have achieved. If I happen to be mildly ill, I always call in one of the local medicos. I keep a list of them; and I call them in in turn. It is a practice which I commend to all Members of this House. Doctors are excellent missionaries, and if one has six missionaries working for one, they are better than one. I do that in my capacity as constituency politician.
  But if I believe, or have reason to believe, that I am seriously ill, I invariably call in a doctor who has been struck off the Medical Register—for very practical reasons, because he or she cannot sign my death certificate. He or she cannot avoid the consequences of any mistake they may have made in regard to my case by the simple expedient of having me quietly buried or cremated, and sending a floral tribute for the decoration of my coffin.

  1455
  They are as much, and indeed more, interested in my survival than I am. That is what a doctor should be. I applaud the custom of the ancient Chinese, who paid their doctors while they were well, and expected their doctors to pay them while they were ill. Therefore, I strongly object to this provision, which will prevent me, when I am seriously ill, from receiving the benefits of penicillin.
  In the matter of doctors who have been struck off the Medical Register, I am somewhat in the position of the Mahatma Ghandi in regard to the Untouchables; and I regard this as a most disagreeable manifestation of the principle of the "Closed Shop," which as such ought not to be passed by this House. I would point out, rather more seriously perhaps, that this disqualification does not simply apply to doctors who have been struck off the Register for some allegedly unprofessional conduct. It applies—and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to direct his attention to this point—to doctors who have resigned, for quite other and often perfectly proper and public reasons, from the Medical Register. Indeed, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pudsey and Otley (Colonel Stoddart-Scott), who is well known as a great physician, is, I believe, a living example of this particular type. This Bill cuts him off from a supply of penicillin, which is altogether too absurd to be countenanced by the House. That is my first technical objection to this Bill.
  My second objection is that under Clause 1 (2, f) any Minister of the Crown, irrespective of his personal knowledge or qualifications, may obtain an unlimited supply of penicillin. Let me take the example of the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, who can get all the penicillin he wants, although I have yet to learn that it is an adequate remedy for which I believe the average British housewife, who has not a very subtle knowledge of Greek, would probably translate as "arrogance." I know it is a ridiculous instance but I could multiply it, and I have taken it purposely because I believe that one cannot conscientiously examine and criticise a Bill unless one has recourse to the age-old principle of reductio ad absurdum. It is a fact that what we are doing is
  1456
  allowing the Attorney-General under this Bill to acquire all the penicillin he might fancy he wants, whereas my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pudsey and Otley, a qualified doctor of great experience, will not be allowed to have any at all.
  Dr. Haden Guest: The hon. and gallant Member for Pudsey and Otley (Colonel Stoddart-Scott) can obtain all the penicillin he wants merely by requesting that his name be put back on the Register.
  Mr. Smith: I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend specifically resigned from the Register because he felt that, occupying the public position which he does, he ought not to remain upon the Register—a consideration which does not influence, probably quite rightly, my hon. Friend opposite. I seriously contend that in regard to these points this Bill is very badly drafted and ought not to pass the House in its present form. I contend that the draftsmanship of a Bill should be able to pinpoint with tolerable accuracy and perspicuity the various interests specifically affected. I contend that the Bill before us fails lamentably to do this.
  Probably the only Minister of the Crown who really fitted to have control of penicillin is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food I have been looking her up in "Who's Who"; but "Who's Who" is relatively silent with regard to her qualifications. I cannot suppose her however, to be a very good doctor for, if she were, how come she to be a Member of a transitory and unsatisfactory Government when she might be employing her healing arts for the benefit of mankind? I think I have shown cause, for two very vital reasons, why this Bill ought not to pass without some much more satisfactory explanation than we have had so far from the Minister, although he has actually spoken twice on the subject; and if the matter is pressed to a Division, I shall on those points, and those alone most certainly vote against it.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Snow.]

  DAY NURSERIES
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]
  9.19 p.m.
  Mr. Sidney Shephard: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the situation regarding the provision of day nurseries. It seems to me that at the moment the position is rather paradoxical. On the one hand, the Government are urging mothers with young children to go out to work and to leave their children in day nurseries. On the other hand, the local authorities are closing them down on the score of expense. A case of this was reported on Tuesday in the "Daily Express" which said:
  "Wives seize a nursery. Mothers locked themselves in the day nursery in Littlemore Road, Pudsey, this weekend and refused to open the doors until the police came in through the windows. It was protest No. 1 at the Pudsey Council's decision to close the nursery because it was too expensive. Protest No. 2 will be a silent one. Thirty mothers will not turn up for work at local factories making textiles for export. 'We have to stay at home to look after the children,' they say."
  I do not say that that is necessarily typical of what is happening all over the country, but the fact remains that, last year, 167 of these day nurseries were closed. It is not my purpose tonight to discuss the merits or otherwise of day nurseries, or whether mothers with young children should go out to work. In normal times, the proper place for a mother with young children is in the home, and, however good a day nursery may be, it cannot equal a good home environment. But the times are not normal, and there is a recruiting campaign now in full swing, in those districts which are short of women workers, which is designed to persuade them to enter or re-enter industry.
  Sir Godfrey Ince, speaking of this campaign, said there were 300,000 vacancies for women and girls at the employment exchanges; he said that the textile trades were 150,000 women short, compared with the number they employed before the war, that the clothing trades were 100,000 short and the laundry trades 23,000 short. He also said that, although there are 700,000 more women working today than were working in 1939, there are over a million less than were working at the peak period of the war. Unless we can get these women back into
  1458
  industry, and into these particular industries, there will be no hope of an end of clothes rationing, neither can these industries make their proper contribution to the export trade. It is quite useless the Government appealing to mothers to go to work unless they make provision for looking after their children on a proper scale. Many of these mothers are only too anxious to do their bit, and they would willingly work if they knew how to get their children properly looked after. During the war, there was a great extension of day nurseries. I believe there were io6 in 1939, and at the peak period of the war, there were 1,560, with accommodation for 60,000 children.
  But in December, 1945, a joint circular was sent out by the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of Education to welfare and local education authorities on the future provision of nursery accommodation for children under five, and that circular pointed out that, with the end of the war and the passing into law of the new Education Act, it was envisaged that the day nurseries, which had been set up to deal with the problem of evacuation and the production of munitions, would gradually cease to function, and that, complementarily, at the same time, there would be a wide extension of nursery schools and classes. The local authorities were to regard these day nurseries only as supplementary to the nursery schools and only to meet the cases of mothers who had to go out to work. I think that that policy was right at the time, but I do not think it was envisaged then that we should have this very serious manpower problem and, while very few nursery schools have been provided since the war finished, the closing down of these day nurseries has cut down the existing accommodation without providing any alternative.
  In any case, nursery schools do not deal adequately with the case of the working mother. In the first place, they do not take children under the age of two, and, very often, not under the age of three. They are only open during school hours, and, of course, they are closed during the long school holidays. But I have no doubt in my mind that finance has a great deal to do with the closing down of these day nurseries. Up to 31st March, 1946, the Minister of Health assumed the entire financial responsibility

  1459
  for them, but after that date local education authorities only received the same grant as they received for education purposes—something just over 50 per cent.—and the position today is that there are only 897 day nurseries as compared with the figure which I quoted previously of 1,560 at the peak period.
  There is the further point that, whereas during the war mothers paid only 6s. per child per week, today they are subject to some kind of means test, and have to pay anything up to 30s. It seems to me that a new situation has arisen which justifies a re-examination of this day nursery problem based entirely on the 'need to make provision for mothers who wish to go to work and want accommodation for their children. I know that a few firms have opened works nurseries. We opened one in my works, and I must say that it has been a great success. But we cannot rely to any great extent on works nurseries. In most cases the factories are not suitable for conversion. They have hardly the right environment, and further, very few firms have the necessary space available. I have not brought this matter forward in any critical spirit. I hope that the Minister will re-examine the problem afresh in the light of the present situation and see whether there is anything he can do to stimulate the local authorities to open or reopen day nurseries wherever the need exists.
  9.28 p.m.
  Mrs. Leah Manning: I wish only to add a few words to what the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard) has said. I am glad that he has raised this subject, because I think that there is a great deal of uneasiness in the country about it. However, I would like to join issue with him a little on the question of children under the age of two. I think that there is now a general feeling in the country that mothers with very young children should, if possible, be at home with them, and not go into the factory. We all know that there is a very great urge for mothers to go to work, but it is not quite the same urge as there was during the war years when we were very glad to have mothers, with babies who had just left the breast, going into factories.
  I feel that perhaps the Minister has not taken sufficiently into consideration the fact that we had hoped that nursery schools
  1460
  would be opening almost immediately, and that they would take over, for children over the age of two, the functions with which during the war the day nurseries had to concern themselves. Our anticipations, unfortunately, have not been realised. There are many reasons for that which need not be dilated upon now, because they are too well known to everybody. The Minister of Education has had to say that the shell, the essential part of the schools, must be built first, and that such adjuncts as nurseries, and even canteens, must wait until a little later. The necessity for that raises a rather new situation. How ought this situation to be dealt with?
  The hon. Member for Newark has mentioned something in which I am very interested, and I am anxious that the Minister should pursue some inquiries about it. It is the question of day nurseries being built near or actually at the works. During the war we felt that that was a mistake because most works were in vulnerable areas. We turned our face against it then, but the position is different now. We have to consider the case of the mother who gets up early to go to work and finds that the only nursery to which she can take her child is at the other end of the town. It means a long journey both before she goes to work and afterwards, when she is tired. It also means that she is cut off from her child all day long. Perhaps we can pursue this matter a little further. I would like to press the Minister for his views, and perhaps for a promise that he will consider the question. We do not want any kind of place in the factory for the children, but somewhere with pleasant surroundings. We want a place that is properly furnished and well equipped, and with suitable people in charge. It would be a very great convenience to mothers in industry, especially in places where nurseries have not already been built. The mothers might be able even to see their children at lunch time and have their meals with them in the canteen. It is along those lines that I should like the Minister's advice tonight.
  9.32 p.m.
  Mr. Drayson: The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard) for raising this subject, which has a bearing upon the production problem with which the Government are now confronted. I had

  1461
  not intended to intervene in the Debate, but it happens that yesterday I received a letter from a branch of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, deploring the fact that a day nursery in the town was being closed down. My first reaction was to write to the local authority before I approached the Minister, but as we now have an opportunity to discuss day nurseries, I will bring the matter to the notice of the Minister, and inform him that this branch of the A.E.U. has written to me in protest. The town in question has a large number of operatives engaged in the textile industry. It is an essential industry employing a large number of women. Many of us would much prefer that married women with children should remain in their homes, but this is becoming very difficult at the present time. I ask the Government to consider, if local authorities have difficulty in meeting out of the rates expenses incurred in running day nurseries, whether some assistance can be given. The North of England suffered considerably during the recent fuel crisis in loss of wages, owing to the industrial shutdown. The Government might see their way to keeping the nurseries open. I have taken the opportunity to inform the Minister that the A.E.U. is particularly interested in this subject. I hope he will have some announcement to make and that he will be prepared to consider assisting local authorities who feel they cannot continue the expense of day nurseries.
  9.35 p.m.
  Dr. Haden Guest: I hope the Minister will keep his mind open on the possibility of improving the conditions as they exist at present. On many occasions in my constituency there has been brought to my notice very forcibly the need for extra nursery accommodation at a reasonable price. I would also point out that in the London area many women go to work not in factories, but individually, or one or two together, so that there is no question of having factory or works crèches, which in their way, of course, are very desirable. I hope the Minister will keep in mind another factor which ought to be given "points," so to speak, in estimating the necessity for these places, and that is the question whether the homes from which the children come are of a suitable kind. If they were very good homes with plenty of accommodation, it might be possible
  1462
  for mothers to arrange for someone to look after them at home, but unfortunately many of them are not suitable. In many parts of London, however, that is not possible. The type of home and the cost are matters which have been brought to my attention by several trade unions and local authorities, and I hope the Minister will be able to say something which will give hope to those who find it difficult to carry on working because they have no place to which to take their children.
  9.37 p.m.
  Mr. Baker White: There is one aspect of this matter which I would like to mention, and that is its effect on agriculture. In the coming years we have to produce more food, and particularly more fruit and vegetables in this country. In many counties, notably counties like Kent, we rely largely on women to get in those crops. I admit it is seasonal. It starts with pea picking, and goes on to the soft fruits crop, then hop picking in Kent, and finishes with apples. Some difficulty has been experienced in getting women to leave their homes because there is nowhere to leave their children, particularly young children, while they are working. I realise that the Minister cannot do anything about it in this present year, but as the matter has been raised, I have called attention to this problem of day nurseries as it affects the countryside.
  9.38 p.m.
  Mr. Chetwynd: I would like to know whether the Minister of Health could give some information about the average cost now charged to people for sending their children to day nurseries. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard) said that in some cases the cost was as much as 30s. a week. I heard that general allegation made some time ago, and I took the trouble to investigate it. I found the average cost was about 10s. a week, and that, in many cases, parents were sending their children to day nurseries free of charge. Could we have some information on that point, because it is most important? On the question of young children of about one or two years of age I would say that during the war my wife was working and our young baby, who was then under one year, went to an admirable day nursery, but we found the arrangement

  1463
  did not work. She was miserable and unhappy, and we had to take her away. I would like some guidance as to whether it is wise to send children of that tender age to day nurseries.
  9.39 P.m.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard) for having raised this very important matter, because it provides me as, indeed it has provided other hon. Members, with an opportunity of saying a word or two on the subject. There is some misapprehension about the existing situation. It is not quite as bad as it is made out to be in some quarters. In 1939 there were 104 day nurseries in England and Wales. In 1944 the number increased to 1,550, with places for 71,000 children. In 1947 these had fallen to 900 with places for 44,000 children. In the meantime we have 370 nursery schools for 19,000 children. These figures show a higher proportion of women in industry and of nursery facilities than in time of war, and so we are nor falling behind in that regard. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) that the substitution of nursery schools in place of day nurseries is progress. We all regard nursery schools as the better solution of the two.
  But I do want to make it quite clear that the Government are not making a drive to recruit for industry women who have children under two years of age. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Epping that it is undesirable for a mother to leave all day her child of that age. We do not wish to encourage it. Nor, indeed, do we wish to drive women into employment who have got burdensome domestic responsibilities, because the maintenance and welfare of a young family is one of the most important considerations for the State; and we must not allow ourselves to be panicked into recruiting women into industry if, as a consequence of that, we have neglect of young children and what was seen during the war, the appalling indiscipline of many young children. I do hope we shall have a sense of proportion.
  Now, of course, day nurseries will increase; but, as hon. Members in all parts of the House know, there are very grave
  1464
  physical limitations on what we can do. We have limited physical resources. We need very much more than we have got. So it is not possible for us to extend to the extent that we might like. I would remind hon. Members that it is not easy to staff nurseries when we have them. Domestic staffs, nursing staffs are very difficult to get, and very often these nurseries have been closed down because of the absence of efficient staff. That is a further difficulty that we are up against. We have, of course, about 150,000 children in infant departments of primary schools, which is a very considerable contribution towards helping to solve this problem, and about 250 wartime nurseries have become nursery schools. So we are making some headway. We are hoping to expand wherever the need is proved. Whenever the Ministry of Labour say that more nursery places are required, the Ministry of Health at once approaches the local welfare authority, and arrangements are made for the opening up of the day nurseries.
  But hon. Members must not imagine that this is always an economic affair. Indeed, some of the nurseries have been frightfully expensive. It would be far better if women just remained at home. Some have cost so much we could have afforded to send the mother and her child on holiday to the South of France rather than keep the nursery open at all. So we must not imagine that the day nursery is an economic proposition. We have to balance the disutility in maintaining a day nursery against what a woman would be producing in industry, if she went into industry. We must not have these babies wrapped up in platinum merely in order to say we have got day nurseries. For instance, in the hon. Gentleman's own constituency—at Newark—half the present accommodation is unused.
  Mr. S. Shephard: I was not talking about my own constituency.
  Mr. Bevan: No, but that is slightly relevant. It does go to show that where these nurseries are provided they are not always used to the extent we should like to see them used, and to the extent they are not used, of course, the overheads can become really too burdensome, and local authorities then close them down.
  I have been asked whether we would consider assisting financially local authori-

  1465
  ties who find the burden too heavy to carry. I must be quite frank with the House. I do not consider it good public policy to give local authorities special grants which are so high that the local authorities have no financial interest in the economic management of their own affairs. We give an average of 50 per cent.; and that is an average above most of the other grants. If the grant is increased to 75 per cent., or, as I was asked by some hon. Members the other day, to 100 per cent., it would be monstrously extravagant. If we are to entrust, as we must, the management of these day nurseries to local authorities, the national finances must be safeguarded by giving the local authorities an interest in the economic running of the day nurseries. If the local authorities find that the discharge of these services becomes too burdensome the solution is, not to make them financially irresponsible by increasing the amount of the grant, but to re-adjust the local burden all round.
  It very often happens that the House of Commons is subjected to pressures which ought, in fact, to be exerted against local authorities. If local authorities are negligent—and they are, after all, elected bodies, and it is open to the citizens of those areas to make the local authorities face up to their responsibilities—a good deal of the pressure which is sometimes exerted against me might be exerted to far better effect against the negligent local authorities up and down the country.
  Let me say a few words on the very important point of créche facilities in fac
  1466
  tories. I am not quite sure what my powers are in that regard. I think that probably it would be better to do it by persuasion; by giving assistance here and there, where-ever it is required; by giving help and guidance, unless we had some wide legislative power—which, indeed, we have not got at the present time. Not all factories are desirable places for young children to go to. What my hon. Friend the Member for Epping has said is quite sound. If a mother has to travel long distances in order to deposit her baby, before starting work, and then has to travel that long distance to get the baby afterwards, the attractiveness of work becomes quite impossible in certain circumstances, and we should pay a very high price in the fatigue of the mother, and lose as a consequence.
  I will certainly explore further to see to what extent it is possible to provide creches in suitable factories; because it does not require argument to appreciate that if a mother can run out for a moment or two in the course of the day to look at the baby she is much more satisfied, and the baby is much more satisfied; and she would be able to take the baby home with her straight away, without having the fatigue of unnecessary travel. We attach very great importance indeed to the development of day nurseries, but not to the development of day nurseries which are so under-used as to make them quite uneconomic.
  Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes to Ten o'Clock.

TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Tyre Production (Carbon Black)
  Tyre Production (Carbon Black)
  Sail-Making (Cotton Cloth)
  Sail-Making (Cotton Cloth)
  Rubber Boots
  Rubber Boots
  Factories
  Factories
  Woolcombing (Soda Ash)
  Woolcombing (Soda Ash)
  Shoe Repair Depôots (Licences)
  Shoe Repair Depôots (Licences)
COAL INDUSTRY
  Opencast Working, Melville
  Opencast Working, Melville
  Sheringham Co-operative Society (Coke Allocation)
  Sheringham Co-operative Society (Coke Allocation)
  Imports from U.S.A.
  Imports from U.S.A.
  Assets (Compensation)
  Assets (Compensation)
  Commission's Staff
  Commission's Staff
  SHALE OIL INDUSTRY, SCOTLAND
  SHALE OIL INDUSTRY, SCOTLAND
POLICE
  Assailants
  Assailants
  Station Inspectors
  Station Inspectors
  Cleaners' Pay
  Cleaners' Pay
  Resignations
  Resignations
  CIVIL DEFENCE (INSPECTOR-GENERAL'S DUTIES)
  CIVIL DEFENCE (INSPECTOR-GENERAL'S DUTIES)
  VIVISECTION (REGISTERED PLACES, INSPECTION)
  VIVISECTION (REGISTERED PLACES, INSPECTION)
PRISONS
  Askham Richard (Completion)
  Askham Richard (Completion)
  Holloway (Instruction Classes)
  Holloway (Instruction Classes)
EMPLOYMENT
  Wales and Monmouthshire
  Wales and Monmouthshire
  Registered Dock Workers
  Registered Dock Workers
  Training Courses (Grants)
  Training Courses (Grants)
HOUSING
  Rent Tribunals
  Rent Tribunals
  Birmingham
  Birmingham
  Local Authority Houses
  Local Authority Houses
  Rural Areas
  Rural Areas
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Medical Practitioner, Hartley (Call-Up)
  Medical Practitioner, Hartley (Call-Up)
  Slaughter Houses (Horses)
  Slaughter Houses (Horses)
  Hospital Equipment
  Hospital Equipment
  Hospitals (Young Girls, Employment)
  Hospitals (Young Girls, Employment)
  Expectant Mothers (Sheets)
  Expectant Mothers (Sheets)
EDUCATION
  Bird-Life Preservation (Instruction)
  Bird-Life Preservation (Instruction)
  Emergency Training College, Cardiff
  Emergency Training College, Cardiff
  Teachers (Special Posts, Allowances)
  Teachers (Special Posts, Allowances)
  Development Plan, Cardiff (Expenditure)
  Development Plan, Cardiff (Expenditure)
  Schools, Essex
  Schools, Essex
  University Students (Awards)
  University Students (Awards)
  Interchange of Teachers
  Interchange of Teachers
  Bishop Fox's School, Taunton (Accommodation)
  Bishop Fox's School, Taunton (Accommodation)
  Grammar School, Foots Cray (Equipment)
  Grammar School, Foots Cray (Equipment)
  Holidays (Wales)
  Holidays (Wales)
  Nursery Schools, Cardiff
  Nursery Schools, Cardiff
  Clerical Assistants
  Clerical Assistants
  Black-Listed Buildings
  Black-Listed Buildings
  Basic English Foundation
  Basic English Foundation
  VALUATION FOR RATES
  VALUATION FOR RATES
  POSTERS (PARTICULARS OF PRINTER)
  POSTERS (PARTICULARS OF PRINTER)
  LAW OF DEFAMATION (COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
  LAW OF DEFAMATION (COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Building Licences, Glasgow
  Building Licences, Glasgow
  Building Materials (Committee's Report)
  Building Materials (Committee's Report)
  Building Contractors (Registration)
  Building Contractors (Registration)
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  Beaver's Lane Camp, Hounslow
  Beaver's Lane Camp, Hounslow
  Cottages (Edworth, Bedfordshire)
  Cottages (Edworth, Bedfordshire)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Electoral Registers (Malcolm Clubs)
  Electoral Registers (Malcolm Clubs)
  Overseas Tour of Duty
  Overseas Tour of Duty
  Airfields
  Airfields
  MEDICAL BOARDS (EX-MINERS)
  MEDICAL BOARDS (EX-MINERS)
  BURMA (OUTBREAK OF LAWLESSNESS)
  BURMA (OUTBREAK OF LAWLESSNESS)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Linseed Oil
  Linseed Oil
  Manufacturing Meat Allocations
  Manufacturing Meat Allocations
  Horseflesh
  Horseflesh
  Rations and Special Allowances
  Rations and Special Allowances
  CAPTURED ENEMY DOCUMENTS (PUBLICATION)
  CAPTURED ENEMY DOCUMENTS (PUBLICATION)
  GERMAN TRAWLER FISHING FLEET (REBUILDING PROGRAMME)
  GERMAN TRAWLER FISHING FLEET (REBUILDING PROGRAMME)
  L.M.S. LINE, ROCHDALE— BACUP
  L.M.S. LINE, ROCHDALE— BACUP
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The EARL OF LUCAN on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  LUTON CORPORATION BILL.
  Read 2a, and committed.
PRESTON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
BOROUGH OF HEMEL HEMPSTEAD ORDER;
BOROUGH OF NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME ORDER;
URBAN DISTRICT OF BRAINTREE AND BOOKING ORDER;
URBAN DISTRICT OF COWES ORDER;
URBAN DISTRICT OF WEDNESFIELD ORDER;
URBAN DISTRICT OF WOLVERTON ORDER.
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that these Orders be approved.
Moved, That the Orders made under the Act by the Secretary of State for the Home Department for extending section one of the Act to the said areas be approved.— (Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.

TRANSPORT BILL.
2.37 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Addison.)
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before we proceed to the business of the day I have one word of explana-
598
tion to make. Your Lordships will remember that the night before last, in the course of an exchange of views between the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and myself with reference to the Government's attitude, I used the word "menace." My attention has been drawn to the fact that in the OFFICIAL REPORT I am reported as using the word "malice." Of course that is not at all the same thing. "Menace," whether you agree with it or not, may be regarded as fair comment; "malice" is an offensive expression. I am sure the Leader of the House will appreciate that the last thing I should wish to do to him is to use an expression of that offensive character. I therefore wanted to take the earliest opportunity I could to correct an error which I am sure he will believe was not of my own making.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I am sure that every one of us knew quite well at the time that the noble Marquess said "menace." We all understood it in the interchange of views. I am sure the noble Marquess would be the very last person in the world to use the word "malice."
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 5:
The Executives.
(3) The number and names of the Executives shall be such as may from time to time be decided by the Commission, but unless and until other provision is made by such an order there shall be Executives known respectively as the Railway Executive, the Inland Waterways Executive, the Road Transport Executive and the London Transport Executive and, as from the appointed day, an Executive known as the Hotels Executive.
(4) Each Executive shall, as agents for the Commission, exercise such functions of the Commission as are for the time being delegated to them by or under a scheme made by the Commission and approved by the Minister.
(5) Every scheme made and approved as aforesaid and every instrument issued there-under effecting or revoking or varying any delegation of functions of the Commission shall be published in the London and Edinburgh Gazettes:
Provided that the publication in the London or Edinburgh Gazette of a notice stating that a scheme has been made and approved or that an instrument has been issued, and specifying the place where copies thereof may be purchased, shall be sufficient compliance with

599
the provisions of this Subsection as respects the publication of that scheme or instrument in that Gazette.
(9) As respects matters for the time being falling within the scope of any such delegation, the following provisions shall have effect except as between the Executive and the Commission, that is to say—
(a) any rights, powers and liabilities of the Commission shall be treated as rights, powers and liabilities of the Executive, and the Executive only;
(11) Where the effect of an order of the Minister under subsection (3) of this section is to abolish an Executive, or the effect of a scheme under subsection (4) of this section is that functions previously directly exercisable by the Commission are exercisable by an Executive or that functions previously exercisable by an Executive are exercisable by a different Executive or directly by the Commission, the order or scheme may include such transitional provisions as appear to the Minister, or to the Commission and the Minister, as the case may be, to be expedient, including provisions as to the parties by and against whom legal proceedings are to be instituted or continued.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved, in subsection (3), after "Transport," where that word first occurs, to insert "(Carriage of Goods) Executive, the Road Transport (Carriage of Passengers)." The noble Lord said: In the absence of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name and my own. It concerns the creation of a Road Transport Executive. I think your Lordships will agree with me that the body with which this Executive will have to deal is very large and widespread. It resolves itself naturally into two parts: that dealing with road transport and that dealing with passenger transport. It would appear desirable that these two functions should not be placed in the hands of one Executive. Lower down in the list of Amendments is one in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, the effect of which is practically the same.
Your Lordships will observe that in the Bill the Commissioners' duties include that of preparing and submitting to the Minister a scheme as to passenger road transport services. They are to consult every local authority within the area to which such schemes relate, and I submit that the point whether there should not be established at the outset a body with the responsibility of making those necessary negotiations on behalf of the Commission should be considered. Its
600
establishment would be possible if this Amendment were agreed to. In the case of the railways a certain amount of experience has been gained. It may be advisable in the case of the railways to have one Executive, but there is a great divergence between the two subjects to be dealt with by the Road Transport Executive. In the case of railways considerable experience of the co-ordination of control has been gained during the war, but with road transport that would not be available. I suggest, therefore, that in the case of road services there would be a greater difficulty with which to contend.
Another advantage which would result from dividing this Road Transport Executive into two would be that you would get greater accuracy and more favourable form in the course of running both services. I venture to suggest that it is an important consideration in dealing with road transport, as it is indeed with all other services that are to be controlled under the Bill, that we should know what each service costs the State. I quite appreciate that in another place the Parliamentary Secretary made the point that the Road Executive would have to deal at first with the question of road haulage; they would not, in the first instance, have to deal with the passenger services, and there would be no operational work for passenger services to be done until the Commission had put up schemes to the Minister and they had been approved. But from what I have already said, I think there is an argument for separating the Executives in the first place, instead of waiting until that later time comes. Therefore I suggest that the principle of the Amendment is sound, and that it would be far better to put it in the Bill now instead of waiting until later on.
I do not think there is more I can say at this moment. I trust that the Government will take the suggestion into serious consideration. It is, of course, put forward in no sense of criticism of the measure, and there is no intention of defeating the aim of the Bill in any shape or form. As with so many other Amendments put forward in your Lordships' House this is submitted merely in an endeavour to make something more practicable than does the Bill, which, in its present terms does so much to create chaos. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 40, alter (" Transport ") insert "(Carriage of Goods) Executive, the Road Transport (Carriage of Passengers)" —(Lord O' Hagan.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think it may save time if I say a word now, because I have an Amendment three or four lines lower down the list dealing with the same subject in rather a different way. Since these Amendments were put down, of course, we have altered the Bill in an important particular. The Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, which would have given complete latitude to the Commission, was riot pressed. On the other hand, your Lordships have decided something that I think is very important—that the Commission, and not the Minister, shall appoint the Executives. The Commission will, of course, have the power to change the character of the Executives and, moreover, their functions from one to another. If these watertight Executives had been left entirely as they were, and everything were left in the nands of the Minister, I should have felt bound to support my noble friend in this Amendment. On the other hand, as we have taken what on reflection probably nearly everybody in this House will agree is the wise course of entrusting the Commission with the real power and the real discretion, I think it would not be wise to fetter the Commission by saying that they shall appoint this or that Executive, or that they shall appoint it at such and such a time. You are now to treat the Commission as the board of a great controlling company. Having done that it is wise to leave discretion in the hands of the Commission, and therefore, I would respectfully suggest to my noble friend that this Amendment, which would be completely mandatory, should not be pressed.
It will be quite possible under the Bill, as I understand it—although I would like to be assured of this on legal authority—that if the Commission thought it wise to appoint separate Road Executives, a separate Road Hauliers Executive, and a Road Passenger Transport Executive, it would be competent for them to do so. Your Lordships will see that, in effect, the Amendment of my noble friend Lord O'Hagan affects mine—which is the fourth one down. My Amendment is that
"the functions delegated to the Road Transport Executive may be exercised by sub-
602
Executives to be known respectively as the Road (Carriage of Goods) sub-Executive, and the Road (Carriage of Passengers) sub-Executive."
I am sure it would be wise that the Commission should have the power to do that if they think it right. Very likely it would be done, because the carriage of goods and of pasengers by road is quite a different thing from those operations on the railways. On the railways the two naturally intermix. It is true that the bus and the truck go along the same road, yet they are two entirely different operations and catering for different sorts of people. I would suggest to the Government, when we come to my Amendment, that there is nothing obligatory in it; but if there is any question that the Commission would not have this power of sub-delegation and of splitting up, it might be wise to accept my Amendment. Therefore, when we come to my Amendment, I will just formally move it in order to get a reply upon it, unless the Government like to reply upon it now, when dealing with my noble friend's Amendment.
LORD MORRISON: I find myself almost in agreement with what the noble Viscount has said. There can be no question that in the operation of the two forms of transport the technique is different. Therefore it seemed to me, when I listened to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, that the only point of argument was contained in three words he used in discussing whether this should be applied from the outset. The three words to whch I refer are those last three words: "from the outset." It seems to me, on the balance of argument, that while it may be possible—and, indeed, I should think almost probable—that at some time it will be necessary to have two separate Executives, it would be better, as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton said, not to deal with this matter immediately but to leave it for the Commission to decide. It is possible that the Road Transport Executive may have to be split in two. Meantime, as has been pointed out, there is no immediate urgency to do it at the present time. This could be done when required, and would be possible under the powers conferred under Clause 5 (3).
That also answers the question which the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has put to me about his Amendment. If he

603
will look at Clause 5 (3) as printed he will see that it reads:
"The number and names of the Executives shall be such as may from time to time be provided by order of the Minister."
That was how that subsection, as it was originally in the Bill, began. But, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, under the Amendment which was carried against the Government the other night, if that Amendment stands, the word "Minister" will be changed into "Commission."
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think that is satisfactory—subject to this. There are questions which are really questions of legal interpretation, and which do not involve any difference between us. The noble Lord said that you could appoint the Road Transport Executive, and that certain things could be done later. It may well be that when the Commission get to work one of the earliest things they will decide is that they desire to run road haulage and road transport separately. I want to be quite clear as to the law. Can they do that, and can we be sure that we shall not have the rather stupid business of first creating one single Executive and then going through a whole process of metamorphoses? I think it is all right, in view of the wording of Clause 5 (3) as altered by the Amendment. It will read:
"The number and names of the Executives shall be such as may from time to time be decided by the Commission but unless and until other provision is made by such an order there shall be Executives known respectively as—"
and then follows a catalogue of the Executives.
There would be nothing, I take it, to stop the Commission in the first instance appointing two Road Transport Executives instead of one. If that is so, I think we are entirely in accord. The noble Lord also said he thought there was power, without putting in any words, to deal with my point (which is an alternative method of doing it) of having one Executive dealing with Road Transport, but splitting it into two sub-Executives. The noble Lord said that we could appoint any number of Executives. I want to be quite clear as to the law upon that. If, in the opinion of the Commission, it was better to appoint an Executive with two sub-Executives under them, I take it that that would be within their powers.
LORD MORRISON: I am assured that the answer to both the questions put by the noble Viscount is in the affirmative.
LORD O'HAGAN: If the legal point is cleared up completely—and I understand that it is—and my noble friend Viscount Swinton is satisfied, I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD CROMWELL: Before the Amendment is withdrawn may I ask what would be the effect if it were decided that the word "Minister" should remain in Clause 5 (3), and there was a difference of opinion between the Commission and the Minister and the Minister held up some recommendation of the Commission?
LORD MORRISON: I cannot answer that on the spur of the moment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: May I be permitted to point out here that we have abolished the Minister from this function and the whole responsibility rests with the Commission. It is not for us to anticipate what might happen if a subsection came back to us in a different form from that in which we have left it. We might say "we do not like that," and decide to take some further action, but I think we had better deal with the different parts of the Bill as they are left as we go along.
LORD O'HAGAN: I should like to make it quite clear that I do warmly take up this point: The right is reserved, if this should be brought back to us in a form that we do not desire, to move some such Amendment as this.
THE EARL of RADNOR: In view of the previous Amendment, which gives the Commission much greater freedom, I should like to know what the position is. Subsection (3) in the Bill begins:
"The number and names of the Executives shall be such as may from time to time be provided by order of the Minister—"
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this. We have altered that passage, and the subsection, as altered by us last time, now reads:
"The number and names of the Executives shall be such as may from time to time be decided by the Commission, and unless and until other provision is made—"
they shall be so and so.
LORD O'HAGAN: In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.57 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (3), after "Transport executive" to insert "Scottish Transport Executive." The noble Earl said: I think this ought really to be a formal motion. I would put it even higher and say that this is something which ought to have been incorporated in the Bill before it was printed. In the first place, I wish to make two points. There is no rigidity of any kind in this Amendment and any remarks in that sense which the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, may have made do not apply here, because this Amendment allows the Commission perfect freedom to do what they want to do. This is merely an expression by the Legislature of what they consider should be done in the circumstances.
My second point is that there already exists in this Bill provision for what might be called a geographical distribution. There is, for instance, the London Passenger Transport Board. That is on a geographical basis. I think it can be claimed—indeed I can claim it on the authority of the Minister of Transport himself—that the problems existing in Scotland are at least as divergent from those existing in the rest of the country as the problems of the L.P.T.B. are, say from those of the Midlands. The Minister himself remarked that Scotland presented an entirely different problem in the field of transport.
I submit to your Lordships that this is a correct Amendment—that is to say, that it is an Amendment which deals with an essential item. I would ask your Lordships to refer to Clause 5 (9) (a) which reads:
"any rights, powers and liabilities of the Commission shall be treated as rights, powers and liabilities of the Executive, and the Executive only. …"
Paragraph (b) reads:
"the Executive shall, to the exclusion of the Commission, be treated as the employers of any officers or servants of the Commission so long as they are by virtue of the delegation under the control of the Executive."
That is to say the Executive shall be the employers of personnel. It means that they will have rights at law. They will be the persons to be sued in the event of any catastrophe or anything of that nature taking place. These are two essential items required in any necessary form of devolution. I have said that this should
606
be a formal Amendment, because the Government have repeatedly expressed their intention and desire that in nationalized industry effect should be given to decentralization. I must say that the manner they propose this is not the way in which effective decentralization can be brought into being. I would like to refer, if I may, to the Second Reading speech of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. He says in respect of certain recommendations by the Scottish Council:
"I do not think that between the views of my right honourable friend and those of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry there is any point of major difference in this matter."
I am afraid that is a misleading statement: it is quite contrary to what the position is in fact. There is a vast and wide difference.
May I now read what the Scottish Council has said on this matter? I should explain that the Scottish Council is representative of local authorities, Chambers of Commerce and co-operative societies and, as such, is broadly representative of all sides of active political opinion in Scotland:
"The Council feel very strongly, however, that if firm provision is not made beforehand for a system of control in Scotland which will be satisfactory in practice, there is no guarantee that a satisfactory system will in fact be provided. The Council, therefore, urge the Government to ensure by direction beforehand, either by the insertion of a suitable clause in the Bill that … that provision must be made by the Transport Commission for the. fullest possible delegation of effective administrative authority to offices in Scotland …"
I submit that the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, is completely misleading. Is there any other body in Scotland whose opinion your Lordships would like to hear? Might I suggest the Scottish T.U.C.? In a memorandum on the Transport Bill, the T.U.C. say:
"In reaching the conclusion that there are good grounds for the establishment of a Scottish Executive, the General Council has also had regard to the following observations made by the Right Honourable Herbert Morrison.."
I need not worry the House with these observations; they are recorded in Hansard of December 18.
Is there any other representative body in Scotland from whom you want an opinion, a body more representative than the Scottish Council and the T.U.C.? I will take

607
the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. If I may say so, in this Mother of Parliaments, there is no more competent, democratic assembly than that of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. It is representative of 25 per cent. of the whole population, and very few churches can claim that at the present day. A resolution passed last month in the General Assembly said:
"The General Assembly, seriously considering the possible invasion of human rights and local independence by large-scale collectivism, and noting the continued disregard of Scottish sentiment and the claims of Scotland as a nation in many matters which vitally affect the prosperity of the Scottish people, declare their conviction that schemes of nationalization must be accompanied by a large measure of devolution and decentralization if the achievement of a genuine democracy is not to be frustrated."
I do not think that anybody can say from what I have read that the opinions I am expressing are those of a small sectional interest. They are very widely held, and after the remarks we heard the other night about representative government they are opinions which should be observed carefully by the Government and not turned down lightly. These views are to-day frequently regarded as an anachronism, a nationalistic expression; but what is the sense of common interest over a large area but a form of nationalism? Because whatever one's views are, the first duty is to set one's own house in order. If it is not set in order, one has little right to explain to other people how they should set their house in order.
I wonder whether it is appreciated that very little is known about the feeling in Scotland to-day. I refer to a very simple remark from the noble Lord, Lord Walkden—I admit he was speaking with some exuberance and I will not press the point. He said: "There is nobody unemployed." During the last year from 80,000 to 100,000 people in Scotland were unemployed. I admit that is only half the number unemployed in 1939, but it is a considerable number, and when people here in London talk about shortage of manpower, it is sheer nonsense so far as Scotland is concerned.
Another example of the degree to which these matters are not understood was given in a speech by a very distinguished politician with an experience greater than
608
most—I will not mention his name. In this speech which he made in Scotland, he gave figures of English house building. Anyone who knows Scotland knows that English house building before the war was, in Scotland, a matter of anger and rebuke to the Government, which was not of the same complexion as the Government of the present time, because in those days English house building was going ahead very much more quickly than Scottish house building; and to come up from England and speak in Scotland about house building in England was to rub salt into the sore. That is an example of the sort of error which even a politician of great experience can make. I will explain the reason for this. It is not generally known, that at the present time virtually no newspapers published in London are also read in Scotland and none of the papers read in Scotland is read in London. That is because all the so-called national papers have two or three versions, and news which particularly applies to that area is sent to the northern editions. The result is that we are not reading the same newspapers, and those living in London cannot appreciate the strength of public sentiment which exists 300 miles away.
Perhaps zoo years ago there was a report by Lord Durham in which he used the expression of Canada, "There are two nations warring in the bosom of a single State." That is a danger which may happen to-day unless we are very careful, and that is why I am pressing on your Lordships, with such clarity as I am able, the nature of this Amendment. Because not only is there a lack of understanding of the nature of the problem, but by centralizing control here you are taking from the people resident in Scotland the ability to resolve their own problems. Unless the matter is dealt with very carefully one of two things will happen: either Scotland will become a liability to the United Kingdom or she will break herself away into a separate organization. I am afraid the danger of that is not unreal, because there is ever growing in London—and I say this deliberately—a very evil desire to dominate and control other peoples lives. I do not know why it is growing but it is, and it is not confined to one particular Party by any means, but it finds its greatest expression at the moment in the seats of Government.
May I recall to You a very famous expression by Doctor Johnson? Doctor Johnson, you remember, said:
"The noblest prospect which a Scotsman ever sees is the high road that leads him to England."
Dr. Johnson was quite right, and he is still right, and, if I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, took that road. I do not for one moment grudge his taking it. It will be within your Lordships' knowledge that there are many Scotsmen living in this city who are quite capable of looking after themselves. I am not speaking for them, I am speaking for the five million Scotsmen and Scotswomen, very few of whom would dissent from what I am now saying. They have a very keen and definite appreciation of where their interests lie, and they must be able to resolve their own problems. The problems which they have to face are problems which they alone can resolve, and it is proper in a Bill of this nature that they should be asked to shoulder the responsibility and not be treated as distant bondsmen and bondslaves under a regulation issued somewhere else.
I will not keep noble Lords any longer except to say that this Bill is built on functional representation. There are many here who doubt the wisdom of that functional representation. I submit that unless some regional organization is introduced, this Bill will not and cannot work. It is for that reason that I am moving this Amendment. I am quite certain that in the proper interests of a nationalization Bill that is the only way in which it can be carried out.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 40, after ("Transport executive") insert ("Scottish Transport Executive").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I rise to support this Bill with a certain amount of diffidence because it was only the day before yesterday that I committed a breach of privilege in your Lordships' House by invading the sacred precincts and addressing your Lordships from the Bench of the right reverend Prelates. I had no opportunity to apologize at that time, as there was no right reverend Prelate present, but I do so now, and I have taken the precaution to remove myself as far as possible from that Bench in case, as sometimes happens, we get hot-headed when we discuss Scottish affairs. I am fully conscious that I can
610
never hope at any time to aspire to the lawn sleeves or to any other reward awaiting the right reverend Prelates.
I find there has been a tendency during most of the Committee stage of this Bill for noble Lords to declare their interests. I want to tell noble Lords once again that I have no interests either in rail, road, or water. I will leave it at that. But I have one interest which your Lordships will probably hardly credit; therefore, I give it in absolute confidence—it is that I am a Scot. Sometimes I wonder whether we are not what the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition describes as a "veiled menace" in your Lordships' House. It is obvious that the one interest I have is to watch over the best interests of my country of Scotland. There is no need for me to go into very deep detail, because the whole case has been put so admirably and devastatingly by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk.
But I would say this: that, as was stressed on the Second Reading again and again, transport so far as Scotland is concerned, and more especially in regard to Part III of the Bill, requires decentralization. Road transport is, above all, an industry which is dependent upon quick decisions being made. At various times the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has stated very concisely that what is' really needed in Scotland is resident responsible management. That is really essential in a country with a conformation such as we have in Scotland. Consultative Committees, though meant for the best, really cannot help us, and they would be of no earthly use. One has only to look at the example of the Consultative Committee in Civil Aviation which (I am quite certain the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk will agree) is not working well at present.
The further one gets from London the more difficult the problem becomes. During the debate in your Lordships' House on the Town and Country Planning Bill, the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, when speaking of the regional physical planning committees said that they could not decide anything themselves; they could only recommend to their Minister, and all decisions of any importance would have to be taken by Whitehall. I do not know exactly how far the noble Viscount lives from London—possibly 100 or 150 miles —but what must be the case when one gets 600, 700, 800, or even 900 miles from London? I would earnestly ask noble

611
Lords to give this Amendment most careful consideration. I have heard it said, sometimes in this House and sometimes off the floor of this House, quite often in fun but sometimes quite seriously, that we who are in Scotland come down to speak for Scottish nationalism. We do not. What we want to do is to make this Bill work in Scotland.
I am not a Scottish Nationalist—yet. But, as I have said before and I say it again, unless Scotland is allowed a larger measure of control over its own domestic affairs, the people will be driven to what many of us think would be a great mistake, and something which would not be in the best interests either of Scotland or of England. I mean, of course, separation. I am, perhaps, not exactly a hereditary member of your Lordships' House; I am an elected representative Peer of Scotland, and it is my duty to try to put before your Lordships what I believe to be the concensus of opinion in that country. If the people of Scotland are not allowed this measure of control over their own domestic affairs, they will be driven to something which we really rather dread and which we consider would not be in the interests of both countries.
I am speaking, not for myself nor, as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk said, for a small part of the community in Scotland. This is a large and growing volume of opinion in Scotland; it is not the opinion of cranks, it is the opinion of sane, sound, reasonable thinking people of all sections who have gradually become exasperated at the frustration which is preventing them from carrying on their own business and running their own affairs better than at present. Centralization is only going to foster a slowing up by the throttling system known as control and red tape. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, mentioned the views of various bodies. They were, it is quite true, birds of all sorts of feathers —queer birds, perhaps, but certainly a comprehensive lot. You could not find a more representative opinion than that of those three bodies—the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), the General Council of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, and the General Assembly. I feel that some attention should be paid to these bodies, who, after all, must be conversant with the conditions as they exist
612
in that country. They must know the geographical obstacles which are so over-whelming.
I assure your Lordships that this feeling is becoming so strong, that it will be difficult for us to persuade people to keep cool heads. We shall be forced into a situation, sooner or later, which I feel we may regret. I would respectfully suggest to His Majesty's Government that they must stop ignoring Scottish advice. After all, these Scotsmen speak from experience and with a knowledge of their own affairs. What we want is some concrete fulfilment of this decentralization—not just lip service with Consultative Committees. What we are asking is not unreasonable. We want this Executive resident—and I stress the word "resident"—because that is the only way to obtain efficiency. We want a responsible chance to take decisions which suit the actual conditions in our country; we want management without continual reference to London. In other words, we want to be able to run our own domestic affairs.
This is not a wrecking Amendment. The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition said that this House does not care to wreck Bills which come into the category of holding a mandate from the country. This Amendment, as moved by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is designed to improve and make the scheme workable in Scotland. It is not the slightest bit of good telling us that there is no room for an Executive Committee, or something of the sort, in Scotland. If His Majesty's Government continue to say that, then all I can say to them is that they must make room, because, if they do not make room, sooner or later we will take it.
3.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: I feel that I must support this Amendment with a few words, even if only because I am brought to my feet by being called a "queer bird" by the noble Earl who has just sat down. I have the honour to be the Vice-President of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) and perhaps I can speak with a little more intimate knowledge than either of the previous speakers of what that Council stands for, and of what it consists. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, gave your Lordships some idea of the component parts of that Council. He said that it consisted of representatives

613
of local authorities, the cities, the burghs and the counties; representatives of chambers of commerce, of the T.U.C., of individual firms, of individuals, and of the banks. The only qualification which is necessary is that the member should have at heart the welfare of Scotland. But there is one further point which has not yet been mentioned, and that is that this Council, as representing this complete body of Scottish opinion, is recognized by the Secretary of State and by the Government as being able to speak for Scotland as a whole.
The Amendment which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has moved has arisen, I think, largely from discussions on this particular subject between the Scottish Council, the Secretary of State and the Minister of Transport, In those discussions, after a considerable number of meetings had taken place, and letters had passed, the Scottish Council received a declaration or statement which purported to be a statement made in the name of the Government. I will quote only one paragraph:
"The Government have no doubt, however, that the Commission, in framing its administrative arrangements, will provide for the maximum practicable degree of decentralization and devolution. There are many matters of railway, dock, canal and road transport operation which must be settled immediately on the spot, and it is the Government's intention that the greatest possible amount of executive authority should be given to local offices. …"
The object of this Amendment is to put the Government's intention into practice.
If I may, I will just stress the point already made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, in regard to the irritation and restlessness which is felt in Scotland as a result of this distant control from Whitehall. We have experienced it already in the matter of railways, and we have experienced it, and are experiencing it still, in the matter of roads. Apparently it is quite easy for the Minister of Transport to make up his mind to build a bridge across the Severn; and it is quite easy for him to make up his mind to make a tunnel under the Thames or the Tyne. But when it comes to bridging the Forth or the Tay, there is indecision, and the matter is put off until such time as there' may be need for work which will employ persons instead of their being on the dole. That is the
614
kind of treatment which Scotland is being given now, and which—as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, have said—is already giving rise to a great deal of feeling on the subject.
It is claimed (I think quite rightly) that in setting up the Executive, or some such body as is embodied in this Amendment, we are merely following the analogy of something already established in the Bill. We are not taking it outside the Bill, and there is no question of wrecking the general construction of the Bill; it is following exactly the analogy of the London Passenger Transport Board. Here you have an illustration of a body which is given a region to look after, and has the responsibility for that region. Certainly, as a Scot, I shall never think of Scotland as a region; but the analogy is correct. You have in Scotland the same forms of transport, which must be brought together and concentrated under one head, and that head must not be situated 300 miles away. As I understand it, the machinery of the Bill allows for Scotland to have some sort of decentralization and devolution by having sub-committees of the Executives. But all that would happen as regards Scottish questions then would be that the Railway Executive sub-committee in Scotland would have to communicate with the Railway Executive in London if there were some matter of concentration between road, rail, and waterways in Scotland which needed to be solved. And it would be through London that the concentration would come, and not under the single head within Scotland.
It is for that reason that we press for the establishment in Scotland of some responsible resident head, and without that kind of tying up I think it is inevitable that there will be not only a great deal of feeling in Scotland, but also a great deal of chaos. The Government's suggestion, which was brought about as a result of representations in another place, that there should be—whatever happened in other districts—a regular Consultative Committee of transport users in Scotland, does not in any way meet this point. The Consultative Committee may be consulted, or they may not be consulted, and even if they give advice the treatment which may be accorded that advice—according to this Bill—is that the Minister, if he does not like the advice can dissolve the Committee. Although that is not apparently within his

615
powers in regard to Scotland, I think one may say that if this is the way the Consultative Committees are to be treated it is not much use having them. For that reason I will do anything that I can to support the Amendment which was moved by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and impress upon the Government that at the back of this there is the real solid feeling of the whole of Scotland.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I rise to support in a very few words, the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. After the powerful speech he has made, supported by the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, there is very little for me to add from that point of view. But I deplore that this debate should have to take place at all, and that we should, in a sense, be wasting our time over a matter of this kind. It ought to be conceded and placed in the Bill without any debate of this character. It happens every time. We had it in regard to the Forestry Commission, when we wasted hours obtaining our own representation in Scotland. On civil aviation we wasted more hours in achieving our own position in Scotland. Now with the Transport Bill, the same thing is happening. The Town and Country Planning Bill is coming, when the same thing may happen again; and we shall have the Electricity Bill, in which, no doubt, the same question will arise. I cannot understand the Government's attitude on this matter. Whether they are influenced by Whitehall, or whether they are influenced by their idea that Scotland likes to be ruled from London, I cannot understand; but it is a fact that in all these Bills there is no decentralization so far as Scotland is concerned; Scotland is governed from London.
I want to go back to what happened after the First Great War. During the First Great War, Whitehall—I use the word advisedly—gained control of everything in the country, as it always does during a war. After the war, the same sort of difficulties arose so far as Scotland was concerned: Whitehall tried to keep control, and Scotland tried to de-control. Finally, after a great struggle what happened? St. Andrew's House was set up in the early 'thirties in order to give Scotland a measure of de-control, under which, up to a point, she could look after her own local affairs. This last war came
616
and the same thing happened. Whitehall held control again, and it was the same old story. Whitehall is now trying to hold on to it again, but this time we have St. Andrew's House. And what will happen? As my noble friend has pointed out, we will go much further this time and finally local government will have to be conceded to us to look after our own local affairs. Like the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, I do not agree with the necessity for that if the Government will only see the justice and reason of letting Scotland have control of affairs of this sort.
The other evening, in the so-called interchange of views between the noble Viscount and the noble Marquess, the noble Viscount referred to this Chamber as being non-representative—not like the other House, representative of the people —and he inferred—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I did not say that. I said it was "elected by the people."
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I accept the correction—not like the other House, "elected by the people." He suggested, therefore, that this House should be very careful in what Amendments they pressed in regard to this Bill. Actually, when the noble Viscount made that statement, I feel sure that he had forgotten for the moment that this Bill has been sent up to your Lordships' House in an ill-digested and chaotic state, and that many of the clauses were never considered in another place: neither were many of the Schedules nor, I believe, hundreds of Amendments. Therefore, so far as the Transport Bill is concerned, this House, as the House of revision, is in a very different position, from that in which it may be with regard to other Bills. I would point out that even if we are not representative of the people as elected representatives, we Scots in this House definitely represent Scottish opinion on this subject. We represent Scotland 100 per cent., and I do beg the Government to realize that and to give way, not only on this particular Amendment, but to look into the other Bills which are coming, the Town and Country Planning Bill and the Electricity Bill, and to put down Amendments which will allow Scotland to look after her own affairs in those matters. I have risen to say those few words, and at the same time to support

617
as strongly as I can the Amendment of my noble friend, as supported by the noble Earl, Lord Airlie.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: I am sure that your Lordships are getting rather tired of hearing Scottish opinions, but I shall be only five minutes. I do not want what I am going to say to be taken in a Party spirit, because it is not meant in that way. But I must point out that ever since this Government have come into power—or under a great part of their regime at any rate—Scottish people have suffered disappointment and disillusionment. That is not because the Government are a Labour Government, because after all a minority of Scotsmen voted Labour. It is not because they are a nationalist Government, because many deluded Scots voted nationalist. This irritation, as has been said by other noble Lords, is due to the fact that the direction of nationalization comes from London, and Scotsmen would prefer to carry out their own nationalization in their own way.
I support the noble Earl's Amendment because I think it is necessary to have on the spot men who understand the country and its topography, which is so different from that of England, a country of mountains which, especially as regards traffic, might entail quick decisions, particularly in the winter. Then there is the matter of tourist traffic. As I have said, there are 800,000 Americans in America of Scottish descent who are going to try—or a large number of them are—to come to this country, bringing their dollars. I hope many of them will be going to Scotland. Executives are to be set up for ordinary traffic arrangements, but in arranging for an influx of tourists many things are needed, such as foresight, the right national spirit, and close co-operation with the Scottish National Tourists Association. If too much reliance is placed on London these would not be forthcoming. It is in the interests of the country that tourists should be catered for in a proper manner in their travels and at the hotels. We do not want to go to London for the necessary permits, where nothing is known of the prevailing difficulties.
Ten years ago the idea that Scotland should be a self-governing country was laughed at and Scottish Nationalists were derided. Owing to the action of the
618
Government in the matter of the set-up of civil aviation, the future of Rosyth and other matters, there a strong feeling in Scotland that we should be given a great deal more self-government than we have. If any of your Lordships think I exaggerate, I suggest that those of you who sometimes go North of the Border to partake of the amenities of Scotland should go into the pubs and find out what people think. I have done that and I have found out. Scotland wants a Scottish Transport Executive Committee to be set up in Scotland under this Bill, and noble Lords opposite would be wise to give my noble friend's Amendment sympathetic consideration in order to indicate that they have some understanding of Scottish aspirations. This is not meant as "blackmail" or as a "veiled menace"; it is a mere suggestion. I would like to ask the noble Lord whether the Government have asked the advice of the Scottish Traffic Commissioner on this Bill as it would apply to Scotland, or is he in general agreement with its terms? I do not know him personally, or his views, but it would be of interest to know what they are. If the noble Lord goes to a Division, I shall support him.
LORD SALTOUN: I am perfectly aware that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, may say that under the subsection we are now discussing it is quite possible and quite open to the Commission to appoint a Scottish Executive. But I think there is a reason why it should actually go into the Bill, and that is to make quite sure that the first steps that are taken under this shall be to see that there is a Scottish Executive. The noble Lord, if he remembers our native country, will realize that the larger half of it is divided by great diagonal lines of mountains; possibly the larger part of Scotland lies beyond those mountains, cut up by great firths and sea and ridges. Communications are difficult in that area. But communication has been carried on for a very long time by private enterprise, and as my noble friend knows, the transport concerns that are carrying out their job sometimes have to face eighteen-foot drifts, and drifts even deeper than that, and throughout the winter have great difficulty in getting about.
I believe that you have to get a definite body on the spot ready to tackle these emergencies. The noble Earl, Lord Airlie,

619
complained in your Lordships' House the other day that people in his glens, who are not beyond that mountain mass but are this side of it, had not been able to get enough to eat during the recent crisis. His Majesty's Government replied that the arrangements were all there and that the whole thing was being beautifully managed—and no doubt it was so, on paper; but people cannot eat paper. That was really the gist of my noble friend's complaint. He complained also that the matter was being managed from the South, and that the people were short of food. I hope my noble friend will give way on this subject and let us see that it is going to be done.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: Last summer I had the honour and privilege to represent your Lordships' House on the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Committee which meets annually in Edinburgh. The principle task of that Committee was to examine the Forth Road Bridge scheme. In connexion with our investigations of that scheme the members of the Committee had to examine in some detail the transport system of Scotland, and I should like to support the noble Lords from Scotland who have hitherto spoken on this Amendment in their remarks as to the complexity and the peculiar character of Scottish transport problems. I very much hope that His Majesty's Government will see their way to make a substantial concession, I will not say to Scottish sentiment, but to Scottish realization of the complex character of their own problems.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: Common sense.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: Common sense, as my noble friend so properly says. I would make one point more. If a Whitehall authority, acting for the whole of the United Kingdom, has, contrary to the advice of my noble friend, set up an authority, I am quite sure that that authority will try to do justice to Scotland—but I do not believe that justice will be seen to be done in Scotland. The feeling in Edinburgh, at any rate, upon the neglect of the Scottish transport problem surprised me very much on my recent visit to that city. I believe my noble friend would do well to visit Edinburgh and learn how strong that feeling is. I hope my Scottish friends will believe that
620
there is a great deal of sympathy with them South of the border.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I feel, as a Scot who has taken the road to London, that I must join my voice to those of the noble Lords who have supported this Amendment. As the Government have not seen fit to listen to my advice that the Commission should be left perfectly free to set up suitable executives, I join in urging that this Scottish Executive is one which must and should be set up.
LORD SHEPHERD: As a man long resident in Scotland I am at all times anxious to yield to Scottish opinion on Scottish matters, and I would be disposed on this occasion, if I were quite clear as to what is required, to give some support to it. Unfortunately, we have had about five or six Scotsmen from beyond the Border who have told us a great deal about Scottish conditions, about Scottish aspirations, but practically nothing about Scottish transport—hardly a detail of Scottish transport has been dealt with at all. The noble Earl, the Earl of Selkirk, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Elgin, suggested that what they wanted in Scotland was something like the London Passenger Transport Board.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am sure the noble Lord would not wish to misrepresent me. I never said anything of the kind. What I said was that the London Passenger Transport Board represented a geographical division of transport authority; I said nothing whatsoever about a comparison. May I ask the noble Lord, when he is talking about plans, to bear in mind that the Leader of the House said on Tuesday: "We have not set up a Commission as yet, and naturally we have not their plans to place before you." You cannot expect it, and it would be fatuous to expect their plans before they are appointed.
LORD SHEPHERD: I would not like to misrepresent what the noble Earl has stated, but I certainly gathered the impression from noble Lords who have spoken for Scotland that what they wanted was the same facilities for Scotland as the Londoners enjoy. All I want to point out is that, in the case of the London Passenger Transport Board, the only services dealt with are those

621
which carry passengers from point to point. The Board have nothing whatsoever to do with goods traffic; they have nothing whatsoever to do with main railways; and they have nothing whatsoever to do with canals. I would like to know from some authoritative speaker from across the Border whether that would satisfy Scottish opinion at this stage. If it is not likely to satisfy Scottish opinion at this stage, I would like to be informed what it is they require, because in this Amendment we are not given much direction. In the clause of the Bill appear the words "the Road Transport Executive"; in the Amendment it is proposed to add after the words "Transport Executive," the words "Scottish Transport Executive." Are we being asked to make a Passenger Transport Board for road transport in Scotland, or are we being asked to make a Transport Board which will deal with the whole of Scottish transport?
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: I did not like to interrupt when the noble Lord was speaking, as he was referring to my remarks regarding the comparison with the London Passenger Transport Board. In that regard I said we had that in the Bill as an analogy. Naturally, Scotland is in a very different situation from London, but I do not know, as a matter of fact, and I do not know whether any of your Lordships know, what the London Transport Executive are to control. It may be the services now run by the London Passenger Transport Board, or it may not. I was taking the same point as the noble Earl, the Earl of Selkirk, using it as an analogy: that here is a region with its own Executive, and here is Scotland, which has its various branches of transport, and they should be dealt with as a whole. It was an analogy; that is all.
3.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I would like to support this Amendment which has been proposed by the noble Lords from Scotland. We are, in fact, from the right side of the Border, and we have been acquainted with the Scottish people in various ways for a long time. That might suggest that we should cry a halt somewhere, and that they should take their troubles, including their railways, as far away as they can! However, that is apart from the point. I would rather
622
speak on the actual operation of the Amendment itself. I feel that it is the right kind of policy—firstly, on the ground of decentralization, and, secondly, on the ground of a regional organization for transport, where co-ordination and combination can take place, rather than the functional scheme proposed in this Bill. We have discussed this at great length already, and, like the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, very much regret that that system has not been tried. I think that, from the operational point of view, most people would agree that the Scottish system could be worked on its own, but I believe that so far as rail transport, at any rate, goes, it would not be an economic or self-supporting undertaking.
I cannot say anything for the road side of the business, but surely now that we have a system whereby one part of the road-rail system can be balanced against another, it would be proper for the transport system to be run, as the Bill says, on an economic and self-supporting basis, the one part, perhaps, having to support the other. It is interesting to remember that in about 1921 or 22, when the present main line companies were formed, I believe I am right in saying that Scotsmen of all kinds, from all quarters, represented that they did not want their own separate Scottish undertaking because it would have been difficult, owing to the very hard natural circumstances against which they have to operate, to make the thing financially supporting. But, as I tried to suggest, I think that obstacle no longer remains.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I sincerely trust that the speech delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, does not represent the view, or constitute the answer, of His Majesty's Government. It was, if I may respectfully say so, a singularly jejune and unfortunate answer to the case made by the mover and seconder of this Amendment, and supported in other speeches. It was said that the speeches did not go into the Amendment in very great detail in regard to what was required. I have listened to every speech made, and I should have said that a good deal of detail was given of what was wanted, and of how it would work—both in the speech of my noble friend who moved the Amendment, and in the quotation read by the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, from an extremely authoritative Scottish

623
body who made a Report and a recommendation which was quite precise in its character. Indeed, if we are to deal with this, not on merit but on the basis of argumentative dialectic, it would be extremely easy to retort that there is not very much in the Government clause as it stands. We know there is no plan. After all, all we are told is that there are to be some Executives, undefined in their function, and it is a singularly unhelpful criticism for a speaker to say that an Amendment—quite correct in its form—to add a Scottish Executive is insufficiently precise.
The speeches were made with deep sincerity and, if I may say so, with studied moderation, on a subject in regard to which I know the Scots feel—and I think quite rightly feel—very strongly. They constitute a case which the Government must meet. It would be a case to meet even if it rested only on the presentation which has been made in this House. But, as has been indicated in the speeches to-day, the noble Lords, the representative Peers of Scotland, are voicing a most authoritative and representative body of opinion in their country. There is the Scottish Council. I have had the privilege of dealing with them. They were appointed, I think, a little while before the National Government finished or, at any rate, during the time of their successors. They constitute a most representative body, and they are a most practical body in their recommendations. Then there is the Scottish T.U.C. I hope the Government are going to pay some attention to them. After all, if report be true—and certainly there are similarities to be noted in the drafting—the General Council of the T.U.C., or the Special Committee of the T.U.C. have had a good real to do with the drafting of this Bill. I hope that a modest Amendment which has the backing of the Scottish T.U.C. may be given at any rate careful and courteous consideration. Then there is the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Now those make up a formidable trinity, and this is an occasion on which it is a trinity in unity —complete unity. So, I say that this is a case that must be met.
I do not believe that it is at all an unworkable proposition to establish some body, whatever you are going to call it,
624
which would have a large measure of decentralized power and authority in Scottish transport. I think it is very desirable to do so. After all, this Bill, as it stands, is going to do more than take away a great deal of the freely operating transport which exists in Scotland, where people can put their goods on whatever lorry they like. Do not let us forget that these extraordinary provisions with regard to 40 miles and 25 miles become quite ridiculous when you begin to try to apply them in Scotland. Observe what will happen to the existing licensing authorities in Scotland. There is the authority which licenses passenger vehicles and the authority which licenses road transport vehicles, and, if the Bill stands as it is, their powers (they will be very carefully considered, of course, when we come to them) will be very severely curtailed.
To-day passenger road transport and road haulage in Scotland are governed by a Scottish local body. You have a licensing authority for passenger road transport in and for Scotland. I think that one covers the whole of Scotland. Under the old Labour Government's Bill of 1930, it was thought wise to treat Scotland as a region for that purpose. Scotland is also treated as a region for road haulage purposes. Therefore, there is a tremendously strong case for giving Scotland this local consideration. Under the Bill as it stands, a good deal is going to be taken away, and existing facilities and powers are going to be drastically curtailed.
Now there is no doubt about this. I am not going to talk about the merits of nationalization, but it is certain, at least on the evidence before us so far of what has happened, that a nationalized industry tends to become a centralized industry. Everything that matters, and indeed a great many things that do not matter very much, and which ought to be decided locally, tend to be referred to the centre. Everybody who knows the working of the Coal Board knows that whereas in the old days (whatever you may say about the coal industry) there was great decentralization—a competent manager got on with his job—now the tendency is more and more to bring everything up to this centralized Board in London. That is a fact. There is the risk not only that existing Scottish facilities will be curtailed

625
but also that unless some clear reform is introduced in this Bill transport in Scotland will be run by something much more centralized than is the case to-day.
I take up the point which Lord Shepherd made. It is claimed that because there are certain services which concern both Scotland and England, like through main line expresses, which cannot be entirely decentralized, that is an argument for not decentralizing the control and management and day-to-day operation of one hundred and one local road and rail services. It really is complete nonsense. You can well have, if you like, main-line expresses run in some centralized way. But is that any earthly reason why local road traffic, local rail traffic, and local water borne traffic should not very largely be controlled and operated by a local Executive? I am quite certain that unless great powers are devolved on such an Executive there will not only be great delay and extra expense, but people will not get the services in respect of either passengers or goods, which they have the right to demand. Therefore, that argument, I think, will not hold water for a single moment. It is perfectly easy to devise a system which devolves upon an effective authority in Scotland those things that ought to be and can conveniently and usefully be dealt with in Scotland itself, exactly as road transport of passengers and goods is dealt with by the Regional Commissioners in Scotland at the present time. This is a case which must be met.
I agree that the Commission need to have a wide discretion but if the Minister is to have any power at all—and there is the power to intervene in the national interest—surely this is the kind of case where it is right that policy and principle should be laid down. I consider that Parliament has that right and has that duty. I ask the Government to tell us what is their intention as to how these perfectly valid and reasonable Scottish claims should be met. I think that it is essential—and I believe the Government will accept this—that what is done should satisfy Scottish needs and Scottish fair claims, and, at the same time, be workable. I do not see why the necessary provision should not be in the Bill, at least in general terms; for perhaps every detail cannot be worked out. It may be said that we should deal with this more
626
effectively, or arrive at a final decision more effectively, when we see how the Bill emerges from the Committee in its complete structure. But whether we insert a detailed provision or not, I am quite certain that just as the Minister is given power to give general directions, Parliament should not part with this Bill without at least giving general directions as to the way in which these Scottish needs have to be met. I sincerely hope the Government will see their way to meeting us along these lines.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: We have had, as I anticipated, a full discussion on tins Amendment and that is all to the good. If I may say so, wits great respect and some trepidation, I think our Scottish friends who have spoken have exaggerated a little the dependence of Scotland on London. I have been in the Cabinet, like some of the noble Lords opposite, for a good many years, and I have always found the Scottish Secretary to be rather an aggressive person. I have never found him backward in asserting the claims of Scotland. I wonder if the noble Lords have not a little exaggerated the intensity of nationalistic feeling in this regard. We all know it is a thing which must be met and should be met, and everyone is anxious to meet it, but still I do not see, at all events in the records of Scottish elections, any very dramatic demonstration of the kind of feeling some of the noble Lords have been expressing to-day.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: What about Scottish Universities?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: One or two Scottish Nationalist candidates lost their deposits and there is not a single member elected to the House of Commons on that ticket.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: They stand on a separatist and not a local position.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am only pleading in as gentle a way as I can that I think noble Lords have exaggerated a little. It is essential that in regard to expressions of that kind, that—to put it in the excellent words of the noble Viscount who has just spoken—"Scotland's fair claims should be dealt with in a fair way." It could not be put better, and I entirely agree with him, and we will endeavour so to do. Most of the discus-

627
sion has, quite frankly, been not so much on the transport problems as on what might be called national claims. For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, suggested that some of the difficulties which occurred in regard to feeding people in snow-blocked districts were due to the need of reference to London. There is a Scottish Traffic Commissioner who deals with these things and deals with them very effectively. What necessity is there to refer it to London? There are many such districts in England and people on the spot have a great measure of authority, and I am sure they exercise it as well as they can.
LORD SALTOUN: The whole trouble was that the food control did not give these people the right to get food in the way they were accustomed to.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am not aware of the details of the Ministry of Food organization but I think they are decentralized in exactly the same way.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: No.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I cannot accept that without some investigation. I am quite sure that the Regional Food Offices in Scotland must have a considerable measure of authority and command over supplies, and therefore I could not accept that it was due to having to refer something about food to London. The noble Lords have rather confused the nationalist sentiment with what is a practical problem of transport. Health, housing, and education are decentralized for Scotland. Only the other day the Secretary of State presented a Scottish Bill which was like a three volume novel, and it seemed to receive general approbation, showing how levelly it had been considered. A large number of services which are capable of decentralization are decentralized. If any Englishman dared to interfere with the administration of the Scottish Secretary over matters of health or housing or education, I think he would regret his rashness before he had finished. My experience was that if the Scottish Secretary put something up, I made terms with him as best I could, as quickly as possible, and I think that is the experience of every Minister.
In reply to the Earl of Glasgow, I would say that I have made inquiries and I find the Scottish Traffic Commissioner is an
628
officer of the Minister of Transport, and naturally we should not, in a case of this kind, where responsibility belongs to the Minister, quote the views of any officer. That would be quite wrong, and I have no knowledge of whether or not he has been quoted. The Minister must accept responsibility.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: Surely the Government as a whole made a point of getting the advice of the Traffic Commissioner in Scotland before proceeding with this Bill with regard to Scotland. He is the man who knows everything. While thanking the noble Viscount for his answer, surely some more information should be given.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Every Minister in framing his proposals consults such officers of his Department as he feels should properly be consulted, but in no case would we dream of quoting what a particular officer advised. The final decision must be that of the Minister. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that it must be the business of the Minister in this matter to decentralize as much as practicable. If anything of this kind were put in the Bill, it would mean that we would have a transport body set up which, allowing for the exception of main line trains to which the noble Viscount referred, would have to deal with roads, canals and railways and the whole thing so far as Scotland is concerned. I suggest that is a functional mix-up which would be wrong. Under the scheme you have a Road Transport Executive, Rail Executive, Docks and Inland Waterways Executive.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Inland Waterways Executive.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon. They are designed on a functional basis and a Scottish Executive would not work if you set up a single Executive to deal with every form of transport. It does not seem to me to make administrative sense. I think it would be the duty of the Minister, and he fully accepts it, to decentralize as much as possible so far as control and services are concerned. I have made some inquiries and find that the L.M.S. and the L.N.E.R. have a Scottish division which controls certain services. I do not know whether it controls them all, or the extent of its control, but they have developed,

629
to a certain extent, a national scheme of control; and clearly that kind of system must be extended as much as is administratively possible. I am quite sure we can rely upon the Minister, when he sets up this Executive, to decentralize as much control as can practically he decentralized. I am quite sure it would be a mistake to put the whole lot into one body, as is suggested in this Amendment. We are anxious to meet this desire so far as is physically possible, and I wish to assure the noble Earl that this is so.
I do not agree with the noble Lords who spoke slightingly of the Scottish Transport Users Consultative Committee. I can see how powerful these loyal patriotic Scotsmen are in this House. I notice they are powerful all over England, and, as I look round this House, I see most potent gentlemen who are controlling English industries with singular efficiency. One sees more of them in England than one sees Englishmen controlling Scottish industry in Scotland. They are rare birds up there. I cannot imagine that the Scottish Users Consultative Committee. which is to be set up under the Bill, will be anything but an exceedingly active and, if need be, an aggressive body. Supposing the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, were Chairman of it; nobody could possibly imagine that it would not be a very assertive body. Or the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, might be Chairman. He is Chairman of a very efficient Scottish body. I think they are not speaking as appreciatively of their own fellow countrymen as they ought to do when they cast aspersions upon the activities of the Scottish Consultative Committee which is in the Bill and which it is necessary to have.
Putting all that on one side, I think we should have regard the definite necessity of a decentralizing control, in a regional form, so far as is practically possible; and we should build on what is already being done without mixing up the functional discharge of responsibility with mere regional demarcation; that, I am sure, would be wrong. But having regard to the provision of the Scottish Consultative Committee, I think it would be right and fair to leave it now to the Commission to set up such Executives as they feel necessary, without adding any more to the Bill, and without charging them with the duty of setting up functional executives—and the bodies set up here are functional. None of them is regional
630
and I sincerely hope we shall not depart from that necessary classification.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As I am not a Scotsman myself, I feel rather an interloper in this discussion. I listened with the utmost interest, as I always do, to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, but I did not find his arguments convincing. I do not think he really convinced himself. I regarded it as a very charming example of special pleading. The noble Viscount said that the Scottish Peers who had spoken on this question exaggerated the dependence of Scotland on England. That really was not the argument which they put forward. What they said was that the Government, with every Bill they passed, were increasing the dependence of Scotland on England; that they were destroying local enthusiasm and local independence, and concentrating everything upon Whitehall. They were warning the noble Viscount of the dangers of the present policy, as exemplified in this and other Bills. If it is now said that there his not in the past been dependence of Scotland on England that is only a sign of how far the situation is deteriorating under the Government. The noble Viscount said that, so far as he could see, there was no strong nationalist feeling in Scotland.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: No, no. Of course, every Scotsman in is a strong nationalist; in whatever part of the world he is. The noble Earl (whether it was a "veiled menace" or not, I am not quite sure) threatened separatism. It was that to which I was referring.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I said the noble Viscount would drive us into that.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Well, it was a veiled menace.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In any case, I think it is a real danger if the noble Viscount will allow me to say so. There was a time, if we go back 150 years, when there was no very strong separatist feeling in the American Colonies. In fact, it was extremely difficult for the British Government to arouse that feeling, and they did it only because they did not allow the American Colonies to retain a certain measure of control over their own affairs. If the Government had taken a different line, which most Parties now think would have been wiser, it is possible that the clash

631
which has altered the world might never have occurred. It is no good saying one does not see a thing until it is before one's eyes; it is the essence of statesmanship to have vision and to see what is likely to happen in the future. I think that the warning given by the noble Earl was a well-merited warning, because the Government, instead of moving in the direction of satisfying these aspirations, are moving in the opposite direction and centralizing more and more in Whitehall.
I think there is a danger in every Government speech I hear. They rely upon the efficiency of paper schemes; they say it is much neater and more logical. But it is not human. It takes no account of human feelings and human passion—such as patriotism is—and one can see what is happening as a result of their beneficent administration. We see frantic appeals in every direction: "Work or want." Why do they have to put out those appeals? They do so because they have not given any incentive to the people to work. That is the result of their policy over the last two years, and noble Lords are asking the Government to give the Scottish people the incentive to work and to be proud of their country. That is what the Government are denying, but that is the real incentive. I am sure that if we get a local Scottish Committee every member of that Committee—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Do not misrepresent me, there is a Scottish Committee in the Bill.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: A Consultative Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Do not let us quibble over words. The noble Viscount knows quite well what I mean. It is called Executive in the Bill, and I am quite ready to say Executive; but if we have that Executive Committee every member of that Executive will be anxious to make the Scottish system of road and rail transport as efficient as it can, and one of which Scotland can be proud. That is an incentive, and in these difficult times the one thing you want to give people, in whatever part of the country they live, is that sort of incentive—a stimulus to their national feeling. That is the sort of thing which the Government, in their purely academic detached atmosphere, seem to ignore. It is deplorable, and it will do a great deal
632
of harm in every walk and sphere of national life.
I agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said—that there are arguments for postponing to a later stage in the Bill a decision on this point. For one thing, the Bill is evolving, and in the course of the Committee stage it will evolve still further. We might look at this point again later on. It will give the Government a chance to reconsider their position before the later stage, and I hope they will, because I think their case was utterly pulverized this afternoon. I think that will be the view outside this House not only all over Scotland but in England as well. I feel sure there are good arguments for postponing a decision, and I would suggest to the noble Earl that he should not press this matter to a Division to-day. But I would also recommend the noble Earl to reserve the right absolutely, if the Government do not reconsider the position, to take whatever action he thinks right and proper when we get to a later stage. I do not want the noble Earl, in any sense, to withdraw from the position which he has taken up. It seems to me to be a perfectly logical position, and the noble Earl has stated it with great force and power. But I do think it may be premature to force this to a Division to-day, and I suggest that the noble Earl should postpone his action until a later stage.
4.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: We on these Benches have waited to hear the whole of this debate, and particularly the statement of the Government, before deciding on our attitude. Having heard what the noble Viscount had to say, and also what the noble Marquess who has just spoken has said, we certainly think that the line proposed by the noble Marquess is the right one. On the whole, the balance of argument is rather in favour of the Amendment than against it. What the noble Marquess has said as to the feeling in Scotland is undoubtedly true. Further, what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said as to the effect of more nationalization and more centralization is also true; and in passing these measures of nationalization we ought to beware of strengthening that tendency, and insert in the Bills which we pass provisions calculated to make head against that tendency. At the same time, as the noble Marquess has

633
just said, the House as a whole does not want to cause unnecessary embarrassment and controversy. This is only the Committee stage—there will be other stages—and, while most of your Lordships, I believe, think that in substance the Amendment is sound, it might be well not to press it to a Division on this occasion but to give opportunity for further consideration.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I would like to thank all noble Lords who have been good enough to support me on this Amendment. I would particularly like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. The noble Viscount comes from Newcastle, and they have a similar problem in that part of the country to that which exists on the other side of the Border. I should also particularly like to thank the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, for what he has said. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House, if I may say so, based his case substantially on the existence of a Consultative Committee. It may well be that the noble Viscount would like to know what the Scottish T.U.C. think of the Consultative Committee. I will read it to your Lordships:
"The General Council, whilst welcoming the provision of a Consultative Committee for Scotland, considers that such a Committee with functions limited to those laid down in Clause 6 (5) will not adequately meet the wishes of the Scottish people. …"
That, if I understand it rightly, is the linchpin on which the noble Viscount based his argument.
The other point he made was that this is a question of feeling. This is not a question of feeling; it is a question of economics. I have not bothered your Lordships this afternoon by talking economics, but if you like I can develop the economic case from the time of James Watt and tell your Lordships just how things stand to-day. On another occasion I will do it at length. This is not a question of national feeling, but a question of realizing that economic action springs from the initiative and energy of the people who know how to use the resources in the place, and not from far-distant planning. We are getting somewhat accustomed to unsatisfactory replies in regard to this Bill, and I feel very disappointed that the noble Viscount had no answer to this at all.
I feel, with great respect to the noble Viscount—for whom we all have the highest regard—that there was no reply.
634
All that was put out was simply a theory, and no adequate answer has been made. We did not base our argument on feeling; we based it entirely on economic requirements. Anybody who has lived in Scotland—and I say this without exception—knows that this is necessary, and knows that this must come. I go further, and say that if it does not come, some other arrangement must be made. With those few words, I will accept what the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has said, and will take up this matter again on the Report stage. But I do ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to consider this matter, if he will, before the Report stage.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am glad that the noble Earl has seen his way to withdraw his Amendment, and I promise him with great faithfulness that I will bring all these considerations to the notice of my right honourable friend.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SWINTONhad given notice to move, in subsection (3), to leave out "and" (where that word occurs a fourth time) and in a second Amendment to leave out "as from the appointed day an Executive known as." The noble Viscount said: These Amendments can be discussed together. As your Lordships will see, the Executives have their names stated in subsection (3), as printed, as "the Railway Executive, the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive, the Road Transport Executive and the London Transport Executive." Then there is this rather curious phrase: "as from the appointed day, an Executive known as the Hotels Executive." I do not go back in the least on what I said yesterday and to-day about the desirability of giving the Commission the widest possible discretion as to the Executives to be appointed; indeed, I hope on the Scottish case they will recast the whole business and make the thing regional.
I am not at all sure that the right system of devolution is not a regional rather than a functional devolution. That is one of these extraordinary theoretical ideas that, with great respect, doctrinaires, and sometimes some civil servants, get into their heads, not knowing the facts of life. The facts of life are rather jumbled up, and if you are to handle the facts of life properly you had better not try to put

635
them all in watertight compartments where they never meet; otherwise the union will not be very fruitful. What I cannot understand here is why, if there are to be these named Executives, and they are to be appointed (though the noble Viscount the Leader of the House left us in some obscurity as to when they were to be appointed) you should delay the appointment of the Hotels Executive by Order. It is not even done by the discretion of the Commission. I do not mind if the Commission have that discretion, but why delay by Order the appointment of the Hotels Executive to an appointed day, which is obviously intended to be—or the phrase can have no meaning—after the Executives have been appointed. It is really most illogical.
The noble Viscount the Leader of the House has justified, in so far as he could justify, resistance to the last Amendment on the argument that you must have functional Executives at once. That means that you must have a Road Executive managing the roads, a Railway Executive managing the railways, and an Hotels Executive managing the hotels. But the hotels are all going to vest in the Commission on January 1, on exactly the same date as the railways and the waterways are going to vest; indeed, the hotels will vest long before the roads will—the roads do not vest until the scheme is made for this or that particular region, and this or that particular company. But the Road Executive is to be set up at once, If you take the aggregate of the whole of the hotels owned by all the railways of this country, it must be much the largest hotel business in this country, if not in the world. If the argument of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is right, that the Executives must be functional, then, if the hotels are to vest at once, as they are, and if it is right to establish all the other Executives without delay, what on earth is the point of giving a mandatory instruction (I do not mind the discretion) to the Commission that they are to delay the appointment of the Hotels Executive? I do suggest that the words "as from the appointed day," are much better struck out.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 40, leave out ("and").—(Viscount Swinton.)
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I should like to support the Amendment which has just been moved by my noble friend. It is important that the Minister should tell us the meaning of these mysterious words, "as from the appointed day," and a little more about the intention of the Government in delaying the appointment of this very vital Executive which is to control the hotels. As the noble Lord has just said, the Commission would become the largest individual hotel proprietors in the world. Most of us on these Benches think that is a very undesirable thing. We do not feel that the Government have any mandate for going into the hotel business on this scale, or that the taxpayers' money should be used for this purpose. But if it is being used for this purpose, then surely the taxpayer has a right to know who is to control the hotels when the Hotels Committee of the main line railways give up that job on the vesting day. They particularly want to know who is to control the hotels when they give up that responsibility, and it is important that they should know that. Is the Railway Executive to control them? If the Railway Executive is to control them, and is to control them properly, what is the object of appointing a Hotels Executive Committee?
A proprietor of a large section of the hotel industry—which the Commission will become—must make immediate plans, not only for the proper control of the hotels, but for their future development. In the interests of the public he must immediately consult with the other members of that industry in regard to the general development of hotels and catering arrangements all over the country. We all know that everybody, and particularly industry and commerce, is suffering very much at the present time from lack of hotel accommodation; plans have to be made, not only for that reason, but also for the important reason of building up our tourist trade, which is vitally important to us. If everyone has got to wait for an indefinite period—and it may be an indefinite period under the Bill as it stands at present—for the Hotels Executive to be appointed, none of these plans can be made. The other hotel proprietors do not know how the railway hotels will fit into the general nationalized pattern of the hotel catering industry, and there will be a delay which will do a great

637
deal of harm. Apart from this, the British taxpayer, having had his money put into this venture by die Government, without a mandate and against his will, has a right to know who is to control these hotels. I hope we shall hear from the noble Lord a great deal more than we know at present about the matter.
VISCOUNT PORTAL: I am going to say only a few words on the Amendment moved by my noble friend Viscount Swinton, and supported by the noble Earl, Lord Dudley. Most of the points have been brought out by those two speakers, but I feel strongly on this—in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said: that other people should take part besides those interested in the railways. This is the first time I have said a word during the debate, except for an interjection which I made to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which took up only half a minute of your Lordships' time. The point I wish to make is that if the railways are to be taken over, and the Railway Executive is to be formed on January I—the date on which the railways will be taken over—you have the position the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, pointed out. The biggest proprietors of hotels in the world, the four respective companies, will he left, to put it mildly, without a plan of any kind—unless you are to continue running the hotels under the railways. As the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, said, if they were to be continued for a year under the railways, then you might as well say, "Why have you taken them away from the railways?"
I wish to put another point in going from the whole to the part. In spite of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, telling your Lordships that the plans of the railway companies might possibly be window dressing, I can assure you that the plans for which some of us were responsible on our line were not window dressing at all, and one of the chief features of the plan was to build new hotels in industrial places. One was going up at Cardiff, one at Swansea, a further one at Birmingham and another at Bristol. The two in South Wales had priority and the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, knows the reason why those hotels have not been built. The noble Viscount who leads the Government to-day knows as well as I do that house building, in some cases, has had to have
638
priority over the hotels for materials and licences. Not a minute has been wasted and we were prepared to go on building those hotels. If you are to take over the hotels it is more vital than ever that the hotels which the people require in this country should be built as soon as possible, and that is why I think the question of forming the Hotels Executive is just as urgent as that of any other Executive. Therefore, I support what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said; and from the railway point of view I think it is all-important.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am sure we need not spend any further time in discussing what is, to a very large extent, a verbal Amendment, and I was not able to connect with it very closely the very delightful speech of the noble Viscount. Somehow he brought in the fertility of nature in various guises. But still, he has a more recondite mind than I have. What I am interested in is that whilst noble Lords have been all in favour of giving the Commission elasticity, time to consider arid formulate their plans, and all the rest of it, here noble Lords are moving an Amendment, which takes away from them that opportunity. In the Bill it is provided that as from an appointed day an Executive, known as the Hotels Executive, shall be appointed. The result of adopting this Amendment will be that this time to think about it, to develop plans and to make the necessary arrangements, will be taken from the Commission. So far as possible—of course it is not a statutory obligation—the Executive will have to be appointed straight away. I confess I do not quite follow the reasoning. I should have thought that those words would have been exceedingly pleasant to the noble Viscount, because they give the elasticity, the time to think and make arrangements and all the rest of it.
I am quite sure that what the noble Viscount, Lord Portal, said as to the plans made by the railway companies is right, and that they are not window dressing. He has my complete assurance that I am quite sure that any plans for which he was responsible would riot be window dressing, but would be real proposals; and I hope they will be given effect to as soon as possible. This vast property in hotels will be transferred with the railways. They are an integral part of their pro-

639
perty, and I have no doubt at all that the Commission will make suitable arrangements, through existing organizations, to carry them on in an effective way. But I am exceedingly perplexed as to why we are asked to take out these words. I do not think it makes a bit of difference whether they are in or not. It says earlier in the clause, "The acts shall be such as may from time to time …" Therefore it does not make any difference whether the words are in or not. While emphasizing the necessity for common sense and making their arrangements carefully and letting other people know about it, I should have thought these words were exceedingly desirable, and I cannot see any reason for deleting them.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I cannot understand the noble Viscount saying he is in perplexity. It is not illogical, it is entirely logical to leave these words out. I was anxious not to give the Commission orders as to the appointment of the Executives, but to let them decide on their own plan and as to what Executives or forms of management are to run the business under them. The Government objected strongly to that in regard to an Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and we did not press it to a Division. They have said that the whole thing can be unscrambled again—I am not so certain about that—and that you have a set-up of certain Executives in the first instance. If that is not the right way of managing, it is, at any rate, the way the Government under this Bill are going to order the Commission to manage—functionally, in watertight compartments.
They say that the hotel business is to be managed by an Hotel Executive, the railways by a Railway Executive, the roads by a Road Executive, and the waterways by a Waterways Executive. Railways, waterways, and hotels, all vest in the Commission on the same day. What is the sense or the logic in saying that you are to appoint functional Executives for railways and waterways, but at the same time giving an indication that there is a difference in the date at which the functional Executive for Hotels should be appointed? I agree that it does not matter very much, because the Commission can appoint the day. But surely, the Amendment is
640
logical, it is common sense, it improves the Bill and, in the opinion of everybody, it is obviously more workable. Are not the Government really doing their cause a little harm in obstructing a practical Amendment of this kind? I think that sort of attitude does show the world that they want to make the Bill as unworkable as they can.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SWINTONhad given notice of an Amendment to insert after subsection (3):
"(4) The functions delegated to Road Transport Executive may be exercised by sub-Executives to be known respectively as the Road (Carriage of goods) Sub-Executive and the Road (Carriage of passengers) Sub-Executive."
The noble Viscount said: In view of the assurance that this power is already fully possessed by the Commission, I will not move this Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTONhad given notice to move in subsection (4), to leave out from "Commission" where that word last occurs, to the end of the line and insert, "constituting such Executive." The noble Viscount said: I do not want the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, to pass this over without being quite clear upon it. I do not mind whether these words are in the Bill or not, but what are necessary and consequential are some Amendments later on where the initiative lies with the Minister and where the initiative will not rest with the Commission. That is a matter which I will leave to the noble Viscount's consideration.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I would like it to be left in.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Then I will not move the Amendment.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN moved, in subsection (4), at the end to insert:
"Provided that where the Commission are of opinion that in order to secure a properly integrated system of public inland transport the discharge of their functions can best be assisted by the regional integration of transport services any such scheme may provide for the delegation of the said functions to boards, to be called regional boards, for such areas as the Commission may determine, and the regional boards shall contain such number of persons as the Commission may determine who shall be appointed by the Commission and shall include as well as members of each of the Executives responsible for any means of

641
transport in the area, such persons as the Commission may think fit representative of the chief commercial and industrial activities in the area."
The noble Viscount said: I should say at the outset that the proposals in this Amendment have certain features in common with proposals in the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and supported by other noble Lords from Scotland. It is not quite the same, but I think my remarks on this Amendment can be shortened a good deal if we cast our minds back to the arguments used by noble Scottish Lords, and if we realize that if we stripped them of their trappings of, I will not say Scottish nationalism, but Scottish sentiment, there stands behind those trappings a very solid argument indeed in favour of a regional organization of some kind. Scotland perhaps may be the best instance and the strongest argument for regional organization, but the fact remains that Scotland is only one of the places where a regional organization may be necessary. Many other places will spring to your Lordships' minds: Tyneside, the Birmingham area, Lancashire, West Riding, South Wales, and so on. In all these places there is a strong case for regional organization of some kind or other.
This Amendment differs in certain respects from the proposals which were made on the subject of Scotland. In the first place it is permissive. It simply seeks to point out that regional organizations of some sort will be necessary, and as we all saw from the discussions the day before yesterday, the plans of the Commission are completely fluid. We want to make it quite clear that if they find it necessary to establish regional organizations, as I am sure they will, they will have all the powers in their hands which they need to do so. The noble Viscount who leads the House, in talking of the Scottish Amendments, referred to the "functional mix-up" which might result if regional organization were wrongly applied. Here we are faced with what is the real problem of organization. No one on this side of your Lordships' House is suggesting that there should be delegation of main policy. That certainly would be a functional mix-up. What we are suggesting is that policy should be so far delegated that matters which are of purely regional interest as affecting the different Executives can be
642
dealt with on the regional level and need not be referred back to London.
I would press this point very strongly indeed. It would lot so much easier to press it if we were in a Committee Room upstairs, and we were allowed to display organization charts and such things. It is a common form of organization, as has already been said in another connexion. It happens to be the form of organization in use in the Commands of the Army at home, where you have representatives of all the different Services, and arms of the Services, assembled in a Command Headquarters, with sufficient power delegated to them to settle only those things that affect those Command Headquarters, and without sufficient powers to interfere with policy which belongs to Headquarters.
I want to make this point as strongly as I can: that there must be sufficient delegated machinery to deal with local matters which do not affect the main policy. I want to make one further point, and that is that if delegation is not provided, then nothing whatever will be decided. I beg you, as earnestly as I possibly can, to study this question of the time factor in the administering of the industries that are going to be administered in these nationalization Bills. Unless we take every possible step to avoid clogging the works, the works will be clogged. There will be hosts of timid little men who have the excuse for not taking a decision because they have the opportunity of referring it to London; there will be other hosts of lazy little men who will have the excuse of not taking a decision because they have the power of referring it to London. It is to avoid this grit in the wheels arid these spanners in the works of the organization that I put forward this particular Amendment.
This Amendment is not the same as the other one to which I referred. It has certain main. features but it is permissive, and it is framed to exclude the main points of policy. It is also framed to do one other thing. May I just read the words? It is framed to include in the boards" such persons as the Commission may think fit representative of the chief commercial and industrial activities in the area." Therefore, apart from attempting to simplify the organization, it also attempts to bring the best local opinion to bear on local problems. It is really

643
hopeless to expect a problem which affects the integration and the co-ordination of the traffic in Liverpool, Manchester, the West Riding, or wherever you like, to be solved by people who, however expert they may be in their own line of business, are in London and are not familiar with the local conditions. So, without further ado, I will put forward this Amendment as a point of organization, and I hope it may receive consideration in that light from the noble Lords opposite. I beg to move.
Amendment moved —
Page 7, line 46, at end, insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Bridgeman.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I think the noble Viscount, who speaks with great experience in the military field, would recognize that the powers provided for the Commission are ample to cover all that is set out in his Amendment. As to his desire that there shall be provision for focussing the feelings of any part of the country, he will find that in Clause 6 we propose that there shall be no part of Great Britain which is not within the area of a Transport Users Consultative Committee. So far as the local aspect is concerned, that is amply provided for in the Bill as it is. As regards decentralization of operating responsibility, I have no doubt at all that, as a body of sensible people, these Executives will decentralize in regions so far as they find it necessary to do so. But I do not think that we should go out of our way to require, by Statute, the setting up of regional boards. For my part, I have not that affection for some forms of regional administration that the noble and gallant Viscount has. In some cases I have not found regional administration to be all that might be desired. But, putting that matter on one side, this is a functional business, and it must be left to the Executive in charge of the business to say to what extent, and where, and how, they will decentralize their work; and they have full power to do it under the Bill as it is. So far as focussing the needs and wishes of the community is concerned there is separate provision in the next clause of the Bill.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Would the noble Viscount kindly tell me in what clause the Commission have these powers?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Certainly; it is in Clause 5(3), where it says: "The number and names of the Executives shall be such as may from time to time be constituted by the Commission." They can appoint whatever they like.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I think this point ought to be reconsidered. There is an old principle in law that delegates are not entitled to delegate. There is a Latin phrase which is often heard in the courts to that effect.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: If the noble Viscount would read the next subsection, subsection (4), he will see there it says "Each Executive shall, as agents for the Commission," et cetera.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Yes, but they can only appoint the Executives under subsection (3).
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Yes; but when they arc appointed they will have the authority.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I would be very glad if I could see where it is. This is not a Party question in the least; it is only a question of how the thing is to operate. Speaking with great deference to the noble Viscount—because he knows the Bill upside clown and I do not, although I have read it more than once—I should have thought that the Executives were limited in number and could be appointed only under Clause 5; and I should have thought that although it is true that under Clause 6 they may appoint Consultative Committees, those Committees are not given any functions of operation.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Oh, no.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Do you agree or are you doubting?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The Consultative Committees are for a different purpose. I was dealing with the question about focussing the needs or wishes of the community.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Then it follows that the Consultative Committees will not be able to exercise the functions which are hoped to be given by the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and, if that is so, or if there is substantial doubt about it, it really would be better to insert the Amendment. The noble

645
Viscount the Leader of the House admits that there will be a probability that a great deal of delegation will have to be done by the Executive. For my part I have grave doubt whether there are sufficient powers in the Bill to enable, for example, the Railway Executive to transfer authority to somebody—we will say for the Great Western district. I doubt very much whether they can. I think that the duty is upon them, and I doubt very much whether they can delegate it.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I have great respect for the legal opinions of the noble and learned Viscount. All I can say is that I am advised quite definitely that the Executives can, if they wish, appoint Regional Executives. But in view of the opinion which the noble and learned Viscount has expressed, I will certainly return to this matter, have it inquired into and I hope, obtain an answer which will put the question beyond doubt. That, of course, is quite different from saying that we accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not think we can take a decision on this now. I am afraid that we shall have to come back to it. We are not perfectly clear as to the position, and I am not saying that at all offensively to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. The noble Viscount is in a very difficult position, for he has not the equivalent of a Law Officer with him now, and so many of these things are mixed questions of law and administration. I want to be quite clear what it is that we want to do, and whether there is power to do it. Let me sweep aside this question about Consultative Committees. I am not dissenting from the clause which sets up these Committees. Nobody knows better than the noble Viscount that a Consultative Committee have nothing whatever to do with delegated powers of administration. Therefore, it is no answer to an argument dealing with delegated powers of administration to say that in certain areas there will be Consultative Committees. I dare-say there will be a good many of them, but, as a matter of fact, I think that these committees will find it extremely difficult to do their jobs unless there are delegated administrative bodies with whom they can discuss local matters. I cannot conceive how they can exercise their functions properly unless they have something of that kind.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: If the noble Viscount will look at subsection (7) of the same clause he will see that it covers the whole point.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am obliged, I see that it states:
"Any such delegation—"
that, I take it, is delegation of powers
"may be framed as to empower the Executive to perform any of the functions delegated to them through agents."
I am glad that the noble Viscount has drawn my attention to that, because it shows that the Bill does not provide powers which, rightly or wrongly, are asked for in this Amendment. We are not seeking, under this Amendment, simply to have a functional Executive, delegating its water-tight functional powers to an agent. I will not express an opinion as to whether, without these words in, it could be done. What we seek to do is something quite different. I hoped that there was to be a great deal of delegation, and I was a little unhappy when the noble Viscount, having said the Minister would delegate as much as he could (as a matter of fact it will be the Commission and not the Minister which will have the power), said in the next breath, that he himself did not much like these regional bodies. That, I am afraid is where I differ fundamentally from the present Government. They love centralized administration; I hate centralized administration.
If I were a Socialist Minister trying to embrace everything under my control, my object would be to give general directives on policy from the centre and devolve responsibility for carrying out that policy so far as I could. What we are seeking to do, here, is not to maintain this water-tight functional system throughout. We have deliberately made this permissive because. I feel sure the Commission, if it is really a business-like body, when faced with this job, will find that it has to get out of its, water-tight compartment, not only to meet things like— I will not say Scottish sentiment, but Scottish business claims. What we asked was not that the Executive should have power of devolution of its, limited powers as an Executive, but that the Commission should have the power, where they thought it was the proper way of running transportation, to devolve upon Regional Boards such part of their functions as they saw fit. As I say, this is purely permissive. We do not wish to take

647
a final decision upon this to-day, but, as the noble Viscount suggests, when the Report stage is reached, we shall want to know whether, if these words are not inserted in the Bill, the Commission will have power to do what is here proposed—namely to set up Regional Boards, not on water-tight functional lines, but to exercise such of the combined functions of the Commission as the Commission think right. If there is any doubt, certainly we shall wish to return to the charge and to give the Commission that power—not a directive but a permissive power—which, I think the noble Viscount will agree, they ought to have. On that understanding, having cleared that up, and subject to anything anyone else might have to say I am prepared to withdraw this Amendment.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I assure the noble Viscount that I will make an inquiry into this, as I have already promised. But, as I have said, I am advised beyond all dubiety that the Executives have this power.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do not wish to prolong the debate but I should like just to say this. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has put the matter with great clarity, and there is this possible obligation which we must foresee. If, as is now suggested, these functional Executives are to delegate to agents functions which are not their own functional duties consideration should be given to what is stated in subsection (9) of the clause,
"… and legal proceedings shall be brought by and against the Executive accordingly, to the exclusion of the Commission."
What will happen in that connexion if the Railway Executive, for example, delegates functions (and it seems astonishing that a Railway Executive should be able to delegate to a subordinate body functions other than its own) and some other body is going to act as the agent of the Railway Functional Executive? It seems to me that under a further subsection you will have great difficulties about who is to be sued. I suggest that that is a point that should be looked into.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: Would that not be covered by the different Executives, whether Road or Rail, delegating functions to some subordinate body? That makes it clear, and the point will be met
648
by the subordinate body referring the matter to whichever Executive is the right one.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Surely the point is that you want a Regional body that can deal with all functions.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRKhad given notice to move, in subsection (5) to leave out "and Edinburgh" and insert "Edinburgh or Belfast." The noble Earl said: This is a small formal Amendment referring to the publicity which is to be given to schemes made under Clause 5. These are very important schemes and they should receive as wide publicity as possible. The Amendment provides that in subsection (5) there should be with the London and Edinburgh Gazettes, the Belfast Gazette. If it is convenient to the noble Chairman I will take the next Amendment in my name, at line 5, to leave out "or Edinburgh" and insert "Belfast or Edinburgh." In this Amendment there is a clerical error and with your Lordships' permission I should like to correct it. It should read "Edinburgh and Belfast" not "Edinburgh or Belfast"—that is an original error in the Bill itself—
"Provided that publication in the London or Edinburgh Gazette of a notice stating that a scheme has been made and approved …."
A large number of publications come out under this Bill, and it is important they should be easily available, and the supply at His Majesty's Stationery Office is clearly inadequate. They are not easy to obtain. There are Gazettes in England, one in Wales, one in Scotland and one in Northern Ireland. A scheme published in the Gazettes should be easily available and widely read because of the large number of legal and other matters of great interest to the variety of citizens concerned.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 4, leave out ("and Edinburgh") and insert ("Edinburgh and Belfast").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MORRISON: I must confess that when I first saw the noble Earl's Amendment I wondered what motive he had in moving it, because he seemed to me to

649
be setting up a competition between Edinburgh and Belfast and putting on someone else the onus as to which would be selected. Knowing where the noble Earl hails from, I could not understand why he put temptation in some one s way of making an announcement, not in Edinburgh but in Belfast. Now he explains that it should be Edinburgh and Belfast I have no objection to accepting the Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 5, leave out ("or Edinburgh") and insert ("Edinburgh and Belfast.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR moved, in subsection (9), to leave out paragraph (a). The noble Lord said: I shall begin by giving the assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, whose courtesy is recognized even by some of us who cast a glare at him across the House, that I move this Amendment with a purely virtuous desire for enlightenment. If I read the words I propose should be left out, I think the House will appreciate the need for enlightenment:
"Any rights, powers and liabilities of the Commission shall be treated as rights, powers and liabilities of tie Executive, and the Executive only."
On the face of it, that looks like a contradiction in terms because, so far as these delegations go, if the rights, powers and liabilities of the Commission are to be treated as the rights, powers and liabilities of the Executive only, it would appear that the whole powers of the Commission are vested for the time solely in the Executive, without control by the Commission.
But a little higher up we find these words:
"the following provisions shall have effect except as between the Executive and the Commission …"
That seems to override the possibility of the Executive only having the powers. It certainly wants clearing up. There are some who object to the obscurity of theological doctrines, but I do not know of any theological doctrine so much in need of interpretation as these words in the Bill. Are they necessary at all? I ask your Lordships to listen to what has already been passed in subsection (6). There it says that:
650
"whether or not the relevant delegation is expressed to be subject to any conditions or limitations, every Executive shall, in the exercise of their functions, give effect to any directions which may from time to time be given to them by the Commission."
That overrides all there is in subsection (9) (a).
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 3—(Lord Rankeillour.)
LORD MORRISON: I thank the noble Lord for the complimentary references to myself, and shall endeavour to deserve them. I am not sure in this case that I can add to his enlightenment. If he had informed me that he merely put the Amendment down for enlightenment and without any definite object in view I might have been more ready. Its actual effect is to create what I know the noble Lord does not desire to create, a centralized bureaucracy. The effect of his Amendment would be to create such a piece of centralization that it would flood the Commission with a multitude of claims by and against them. The practical effect of the Amendment would be that every action, other than those relating to master and servant, would lie against or be brought by the Commission. The very purpose of the setting up of the Executives is to create bodies for the day-to-day working of the undertaking, and it is only logical that claims in connexion with the Executives' work should be dealt with by the Executives. The effect of the Amendment would be that the Commission would have to deal with these claims and they would not be dealt with by the Executives.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: If that is so, why does it provide that in subsection (9) (b):
"The Executive shall, to the exclusion of the Commission, be treated as the employer."
There is some difference between the powers of the Executive and Commission as between paragraphs (a) and (b). The words "the following provisions shall have effect except as between the Executive and the Commission" seem to override both (a) and (b). I admit that the words in subsection (6) give the Commission absolute powers in all these cases. I think there is a real difficulty and confusion here. Whatever the intention might be, the wording seems to be completely inconsistent.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment I hope that somebody with legal knowledge will give us the benefit of his opinion. I feel strongly with the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment that there is considerable substance in it. Can we say that the Commission can ever really divorce themselves from "rights, powers, and liabilities," any more than any noble Lord can divorce himself from liability when he appoints an agent to act for him? The Executive is an agent of the Commission, and later on in the Bill it says that if the Executive is sued and becomes liable for damages, and payment is not received after a certain period of time, then the Commission are bound to pay. That shows, logically, that the Commission always remain liable, and I think there is a considerable legal point involved here. I feel that the responsibility ought to remain with the Commission. That is my natural feeling, as I think it is the natural feeling of the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Since I have been invited to express an opinion on this matter, I must say (and I hope that neither of the noble Lords on this side of the House who have spoken on this subject will be annoyed by my saying so) that I think this clause will work, and I think I understand the meaning of it. Having said that, I will add that I also think it might possibly be made a little clearer, especially to the layman, at a later stage. As I understand it, what is meant by the Government, what is desired, and what I think is the real effect of this clause, is that the Executives are the people to be mentioned in any contracts between the public and the railway undertakings as a whole. They are also the people who are to be sued for any damages which are incurred by the body as a whole, whether by accident, breach of contract or anything else.
For instance, suppose there is an accident on the Waterloo railway. Somebody complains of the action of a porter, and falls down and hurts herself. She may not know against whom she ought to bring the action. This clause will tell her. The action has to be brought against the Executives. The Executives had nothing in the world to do with the accident. That does not matter. They are put there as the people to be "shot at." Having started by trying to put
652
that clearly, it occurred to the draftsmen (and I think properly occurred) that it is only as between the public and the institution that you want this. You do not want it as between the Executives and the Commission. They are different people. They have different functions. They may quarrel and, for all one knows, might conceivably have some sort of litigation between themselves. They are separate and always will be, except that the Executives have only delegated powers under the words of the Bill.
Having put that in in the third line of the subsection, the Bill goes on to repeat it, in effect, in the last passage referring to contracts or documents, and says:
"… legal proceedings shall be brought by and against the Executive accordingly, to the exclusion of the Commission …."
My feeling is that it would be simpler and easier to understand if in the first few lines of the subsection something were put in to show the object of the clause, that is to say, something like this:
"For the purposes of any contract or document or legal proceedings brought by any person the following subsection shall apply."
Then I think my noble friend Lord Rankeillour, and the noble Lord who also spoke, would be content. It might be that a little consideration would be a good thing, although, as I confess, I believe the subsection will result in what the Government want.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: Might I ask my noble and learned friend whether the words in subsection (6), beginning at line 15, are really consistent with the views he has put forward?
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am not quite sure where the inconsistency is. I read them without thinking they were inconsistent. I am not prepared to say that my noble friend is wrong. Perhaps he will tell me afterwards what the point is, and, if there is still an inconsistency, we can consider it later.
LORD MORRISON: In the light of the legal explanation which the noble and learned Viscount has given us, for which I am sure we are all much indebted to him, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, will not persist in this Amendment. May I add that I will see that the noble and learned Viscount's suggestion, that there should be other words put in, is considered, so that they can be

653
before us on Report stage if it is found necessary?
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I cannot say that I am entirely convinced, even by the learning of my noble and learned friend. But in view of what he has said, and the assurance that further consideration will be given to this matter (I trust that the matter will be cleared up) for the time being I will withdraw my Amendment.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I should add one word which I intended to say, and that is with reference to the proviso. Whatever damages you suffer, you bring your action against the Executive. There may be a very large sum which the Executive are not prepared to pay at the moment, because Government Departments have not always the cash, and they have to get it from some other source. This proviso is quite right. It says that if the Executive have not paid within fourteen days after the judgment you may then force the Commission to pay. I think that is very useful provision. It really does not, I think, touch the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour's point as to the earlier words of this subsection.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I wonder if the noble Lord could answer the question I put. Perhaps he did not make a note of it. At an earlier stage I raised the question of the proviso to this subsection and about what a trader was to do who obtained judgment against an Executive. The trader obtains his judgment against the Executive if there has been some damage and the Commission have to pay. My question (perhaps it could be looked into) was: What happens next? Has he to undertake another process against the Commission to get his money, or does the judgment against the Executive automatically carry the right of payment? I do not expect the noble Lord to answer that question now, but I should like to know what the answer is.
LORD MORRISON: The noble Lord does not expect an answer now, and I would not like to risk making an answer on the spur of the moment. But I will see that an answer is given to him.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Thank you very much.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEYNHAM: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the name of
654
my noble friend the Marquess of Salisbury. This Amendment is merely a consequential Amendment on a previous Amendment which ensures that the Commission and not the Minister shall appoint the Executive. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 13, leave out from ("where") to ("abolish") in line 14 and insert ("the Commission").—(Lord Teynham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (II), to leave out "the order or scheme may include such transitional provisions as appear to the Minister, or to the Commission and the Minister, as the case may be" and to insert "the Commission may make such transitional provisions as appear to them." The noble Lord said: This, again is a consequential Amendment due to the fact that the Commission, and not the Minister, are to appoint the Executive. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 19, leave out from ("Commission") to the first ("to") in line 22 and insert the said now words.—(Lord Teynham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: On the Motion that the clause stands part of the Bill, I would like to return for a moment to some of the great questions about the Executives which we have discussed. It seems my unfortunate fate to rise to ask a question of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, at a moment when he has been compelled to absent himself for the purpose of getting a little well-earned bodily refreshment. I gave the noble Viscount notice that I was going to mention this, and make no objection to his going to have a cup of tea, of which I am quite sure he is in urgent need. At the same time my duty to the House does not permit me to allow the clause to go without putting this question, because I venture to submit that it is a question of the very first importance.
In the course of the discussion on my Amendment to give the Commission freedom to set up their own Executives, a statement was made which my noble friend Viscount Swinton described as the most important statement that had been made by any Minister in either House in the course of these debates; that was that it was not necessary lo set up the func-

655
tional Executives by January 1. We gathered from the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, that the intention (and this is what I want to confirm although I am pretty sure of it) is to set up by January 1 perhaps the Rail Executive only. The Rail Executive will, therefore, be responsible for running the railways, including, of course, the subsidiary and ancillary interests of the railways in the way of road undertakings and harbours. There is no difficulty about that; I quite understand it. It is new light to your Lordships, but we are glad to know that that is the intention.
But that does not alter the fact that the Railway Executive to be set up on January 1 will have to be ready to function. My anxiety still remains, because I think the time will be extremely short. First of all this Bill has to pass, then the British Transport Commission have to be set up, then the Commission have to set up the Executive. The Railway Executive has to be ready to function and to take over everything that is at present being done by the four main line railways. The Executive has to face the difficulty of organizing all that, having regard to the fact that the boards of the four main line companies will disappear. I know that the noble Viscount does not think the boards are really necessary, and he is not anxious at all about their disappearance.
I am afraid I now come to the point that only the noble Viscount can answer. He made a statement which shows, I think, that he is under some misapprehension. On the evening before last, in talking on this very point of the emergency arrangements for carrying on, the noble Viscount said:
"Take, for example, the Railway Executive Committee that now exists. Of course, it would continue to be responsible for the management and direction of such matters as fell to it. The railways, and various things connected with the railways, would continue to be administered by that body until other arrangements were made."
That shows that the noble Viscount, like the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, thinks that during the war the Railway Executive Committee administered the railways, because he said they would go on doing it. That, I must tell your Lordships is a complete illusion. There is a confusion of
656
words here. The Railway Executive Committee (what we know as the R.E.C.) does not bear much resemblance to the Railway Executive which is to be set up under this Bill, and that is why it is an illusion to think that the Railway Executive Committee administered the railways. The Railway Executive Committee was, and is, in fact, the medium through which the Minister expresses his wishes to the boards when the national interest requires it. The R.E.C. is the agency through which the Minister gives directions to the railway boards when he is satisfied that national considerations require those directions. The R.E.C. have nothing whatever to do with the day-to-day administration of the railways, so it would not be possible for the Railway Executive Committee to go on doing something which they have never done.
But there is another reason which may appeal even more strongly than that to the noble Viscount. It is that under this Bill, the R.E.C. itself will disappear on January 1 next. This will be found on page 35 of the Bill, which says:
"The orders in force at the passing of this Act under Regulation sixty-nine of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, shall, so far as they relate to the undertakings of the bodies of persons specified In the Third Schedule to this Act, continue in force until the date of transfer and shall then cease to have effect."
It was under that Regulation that the Railways (Control) Order (as I think it was called) was passed. That comes to an end. So not only have the R.E.C. never administered the railways, but, even if they had, they could not go on after January 1, because they would no longer exist. In the light of that, I think we are entitled to some explanation from the Government, and I do not think it would be right to leave this clause until we have given the Front Bench the opportunity of clearing up this curious misunderstanding.
LORD NATHAN: I understand from the noble Lord who has just sat down that he gave notice to my noble friend that he proposed to raise this question. It may be that this clause has been reached rather earlier than was expected, but my noble friend is attending to his bodily comfort. Let me say that the answer, as I understand it, is that of course there must be no confusion between the Railway Executive Committee (which ceases to exist on the vesting date) and the Railway Executive to be constituted under the pro-

657
visions of this Bill. As I apprehend it, the position will be that as soon as may be after this Bill becomes law, the Minister, or the Commission if the Amendment passed on Tuesday should persist, will create a Railway Executive (not a Railway Executive Committee) with such necessary delegated powers as would enable it on the vesting date of January 1 to take over those activities which, on that date, will vest in the Commission, and to exercise such powers as may be delegated to it as being necessary for that purpose.
I think my noble friend the Leader of the House, in the speech referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, expressed the hope (and indeed the conviction) that many of those who had been associated with the conduct of the railways and other activities which would so vest would, under a feeling of public duty, be prepared to assist in the interim period during which transitional difficulties would be bound to arise, with a view to easing this until the system was more completely elaborated and articulated. That I understand to be the position. The noble Lord will understand that I am answering his question on the spur of the moment, but I think that this is the answer which my noble friend, the Leader of the House, would have given had he been here.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for his reply. He made a gallant attempt to fill a very difficult position. I see that the noble Viscount has now returned, and I would like to explain that I am not just having a "dig." It would be too bad to have a "dig," particularly at a moment when the noble Viscount had gone to have a well-earned cup of tea. Probably the noble Viscount might be prepared to answer the question. Perhaps the noble Viscount was under a misapprehension in thinking that the Railway Executive Committee either had administered the railways or would be able to continue to administer the railways. The R.E.C., as it is called, is a body which is merely the medium for the Minister to express his directions to the railways if the national interest requires it. The Railway Executive Committee do not administer railways, they never have and, moreover, under this very Bill they are going to disappear on January 1, 1948, because the emergency legislation which created them goes. Therefore, I think
658
the noble Viscount was perhaps a little misled. I do not want to press this too far; my object is not to embarrass the noble Viscount who has a great burden upon him and may possibly have made a little slip. All I want to do is to try to emphasize once again the difficulty of getting the Commission into working order, and that getting an arrangement to work the main line railways is more difficult than it looks and more difficult than the noble Viscount thought.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: Before the noble Lord replies, may I say, following on what the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said when he stated that he foresaw that certain of those who were at present administering the railways would be required to carry on in the interim period—
LORD NATHAN: I would not wish to be misunderstood. I said the noble Viscount the Leader of the House had expressed a hope that some of those who had been responsible for conducting these great enterprises would, as a matter of public duty, be prepared to lend their aid during the transition period.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I just want to know what the noble Lord meant by that. Does he mean the officers, the executives, the present boards, or whom? I think we need a little further elucidation on that point.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I will look into the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who knows much more about the internal management of railways than I know or have ever professed to know. However, I am informed, with considerable confidence, that there will be no more difficulty in carrying on the management and conduct of the railways as from January and during the transition period, than there was at the beginning of the war. As to what particular department manages what, I agree that I have no inside knowledge, but I do not anticipate that there is any likelihood of a breakdown.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I hope the noble Viscount will not count upon the R.E.C., because they will not be there.
LORD CROMWELL: The noble Viscount the Leader of the House suggested that the position will be the same as when

659
war broke out. That was a situation which you could not foresee. We can foresee the difficulties in this case, and that might well be a reason for postponing the date.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I should have said that the sensible thing would be to prepare to meet the difficulties, as we will know them in advance.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Consultative Committees.
6.—(1) There shall be established in accordance with the provisions of this section a Central Transport Consultative Committee for Great Britain and, for such areas in Great Britain as are mentioned in subsection (3) of this section, either—
(4) Every such Committee as aforesaid shall consist of such number of persons appointed by the Minister as the Minister may from time to time determine, being—

(a) an independent chairman;

(b) members appointed, after consultation with such bodies representative of the interests concerned as the Minister thinks fit, to represent agriculture, commerce, industry, labour and local authorities; and

(c) members appointed from among persons nominated by the Commission:
Provided that—

(i) in the case of the Central Transport Consultative Committee, the persons nominated by the Commission shall include at least one member of the Commission; and

(ii) members need not be appointed under paragraph (b) of this subsection to any Transport Users Consultative Committee to represent any of the interests mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection which in the opinion of the Minister need not be represented on that Committee.

(7) Every Committee appointed under this section shall consider and, where it appears to the Committee to be necessary, make recommendations in regard to any matter affecting the services and facilities provided by the Commission which has been the subject of representations (other than representations which appear to the Committee to be frivolous) made to the Committee by users of those services or facilities, or which appears to be a matter to which consideration ought to be given, or which the Minister or Commission may refer to them for consideration; and every such Committee shall meet when convened by the chairman thereof, but in no case less frequently than twice a year, and, without prejudice to the discretion of the chairman to call a meeting of the Committee whenever he thinks fit so to do, he shall call a meeting thereof when required so to do by any three members of the Committee.
(8) Minutes shall be kept of the proceedings of every such Committee and copies of the
660
minutes and of the recommendations or conclusions of any such Committee shall—

(a) in the case of a Transport Users Consultative Committee, be sent to the Central Transport Consultative Committee and to the Commission;

(b) in the case of the Central Transport Consultative Committee, be sent to the Minister and to the Commission,

and where a copy of a recommendation of the Central Transport Consultative Committee is sent to the Minister, the Minister may give such directions to the Commission with respect to the matters dealt with by the recommendation as he thinks fit, and the Commission shall give effect to any such directions.
(10) The Commission shall provide every such Committee with such officers and servants, and such office accommodation, as appear to the Commission to be requisite for the proper discharge of the Committee's functions or as may be directed by the Minister; and they may pay to the members of any such Committee allowances in respect of any loss of remunerative time in accordance with a scale approved by the Minister and the Treasury and such travelling allowances and such allowances in respect of their out-of-pocket expenses as the Commission may determine.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (1), after the first "section" to insert "a Harbour Consultative Committee for Great Britain and". The noble Lord said: For the convenience of your Lordships, may I suggest that the first Amendment in my name on the Order Paper, on page 9, line 26, and three other Amendments on page 10, line 12, line 19 and line 33, be taken together? The two Amendments on page 10, line 24 and line 27 are really consequential on the main Amendment on page 10, line 33. The first Amendment, on page 9, line 26, seeks to set up a Harbours Consultative Committee in addition to a Central Transport Consultative Committee. At a later stage an Amendment will be moved—as has already been mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton—to withdraw the executive control of the Commission over the docks, but still allowing them to retain the power of review.
I have referred to this later Amendment because your Lordships might think it was unnecessary to move the present Amendment in order to appoint a Harbours Consultative Committee, when the executive power of control may be removed from the Commission. The reason is, as I have already tried to explain, that the Commission will still hold a power of review of the dock system of the country as a whole.

661
There will undoubtedly be many matters in connexion with harbour schemes which will require consultation with representatives of shipping and other commercial users of trade harbours. The Amendment on page 10, line 33, sets out the composition of the Harbours Consultative Committee, and lays down that the members shall be appointed after consultation with representatives of shipping, and other commercial users of trade harbours, as the Minister thinks fit. In other respects, this Amendment is similar to subsection (4) as already drafted in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 26, after ("section") insert ("a Harbours Consultative Committee for Great Britain and").—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD ROCHDALE: I would like to support my noble friend in this series of Amendments. It does seem to me that the members of these Consultative Committees, although they will be part-time in their earlier years, will be very busy. They will have a lot of work to do, and to have a special Harbour Consultative Committee to deal with the very specialized problems that will arise would be a great advantage and make for considerable smoothness of working and a speeding-up of results. I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that when a similar Amendment was raised in another place the Minister, who replied for the Government, said that he admitted there was some force in the argument; in fact, he went on to say that he felt sure there would be something on these lines on a voluntary basis. It seems to me that if His Majesty's Government are prepared to go so far in this matter, they might just as well put it down in black and white in the Bill itself.
LORD GIFFORD: I should also like to support the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, in these Amendments. I feel most strongly that harbours and ports are such a specialized business, and there will be in the initial period so many problems to be settled, that His Majesty's Government would be most wise to agree to the appointment of a Harbours Consultative Committee. There are all kinds of interests involved. A harbour port is a most intricate thing. There are the shipping interests, both coastal and overseas; there are the stevedoring firms, the shipbuilders and the ship repairers; there are the dock workers, of course, and their
662
union, and those owning and controlling warehouses; there are the docks, both seagoing and harbour docks, and there are lighters. There are many other interests also involved, and I think His Majesty's Government would be very wise (and I would strongly press them to do so) to accept these Amendments, which are not at all controversial and which would help in making this section of the transport industry work better, particularly in the early and difficult stages.
LORD MORRISON: I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken that the is in no way controversial. The only question is as to whether we would be wise to tie ourselves up too tightly with machinery of this sort. Those of us on this side of the House, and I think noble Lords in all parts of the House, feel that there should be as much elasticity as possible left in the administration of this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, referred to the discussion that took place on this point in another place. I noted that as a result of the statement that was made then, similar Amendments to those now moved were withdrawn and were not voted upon. I assume, therefore, that members in another place were fairly satisfied, inasmuch as they did not press the Amendments. I take it that the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, who moved these Amendments, would agree that for the convenience of the House the whole of these six Amendments might be discussed together. I think that was his intention.
LORD TEYNHAM: I should prefer to discuss the next Amendment, which I think is on page 10, line 19, separately.
LORD MORRISON: If I may give the noble Lord a little information in advance, that is one of the Amendments we look upon more sympathetically, and we will probably accept that. With regard to the other Amendments, the machinery of the Consultative Committees, as outlined in Clause 6, is designed to provide, under an independent Chairman, a forum at which representatives of users of transport can discuss with the Commission the services and facilities which the Commission provide. It is intended to keep the Commission in touch with the user interests in the widest sense. The Central Committees will rarely be able to deal with detail matters, and while the area

663
Committees will be in closer touch with detail, it cannot be expected that they will be able to cope with the many intricacies of the particular needs of particular classes of users, which must be dealt with, in the first instance, between the user concern and the local representative of the Commission.
It seems to me much better that this should be left to the good sense of the parties concerned. The Minister, of course, cannot bind the Commission for the future, but I am authorized to say that the Minister fully expects that the Commission will establish joint machinery on a voluntary basis which will enable shipping interests to express their views on port development and port problems generally. I hope that with the assurance that this might be better done if it were done on a voluntary basis rather than under compulsion, the noble Lord may reconsider his position.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the assurance which he has given. I do not propose to press the Amendment, because I see under Clause 65 (3) that the Commission must take into consultation persons engaged in harbour undertakings. But, none the less, I do feel that a Harbour Consultative Committee would be of great benefit to the Commission as a whole, and in fact such a Committee will have to be set up, whatever it may be called, and whether it is put in the Bill or not. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I add one word on this? I only want to suggest, for the consideration of the Government, something which seems to me of some importance before this matter is finally settled. I am thinking of a very mundane matter. Suppose that two gentlemen or more are to be appointed by voluntary arrangement to consider and co-ordinate the work of the very valuable and important ports and harbours. I agree that that may be done by the Minister or by the Commission, but what I do not quite follow is how you are going, and how the Minister is empowered, to give the directions which can be given under subsection (10) of the clause we are considering, unless there is some provision in the Bill about it. Under that provision, the Commission may provide officers and
664
servants—in particular, no doubt, secretaries—and office accommodation, and they may pay to the members of any such Committee allowances in respect of any loss of remunerative time in accordance with the scale. Now I think, as a matter of common sense, that it is very desirable that the Minister should have power, if and when he appoints people to act as a Consultative Committee with regard to harbours and ports, to put them in the same position as one of these other Executives who can be treated in this particular way. I hope that will be considered, because my present impression is that the Minister would have no power to expend public money unless authorized by either express words or the necessary implication in the Act.
LORD MORRISON: I will look into the point which the noble Viscount has raised.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD RANKEILLOUR LORD RANKEILLOUR moved, in subsection (4) (a), to leave out "an independent" and insert "a." The noble Lord said: This is a rather small point, but I again have to ask for enlightenment from the noble Lord, Lord Morrison. Apparently the Minister is to appoint an independent Chairman, and I want to know of whom is he to be independent. The phrase is a common one where there is a clash of two interests—it may be of employers and employed or it may be others, but in this case that position does not arise. What I conjecture may be meant is that he is not to be one of those representing interests referred to in paragraph (b)—that is to say, agriculture, commerce, industry, labour, and local authorities. If that is so, I suggest it might be better for it to be stated, because he is to he appointed by the Minister and I should have preferred his being appointed by the Commission. However, we cannot go into that now. What I want to know is: What are to be the qualifications of independence? I beg to move.
Page 10, line 15, leave out ("an independent") and insert ("a").—(Lord Rankeillour.)
LORD MORRISON: The noble Lord has moved a curious Amendment to leave out the words "an independent." He has made what he himself suggested was a debating point. What is an independent person? As almost everybody will be concerned in some way or another in transport, there is no such thing as any-

665
one who can be described as independent. That is a useful and interesting debating point and, if I may say so without offence, I am very glad that the noble Lord, since he left another place, has lost none of his cunning in putting these points. I am given to understand that it is not intended to select as a Chairman someone who had a very definite practical and material interest in the work. It would be the Minister's endeavour to select as Chairmen persons of high standing in the localities who were not too definitely connected with one of the user interests specified in the paragraph—namely, agriculture, commerce, industry, labour and local authorities.
The noble Lord raises the point: Then who is left? The answer is that this still leaves the field of professional occupations upon which to draw, and the Minister would no doubt feel free to appoint any person whose background was, for example, commerce or industry, but who might not be an active member of the local Chamber of Commerce or the Manufacturers' Association. There comes to my mind a type of independent Chairman, as, for instance, Sir Arthur Salter, who presided with great distinction over the Road Rail Conference in 1932.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: Then members of the local authority would be excluded under this clause? It looks like it.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I add one word on this subject? I am afraid that I am rather inclined to take the view that the Government ought to consider it a little more carefully than they have done. I want to compare the word "independent" with the phrase used in the Second Schedule on page 130. An executive is more important than a consultative officer, and no doubt the Government have done the best they can to produce a really good clause to satisfy themselves that the executives are proper persons to appoint. It does not say that they are independent, because the Schedule prefers to state what meant—
"that the Minister shall satisfy himself that the person will have no such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially the discharge by him of his functions as a member of the Executive."
I think that is an admirable phrase. Supposing he has £100 invested in railway stock which has been turned into some-
666
thing else, or some other interest which has become a Government at interest, he still has, in a small way, such a financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially the discharge by him of his functions. That is enough for the Minister in this regard, and why should it not be enough in regard to a Consultative Officer? Paragraph (4) goes on:
"the Minister shall also satisfy himself from time to time with respect to every member of an Executive that he has no such interest."
The phrase, up to there, is quite admirable, and I would suggest to the Government that a very short phrase in connexion with the paragraph we are considering would show that "independent chairman" has the meaning which is attached to the worth referring to an executive officer which are contained in paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule. That seems to me a reasonable arrangement for a consultative officer. If you say "independent" I do not believe that any Judge on the Bench will be able to say what "independent" means in connexion with a consultative officer. All sorts of possibilities arise. Is he independent if he is a member of a local authority which has some connexion with a railway? It is impossible to tell.
LORD WOOLTON: Those engaged in industry are always a little afraid of the expression "independent chairman." We are afraid that somebody will be appointed whose main qualification is an academic one—a University don or something. We would rather risk the gentleman not being quite so independent if he knew just a little about the commercial world. If the Government could accept the suggestion which the noble Viscount has made we should perhaps get some solution of this difficulty.
LORD MORRISON: I am not in a position to accept this suggestion but I think the advice given by the noble Viscount is excellent and describes the kind of "independence" that I have in mind. I will gladly look into it.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: As the noble Lord has added this to his list of addenda and corrigenda I will, with your Lordship's leave, withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEYNHAMhad given notice to move, in subsection (4) (b), after "industry" to insert: "British shipping

667
interests." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to secure that shipping interests shall be represented. It is certainly strange that as the clause stands, shipping, one of our most important industries, is to be left out or grouped under some other heading. Ship owners are important users of inland transport. One of the most important factors in connexion with a ship is that she should be turned round quickly in port. If this is not done the sailing date may be delayed, for several reasons. For instance road and rail organizations may not be properly integrated, and ships' stores, such as dock and engine room stores, and spare anchors and cables, are frequently carried by road. It is necessary that the integration should be there. The case may also arise when the right type of vehicle might not be provided by the Commssion, or perhaps the frequency of the service is inadequate. Therefore it is vitally important that shipping interests should be represented on the Consultative Committee.
LORD GIFFORD: I have in my business an Entertainments Committee, and I have to inform the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, with deep regret that I could not give him a job as a conjuror because he spoilt his best trick of the afternoon by letting the rabbit poke its head out of the hat far too soon. I was going to say a few words in support of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, but in view of what he said I will be very brief.
As Lord Teynham said, the shipping industry is one of the greatest users of inland transport, and I suggest that it is particularly important that it should be represented on this Committee at the present time, in view of the great need for our exports to be carried from this country with as little delay as possible. In connexion with coastwise shipping, they are, I understand, to carry almost half as much freight as the whole of the main line railways, so that from the point of view of both the overseas and the coastwise shipping the industry should be represented on this Committee.
LORD MORRISON: I hope I shall never be in the position of having to apply for a post as conjuror, but if I am, I am sure the noble Lord will treat me very well. With regard to this
668
Amendment, if the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, would be good enough to reduce it by two-thirds, that is to say to reduce it from three words to one word, I should be in a position to accept it. The last word of the Amendment, "interests," is unnecessary, and the first word, "British," is also unnecessary; the Minister has no intention of appointing a Laplander to this position. Therefore, if the noble Lord will agree, I shall be in a position to accept the Amendment.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord for accepting my Amendment. We all agree to the rewording of it.
Amendment, as amended, moved—
Page 10, line 19, after ("industry") insert ("shipping").—(Lord Teynham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved, in subsection (4), at the end to insert:
"but this proviso shall not apply to members to represent the interests of local authorities"
The noble Lord said: This proviso refers to Transport Users' Advisory Committees, and the members who are to be appointed are indicated in subsection 4 (b). It seems to me to fall into two somewhat distinct categories. There are those who represent interests such as agriculture, commerce, shipping and industry, who are direct users of the transports concerned in a particular area. The local authorities are, it seems to me, the only representatives of the general public who use transport.
Your Lordships will see that the proviso indicates that the Minister may leave out some of those persons in cases where he thinks fit. This will be readily understood in certain areas; some may not be necessary; in a mainly agricultural area you may not want commerce; in the centre of a town you may not want agriculture. It is suggested that on these Committees there must be a representative of the public. The local authorities are probably much more in touch with the local and travelling bodies than any other persons laid down. It is easy for the ordinary man and woman in a locality to get in touch with the representatives of his or her local authority, and for the local authority to find out the needs of transport in their own area. In the area in

669
which I am interested we have already made representations about additional bus services to bring some of the people from the villages into the market town. Again, it is the local authorities' representatives who endeavour to see that the bus which people may wish to use does not leave the station five minutes before the train arrives. Therefore, the Amendment suggests that the Minister should not be entitled to exclude the representatives of local authorities from any of these Committees. It is probably not the intention of the Government that they should be excluded, but I think that should be specified in the Bill, and I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 33, at end insert ("but this proviso shall not apply to members to represent the interests of local authorities"). —(Lord Addington.)
LORD MORRISON: it is certainly not the intention of the Government that representatives of local authorities should be excluded, but what the noble Lord is asking for is that it should be obligatory that they should be included—which is a somewhat different thing. Like the noble Lord, I have a very long experience of local government, and with that experience I think that what ought to be aimed at in this connexion is that the services of the best people should be acquired, irrespective of whether or not they are members of the local authority. I concede this point in regard to the noble Lord's reference tc the local bus leaving the station early and a complaint being made to the local council. The local authorities, it seems to me, are clearly the proper custodians in the interests of the travelling public, and as such they ought clearly to be represented on the Transport Users Consultative Committee. But one must remember that transport consists of much more than moving passengers about, and if separate Committees are set up in respect of goods traffic, the interests of users could more appropriately be catered for by people selected from agriculture, commerce, industry and labour than by local authorities; and they would have a more useful contribution to make. The position, therefore, is that so far as making it obligatory that representatives of local authorities should be selected to serve upon all Committees is concerned, the Minister does not see
670
that that is necessary in the case of Committees which will deal largely with goods traffic. I do not think the local authorities' interests are likely to be overlooked in this matter, and they will probably have their share of representation; they will continue to be, as they always have been, recognized as the representatives of the public interests.
LORD O'HAGAN: I think there is a little more substance to this Amendment than that which has already been given. After all, even if this public local authorities' representation in the district does not continue, they are just as much concerned with the proper ventilation of what is required for transport or its purposes as they are for passenger services. I hope the Government will consider this matter still more carefully.
LORD MORRISON: There is only one further point that I would make, and I think the Government will appreciate it. It has been my experience over a long time that when a local authority are invited to attend a committee or meeting they do not always send the best member of the local authority. Sometimes it is the next man on the rota. Often, members from local authorities have no great interest in the job, but, as they have been elected to the council they consider that they are in duty bound to go. Undoubtedly the local authorities will continue to occupy an important place on the bodies to be selected, but I hope the noble Lord will not expect that it should be obligatory in every case that they should be appointed.
LORD ADDINGTON: There are two points I wish to make on that. First of all, the general public do use transport, not only for themselves but also for goods and parcels, so they should be represented, even in those bodies which concern goods as well as passengers. There is one other point. I do not think it necessary, so far as I can see under the clause, that the people who represent the interests of local authorities should necessarily be members. It should be quite open for the local authority to put forward someone in the area to represent the public. It is the public, rather than the local authority, representation, that I am pressing for because, unless the Amendment is accepted, no other people except the representative of the local

671
authority will represent the public as a whole. I would urge that at any rate in administration, whether the noble Lord will allow it in the Bill or not, there should be very rare ocasions on which the public are not represented on every single one of these Consultative Committees. In view of what the noble Lord has said, I do not wish to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (4) at the end to insert—
"(iii) in the case of each Transport Users Consultative Committee in respect of passenger traffic the Commission shall secure that the interests of persons who use passenger transport services shall be represented on such committee."
The noble Earl said: May I take this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Gifford? You have in substance here the same Amendment as the one that has been moved, but not applying to local authorities. I had some doubts, in the first place, as to whether this Amendment was necessary, but the more I have heard of this debate the more convinced I am that some Amendment of this character is absolutely essential, because this is, in fact, a Transport Users Committee, and so far as I can see, and from what I have heard, it is to be filled substantially by certain specific interests. Those interests have been stated and arc here in subsection (4) (b): "Agriculture, commerce, industry, labour and local authorities." But they are not by any means all the people who need to use transport; nor do I quite understand how anybody in this country can be independent of transport, or be independent of some section of the people who want to use transport.
I do not wish to labour this point, but the object of this Amendment is to ensure that in each case the Transport Users Consultative Committee shall secure the interests of persons who use the passenger, transport services, and that they shall be represented on the Committee. The point of this Amendment is to ensure that every housewife—the person who goes shopping —and the ordinary man in the street, who is not specifically connected with an interest already specified, is represented. It does not lay down how that representation is to be obtained, and it is always a difficult matter to get what is called a Consumers' Council.
There is one example which is quite interesting, the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931. I do not say this is a very good example, but it is an example. What is laid down here is really an obligation on the Minister to ensure that the ordinary man in the street is, in fact, represented on the Transport Users Council, and I have much pleasure in moving the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 33, insert the said sub-paragraph.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD GIFFORD: I should like to add a word about this Amendment, which is put down jointly with the Earl of Selkirk and the Earl of Rothes. I think it is a desirable Amendment, and, if I may say so, my views on this have been much strengthened by a remark which was made just now, by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, about how often the local authority sends a representative who really is not interested in the local bus, or local transport. This Amendment makes it necessary that the people who attend the meeting shall be interested in transport, and, of course, the reason why they will be interested in transport is that they use it regularly. I would suggest that suitable people would be commercial travellers, a technical representative of some firm, or even, like so many noble Lords in this House, a "daily breader" who every day comes up from the country to this city.
LORD MORRISON: The difficulty about accepting this Amendment is that up to date there has not emerged, so far as I know, any body fully representative of the interests of the travelling public. It is true that in certain places, in certain localities, there are, and have been, local associations with a more or less precarious existence. It is believed that, in general, they emerged to secure some remedy in travelling facilities in a narrow area, but when they have secured that purpose they appear to have insufficient cohesion to maintain an active existence. If any widely representative association of passengers does emerge, the Minister would no doubt be willing to consult with them about the appointment of a representative to the Consultative Committees. But it would be wrong, on the basis of present knowledge, to create a statutory right for a body which simply does not exist. In the Railways Act of 1921, and the London Passenger Transport Act of

673
1933, the local authorities were recognized as spokesmen for the travelling public in their areas—a task which they have performed with a sense of full responsibility. Unless, and until, passengers care to organize themselves, the Minister will continue to recognize local authorities as the custodians of passenger interests—and the Consultative Committee procedure provides for their recognition in Clause 6.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The Government really are most extraordinary people! More and more, it seems, have we to be regimented. Here is a Bill which touches everybody. Why on earth should it be said that there must be a vested interest of some kind before there should be a representation? Why has everybody to join a trade union? That is what it comes to. It is said on behalf of the Minister: "I cannot have anyone representing the ordinary travelling public, the 'daily breader,' the commuter who hangs on to a strap as he goes to his work; I cannot recognize these people until they have joined a union and the union is big enough, and vocal enough, to claim representation." I thought that the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, in replying to Lord O'Hagan, said that the Minister did not want to commit himself to local authorities because he did not know that local authorities would pick the best men. He wanted the Commission to have their hands free to pick the best men for the job. I do not say that that is unreasonable. What I assert is unreasonable, is to say that the ordinary humble passengers, millions of whom are crowded into buses and trains every day, and still more of whom will be crowded into such conveyances after this Bill is passed, should not have someone selected to represent their interests.
We do not like to have our interests represented by someone who does not really represent them. Why should it be so very difficult to find representatives of the common man? The noble Lord, if he should ever find himself in the situation of being prosecuted for some crime, will, of course, be judged by his Peers—at least if he commits a felony; but not if he commits a misdemeanour. But suppose that before he reached his present exalted position on the Front Bench he had committed a crime—and I think the position would be the same under Scottish law—there would then be no difficulty in em-
674
panelling a jury to try him simply because there is no trade union from which a jury can be drawn. If you want to empanel a jury of matrons, you do not have to consult the Mothers' Union. This position really becomes quite fantastic.
I would quote a practical example. Many years ago we had what was called a Consumers' Council. I think I was responsible for setting it up. I appointed several people who were representative consumers to sit on that Council. I did not say: "I have to find some trade union or trade association from which they can be selected." I remember that I picked a couple of women, very sensible women, and they did good work. Really, having regard to the other functions which the Minister is to exercise under this Bill, is it to be said that it is impossible for him, or for the Commission, or for the two in consultation, to pick a simple representative of the ordinary common travelling public to sit on a Consultative Committee?
6.35 p.m.
EARL HOWE: This Bill proposes to set up a gigantic machine, and many people in this country—not directly interested in politics but interested in the welfare of the ordinary public—are wondering how in the world they are going to make any impression on the machine when it gets into operation. What is one to do: write to one's Member of Parliament and hope for the best? Or wait for a period of so many years—two, three, four, or five—before one can secure a change of Government and get a more benevolent attitude? The Minister says that he does not know of any sort of organization to which he could appeal to select someone to represent the travelling public. I will give him a suggestion—let him approach the Housewives' League. Let us have representatives of the Housewives' League on the Committees. I am certain that they will know how to deal with Consultative Committees—and with the Minister too if they do not like him.
LORD GIFFORD: I entirely agree with what has been said by my noble friend Viscount Swinton. May I be allowed to add just two or three words because I think that they epitomize what is felt by noble Lords on these Benches? On the vehicles of London Transport recently we saw representations of a pathetic little

675
figure: "Billy Brown of London Town." We want to see "Billy Brown of London Town" on a Committee of this sort.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am sure we do. But may I ask the noble Lord to come down from these transcendental observations to the practical realities of the Bill? It has been asked: How are people to find out things and get their complaints ventilated? The question has been asked: Are they to write to their Members? It is expressly provided on page 9 of the Bill that:
"There shall be no part of Great Britain which is not within the area of a Transport Users Consultative Committee."
It was already provided in the Railways Act of 1921 that local authorities were to be represented as spokesmen for the travelling public in their areas In this Bill we have provided that there must be representatives of local authorities on these Committees. In subsection (4) (b) it is stated that the Committee shall include
"members appointed, after consultation with such bodies representative of the interests concerned as the Minister thinks fit to represent agriculture, commerce, industry, labour and local authorities."
That is the proviso. This clause deals with the matter of Consultative Committees. One noble Lord wanted "Billy Brown of London Town" to be on a Consultative Committee. What is suggested in this Amendment is that there should be an additional sub-paragraph, sub-paragraph (iii), under the proviso, that there must be someone representing the travelling public. I am pointing out That under the Railways Act, the local authorities are represented as the spokesmen of the travelling public. We have provided that local authorities should be represented in matters in which they are concerned—and clearly this is one—on the Consultative Committees. Really, it is completely unnecessary (if I may say so with respect) to describe the Government's ideas as fantastic. I may say that I have never heard anything more fantastic in relation to this than some of the observations to which I have been listening. The provision to which I have referred is in the Bill. What more can you want?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: With great respect, this is not quite so fantastic as the noble Viscount suggests. If he would read the whole of the Bill he would see that
676
what he has said would have been very relevant of subsection (4) (b) stood by itself. Members shall consist of an independent chairman and
"members appointed, after consultation with such bodies … as the Minister thinks fit, to represent agriculture, commerce, industry, labour and local authorities."
And the noble Viscount asks, "What are you quarrelling about? All these gentlemen are to be in it." If he looks a little further on at the proviso only ten lines down the page, he will see that it says that members need not be appointed to any Transport Users' Consultative Committee to represent any of the interests in paragraph (b), which in the opinion of the Minister need not be represented on that Committee.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That only proves my point. Under the Railway Act local authorities are regarded as spokesmen of the travelling public and therefore clearly they will not be excluded by these words.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: This cannot be covered by some ancient Act of 1921. I do not know and I would like to get legal opinion; perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, would advise us on this. As I read it—and it is really a simple question of plain English—subsection (4) (b) says that you have to appoint a Council representative of these interests, among whom are local authorities. The Minister says that provided you appoint somebody representative of the local authorities, then the consumer is represented. That might be a very good argument if it was not modified by paragraph (ii) of the proviso, which says that in spite of subsection (4) (b) the Minister can dispense with all or any of these representatives and it is perfectly competent for him, exercising the power under (ii) of the proviso, not to appoint to the Consultative Committee any representative of a local authority. In that case, where does consumer representation come in? I would withdraw at once if I could be shown that I have put a wrong construction on it.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am quite sure it is absolutely fully provided for in the two provisions, and I cannot imagine any Minister concerned with covering the interests of the travelling public thinking that it meant excluding local authorities. He would certainly include them.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The noble Viscount says it is in the Railway Act of 1921. I see in the schedule that a great deal of the Act is cancelled. Is he quite sure this part is not?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That part is not.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The previous Amendment, which definitely provided that local authorities should be represented, was resisted by the Government because they did not want local authorities to be represented. It is not necessary to have representatives from local authorities, but you can have them if you like. What we wish to ensure is the primary, indispensable principle that there is representation of the travelling public.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I ask the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, one question. Everybody says that we are anxious that the public, which means chiefly the travelling public, the biggest public of all, should have their interests consulted and should be represented so far as possible on the Consultative Committee. We have already added shipping to subsection (4) (b). Would the noble Lord object to adding at the end "and the interests of the travelling public"? Because that would make it clear that the Consultative Committee, consisting we hope of very distinguished people, will have to consider, among other things, the interests of the travelling public, and if possible the members of the Committee should include somebody to represent them. As a lawyer, I am surprised that anyone imagines that a person cannot represent an interest without being personally interested. I have represented in my life two or three hundred different interests, and some of them with great success, and you may get a man to represent the travelling public because he is a member or secretary of one of the big travelling organizations. He might be a good person although he may not be a railwayman.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am quite sure the statement I made was correct and sound. It would not matter much if we put in the words "and the interests of the travelling public." I undertake to have a look at it and if it placates anybody, I will put them in. I do not see that it makes much difference. But of course I cannot do it now.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Viscount very much for what he has said. On the understanding that it is to be examined on Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SWINTONhad given notice to move in subsection (7) after "provided "to Insert "and rates charged." The noble Viscount said: I understand that if I moved this Amendment in a slightly different form it would be acceptable to the Government. The object is to make sure that the Committee can take into account changes of rates and charges. I put my words in the wrong place. May I move, in place of the Amendment standing in my name, that on page 11, line 3, after "matter" we insert the words "including charges."
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 3, after ("matter") insert ("including charges").—(Viscount Swinton.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am glad to accept that Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN moved in subsection (7), after "Consideration," where that word occurs a second time to insert:
"and for the purpose of the proper discharge by them of their functions the Commission shall provide every such committee with such information as they may reasonably require in regard to the matters; to be considered by them."
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move this Amendment in the name of my noble friends and myself. We come back to the functions of these Consultative Committees which we were discussing earlier on moving Amendments about regional organization. At that time the suggestion was made, which we did not accept on these Benches, that the Consultative Committee would create some substitute for regional organization, but now we come in this subsection to what are the real duties of the Consultative Committee. I am sure everyone will wish the Consultative Committees to be as efficient and real as we can make them. This clause, as I understand it, provides for three main kinds of duties—first, of investigating complaints; secondly, to deal with any matter which appears to them a matter to which consideration ought to be given; and thirdly, to deal with those matters which the

679
Minister or the Commission may think fit to refer to them for consideration.
We on these Benches feel that it is very important that the tasks laid upon them in this subsection shall be a reality, and that the Consultative Committees should have the fullest possible facilities to enable them to discharge their functions thoroughly, to get to the bottom of every complaint and every matter which seems to them to require attention, and to deal faithfully with any matter which the Commission or the Minister may think fit to refer to them. As I say, it is important that they should be people really capable of doing their jobs, and they should have the information available to them, because if they are not going to be given facilities for discharging their functions, all the problems which we discussed just now—of getting proper representatives—will not arise, and it will not be necessary to look further than Madame Tussauds to find exactly the right people for the Consultative Committees.
Therefore, we are moving this Amendment, which, as noble Lords will see, lays down in terms that "the Commission shall provide every such committee with such information as they may reasonably require in regard to the matters to be considered by them"—that is to say, the matters mentioned in this subsection which they have to consider. As the Bill stands, there is no provision for anything of that sort, and this raises the question whether, if the Committees start to consider any of these matters referred to in this subsection, the Commission or the Minister might take the line that they are not entitled to the information which they themselves think should be laid before them in order to discharge their functions. This Amendment is directed to enable the Committees to do their job as thoroughly and as satisfactorily as possible in the interests of those whom they represent. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 1o, after ("consideration") insert the said words.—(Viscount Bridgeman.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The noble Viscount with great ingenuity has conjured up quite a large number of difficulties. The position is that these Consultative Committees will be appointed and, in order to give them complete authority, it
680
is proved in paragraph (i) of subsection (4) on page 10:
"in the case of the Central Transport Consultative Committee the persons nominated by the Commission shall include at least one member of the Commission."
In other words, one of the real head men is going to be on this Central Consultative Committee. Can anybody imagine, with that authority on the Committee, that they will be asked to look into something and be refused any necessary help or information? Of course not.
Subsection (10) goes on to say that the Commission shall provide every such Committee with such officers and servants, and so on, as may be required. They will provide officers for the purpose of doing something—namely, to collect the information, sort it out, get papers ready for the Committee and all the rest of it. What else would they be appointed for? I cannot imagine any other purpose. There is no statutory obligation of this kind in any other Act of Parliament that I know of. One might envisage a case in the Courts where enough information had not been given, and other instances. Really, the noble Viscount is conjuring up difficulties which will never arise in real life. There is a member of the Commission on the Committee itself to see that it works properly and with full authority. There are officers and premises to be provided, and so on. Surely it necessarily follows from that that the Commission are going out of their way to make these Committees a success. There is no necessity whatever for a statutory obligation of this kind in the Bill.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I wish I could be convinced by what the noble Viscount has said, but I am not, because with all the premises, with all the palaces and gilded cages and everything else provided for the Consultative Committee, it still does not follow from the Bill or, with great respect, from anything the noble Viscount has said, that the influence of the officers and members of the Commission is going to be used to provide information; nor does it say whether that influence is going to be used in withholding it. Speaking as one who has spent a certain amount of time inside Whitehall, I am afraid that I cannot share the view of the noble Viscount that they are always only too anxious to give outside people all the information—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: They are not outside people.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Outside people in the sense that they are private individuals. However, this is not a matter that we intend to press to-night. But there is a danger here which, frankly, has not been removed by anything the noble Viscount has said, and a danger which it will be our duty to watch. With that, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ROCHDALE LORD ROCHDALE moved, in subsection (1o), after the word "such" to insert "permanent." The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, I must apologize for the wording perhaps being not quite as clear as it might appear to be. The Amendment seeks to insert on page 11, line 35, after the word "such" the word "permanent." If your Lordships will look at the line, you will see that the word "such" occurs twice. The Amendment as moved should read "with such permanent officers and servants, and such permanent office accommodation …" In view of what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has just said about the great importance that His Majesty's Government attach to these Consultative Committees, I very much hope that the Minister will see his way to approve this Amendment. It seems to me of very great importance, because the whole conception of the Consultative Committees is one that can make or can mar the working of the Commission as a whole.
I believe that throughout the country users are putting tremendous reliance on these Consultative Committees, and everything possible should be done to make them a success. In the early days a great number of recommendations will be made to these Committees; meetings will have to be held at short notice; cases will have to be analyzed and looked at; records turned up and so forth, and if the premises or the officers are only to be loaned by permission to these Consultative Committees, or by one of the Executives for a particular meeting, the Consultative Committees are not going to have a fair chance. They will not be able to work as smoothly as they otherwise would. Therefore, I would urgently ask the Government to accept this Amendment
682
with the view—which the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, has so clearly stated—of the Commission going out of their way—he used those words—to seeing that these Committees work. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11 line 33, after ("such") insert ("permanent").—(Lord Rochdale.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I hope the noble Lord will not press us to put that into the Bill. We have been accused of glorifying Government offices, and making too much elaborate accommodation, and all that kind of thing, yet now the noble Lord wants us to put into the Bill that all these people have to have permanent office accommodation. I can visualise the poor Minister of Works having a bad time because we should have to have this accommodation up and down the country. Why should we not hire some rooms? To have a new lot of permanent accommodation for all these people would be asking too much of the unfortunate taxpayer.
LORD ROCHDALE: I think the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has read a great deal more into this than is actually in the Amendment. Nothing extravagant or elaborate is wanted; just a single office, or two offices perhaps, in the buildings of the Commission or the Executive; but something that is permanently there and that is convenient for the particular Committee to do their work in.
THE EARL OF CARRICK: I would like to support the noble Lord in this, because I have had a certain amount of experience of trying to run things without any permanent staff or permanent office accommodation. What is required is some permanent staff who can look after records. To my mind, it is absolutely hopeless to try to run a Consultative Committee of this type unless they have a place in which to keep their papers, and somebody to look after them.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am sure that what the noble Lord says is perfectly right. The Bill states:
"The Commission shall provide every such Committee with such officers and servants, and such office accommodation, as appear to the Commission to be requisite for the proper discharge of the Committee's functions…"
What more could one ask? It might apply only to an office where there is a telephone, but there is no advantage in putting up more permanent buildings.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think the real idea behind this is, as the noble Viscount himself said, that we want these Committees to be effective and for people to be able to get to them. A permanent office is wanted, in the sense that if somebody has a complaint to register he would know where to go; therefore, this body should be regarded as in permanent session, so to speak—not that we think they ought to sit, like we unfortunately have to, from 2.30 p.m. until 11 p.m. every day! But it should be there and not just somebody ad hoc. I certainly do not want to multiply staff, and I think that probably on that understanding my noble friend may agree to withdraw.
LORD ROCHDALE: On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
The sitting was suspended at four minutes past seven o'clock and resumed at half past eight.
Clause 7:
Acquisition by Commission of undertakings by agreement.
(2) Where any such agreement is made, the Minister may make regulations for enabling the undertaking or part of an undertaking to be carried on by the Commission in lieu of the persons theretofore carrying it on, and any such regulations may include provisions for transferring rights, powers and liabilities to the Commission, may adapt, modify or repeal any statutory provision, contract or document relating to the undertaking or the persons theretofore carrying it on, and may make such transitional provision in connection with the transfer as the Minister may think necessary or expedient.
THE EARL OF ROTHEShad given notice to move to leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert:
"(2) Where any such agreement is made, then as from the date on which the agreement becomes operative the Commission shall, to the exclusion of the persons carrying on the undertaking, have all rights and be subject to all liabilities in connection with the undertaking or the part of the undertaking acquired which those persons had or to which they were subject immediately before that date."
The noble Earl said: I should like to say a few words on the Amendment standing in the names of my noble friends the Earl of Selkirk and Lord Gifford, and myself, and in due course on one or two
684
other Amendments. I venture to hope that your Lordships will extend to me the indulgence that is customarily extended to one who speaks in your Lordships' House for the first time.
I think I ought also to tell your Lordships that I am a director of the British Electric Traction Company, which has substantial interests in road passenger transport. Subsection (2) of Clause 7, as originally drafted, gave the Minister wide powers for dealing with contracts and agreements between a third party and an undertaking, or part of an undertaking, to be taken over; in fact, I am advised that his powers were so wide that he could do anything he liked with such a contract, with the result that the contracts and agreements of a third party, entered into voluntarily and in good faith with an undertaking liable to be taken over, were rendered most insecure. In consequence of that, the Amendment which stands in the names of my noble friends and myself was put down. But subsequently the noble Viscount the Leader of the House put down an Amendment which—although, if I may say so with great respect, it does not go quite so far as our Amendment—is satisfactory, inasmuch as it limits the circumstances and scope of the Minister's power in that connexion. In view of that, my noble friends and myself do not propose to move the Amendment which stands in our names.
VISCOUNT ADDISON VISCOUNT ADDISON moved, in subsection (2), to leave out from the second "regulations" to the end of the subsection and insert:

"(a) may include provisions for transferring rights, powers, and liabilities to the Commission, and where the said persons are a body corporate, for winding them up;

(b) may, to such extent as may be necessary for the purpose of enabling the undertaking or part of an undertaking to be carried on by the Commission in lieu of the said persons or for the purpose of enabling the said persons to be wound up, adapt, modify or repeal any statutory provision;

(c) may, to such extent as may be necessary for the purpose of enabling the undertaking or part of an undertaking to be carried on by the Commission in lieu of the said persons, adapt or modify any contract or other instrument of or relating to the said persons or relating to the undertaking; and

(d) may make such transitional provision in connection with the transfer of the undertaking or part of an undertaking as the Minister may think necessary or expedient."

The noble Viscount said: I am sure with the approval of the whole House, I may

685
congratulate the noble Earl upon addressing us for the first time. From what the noble Earl has said, I gather he has mastered what is a very detailed matter.
In the course of the proceedings in another place, in order to safeguard those undertakings which were taken over, subsection (3) of this clause was added by agreement in another place. My right honourable friend undertook that he would prescribe more precisely what the regulations were to be, and what they were to cover in these cases, in order to make sure that the undertakings were properly safeguarded, and that the continuance of the undertakings in the new ownership was also properly safeguarded. In the fulfilment of that pledge, I am proposing to omit the last portion of subsection (2). It will then end in this way: "and any such regulations" (that is for carrying out the agreement in the taking over) "may include"—and then follow the precise provisions set out in the four portions of the Amendment which I am now moving. I think they explain themselves. I am glad the noble Earl thinks it sufficiently definite to cover all the contingencies, and I hope your Lordships will accept the Amendment accordingly.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, leave out lines 13 to 18 and insert the said new paragraphs.—(Viscount Addison.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am advised by competent lawyers that these are quite satisfactory.
LORD ROCHDALE: It might be convenient to your Lordships if on this Amendment I discuss the next Amendment which stands in my name, because it really relates to the Amendment now being moved by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. The point of my Amendment is that, whereas the Amendment now before your Lordships clearly amplifies and tabulates lines 13 to 18, which have been left out on page 12, there still seems to be some doubt as to whether the users of transport may not possibly be prejudiced. If your Lordships will look at paragraph (c), it seems that power is given to modify any contract or other instrument, or again in paragraph (b), to modify or repeal any statutory provision. It does seem possible that those statutory provisions or contracts may, in the first case, be specifically created to protect users, and that is why later on I shall be moving the further paragraph (e), which
686
provides that any such regulation shall not adversely affect the users of transport.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am advised that the words of the noble Lord are too wide and vague, but I am also advised that the case is fully covered—and I think it is fully covered—by the somewhat elaborate and detailed Amendment which I have moved. I am quite sure that the point: is really covered.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ROCHDALE: In view of the assurance that the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has given as regards the safeguarding of the rights of the users, I will not move my Amendment.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 11, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Vesting of undertakings]:
12.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the whole of the undertakings of the bodies of persons specified in the Third Schedule to this Act, being the bodies who fall within the class described in the next succeeding section, shall, on the first clay of January, nineteen hundred and forty-eight (hereafter in this Part of this Act, and in the other provisions of this Act so far as they refer to the acquisition by the Commission of the said undertakings, referred to as "the date of transfer"), vest by virtue of this Act in the Commission.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH VISCOUNT FALMOUTH moved, in subsection (1), after "Act" where that word occurs a second time, to insert "other than the Lee Conservancy Board." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to remove the River Lee from the operation of this Bill. The River Lee is a comparatively small river, but is a very important one. The Metropolitan Water Board draws the supplies for its great reservoirs for the Lee Valley from the River Lee, and it forms the majority of the water which now flows in the historic New River. This water supply is of extreme importance to the East End of London, and the importance of that supply was brought home very forcibly to us this Spring when, owing to the flooding of the Lee Valley, the Lee Bridge Works of the Metropolitan Water Board were put out of action, and the East End of London was short of water for over ten days. In fact, over 1,000 waggons had to be got together in order to supply domestic users of water in the East End of London. I think that nobody for one moment

687
can possibly question the vital importance of this river to London's welfare. West and Central London very largely draw their supply from the River Thames. Now the River Thames is quite properly excluded from the operation of this Bill, and I maintain that the River Lee is an exactly parallel case and that it should be excluded.
The River Lee is controlled by the Lee Conservancy Board, and the present Board is operating under the original. Act of 1855. It is a public authority; the members are elected by local authorities, and I think the barge owners also have a member. It is a non-profit earning body, and I maintain that it carries out its functions very ably and efficiently. Its functions consist mainly of maintaining the purity of the water. It has a number of officers whose duty it is constantly to patrol the river and to take samples of the effluents coming into the river from all sources. The recent proposal for the establishment of a new town at Stevenage created great anxiety to the Conservators of the Lee, because as it was originally proposed the flow from the sewers would contaminate London's water. As a result of the strongest protest by the Lee Conservators this danger will I hope by now have been averted and other arrangements made. These are matters which the Lee Conservators have to have constantly under their watch to preserve the purity of London's water.
In addition to the maintenance of the purity of water for the Metropolitan Water Board, they have to regulate the flow into the river, and as your Lordships know, unless this is done there is the danger from melting snow, and so forth. There is also navigation on the lower reaches of the Lee, amounting in the record year of 1938 to 2,000,000 tons, but now much less is carried and much of it is carried toll free; in fact the total income from the tonnage hauled on the Lee is only some £26,000. Your Lordships will therefore see that although the tonnage appears high, yet it is not a very important factor. The total income of the Lee Conservancy Board is something like £60,000 of which £26,000, as I have said, comes from dues on river craft, £20,000 is given by the Metropolitan Water Board for the protection of water, and the remainder is raised by rates from the districts through which the river passes.
In addition to the River Lee Conservancy Board there is the River Lee Conservancy Catchment Board. This body was set up in 1930 to carry out duties under the Catchment Board Act. The Catchment Board and the Conservancy Board have the same officials, the same chief engineer and engineering staff, the same clerks and manager and the same offices, and the bodies are very largely based on the same members. The Catchment Board has a few more members because it covers a slightly wider area. These two bodies meet on the same day consecutively at the same offices and the whole management of this undertaking runs very smoothly. There is no overlapping whatever and it is very efficiently conducted.
If this Bill is passed as it stands, under Clause 116 the Government are going to split the Lee Conservancy undertaking. They are going to close down the Lee Conservancy Board and transfer the duties so far as navigation is concerned from the Lee Conservancy Board to the Transport Board. As regards the protection of water they are going to transfer the duties to the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board. You will then have two bodies looking after this small river. It will make for great confusion and add very considerably to expenditure. There are some weirs which deal only with navigation, and these presumably will be controlled by the Transport Board. On the other hand, in regard to some other weirs, which not only deal with navigation but also are responsible for the regulation of the flow, those are supposed to be divided between the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board and the Transport Board.
Again, there are other weirs which deal only with the flow of the water and have nothing whatever to do with navigation, and those would be controlled by the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board only. I think you will see what great confusion will be created if you are to set up those two bodies to look after this small river. In addition, the present Conservancy Board have a number of dredgers which are essential both for maintaining the flow of water and also the navigation. Presumably, if you have the Transport Board operating there, they will have their own set of dredgers and the Lee Conservancy Board will have their set of

689
dredgers. You will have two offices, you will have two sets of engineers, and you will have all the immense difficulty of cross-correspondence and negotiation between the two bodies. The Government have already appreciated the difficulty which will arise in connexion with the river demand. They look after navigation and they have to supply Londoners' water, and I do ask the Government if they will consider this matter and treat the Lee Conservancy in the same way as they are treating the Thames Conservancy. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 25, after ("Act") insert("other than the Lee Conservancy Board").—(Viscount Falmouth.)
8.48 p.m.
LORD WALKDEN: I am sure we are grateful to the noble Viscount for the very clear description he has given the House of the functioning of the Lee Conservancy Board and the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board. They are two quite distinct bodies. They are both functioning quite effectively. His Amendment asks us, however, to take out the Lee Conservancy Board from our list of inland waterways, and I am sorry to say we cannot do that. This is the third most important inland waterway we have. It works well. It carries a big tonnage. It actively serves a very important area from the Port of London down to Enfield. it is capable of going on further into Hertford, and also capable of being developed to Bishop's Stortford; from there von might develop it to Cambridge, and from Cambridge there are waterways right to the sea, and to the Wash. So it is not an isolated waterway all by itself in the London region. There are, in fact, 45 miles of it at present in service, and the tonnage, as the noble Viscount mentioned, is quite substantial. I have the figures for three years.
The average figure for 1938, 1945 and for 1946 is about one and a half million tons a year. The whole of the railway canals of the country have carried only six hundred thousand tons a year. You will observe that this tonnage is three times greater than all the others put together. Further, it is very much more than the tonnage carried under the purview of the Thames Conservancy Board. Theirs is a waterway that is navigable, and it carries only one hundred and fifty-six thousand ions a year. The railway
690
carrying is six hundred thousand tons a year. On the Let Conservancy, the carrying is one and a half million tons. So it is quite important. It is not a little isolated and short river. It is not likely to lose its sense of service. We are helping it to develop appreciably. The noble Viscount seemed concerned—rightly—about straightening out and properly arranging other functions in connexion with this length of water. They are important. There are the problems of the water supply for the Metropolitan Water Board, drainage and fisheries and pollution, which need to be dealt with, and I can assure the Committee tat that is adequately covered under Clause 116, which we shall come to, I hope, early next week. If, in the meantime, the noble Viscount will be good enough to study that clause carefully, we can discuss it when we come to I think he will be satisfied that the right thing to do is to leave the navigational work to the Transport Commissioners and leave the other matters to be looked after by the Catchment Board. That is what is done in the case of the Trent and also in the case of the Severn. There is nothing exceptional about this, As for working arrangements, costing, secretarial work, the employment of officers and things of that sort, if they arise, the apportionment of costings may easily be ascertained by chartered accountants or by an engineer. I can assure the Committee that the work will be carried on just as economically as it is carried on now. The business of water transport may be handed to the Transport Commissioners, I am sure, with full confidence that they will do everything to make it into an even better service than it is at the present time.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am sure that the noble Lord's intentions are strictly honourable, and I applaud his aspiration that we shall reach Clause 116 early next week. Hope is the only commodity which is not yet taxed under this Government—and "Even the weariest river winds somewhere safe to sea." I wish to be clear upon this matter. It may be that it will be a good thing to discuss this under Clause 116, but I would like an assurance from the Government that if we amend Clause 116 then whatever consequential Amendments are necessary in this will be made. I am not

691
sure that comparisons of tons and tons are necessarily completely convincing. There is a difference, of course, between a ton and a ton mile. To carry one ton 1oo miles it might be argued might be a larger enterprise than to carry 1oo tons one mile. That might be the sort of comparison that might be put up by some who wish to defend the railways in respect of the carrying of one ton a hundred miles. I think it is clear that the Lee is a very important canal, and if you are to vest the canals in a new undertaking I quite see that the Lee has got to vest.
We shall, however, want to see what is provided for. What we shall particularly want to see is that the Lee Conservancy, which everybody agrees is an admirable and economically run institution, is not upset among a series of Government Departments. I think that it will be able to deal with the Commission. As I understand it, the intention is that the Commission will only take over the canal as a traffic bearing entity, and that everything else will be left to the management of the Lee Conservancy as at the present time. A good deal of everything that is left with it will, of course, operate as its own undertaking, and in so far as something does get transferred which is not pure canal, the Commission, I take it, will employ the Conservancy to do the job, in the way they are doing now, as their agents. If that is made into a water-tight arrangement and the Conservancy will only be dealing with the Commission and no other Department, I think the proper anxieties of my noble friend are met. If that is what Clause 116 provides, all we have to do when we come to it is to see that it is drafted to carry that out.
LORD WALKDEN: Certainly we want to simplify and improve arrangements that already exist. They will be tuned up properly when the conservancy boards and river authorities are absorbed by the Commission, and there will be other work for the Lee Catchment Board already constituted in 1931. All that can be looked at upon Clause 116. If noble Lords interested wish to suggest any Amendments to Clause 116, we are willing to give them earnest and favourable consideration and also to make consequential Amendments, even if it has to be done before Clause 116. We want to make a good job of it and to leave the Bill better than we find it.
LORD HAWKE: Would the noble Lord reassure me on one point. What exactly will the Commission be taking over and what will be passed to the Catchment Board? I think there is a little confusion.
LORD SALTOUN: What the noble Lord said does not make any clearer the waterways question. Your Lordships will remember that not long ago we discussed the question of pollution of rivers, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, foreshadowed the policy of the Government, with which I am in entire agreement and in which not only single rivers but whole river systems would be put under one authority for their conservation. I do hope that nothing in this Bill will affect the integrity and complete authority of the river system authorities that the Government propose to establish.
LORD WALKDEN: What the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, were referring to were the arrangements for river boards that have been under consideration by the Minister of Agriculture for some years, primarily for fishing interests. This has nothing to do with that matter, which will be dealt with quite independently. All we are doing here is to take over the transport business and the potentialities of waterways for transport. I think that is simple and clear. The other points on drainage, water and pollution will be adequately provided for in Clause 116.
LORD HAWKE: I am very surprised about the great waterway development that the noble Lord foreshadows. As one who is somewhat interested in railways, I rather deplore that apparently the Lee Navigation is to take the place of the Great Eastern Railway. We shall be strap-hanging down the Limehouse Cut, so far as I can see. Actually I do not think it is clear that we are taking over navigation. In taking over navigation we are taking over the provision of a channel for navigation, and that means we have the complete responsibility for everything in that river that affects the navigation. That also means that we are duplicating the responsibilities of other boards which the Milne Report expressly recommended should not be the case. It said:
"All river interests are concerned, to a greater or lesser extent, with a quantity of water available for use, as measured by level depth or rate of flow, and with its quality. Rivers used as sources of supply for domestic,

693
agricultural and industrial purposes and for fisheries must be protected from pollution as far as is practicable; and the water must be so conserved and its flow so regulated, that the quantity and quality do not fall below full requirements at any time. As part of the same problem, it may be necessary to protect land from flooding, to provide sufficient water in dry periods for the irrigation of agricultural land, to secure that there is sufficient water for abstraction for water supplies, and that the quantity so abstracted, or the rate at which the river is drained to the sea, will permit of a sufficient flow for fisheries and navigation, and for dilution of sewage and industrial effluents. It is clear that, with the exception of the Thames and Lee Conservancy Boards, the existing administrative bodies have neither sufficient power nor the necessary authority …"
And so on. That body, which has sufficient power, is going to be replaced, and its functions divided among two bodies. That seems to me to be a bad administrative principle. I do hope that the noble Lord will look into it very fully.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: I am naturally very disappointed to hear that the noble Lord is not prepared to accept this Amendment, but I was delighted to notice the glowing terms in which he spoke of the future of the Lee. I cannot possibly imagine that the Lee is going to extend in the way he has suggested. One has to remember that all this traffic is derived right at the bottom of the Lee where it joins the Thames, chiefly in the Lime-house Cut. In the higher reaches of the Lee there is no traffic at all. Between Hertford and Bishops Stortford there is only one horse barge on it, and I cannot conceive any likelihood of there being any more. We are discussing 2,000,000 tons which brings in only £28,000 a year. This approximate amount of 2,000,000 tons a year may delight the Minister of Transport when he draws up his statistics and says what a wonderful canal system we have, and it appears to me that it is only for this reason that it is put forward. The actual finance is very small. It is hardly worth considering, but it will very seriously affect the finance of the undertaking so far as the ratepayers in the area of the undertaking are concerned.
We shall find the rates will undoubtedly go up if we have to have two general managers, two engineers, two boards, two offices, and so on. The rates will inevitably have to go up to make up the deficit. The noble Lord seemed to think it was a very simple and clear arrangement, but I assure him that those who
694
are connected with the undertaking consider it will only add very great confusion, create many difficulties which do not arise now and inevitably lead to very considerable expense. I am sorry that the noble Lord cannot agree to this, but I hope that when we come to Clause 116, we may have a further opportunity of discussing it. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HAWKE LORD HAWKE moved in subsection (1), after "Act" where that word occurs a first time, to insert "other than the Weaver Navigation Trustees." The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend and myself. This Amendment presents a completely different case from that of the previous Amendment, and I think that both the bodies rather regret that the name of the same proposer and seconder happen to be associated with both. Naturally, each of these bodies thinks it has a very fine case, and dislikes any association or conjunction with the other body. The Weaver case is an error of classification. It has been included as an inland waterway, whereas it would be more appropriate to consider it as a harbour. The Weaver Navigation consists of about twenty miles of the river Weaver, from Winsford in Cheshire, to the Mersey near Runcorn. It is the deepest canalized river in the country, and is regularly used by vessels up to 140 feet in length with cargo capacity of up to 400 tons. This may shortly be increased. Of the 500,00o tons of traffic per year, only 7 per cent. is by interchange with the inland canal systems at the land end, the remainder being to and from the open sea and from the ports of the Mersey, a great quantity of the goods carried being salt and chemicals for export.
The Weaver Navigation is an inland waterway navigated by sea-going ships, and this should come under the definition clause of this Bill as a harbour. I am informed that this world create no precedent. There is no other inland waterway in the Third Schedule which is navigable by seagoing ships throughout its canalized lengths. A further point to remember is that the three systems with which the Weaver connects at its northern end are all excluded—the Manchester Ship Canal, the Bridgwater Navigation and the Upper

695
Mersey Navigation. The Weaver alone has been picked for this dubious honour of a place in the Third Schedule, though it complies with the definition of a harbour in this Bill, and is in fact an inner harbour to the Mersey harbour group. I hope the Government will realize that they have made a mistake in putting it in the Third Schedule, and will agree that it is a case to be excluded.
Amendment moved—
Page 13 line 25, after ("Act") insert ("other than the Weaver Navigation Trustees").—(Lord Hawke.)
LORD WALKDEN: This is another interesting case dealing with a waterway which we regard as one that should be taken over by the new Transport Commissioners and utilized. It is a rather wonderful waterway. It is described in the great volume I referred to a few days ago—the Report of the Royal Commission on Canals—as "an extremely important waterway capable of great development." It is certainly far more than a harbour, and you cannot merely regard it as a port. It carries a lot of important traffic, something like 709,000 tons a year, and barges up to 400 tons can sail on it. There is a wonderful sort of junction exchange place —what they call the Anderton Lift—which is, I suppose, a sort of tank as big as this chamber where you can put the barges in a lift, pick them up, and put them into another canal to go somewhere else. That offers great possibilities on this water service. We are all out for progress—no stagnation when we get going! Your Lordships will be surprised!
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: We shall!
LORD WALKDEN: It is absolutely the case that by means of these locks, and so forth, you can navigate right down to Wolverhampton and Birmingham, into the heart of the Midlands, where they have been crying out for this service for forty years or more. By means of this waterway, as I tried to describe the other day, water traffic can come down from the Mersey to the Midlands, and if it wants to, it can go on to Bristol or London; or if it wants to be sent up to Hull, it can be sent up there. That will be of very great service to the country.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: "On and on and on; and up and up and up!"
LORD WALKDEN: I am sure your Lordships will appreciate—and the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, will appreciate on reflection, that this ought to come into the scheme. It is no more a matter of a harbour than the Severn Navigation or the Trent Navigation. The Trent Navigation, again, comes to Nottingham right from the Humber. This is in a sense comparable; although they are different, in principle they are just the same. It is the working waterway, and we do want it in the waterway scheme which we are to make supplementary to the railway traffic scheme and the roadway traffic scheme. It has also been found useful in war periods. We always use the canals when we have a war on, and we always want them ready. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: We have heard that under our progressive Government the Great Eastern Railway is shortly to be replaced by the River Lee. Apparently, the line from Crewe, or thereabouts, to London is to be replaced by the great development of the inland waterway system. I think the noble Lord is being a little unfair on me, because whenever I choose a little lamb to try and save it from the slaughter, he promptly comes along and says, "That lamb is one day going to be an enormous lamb, and we cannot possibly let it go." I wish I could step forward into the future and see whether these lambs are really going to wax so large and fat as the noble Lord expects. I am going to withdraw my Amendment—I think—but I should like to point out to the noble Lord the definition clause on page 123:
"'harbour' means any harbour, whether natural or artificial, and any port, haven, estuary, tidal or other river or inland waterway navigated by seagoing ships."
This is an inland waterway, navigated by sea-going ships. Why on earth it is not a harbour I do not know. I think the Government have probably misdrafted their definition clause, but as it is drafted now I feel certain they ought to accept my Amendment. Failing that, they will have to amend the definition clause when they come to it. Perhaps the noble Lord will reply to that before I withdraw my Amendment.
LORD WALKDEN: We want to make it understandable.
LORD HAWKE: In view of the noble Lord's assurance I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
VISCOUNT SWINTON VISCOUNT SWINTON moved, after Clause 13, to insert the following new clause:
"Protection of Travel Agencies.
The Commission shall secure that persons desiring to make use of the services and facilities provided by the Commission through a travel agency shall be entitled so to do, and that all such travel agencies shall be treated alike whether such agencies are vested in the Commission by virtue of this Act or whether the Commission hold an interest in them or not, and that no preferential or differential treatment shall be accorded to any one agency over another or others."
The noble Viscount said: This new clause is perhaps a less exciting subject than that of the last two Amendments, but I am sure the Government will agree that it is very meritorious. The object of it is to have all travel agencies treated alike. The Government are to acquire, by reason of their ownership in the railways, Thomas Cook & Son, who are, of course, one of the largest travel agencies in the country. The clause I am proposing is founded exactly upon a precedent which has been created in civil aviation and which is still carried out, as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, knows, by his Ministry. It originated in this way. Under the original plan a number of travel agencies were to come into the British European Corporation. As a matter of fact, I suppose that Thomas Cook & Son are now in. That naturally led to considerable anxiety on the part of other travel agencies who would not become part proprietors of the air line, that they should not be treated any worse than the travel agencies which were in the partnership, and that there would be no preference given as between one travel agency and another.
On behalf of His Majesty's Government, I gave an assurance to the travel agencies practically in the terms of this proposed new clause. These words have been copied from the assurance, which, I understand, has been most loyally carried out by the Ministry of Civil Aviation; all travel agencies are treated alike, on the simple principle that no undue preference is given to a travel agency. It
698
is obviously equitable. It would be quite wrong to give Thomas Cook & Son preference over other agencies, such as the Workers' Travel Association, or the Polytechnic, or any other of the great efficient travel agencies. I am asking that they should be treated alike, and in order to achieve that I think this clause should be put into the Bill.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 13, insert 7he said now clause.—(Viscount Swinton.)
LORD GIFFORD: Before speaking in support of this Amendment, I think it right to say that I am Chairman and Managing Director of Ashton and Mitchell, a firm with various activities, among them a travel agency. I think it is important that this clause should go into the Bill, in the first place because nearly all the travel agencies outside Thomas Cook & Son are comparatively small businesses. I should like to point out that when the Transport Commission take over they will hold every single commodity that the travel agency requires. They will have under their control all the sleepers, and something which travel agencies always need—seats on the Golden Arrow. Not only that, through the holding of Thomas Cook & Son they will also control all the wagon-lits on sale in Britain for Continental trains. In effect, therefore, travel agents will have to go to the Commission for everything they require.
I am sure the noble Viscount opposite is entirely desirous of seeing that the independent travel agent has a fair deal. It is only human nature that the Commission's servants when they have them all in their hands, not readily let highly prized sleeping berths go outside their organization. It not just a question of good will on the part of the Commission—I am sure we have that. In order to ensure that all agents have a fair deal the Commission will have to appoint an Agency Department, the officials of which will have to work hard to see that the independent firms are properly served. I am sure we have no complaints about our treatment by British railways, but it is fair to say that the public relations officers of the British railways have to be on their toes all the time to see that the independent travel agency has a fair deal. I think, therefore, that the words in this clause, "the Commission shall secure" are necessary,

699
because they mean not only that there will be passive good will towards the independent agent, but that there will be someone in the Department whose job it will be to see that each agent has a square deal.
LORD WALKDEN: We are quite willing to take up this matter where the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, left it when he dealt with the Bill to take over certain undertakings, and when the hand-over to the railways took place two or three years ago. It was then agreed that there would be no discrimination. We are prepared to go a little further than that. We accept the principle of no discrimination, but we are not quite happy about the words that he has put in his Amendment, and if he will meet us between now and the Report stage perhaps we can agree a form of words.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am extremely obliged. There has been a good deal of talk as to whether or not this new Commission should retain Thomas Cook & Son. Obviously it would be most unfair if they had a travel agency of their own. I certainly am quite happy to accept whatever words the draftsman can best devise in order to ensure that there will be absolutely equal treatment to all travel agencies.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Before my noble friend withdraws his Amendment I would like to raise one point, and that is in regard to foreign travel agencies. There are the American travel agencies functioning in this country, and for all I know travel agencies of other countries. It seems to me important that the travel agencies of foreign countries, particularly American travel agencies, should feel that they are receiving absolute justice and are assured of an absolutely square deal, as my noble friend Lord Gifford has said, and will not be prejudiced by this Bill. I would like to ask the noble Lord who is replying for the Government whether we can take it that the assurance he has given covers foreign travel agencies, as well as British travel agencies. It seems to me that if we differentiate between foreign and British travel agencies we shall discourage foreigners from coming to this country, and we all want to encourage them to do so, especially when they come from dollar countries. Secondly, it would surely not be in the
700
interests of international understanding and good feeling if there were any unfair discrimination in this respect. I hope the Government will be able to give an assurance that all travel agencies whether British or foreign will be treated in the same way.
LORD WALKDEN: That is an exceedingly important point, and we are quite prepared to confer with the noble Earl when we come to the drafting of words, and we will take that into consideration at that time.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14:
General effect of vesting of undertakings.
14.—(1) The provisions of this section shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, have effect where, under the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act, the whole of the undertaking of any body is to vest in the Commission.
(3) Subject to the provisions of this section, every agreement to which the body were a party, whether in writing or not and whether or not of such nature that rights and liabilities thereunder could be assigned by the body, shall, unless its terms or subject matter make it impossible that it should have effect as modified in the manner provided by this subsection, have effect as from the date of transfer as if—
(4) The provisions of the last preceding subsection (except paragraphs (a) and (f) thereof) shall apply in relation to any statutory provision, any provision of any agreement to which the body were not a party, and any provision of any other document not being an agreement, as they apply in relation to an agreement to which the body were a party, and, in relation to any such statutory or other provision as aforesaid, the references in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e) and (g) of that subsection to the body, to any profits or receipts of the undertaking of the body, to any directors, officers or servants of the body, and to the undertaking of the body include references made by means of a general reference to a class of persons of which the body are one, without the body themselves being specifically referred to.
LORD MANCROFT LORD MANCROFT moved, in subsection (3), after "body," where that word first occurs, to insert:
"and any other body of persons having the control of any undertaking or part of an undertaking which is to vest in the Commission or in whom any such undertaking or part of an undertaking was vested."
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move the Amendment in the names of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and myself.

701
Clause 14 provides for the transfer of various properties in the undertakings that are being taken over and subsection (3) provides for the transfer of the rights and liabilities of the various bodies that are being taken over. Subsection 3 (a) provides that those rights and liabilities will change as if the Commission had been a party to the agreement from which they arose. But, if I have read the clause correctly, it relates only to contracts entered into by the bodies named in the Third Schedule to the Bill. This Amendment is designed to cover those contracts which have been entered into by bodies other than those mentioned in the Third Schedule. I have in mind particularly a contract entered into by Thomas Cook & Son, the firm we have been discussing this evening. It is only a small point, but it will make for tidy administration, even if it does unfortunately result in less work for the lawyers. I therefore hope that the Government will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 4, after ("body") insert the said new words.—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD NATHAN: I had a little difficulty when reading this Amendment, and so did my advisers, in determining exactly what was the point to which the noble Lord was directing his mind. I think, if he will forgive my saying so, that he has based himself on a misapprehension, because subsection (3) to which he has referred shows that the bodies are the bodies owning the undertakings. Thomas Cook & Son, whom he has mentioned, are part of the undertaking owned by the body. My understanding of the Amendment is that it is unnecessary in this context.
LORD MANCROFT: I bow to the noble Lord's superior reading of the Amendment. I hope that he is correct, and on the assumption that he is I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.28 p.m.
LORD NATHAN LORD NATHAN moved, in subsection (4), at the end to insert:
"The statutory or other provisions to which this subsection applies include statutory or other provisions passed or made after the passing of this Act but before the date of transfer."
The noble Lord said: This is a Government Amendment. It is to catch for the
702
purpose of the new undertaking, several Private Bills for the railways now before Parliament, and of which the benefit would not come to the new organization unless this Amendment were inserted. It is to fill a gap.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 24, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Nathan.)
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: May I ask a question, purely to obtain information? I think each of the railway companies at present have to have, almost annually, a Bill which gives them certain extended powers for the purchase of land, the extension of sidings, and so on. These are, generally, arranged matters and are not controversial. Will it be necessary for the Commission to bring in Bills annually for that purpose, or will it automatically follow from any provision of the Bill?
LORD NATHAN: I think it is likely that the Commission will need to follow the same procedure.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15:
Disclaimer of agreements.
15.—(1) Where, under the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act the whole of the undertaking of a body is to vest in the Commission, the body shill, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act and in any case not later than seven days after the date of transfer or such later date as the Commission may, either generally or in any particular case, allow, supply to the Commission particulars of all agreements of the body made or varied on or after the nineteenth day of November, nineteen hundred and forty-five, under which, by virtue if the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act, the Commission have or will or may have liabilities, except such agreements as the Commission may exclude, either generally or in any particular case, from the operation of this subsection.
(2) Where the making, or, as the case may be, the variation, of any agreement of the body which was made or varied as aforesaid was not reasonably necessary for the purposes of those of the activities of the body to which it relates, or was an act of unreasonable imprudence on the part of the body, the Commission may, by notice in writing to the parties to the agreement given—

(a) in the case of an agreement of which particulars are given under subsection (1) of this section, before the expiration of three months from the date when the particulars are so given;

(b) in the case of an agreement of which particulars ought to have been but have not been so given, before the expiration of three

703
months from the date when the existence and full particulars of the agreement first become known to the Commission; and

(c) in the case of any other agreement, given before the expiration of three months from the date of transfer,

disclaim the agreement.
(3) Where notice of disclaimer is so given by the Commission with respect to any agreement—

(a) subsection (3) of the last preceding section shall be deemed never to have applied to the agreement, and subsection (2) thereof shall be deemed never to have applied to any rights or liabilities thereunder or arising by reason of the frustration thereof;

(b) the agreement shall be deemed to have been frustrated on the date of transfer and the parties thereto to have been for that reason discharged from the further performance thereof; and

(c) the like consequences shall follow as between the Commission and any party to the agreement who, before the giving of the notice of disclaimer, has, in pursuance of the agreement, supplied goods or rendered services to the Commission which the Commission have accepted, or to whom, before the giving of the notice of disclaimer, the Commission have, in pursuance of the agreement, supplied goods or rendered services which he has accepted, as would have followed if those goods or services had been supplied or rendered at the request of the Commission or of that party, as the case may be, apart from the agreement, and on terms that a reasonable payment would be made in respect thereof and any payments by or to the Commission before the giving of the notice of disclaimer shall be adjusted accordingly.

(4) For the purposes of paragraph (c) of the last preceding subsection, a person who permits another to use or enjoy any property shall be deemed to render a service to him.
(5) Nothing in this section applies to any agreement for, or contained in, a lease or other tenancy or any agreement made or varied, whether before or after the passing of this Act, with the previous consent or subsequent approval of the Minister, given in writing either generally or specially.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May we have some sort of explanation of what is the kind of transaction to stop or to guard against which this is thought necessary? These provisions seem extremely complicated. I gather that subsection (2) relates to acts of unreasonable imprudence on the part of a body whose property has been taken over or to agreements made that were not reasonably necessary. Can the spokesman for the Government give a concrete case of the kind of thing that they want to guard against?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think that one of the noble Lords who are dealing with
704
this Bill was engaged in the conduct of the Coal Industry Nationalization Act, and your Lordships will remember that this matter came up on that Act. We had considerable discussion then about disclaimer of agreements. The Lord Chancellor took a great deal of trouble over this matter, and we inserted a clause into the Coal Industry Nationalization Act. I think it received universal assent as being fair and reasonable. I should like to have an assurance, if not now, then at another stage of the Bill, that this carries out what was a concordat of the Coal Industry Nationization Act, and carries it out as nearly as possible in the same terms.
LORD NATHAN: I have not myself compared the clause with the Coal Industry Nationalization Act, but I can assure the noble Viscount that 1 will have a comparison made, and will look up the discussions that took place, so that we can see whether it is necessary to bring it up at a later time.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am obliged to the noble Lord. There was a great deal of discussion on the Coal Industry Nationalization Act, as the Leader of the House will remember. Originally the Bill, as drafted, practically said that the Coal Board would be able to disclaim any contract if they thought it was an unbusinesslike contract. I am not going to argue the case again. Obviously people may make some good contracts and some bad contracts; you cannot tell until you see what happens in the course of time. Some may make a considerable profit and some may make a loss. Even nationalized industry will not make a profit on every contract it makes. It was agreed it would be grossly unfair that a contract, perfectly honestly entered into by a management, could be disclaimed.
LORD NATHAN: I remember the discussion well, and if the noble Viscount will be content to let the clause go I will give an undertaking that it will be looked into with a view to meeting the points referred to in discussion.
The EARL OF SELBORNE: It is a serious matter. Thousands of contracts will come under review in the first subsection of this clause. If it is legally possible—I am not saying what the Commission would do, I am talking now about

705
the powers that would be conferred on them by this Bill—for the Commission to adhere to all the contracts which are profitable and disclaim any contract which is unprofitable, it seems to me you have done something to thrust at the very root of that confidence without which commercial transactions cannot go on, and trade cannot flourish; one can conceive infinite permutations and variations of the situation. As I understand it, it would be legally possible for the Commission to say: "We regard this contract as a bad one, as an imprudent one, and we do not propose to carry it on. Of course, if you will modify it and make a new contract with us, we will be quite prepared to meet you so far." But that means that the Commission would be legally empowered to alter any contract entered into by the railways or any company that is taken over. These contracts must run into thousands and ten of thousands, and I hope the noble Lord will have the point very carefully examined.
He says my noble friend has pointed out that this question arose on the Coal Industry Nationalization Act. Surely the number of contracts involved here would be even greater than those involved under that Act, and I should have thought that unless there is a very clear understanding it might lead to a great deal of uncertainty in commerce, and especially in the case of the small man; and any lack of confidence on the part of small firms and of firms not so strong financially as they might be, will add enormously to the difficulties and may cause a great deal of unnecessary suffering. I hope this matter will be most carefully considered, because it seems to me to be a very strong measure indeed.
LORD NATHAN: I would direct the attention of the noble Earl and other noble Lords who have taken an interest in this matter to the limitation contained in lines 10 and 11, on page 18, of this Clause 15, that the right is limited to agreements made or varied on or after November 19, 1945—
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Why was that date taken?
LORD NATHAN:—which is a relatively recent period. Whilst I have not had an opportunity of looking at the similar provisions of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act since this discussion
706
arose, I am told that if the provisions in that Act were followed in this Bill they would be a great dear more severe than in fact they are.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am sorry, but I cannot for one moment accept that. I do not understand the merit of this particular date, but it does not seem to me to matter whether a contract is entered into before or after 1945. In ordinary commercial practice, when one buys a business, as the Government are now doing, one takes over the benefits and liabilities of all contracts which that business owns. If it is thought there are some pretty bad contracts which will involve a loss, then that is taken into account when assessing the value of the business. Under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act there were two considerations determining the value to be paid for the undertaking. They could not affect that here, because the Government have taken a purely arbitrary value for everything they are to take over.
What I am interested in is that the Government may disclaim a contract if the Commission, or the Minister, thinks that a contract was either not reasonably necessary for the purpose of the business or was an act "of unreasonable imprudence"—whatever that may mean. I am speaking from memory, but I think it was over the word "imprudent" that we had a great deal of argument on the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act. I believe we came to the conclusion that it was impossible to decide ex poste facto whether or not something done a long time before was imprudent. What we devoted particular attention to then was the male fide contract, where some company that was to be taken over might make a contract with some member of the family to pay £10,000 a year as managing director for the next twenty years, and one would have either to pay him that or pay him some compensation. In the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act we limited the actions which could be evaded to what I may call. "shady" transactions. It was a question of decent moral conduct, there was no question whether or not a company was prudent or imprudent.
Let your Lordships observe what will happen if a contract is disclaimed. Let me take a concrete example. The Commission may say an imprudent contract

707
was entered into between the Great Western Railway and Mr. "X," and, therefore, they will disclaim that contract and treat it as null and void. The Great Western Railway Company go into liquidation on the appointed day, and the contract cannot subsist as between Mr. "X" and the Great Western Railway Company. Mr. "X" cannot have any remedy against the Great Western Railway Company—though I do not know whether he has a personal action against the noble Viscount, Lord Portal. The noble Viscount had better take legal advice, and all the railway directors had better take advice, to find out where they stand on these things. But I cannot see that Mr. "X" has any right of action against the railway company because it has gone into liquidation, and yet there he is.
The Commission, which come in and take the place of the railway company, say "We will not carry on this contract," but if it was an imprudent contract for the Great Western Railway Company, it may have been an extremely prudent contract for Mr. "X" to have made. After all, it is not the business of people to make contracts which they know will involve them in a loss. If you come to me and ask me to undertake a piece of business for you, and say: "If you will do that I will pay you £20,000", and I accept that offer, that is a perfectly free offer made to me; and if I have accepted it that is a binding contract. Why on earth should not the new body which is coming into being be responsible for the contracts, vis-à-vis innocent third parties, be they prudent or imprudent contracts? Was this one of the clauses that under the guillotine was never discussed in another place? I do not know. I am sure that now as this develops—or if the Government are uninformed on the subject at a later stage of the proceedings—this clause will require very close attention.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am sure that when the noble Viscount looks into it between now and the next stage he will be assured that it is quite reasonable. There was, of course, no Amendment on the Paper to call attention to all these matters.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I have said that I was very much in default in not putting down an Amendment.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: In the circumstances, I hope the noble Viscount will let us examine it in the interval, and I am sure he will be thoroughly satisfied.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Before the matter is disposed of, I would like to say that I hope this House will not agree to any clause which leaves matters of this importance in doubt. Nobody doubts the good will or the reasonableness of the Commission; and when the noble Viscount the Leader of the House says that the Commission will be entirely reasonable, we all hope that it will be so. But in a matter of this importance it seems to me that it is necessary that the rights of the subject should be stated in an Act of Parliament; because if there is uncertainty, there will be a Sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of perhaps hundreds of small business firms throughout the country, who really do not know whether a contract, which may have been profitable to them, is to be honoured or not. It is not merely those firms that are concerned, but all the people who have contracts with those firms, because the repudiation of a contract which had been profitable to a small firm and unprofitable to a railway company, or any of the other undertakings the Commission are taking over, would have wide repercussions on all the commitments of the small firms concerned.
There might be small firms driven into bankruptcy by the repudiation of contracts of this sort. They might have made all their arrangements on the assumption that the contract would run its appointed length of time. They might have put all their eggs into that one basket, and if that basket is taken away from them, then the firm might easily become insolvent, and all the other people who have contracts with that small firm might find themselves injured. This is a matter that might have the widest repercussions, and I do enter a plea that when this Bill is finally passed people should know where they stand. To that end, it is surely necessary that this clause should be made more precise than it is.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I would like to support what has been said on this clause. After all, this is a very important matter. We have another Bill coming—the Electricity Bill—and the same point will arise on that. If we do not settle this in a fair way in this Bill,

709
we may find the same point arising in the Electricity Bill, also in an unfair and an unjust way. I want to emphasize what has been stated by my noble friend and the noble Lord who has just sat down, that I regard this as important, not only from the point of view of this Bill, but from the point of view of other Bills which are coming before us.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I think there is one point which ought to be remembered. Perhaps I have misread it, but I see no time limit: that is to say, there is nothing I can see which puts a limit on the time within which any contractor or person will become aware as to whether or not his contract holds good. One can realize that the main object of this is to prevent fraudulent evasion, or attempts of evasion of the Act, and I think one must recognize that it is necessary in that respect. But at the same time I think we ought to see that the ordinary trading arrangements are not in danger. In any case, I think it would be necessary to put some time limit, so that a contractor will know by six months or twelve months after the vesting date that the matter is settled and he can go ahead with certainty.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Might I add one word here? It seems to me that this question does require very careful consideration by the Government, because after all what is the position if the railway company enter into a contract with another firm before November 19, 1945, and then, after the passing of the Act, the Minister comes to the conclusion that it was on act of unreasonable imprudence on the part of the railway company and he therefore repudiates? That is left, so far as I can understand it, entirely to the judgment of the Minister. If it was not an act of unreasonable imprudence, then the contract ought to stand. It is a matter, I should have thought, for the courts; and yet there is no provision at all for an appeal to the courts, and this unfortunate firm have no redress against the unilateral decision of the Minister. I think, therefore, that the Government will agree—I am sure they want justice to be done on both sides—that this is a case where some provision for an appeal to the courts ought to be included.
LORD NATHAN: Perhaps I can elucidate the position. The noble
710
Viscount, Lord Ridley, stated that there was no time limit. If he would refer to subsection (2) he will see there is a time limit of three months mentioned on no less than three occasions, in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Of course, the time limit in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act of last year was twelve months, so that there is a precedent there.
I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne: Why the date November 15, 1945? The reason is that that was the date upon which the Lord President of the Council, on behalf of the Government, made a statement that the railways would be nationalized; and the object of Clause 15 is to ensure that, after the date of the announcement as to the nationalization, contracts should be capable of being disclaimed if they were not reasonably necessary, or if any unreasonable imprudence had been shown. Those words are also used in the Coal Industry Nationalization Act.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: In which section Of the Act?
LORD NATHAN: Section 7 (2). But if your Lordships will refer to Clause 15 (5) of the present Bill, you will see that there is a saving for all contracts entered into with the approval of the Minister, either before or after the passing of the Act, and whether given generally or specially. I merely mention that without prejudice to what I have previously said. Naturally, we shall be glad to look into this to see whether any modification is required.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May I say one word more? The noble Lord, very properly, and if I may say so, handsomely, has told us that this will be looked into; but I would just like to put this question. As I understand it, it all depends upon whether or not the activities of the body were necessary for the Commission's purposes, or whether they were acts of unreasonable imprudence. I understand that the Commission are a body that can sue and be sued, so that surely the question is whether Mr. "X" has or has not power lo go to the court and sue the Commission for having acted in a manner that was rot justified by the words in the Bill. I Imagine that that would be so, but I am no lawyer and if should be glad to have some authoritative opinion on this matter.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Would it be possible to have an answer from the noble Lord, to Lord Rankeillour's question? It is rather an important matter.
LORD NATHAN: The noble Marquess will appreciate that there was no Amendment on the Paper. Our attention was drawn to the matter, and I had to deal with it as it arose on the floor of the House. I am referred to Clause 108 (1) of the Bill. There is a tribunal which has jurisdiction. This seems to answer the question.
A NOBLE LORD: Does that hold good even if the Commission are acting under the direction of the, Minister?
LORD NATHAN: I think I had better refer the noble Lord to the clause as contained in the Bill.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
Compensation
(2) Subject to the provisions of this subsection, the compensation so payable in the case of any of the said bodies shall be an amount equal to the aggregate value (computed in accordance with the provisions of the next succeeding section) of all the securities, if any, of that body existing immediately before the date of transfer, being securities set out in the said Fourth Schedule:
Provided that where no person other than one or more of the bodies mentioned in the Third Schedule to this Act has any interest in the securities of a particular description set out in the said Fourth Schedule, those securities shall be left out of account.
(3) The compensation so payable shall be satisfied, in the manner provided by Part VI of this Act, by the issue in accordance with the provisions of the Fifth Schedule to this Act of British transport stock to the holders of the securities of the body in question:
Provided that where, immediately before the date of transfer, the holder was a body mentioned in the Third Schedule to this Act, the rights and liabilities of the body as such holder as aforesaid arising under this subsection or under the said Fifth Schedule shall pass to the Commission, and this subsection and the said Fifth Schedule shall, with the necessary modifications, have effect accordingly.
LORD BEVERIDGE LORD BEVERIDGE moved, in subsection (2) after "to," where that word occurs a second time, to insert "one hundred and twenty per cent. of." The noble Lord said: I need hardly say that I am sorry to find myself apparently working permanently on the night shift of the Transport Bill, and that I am
712
beginning only ten minutes earlier than on the last occasion. I look forward, as we all do, to the time which the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, has intimated to us, when we shall reach the Delectable Mountain of Clause 116; and then, if possible, I hope to find myself moving an Amendment before tea.
The Amendment which I am moving on this clause is quite a simple one. It is to insert in the statement of the compensation payable on the taking over of the railway undertakings, the figures "120 per cent." The, effect of that is to make the compensation payable one-fifth greater than it would be if the Bill stands as it is at present. It is a simple but very important matter for a large number of the people in the country. In a sense it is beyond dispute. A statement was made in the other place recently by the Chancellor of the Exchequer explaining the compensation proposals of this Bill; a statement that, on the assumption—which he took as reasonable—of British railway stock being issued at 2½ per cent., the amount that will go to the stockholders in the four main line railway companies would be £22,750.000 pounds a year. That compares with £40,000,000 which they have been receiving recently. That would give, according to the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, a surplus of £17,250,000, which would be available for spending by the Commission. That £22,750,000 is not actually much less than they had been receiving, but it is less than any minimum received in any of the inter-war years with the single exception of 1926.
I need not develop this point. I think it is really quite obvious that this will mean widespread hardship. I do not think that is really open to question. People will have their incomes reduced by these very large amounts and many of them will in fact be unable to effect any reinvestment within their power to make up that income. Hardship is inevitable. You cannot have absolute security against hardship, either in this country or anywhere else. But is this hardship necessary, and is what is proposed really fair? I take it from what was said in another place that the policy of the Government is to do only what is just and proper, but in deciding what is just and proper they are somewhat in the state of mind of the nations of the world, all of whom wish to do what is

713
just and proper, but do not want any impartial judgment on what they do.
That was the issue that was debated in the other place when the Government resisted Amendments that were then moved for an independent tribunal to decide what was fair and just to pay to the railway stockholders. That discussion took place when the guillotine was approaching, and I think that may possibly account for the badness of the argument that was used by the Government in the defence of their attitude. Broadly, it was that you could not proceed on the lines of maintainable revenue, because no tribunal could determine it. Of course there are very difficult questions to be answered in determining it, but an independent tribunal at any rate would have been more just than to leave it to the Government to lay down its own views. They have stuck to what is, I think, although not quite a unique proposal, a principle of compensation which has not been adopted by them or by any other Government in recent cases—that of basing the compensation upon the stock exchange values at certain dates. I think that taking the Stock Exchange values which may be appropriate in individual cases as representing what a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller on a few isolated transactions, is really not just, and it would be difficult to prove to any independent tribunal that these values were a fair basis for a compulsory and wholesale expropriation of the undertaking. It is something utterly different.
There are many things which are quite innocent if done to one person but completely destructive if done in a wholesale manner. I will not give examples of that, but many of them may occur to you, If any one of those railway stockholders freely sold his holding I assume that he would get the Stock Exchange value for selling freely. He would probably find that he had lost income; he would exchange income for greater security. But it is quite a different thing to go to railway stockholders and say "every one of you must now surrender your present income for what we think is greater security." I do suggest to you that when you are in the field of compulsory purchase you cannot apply the criterion of what the willing buyer and willing seller in an individual case would do. In other words, if you insist upon compulsion, you ought to pay
714
more. Furthermore, I would say that if you are insisting on compulsion you ought to pay cash, and not necessarily stock which it may not be possible to convert. That is the subject of a later Amendment which I have also on this clause. I am not going to say more about it now; I shall come to it at some time or other.
I think this is an interesting illustration of the bearing of Stock Exchange values and their relation to what might be fair as compensation. Quite recently, a very large transaction in the selling of railways has taken place in the Argentine, and there the price, which was settled by agreement after hard bargaining, was £50,000,000, whereas the Stock Exchange values of the securities amounted to £125,000,000. In other words, the price reached by agreement, after bargaining, was 20 per cent. more than would have been paid if the Argentine Government had done what the British Government are doing today. I am not going to say that the British Government were themselves responsible for [he arrangements with the Argentine, though. I do think that some remarks which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made on this subject, did amount to his taking considerable credit for the result achieved there. I think that he deserves considerable credit. I only wish that he would now proceed to apply the same methods to himself in this country. I think he might have similar success with the railway stockholders.
We on these Benches, and, I think, most of your Lordships, would have been much happier to have an assessment of this compensation by an independent tribunal, as in other cases, whatever the result. I realize that that might mean delay. It might mean holding up the whole scheme. It would be running counter to what the Government have apparently set their minds on, and that is, using Stock Exchange prices as a basis of compensation. By this Amendment, I am suggesting acceptance of their method, though I do not think it is the best method. Is it not right that they should add to the figure they reach by their method something extra for- purchase by wholesale compulsion? If they will accept this Amendment they will undoubtedly not avoid hardship—it is impossible to avoid a great deal of hardship in this change—but they can very materially

715
reduce it. If they accept this Amendment to increase the amount by 20 per cent. they will still have a very substantial surplus.
I gather from the way the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke that he had no doubt of being able to maintain the maintainable revenue. It is quite obvious that being able to maintain revenue depends very largely on the powers of the Government. At any rate they are taking powers to do that by this Bill. For us in this House, the question is what appears to us to be just. Does it appear to be just to take by the throat people who would not wish to sell willingly and say: "You are not going to sell willingly, we agree, but you shall not get a penny more. You shall be forced to exchange income for what we think is greater security." I suggest that that is difficult to defend as just and proper and it is for that reason that I move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 44, after ("to") insert ("one hundred and twenty per cent. of").—(Lord Beveridge.)
LORD NATHAN: I listened with great attention to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge. I am bound to say that I was quite unable to learn from what he said why he picked upon the figure of 120 rather than 110 or 130 or whatever figure you might care to insert. The nearest I could get to forming an opinion was that the Argentine railways had been sold for £150,000,000 as against a stock exchange quotation of something in the nature of £125,000,000. That was the only argument I could gather from the speech of the noble Lord as to why 120 was chosen rather than any other figure. I really am not concerned to compare this formidable transaction of the Government with the arrangement made in regard to the Argentine railways. I would only say that the option is given to take the higher of two Stock Exchange prices, one of which is pre-Election and assumed to be as if such prices were based on the expectation of earning power on the part of the British railways.
With regard to the Argentine the situation was of course entirely different, and the question was a guess as to what the Argentine was likely to be persuaded to pay, and the Stock Exchange guessed wrong. The guess was less than the
716
amount that was ultimately forthcoming and was not the Stock Exchange price arrived at in relation to the circumstances which ordinarily prevail and certainly have prevailed in regard to British railways. Apart from any other consideration, the transaction suggested by the noble Lord would involve an increase in the burden falling on the Exchequer of something of the order of £200,000,000. It is not an amount to be regarded lightly, and I know that the noble Lord, as an economist of eminence, would look with considerable disfavour upon any unnecessary increase in price.
Justice demands that the price must be related to the facts of the case. To take the Stock Exchange prices gives a just reflection of what the value is. Noble Lords will bear in mind that the higher of two prices is to be taken, one Pre-Election, and the other immediately prior to the introduction of this Bill. The choice between the two prices has resulted in a very considerable addition to the values as compared with what they would have been had the pre-Election value alone been taken. It is a common practice, familiar to those who deal with transactions involving the assessment of values, that where the value has to be assessed as between a willing buyer and a willing seller the Stock Exchange value is taken as being a fair reflection of that value.
I have often heard it suggested that the Stock Exchange value was too high, but I have never heard it suggested that the Stock Exchange value was too low. If any of your Lordships have had occasion to be concerned in the payment of Estate duties upon quoted stocks and shares valued according to Stock Exchange prices (which is a normal regular practice), you may have wished to persuade the authorities that the valuation should be reduced for the purpose of Death Duties. I have never heard it suggested that the stock exchange prices were too low. That applies equally in this particular case. Speaking on the Second Reading, I said that taking a situation where some criterion had to be adopted, the Stock Exchange value was a fair value to take. I certainly cannot accept the suggestion that it should be increased. It is a fair value to take, and, in the view of the Government, the compensation offered is fair.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If I may say so with great respect, I do not think

717
that the noble Lord has at all answered the gravamen of the speech of the noble Lord who moved this Amendment. The fallacy of the argument just used by the noble Lord is surely this. He says that if one wishes to know the value of a share as between a willing buyer and a willing seller it is reasonable to look at the Stock Exchange price. But the point about these railway securities is that one is not dealing with willing sellers. A very large proportion of these securities are held by charities and pension funds, and by people of the widow and orphan class—that is, people who are seeking a safe income and who do not vary their investments. They were put into the investment by the family solicitor or somebody like that, and they look upon it as their source of income for the rest of their lives. Therefore, to go to people like that and to say, "You are in the position of a willing seller and I am going to give you the price that if you had been a willing seller you might had expected me to pay, and I am going to do that compulsorily," is in the first place, unjust. It is still more unjust when the effect of the transaction is to reduce the income of those individuals by something like a third, or whatever it is. Under this Bill we. are now' causing the direst distress in some of the humblest homes of this country, and we are also inflicting terrible injury on pension funds and charities.
I venture to say that the whole basis of the Government's defence is a misleading and a wrong one. It is not a question of willing sellers and willing buyers; it is not a question of people who are trying to hold the Government up to ransom; it is not a question of people who are guilty of any sort of mala fides. It is a question of people who made an investment under all the security that Acts of Parliaments afforded them, who believed and expected, and who had reason to believe and expect, that that investment would bring them in a certain income. The effect of what the Government are doing is to reduce that income by very severe proportions indeed. It seems to me to be all the more unjust in this respect—that as the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, pointed out, under the powers that they will acquire under this Bill the Government will certainly be able to maintain the revenue at present being earned by the railways. I think the noble Lord said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had boasted that he would be able to do
718
so. I do not know if that is correct. But it is clear from the terms of the Bill that the Government will be in a position to make the railways pay pretty well anything they like. They can so throttle and starve road competition under this Bill that the railways may be made much snare profitable than they have been lately. Under this Bill the Government will be in a position to maintain the railway revenue; they will be maintaining the railway revenue for the State, and they will have paid as compensation to the humble people who form such a large proportion of the railway shareholders a sum which will reduce their income considerably, I do not think that can he defended on any moral basis at all, because the basis the noble Lord has advanced is a false one.
I would also like to draw the attention of the House to the versatility of the noble Lord who has spoken on behalf of the Government. When he was discussing the case of the Argentinian Railways he described the Stock Exchange values as a guess; but when he was discussing the British railways he described the Stock Exchange values as a fair sum. The noble Lord cannot have it both ways. If the Stock Exchange valuation was a guess in the case of the railways in the Argentine, it was equally a guess in the case of railways in Britain. What was the difference between the case of the Argentine and of Great Britain? In the case of the Argentine there was a bargain, and a bargain where it might have been thought that all the cards were in the hands of the local Government. They were in a very strong position indeed. But, as I understand the position—I had no interest in the matter—the politicians, or the authorities in the Argentine were wise enough to see that if they inflicted on foreign shareholders terms which the whole world would regard as unjust. the credit of the Argentine would be seriously injured. Therefore, they were willing to make a bargain that both parties were able to regard as a fair deal.
Does the noble Lord pretend that the railway shareholders in Great Britain as a whole regard this transaction as a fair deal? He knows perfectly well that they do not; he knows perfectly well that it is a deal imposed by the power of the Government on a whole bode of people, many of them far from welt off, who are not willing sellers, who ask only to be left alone, and who in fact are being despoiled

719
of their property. I think it is a humiliating reflection that the British Government have a lower standard of public morality in dealing with nationalization of public services than the Government of the Argentine—because that is what it amounts to. The Argentine Government could have imposed the terms that His Majesty's Government are imposing, but in dealing with foreigners they recognized that the good name of the Argentine was at stake. I do suggest that the good name of the State is at stake in this matter. If these terms of compensation go through, many people will legitimately feel that a grave injustice has been committed against them.
Surely, the principle enunciated by the noble Lord, the mover of this Amendment, is a generally accepted one. He said that if you take property compulsorily by Act of Parliament, the principle of compensation for disturbance is generally recognized. That is so, and he puts the figure at 20 per cent. It is no answer for the noble Lord answering on behalf of the Government to say, "why not 10 per cent.; why not 3o per cent.?"—which is what he said. The added value for disturbance is generally something in the neighbourhood of 20 per cent. What I am contending for now is recognition of the principle that there should be compensation for disturbance. In cases where the State is treating someone who is not a willing seller as if he were a willing seller, there are ample precedents for added compensation. Therefore, I am in entire agreement with the noble Lord who moved this Amendment. I think that if this Bill is carried in its present form in that particular respect, the Government will have inflicted a cruel injury on many humble households. They will not have saved the country any money at all. It is simply a question as to whose pocket the money should be in; whether it should be in the pocket of the general taxpayer or of certain individuals. They will not have saved any money for the community, but they will have inflicted an injustice on many humble households which I believe they will live to regret.
VISCOUNT SIMON: It appears to me that the speech to which we have just listened puts this matter in so conclusive and effective a manner that it is doubtful whether any additional argument will
720
carry any additional weight; but I would add this single reflection, by way of confirmation of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, and by the noble Earl who has just spoken. There can be no doubt at all, I suppose, in the minds of any fair-minded citizen that, if it could be reasonably secured, the proper way to proceed in this matter would be to have an impartial tribunal to decide the amount of compensation. It has been done in previous cases. A distinguished man, the present Master of the Rolls, presided over such a tribunal, with reference to coal, not so long ago, and if the circumstances permit here I suppose there is nobody who would deny that that is the proper way to ascertain a fair sum. Nobody wants more than that, and nobody ought to want to pay less than that.
It is a perfectly well-established method which has been applied again and again. Take an early illustration in my own experience. When I was a Law Officer the Government decided that they would acquire the whole undertaking of the National Telephone Company, which was an immense organization and which claimed compensation of £20,000,000. How did they proceed? They did not take the quotation of the Stock Exchange, to be derived from certain transactions on a limited amount of stock which, as it happened, somebody had on that day put into the hands of a stockbroker to sell, and which somebody or other purchased. One could hardly conceive a method more chancy than that. The Stock Exchange is not professing to find out for you what is the scientific value of a whole block of shares. That is not what it is trying to do. It is merely engaged in adjusting, through the haggling of the market, what may be the figure arrived at in the case of the limited number of shares which on that day happen to be dealt with.
How did we deal with the case of the National Telephone Company? They claimed, as I have said, £20,000,000. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, will remember well what happened, because he was Postmaster-General at the time—
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Just afterwards.
VISCOUNT SIMON: At any rate, I recollect it very well, and he was not discontented with the result. After an arbitration, held before a distinguished Judge with two colleagues (one of whom was a

721
very well-known man of business), after the matter had been thoroughly investigated in open court, with evidence, an award was given which was regarded as very satisfactory to the Government of the day. I remember that holders of deferred shares of that particular enterprise were on tenterhooks, because if the amount awarded was more than a certain figure the lowest denomination of shares would be worth something, whereas if the award was of a rather smaller figure they would be forth nothing at all For a time it was as exciting as the Derby. But a figure was arrived at and in due course it was paid. The method was the method constantly and properly employed when a Government are acquiring individual shares. I say, without any fear of contradiction—and I do not think anyone who is acquainted with these things will deny it—that if it is reasonably feasible, the proper way to arrive at a figure is by the method of arbitration.
It is said that that will involve delay and that on that ground the Government cannot adopt that process on the present occasion. Whether or not that is a good argument, I will not discuss. But at any rate if the Government decide to do something else, they ought to produce some solid argument to show that the substitute method is something like fair. It is quite ridiculous to suppose that prices on the Stock Exchange on particular days, which were arrived at by reference to limited numbers of transactions chalked up in the proper way in the Stock Exchange, representing a change of ownership in a limited number of shares between citizens who want to sell and ether citizens who want to buy, have the smallest resemblance to the nature of the transaction which is now to take place under this Bill.
This is not a sale by such people as want to sell; it is in many cases a forced deprivation of Interest in this great concern which the present owner does not in the least want to suffer. Adopting, as it is entitled to do, a general view about public interests, Parliament says: "Whether you like it or not, you must give up your interests and we will buy them." For my own part, I am taking no objection to that, because I quite agree that whether or not railways should be nationalized is a very moot point. It has been decided by a majority in the other place that it shall be so, and I do not see that we here are in a position—I cer-
722
tainly am not personally in a position—to challenge that as a matter of principle. What I do say is that once you decide that that is the proper policy for the Government to adopt, you arc bound to see to it that you deal with the people whose interests are to be forfeited and handed to the State on some principle which can be justified in its nature as being as fair as the proper method of arbitration.
I cannot see that that is so here. I find it difficult to think that any noble Lord, any gentleman who has any real knowledge of this class of subject—namely, the subject of the Government compulsorily acquiring great undertakings—will say that you can arrive at a correct result by taking the Stock Exchange quotations on certain selected dates. I really doubt very much whether there is anybody on the other side who will get up and pledge his reputation as a man who understands something about this business by telling me that that is a possible and proper substitute. Therefore, though I quite agree that adding 120 per cent. is only a round figure, I think it is at least an attempt to correct a perfectly manifest maltreatment of the people who are owners of these great blocks of shares.
It is not a question of inflicting injury on a few rich people. There must be many of us familiar with this class of holding, who know that there are many small trusts who hold these shares, and still want to continue to hold them. I have no doubt the noble Earl is right—though we do not want to make it just a matter of sentiment—that there are vast numbers of small people who, under the terms of this Bill, have to face being severely mulcted, and having their incomes seriously reduced as a result of this transaction. Is that right? Do the Socialist Party, who claim particularly to look after the interests of the small man, really think it right to say: "We are going to adopt this method and everybody must put up with it"? It is my humble submission, so far as my experience goes (I do not claim that it is greater than many others Whom I see opposite me, but it is considerable)—that it is a method which has not been employed in the past in similar cases, and it is quite obvious that it does not produce a fair result. It was the Unjust Steward that said: "Sit down quickly and write

723
fifty," and I would hope that the Government in this matter are not going to imitate his example.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY THE EARL OF DUDLEY moved, in subsection (3), after "issue" to insert "to the holders of the securities of the body in question." The noble Earl said: I think this Amendment has as much meat on it as the one which has just been moved by my noble friend Lord Beveridge, and although it opens up the same wide field of reference as his does, at this late hour I want to move it as simply and as shortly as I can. I have tried to achieve the same object as the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, but I am not asking quite so much. My object, also, is to mitigate some of the great loss of income imposed on the present proprietors of the railways, the railway stockholders by the terms of compensation provided for in this Bill. By those terms they will be subject—as other noble Lords have pointed out in the discussion of the last Amendment—to a loss of income which amounts over all to no less than 42 per cent. of their income. I hope the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will give me his attention because my Amendment is so reasonable and so equitable that I am confident it will be accepted by the Government. In fact, I hope to persuade them of the wisdom of accepting it. As the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has said, they cannot afford to be mean on this subject. If I were sitting on those Benches over there, I would impress on the Leader of the House the political wisdom of accepting the Amendment which, as I am advised, will not cost the Government or the Commission more than £2,750,000 a year—not a very large sum out of the £17,000,000 which the Government will save on the annual cost of the railways, which will all come out of the pockets of the shareholders. It represents this 42 per cent. loss of income, of which I have spoken.
There is already a precedent in the Bill for improving the compensation paid to various interested persons. For instance, Amendments have already been passed improving the compensation to waggon owners, private waggon owners, and local authorities. So there is a precedent for improving the compensation paid to the
724
class of person who is hardest hit—the railway stockholders. As a director of a railway, I directly represent these stockholders, and I make no apology even at this late hour for standing up for their interests and trying to mitigate this great hardship. As the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, and others have said, they represent a large proportion of our population, and they represent all classes of the community. Most of them will vote at the next election. A great many of them are widows, old people, pensioners and cripples, people with tiny fixed incomes who are incapacitated by age or infirmity from increasing their incomes in any way. And all of them are suffering severe financial loss. A great many of these people invested in prior transport stock because they regarded it as a public-spirited, non-speculative and safe investment; or their trustees did it for them for the same reason.
I cannot help feeling that noble Lords opposite are suffering considerable twinges of conscience over the injustice which they are imposing upon these people. In fact, certain speeches made on the Second Reading—notably the excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw—revealed the inner feelings of some noble Lords on those Benches in regard to this matter. The £17,000,000 which the Government are saving on the cost of the railways is reached by the difference in aggregate yield of interest on present stock and future yields on British Transport stock, assuming that the rate of interest on that stock will be 2½ per cent. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury in another place said: "You do not know what rates of interest are going to be agreed by the Treasury when the time comes; it may be five per cent." Of course, that is absolute nonsense. But the stocks are being taken over, as has been explained, on certain dates, on the Stock Exchange valuation ruling at certain pre-Election dates and post-Election dates.
I am not going into all that, because it has been gone into thoroughly in a most excellent way by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, but every business man knows that Stock Exchange valuations do not represent the true value of any business. All sorts of speculative circumstances enter into Stock Exchange values and they bear little relation to the

725
carefully calculated valuation of an individual business. They produce all sorts of anomalies between different classes of holder of stock. There is an example of that on page 133 of the Bill, the Fourth Schedule, where the value of the 2½ per cent. Debenture G.W.R. stock has been taken out at £95 10s. The 5 per cent. Debenture stock, which is quoted a little lower dawn, ranks pari passu with the 2½ per cent. stock for the same class of stock, and you would imagine that the value would be double and—if my mathematics are correct—would come to £191. The value is actually £142 7s. 6d. which shows the kind of anomaly that goes on when you take Stock Exchange valuations.
We would have preferred the method of arbitration, as the noble and learned Viscount has just pointed out, but the Government have not taken this way. They have adopted this method of stock exchange valuation. All I am asking for, under this Amendment, is that the present proprietors who are now to be compensated should be allowed to choose the pre-Election Stock Exchange value which they can choose under the Bill. They are not choosing them at the present moment, because they are the lower valuation of the two; and in compensation they should be given stocks which bear interest ruling on comparable Government securities at the same date. I ask what can be fairer and more logical than that? That will reduce the over-all loss of income to stockholders from 42 per cent. to 35 per cent. There will still be a tremendous loss, but it is a little bit of sugar for them. It places the form of compensation on a still more equitable basis and it will cost the Government only £2,750,000 out of the £17,000,000 which they are filching from the pockets of the shareholders; and at least they will ameliorate the injustice being done to them.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 44, after ("to") insert ("one hundred and twenty per Cent. of")—(The Earl of Dudley).
10.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am going to intervene for only a very few moments to ask the Government, even if they cannot accept this Amendment, to give us a little information as to what the real future of these unfortunate people is going to be. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, made great play in saying:
726
"Well, how can you justify 120? Why should it not be no?" I ask the noble Lord not to justify—because I do not think he can justify it—but to tell us what it is he is proposing to pay, and to give us some real indication of what the people are going to get. I think that something on the lines of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge (I like the noble Lord's second Amendment better than I like his first), or something on the lines of the Amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, is the right way of meeting it. There is great uncertainty about what these people are going to get.
Before we part with this Bill we ought to know what the formula in Clause 89 means. Nobody can pretend that the income which the Government are going to give the shareholders in this case is fair because, by common consent, the Government is going to reduce the income of almost every railway shareholder, if not of every railway shareholder. I do not believe anybody could pretend that a case could be established in equity for the kind of debenture which my noble friend has cited. The people who hold irredeemable, absolutely secured, debentures want to go on holding those debentures; they do not hold them with a view to realizing capital; they hold them because they know that they form one of the really safe ways of obtaining an income. I am, fortunately, a very small railway shareholder (if I am one at all) but as chairman of a diocesan board of finance I am the trustee of very large holdings in these companies. We have a perpetual life, and we did not buy these securities in order to realize them on the Stock Exchange. We bought them because we knew they were safe, irredeemable securities. That is the one thing a trust of that kind wants, and upon that the whole financial programme of a diocese is based, including the giving of a living wage to a priest in charge.
I am not going to say any more about that, but nobody can pretend that giving 2½ per cent, is a fair equivalent. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has never claimed that that was a fair equivalent. What he said, as I understand it, is "Broad and large, I do not think this is an unfair thing to do to you because though I am going greatly to reduce your income, yet I am going to give you such a security of capital in

727
my wonderful gilt-edged stock that you will really be better off." Very few people will think that. Not only are they being deprived of income, but they are putting their heads into a noose as regards capital.
When this Bill was drafted it was all done on the assumption that 2½ per cent. money at par was the worst possible outlook from the point of view of the Exchequer and that very likely the money rate would improve and possibly become 2¼ per cent. Anybody who looks at the figure at which the Treasury 2½ per cent. stock stands to-day will say that this is a proposition which no Chancellor of the Exchequer can advance with any decency to people to whom this offer has been made—perhaps I should not say "to whom this offer has been made," but "upon whom this deal is being forced." I beg the noble Lord not to ride off with some specious argument as to whether the percentage proposed by my noble friend is right or fair as between different stocks, or by lumping them together. I ask the noble Lord to tell us what is the meaning of this formula on which they are to be assessed, and what security there will be for the future once they are so assessed and paid out as though they were being paid so much in pounds in a concern which is not solvent.
LORD NATHAN: The Amendment which we dealt with last was one which was based on the footing that the Government's assessment of the value was too low. The Amendment now proposed by the noble Earl is designed to take a lower assessment, namely the pre-Election assessment of value. But the noble Earl reaches the same conclusion. It all works out at very much the same figure, because the noble Earl, whilst wishing to have the 1945 value, wishes to attribute to that value the rate of interest then prevailing, which would in fact have the result of making the issue of compensation stock equal to 120 per cent. of the value in the pre-Election period, and would involve about 12 per cent. more than will be issued under the Bill as drafted. So the sweet reasonableness, as it appeared to be, of the noble Earl—whose sincerity and warmth of feeling on the matter I wish to acknowledge—brings us to almost the same position, although by a different road, as that put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge.
728
I think it would be quite unprecedented, when a value had been achieved, to apply to that value a rate of interest applicable not to the current period but to a period long anterior. I know of no instance where a value is based upon an assessment in the past and the rate of interest attributable thereto is applied three years later on the basis of the rate of interest prevailing at the time when that assessment was made. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, asked what in fact the debenture-holders and shareholders are to get. Naturally, there would be many advantages if for every pound in the valuation, a pound in cash were paid. But a cash transaction is not practicable in dealing with the very large amounts here. So the valuation is related to the terms of British Transport stock. The rate of interest to be borne by that stock is one which will be settled when the date comes and the state of Government credit is known. The assumption that has been made in the various calculations has been on the footing of 2½ per cent., as mentioned by the noble Earl opposite.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: 2½ per cent. at par?
LORD NATHAN: 2½ per cent. at par. While that rate is, of course, an assumption, it is always open to the holder to translate that Government security, if so minded, into cash and to buy, if they be available on the market or otherwise, securities of one kind or another which will achieve a higher rate of return. That is open to the holder, as it is to all of us who hold this security or that security, and who think we may be able, by change of investment, to achieve a higher rate of interest—
EARL GREY: As Trustees?
LORD NATHAN: —if we be minded to seek a higher rate of interest at the expense of some measure of security.
THE EARL OF STAIR: Would trustees be allowed to do that?
LORD NATHAN: It is a factor to be borne in mind that the security is a Government security and there is, therefore, a factor of safety which has not hitherto applied and which I think noble Lords have perhaps overlooked.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Would the capital value be altered?
LORD NATHAN: That question will arise in another Amendment later on.
THE EARL OF STAIR: Would the noble Lord say whether trustees would be allowed to do that?
LORD NATHAN: I will come to trustees in a moment. This talk of the Trustee Act implies some guarantee as to security, but it does no more than exonerate the trustees from liability if a loss should be incurred. The argument with respect to the Trustee Act, is, with great respect, not very relevant to the consideration of this matter. A Government security is given in exchange for a security which has by no means the same clement of safety. Perhaps it has been overlooked that as regards some of the junior railway stocks, for the first time for many years interest will be received by shareholders who for a long period of years have received no interest at all.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I do not know what the situation is about the eleven o'clock rule in this House, but, following on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, I do not think this subject has been as yet fully threshed out. I do not want to detain your Lordships beyond eleven o'clock, and it is now eleven o'clock. In those circumstances, I think it would be wiser to move to resume.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: There are plenty of other opportunities on other Amendments.
NOBLE LORDS: No, No.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Allow me to finish my sentence. I know the next Amendment of the noble Earl raises it and, therefore, I hope the House will be willing to dispense with this Amendment.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My next Amendment is consequential and if this Amendment falls that falls too.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If I might suggest it, I think it would be perhaps wise if we stopped now. My reason is merely that this is a subject upon which very deep convictions are felt. Whether it is possible for this House to do anything in the matter is a very different question, but noble Lords can express their views. Nearly all of us know of extremely hard cases. I do not, for a moment, pretend that everybody who
730
holds railway stocks is a widow or an orphan, but we all know of very bitter disappointments and hardships which are now being caused. I do not want to detain the House now, but I have much I can say on this question, and I know that many other noble Lords are in the same position. I think that if the general public were to see that the House of Lords, in order to rise, curtailed a debate on a subject of such intense importance to a number of very poor people, it would have a very bad effect. I suggest it would be better to adjourn now and allow the matter to continue at the next opportunity.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am quite sure that my statement is correct. According to the somewhat loose methods of order of this House, there are abundant opportunities of discussing these issues on the other Amendments on the paper. If we can have this understanding. as we often do in these matters, that there should be a general discussion on the whole issue, so that we should not have separate discussions on individual Amendments as we go along, it would be very advantageous.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I move that the House do resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: On the Motion that the House do resume, perhaps the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, will give me an answer to my question.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think there is a good deal to be said for having a general discussion. It seems to me, in view of the strong feeling among very large numbers of noble Lords, that it would be wise to leave the matter where it is to-night, let the noble Earl's Amendment stand, and then perhaps when the House resumes for farther debate, it will be quite possible for the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to put forward his proposal. We could then proceed to a general debate. I hope that noble Lords will agree to that. There may be some noble Lords who wish to speak on points they wish to make on their own Amendments, and I am sure the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, does not wish to prevent that. After that we might

731
proceed to a general discussion. I suggest that that would be the best way out of our difficulties.
On Question, Motion agreed to and House resumed accordingly.

WELLINGTON MUSEUM BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
NAZEING WOOD OR PARK BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  SUBSIDY ON OATMEAL.
  SUBSIDY ON OATMEAL.