Sitting of 24 June 1947

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SOUTH-WEST MIDDLESEX CREMATORIUM BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Vocational Training Scheme
    Mr. A. Edward Daviesasked the Minister of Labour how many men have now received vocational training under Government schemes; and what proportion of them have secured employment at the end of their studies.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): Thirty-eight thousand, three hundred and ten men have completed courses under the vocational training scheme and approximately 85 per cent. of them have secured employment. Action to place the remainder is in hand.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these are ex-Service men and disabled?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Not without notice
    Mr. A. Edward Daviesasked the Minister of Labour whether he is satisfied that the Government's vocational training scheme is working satisfactorily; and what
    174
    steps are being taken to improve the arrangements.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, Sir. The scheme is kept under constant review in consultation with the representatives of industry to ensure that any possible improvements may be effected.
    Mr. Davies: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that certain difficulties have arisen in the electrical industry and also in the placing of joiners in industry, and would not he agree that it may be useful to have a conference with the employers and the trade unions from time to time to review these matters?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Those are not difficulties arising out of the scheme. Those are difficulties in industry arising from a shortage of raw materials, and we are having these conferences once a quarter with representatives from all sides of the industry to see how we can get over the trouble.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Has the Minister overcome the difficulty of placing ex-Service men trainees, which does not arise from the shortage of raw materials?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: That is rather a different question from the one on the Order Paper, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will put down a Question, I will certainly give an answer.
    Mr. Edward Evansasked the Minister of Labour what financial provision he has made under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, for the vocational training of people registered under this Act on account of defective vision, whose disability is not sufficiently severe to entitle them to benefits under the Blind Persons Act.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Courses ot vocational training with allowances are available to persons who are handicapped in getting employment by defective vision irrespective of their position under the Blind Persons Act.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that there are several borderline cases where persons fall between two stools. They are not blind persons and they are not fully-sighted persons, and it is extraordinarily difficult for these people to hold a job when they get it. There are several jobs for which they could be trained, and with

    175
    the goodwill of the employer they would be able to get employment in the capacity for which they are trained.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: This type of person is covered by our training scheme, and he or she will be entitled to employment in the remploy factories when they are erected.
    Mr. Edward Evans: I have in my possession cases for which there are no facilities either for the training or for the employment of these persons?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I should like to have those cases, and I would be obliged if my hon Friend would send them to me.
    Sir Ian Fraser: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the case of these semi-sighted men is one which really needs looking into with sympathy and understanding, and that it is by no means a solution to send them to remploy factories? Is he aware that a great many of these men could be working in ordinary industry?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am rather surprised at the supplementary question, because this is the type of case which is receiving great attention in my Department

    Disabled Persons
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Minister of Labour if he will cause an inquiry, by the sampling method or otherwise, to ascertain whether employers generally are including three per cent. of disabled persons in their labour force as required by the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Written inquiries are in course of being made of all employers of 20 or more workers with respect to the fulfilment of their obligations under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, and these will be followed as necessary by an inspection of records.
    Sir I. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many employers have most sympathetically fitted men into simple jobs, and will he expedite this inquiry so that those who do not know of their obligations may be informed of them?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I think that is a correct statement of the facts in industry. We hope to get all these replies in by the middle of next month and we shall then be in a position to see what help we should give employers, not only to keep them right as to their obligations, but to assist them to meet those obligations by providing the types of disabled persons for the types of jobs they have.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Even if all employers employed their full quota at present, does the right hon. Gentleman think that that would take up all the unemployed disabled men, and if not, will he consider increasing the quota immediately?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: This is a matter which is under consideration. We are advised by some very good people who are themselves disabled. This is examined every month, and it is to be the subject of examination tomorrow
    Mr. William Shepherd: In order to make sure that employers employ the right percentage, why cannot the number of disabled men employed be shown on the returns sent to the Department?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: That is the return which is being asked for.

    Displaced Persons
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Labour whether a displaced person brought over to this country is, after any given period of time, free to leave one industry for another.
    Mr, Ness Edwards: No, Sir. Change of employment is in all cases subject to the consent of the Ministry of Labour.
    Mr. Beswick: Is the right hon. Gentleman's Department likely to give permission for a person to change from one industry to another after, say, a period of one year?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: It would depend on the merits of the particular case, but we would not look with favour on a man moving from an undermanned industry to one which is overmanned.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: What sanction has the right hon. Gentleman got to secure that people do not change without his approval?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The sanction is to send them back again.

    Women Workers (Government's Appeal)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Labour how many women the Government expect to re-enter industry in answer to their latest appeal; and when he will make a statement on the results of that appeal.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am not yet in a position to estimate the results of the campaign.
    Mr. Osborne: May I ask, first, when will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to estimate the results of the campaign, and secondly, does he think it is fair to ask women to do two jobs—at home and in the factory—when so many men are asking for a shorter and shorter week?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, I hope to be in a position to give an estimate of the results of the campaign in the middle of next month. As regards the latter part, I do not think it really arises.
    Hon. Members: Oh.
    Mr. Harrison: Will the Minister take steps to see that undue pressure is not placed upon women applicants to enter domestic work?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: This is a campaign to get women to give part-time employment. It is purely voluntary. No pressure is applied to women who have great domestic responsibility, but those who can do so are asked to give us help in undermanned vital industries. In that sense, we are not excluding hospitals and public institutions.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Is it estimated that the women will balance out the number of children remaining at school owing to the raising of the school-leaving age?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: That is rather a different question.
    Sir T. Moore: No, it is not.

    Ex-Service Personnel
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Minister of Labour how many ex-Service officers and other ranks were registered as unemployed at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The numbers of ex-Service men and women registered as
    178
    unemployed at 12th May were 53,964 and 3,658 respectively, of whom 6,374 and 173 were ex-officers registered with the Appointments Department. Separate figures for ex-officers registered at employment exchanges are not available.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the serious plight in which many of these men now find themselves? Will he tell the House what steps he proposes to take in his own Department to try to improve the situation?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am awar; of the very parlous plight of many of these persons, and I have great sympathy with them, but the hon. and gallant Member will appreciate that in one month we have reduced the figure by 17,000 and that is not bad going in dealing with this problem.

  WORK LOAD ASSESSMENT INVESTIGATIONS
  Mr. Prescottasked the Minister of Labour what British industries have now completed plans for the assessment of work load; and to what extent his Department is giving assistance in passing on to other industries the benefit of the knowledge gained in this field.
  Mr. Nee s Edwards: I have no information as to the extent to which special plans of this nature have been instituted ay individual industries.
  Mr. Prescott: Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to find out?
  Mr. Ness Edwards: It does not really come within the ambit of the Ministry of Labour, but there is a further Question on the Order Paper from which some information may be gained.
  Mr. Prescottasked the Minister of Labour when he expects that the present investigations into the assessment of work load in the cotton-spinning industry, which are being adopted by the Cotton Board, are likely to be completed and to what extent his Department is assisting in this matter.
  Mr. Sutcliffeasked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made in the work load assessment investigations being carried out under the auspices of the Cotton Board.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: An experimental scheme involving redeployment of labour in accordance with an assessment of work loads has been instituted by stages in a cotton spinning mill and will soon be in complete operation. The result of the experiment will then be measured and a report presented to the representatives of both employers and workpeople. The responsibility for this experiment rests with the Cotton Board, and I am unable to say when that Board will be in a position to publish its report. The services of our Department are available for such advice and information as may be desired.
  Mr. Prescott: Is it not possible to give some indication within broad limits as to when this Report might be expected?
  Mr. Ness Edwards: The publication of the Report is not as a rule within our control. We shall ask the Cotton Board to speed up publication of the result of this experiment so that it may be available to the rest of industry.
  Major Haughton: Does this investigation cover the disparity between mule spinning and ring spinning?
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I understand it covers the whole of the operations in the cotton industry, and a comprehensive report will be published.

  FUEL SHORTAGE (STAGGERED HOURS)
  Mr. Palmerasked the Minister of Labour what progress is being made with arrangements for staggering working hours and night shifts in industry in order to reduce the peak demands on electricity generating capacity next winter.
  Mr. Ness Edwards: I am glad to say that considerable progress has already been made. Since the publication of the report of the Electricity Sub-Committee of the Joint Consultative Committee on 12th May, the matter is being examined afresh by the Regional Boards for industry and their district committees.
  Mr. Palmer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the need to make some progress on this matter fairly soon in view of the fact that the electrical load shedding season is likely to start in October?
  Mr. Ness Edwards: We are aware of the urgency of this matter and most employers are playing the game, but the scheme is being prejudiced by the resistance of some employers who will not accept the principle of staggering. That matter is actively under consideration, and we are having advice from both sides of industry.

  SCOTLAND

    Rehabilitaton Centres
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many rehabilitation centres for members of the Forces there are in Scotland; where they are situated; and if he will make a statement on their work and progress.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): Provision is made by the Ministry of Pensions for the medical rehabilitation of ex-Service pensioners at their hospital in Musselburgh and the Ministry also have arrangements for the treatment of ex-Service pensioners at a hospital in Glasgow where similar provision exists. I understand that all patients in the Ministry's hospital whose physical condition permits, undergo a course of medical rehabilitation in a fully equipped centre as part of routine treatment and that very satisfactory results have been achieved. I am also informed that the Ministry of Labour and National Service are taking steps to establish a centre near Glasgow for industrial rehabilitation at which special provision will be made for ex-Service men.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many people are being rehabilitated in these centres, what training they have received, how much of that is vocational, and how many of them have been absorbed in industry?
    Mr. Westwood: Those questions are not contained in the original Question. Details of that kind will require to be provided by the appropriate Minister who will have the details and will make them available to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Mr. Hughes: At the end of my Question I asked for details of the work, etc.
    Mr. Westwood: I have given a general answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's Question. I went to a lot of

    181
    trouble in making the inquiries. The details are for the Ministry of Pensions and the War Department.
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: With reference to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I would like to ask whether these two rehabilitation centres are able to cope with the demand? Are they Ioo per cent. full or are people waiting to go in?
    Mr. Westwood: Again I could not say without notice but I will try to get the information for the hon. and gallant Member.

    Schools (Swimming Instruction)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is being done to teach schoolchildren in Scotland swimming and life-saving at sea and in rivers.
    Mr. Westwood: Instruction in swimming is given throughout the session to pupils attending schools equipped with indoor ponds or schools to which public indoor ponds are reasonably accessible. Pupils are generally examined by tests instituted by the local authorities or by the Royal Life-Saving Society. Rivers and the open sea are not used for purposes of school instruction.

    Shop Premises (Tenancy)
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when on expects to have a report from the committee which he set up to inquire into the tenancy of shop and other premises in Glasgow.
    Mr. Westwood: I understand that the Committee of Inquiry into the tenure of shop premises in Scotland are still hearing evidence. I have no doubt that they will present their report as soon as they have come to conclusions, but it is too early to say when the report may be expected.
    Colonel Hutchison: Will the right hon. Gentleman do all he can to expedite the report? This matter is causing great anxiety all over Scotland. In at least one case which I know the man concerned is squatting and refusing to give up until his case comes up for consideration at the sheriff court.
    Mr. Westwood: I have been urging the Committee to make as speedy a report as possible. It will be within the recollection of the House that it was suggested that there might be an interim report, but the Committee have been getting on so speedily with the job that I am advised that there will be no need for an interim report and that they will be able in the very near future to give me the full report.

    Timber Licence Application
    Lord John Hopeasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why Mr. W. A. Thain has been refused a licence for timber to complete two bungalows at 20 and 22, West Craigs Avenue, Corstorphine, for the building of which he originally received a licence from the Minister of Works.
    Mr. Westwood: As I told the hon. Member on 20th May, Mr. Thain's application was not granted because his houses were not included in the 1947 programme. I have recently found it possible, however, to review a number of outstanding applications, and a timber licence was issued to Mr. Thain on 17th June.
    Commander Galbraith: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the same situation is arising everywhere throughout Scotland, and cannot he take steps to ensure that priority is given in relation to the date on which the building licence is granted?
    Mr. Westwood: I will certainly look into that. The real difficulty—and I think that is recognised by all hon. Members—is the shortage of supplies, but we are doing everything possible to try to overcome that problem.

    River Pollution
    Mr. McKinlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the continued pollution of the River Kelvin and the River Allander; and what steps it is proposed to take to end this nuisance.
    Mr. Westwood: I am aware of the pollution of the two rivers mentioned. The Scottish Water Advisory Committee, through their Rivers Pollution Sub-Committee, have recently asked all local authorities for information about pollution with a view to considering what action is

    183
    necessary, and I have asked the Committee to let me have, as soon as possible, such information as they may obtain in regard to the two rivers mentioned.
    Mr. McKinlay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I raised this matter first in 1929, that the position has been gradually made worse, and that the Allander and the Kelvin have now become practically open sewers?

    Sub-tenancies
    Mr. J. L. Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that large numbers of sub-tenants in the City of Glasgow are uninformed or misinformed with regard to their rights of tenure; and if he will take steps to have the legal position in this matter made more widely known.
    Mr. Westwood: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a booklet explaining the main provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts prepared by my Department for issue to local authorities and Citizens' Advice Bureaux. The provisions of the Acts, however, are so complex that it would be misleading to rely on a simplified version of them—[Laughter.]I am rather amused at the laughter from the other side, because I was not responsible for the Rent Restrictions Acts—and I would suggest that any sub-tenant who is in doubt about his position should take legal advice.
    Mr. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the legal borderline between lettings of furnished and unfurnished rooms is very obscure to many of these people?
    Mr. Westwood: I am certainly aware of the difficulties associated with the interpretation of these Acts, but I am not legally qualified to give advice.
    Major Guy Lloyd: But is it not about time that the right hon. Gentleman, who is fully aware of all the Acts, recognised that, in view of the most unsatisfactory position prevailing as a result of the Acts, he should bring in some legislation to amend that most unsatisfactory situation which the people of Scotland have deplored for years?
    Mr. Westwood: Yes, I am aware of the difficulties in connection with many Acts
    184
    passed by the Conservative Party that sooner or later will be abolished.
    Mr. Stephen: Can a copy of the booklet be supplied to each of the Scottish Members?
    Mr. Westwood: If there is a request, yes.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Glasgow Town Council have set up a sub-committee to publish information to such tenants giving advice and information on the Rent Restrictions Acts, that leaflets have already been circulated and that they are drawn up by a fully competent lawyer, namely, the town clerk himself?
    Major Lloyd: May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman seriously? He knows as well as I do that the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland, including his own party, want to reform the Rent Restrictions Acts. "Sooner or later," he tell us. Is that all he can tell the people of Scotland? Will he not give us some comfort more than the words 'sooner or later"?
    An Hon. Member: Sooner.

  PRISONERS OF WAR

    Relaxation of Restrictions
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for War why permission to visit civilian cinemas is not given to German prisoners of war on the same conditions as given to Italians.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the further relaxation of restrictions on German prisoners of war.
    Mr. Thurtleasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a further statement about the conditions which apply to prisoners of war in this country.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement in answer to this Question and Questions 41 and 43.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether one of the facts is that he is afraid these prisoners of war

    185
    might see certain Government propaganda films which would remind them very strongly of what they used to be taught at home?
    Mr. Bellenger: I would urge the hon. Member to read my answer, and then I believe he will be satisfied.
    Mr. Skeffington-I.odge: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account the number of prisoners of war still held in the Middle East in connection with any relaxation of restrictions on prisoners generally.
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir; I have taken that into account, but in my answer I am saying what I am doing mainly in connection with those at home here, which are by far the larger number.
    Mr. Martin Lindsay: While we await the OFFICIAL REPORT, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether his reply contains anything to suggest that he will make conditions easier and more pleasant for prisoners in this country in order that the maximum number possible will stay on to work here?
    Mr. Bellenger: I hope my answer will give that impression among the prisoners of war.
    Mr. Stokes: Can my right hon. Friend at least assure us that his reply will indicate that the relaxations will go at least as far as the relaxations in the case of the Italian prisoners of war?
    Mr. Bellenger: In so far as it includes access to shops, cinemas, restaurants, and public transport, I think it will.
    Following is the statement:
    It has been decided that German prisoners of war in this country, other than those classified as ardent Nazis, whose output of work is satisfactory shall be allowed to draw part of their pay in sterling and to use shops, cinemas, restaurants and public transport within five miles of their camp, but not to use licensed premises. These arrangements will come into force about the middle of July. They are intended as incentives to good work and will be subject to review in the light of experience.
    At present, prisoners of war receive their working pay in the form of token money which can be spent only in the camp canteens. In addition, a prisoner
    186
    whose output is good earns a bonus equal to his pay. A further bonus of 3s. a week is credited to prisoners who are habitually good workers. These bonuses are not available for spending in this country, but are credited to the prisoner's account, and may be used for remittances to Germany, or paid in marks in Germany on repatriation. A prisoner employed on skilled work who works 48 hours a week is thus able to earn 6s. token money and 9s. bonus credit
    Under the new arrangements, all prisoners who work at least 40 hours a week and qualify for the additional bonuses will receive 3s. of the bonuses in token money instead of as a credit, and prisoners who work more than 48 hours a week will receive the bonus for the additional hours in token money instead of as a credit. Prisoners of war who work satisfactorily will be allowed to exchange a part, generally 50 per cent., of their token money into sterling. The effect of these changes will be that a skilled prisoner of war, who works 48 hours a week and whose output is satisfactory, will draw 9S. in token money and 6s. bonus credit instead of 6s. token money and 9s. bonus credit. Half of the 9s. token money may be converted to sterling. Prisoners who work 40 hours a week will draw 8s. token money and 5s. bonus credit instead of 5s. token money and 8s. bonus credit. Half of the 8s. token money may be converted to sterling. It will be appreciated, however, that a restriction will be necessary on the total amount of sterling which a prisoner may have in his possession at any time.
    Arrangements of a similar kind will be applied to officers and protected personnel who work satisfactorily: and also to prisoners employed in the domestic work of the camps, so far as the camp welfare funds from which they receive their pay permit.

    Wages
    Mr. McKinlayasked the Secretary of State for War what hourly rate of wages is paid to his Department by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board for the services of German prisoners of war at their Loch Sloy scheme; what proportion is paid per hour to the men concerned; what are the average weekly earnings of the men; and what amenities does his Department provide.
    Mr. Bellenger: The rates charged for the services of prisoners of war are fixed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works. I understand that they are the rates which would be paid to British civilian workers engaged on the same type of work. The pay received by the prisoners is determined by their status as prisoners of war, not by reference to the charges made for their services. Under the arrangements hitherto in force, the average earnings of a prisoner engaged on skilled work would amount in a 48 hour working week to 15s., consisting of 6s. cash and 9s. bonus credit. The prisoners receive in kind all necessities such as accommodation, food, clothing, medical and hospital services. A canteen and normal recreational facilities are provided at the camp.
    Mr. McKinlay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Hydro-Electric Board pay 2s. o½d. an hour, and the portion returned to the men in wages is three farthings an hour? Is he aware that in some weeks they may earn is. 6d.? Is it not the case that civilians in the Helensburgh district are not permitted to entertain these men, or take them on public service vehicles, or to the cinema?
    Mr. Bellenger: In answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I think he will be satisfied by my reply to a previous Question. In reply to the first part of his supplementary question, I have not worked out the exact amount the prisoners get per hour but merely answered the Question on the Paper.
    Mr. Baldwin: Does not the Minister think it is about time that the whole rates of pay of prisoners of war were revised? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on farms prisoners of war receive 8d. an hour overtime, while their colleagues get 2S. Id.?
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir, and I have to recognise, as the House must, that there will come a time when it will not be a question of rates of pay for these prisoners of war, because they will have gone home.
    Mr. McKinlay: I3 my right hon. Friend aware that in inclement weather they do not even receive three farthings an hour? Is this the best way to teach these people to adopt our mode of life?
    Mr. Bellenger: I am doing what I can, and I think the House will agree with the announcements I have made from time to time to improve the lot of these prisoners of war.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the difference between the amount paid for the services of these men and the amount they receive is accounted for by the Chancellor, who expects to net £36 million this year as a result of their sweated labour?
    Mr. Bellenger: That is the kind of question my hon. Friend should address to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Overseas Release (Domestic Responsibilities)
    Mr. Bramallasked the Secretary of State for War what steps are taken to ensure that a man desiring to be released from the Army in a part of the British Commonwealth other than the United Kingdom is not thereby avoiding his obligations to maintain his wife and family.
    Mr. Bellenger: Under present rules a man may be released locally in any country overseas if he obtains the consent of the Government of the country in question and of the overseas command. As far as the requirements and obligations of overseas commands are concerned, although it is not a military responsibility to investigate the private or domestic affairs of applicants for local release, commands have absolute discretion and may properly refuse consent where it appears that the sole or principal reason for the application is to evade domestic responsibilities in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Bramall: Will my right hon. Friend consider issuing instructions to overseas commands that they should make a more determined attempt to find out whether a man is avoiding his responsibilities, because I have a case in my constituency where no communication has ever been made to the wife by the War Office.
    Mr. Bellenger: I do not think that is our responsibility. If my hon. Friend, or indeed any hon. Member, has reason to believe that any soldier is trying to evade his responsibilities to his wife or

    189
    family in this country, I will certainly look into it, but I will not "snoop "into the lives of soldiers.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Has the Minister any evidence that there is an appreciable number of men who are thus seeking to avoid their domestic responsibilities?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir.
    Mr. Bramall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that by the time the wife or other dependant knows that this has happened, the man is outside the purview of the War Office and has a civilian job in the Colony or Dominion concerned?
    Mr. Bellenger: I would welcome any suggestions from my hon. Friend to try to alleviate these attempts, if there are any, to avoid responsibility to wives and families. After all, I am a family man myself, and I believe in family responsibility.

    War Graves (Relatives' Visits)
    Mr. A. Edward Daviesasked the Secretary of State for War what difficulties are holding up the provision of facilities for relatives to visit overseas graves of Service men; and when he expects to be in a position to conclude his arrangements.
    Mr. Bellenger: Although the committee appointed to consider this matter has reported, the question is one which raises problems affecting a number of Departments besides my own, and I regret that I cannot yet say exactly when it will be possible to announce a decision.
    Mr. Davies: Will my right hon. Friend say whether there is any hope of arrangements being completed so that the relatives can get abroad before the summer has expired, as they are full of disappointment that holiday trips, and so on, are possible, and yet they cannot get' abroad ?
    Mr. Bellenger: They can, of course, go under their own power. All I was trying to do was to arrange that their visits should be facilitated in those cases where they need War Office help.
    Brigadier Rayner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that arrangements after the first world war for these visits were much more speedily and effec-
    190
    tively arranged, and will he "ginger up" those responsible for making them?
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, I am always willing to "ginger up" as much as possible, but the second world war was a little different from the first world war.
    Mr. Niall Macpherson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, when arranging for the relatives of those Service men who die abroad to visit the graves of their relatives, to do so as soon as possible after the funeral or. if possible, in time for the funeral?
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir.

    Territorial Army (Mileage and Petrol Allowance)
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for War (I) whether he is aware that the motor mileage allowance to T.A. personnel travelling on duty is inadequate and compares unfavourably with the mileage allowance paid to local government officers; and whether he will cause a substantial increase to be made in this allowance;
    (2) whether he is aware of the delays and inconvenience which are caused by the present method whereby petrol coupons for duty journeys are issued by the Ministry of Fuel and Power to Territorial Army personnel against applications submitted by individuals and supported by certificates of officers commanding units; and whether he will give consideration to a system of bulk allocation of petrol to Territorial Army associations to issue, where necessary, to their personnel.
    Mr. Bellenger: There arc two different arrangements under which members of the Territorial Army may use their private cars in connection with their Territorial Army activities. First, they may use them in the performance of duties for which a car would have been provided by the War Department if available. In this case petrol coupons are issued under Army arrangements through the Territorial Army associations and mileage allowance is paid at the same rate as officers of the Regular Army receive in similar circumstances. Second, members of the Territorial Army may use their cars for attendance at evening drills and other training where public transport facilities are inadequate. In this case, they are not using their cars on Army duty but are

    191
    in much the same position as other members of the public whose business or other activities necessitate extra running of their cars. The issue of petrol coupons is, therefore, a matter for the regional petroleum officer. I am not aware of any delay and inconvenience caused by this arrangement. If the hon. and gallant Member knows of any such cases, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power to have them investigated. For these journeys, my Department pays rates of mileage allowance which are intended to cover only the marginal use of the car without any contribution to overheads such as is made to owners using their cars on War Department duty.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the object of these allowances is to render it reasonably easy for Territorial officers and other ranks to attend drills, often having to travel very long distances? Is he also aware that the system of bulk issue by a Territorial Association was most successfully carried out throughout the war in the case of the Home Guard? Is he aware that there are delays in getting petrol through the filling up of forms, such as I hold in my hand, from regional petroleum officers?
    Mr. Bellenger: In that connection I will do my best with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power to facilitate the issue of petrol coupons
    Mr. MedHcott: Is not this another example of the niggardly and somewhat parsimonious attitude adopted by the War Office and the Treasury to the Territorial Army? If the right hon. Gentleman's Department spent less time examining small items in pence, losses of many millions would not occur through negligence.
    Mr. Bellenger: I think my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is adopting a sympathetic attitude on this matter, as was evidenced by the announcement he made during the proceedings on the Finance Bill the other evening.
    Mr. Scollan: Does this scheme apply equally to officers and to other ranks?
    Mr. Bellenger: I would like notice of that Question.

    Allowances (Greece)
    Sir Wavell Wakefieldasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the hardship being caused to officers and other ranks now serving in Greece, due to the inadequacy of their allowances on account of the present rate of exchange between drachma and sterling; and what action he is taking to remedy this hardship.
    Mr. Bellenger: A local allowance is given to officers and other ranks in Greece, which takes account of local prices and conditions of living. For the purpose of calculating this allowance, which is expressed in terms of sterling, local prices are converted to sterling at the current rate of exchange, which is also used for converting cash issues to the troops from sterling to drachmae. The allowance was recently reviewed, and will be reviewed again shortly in the light of detailed information supplied by the local Service authorities, regarding prices and conditions of living in Greece.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Are we to understand that no change has been made recently in this matter? Is not the allowance for the Services to be brought into line with the increases allowed to members of the Embassy staff and the Economic Mission mainly because of a recognition of these difficulties in Greece and the relations of the drachma to sterling exchange?
    Mr. Bellenger: I do not think the cases are comparable, but the allowances were recently reviewed, and are to be reviewed again shortly.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braith-waite: When these matters are reviewed, are all the Services brought in?
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir, we have had close co-operation in these matters with the other Services.

    Claims Branch, Northern Command
    Mr. Yorkasked the Secretary of State for War the number of officers on 1st June, 1947, in the Claims Branch at Northern Command Headquarters; the number of claims outstanding, and the average number of claims received per month in the past 12 months.
    Mr. Bellenger: The answer to the first part of the Question is three, to the second 1,648, and to the third 591.

    Estate Agent (Release Application)
    Mr. Yorkasked the Secretary of State for War whether the application for release of an officer of Claims Commission for agricultural work, of whose name he has been informed, was recommended by the agricultural authorities.
    Mr. Bellenger: An application for this officer's release in Class B for employment as an estate agent was supported by the Ministry of Agriculture. The officer, who had been released with his age and service group in Class A, had been recalled from the unemployed list on 26th June, 1946, at his own request, and had undertaken to defer release until general demobilisation. His case was fully considered, but in view of the serious shortage of qualified officers serving with the Claims Commission it was not found possible to agree to cancellation of his undertaking
    Mr. York: Does not the Secretary of State think that at this time of all times, when there is an imminent prospect of food shortage, an experienced agricultural manager like this would be better employed in helping agricultural production than in settling a very small number of claims?
    Mr. Bellenger: Generally speaking, I am in sympathy with helping agriculture as far as I can. But this officer himself made a request to come back in June last year and gave an undertaking. I am not in a position to release him from that undertaking at the moment.
    Mr. York: In view of the fact that the Minister seems to be under a misapprehension about his undertaking to go back —it was the other way round, he was asked to go back—will the right hon. Gentleman look into the case again?
    Mr. Bellenger: I will certainly look into it again.

    Officer's Arrest (Egypt)
    Mr. Prittasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Major E. J. Graham, R.E., was arrested in Egypt, on 2nd April, on a charge which has not been carried further; that no summary of evidence was taken until 21st May and then only in connection with other charges of a minor character; that he is still under arrest and that he has not yet been brought to trial; and if he will deal at once with this unreasonable delay.
    Mr. Bellenger: I am not aware of this case, but I am making inquiries, and will write to the hon. and learned Member.
    Mr. Pritt: When the Secretary of State has particulars of this and any other cases of delay, will he pass them to the Foreign Office to be dealt with by the critics of delay in Central Europe?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, I prefer to deal with these cases, which affect my Department, myself.
    Mr. George Wallace: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Questions of this type usually appear on the Order Paper once a week, and are indicative of the fact that reform of court martial procedure is necessary.
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, I think my hon. Friend is assuming too much. The mere fact that a Question appears on the Order Paper week by week does not necessarily mean that the Question is full of facts.
    Mr. Pritt: Is my right hon. Friend suggesting that the Question on the Paper. about which he admits he knows nothing, is not based on facts?
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, I was answering my hon. Friend behind me, and not the hon. and learned Member.

    Bellahouston Park, Glasgow
    Major Lloydasked the Secretary of State for War when it is intended to vacate Bellahouston Park, Glasgow, clear it and hand it back to the Glasgow Corporation, in accordance with the agreement entered into by his Department on 9th and 18th September, 1941.
    Mr. Bellenger: Bellahouston Park is no longer required by my Department. All troops have now been removed except a guard maintained there at the Lord Provost's request. As I have informed certain of my hon. Friends, negotiations are still proceeding for the handing back of the park to the corporation.
    Major Lloyd: While I welcome the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, may I ask him whether these negotiations cannot be speeded up, because the people of Glasgow are becoming very impatient?
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir. In so far as I can speed them up, because they are taking place with Glasgow Corporation, I shall do my best.
    Mr. Rankin: Before taking steps to clear the park, will my right hon. Friend keep in mind the fact that there are Glasgow people still living in temporary accommodation in the park who have nowhere else to go, and before taking any steps with regard to clearing it, will he consult with the Secretary of State for Scotland?
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir. I am doing that.

    Personal Case
    Mr. M. Lindsayasked the Secretary of State for War why 14730695 Lance-Corporal Thomson 2nd South Staffs., B.A.O.R., who was due for demobilisation on 27th May, has not yet been sent home.
    Mr. Bellenger: This soldier was temporarily kept in the Rhine Army in connection with a court of inquiry into an accident. He is now being returned to this country for release.

    Headley Down Military Prison
    Sir G. Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to retain as a permanent detention camp the temporary detention camp established during the war at Beech Hill, Headley Down, Hampshire; whether he is aware that the presence of this camp in what has been scheduled as a beauty spot is strongly objected to by the local residents; and whether he will cause it to be closed and demolished as soon as possible.
    Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir, when an alternative has been constructed Headley Down military prison can be given up. It will be appreciated, however, that until labour and materials can be made available, after the demands of the national housing programme have been met, it will not be possible to "begin construction. Consequently, Headley Down, which was built at considerable expense as a Canadian wartime military prison, and is at present the only suitable alternative to the prison at Aldershot, which was destroyed by fire, will have to be used for some time. The acquisition of the site is, therefore, being considered by the Interdepartmental Committee on Service Land Requirements.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this forest of barbed wire, enclosing the less desirable characters of the Army, is definitely detrimental to the amenities of this neighbourhood,
    196
    and will not he consider speeding up the possible return of this camp to its normal use?
    Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir. I will do my best. I shall be only too glad to get rid of the barbed wire and of any undesirable characters who are in the Army.

    Officer Cadets' Uniforms
    Lieut.-Colonel Geoffrey Clifton-Brownasked the Secretary of State for War when the new blue patrol uniform made and fitted for officer cadets at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, last April, will be issued.
    Mr. Bellenger: The uniform which it was proposed to issue to the officer cadets was that used by the Army mechanised recruiting column last year. The quantity available was only sufficient, however, to cover the present strength. The needs of future intakes would have had to be met from fresh production, and in view of the general clothing shortage it has been decided to postpone such production and any issue of blue uniform to cadets until the textile position has improved.
    Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: Can the Minister say why it was that this uniform was fitted to each cadet, and that labour was wasted?
    Mr. Bellenger: I do not know that it was fitted to each cadet. Actually, the cadets come in each term, and I cannot imagine that all of them have been fitted with this uniform.

  TRIPOLITANIA AND CYRENAICA (FOOD SITUATION)
  Mr. Willisasked the Secretary of State for War what measures the British Military Administration have taken to forestall famine conditions in Libya as a result of the serious drought and consequent crop failure.
  Mr. Bellenger: As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  The Administration has taken vigorous action to alleviate distress. A Grain Commission, consisting of British, Arab and Italian members, was appointed to

  197
  survey the grain resources of the territory. Grain rationing has been enforced and measures taken to prevent hoarding. Application has been made to the International Emergency Food Council, through the Ministry of Food, for an allocation of grain to meet the civilian requirements. Steps were taken by the Administration at the beginning of April to make an additional issue of over 3,000 tons of grain on ration to some 300,000 persons in the most hungry areas, and as from this month a further 30,000 tons of imported grain is being allocated.
  The effect of the drought in Cyrenaica has been less severe and a fair proportion of the crop has been saved but it has been necessary for the British Military Administration to arrange the importation of a quantity of cereals. The situation has not, however, warranted the emergency measures which have had to be taken in Tripolitania. Shipments of grain are now on their way to these territories and it is hoped that the quantities of cereals for which application has been made by the Administration will be available. In this connection I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Hythe (Brigadier Mackeson) on 20th May, in which I gave details of the programme of cereal imports for these territories.

  CIVIL SERVICE (MANPOWER)
  Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Prime'Minister if he is now in a position to make a statement on the result of the Government's review of the number of persons employed in Government Departments.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government fully recognise the importance of limiting to a minimum the demands which civil administration makes on the manpower of the country and a constant check is being kept in order to avoid waste and make the most economical use of existing staff. But there are four reasons which forbid us to expect large reductions at the present time.

  (1) There is still much work to be done which derives from war conditions, such as work on war damage and resettlement.

  198

  (2) As long as there are shortages, rationing must continue and this entails a considerable staff.

  (3) Measures approved by the House, such as those dealing with the social services, education and civil aviation cannot be implemented without the necessary instruments.

  (4) There are large staffs who, without substantially changing their duties, are shortly to be transferred from outside the Civil Service to the Ministries of Agriculture and of National Insurance.

  For this last reason there may even be some temporary paper increase in the size of the Service. I will circulate a fuller and more detailed statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but before I sit down I would say a word about Civil Service staffs themselves.
  I think we all believe that our Civil Service is the best in the world and that it has in its ranks very many men and women of great ability whose devotion to the public interest is unsurpassed. The Civil Service has never failed to be a faithful servant, not only to successive Governments but to the country as a whole. But a good servant is better for having a good and understanding master, and I regret the fashion, now current in some quarters, of speaking slightingly of the Civil Service as though its members were less useful members of the community than other people. If attacks of this kind continue unanswered, we cannot expect to recruit energetic and able young men and women to the Service who will take a proper pride in their important tasks; we shall then fail to build up a Service which will be efficient, economical and responsive to the needs of the country as a whole. The research worker in a Government laboratory, the postal worker and the clerk in a labour exchange, or the administrator in Whitehall, all these are making their contribution to the common end. We shall not get the best out of the Service unless we give them the support and credit they deserve
  Wing-Commander Hulbert: I think that the Prime Minister will agree that all Members will endorse what he has said about the high quality of the Civil Service and the hard work which they do. I would like to ask him whether he will not also agree that, if it were not for the fact that the

  199
  Government of which he is the nead had introduced so much doctrinaire legislation, and transferred so much industry to public control, he could reduce the Civil Service very greatly?
  The Prime Minister: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Member is quite mistaken, because those Measures which require the greatest increases of staff are precisely those which were planned originally by the Coalition Government.
  Mr. Butcher: Will the Prime Minister, in paying the well-deserved tribute which he has done, see also that the conditions of remuneration approximate to those of private industry and the National Coal Board?
  The Prime Minister: That is a very large question.
  Following is the statement:
  On Ist January, 1947, there were 722,000 non-industrial civil servants. 400,000 of these were in the Post Office and the Defence and Supply Departments. The 258,000 in the Post Office are carrying out an essential service similar to that of other nationalised industries. Those engaged in Service and Supply Departments are part of the machinery of defence and the civilian staffs of the Service Departments—whose duties are often identical with those performed by uniformed staffs—will in future be shown separately in the Staff Returns; they will come within the allocation of manpower made for defence as a whole. Of the remainder of the Service, over 92,000 are employed in Social Services. Departments; over 91,000 in Departments concerned with trade, industry and transport and 60,000 in the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. These big blocks account for nearly 90 per cent. of the Civil Service.
  The total of the non-industrtal Civil Service on Ist January, 1947, was only 8,000 less than it was at its peak in July, 1943
  There are two main reasons why the decline has been so small. The first is that temporary work which will gradually come to an end still employs more than 100,000 civil servants. We have had to retain rationing and other controls which account for 44,000 of this number. The terminal work left over from the war, or
  200
  connected with resettlement, accounts for another 60,000. It must be got out of the way at reasonable speed. Neverthe less there have already been noticeable reductions in the staffs engaged on wartime duties. The Defence Departments have already reduced their staffs by over 42,000 civilians from the peak war figure, and further substantial reductions, both in civilian and uniformed personnel, should be achieved as terminal duties are completed.
  The other main reason why the total numbers in the Civil Service have declined little is that decreases have largely been offset by increases due to the imposition of new duties. These have grown enormously over recent years, irrespective of the party from which the Government in power was drawn. The right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), who, as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Coalition Government, was responsible for the plans which formed the basis of the recruitment to the Civil Service in the immediate postwar period, stated to the House on 17th February, 1944:
  Whatever form our economy may take after the war, it seems reasonably certain that the complexity of administration will, at any rate for many years, be greater than it was before the war."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1944; Vol. 397, c. 336.]
  The days are long past when the State was no more than protector, law giver and tax gatherer. With the support of the nation, the State has shouldered many new duties in our social and economic affairs. Critics often ignore the fact that the size of the Service depends more than anything else on the jobs it is told to do.
  Thus the acceptance of full employment as a prime aim of policy requires staff to plan our resources, in order to develop to the full the productivity of our industry. Great reforms are being realised in our social services. The Ministry of National Insurance, which was established in November, 1944, now numbers 12,000 and will rise to 32,000 over the next two years, though mainly by the transfer of staffs now engaged on similar work in the employment of the Approved Societies, and not by the withdrawal of labour from productive employment. Increases must also be expected in the Departments concerned with education and health as a result of the extension of these services.
  Other new Departments dealing with civil aviation and town and country planning have been expanded to cope with the new functions imposed on them by Parliament. In civil aviation, further increases, numbering some thousands, will result from State management of civil airfields in this country. The Agriculture Bill now before Parliament will involve the transfer of 10,000 staffs from the county agricultural committees to the direct employment of the Ministry of Agriculture. This again will involve no real increase in numbers or withdrawal from productive employment.
  I turn to the factor of efficiency. During and since the war the Service has worked under a very great pressure, and there has been insufficient trained staff and opportunities for that continuous control of the operations of Departments without which no large organisation can remain at the highest point of efficiency. Moreover, the normal methods of recruitment were suspended throughout the war years. Recruitment has now been resumed and is in full swing, and administrative economies are being pursued with energy over the whole field of Government. This will improve the already high standard of administration and will result in some reduction of the numbers required for a given block of duties. But I should be wrong if I were to lead the House to expect that any very large saving can result from improved efficiency over a short period. Time must be allowed for the new recruits to learn their duties, and for the new organisations created during and after the war to settle down.
  The House will expect me to say what, putting all these factors together, I expect will be the trend of Civil Service numbers. At the end of last year I set on foot an inquiry into Civil Service numbers. The instructions were to examine staff numbers and also the need for functions and duties, and where possible to fix staff ceilings for each Department. As an interim measure. Departments were instructed that the numbers of their staffs at 1st January were a maximum, which was not to be exceeded without special permission; they were instructed at the same time to lose no opportunity in making reductions where possible below this ceiling. The first-fruits of that instruction are now shown in a reduction of over 5,000 over
  202
  the first quarter of the year. But while the upward trend has been checked, the decreases likely to be achieved over the next twelve months may well be more than counterbalanced by the large increases in the Ministry of National Insurance and the Ministry of Agriculture, which, however, as I have explained, involve no fresh drain on the manpower otherwise available for productive purposes.
  But against this, a substantial reduction —amounting, as I have said, to over 100,000 people—can be expected when war-time terminal activities are completed, and rationing and the controls are relaxed or removed. We intend to press forward to this objective with all possible speed, but in the end the last word remains with Parliament, which settles the broad scope of the duties which the Service has to carry out. Some decrease in numbers can also be looked for from increasing efficiency when the Civil Service has had time to adjust itself after the disturbances of the war years.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE PRESS (EVIDENCE)
  Mr. Marloweasked the Prime Minister whether the evidence heard in camera last week by the Royal Commission inquiring into the Press will be subsequently published.
  The Prime Minister: The Royal Commission's procedure is a matter for the Royal Commission itself to decide, but I am informed by the chairman of the Royal Commission that the Commission has not closed its mind to the possibility of eventually publishing some of the evidence taken orally in private. It does not feel able to come to a final decision on this point at the present stage but it has decided to publish as they are received the written memoranda which it will ask the principal witnesses to submit.
  Mr. Marlowe: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the statement of the Commission that they do not propose to publish any oral evidence, the reason given being that that will enable witnesses to talk more freely. Is he aware that that has never been accepted in a court of law as a reason for hearing evidence in camera? Secondly, is it not a fact that

  203
  this Commission was set up for the purpose of investigating certain allegations and charges made against the Press? Why should not those accusers come out into the open and substantiate their allegations in public?
  The Prime Minister: In the first place, it is not a court of law, and the Royal Commission make their own procedure. In the second place, this Commission was set up to inquire into the best method of ensuring the freedom of the Press.
  Mr. Haydn Davies: Is the Prime Minister aware that the decision to hear evidence in private is repugnant to those who sponsored the Motion for this Commission? Is he further aware that the Government have been blamed for this decision? Could he throw some light on the matter? Lastly, is it possible to alter and revise the terms of reference to ensure that evidence shall be taken in public?
  The Prime Minister: That question should be put on the Order Paper. The point was made perfectly clear at the time of the appointment of the Commission that it is for the Commission to settle their own procedure.
  Mr. Eden: Does not the Prime Minister think that this is rather an extraordinary procedure? In diplomacy we have open covenants openly arrived at. Apparently, in this case we will have open covenants secretly arrived at.
  The Prime Minister: This is not a Government decision. This is a matter entirely decided by the Members of the Royal Commission.
  Mr. Eden: Is it not true that the Government set up this Royal Commission, and would it not have been wise to have made sure that their proceedings were publicly conducted?
  Mr. Driberg: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that this decision is not repugnant to all those who sponsored the Motion for the setting up of this Commission? In this connection, will he also remind the Royal Commission of the danger of the subtler forms of victimisation?
  Mr. Marlowe: While appreciating that the Commission has the responsibility for its own procedure, will the Prime Minister indicate to the Commission the undesira-
  204
  bility of this procedure, in view of the general acceptance of its repugnance, and will he indicate that this procedure will shake confidence in any findings which they may make?

  NATIONAL FINANCE Postwar Credits
  Commander Nobleasked the Chan cellor of the Exchequer how many persons have died after the age of entitlement to, but before completing the form of application for, payment of postwar credits, so preventing beneficiaries under the age of entitlement from receiving payment; what is the total sum involved; in how many of these cases is the widow of the deceased an unpaid beneficiary; and what is the total sum involved.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): I regret that this information is not available.
  Commander Noble: Would not more liaison between the Registrar-General and the right hon. Gentleman's Department produce these figures, and would the right hon. Gentleman say whether consideration is being given to paying such people?
  Mr. Dalton: I am afraid it would mean a substantial increase in the Civil Service if we had to get all these details. Of course, we keep in touch with all other Departments, but this mass of detail is not available.
  Mr. Assheton: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the whole question and see whether he cannot remedy this very great unfairness to old people? Just because a man does not happen to have signed a form, that is rather hard on the widow.
  Mr. Dalton: We will seek to remove any injustice, but I do not think that the picture is quite as black as it is painted.

  Oil (Dollar Payments)
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated savings in dollar payments during the financial year 1947–8 resulting from recent agreements signed by British firms for the supply of oil.
  Mr. Dalton: Direct dollar savings are unlikely in 1947–48. The advantages are long-term.

  Oil (Dollar Payments)

    Loans Abroad (Interest)
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will
    give an assurance that His Majesty's Government will not make loans abroad
    at interest rates more favourable than those gained by His Majesty's Govern
    ment in the case of the U.S. Loan.
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. Our capacity for making loans will continue to be very limited, but I am not prepared to bind myself as to the terms on which any such loans may be made.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Will the Chancellor bear in mind that any loan made on terms more favourable than those received from America is bound to result in a further commitment of dollar exchange on the part of this country?

    Small Savings
    Mr. Gammansasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what cause, or causes, he attributes the recent continued drop in small savings.
    Mr. Dalton: Partly to Whitsun, partly to the fact that it takes a little time to bring home to the public the new facilities for investment in Savings Certificates. The Chairman of the National Savings Committee published on 20th June a full statement on the recent figures. I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
    Mr. Gammans: In view of the fact that in the last month there has been an actual disinvestment, which did not take place in Whitsun last year, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this is due either to the fact that people have not so much money in their pockets or that they have lost faith in the security which is offered?
    Mr. Dalton: I should say that it is certainly not due to the second cause and only doubtfully to the first. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will read the copy which I am sending to him of a statement which has already been circulated in the Press.

    United States and U.K. Films (Earnings)
    Mr. Harold Macmillanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (I) the total amount of net earnings in the United Kingdom of United States films during the calendar years 1944,
    206
    1945 and 1946; and what part of these sums has been remitted to the U.S.A. in each of these years;
    (2) the sum of dollars obtained from the earnings of British films in the U.S.A. during the calendar years 1944, 1945 and 1946, and remitted to the United Kingdom after the deduction of dollar expenses.
    Mr. Dalton: In each year net earnings of United States films in the United Kingdom, and remittances from them, were slightly over £17 million. Dollar remittances from the earnings of British films in the U.S.A. are still relatively very small.
    Mr. Macmillan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that this disproportion is very unsatisfactory, and is he satisfied that we really have frittered away £34 million worth of dollars in the last two years out of the precious American loan?
    Mr. Dalton: It is not a satisfactory position and this matter has often been discussed in the House. We are, of course, seeking to stimulate the flow of dollars from British films in the United States in regard to which some progress, I am glad to think, has been made. I would not use the word "fritter" unconditionally with regard to the amusements of the people. The right hon. Gentleman may have noticed that a Resolution appears on the Order Paper today which has a bearing on this matter.
    [That the Treasury shall have power by order to alter or add to section ten of the Finance Act, 1935, so as to secure that the value of ex-posed cinematograph film shall for the purpose of customs duties be determined in such manner as may be provided by the order..]
    Mr. Macmillan: Is it really a fact that no figure can be given of the net remittances of dollar earnings of British films in the United States?
    Mr. Dalton: I would rather not do so. I do not like to give figures unless we can stand, upon them and unless we can really depend on them. There are so many factors in this case, including the necessary expenses incurred on the other side, that I would not like to offer the House any figure for which I could not vouch at this stage as being accurate. I can say frankly that they are relatively small.
    Mr. Blackburn: Will the Chancellor ensure that if substantial import cuts have to be made, American films will be the highest possible priority on the list and food the least priority?
    Mr. Dalton: Loose talk about priorities gets us little distance. My hon. Friend also will have noticed the Resolution on the Order Paper.

    Double Taxation (Jamaica)
    Commander Nobleasked 'the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether arrangements to avoid double taxation have been concluded between the United Kingdom and Jamaica.
    Mr. Dalton: Not yet.
    Commander Noble: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when these arrangements are likely to be completed?
    Mr. Dalton: We make them as soon as we can. This is one of a number of cases now being discussed with the responsible authorities.

    Motor Car Taxation
    Mr. Gammansasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much additional taxation he expects to collect in a full year by doubling the Purchase Tax on motor cars whose price, exclusive of Purchase Tax, exceeds £1,000.
    Mr. Dalton: About £1,500,000.
    Mr. Gammans: Does the Chancellor realise that for the collection of' a comparatively small amount of revenue of that sort he is probably going to ruin at least half a dozen motor car firms in this country?
    Mr. Dalton: No, Sir.
    Mr. Keelingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much it would cost to apply the flat rate of tax to old motor cars as well as to new.
    Mr. Dalton: Five and a half million pounds in 1948 on cars registered before 1947, in addition to £1 million on cars first registered in 1947 or 1948.

    Denmark (British Exports)
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is contemplating having further financial discussions with the Danish Government, in view of the difficulties of exporting British goods to that country.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Yes, Sir. But Denmark's ability to purchase our goods depends on the amount of sterling she can earn from her exports.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Denmark is now exporting a considerable amount of food which we require to other countries, and unless he pays the prices asked for, they will not be in a position to buy British goods?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The existing food agreements between ourselves and Denmark will come up for revision later, is the Autumn.

    United States Magazines (Importation)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what quantity of dollars has been made avail-able for the importation of U.S. magazines during the current year.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars in the first five months of 1947.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that advertisements are being circulated to potential subscribers to a whole variety of American magazines and, in view of the dollar situation, will he take action to limit this?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is very difficult to limit orders which go through the post in the isolated form mentioned by the hon. Member. Imports by licence definitely are limited.

  MUSEUMS AND ART GALLERIES
  Mr. Beswickasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware of the demand for museums and art galleries to be kept open later than 7 p.m.; and whether he will make arrangements for national museums and art galleries to meet this demand.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am aware of no demand sufficient to justify the additional expenditure of manpower and fuel.

  "WORK OR WANT" POSTER (COST)
  Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total cost of the Government's

  209
  "Work or Want" poster campaign up to the last convenient date.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: About £42,000 to date.
  Wing-Commander Hulbert: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he is getting value for money in this expenditure?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, Sir. The Government always see that they get value for money.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what beneficial results can be got by appealing to the citizens of London to hew more coal?
  Mr. Warbey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this poster has been universally condemned in industrial areas and will he say how soon it will be withdrawn?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: This expenditure is not confined to the poster which I think my hon. Friend has in mind. It is the whole campaign to which the Question was directed, and I was answering that.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Will the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements for this and similar posters to remain on the. hoardings until the General Election?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    United States Cars (Importation)
    Mr. Granville Sharpasked the President of the Board of Trade how many motor cars have been imported from the U.S.A. since 1st January, 1947, under licences granted by his Department; for how many of these were dollars made available; what were the names of the individuals or firms who received this latter concession; and what were the particular circumstances justifying the action of his Department.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): The number of cars licensed to be imported from the U.S.A. during the first 5 months of 1947 was 137. It is not possible to say how many of these have so far been imported. Dollars were made available in the case of two cars required solely for research purposes by the United Kingdom motor industry.

    Empire Tobacco
    Mr. De la Bereasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to finance and encourage the development of an increased acreage of tobacco in Rhodesia and other places within the Empire, so as to make us less dependent on supplies from the U.S.A. in view of the existing shortage of dollars.
    Mr. Belcher: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with this matter, among others, in his speech during the Debate on the Finance Bill on Tuesday, 10th June, and I am not at present in a position to add to what he then said.
    Mr. De la Bere: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not allude to the need for Great Britain sticking up for herself? Why do we not stick up for ourselves today, as in the past, and why do we not do something constructive to help our own Empire? Ask Lord Beaverbrook about it.

    Non-utility Cloth
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchisonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider increasing the proportion of non-utility cloth available to clothing manufacturers.
    Mr. Belcher: The proportion of non-utility cloth in production has been increasing for some time, and clothing manufacturers should feel the effects of this in the near future.

  COURT-MARTIAL PROCEDURE (COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS)
  The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
  Mr. Swingler,—To ask the Secretary of State for War when he expects to be in a position to make a statement on the findings of the Lewis Committee of Inquiry on Court-Martial Procedure.
  At the end of Questions:
  Mr. Bellenger: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to Question 78, and as the answer is very long, it would perhaps be preferable if I were to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  Mr Bellenger: The Lewis Committee have submitted certain interim recommendations to the Secretaries of State for War and Air. For the most part these are endorsements of recommendations previously made by the Oliver Committee which reported in 1938 (Cmd. 6200). These interim recommendations are summarised below and notes have been added to show the action which is being taken.

  1.—(a) The Judge Advocate General should in future be appointed on the recommendation of, and should be responsible to, the Lord Chancellor: though the responsibility for acting or not acting on the Judge Advocate General's advice in any particular case should remain with the Secretary of State concerned.

  (b) The Judge Advocate General's department should as soon as possible be reconstituted, so as to separate the functions of pre-trial advice and of prosecution, from functions of a judicial character. The former functions should cease to be a responsibility of the Judge Advocate General, and should be transferred to directorates in the departments of the Secretaries of State for War and Air. The same should be done in the department of the Judge-Advocate
  212
  General for India, if this is in future to be a British concern.

  The Committee recognise that there may be substantial reasons preventing the immediate adoption of the above recommendations, but suggest their approval forthwith in principle, so that the preparatory work which would be necessary to put them into effect, may, so far as possible, be undertaken without delay.
  These important recommendations, which will be a matter for decision by His Majesty's Government, are under active consideration.

  2 (a) The Judge Advocate should cease to retire with the Court when it is considering its finding. For the present, there should be no change in the practice whereby he retires with the Court for consideration of sentence.

  (b) Findings and sentence should be announced by Courts-Martial forthwith in open Court after they have been determined.

  (c) A copy of the charge sheet should be supplied confidentially to all the members of a Court-Martial shortly in advance of the trial.

  These recommendations are accepted, and will be put into effect forthwith.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on the Electricity Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from
the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—(The Prime Minister.)
The House divided: Ayes. 258; Noes, 101.

Division No. 274.]

AYES.

3.31 p.m.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Forman, J.C.

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

Adams, W T. (Hammersmith, South)

Freeman, Maj. J, (Watford)

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Alpass, J. H.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Gaitskell,H. T. N.

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

Attewell, H. C.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Moyle, A.

Attlee, Rt. Hon.C. R.

Gibbins, J.

Murray, J. D

Austin, H Lewis

Gilzean, A.

Nally, W.

Awbery, S. S

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Neal H. (Claycruss)

Ayles, W. H

Gordon-Walker, P. C

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

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

Granville, E. (Eye)

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Bacon, Miss A.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

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

Barstow, P. G

Greenwood, A. W. J (Heywood).

Noel-Buxton Lady

Barton, C.

Grenfell, D. R.

Oldfield, W. H

Battley, J. R.

Grey, C. F.

Oliver, G. H.

Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)

Grierson, E.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Bechervaise, A. E.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Palmer, A M F

Belcher, J. W.

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Parker, J,

Bellenger, Rt. Hon F. J

Gunter, R. J.

Parkin, B T

Berry, H.

Guy, W. H.

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Beswick, F.

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Pearson, A

Binns, J.

Hall, W. G

Peart, Thomas F.

Blackburn, A. R

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

Blenkinsop, A.

Hannan, W (Maryhill)

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Blyton, W. R.

Hardy, E. A

Price, M. Philips

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

Harrison, J

Pritt, D. N.

Bramall, E. A.

Hastings, Dr Somervllle

Proctor W. T

Brook, D (Halifax)

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Pryde, D.J

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Herbison, Miss M

Pursey, Cmdr H.

Brown, George (Belper)

Hicks, G.

Randall, H. E

Brown, T J. lnce

Hobson, C R

Ranger, J

Bruce, Major D. W. T.

Holman, P

Rankin, J.

Buchanan, G

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Rees-Wiltiams D. R

Burke, W. A.

House, G

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

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

Hoy, J.

Rogers, G. H R.

Callaghan, James

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

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Carmichael, James

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Royle, C

Castle, Mrs B. A.

Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W)

Scollan, T

Champion, A. J.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C

Sharp, Granville

Chetwynd, G. R.

Janner, B.

Shinwell Rt. Hon. E

Cluse, W. S.

Jay, D P. T.

Shurmer, P

Cocks, F. S.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Silverman, J (Erdington)

Collindridge, F.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Skeffinton A. M.

Collins, V. J.

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Skeffinglon-Lodge. T C

Colman, Miss G. M

King, E. M

Skinnard, F. W

Comyns, Dr L.

Kinley, J.'

Smith, C. (Colchester)

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

Kirby, B V

Smith, H N (Nottingham, S)

Corlett, Dr. J

Lang, G.

Smith, S. H (Hull. S W)

Cove, W. G.

Lavert, S.

Snow, Capt. J. W.

Daggar, G.

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J

Soskice, Maj. Sir F

Daines, P.

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Sparks, J A

Dalton, Rt. Hon, H.

Lee, Miss J (Cannock)

Stamford, W

Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

Lever, N. H.

Steele, T.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

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

Stephen, C.

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

Lipson, D L

Stewart Michael (Fulham E.)

Davies, R J. (Westhoughton

Lipton, Lt.-Col M

Stokes, R. R.

Deer, G.

Logan, D. G

S'rauss, G R. (Lambeth. N.)

de Freitas. Geoffrey

Longden, F

Stross, Dr

Delargy, H. J.

McAdam, W.

Stubbs, A. E.

Diamond, J

McEntee, V. LB T.

Summerskill, Dr Edith

Driberg, T. E. N.

McGhee, H. G

Swingler, S.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich

Mack, J. D.

Sylvester, G. 0

Dumpleton, C. W.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Symonds, A. L.

Dye, S.

McKinlay, A S.

Taylor, H B. (Mansfield)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J C

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Edelman, M.

McLeavy, F

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

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

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Edwards, W J. (Whitechapel)

Mainwaring, W. H

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Evans, E (Lowestoft)

Mann, Mrs. J

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

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Thorneycroft Harry (Clayton)

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)

Thurtle, Ernest

Ewart, R.

Mathers, G.

Tiffany, S

Farthing, W. J.

Medland, H M.

Timmons, J.

Fernyhough, E

Meilish R. J.

Titterington, M F

Field, Captain W. J.

Middleton, Mrs. L

Tolley, L.

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

Mikardo Ian

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G

Follick, M.

Moody, A. S

Turner-Samuels, M.

Usborne, Henry

Weitzman, D.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Vernon, Maj W. F.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

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

Viant, S. P.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Wadsworth, G

Westwood, Rt Hon. J

Willis, E.

Walkden, E.

White, H (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Wills, Mrs. E. A

Wallace, G. D. (Chistlehurst)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

Woods, G S

Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Wigg, Col. G. E.

Yates, V. F.

Warbey, W. N.

Wilkes, L.

Watkins, T E.

Wilkins, W. A.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Watson, W. M.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Mr. Simmons and

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Mr. Popplewell.

NOES

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Hare, Hon. J H. (Woodbridge)

Neven-Spence, Sir B

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R

Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V.

Nicholson, G

Baldwin, A E

Haughton, S G.

Noble, Comdr, A. H. P.

Barlow, Sir J.

Head, Brig. A. H.

Osborne, C.

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

Headlam, Lieut-Col Rt. Hon. Sir C

Peake, Rt. Hon. O

Beechman, N. A.

Hollis, M. C.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Birch, Nigel

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

Pickthorn, K.

Bower, N.

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr N.

Raikes, H. V.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Hurd, A.

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Braithwaite Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

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

Rayner, Brig. R.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

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

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

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T

Jarvis, Sir J.

Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

Bullock, Capt. M.

Jeffreys, General Sir G

Ropner, Col. L

Butcher, H. W.

Keeling, E. H.

Ross Sir R D. (Londonderry)

Channon, H.

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Scott, Lord W.

Clifton-Brown, Lt -Col. G

Lambert, Hon C

Shepherd, W S. (Bucklow)

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Snadden, W. M

'Crowder, Capt. John E.

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Spearman, A. C. M

Cuthbert, W. N.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Stanley Rt. Hon. 0

Davidson, Viscountes:

Low, Brig. A. R. W.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

De la Bère, R.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Strauss, H G. (English Universities)

Digby, S. W.

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Sutcliffe, H.

Dodds-Parker, A D

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Thornton-Kemsley, C N

Drewe, C.

McKie, J. H (Galloway)

Touche G. C.

Eccles, D. M

MacLeod, J.

Wakefield, Sir W. W.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Walker-Smith, D.

Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Ward, Hon. G. R

Fraser, H. C P. (Stone)

Marlowe, A. A. H

Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)

Marshall, D (Bodmin)

Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

Gammans, L. D.

Marshall, S. H (Sutton)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Gates, Maj. E. E.

Medlicott, F.

Grant, Lady

Mellor, Sir J.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Grimston, R. V

Moore, Lt -Col. Sir T

Mr. Studholme and

Harmon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Morris-Jones, Sir H.

Lieut-Colonel Thrp.

ELECTRICITY BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
ELECTRICITY BILL

  CLAUSE I.—(Main functions of Electricity Boards.)
  3.42 p.m.
  The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, to leave out from "in," to "and," in line 42, and to insert:
  "such part of the area of that other Area Board as may be specified in the authorisation."
  On the Committee stage of the Bill, the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) moved an Amendment which related to the provision of bulk supplies by one area board to another. He made the submission w.hich, in effect, was intended to make more specific the arrangements between area boards. I thought that there was substance in the
  216
  right hon. Gentleman's contention and promised to provide a form of words which would be suitable. I have done so, and the effect of this Amendment will be that, where the Central Authority issue an authorisation to one area board to supply electricity to consumers in the area of another area board, that authorisation shall apply only to such part of the area as is specified, and not to the whole area. It is a very simple point, and this Amendment is intended to clarify the position.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He has met the point we submitted to him, and we are very grateful.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, to leave out "The policy of," and to insert:
  "In exercising and performing their functions."

  217
  This and a number of the succeeding Amendments relate to the same topic. The object of this series of Amendments is to meet a criticism which was made by hon. Members opposite in Committee and which was directed to the vagueness, as they felt, of the words:
  "The policy of the Electricity Boards shall …be directed to securing
  Hon. Members criticised those words as leaving the matter very much in the air, and they pressed my right hon. Friend to change them, and to introduce instead some wording which would make clearer the duty that was being imposed on the electricity boards. We have sought to remedy that defect, and we have, instead, provided more specific duties in relation to each of the paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) We have also made specific reference to the extension to rural areas. We hope that hon. Members opposite will feel that the position is now clarified, and that the duties incumbent on the boards are precisely set out. That, we feel, meets the criticism which was made, with regard to which we felt there was some substance, namely, that the words quoted above do not specify with sufficient clarity what is placed on the boards and what is their duty.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: Again, we are obliged to the Government. This is a concession of substance and this Amendment and the succeeding ones substantially meet the point that the Opposition made in Committee. Briefly it puts, as we believe it ought to put, a legal obligation on the boards to carry out the specified duty. The original Clause did not have this effect and merely amounted to a series of pious intentions. We think that the Amendments substantially improve the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendments made.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Additional functions of Electricity Boards.)
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaits-kell): I beg to move, in page 4, line 8, to leave out "such." and to insert "electrical."
  This Amendment, the one immediately following it and the next but one could, perhaps, be considered together with your permission, Mr. Speaker. The three Amendments are necessary in order to
  218
  make it clear that the powers of the boards to instal, repair, maintain or remove electrical plant or fittings, as the case may be, shall not be restricted to plant supplied by themselves only. It is generally agreed that such a restriction would be undesirable.
  Amendment agreed to;
  Consequential Amendments made.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I beg to move, in page 4, line 8, at the end, to insert: "and
  (c) to carry on all such activities as it may appear to the Authority to be requisite, advantageous, or convenient for them to carry on for or in connection with the performance of their duties under the foregoing Section or with a view to making the best use of any assets vested. in them by or under this Act."
  The circumstances in which I move this Amendment are a trifle peculiar. If you happen to have read this Bill, Sir, and recall it to your mind as originally drafted, you will no doubt have observed that paragraph (c), which we now seek to insert, was in the original Bill. After a lengthy Debate in Committee about the merits of this paragraph, which the Opposition moved to delete, a vote took place. It so happened that in the vote, a majority, composed entirely of hon. Members of the Labour Party, were found to have voted in favour of the deletion of the paragraph. At the same time, all the hon. Members of the Opposition voted the other way. It might be thought that the Opposition had acted in some perfidious manner in voting that way, but I would not suggest such a thing. I think that we were all sheep together, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) who was a lone wolf. He stood on his own and voted the right way.
  The case for re-inserting the paragraph is that it is usual in the few Bills of this kind to give fairly wide powers to boards to carry on a number of different activities. These words are practically identical with those in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act. Words of this kind are necessary because a body in the position of an electricity board, either the Central Authority or an area board, may have to conduct a number of activities. I mentioned in the Committee that a publicity campaign would be covered by a provision of this sort. Similar activities

  219
  would be the sale of waste clinker, the provision of a canteen service for employees, the provision of hospitals and of houses in remote areas, and, no doubt, there are many other activities which would be covered by words of this kind. In Committee the Opposition objected to the paragraph being drawn in such wide terms, but when one is dealing with a large and important body of this kind it is difficult to restrict the provision. One would have to compose an enormous list of possible activities, which I think would be out of the question. It is hardly conceivable that we can now anticipate everything that the Authority might properly, and in accordance with the general spirit of the Bill, wish to do in the future. I think I need mention only one other point. The paragraph refers to:
  "making the best use of any assets vested in them by or under this Act."
  That is a reference to the non-electricity assests which, to some extent, even with the Amendments which have been made in Committee and with other Amendments which might be made hereafter, will still exist. For example, there may be some gas undertakings which will vest in the boards, and it will be necessary for the boards to have power to dispose of them. This paragraph provides that power.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): The Parliamentary Secretary referred with becoming modesty to the contretemps in the Standing Committee. and I can assure him that no hon. Member on this side of the House is in any position to attempt to score off him and his hon. Friends on that point. But I do think the Parliamentary Secretary carried his modesty a little far when he referred to this paragraph as providing the boards with "fairly wide powers." "Fairly wide powers" is a very modest description of a provision which confers on the Authority a substantial power to carry on any transaction of any sort that it so desires. It would have been more honest if this paragraph had been drafted:
  "The Boards may do anything they like."
  Those words would have substantially the same effect as the proposed paragraph, and at the same time they would have been perfectly open and above board.
  It is difficult to visualise any activity in which the boards would not be empowered
  220
  to indulge under this paragraph. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary did not wish to mislead the House when he said its provisions were fairly similar to the corresponding provision in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act. I am afraid that is not so. The relevant provision of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act is Section I (2) and, in particular, paragraphs (d) and (e) The material and comparable provision is contained in paragraph (e,) which says:
  "any activities which can advantageously be carried on by the Board with a view to making the best use of any of the assets vested in them by this Act."
  Mr. Gaitskell: If the hon. Gentleman will read the first part of the passage from which he has quoted, he will see that the words are practically identical.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Parliamentary Secretary has referred to the "first part." There are four preceding paragraphs. I will read them all if he so wishes. Which has he in mind?
  Mr. Gaitskell: The part before paragraph (a.)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The words are:
  "The functions of the National Coal Board …shall include the carrying on of all such activities as it may appeal to the Board to be requisite, advantageous or convenient for them to carry on for Os in connection with the discharge of their duties under the preceding Subsection and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of this Section—"
  It is obvious that those words are much narrower than the provisions of this Bill. In this Bill anything that appears to the Authority to be advantageous is permissible. That means that there is no limit at all. No one desires to inhibit the Electricity Authority from performing any necessary functions in connection with the generation and distribution of electricity, but what calls for explanation is the desire to arm the Central Authority with powers to carry on almost any other industrial process. Is it the intention of the Government that it should, or are the Government merely following their now habitual process of taking every possible power in every possible Bill in case somebody later on may want to use it? I think we are entitled to know what are the intentions of the Government, as under this Bill the Government will have power to issue directions to the Authority.

  221
  I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary did not call in aid on this occasion, as he will recollect he called in aid on the Committee stage, a wholly fallacious comparison between statutory powers and the memorandum of association of a company, because I imagine the abandonment of that argument means that the Parliamentary Secretary has now been convinced of its fallacious nature. I suggest that the proper comparison with the powers given to this statutory monopoly is with' the powers given under Private Bill procedure in this House to public utility companies. The Parliamentary Secretary will know that in all such cases the applicant for the powers has to satisfy the Select Committee of the real need for every power before it is given. This Electricity Authority is in many cases actually replacing the public utility companies operating under these private Acts of Parliament and, therefore, the analogy is exact. The Electricity Authority should be in substantially the same position as those public utility companies—that is to say, fully entitled to any powers for which it can make out a reasonable case, but not entitled to take wide and sweeping powers to do almost anything it wishes.
  In his habitually disarming way the Parliamentary Secretary may have led the House to think that the discussion on this Amendment arises solely owing to the amusing little contretemps in the Standing Committee, but it goes further. It goes to the root of the purpose of these public monopoly corporations. Are they, or are they not, to be confined to the particular function which was the intention of this House in setting them up—that is to say, dealing with electricity—or are they to have carte blanche to wander over the whole sphere of industry, competing at will with other State monopolies, or even with that diminishing but still vigorous class, the private enterprise firm? We are entitled to know, and the Parliamentary Secretary has not told us. He has simply asked for these powers, said that the necessity for the request arose merely because of an accident, and sat down. I hope that before we give to this Authority and to the Minister who controls it these amazingly extensive powers, we shall be told why they are required and for what purpose it is intended they shall be used.
  4.0 p.m.
  Mr. Raikes: I feel bound to say a word on this matter
  222
  because I had the privilege on another occasion of moving the deletion of these words, and of having the Government reject my Amendment and the Committee accept it, although it was also the one occasion when I voted against myself. I rather regret the Government have turned from the path they then took in voting against themselves. The Parliamentary Secretary knows perfectly well that he is proposing an omnibus proviso. When that was suggested earlier today he dissented and I notice that he shook 'his head with considerable vigour. But the Parliamentary Secretary, even if he has not reached that stage of wisdom which I remember he could bring to the Bill in the mornings, in regard to matters in general, will understand, I hope, that the memorandum of a limited company really has very little effect in practice, because those companies are already very limited in scope in other ways and for other reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has pointed out that the electricity boards are more comparable to public utility companies than to anything else, and that this Amendment gives the Board wider powers than they have ever had. It is completely contrary to Parliamentary practice that powers should be given so wide as these and I would close, because I do not want to talk at length at this stage, by making one quotation which, I think, does set out the difference between an omnibus clause in a memorandum and other such powers:
  "In general, the distinction between the objects clause in a memorandum and powers granted by Parliament is, that the first defines the purposes for which the company may apply its members' funds, and the second defines the powers which the company may exercise as against the rest of the world, being powers which it could not normally exercise without the authority of Parliament."
  I think that is a fair definition, and I am bound to say that the Amendment goes very far beyond the usual practice.
  Mr. Norman Bower: I should like to reinforce what my hon. Friends have said. A similar provision was inserted in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, and although it may not have gone quite so wide as this, it certainly was, in my opinion, too wide. Now we have this paragraph in this Bill

  223
  which goes even wider. I can quite understand why it is the Government's point of view to insert powers of this kind in their nationalisation Bills. When they nationalise an industry or a service—the coal mines, or electricity, or transport— it is a large and formidable undertaking. To get the nationalisation Bill through Parliament is a difficult job and takes a long time, and they can get only one or, at the most, two Bills of that size and complexity through Parliament in a single Session. Therefore, it is extremely convenient to extend the field of nationalisation almost without limit by the backdoor and by a process of pure administration, such as can be done by inserting wide and unlimited powers of this kind in a nationalisation Bill. It is, in fact, what the Government are doing. They ought to be perfectly frank about it and admit it, and it ought to be placed on record, for that is really what their object appears to be—to extend the field of nationalisation to an almost unlimited extent by putting in a small and apparently harmless provision of this kind in a nationalisation Bill
  Colonel Clarke: The disappearance of this paragraph in Committee was somewhat surprising, but it was welcome. As it stands, I think, it neutralises a great deal of the work that was done in trying to define the duties and functions of the Board. A very great deal of detailed work will be rendered valueless as a result of this Amendment. Although I do not like statutory rules and -orders I do suggest that, if more elasticity is wanted, it might be better in this' case instead of having these words, to allow statutory rules and orders which might be considered in this House. Once these words are put into the Bill great powers will be given that cannot be questioned in any way.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: The Parliamentary Secretary, when defending the restoration of this paragraph, justified it on two grounds. He said that it was necessary in order to enable the Authority to carry on such things as canteens or to provide residences for workers in out of the way places. In order to do that, this paragraph is entirely unnecessary; because in Clause 47 specific provision is made for the Authority to consult with the associa-
  224
  tions of employees, and so forth, with a view to the provision of welfare activities; and, clearly, the provision of a canteen comes within welfare. Therefore, the Authority, under the terms of the Bill as it stands, would have ample powers to do that. He went on to say that the other object of this Amendment is to enable the Boards, when they take over the assets of certain holdings which have nothing to do with electricity, to sell them to the best advantage. We would not query that at all; but it is quite unnecessary, in order to enable the Central Authority to sell assets that are not connected with the generation or distribution of electricity, to give them these extremely wide powers; it is not necessary to give them these powers to carry out that very narrow purpose. Therefore, the Government Front Bench have made out no case for this Amendment.
  Ithas been the practice of Parliament throughout the history of Bills dealing with electricity, conferring powers either on local authorities or on private companies, to specify in great detail the powers and duties that are to be exercised by the local authorities as undertakers or by companies. These powers, which resemble ordinary omnibus powers in an ordinary public company's memorandum, are entirely new in the history of this House and in the history of the generation and distribution of electricity in this country, and are quite clearly unnecessary for the efficient functioning of the Centra] Authority. In these circumstances I regret very much the Government have seen fit to put down this Amendment, and to try to reverse the decision made upstairs. Certainly, on the arguments that have been put forward, I think any dispassionate reader of the Debate, or anyone who has listened to the Debate so far, will agree that no case for the Amendment has been made out.
  Mr. Turner-Samuels: I do not think that this Amendment ought to be allowed to go by with what the right hon. Gentleman has just now said uncorrected. What it provides is quite clear. Clause 47 says that the Central Authority may seek consultation with any organisation in order to promote and encourage welfare matters, not to set up canteens. That is an entirely different matter.
  Mr. Hudson: Perhaps, with the permission of the House, I might read it again. Clause 47 reads:
  "the promotion and encouragement of measures affecting the safety, health and welfare …"
  Quite clearly, the establishment of canteens is a measure affecting the welfare
  of persons employed in the factory or generating station concerned.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 99.

  Division No. 275.

  AYES

  [4.11 p.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Gaitskell, H. T. N.

  Messer, F.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Gibbins, J.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Anderson, F (Whitehaven)

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Moody, A S

  Attewell, H. C.

  Goodrich, H. E.

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

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Morris, P.(Swansea, W.)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Greenwood, A. W J (Heywood)

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

  Ayles, W H

  Grey, C. F.

  Moyle, A.

  Ayrton Gould, Mis. B

  Grierson, E

  Murray, J. D

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Nally, W

  Barstow, P. G

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Neal, H. (Claycross.)

  Barton, C.

  Guntar, R. J

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

  Battley. J. R.

  Guy, W H

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)

  Haire, John E (Wycombe)

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

  Bechervaise, A. E

  Hale, Leslie

  Oldfield, W. H

  Berry, H.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Oliver, G H

  Beswick, F.

  Hannan, W (Maryhill)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Binns, J.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Palmer, A M. F.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Harrison, J.

  Parker, J

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Parkin, B. T

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

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Bramall, E. A.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Peart, Thomas F.

  Brook, D (Halifax)

  Hobson, C. R.

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Holman, P.

  Popplewell, E.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Holmes, H. E (HemsworthJ

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Bruce, Major D. W. T.

  House, G

  Price, M. Philips

  Buchanan, G.

  Hoy, J.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Butler, H W. (Hackney, S.)

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

  Proctor, W. T

  Callaghan, James

  Hughes, Hector (Abe'deen, N.)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Carmichael, James

  Hughes, H D. (Wolverhampton, W)

  Pursey, Cmdr H

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Randall, H. E

  Champion, A. J.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Ranger, J.

  Chater, D.

  Janner, B.

  Rankin, J.

  Chetwynd, G. R

  Jay, D. P. T

  Rees-Williams. D. R

  Cluse, W. S.

  Jeger, G (Winchester)

  Rhodes, H.

  Cocks, F. S

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

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Collindridge, F.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Royle, C.

  Collins, V. J.

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Sargood, R

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Kendall, W. D.

  Scollan, T.

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Kenyon, C.

  Sharp, Granville

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

  King, E. M.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Corlett, Dr J.

  Kinley, J.

  Shurmer, P.

  Corvedale, Viscount

  Kirby, B. V.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Cove, W. G.

  Lang, G.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Daggar, G.

  Lavers, S.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

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

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Lee, Miss J (Cannock)

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Deer, G.

  Lever, N. H.

  Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S)

  Delargy, H.

  Levy, B. W.

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

  Diamond, J

  Lewis, A. W J. (Upton)

  Snow, Capt. J W

  Dodds, N N

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Solley, L. J.

  Denovan, T.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Logan, D. G

  Sparks, J. A.

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Longden, F

  Stamford, W

  Dumpleton, C. W

  Lyne, A. W

  Steele, T.

  Dye, S.

  McAdam, W.

  Stephen, C

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J C

  McEntee, V. La T

  Stokes, R. R

  Edelman, M.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Stross, Dr B.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C (Bedwellty)

  Mack, J. D.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  McKay, J (Wallsend)

  Swingler, S.

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  McKinlay, A S

  Sylvester, G. 0.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednetbury)

  McLeavy, F

  Symonds, A L

  Ewart, R.

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Taylor, H. B (Mansfield)

  Farthing, W. J

  Mainwaring, W H

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Field, Captain W. J

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Thomas, I. 0. (Wrekin)

  Follick, M.

  Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Foot, M. M.

  Mathers, G

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

  Forman, J. C.

  Medland, H. M

  Thorneycrofl Harry (Clayton)

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Mellish, R J

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Tiffany, S.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Timmons, J.

  Watson, W. M.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Titterington, M. F.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Williams, W. R (Heston)

  Tolley, L.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Willis, E.

  Turner-Samuels, M

  Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

  Wills, Mrs. E A

  Usborne, Henry

  White, H (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Woods, G. S

  Vernon, Maj W. F.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

  Wyatt, W.

  Viant, S. P.

  Wigg, Col G. E.

  Yates, V F

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Wilkes, L.

  Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  TELLERS FOK THE AYES:

  Warbey, W. N.

  Willey, F. T (Sunderland)

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Dairies.

  NOES.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Head, Brig. A. H.

  Neven-Spence, Sir B

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

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

  Nicholson, G

  Baldwin, A E.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Hope, Lord J.

  Peake, Rt. Hon. 0.

  Beechman, N. A.

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Birch, Nigel

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

  Pickthorn, K.

  Bower, N.

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

  Raikes, H. V.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

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

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Braithwaite, Lt-Comdr. J. G.

  Jarvis, Sir J.

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Keeling, E. H

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

  Butcher, H. W.

  Lambert, Hon. G

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Challen, C.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Ross Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

  Channon, H

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Savory, Prof. D. L.

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Lipson, D. L

  Scott, Lord W.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

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

  Low, Brig. A. R. W.

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Snadden, W, M.

  Crowder, Capt. John E.

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

  Spearman, A. C. M

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Spence, H. R.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Macdonald, Sir P. (I of Wight)

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  De la Bère, R.

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Studholme, H. G.

  Digby, S. W.

  MacLeod, J.

  Thornton-Kemsley, G N

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Macmlllan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Thorp, LT.-CoI, R. A. F

  Duthie, W. S.

  Macphprson, N. (Dumfries)

  Touche, G. C.

  Eccles, D. M.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Wadsworth, G

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Walker-Smith, D

  Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Ward, Hon. G. R

  Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T D.

  Medlioott, F.

  Wheatley, Colonel M J

  Gammans, L. D.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Grant, Lady

  Moore. Lt -Col. Sir T.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Grimston, R. V.

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.

  Hare, Hon. J H (Woodbridge)

  Morris-Jones, Sir H.

  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): I beg to move, in page 5, line 16, after "shall," to insert:
  "subject to the provisions of the Act of 1943."
  This Amendment makes it clear that the specific provisions of the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943, are not superseded by the new provisions in this Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Constitution of Central Authority and Area Boards.)
  Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 6, line 3, at the end, to insert:
  "and such appointments shall be made from the Area Boards in rotation."
  This Amendment relates to the appointment and period of office of the chairmen of the area boards on the Central Authority. It is our intention that the closest possible contact shall be maintained. be-
  228
  tween the Central Authority and the area boards, which, I think, will be;to their mutual advantage. We have to consider how that contact is to be initiated and afterwards maintained. It is my view, after a careful consideration of this problem, that the best means of maintaining close contact is to appoint, in rotation, four of the area board chairmen to the Central Authority. We considered whether it would be desirable, having made the appointments, to retain the services of certain of the chairmen, with high qualifications, on the Central Authority for a period of years, but, as the intention is to maintain contact between the boards, rather than to utilise the services of the chairmen of the area boards on the Central Authority, I came to the conclusion that this was the best means of dealing with the problem.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think the

  229
  suggestion was first made by us in Committee. It is a definite improvement to the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Definition of and variation of areas.)
  Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 7,line 44, after "aforesaid," to insert:
  "or to constitute a new area for which a new Area Board is required to be established under the next following Subsection."
  This Amendment, I think, meets the views of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. We had some discussions on what might happen in the event of a new area board being created. As the wording of the original provision appeared to be defective, I have framed this form of wording, which I hope will be satisfactory.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 8, line 10, to leave out "may, where necessary," and to insert:
  "shall, so far as it appears to the Minister to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the variation of areas or the establishment of a new Area Board."
  This Amendment and the two subsequent Amendments are consequential on the Amendment which has just been made.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: I think that this is a little more than a consequential Amendment because it leaves to the sole discretion of the Minister, without consultation with the Central Authority or the area boards, to decide on what is or what is not necessary to be done in consequence of a change in or variation of areas.
  Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman is partly right. We are not certain what will be required in this matter, and it appears to us, therefore, that it must be left to the Minister to determine, in the light of the circumstances, what course of action shall be taken. It will be noted that we have inserted the word "shall" in the place of the word "may," thus making the provision mandatory. The Opposition had an Amendment on the Order Paper which was not called during the Committee stage, to make it mandatory instead of permissive. I have, therefore, responded to their wish, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with the explanation.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: I am much obliged.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendments made.

  CLAUSE 5.—(Powers of Minister in relation to Central Authority.)
  Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 9, line 7, to leave out Subsection (2), and to insert:
  (2) In carrying oat such measures of reorganisation or such works of development as involve substantia] outlay on capital account, and in giving directions to any Area Board with respect to such measures or works, the Central Authority shall act in accordance with a general programme settled from time to time in consultation with the Minister."
  This Amendment and the next Amendment standing on the Order Paper relate to some criticism which was made by the Opposition during the Committee stage about the nature of the words used in the Bill. It was thought that they were a bit "woolly," if I may use the expression of hon. Members opposite, and I make no protest about that. It seemed at the time that they were slightly "ambiguous," which is a more refined expression than "woolly." I think, therefore, that it may be desirable to improve the language of the Clause.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: We are grateful once again to the Minister for meeting our views. As the Debate goes on, the House will discover that this is not the only occasion when the drafting of the Bill has been "woolly," and, indeed, some of the ideas behind the right hon. Gentleman, as shown by the fact that he has had to recommit so many Clauses. However, we are grateful for any small improvements.
  Mr. Shinwell: All I have to say about that is that it denotes how responsive we are to hon. Members opposite when they make their submissions.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendment made.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Powers of Central Authority and Minister in relation to Area Boards.)
  Amendment made: In page 10, line 3, leave out "on lines settled from time to time by," and insert:
  "in accordance with a general programme settled from time to time in consultation with."—[ Mr. Shinwell.]

  CLAUSE 7.—(Consultative Councils.)
  Colonel Clarke: I beg to move, in page 10, line 24, after "half," to insert: "not more than two-thirds."
  Mr. Speaker: I think it would be for the convenience of the House if this Amendment were discussed with the next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member, in page 10, line 25, to leave out from beginning, to "and," in line 27, and to insert:
  "members of local authorities whose districts are wholly or partly within the area, nominated (by such bodies as appear to the Minister to represent those authorities) to represent the general interests of domestic consumers of electricity."
  4.30 p.m.
  Colonel Clarke: Clause 7 (2) states that not less than half of the panel of persons nominated from members of local authorities in the area of the board in question and nominated by such associations as appear to the Minister to represent those authorities shall go to the formation of such a council; and the remainder, if any—and I repeat "if any," because not less than half might mean all from local authorities—are to be appointed after consultation with such bodies as the Minister thinks fit to represent consumers of electricity, and other persons or organisations interested in the development of electricity in the area.
  What we seek to do is, first, to limit the number drawn from local authorities to two-thirds. In the Clause as it stands the specific representation of the consumers is the duty of the other half— not the half drawn from the local authorities—and they are also to represent persons and organisations interested in development of electricity in the area. We all admit that local authorities may, and do, represent domestic consumers, but the great bulk of electricity is consumed by industry, and there is a risk of industry not being adequately represented. Secondly, we seek expressly to require in writing that the local authority members—those nominated by local authorities—shall represent the general interest of domestic consumers. Third, we wish to clear up the position of the local authority whose territory is partly in one area and partly in another area. That is not clear as the Clause stands. Fourth, by changing the word "association" to "bodies," we believe we are giving
  232
  greater flexibility, as some bodies which might be useful might be excluded if we use the word "associations." We believe that this will clarify the Subsection.
  As I have said on previous occasions, we appreciate the objects for which these consultative councils are to be set up. We believe the objects to be sound, but we distrust the ability of the machinery envisaged in the Clause to obtain those objects. I believe that no single piece of machinery can possibly fulfil the two functions which are required—one to protect the consumers, and, the other, to provide industry with the opportunity of general criticism and of giving helpful suggestions. I believe that two separate machines are needed. I am trying to make the best of the Clause, and I hope that my suggestions will be accepted in that spirit. I know that local authorities may wish to resist this. They would like to have an opportunity of being the sole representatives. I do not blame them. They have had considerable powers in the past, and every one likes to retain their powers. I am a member of a local authority, and I have sympathy with them, but what we ask for is really all that they have had in the past—that there should be maximum representation of two-thirds, which is, roughly speaking, equivalent to the power which they have always had.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to second the Amendment
  Mr. Shinwell: It may be for the convenience of the House if we consider the basis upon which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has presented his Amendment. It is proposed in the Bill, with regard to the creation of consultative councils in each area, that they should consist of not fewer-than 20 or more than 30 persons to be appointed by the Minister, and not less than half to be appointed from a panel of persons nominated from amongst members of local authorities in the area by such associations as appear to the Minister to represent those authorities; and the remainder shall be appointed, after consultation with such bodies as the Minister thinks fit, to represent consumers of electricity and other persons or organisations interested in the development of electricity in the area. Those are the terms of the Clause.

  233
  It is of the utmost importance that the provision for appointing members to the consultative councils should be flexible. The reason is that circumstances vary from area to area. There is no dispute between us as to the desirability of having the local authorities represented on the consultative councils. In certain areas, there are local authorities who have been directly associated with electricity undertakings which they own; whereas, in other areas, there are local authorities who, while naturally interested in the matter of electricity supply, were not the owners of electricity undertakings. It appears to me that it might be necessary—indeed, I think that it will be necessary—that we should vary the arrangement for the appointment and the representation of local authorities from area to area, and not provide too rigid a form. It is true that the local authorities associations, as I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman indicated, have expressed a desire for an increase in the number of local authority representatives on the consultative councils; on the other hand, the Federation of British Industry, which claims to represent industry, have expressed the view that the proposed number of local authority representatives is too high and industry should have a larger number of representatives. It is for the Minister to strike a reasonable balance, taking all the circumstances into account, to see that the local authorities who, on the whole, can claim to represent the domestic consumers are adequately represented, and, at the same time, to ensure that industry is also adequately represented. That is the intention.
  If I accepted the Amendment to substitute the words, "nor more than two-thirds," for the word, "half," local authorities in every area might assume that they were entitled, in spite of the special circumstances of the area, to two-thirds representation. I do not want to give them that impression, and I feel it is better that the matter should be left in my hands after consultation with the representative organisations. In view of that explanation, perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will feel that I have taken the most appropriate line in the circumstances.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: I think that the difficulty under which we are labouring, and under which the Committee upstairs laboured, lies in the fact that the Govern-
  234
  ment do not seem to have any clear idea of what interests, if any, the local authority representatives should represent. It may be argued, and it would perhaps be somewhat natural to argue, that local authority representatives are the natural custodians of the interests of the consumers, the electors, who, for the most part, use electricify. But that interpretation does not seem to square with the words of the Clause, which states:
  "Each of the said Councils shall consist of …

  (a) not less than halt shall be appointed from a panel of persons nominated from amongst members of local authorities in the area by such associations as appear to the Minister to represent those authorities; and,

  (b) the remainder shall be appointed, after consultation …to represent consumers of electricity …"

  The implication of that is that if the rest are to represent the interests of the consumers the local authority representatives are to represent something else, not the consumers. We have never been told what the local authority representatives are to represent. They certainly do not represent agricultural interests, or the industrial consumers of electricity, although there may be some exceptional cases where a local authority has a large factory which consumes electricity, or owns trams which need electricity to run them. But these represent a minority, and it seems hardly logical that in order to represent such local authorities half the members of the consultative council in every area should be appointed from members of local authorities. I cannot conceive that that is the intention, even allowing for the woolliness of the present Minister.
  One of the main defects of the Bill is that the statutory safeguards which the consumer has enjoyed since electricity first started to be developed are being abolished. The only alternative safeguards are these consultative councils. Therefore, we attach the greatest importance to trying to see that these councils are bodies which will have a substantial voice, and can make their influence felt. We put forward suggestions in Committee for improving the effectiveness of these councils. Some of those suggestions were adopted by the Government, and form the subject of subsequent Amendments. We believe that it is vital that there should be a clear understanding of what the consultative councils exist for, and I would like to ask the Minister

  235
  whether he could define, at this late stage, what his conception is of the functions of local authority representatives? Are they to represent domestic consumers, or to be on the council merely because they once had electricity undertakings which are now being taken away? If we could get our ideas clear on that it would help Members on all sides of the House to be able to assess, better than they can do at the moment, the provisions of this Subsection.
  4.45 P.m.
  Mr. Shinwell: If the right hon. Gentleman's ideas are not clear I cannot understand why he described me as being woolly. I should imagine that it was his mind which required clarification. He himself tried to clear up the matter in Standing Committee, and I am a little surprised at the way in which he has just spoken. In dealing with this point in Standing Committee, the right hon. Gentleman "said:
  "I think everyone will agree that the local authorities can be taken to represent the ordinary domestic consumer. They certainly will not represent the industrial consumer, the commercial consumer or the agricultural consumer.''
  That is not a very good answer to his question, because they represent the whole of them in one form or another. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
  "Therefore, we think that the domestic consumer ought to be well satisfied with having 50 per cent. of the representation. This is slightly more than the domestic consumer is entitled to on the basis of electricity consumed, and for these reasons we suggest that the words 'not less than' should be deleted, and the word 'one' inserted, so that one-half of the council, and not more than one-half, should be representatives of the local authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 18th March, 1947; c. 302.]
  If that is so, I cannot understand why this Amendment has been proposed today. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to know whom the local authorities represented, and why they were to be represented on these consultative councils. The Bill is explicit about the functions of the councils. I will not weary the House by reading the relevant Clause, but it is clear what the consultative councils are expected to do. The local authority has the right to be represented on the consultative council, because apart from its general interest in the provision of electricity supply it has a special interest. An area board or the
  236
  Central Authority, may require from time to time to open up streets, interfere with highways, or disturb amenities to lay cables and the like. Clearly, a local authority is much concerned with such questions, and would wish to express an opinion upon them, but generally speaking I would say that the primary interest of the local authority on the consultative councils is its concern with the interests of electricity consumers and, in particular, of potential electricity consumers with regard to the possibility of expanding electricity in its area. It seems to me that in all the circumstances we are taking the right measures to secure adequate representation from bodies which are entitled to be represented.
  Mr. R, S. Hudson: If I may speak again by leave of the House, I should like to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question by saying that the reason we put this Amendment down again was that a Division was taken in the Committee upstairs on a limiting Amendment which was defeated. We then suggested not more than half, but, in order to go further towards meeting the right hon. Gentleman we are now suggesting that it should not be more than two-thirds. As the Bill stands the Minister is able to appoint a 100 per cent. local authority representation if he so desires. The Bill says, "not less than half," but it leaves him free to appoint 100 per cent. if he wishes. It may be that we have not made our point clear, but while admitting the definition he has just given of the function of the local authority representation, which is clearer than any we have ever had before, we still think they ought to be content with a half and certainly not more than two-thirds in order to enable adequate room to be found for the people whom we consider should be represented as consumers —namely, those whom the right hon. Gentleman intends to include in an Amendment which will be discussed later.
  Mr. Shinwell: It is quite clear that provision is made for persons other than those represented on local authorities because paragraph (6) says that the remainder shall be appointed. It may well be that this requires strengthening, and although I am not quite certain, I think it might be more explicit. In those circumstances I think it might perhaps be possible to correct the matter in another place.
  Colonel Clarke: In view of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page Io, line 30, after "represent," to insert:
  "agriculture, commerce, industry, labour and the general interests of."
  This Government Amendment is in response to a suggestion made in our Debates in Committee that all desirable interests should be represented. There is another Amendment on the Order Paper which contests one of the words contained in this Amendment—the word"labour"—but perhaps I can deal with that at a later stage. It is my submission that these words adequately secure the representation of all persons and bodies who are entitled to be represented.
  Mr. McKie: I should like to say how pleased I am that the Minister has responded to what was said upstairs. This Amendment covers a wide variety of interests and it was certainly our contention in Committee that all possible interests should be taken into account with regard to representation on the consultative committees. As a Scottish Member perhaps the Minister and you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will allow me to say how glad I am that this Amendment has been so widely drawn, because we Scottish Members had and, indeed still have, considerable apprehensions in regard to the' way in which this Bill will operate in the northern Kingdom. It may be out of Order for me to say this, but—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): If the hon. Member knows that it is out of Order he had better not say it.
  Mr. McKie: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I think I am in Order in saying that we will have some doubt as to how this Measure will operate in Scotland. As a Scottish Member representing an agricultural constituency I am glad to see that the Minister has put agriculture first on his list because there is no doubt that it ranks largest, both from the point of view of area under cultivation and the numbers of people employed. We are very anxious to see that it should be the first concern, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has drawn this Amendment so widely.
  Colonel Clarke: Like the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie), I should like to say how glad I am to see the Minister inserting the word "agriculture" here for the second time in the Bill. In spite of the fact that in his Second Reading speech he said how important it was to increase rural area electrification, I think I am right in saying that in the Bill as originally drafted the word "agriculture" did not occur at all. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will now bear in mind the engagement that was made between the companies and the National Farmers' Union in September, 1946, whereby a really big scheme of rural electrification was to take place in the next five years enabling farms in the country to be supplied with electricity. This scheme was accepted, without responsibility on the Treasury, by the farmers, who were to bear one-third of the cost, and by the companies who were to bear the other two-thirds. Now the companies are going out of existence and I hope that the Minister will recognise that the new Authority should take over that obligation which was not originally intended to be a Treasury obligation although, in the present circumstances, it undoubtedly becomes one.
  Mr. Palmer: I understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it is not proposed to call the Amendment to the Minister's Amendment—to leave out "labour," and to insert "persons employed by the Area Board."—standing in my name and in the names of my hon. Friends. Therefore I hope to keep in Order by putting my points at this stage. I want to argue that the Minister should interpret the word "labour" in his Amendment in such a way as to give representation on the consultative committees through the trade unions to those actually employed in the industry. When this matter was raised in Standing Committee I believe that the word "syndicalism" was breathed, but this would hardly be syndicalism because the consultative committees are advisory bodies only, and syndicalism, if it means anything, must surely mean some degree of control.
  5.0 p.m.
  It may be argued that to include employees in this narrower interpretation rather than in the broad definition of

  239
  labour is improper, because the consultative committees are purely consumer organisations; but I do not think that that is the view of my right hon. Friend because he resisted an Amendment of the Opposition upstairs to change the name of the consultative committees to consumer councils. I want to quote, if I may, some of my right hon. Friend's words. There are two very good quotations, but in view of the need for pressing ahead I will only read the shorter one. This was on the 6th day of the Committee, when the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "Hon. Members will see, therefore, that this is something far beyond a consumers council. It is an entirely new conception, and one which is, I think, very desirable in the circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 13th March, 1947; c. 278.]
  I hope, therefore, it will not be argued by my right hon. Friend that this is a purely consumers' body and that the employees in the industry should not be represented on it. In the words of the Bill, these consultative councils are to consist of all those interested in the development of electricity in the area, and I am sure that those who work in the industry, technical staff, clerical staff and manual operatives, would certainly come under that definition. I have always found the workers in the electricity industry to be extremely proud of their connection with it. They understand the obligations of the industry to the public, and because of their knowledge of consumer requirements it would be useful if they were represented on the consultative councils. They would make a valuable contribution to the work of the councils because of their knowledge of consumer requirements.
  I, therefore, hope that my right hon. Friend will give an assurance that he intends to give the word "labour" in his own Amendment the meaning "electricity supply employees" and not restrict it, let us say, to the secretary of the local gas workers' branch. Not that one has any objection as such to gas workers, but the gas worker or the carpenter, the doctor or the housewife, is, in relation to electricity, a consumer, whereas the electricity worker is obviously in a very special relation to it, and that is the point I want to make. I know what my right hon. Friend will say, at least I think I do. He will say that under Clause 47,
  240
  which deals with the negotiating machinery and all the rest of it, the workers have a right to be consulted on all matters affecting the industry, including the practical efficiency of the industry. I am very glad of that, but. I am definitely arguing, and I know I have the support of a number of my hon. Friends, for something additional and extra to that. I want to bring the rank and file employees into a local, common unity of purpose which is really enthusiastic for the development of electricity. I want to bring them in on a level which will really mean something to them.
  There is no question, as I see it, of bringing wages, salaries and conditions into the discussions in the consultative councils, because those matters are quite properly dealt with by the machinery provided under Clause 47. I support this Bill in the interests of electrical efficiency, but I am not so foolish, I hope, as to suppose that the replacement of a director of a company by a far-away expert or even by a retired trade union official, does not at times appear a somewhat cold transaction to the men in the industry itself. If nationalisation in this industry or any other industry is to have a personal meaning to the men and women employed in it, if we are to achieve success in our efforts in the public ownership of electricity supply, we have to make such arrangements that the workers in the industry will intimately share in its responsibilities.
  Mr. Carmichael: I want to support the point of view just submitted by the hon. Member and plead with the Minister on this issue, as the hon. Member's Amendment will not be called. In Committee an effort was made to have the workers engaged in the industry closely associated with the consultative councils. If I read this Clause aright, the tendency is all in the direction of watching the rights of both domestic and industrial consumers, and no one will quarrel with the idea that it is necessary to include a Clause of this kind. But surely the tendency today, if nationalisation has a meaning at all, is to bring the workers into the closest consultation with the consumers of the goods which the industry produces. Even in industries under private enterprise it is the tendency to bring the workers as closely as possible into contact with those who are running the

  241
  industry. This is purely consultative, and I submit that with the best will in the world, and with all their knowledge of local government, even members of local authorities who sit on a consultative council see only one angle of the problem. It is the same with representatives of the industries which may be associated with it. I feel that all interests should be associated in any general discussion—not on conditions or hours of labour, but on how best to equip the industry to meet the demands of the consumers.
  I submit this further point because I believe it is of the utmost importance. While I was a member of the Committee upstairs I was also associated with the Scottish Committee dealing with the Health Services for Scotland. I was absent on occasions from either the one or the other because they both happened to meet at the same time, but if I am permitted to draw an analogy, may I call attention to the Government's attitude in regard to the Scottish Health Services? An advisory committee was appointed— surely I am entitled to draw such an analogy?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have not stopped the hon. Member. He has hesitated without being stopped.
  Mr. Carmichael: Your movement, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, made me think that you were getting ready to make a comment on my observations, but I will go on until I am stopped. There may be some difference between an advisory committee and a consultative council, but I do not know it. I admit ignorance at once; I cannot define too clearly the difference between them. My reading of their responsibilities is that in either case they are merely to give suggestions to the responsible authority, either the Minister or the board. I know that the Government which was responsible for this Measure was responsible for the Scottish Health Services Measure, and the advisory committee in the latter case is completely dominated by people directly associated with the profession—I dare not say with the industry, because I am dealing with the medical profession. On an advisory committee of 35 members 18 mast be medical practitioners. If that is so, there is nothing unreasonable in pleading that the Minister should interpret the word "labour" to include those engaged directly in the industry in the membership of these councils.
  242
  I admit there may be other interests involved, but I feel that people direct from the industry should be permitted to sit on the councils, even more than trade union officials representing those workers. I hope our pleading will not be in vain, because of the importance of getting the workers to believe that the nationalisation of the industry is much more than a mere change of ownership and that they are being brought into it as members of the community to give even better than they have given in the past.
  Mr. Collins: I support the point of view that has been put forward as to representation upon the consultative councils. I find it difficult to believe that that is not the intention of the Amendment which has been moved by my right hon. Friend. If one notes that representatives of agriculture, commerce, and industry are to be included in the consultative councils it should be obvious that they must include workers' representatives. Agricultural workers represent the industry quite as well as farmers, and they are represented upon the county committees. It is wholly wrong for the expression "representatives of agriculture" to exclude the farm workers. Similarly, the broad term "representatives of industry" must include not only employers and administrators, but employees, mechanics and others. I hope that the Minister will confirm that view.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: Unfortunately for the argument advanced by the last three speakers, the hon. Member who read out extracts from the speeches of the Minister as they suited his purpose refrained from repeating what the Parliamentary Secretary had said on the same point. Perhaps the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) might be interested to note what those views are. The Parliamentary Secretary said:
  "I suggest to my hon. Friends that in view of the fact that we are going to introduce an Amendment on the Report stage covering organised labour it is really unreasonable to insist that we should make specific provision for the representation of the employees in the industry."
  He went on to say:
  "Some of the speeches made by my hon. Friends conveyed to me the idea that these bodies were going to discuss all sorts of things connected with the efficiency of the industry. Supposing they were; I would draw attention

  243
  to Clause 47 (1, b) where provision is made for consultations between the boards and those employed by the boards on matters affecting safety, health and welfare, and all other matters of mutual interest to the boards, including efficiency in the operation of the board's services."
  Those are already provided for in Clause 47 (I). The Parliamentary Secretary proceeded:
  "I would emphasise as strongly as I can that I entirely agree with the remarks which have been made by some hon. Members regarding the need for bringing the employees in on that side. What I disagree with is the suggestion that they should be brought in, as such, to these consultative councils."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E. 18th March, 1947; c. 320..]
  Mr. Palmer: I included that point in my remarks.
  5.15 P.m.
  Mr. Hudson: It is clear that in the mind of the Government the council is not concerned with the efficient running of the industry in the national sense, but only with the impact of the industry upon the consumer. It is not concerned with what a particular generating station does. We welcome the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has moved. It corresponds to and complies with a request that we put forward from our side of the Standing Committee. The only point where it is deficient is that indicated in an Amendment in our name to the proposed Amendment, after "agriculture" to insert "housewives." Fortunately for the Government, it is not likely to be called. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why 'fortunately'?"] Because it would presumably, in view of the Government's attitude towards the housewives, embarrass the Government if they found they had to comply with the request.
  I am the more surprised at the Minister omitting any proposal to include the housewives, because of the remark which he made just now towards the end of his speech in moving the Amendment. He said that he was anxious to cover all practical consumers when he was looking for these representatives. By far the majority of practical consumers of electricity in this country are the housewives. 'They probably know more about electricity than other classes, and they can be trusted in increasing number to do so when the right hon. Gentle-
  244
  man, in his other capacity as the Minister of Fuel and Power, is able to provide a little more coal.
  In a recent speech even the Minister himself paid a tribute to the housewives. The right hon. Gentleman makes so many speeches, some optimistic and some pessimistic, that he may not be able to keep track of them. The speech to which I now refer was made on 14th June. He said:
  "Housewives have contributed much valuable advice from the stores of their experience and common sense, and they are working hard to assist."
  He evidently thinks more of housewives than does his right hon. and learned colleague, the Attorney-General. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the housewives have contributed much valuable advice from the stores of their experience, it seems odd that when he is laying down the people who are to be represented upon the consultative councils as practical consumers, he does not propose to avail himself of the housewives' advice and common sense. Despite the fact that the Amendment may not be called, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman in the light of the speech which I have quoted, will say that the omission is an oversight which he "will rectify by an Amendment in another place.
  Mr. Shin well: Perhaps I had better dispose of the right hon. Gentleman, to begin with. I remember him, in the days of unemployment and squalor for which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends were primarily responsible. I shall not go into that matter, because I imagine it would be out of Order, or we might find ourselves in disorder. At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman must be asked to distinguish between ordinary, common-sense housewives of the country who deserve our support, and certain organisations which claim to represent housewives or alleged housewives but which are, as we know—I think I have the appropriate word—the maidservants of the Tory Party. If I accepted such an Amendment as is on the Paper, and if I were to make arrangements for the insertion of the word "housewives," I should be challenged immediately by the spinsters and by the single persons, who are consumers of electricity also and have as much right to be represented on the council, as consumers of electricity, as have the housewives.

  245
  Local authorities are to be represented on the consultative committees as I have indicated already, and that is provided for in the Bill. There are many housewives associated with the local authorities, being members of those local authorities, and very valuable members indeed. I should not be at all surprised if, in appointing representatives on local authorities after consultation with the bodies concerned, we find quite a large number of housewives—
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: Not spinsters.
  Mr. Shinwell: —of the intelligent and non-Tory type on the consultative councils. There we must leave this matter of the housewives. Let us come to the major point under review. I fully understand the conception held by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer), who has great knowledge of this industry and of the employees in the industry. I appreciate the conception which is, in effect, put forward in order to create something akin to democratic control in the industry. He argues that the employees in an industry should be associated with the general activities of that industry. In fact, we have so provided in Clause 47 to which my hon. Friend referred. May I direct the attention of the House to what is in Subsection (I, b:)
  "the promotion and encouragement of measures affecting the safety, health and welfare of persons employed by the Electricity Boards"—
  that is very desirable—
  "and the discussion of other matters of mutual interest to the Boards and such persons"—
  that is the employees—
  "including efficiency in the operation of the services of the Boards."
  Those are very comprehensive words and go much further than anything attempted in the sphere of private enterprise. Already we find in connection with the nationalised mining industry that that conception is beginning to bear fruit. There is being promoted a better atmosphere and there are more consultations. There will have to be more consultations, but that will come in due course. The conception is here deployed and I hope it will come to fruition in due course. What my hon. Friends are seeking to achieve is that the workers should not be regarded merely as ciphers, whether they are in the employment of a private individual, a public
  246
  utility company or a public corporation. They believe that a worker should have the status which enables him to be brought into every possible sphere relating to the activities of the industry concerned, while his knowledge should be placed at the disposal of the Board responsible for the supervision of the industry.
  When we come to the consultative council and ask the question, "How are these consultative councils to be different from the consumers' councils?" I can give the answer at once. Often in the past we have been told that the consumers' councils were merely eyewash. The consumers' councils have been a facade—a camouflage for the real purpose behind their creation. They met frequently, but they had no authority and their advice was disregarded. I have a much broader conception of consumers' rights than was reflected in the old consumers' council, and even in the case of the nationalised mining industry, where the consumers' councils are provided for and which are now in the process of being appointed, we expect that those bodies will express themselves, if necessarily forcibly, on matters which relate to the consumers' interest and will not be fobbed off by pious declarations by those responsible for the running of the industry or the service there.
  If hon. Members look at Clause 7 (4, a) they will see how comprehensive are to be the activities of the consultative councils. They are to concern themselves with
  "any matter affecting the distribution of electricity in the area, including the variation of tariffs and the provision of new or improved services and facilities within the area"
  That goes very far, and therefore, there is great substance in the claim that already we have made these consultative councils really live virile bodies, actively pursuing the interests of the consumer in the area.
  The question at issue is whether the employees of the area board in a particular area should be represented on these consultative councils, and I ask myself the question, "Why should they be represented on these area boards if provision is made in Clause 47 for consultation and discussion in the adequate presentation of the interests of the employee in regard to matters pertaining to health and welfare?" It seems, therefore, that

  247
  it is redundant that they should be represented specifically on these consultative councils. I have provided in the proposal now before the House that labour along with other interests in commerce and agriculture should be represented on the consultative councils. I have been asked to define labour. Is there width or breadth in that definition? Perhaps I can give an empirical reply. When I appoint the consultative councils, what process will I envisage? I will first go to the local authorities or the organisation of local authorities if one exists in the area, and ask for their views about the persons who should be represented on the local authorities. Then I should approach representatives of certain indus-tries in the area, who may be concerned with domestic expansion or even with industrial expansion. Next I should approach the trade unions in the area, and perhaps the co-operative organisations who represent consumers, and any other consumers' organisation which is truly representative and ask them to make recommendations to me, reserving to myself the right of appointment.
  Mr. James Hudson: Did my right hon. Friend deliberately make the differentiation when he said that he would approach the trades unions and, "perhaps the co-operative organisations" ?
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Shinwell: I was not aware that I said "perhaps the co-operative organisations," and I will correct myself at once. Inasmuch as the co-operative societies can reasonably claim with substantial reasons that they represent a large body of consumers, they ought to be represented. I do not exclude any other representation by consumers' organisations if there are any, in the area. I will approach the trade unions. When I approach the trade unions in the area—or perhaps a trades council or some other trade union body—and ask them to make appointments on the consultative councils of representatives of labour, as indicated in my proposition, if they care to send a trade union secretary, that is not my concern if the person is worth while and has the qualifications. If they select two or three—I shall not specify the actual number—persons who are actually engaged in electricity activities under the direction
  248
  or supervision of an area board, I will enter no caveat. I will leave it to them to make the recommendation, but I will not—I say this quite categorically to my hon. Friends—make an appointment on the consultative councils specifically and definitely from employees of an area board, because I think that would be improper. I am sorry that I must say so to my hon. Friends.
  On the other hand, I see their intentions and they are reasonable and good intentions, and, so far as I can comply with them, I shall certainly do so. Hon. Members know me well enough to know how anxious I am to secure the adherence and active assistance of employees in all industries, particularly in relation to nationalised undertakings. I shall do what I can to implement what I have said in the past in these matters. In those circumstances I beg my hon Friends not to press the matter, and I "presume that hon. Members opposite will not press me on the question of housewives. I think that in all the circumstances I have made the provision as comprehensive as it is possible to be, and with that I leave it to the House.
  Mr. John Foster: I would like to add a few words of support to the plea made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) in favour of housewives. If we look at the classes included in the Amendment we see that each one of them —agriculture, commerce, industry and labour—are sections which use electricity, except for labour, for the purpose of producing something. They are not purely consumers who are consuming it for themselves. Labour is in another category and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it should be included, but he told us just now that he was going to approach the trade unions, and one of his objections to the housewives was that a certain proportion of them—and perhaps the majority of them— were the handmaidens of the Conservative Patty. What about the trade unions? We know that they are perhaps not the handmaidens of the Labour Party, but they are certainly the masters of the Government. Why is it an objection to the housewives that they might be Conservative and not an objection to the trade unions that they might be Labour? It cannot be an objection. The Govern-

  249
  merit are very touchy about the subject of housewives.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must remind the hon. Member that the Amendment dealing with housewives has not been called. He can, therefore, only deal with that as a passing reference.
  Mr. Foster: Would I be in Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in devoting the same amount of time to housewives as did the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentle-mar, can only wait and see.
  Mr. Foster: I am in some confusion about this because if the right hon. Gentleman made a passing reference of about four minutes, I assume that a passing reference of about four minutes on my part will also be in Order. The right hon. Gentleman is touchy about housewives. He is touchy about housewives because he has to follow in the way of that perpetual apologist, the Attorney-General. He is touchy about housewives, because if he were not touchy he would include them as they use an enormous amount of electricity. There are, as he suggested in his speech at Leyton, 40 or 50 women's organisations to support them. Those organisations represent the housewives. It has always been the objection to a sensible reform that it goes too far, raises a matter of principle or that other people will object. It is no objection to including housewives because the spinsters might object. One might think that the spinster who looks after a household is a housewife in that sense. Obviously, we cannot expect everybody on a consumers' council to have to produce their marriage lines, because they can be consumers of electricity whether they are married or not. It does not depend on the validity of their relations whether their relationship is that of mother or daughter, or whoever it is keeps the house That is only a debating point, and a very poor debating point.
  The truth of the matter is that there is a section of the community who use electricity purely as consumers and who are not on the productive side in the sense that they are producing like agriculture and industry. They are purely consumers, and it is in the interests of the industry that their views should be represented.
  Mr. Shinwell: As an organisation.
  Mr. Foster: So far as I understood, the right hon. Gentleman did not point to any organisation which covered them.
  Mr. Shinwell: Yes. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that there is an association of women directly concerned with electricity supply and distribution—the Women's Electrical Association—and, of course, we should consult the Women's Electrical Association. Perhaps that never occurred to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Foster: It did occur to me. The lady who is the head of that organisation deserves very well of this country for her work in that sphere, but she does not represent the housewife as a housewife. The lady I am thinking of is a very skilled "technician on the electricity side, if we have the same lady in mind.
  Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman has some other lady in mind.
  Mr. Foster: Why is it that the right hon. Gentleman refuses to admit that the housewives can contribute a lot to consultative councils? It is on them that any burden of increased rates will fall. If the dangers which we apprehend happen in this nationalisation scheme, it will be very valuable to have on the councils some level-headed intelligent women. Even if they are Tories, the right hon. Gentleman should not indulge in victimisation by saying that they are not to be on the councils because they are the handmaidens of the Tory Party. Even if they had said that nationalisation is leading to disaster, they should be included. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter and to see whether there cannot be representatives of housewives on the consultative councils.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 10, line 43, at the end to insert:
  "but a member of a Consultative Council other than the chairman shall not by reason of his appointment as such a member be disqualified for being elected to, or for sitting or voting as a member of, the Commons House of Parliament."
  There is provision in the Bill which excludes hon. Members of this House from serving as members of the Central Authority or the area boards and acting as chairmen of consultative councils, but it occurred to me that we might be going

  251
  a little too far if we sought to disqualify an hon. Member from serving as a member of a consultative council. In order to correct that defect in the Clause, I am moving this Amendment.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has given any explanation of this Amendment. The effect, as he rightly said, is to enable hon. Members of this House to sit on these consultative councils, and that raises the issue whether they should be allowed to do so. There seem to me to be two objections. In the first place, hon. Members at the moment have all they can manage with their own legitimate work in this House, and very few indeed are in any position to take on and effectively discharge extra work outside. Therefore, there seems to be remarkably little case at the moment for facilitating their intrusion into other spheres of public work. Secondly, there is another objection, perhaps of more profound and permanent constitutional significance. Under subsection (9) provision is made that such people who serve on these councils may be paid expenses. It is, I suggest to the House, undesirable to extend the number of hon. Members who may be in receipt of money from Governmental agencies. It has been for 200 years the policy of this House to restrict, so far as possible, the number of hon. Members who shall be in receipt of remuneration of any kind from the Crown or from the Executive. That principle has been most rigidly maintained by this House, and it has necessitated specific Acts of Parliament in many cases to permit the creation of one additional Minister of the Crown. Now we have the right hon. Gentleman, as by a sidewind, and with a certain amount of casualness, proposing to introduce a provision under which hon. Members shall be in receipt of the payment of expenses from sources connected with his Department and the Electricity Authority.
  I am not suggesting for one moment that these small sums would be any element of corruption, but I am saying that it is undesirable in principle to increase the role of the Executive as paymaster with regard to hon. Members of this House, and unless the right hon. Gentleman can find stronger reasons than he has done, it seems somewhat extra-
  252
  ordinary that he should be prepared, for convenience perhaps in one or two cases, to violate a constitutional principle of considerable respectability and age.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I do not attach any great importance to this, but my prejudices are rather the same as those just expressed, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether there ought not to be second thoughts about this. I wonder if he would not find it possible to have second thoughts about this in another place. It cannot really be considered that there will be any considerable number of consultative councils which will be hopelessly debilitated by the absence of Members of Parliament and, on the other hand, there is the objection of principle which has been indicated, and I should have thought really it deserves rather more consideration than it has had.
  With apologies, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will only take one sentence because this I agree is an infinitesimal point, but perhaps it is part of my function to be pedantic about these things—will the right hon. Gentleman consult his draftsmen about the second word in the third line of his Amendment, as to whether the word after "disqualified" should not rather be "from" than "for"? We may as well get these things right, and I am inclined to think that it would be better that way. I hope he may look at it later.
  545 P.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We are, of course, in rather a difficulty here because this is the process of the Minister in abolishing elected bodies and substituting for them nominated bodies, and as soon as he starts that he will be in difficulty. He is sweeping away the democratic process of election by which the local authorities ran the great public electrical bodies in the past, and is substituting for them these consultative councils which, as he has repeatedly said, are to be nominated by him.
  We know the principles upon which the Minister is working in these matters because he himself told the House last night:
  "I would not appoint somebody to one of the electricity boards in a representative capacity, if he had expressed himself as being against the provisions of the Bill and had declared that nationalisation was bound to prove a failure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1947: Vol. 439, c. 117.]

  253
  What we would like to know from the Minister is, does he attach the same importance to these consultative councils as he does to the boards, and does the same bar which he has put on the boards apply to the members he is about to attach to the consultative councils? If he could give us an answer to that, it would elucidate the point as to how the series of elections which the Minister will now conduct under his hat are to work. We should like to know, on this question of consultative councils, the principle upon which he will act?
  Mr. Shinwell: I will answer the question at once. I do not propose to appoint persons to these consultative councils without consulting with representative bodies in the area, and they will presumably make recommendations. I am not bound to accept the recommendations, but I shall take cognisance of them because the bodies concerned have greater knowledge of the persons in the area and their qualifications than I have. Therefore, there can be no question of discrimination against any individual on account of his politics. Indeed, I must have said that a score of times last night, on a few occasions when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was present and on several occasions when he was absent, and I trust what I have just said will satisfy him.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is just because of those declarations which the right hon. Gentleman has made on many occasions 'when I was present, and no doubt on certain occasions when I was absent, that I am pressing him upon this occasion. He has said that he will take cognisance of the representations made by the local organisations, but that he does not feel himself necessarily bound to accept them. That is in the Bill. These are not representative institutions, these are nominated institutions. What I am trying to get at is the basis upon which he will work, because it is very important to know.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is going right outside the terms of this Amendment. It is a very small point that is under discussion, namely, whether a member of a consultative council can or cannot be a Member of Parliament.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I was just coming immedi-
  254
  ately to the point. The Corporation of Edinburgh is a local authority and has expressed itself in no uncertain way about the Bill. An hon. Member of this House is firmly convinced that the Bill will lead to disaster, and that nationalisation is a very bad thing, namely, the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W Darling). If the Corporation of Edinburgh desire to appoint the hon. Member for South Edinburgh as a member of that area board, will or will not the right hon Gentleman discriminate against him? It is a perfectly fair question which arises because it affects every hon. Member on this side of the House. The point is that the definition laid down by the right hon. Gentleman will, as far as I can see, exclude every hon and right hon. Member on this side of the House and include every hon. and right hon. Member on that side. Therefore, we are entitled to ask, is this the purpose or will it be the result of the Amendment? If so, it is obviously a serious departure from what has been previously the practice in the political life of this country.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot enter into an argument on the matter. As I have said, this is a small issue—the question is whether a Member of Parliament can or cannot be a member of a consultative council.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I agree it is a narrow point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I would say, however, that it is a narrow point raising a great issue. I see that the right hon. Gentleman offers to answer.
  Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has asked me if the Edinburgh Town Council, as one of the bodies in the area who are consulted about the persons to represent local authorities on the consultative council, made a recommendation that the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling), who is a member of the Conservative Party, should represent them on the consultative council, what I would do. My answer is this: I would not exclude the hon. Member on the ground that he was associated with the Tory Party.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Although it is a narrow point it is a great issue, for all the Minister has said is that he would not exclude the hon. Member on the ground that he was a member of the

  255
  Tory Party. I trust not, for indeed that would be a very flagrant piece of favouritism. But the right hon. Gentleman carefully hedged his answer about by many other avenues which he closed to the hon. Member for South Edinburgh. On the formula laid down by the right hon. Gentleman it would be possible and, indeed, legitimate for him to exclude any
  hon. Member on this side of the House. I say that he is opening the door to a serious piece of political favouritism and patronage, with which we cannot agree, and we propose to divide against this proposal.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 279; Noes, 105.

  Division No. 276.]

  AYES.

  [5.52 p.m

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)

  Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J

  Alpass, J. H.

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

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Lee, Miss J (Cannock)

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Levy, B. W.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Ewart, R.

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Fairhurst, F.

  Lipson, D. L.

  Ayles, W. H.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Femyhough, E.

  Logan, D. G

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Field, Capt. W S.

  Longden, F.

  Baird, J.

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

  Lyne, A. W.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

  Follick, M:

  McAdam, W.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Forman, J. C.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Barton, C.

  Freeman, Peter (Newton)

  McGhee, H. G

  Battley, J. R.

  Gaitskell, H. T. N

  Mack, J. D

  Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)

  Gallacher, W.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Bechervaise. A. E

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Benson, G.

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  McLeavy, F

  Berry, H.

  Cibbins, J.

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Beswick, F.

  Gilzean, A.

  Mainwaring, W. H

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

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Mallalieu, J P W

  Binns, J.

  Goodrich, H. E.

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Blenkinsop, A

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Grey, C. F.

  Manning, Mrs L (Epping)

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W

  Grierson, E.

  Mathers, G

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Griffiths, D. (Mother Valley)

  Mealand, H. M

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

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. & (Llanelly)

  Mellish, R. J

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Grest, Dr. L. Haden

  Messer, F

  Bramall, E. A.

  Gunter, R. J

  Middleton, Mrs L

  Brook, D (Halifax)

  Guy, W. H.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Hale, Leslie

  Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Hall, W. G.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Moody, A. S-

  Bruce, Maj. D. W T.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-cot. R.

  Morgan, Dr H B

  Buchanan, G

  Hardman, D R.

  Morley, R.

  Byers, Frank

  Hardy, E. A.

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

  Callaghan James

  Harrison, J

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Carmichael, James

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Moyle, A.

  Chamberlain, R. A

  Hewitson Capt. M

  Nally, W.

  Champion, A.

  Hicks, G

  Naylor, T. E.

  Chater, D.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Chetwynd, G. R

  Holman, P.

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

  Cluse, W. S.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Cocks, F. S

  House, G.

  Noel-Baker, Capt. F E (Brentford)

  Collindridge, F.

  Hoy, J.

  Oldfield, W. H

  Collins, V. J.

  Hubbard, 1

  Oliver, G. H

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing W.)

  Orbach, M.

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Corlett, Dr. J.

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

  Palmer, A M. F.

  Corvedale, Viscount

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Parkin, B T

  Cove, W. G.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Paton. J (Norwich)

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Pearson, A.

  Daggar, G.

  Irving, W. J.

  Peart, Thomas F.

  Daines, P.

  Jay, D. P. T

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Popplewell, E

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

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

  Porter, G (Leeds)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  John, W

  Price, M. Philips

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

  Jones, D. T. (Harllepools)

  Proctor, W. T

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Deer, G.

  Kendall, W. D

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Kenyon, C.

  Randall, H. E

  Diamond, J

  King, E. M.

  Ranger, J

  Dodds, N. N

  Kinley, J.

  Rankin, J.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Kirby, B. V.

  Reeves, J.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Lang, G.

  Robens, A.

  Ede Rt. Hon. J C

  Lavers, S

  Poberts. Emrys (Merioneth)

  Rodertson, (Berwick)

  stokes, R. R

  Watkins, T. E

  Rogers, G. H R.

  Stross, Dr B

  Watson, W. M.

  Ross, William (Kimarnock;

  Stubbs, A E

  Webb, M. (Bradfora, C.)

  Royle, C

  Swingler, S

  Weitzman, D

  Sargood, R

  Sylvester G. O

  Walls, P L (Faversham)

  Scollan, I

  Symonds, A L.

  West, D. G

  Scott-Elliot, W

  Taylor, H B (Mansfield)

  Westwood, Rt. Hon. J

  Segal, Dr S

  Taylor, R, J. (Morpeth)

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

  Shackleton, E. A. A

  Taylor, Dr S. (Barnet)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Sharp, Granville

  Thomas 0. E. (Aberdare)

  Wigg, Col. G. E.

  shawcross, C. N (Widnes)

  nomas, I. 0. (Wrekin)

  Wilkes, L

  Shinwell Rt Hon E

  Thomas, John R. (Dover)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  shurmer P.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

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

  Willey, 0. G. (Cleveland)

  Simmons, C J.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Skeffington, A. M

  Tiffany, S.

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Skinnard, F. W

  Timmons, J.

  Williamson, T

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Titterington, M T

  Willis, E.

  Smith, H. N (Nottingham, S.)

  Tolley, L.

  Wills, Mrs. E P

  Smith, S. H (Hull S.W)

  Turner-Samuels, M

  Woods, G. S

  Snow, Capt. J. W

  Vernon, Maj W F

  Wyatt, W.

  Solley, L J.

  Viant, S P.

  Yates, V. F.

  Soskice, Maj

  Wadsworth, G

  Young, Sir R (Newton)

  Sparks, J. A

  Walkden, E.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Stamford, W

  Walker, G. H

  Stephen, C.

  Wallace, G- D. (Chislehurst)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Stewart Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Mr. Joseph Henderson and

  Mr, Hannan.

  NOES

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Galbraith, Cmdr T. O

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R

  Gammans, L D

  Medlicott, F.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Grant, Lady

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

  Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Haughton, S. G.

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

  Birch, Nigel

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

  O'Neill, Rt Hon Sir H

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

  Hope, Lord J

  Osborne, C.

  Bower, N.

  Hudson, Rt Hon. R S. (Southport)

  Peto, Brig. C. H M.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Huid, A.

  Pickthorn, K

  Braithwaite. Lt. Comdr. J. G.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W

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

  Raikes, H. V.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T

  Jarvis, Sir J

  Rayner, Brig R

  Bytcher H W

  Jeffreys, General Sir G

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Challen, C.

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr Roland

  Channon, H.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Ropner, Col L.

  Clarke, Col. R S

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Ross Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Savory, Prof. D. L

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Law, Rt Hon. R. K

  Scott, Lord W.

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

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E

  Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

  Snadden, W. M.

  Crowder, Capt John E

  Linstead, H. N

  Spearman, A. C. M

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Low, Brig. A. R. W

  Spence, H. R.

  Darling, Sir W Y

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. 0

  Davidson, Visncountes

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C

  Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Digby, S. W

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Dodds-Parker, A. D

  Macdonald, Sir P (I of Wight)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Drayson, G B

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R

  Thornton-Kemsley C N

  Drewe, C.

  McKie, J H. (Galloway)

  Touche, G C.

  Duthie, W. S

  Maclay, Hon. J. S

  Vane, W M. F.

  Eccles, D. M.

  MacLeod, J

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon Harold (Bromley)

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. Waite

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Wheatley, Colonel M J

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Fraser, H. C P. (Stone)

  Manningham-Butler, R. E.

  TELLERS OF THE NOES

  Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Mr. Studholme and

  Major Ramsay.

  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to move, in page II, line 27, at the end. to insert:
  "(7) Each of the said Councils shall keep a register Which shall be available for inspection at all reasonble times and without charge, by the owner or occupier of any premises within the area of such Council, and shall record in such register a copy of every such representation to them as is referred to in subsection (4) of this section, together with the names and adresses of the persons by whom it was made, the dates on which it was
  258
  received and considered, any conclusions thereon notified by them to the Area Board or to the Central Authority, any conclusions thereon notified to them by the Area Board, any directions given thereon by the Central Authority, and the date on which notification of each such conclusion or direction was received by the Council."
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It will be for the convenience of the House if, with this Amendment, we take two other Amendments. One is in the name of the Minister of Fuel and Power—in page 11, line 35, at end, insert:

  259
  "(8) A Consultative Council may, after con sultation with the Central Authority, make representations to the Minister on any matters arising out of representations made by them to the Central Authority under subsection (6) of this section, and if it appears to the Minister, after consultation with the Area Board and with the Council, that a defect is disclosed in the Area Board's general plans and arrangements for the exercise and performance of their functions under this Act, he may notify the defect to the Central Authority, and thereupon the Central Authority shall give to the Area Board such directions as they think necessary for remedying the defect, and the Area Board shall give effect to any such directions."
  The other is in the name of the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), in page II, line 35, at end insert:
  "(8) The Central Authority shall, when giving to the Area Board any directions under the last foregoing Subsection, furnish a copy thereof to the Council and if, at any time after the expiration of two months after they have made representations to the Central Authority, the Council shall represent to the Minister that they are dissatisfied with such directions, or with the failure of the Central Authority to give directions, the Minister shall, if so required by the Council, cause an inquiry to be held and may require the Central Authority to give to the Area. Board such directions as he shall think fit"
  Mr. Pickthorn: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It would perhaps save the time of the House if I began at the end, and very shortly indicated the argument for the second of the Amendments in the name of myself, my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends. The Minister has made it quite clear that he intends these consultative councils to be, in effect, at any rate, rather more than consultative. He has used rather striking words which from any other mouth might even perhaps have seemed exaggerated. He said:
  "—the consultative councils will be endowed with powers and will be called upon to undertake activities far wider than in the case of the consumers councils"
  Later, he said:
  "Will hon. Members please note how wide their powers are? They have to deal with any matter affecting the distribution of electricity …"
  Later he made his statement more- specific. He said that there was to be:
  "…a fully-fledged partnership with the area boards …We decided to make the Central Authority responsible for generation and the area boards responsible for distribution, and perhaps also partly responsible for
  260
  generation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 13th March, 1947. c. 276-8.]
  He then went on to describe the relations of the consultative councils with those bodies, so that-it is quite plain that in the contemplation of the Minister these councils are meant to have a kind of effectiveness not perhaps often associated with consultative councils. He told us that hitherto consumers' councils had always been eyewash. I was not sure whether he was referring to the Coal Act. Perhaps we have not had enough experience to know about that, but I do not know to what other consumers' councils he was referring.
  If these consultative councils are to have anything like these activities and powers, which the Minister may have been rather exaggerating—indeed he must have been, if they are to have activities and powers they cannot 'be precisely described as consultative—what they will most need will be information, to know what happens. That is the aim and object of the second of these Amendments. The operative words are:
  "The Central Authority shall, when giving to the Area Board any directions …furnish a copy thereof to the Council and if …the Council …are dissatisfied with such directions, the Minister shall …cause an inquiry to be held. …"
  I think that is a fair synopsis of the proposal in the second of our Amendments. The main object of the Amendment is to make sure that the consultative councils do know. Our argument is strengthened by the Minister's new Subsection, which, I take it, is shortly to be moved. How can these consultative bodies decide to proceed further under that new Subsection unless they can get at the sort of information for which we are trying here, in our proposed Subsection (8), to provide the machinery? That is the short point of the second Amendment, and I hope that that will be a sufficient explanation.
  I turn back to the earlier of our two Amendments, on which I think it is necessary to be very slightly more lengthy. These are the operative words:
  "Each of the said Councils shall keep a register …available for inspection …and shall record in such register a copy of every such representation to them as is referred to in subsection (4) …together with …any conclusions thereon. …"
  In other words, the object is to make it possible for the ordinary

  261
  member of the public, the private or corporate consumer of electricity, to know what happens to his representations. As the matter stands at present, he represents that in some way or another the service is inefficient or excessively dear, but he does not know what happens next. Our proposal is that there should be a register kept which would enable him to see what happens to his representation, if anything does happen. I suggest that that really gives a kind of democratic control over the matter which really is not provided anywhere else in the Bill.
  I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not think I am being excessively controversial if I say to the Minister that it really seems that such provision is unusually necessary and is made more unusually necessary with every utterance from the Minister. Again he told us this afternoon that he might perhaps have a town council advising him to appoint a housewife to one of these advisory committees, but he said, "Not a Tory housewife, but a housewife who is of non-Tory character." I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to-think that those of us who are opposed to Socialism are nevertheless honest in our desire that where anything is socialised the resulting arrangements should be as good as they can possibly be made. If that is so, one of the main charges against nationalisation has always been, and must always continue to be, that we get precisely this sort of thing, that it is this way we drift into the one-party State. One starts by saying that we cannot even have a housewife on an advisory committee about electricity in East Anglia unless the Minister first vets here to discover that she toes the party line. We have had that said today. Last night, the Minister said, talking not of these councils, but of other boards:
  "—it would be quite improper to appoint to such boards a person who was definitely opposed to the nationalisation of the industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1947; Vol. 439, c. no.]
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Hon. Members opposite evidently think that is wise. The Minister has said that he did not say that, but there it is in HANSARD, and it is my own recollection of what he said. If there is any risk at all, the Minister has made it doubly clear that there is a risk with him. It is usually polite to say on these
  262
  occasions, "We have no suspicions or doubts about the representative of the Ministry now before us, but he is not eternal, he may pass away one of these days, and who knows what sort of person we may get." I admit I have no such fears today. That is not my argument. My argument is that the existing Minister has made it quite clear that he will have such considerations in mind in making these appointments.
  Then what sort of safeguard in future is an electricity consumer who does not toe the party line going to have? If he and his wife do not toe the party line then they cannot sit on an advisory council. We know that they cannot sit in a managerial capacity; we were told that last night. The existing statutory safeguards, all the safeguards that arose out of the existence of private enterprise, out of the possibility of competition from gas and so on—all those safeguards are to go. I suggest that the only genuine safeguard yet proposed to be put into this Bill is the one which I am now proposing. That is to say, where private individuals, or others for that matter, including corporations, have made any representations to the consultative councils, whose power and influence the Minister rates so high— where they put in special representation, there should be a simple method by which they should be able to follow the fate and effect of those representations. That is the short point of these two Amendments, and particularly of the first, with which I am now dealing.
  I think there are other arguments in its favour too. There would be increased public confidence in the councils and less risk of the councils dwindling into nothingness or, at least, into insignificance. I think that clearly such provisions as I am recommending to the House would prevent unnecessary and double work. It would make it possible, where a question arose, for it to be dealt with by a very simple means of centralising representations and so on. It would be a very simple job to note what questions were arising here and there, so that there would be no need to have the same sums worked out in five or six different places.
  Mr. Palmer: Does the hon. Gentleman propose that each everyday trivial complaint about electricity service should go

  263
  into this register? Surely the book would be simply full of complaints.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I like what the last sentence seemed to mean; I understand the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) knows what the hon. Member for Wimbledon really meant.
  Mrs. Leah Manning: It is the hon. Member for Cambridge University who does not know.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Taking the words on their face value, I think there is something in what was said. But I am a little surprised at that particular intervention because the hon. Member had the advantage of sitting on the Committee upstairs If he will read the Committee HANSARD he will see the distinction made by the Minister between the trivial everyday complaints and the other sort and their treatment. I do not think that difficulty need make the House hesitate. I think also that the proposal would tend to discourage frivolous or ill-founded complaints because people would not like to be seen trying publicly to make trouble where no trouble was I think it would lead towards consistency, towards the building up of a general case law in these matters. I ask the House, if it is possible to put aside party prejudice in this matter, to believe that we are not here trying to make it difficult to socialise, though we think it wrong to socialise the industry; what we are trying to do is to make it certain that, if socialised the industry-must be, then still the ordinary person should have some chance not only of having, but of knowing and feeling and being seen to have, a method of influencing the way in which provision of this necessity is managed with regard to his own particular or local interest.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I beg to second the Amendment.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. McKie: I very much hope that after the modest and persuasive speech of my hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), the Parliamentary Secretary, in his own interest and in the interests of the Minister, will consider this Amendment very carefully. In my view it is most constructive, and I think the Minister should regard it with serious attention. My hon.
  264
  Friend appealed to him to approach it from a non-party point of view. It is true that all of us on this side of the House, and my hon. Friend in particular, are wholeheartedly opposed to this Measure, as we are to Socialism in all its aspects, but there are very many people throughout the country who are not committed to either of the two parties. They are watching this Bill very carefully. I am now speaking of the private consumer rather than the corporate bodies to which my hon. Friend referred. They are watching because they hope and believe that this Measure will bring to them a more efficient and cheaper supply of electricity than they had before.
  It is significant that the very first Amendment we put down on the Committee stage of the Bill was to ensure to the general public a cheap and abundant supply of electricity. That was turned down upstairs somewhat ruthlessly. I hope that this Amendment, which seeks to do the same kind of thing by another method, will obtain a more sympathetic hearing from the Minister. I have had the honour to represent two counties in rural Scotland for a number of years. In one of them there has been considerable complaint for a long period of time from private consumers regarding what they consider the excessive rates charged for the electricity supplied to them. It is just this kind of people who will benefit if the Amendment to ensure that these councils should keep a register is approved. I hope I am not anticipating what the Minister will say, but why should a Minister, especially a Socialist Minister, object to the keeping of a register? They always claim specially to speak in the name of the people, the consuming public. In the past they have never been averse to increasing the number of secretarial staffs or civil servants, so why should they object to this proposal?
  Of course, I myself object to any increase in bureaucracy but I think that if we are to have it at all, any increase in the secretarial staff caused by the acceptance of this Amendment will prove to have been amply justified at the end of the day. I am sorry to keep the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) waiting for another minute. Judging by the alacrity with which she rose I hope that she intends to show the same eagerness as hon. Members on this side of the House that the Minister should accept this

  265
  Amendment. I end by saying that I believe that it is in the interests of the public as a whole, particularly in the interests of the poorer sections of the consuming public, that this Amendment should be approved.
  Mrs. Manning: Not having had the advantage of sitting on the Committee upstairs, I do not quite know how it is intended to draw a line between the hundred and one frivolous and vexatious complaints which the ordinary man in the street and his wife make at the electricity offices every day, and the broad questions of policy to which I understand the hon. Gentleman was referring. It is obvious that minor complaints occur every day which do not affect the whole policy of the running of this industry. They are of a frivolous and vexatious kind. Therefore, it surprises me that any hon. Member opposite should have suggested that a register should be kept for the ordinary general complaints from the man in the street. To do so would be to do the very thing about which they are constantly complaining. It would be necessary to keep a hoard of officials in order to register the complaints.
  Mr. McKie: Does the hon. Lady by her argument suggest that the complaints of these poor people, the very genuine complaints which arise from great hardship, should go unregarded?
  Mrs. Manning: I did not suggest anything of the kind. I was following the argument of the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) who said that in the Committee upstairs, of which I was not a member, a distinct division was drawn between that kind of complaint and the broader more general complaints on policy. The consultative committees will have nothing to do with political beliefs. Not at any time whilst I have been in the House, or whilst looking through the records of Committees upstairs, has it been suggested that there should be any political purge of these consultative committees—
  Mr. Pickthorn: The Minister says so.
  Mrs. Manning: No. The Minister said nothing of the kind.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Look in HANSARD tomorrow.
  Mrs. Manning: That is pure imagination on the part of the Opposition. The
  266
  only thing that fell from the lips of the Minister was that he would not place on the boards people who had expressed an absolute antipathy to nationalisation, and who, therefore, could not be expected to carry out the work of these boards in the way in which it should be done; but that does not mean that there would be any purge because of their political prejudices. There may be some people on this side of the House who do not believe in the nationalisation of the electricity industry. I do not know; there may be but this question certainly did not extend in any sense at all to the consultative committees, and I think that—
  Mr. Pickthorn: Will the hon. Lady permit me? She said it did not extend to the consultative committees. Will she permit me to remind her that the Minister said that he would be influenced by, or might be influenced by a municipality to appoint a housewife but not a housewife of a non-Tory type? My recollection is quite clear on that point.
  Mrs. Manning: I am very glad that J was able, with my own ears, to hear what he did say. What he said about this matter was that he would not necessarily be influenced by a member of the Housewives' League. She may be a member of a co-operative society, but he may have no knowledge of that society—[Interruption.] Why should hon. Members oppo.-site begin to worry at the mention of co-operative societies?
  Mr. Raikes: May I interrupt the hon. Lady? She says she heard what the Minister said with her own ears. Surely, then, she heard the term "housewives of a non-Tory character"?
  Mrs. Manning: That is quite a different matter. Unfortunately, the term "housewife," which is an honourable term, has been dragged through this House on a purely political basis, and I am very sorry—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I really must bring the hon. Member back to the Amendment before the House. We are not discussing housewives.
  Mrs. Manning: I thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for that. The point at issue is that, if this book is to be kept open, and is to have written in it every day, after the fashion of the Recording Angel, all the frivolous and vexatious

  267
  complaints which people may make about electricity supply—which they are doing today though, no doubt, they will not do it as much under nationalised industry as under private industry—I think hon. Members who are supporting the Amendment are only asking for something which will be abused and will only produce frivolous and vexatious complaints. I therefore hope the Minister will reject the Amendment.
  Mr. Gaitskell: The suggestion has been made that we should all approach this matter in a non-party spirit, but I am bound to say that the speech which preceded, that remark could hardly be calculated to encourage a non-party attitude in anybody. The remarks of certain hon. Members about my right hon. Friend were a travesty of what took place. It is perfectly true, in passing, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) knows perfectly well, that a kind of joke often passes between the two Front Benches. My right hon. Friend said, in discussing the type of housewife who may go on a consultative council, that he meant a housewife not, of course, of the Tory type. What he meant by that was the type of person who really is not a housewife at all and does not know the difficulties under which the real housewife labours. [An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] I am simply explaining what my right hon. Friend said, and, as the hon. Member was not here, he does not know whether it is rubbish or not. I do not want to be drawn into what is a complete side-issue in this matter. We axe discussing three Amendments. The first, put down by the Opposition, to page II, line 27, provides that the councils shall keep a register. The second, which is in the name of my right hon. Friend, proposes that the consultative councils may, in effect, appeal to the Minister, thus carrying out, incidentally, a promise to consider an Amendment of this kind which he gave during the Committee stage. The third Amendment. which is put down by the Opposition, I think may fairly be described as an alternative method of achieving somewhat similar results. I would like to deal with the first Amendment separately, and then with the other two.
  I want to emphasise once again that it is our desire that these councils-and my
  268
  right hon. Friend has said this again and again—should work well, be vigorous, and keep in touch with consumers. We welcome any suggestions from any part of the House which will make it easier for them to do this, and which will improve their prospects, but we must be sure, in considering any proposals of this kind, that they will really achieve this object, and that they do not, in effect, tie down the councils in matters of procedure and do not strangle them in red tape. No doubt, hon. Members put their names to the first Amendment assuming that complaints and representations made by consumers would, in the first place, always be made in writing. What is really the assumption of the Amendment is that they would all be considered by the main consultative council; but I would suggest to them that, in practice, neither of these two things is very likely.
  The hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) asked whether it was really seriously contended that every little frivolous complaint should be put down in this book. I have said in Committee upstairs, and I do not think that anybody disagrees, that, obviously, the first action which a consumer who is dissatisfied will take is not to rush off to the consultative committee. He will, in fact, go to the area board's offices in precisely the same way as he now goes to the municipal or company office and make his complaint. In the second place, supposing that he is dissatisfied with his treatment by the local office of the area board, under the Bill, as now amended in Committee, it is provided that every consultative council shall prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme for the appointment of district committees. Therefore, his next step is not to go to the main consultative council, but to the district committee, and it is there, I suggest to hon. Members opposite, that the more important complaints which have not been settled at the local office level will emerge; but, there is nothing, of course, about district committees in the Amendment which we are discussing.
  Again, it is well known, I suppose, to a good many hon. Members that constituents frequently prefer to see them personally and make oral representations on all sorts of matters and it is in precisely the same way, I imagine, that it is likely that consumers will make their complaints. It is not likely that they will

  269
  give all their complaints in writing, even to a district committee, and I do not see why that should be assumed. Indeed, the implication rather surprised me in view of the dislike which the Tory Party are alleged to have of bureaucracy and red tape. They are rather assuming that everything is to be in writing and that a form would have to be filled in before anyone could make an application
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me? He is rather unchivalrous in destroying his supporter from behind He ought, at least, to read this thing carefully. What we are talking about here are the complaints made to this advisory body. I am glad that he explains the distinction between these complaints and those made at two lower levels which, it is hoped, will save it the more numerous and less important ones. But that makes the argument which the hon. Gentleman is addressing to the House entirely false.
  Mr. Gaitskell: If the hon. Member will allow me, he will find that I am coming to the point which he makes. However, it was necessary to correct the false impression which his own speech created. There is no reason why we should formalise this process. But there is another matter which is also really ignored in this Amendment. It is assumed that every complaint is actually dealt with by the council itself. If I may say so, that is really carrying the conception of part-time bodies to an absurd extent. Obviously, a large number of these complaints will be dealt with by officials, and it is proper that they should be so dealt with, but, again, if one is to go by the Amendment. it is necessary to provide exactly what the council thought about a particular complaint. Of course, many cases will never reach them at all.
  The hon. Member the senior Burgess, for Cambridge University said, in effect, just now, that he accepted my version of what would happen. Presumably, therefore, what he is concerned with in this Amendment are only the representations which actually reach the main consultative council. That may be a possible interpretation. If that is so—and it is also a question of the complaints which are considered by them at the centre—what he is really seeking is to make available to the public the proceedings of the councils. There is not very much
  270
  difference in that. By far the greater part of their time will, no doubt, be taken up in considering representations made to them, and that is really what the Amendment suggests. That, at least, is something worth considering.
  What is quite out of the question, m my opinion, is, as my hon. Friend suggested, that every conceivable complaint which comes through all these various district committees should somewhere be recorded. If that is the idea, it is tantamount to saying that the whole of the files of these district committees and consultative councils should be open for inspection. I do not think that that can be seriously maintained. I see the right hon. Gentleman opposite nodding his assent, and we can, therefore, consider the matter in a much narrower context.
  On that point, I would like to submit to the House these considerations. Firstly, it may not always be desirable that these records of proceedings should be made public. We know quite well that there is a provision in the Bill for the Minister to give directions to the central authority on security grounds to refuse to disclose directions which he has given on security grounds. This is not, if I may say so, a completely academic matter. For instance, supposing that a body of consumers complained because in some other part of the area more rapid development was taking place. It may well be that for reasons of national security it had been found necessary to develop one part of the country before another, but it would be most unwise and undesirable for that information to become publicly known. It would be necessary, therefore, to keep it from the public. In any case, surely this is not a matter which we need to put into the Bill. We are really concerned here with the proceedings of the councils. Some of those proceedings will be laid down under regulations made under Subsection (I2) of this Clause. For the rest, they will be left, as they should be left, I suggest, to the consultative councils themselves.
  May I now turn briefly to the other two Amendments? As those who were Members of the Committee will recall, I promised that we would consider an Amendment which, in effect, would enable the consultative council, if it were dissatisfied with what the central authority had said or done as a result of its representations, to go to the Minister. We have provided

  271
  for that in our Amendment, and I think that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will agree that we have drawn the Amendment pretty widely. It they are dissatisfied on any matters arising out of representations made by them—that would include, incidentally, the point of not being informed—it would be perfectly proper for them to go to the Minister and complain. If the Minister is satisfied that they have made their point, and if a defect is disclosed in the area board's general plans, he can then tell the central authority that they must put it right. I think that really gives exactly the right relationship between the consultative council,' the Minister, the central authority, and the area board. We do not want the consultative council coming along and expecting the Minister to intervene in every single individual case. That would be an impossible situation, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends would press for that. We say that, if, as a result of these representations, it is discovered that there is something wrong with the plans and arrangements, then the Minister steps in and says, "You must put this right." I suggest that is a more satisfactory way of doing it than the alternative suggested by the Opposition. On those grounds, I must asked the House to reject this and the other Opposition Amendment.
  If I am in Order, Mr. Speaker, I would now like to move our Amendment, but I should like to have your guidance in the matter.
  Mr. Pickthon: On a point of Order. I should like to ask for your Ruling about that, Mr. Speaker. Can the hon. Gentleman move another Amendment before this one is disposed of?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was asking a question, but the hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) got up on a point of Order before he had finished.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I think it was suggested that that is what I should do. I should be glad to have your guidance, Sir.
  Mr. Speaker: The Amendment must be moved after this Amendment which is before the House has been disposed of.
  Mr. Gaitskell: In that case, I would conclude by saying that I feel that these other Amendments are unnecessary and
  272
  bureaucratic, and that our Amendment gives us all we need in the matter.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Debate, of course, is to be taken generally to cover a fairly wide field, although I understand that the other Amendments are to be moved formally. The speech which the Minister has just addressed to the House is a striking example of the difficulties into which the Government are being led by the procedure which they have now adopted, that is to say, the procedure of destroying representative institutions and then attempting to substitute nominated bodies. Already 66 per cent. of the electricity in this country is supplied by public bodies whose proceedings are conducted in public with the public having full access to those proceedings which are in print. The Minister has just made a suggestion, as a great concession that the public might be allowed to learn, after these bodies have discussed and decided matters, what they have been discussing and deciding. New bodies —according to the Minister's definition, the consultative councils—are to succeed and, indeed, to be superior to the old elected local authorities of this country under whom, as I say, 66 per cent. of the electricity supplied in this country is provided at the moment.
  The Minister's suggestion is all the more extraordinary because when we were in Committee he made it very clear that he was in great difficulties in this matter. He said:
  :When we consider the present set-up of the municipalities, we find there are undoubtedly great advantages in having an electrical committee, which represents the consumers, directly in touch with their own officials who are running the show to a large extent. We think it would be difficult to put it into the Bill, but we think some arrangements might be made at the district level for the district offices of the Area Boards to be in touch with these district committees. I have had municipal engineers coming up to me and saying it is very convenient for the consumer to be able to go to the committee and ask for an opinion on some local point. We find it difficult to provide for that in the Bill."
  He went on to say:
  "We do not regard district committees or consultative councils as having any executive authority."
  That is a distinction between those bodies and the local authorities who were able not merely to receive complaints but to act upon and remedy them. He continued:

  273
  "They are purely advisory bodies, and they must remain so, but as such we believe they will perform a useful function. We do not claim that this experiment is bound inevitably to succeed.— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 18th March, 1947; c. 300.]
  On these shadowy grounds the Government are taking away the democratic control of 66 per cent. of the electrical supply of this country from the bodies who for 50 years have been operating it under every kind of statutory safeguard in this House. The Government are repealing all those statutory safeguards, and asking us to agree to committees which will operate in the fettered way in which the Clause and the Minister's Amendment makes it clear they will operate. Is it surprising that we boggle at the proposal? The Minister's Amendment which we are discussing, but upon which we shall not vote until later, says:
  "A consultative Council may …make representations to the Minister on any matters arising out of representations made by them to the Central Authority …and if it appears to the Minister …that a defect is disclosed …he may notify the defect to the Central Authority."
  Every member of the consultative council is to be appointed by the Minister and is to be subject to mental tests of one kind or another, which the Minister this afternoon has declared himself unable to indicate to the House. If this tame rabbit gets up on its hind legs and chooses to go through a few perfunctory jumps, the Minister may or may not pay attention to its performance. The municipalities of London, Manchester, Leeds, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen have, in their day, had power and influence and have not hesitated to make representations to Ministers and even higher authorities when they felt like it.
  This is the way in which the totalitarian State moves. It abolishes the representative body and substitutes a body nominated by the Minister. It is, in fact, the definition of the totalitarian State. If one wants to go further, we have the speech of the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) who referred to "these frivolous and vexatious complaints." It is the power and privilege of responsible local authorities, and indeed of this House, that small as well as great complaints can be brought before them, and that if a person is in difficulty he can complain to an executive body which will do something to remedy the complaint.
  Mrs. Manning: The Minister said that the complaints could not be registered in a book. That was the point.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Minister said that he would consider the suggestion that minutes of the bodies should be kept and should be available for the public. He said that after two days of Second Reading and one and a half days of Report stage. The battle over the suggestion that the Press should have access to proceedings of public bodies is a battle that is being fought out again and again, and the Minister has indicated how far we have gone along this path.
  6.45 p.m.
  The speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, as always, was persuasive, informative and courteous and he did his best to recommend these proposals to the House and to indicate why the House should vote against the proposals of my hon. Friends. But he cannot say more than he said in the speech upstairs in Committee, to the effect that these are experiments and that it is doubtful whether these experiments will succeed. When I hear the Minister cataloguing what he will find it necessary to do before he allows anybody to sit even on such a consultative council, I have grave doubts about the value of such a body, and I doubt also whether the procedure laid down in this Clause and in the Amendment is such as to lead to a rapid or speedy redress of grievances. There is only one way in which to ensure that redress of grievances. That is by withholding. supply. That is an old point in this House. The local authorities have that power, and it is being removed. The supply is no longer in the hands of these bodies which he is setting up. Lacking those powers, they lack effective authority and they will do nothing to bring about what the Minister desires. We have put down an Amendment which, admittedly, will not entirely remedy this matter but will go a certain distance towards doing so.
  Mr. Raikes: I am very disappointed at the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary. He does not seem to realise that these consultative councils are the only safeguards now left to the public after many safeguards have been taken away. I was also profoundly shocked when the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) said that every day there are vexatious

  275
  and frivolous complaints made by the ordinary householder and his wife. I regard that sort of observation as an insult to the public. No doubt, hon. Members opposite regard any sort of complaint that is made against the working of their Government as being frivolous and vexatious. I was also astounded when the Parliamentary Secretary rebuked my hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) because he said my hon. Friend had misrepresented the Minister in regard to his definition of a Tory housewife. The Parliamentary Secretary said that by a Tory housewife who is incapable of becoming a member of a consultative council, the Minister meant someone who is not really a housewife at all. It was a rotten definition. The right hon. Gentleman has taken the utmost care not to strike out from acting those very people who are the most vocal and who are not housewives; I refer to those so-called housewives who denounce the Housewives League in this House, and who take all their meals in the House of Commons.
  Mr. J. Hudson: The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) spoke of the Government getting into difficulties as a result of the attitude they are now taking. I should say the difficulties into which the Government have got cannot compare with the difficulties in which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman found himself when he had to support the terms of the Amendment. This Amendment deals with the question of a register, and not the question of Tory housewives or any other sort of housewives. It deals with a register in which all sorts of complaints have to be kept. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman went on to tell us that during the time that electricity was managed by the municipalities—and he said that 66 per cent. of it was managed by municipalities—some method of this sort has been followed. I deny that statement. It is nothing but a farrago of nonsense to say that what is proposed here in this Amendment has been the practice of the
  municipalities of this country. Indeed, the municipalities know perfectly well that the great mass of complaints that come before them can be dealt with sensibly by their officials, and that there is no need to keep books. There is no need to fill forms. The filling of forms, which for so long has been a matter of complaint against us by hon. Gentlemen opposite, is now asked for by them in this Amendment, in the filling up of the registers they want kept. I submit that no case has been made at all, and I hope that the proposals will not be accepted.
  Mr. Gallacher: I want to say one word on this Amendment. It is possible to so overload an organisation with details as to destroy the functioning of the body. The hon. Member the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), who moved the Amendment, said that Tories might be opposed to nationalisation, but they wanted to see these bodies functioning efficiently. I do not believe that. In two years' time, when we are preparing for a General Election, the Tories will not come here to say that nationalisation has been a success.
  Mr. Speaker: We are not discussing nationalisation. We are discussing whether or not a register should be kept.
  Mr. Gallachcr: I was dealing with the argument the hon. Member the senior Burgess for Cambridge University put forward on this particular Amendment. In the course of it he made a very strong attack on the Minister for something the Minister was alleged to have said about the people who had been on the boards or the advisory councils, and other hon. Members have followed him, and these sneers are attacks on the Minister. I would say here just this—that I would as soon nominate a Tory to be a member of one of these councils as a Tory would nominate me for a tribunal dealing with compensation for landlords.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 101; Noes, 284.

  Division No. 277.]

  AYES.

  [6.53 p.m

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R

  Birch, Nigel

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Astor, Hon. M.

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

  Butcher, H. W.

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Bower, N.

  Channon, H.

  Beechman, N. A.

  Boyd-Carpenler, J. A.

  Clarke, Col. R. S,

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Braithwaite Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

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

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Osborne, C.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

  Lancaster, Col. C. G

  Pete, Brig. C. H. M.

  Crowder, Capt. John E.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Pickthorn, K

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

  Ponsonby, Col. C E

  Darling, Sir W. Y

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig 0.

  Drayson, G. B

  Linstead, H. N.

  Raikes, H. V.

  Drewe, C

  Low, Brig A. R W

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Lucas, Major Sir J.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland

  Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Savory, Prof. D. L.

  Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)

  Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

  Scott, Lord W

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Mackeson, Brig. H R.

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W

  Gammans, L. D.

  McKie, J. H (Galloway)

  Snadden, W. M.

  Grant, Lady

  Maclay, Hon. J. S

  Spence, H. R

  Gridley, Sir A

  MacLeod, J.

  Stanley, Rt Hon O

  Grimston, R. V.

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N

  Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A F

  Haughton, S. G.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E

  Touche, G. C.

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

  Marshall, D (Bodmin)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Walker-Smith, D

  Hollis, M. C.

  Medlicott, F.

  Ward, Hon. G. R

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

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Wheatley, Col. M. J.

  Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J

  Morris-Jones, Sir H.

  Willoughby de Eresby Lord

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

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

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W S. (Cirencester)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Jarvis, Sir J.

  Navrn-Spenoe, Sir B

  Major Conant and

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Noble, Comdr A. H. P

  Mr. Studholme.

  NOES

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Allen, A. C (Bosworth)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Herbison, Miss M

  Alpass, J. H.

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

  Hicks, G.

  Anderson, A (Motherwell)

  Deer, G.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Holman, P.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Diamond, J.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Dodds, N. N

  House, G.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Hoy, J.

  Ayles, W H.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

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

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

  Durbin, E. F. M.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J C.

  Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

  Baird, J.

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

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Barstow, P. G.

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Barton, C.

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  Irving, W. J

  Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Janner, B.

  Bechervaise, A. E

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Benson, G.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Berry, H.

  Ewart, R.

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

  Beswick, F.

  Fairhurst, F.

  John, W.

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

  Farthing, W. J.

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Binns, J.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Field, Captain W. J.

  Kendall, W. D

  Blyton, W. R.

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

  Kenyon, C.

  Bottomley, A. G

  Follick, M

  Key, C. W.

  Bowdon, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Foot, M. M.

  King, E. M

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Forman, J. C.

  Kinley, J.

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

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton,)

  Kirby, B. V

  Braddock, T (Mitcham)

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Lang, G.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Gaitskell, H. T. N.

  Layers, S.

  Brown, T J. (Ince)

  GaHacher, W.

  Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

  Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

  Ganley, Mrs. C S.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Bruce, Major D. W. T.

  George, Lady M Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Lee, Miss J (Cannock)

  Buchanan, G.

  Gibbins, J.

  Leonard, W

  Burke, W. A

  Gibson, C. W.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Byers, Frank

  Cilzean, A.

  Levy, B. W

  Callaghan, James

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Lewis, A W. J. (Upton)

  Carmichael, James

  Goodrich, H. E.

  Lewis, J (Bolton)

  Chamberlain, R. A

  Gordon-Walker, P. C

  Lindgren, G, S.

  Champion, A. J.

  Greenwood, A W J (Heywood)

  Lipson, D. L,

  Chafer, D.

  Grey, C, F.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Chetwynd, G. R

  Grierson, E.

  Logan, D. G.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Longden, F

  Cocks, F. S.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Lyne, A. W

  Collindridge, F

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  McAdam, W.

  Collins, V. J

  Gunter, R. J.

  McEnlee, V. La.J

  Colman, Miss G. M

  Guy, W. H.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Haire, John E (Wycombe)

  Mack, J. D.

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Hale, Leslie

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Corvedale, Viscount

  Hall, W. G.

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Cove, W. G.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R

  McLeavy, F.

  Daggar, G.

  Hardman, D. R

  Mainwaring, W H

  Daines, P

  Hardy, E. A

  ,Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  278

  279

  Mann, Mrs J.

  Ranger, J

  Thorneycroft (Clayton)

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Rankin, J.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)

  Rees-Williams, D R

  Tiffany, S.

  Mathers, G.

  Reeves, J.

  Timmons, J.

  Medland, H. M

  Robens, A.

  Titterington, M. P

  Mellish, R. J.

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Tolley, L.

  Messer, F.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Turner-Samuels. M

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Usborne, Henry

  Mitchison, G. R

  Royle, C

  Vernon, Maj W. F

  Moody, A. S.

  Sargood, R

  Viant, S. P.

  Morgan, Dr. H B.

  Scollan, T

  Wadsworth, G

  Morley, R.

  Scott-Elliot, W

  Walkden, E.

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

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Walker, G H

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Shackleton, E. A. A

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Sharp, Granville

  Wallace, H W. (Waithamstow, E.)

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

  Shawcross, C N. (Widnes)

  Warbey, W. N.

  Moyle, A.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Watkins, T E

  Nally, W.

  Shurmer, P.

  Watson, W. M.

  Naylor. T E.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Neal H. (Claycross)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

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

  Skeffington, A. M.

  West, D. G.

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Skeffington-Lodge, T C

  Westwood, Rt. Hon J

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

  Skinnard, F. W.

  White, H (Derbyshire, N.E.)

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Smith, C. (Colchestor)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. w

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Smith, H N. (Nottingham, S)

  Wigg, Col. G. E.

  Oliver, G. H

  Smith, S H. (Hull S.W)

  Wilkes, L.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Solley, L. J.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Scskice, Maj. Sir F

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Pargiter, G. A

  Sparks, J. A.

  Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)

  Parkin, B. T

  Stamford, W

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Steele, T.

  Williamson, T

  Pearson, A

  Stephen, C

  Willis, E.

  Peart, Thomas F.

  Stewart, Michael (Fultham E.)

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Piratin, P.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Woodburn, A

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Swingler, S.

  Woods, G. S

  Popplewell, E,

  Sylvester, G. 0

  Wyatt, W.

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Taylor, H B (Mansfield)

  Yates, V. F.

  Price, M. Philips

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Zilliacus, K

  Proctor, W. T

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Thomas, I. O (Wrekin)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Pursey, Cmdr. H

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Mr. Joseph Henderson and

  Randall, H E

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

  Mr. Hannan.

  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Raikes: I beg to move, in page II, line 30, after "Board," to insert "and with the Council."
  This is a small but, I think, useful Amendment. Its object is to require that the Central Authority should consult with the council and the board before making a decision. At the moment the Central Authority is required to consult only with the board, and is not required to consult with the consultative council which made the original representation. The more advice we have on both sides, the better.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. Gaitskell: We are quite prepared to accept this Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I beg to move, in page II, line 35, at the end, to insert:
  "(8) A Consultative Council may, after consultation with the Central Authority, make representations to the Minister on any matters arising out of representations made by them to the Central Authority under Subsection (6)
  280
  of this Section, and if it appears to the Minister, after consultation with the Area Board and with the Council, that a defect is disclosed in the Area Board's general plans and arrangements for the exercise and performance of their functions under this Act, he may notify the defect to the Central Authority, and thereupon the Central Authority shall give to the Area Board such directions as they think necessary for remedying the defect, and the Area Board shall give effect to any such directions."
  Mr. Speaker: Does not the hon. Gentleman wish to insert an Amendment?
  Mr. Gaitskell: We have already discussed this Amendment, and I thought the understanding was that I should move it formally at this stage.
  Mr. Speaker: I thought-there was an Amendment which the hon. Member wanted to move, about which he asked me during the previous discussion. I thought the hon. Member wanted to insert the words "and with the Council" after the words "Area Board."
  Mr. Gaitskell: I am sorry there has been this misunderstanding. The hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Raikes)

  281
  moved an Amendment in page II, line 30, after "Board," to insert "and with the Council," which the Government accepted just now, and which was approved by the House. I thought we were now taking the Amendment in page II, line 35, at the end, to insert the new Subsection (8). I merely want to move that formally. I do not wish to make any Amendment to it.
  Mr. Speaker: It is perhaps my mistake. I thought that, having accepted the other Amendment to insert the words "and with the Council," it was desired that those words should be inserted in line 4 of the new Subsection (8), after "Area Board."
  Mr. Gaitskell: I had not understood that. Perhaps we could consider that and, if necessary, have an Amendment made in another place.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 12, line 12, after "individual," to insert:
  "such allowances in respect of any loss of remunerative time and."
  This is a minor Amendment which relates to the provision of the payment of expenses on account of loss of time incurred.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: I take it that steps will be taken to ensure that in these cases where travelling allowances and allowances for loss of remunerative time are claimed the person who claims them gives reasonable proof that, in fact, he did lose the time, and that he was not paid for that loss by some other body. Otherwise, he would be paid by both. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there has been a great tendency in certain areas for that to happen. One would hope that the Minister would issue such directions as will ensure that, in fact, persons claim only once, and put in vouchers to prove that they spent the money or lost the remunerative time, as the case may be.
  Mr. Shinwell: I can certainly give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. We will take appropriate measures to prevent any malpractice.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Westwood: I beg to move, in page 12, line 41, after "section," to insert, "other than Subsection (8)."
  This Amendment is consequential upon the inclusion of the new Subsection as a result of our previous discussion. Provisions comparable with the new Subsection (8) already accepted by the House are already included in the Bill in relation to the North of Scotland Board. This Amendment accordingly provides that the new Subsection shall not apply to the Board.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I should like the Minister to explain to us where these provisions are included in the Bill. It is very desirable that we should know.
  Mr. Westwood: In the case of the North of Scotland district, Subsections (6) and (7) of Clause 7, as adapted by Subsection (13) already provide that the consultative council for the district may make representations to the Secretary of State with regard to the North of Scotland Board's general plans and arrangements; and the Secretary of State may give directions to the Board for remedying any defect disclosed.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Perhaps I might speak again, with the leave of the House. I do not think the Secretary of State's explanation quite clears our minds on this side of the House. There seems to be some very complicated system of internal reference within the Clause. Perhaps it might be made somewhat clearer in another place. I take it from the Secretary of State that the position is as stated, but I am sure he will not deny that it is obscure. I should very much like to know whether it would not be possible for us to make a somewhat more tidy job, to use a colloquial phrase, before passing from it.
  Mr. Westwood: We consider that this is a tidy job. I have tried to make it clear, and I thought I had met the point raised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I have given him the Subsections, and so on, which really make the provisions so far as the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board is concerned.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: It is very difficult for a layman to follow. The Amendment, in page 11, line 35, inserts Subsection (8), which is a new provision made as a result of our representations in Committee. Is

  283
  the Secretary of State for Scotland suggesting that this provision, which appears as a new provision in the English Bill, was always in the North of Scotland Act?
  Mr. Gaitskell: In the North of Scotland, as the Bill was originally drafted, the consultative council has the right to go, not to the Central Authority, but to the Secretary of State, because there is no central authority outside the North of Scotland Board; the Board is the central authority and the area board. There is no need, therefore, for provision to be made as far as the North of Scotland is concerned.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 8.—(Annual reports of Central Authority and Area Boards.)
  Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 13, line 18, to leave out "national interest," and to insert, "interests of national security."
  It would appear that this represents no substantial difference of opinion among us. There was some controversy during the Committee stage about the meaning of the words, and I promised to provide words more consistent with the rest of the Clause, and have accordingly done so.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: We were obliged to the Minister for what we thought was a major concession in response to representations we made in Committee, until we heard the last few words of what the Parliamentary Secretary had to say on the question of consultative councils. I am bound to say that I was filled with a certain amount of apprehension when the Parliamentary Secretary suggested that it might be contrary to national security if it were disclosed to the public that the Central Authority had proposals for improving the distribution of electricity in some particular area. It seems to be going pretty far to suggest that, if the Central Authority propose to improve the distribution, or start a new system of distribution in some particular area, it should be regarded as contrary to national security to disclose it to the public. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply takes exception to what I have said. If there is to be substantial improvement in the distribution of electricity in a scattered area, why on earth should that be regarded as a matter
  284
  which raises any question of national security?
  Mr. Shinwell: I cannot follow the right hon. Gentleman at all. The position is quite clear. This relates to directions issued by the Minister to the Central Authority, and the Minister is empowered to report any directions he has issued to the Central Authority. We are safeguarding the national interest by ensuring, in stating these directions, that we shall have due regard to any matter which seems to affect the national interest.
  Mr. Hudson: "National security."
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman prefers "national security." I have responded to his request, although, frankly, I do not see much difference. Clearly, there may be some strategic issue which it is not desirable to make public. For example, there might be some reason why the Minister had directed the Central Authority not to site a station in a particular area. It might, in the interests of national security, be desirable to withhold that information. I cannot see how that would interfere with the public, or that it is of any value to the public to have information of that kind. Having regard to the discussion which took place in Committee, and the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was concerned only about this change in language, I cannot see why he is now raising an objection.
  Mr. Hudson: I do not think the Minister was present when the Parliamentary Secretary made his statement. I quite admit that there may be grounds why it might be desirable, on grounds of national security, not to disclose that the Minister had given directions on the siting of a generating station at a particular point. I cannot understand the words used by the Parliamentary Secretary. He suggested that the question of an improvement in distribution, or the inauguration of a new system of distribution in a particular area, should be regarded as a matter of national security. I am not questioning the general principle, but asking why on earth the Parliamentary Secretary should have made that suggestion.
  Mr. Hopkin Morris: I agree that the Minister has tried to meet the criticisms which were made in Committee, but the words" national

  285
  security" do not appear to get us out of the difficulty. The person who determines the question of national security is the Minister of Fuel and Power, and I cannot understand what he has to do with it. I see no reason why it should be there at all. These words are nearly as bad as the original words.
  Mr. Shinwell: I must take exception to what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) has said. This question of what is the national interest is not determined by the Minister of Fuel and Power, but by the Government.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We should like the Minister to answer the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson). The Parliamentary Secretary indicated a certain line of conduct which does not really fall within the limits of national security. In Committee, we were trying to narrow down the words "in the national interest" in relation to the suppression of information. We thought that these words met our point, because they suppress information which it is contrary to national security to disclose. The Parliamentary Secretary seemed to take the matter beyond the ordinary definition of security, by suggesting an unnecessary suppression of information. The only people who know what is being done are the General Staffs. The German General Staff were very well informed before the war, and they soon had it all mapped out whether an electricity supply was in one area or in another. The General Staffs know exactly what is going on, and they would hold meetings to decide exactly what strategic factors were foreshadowed. We should like the Parliamentary Secretary to say that, if he did not regard these matters as security measures in the wider sense, he intended to interpret them in the narrower sense. I think then that we on this side could be satisfied.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 13, line 23, at the end, to insert:
  "(4) A Consultative Council may, as respects any financial year of the Area Board for their area or, if their area is the North of Scotland District, of the North of Scotland Board, make to the Board a report on the exercise and performance by the Council of
  286
  their functions during that year, and any such report shall be made to the Board as soon as possible after the end of the said financial year, and the Board shall include that report in the report made by them under this Section or, as the case may be, under Section twenty-three of the Act of 1943."
  This Amendment relates to the question of consultative councils making annual reports to either the area board, the Central Authority or the Minister, as the case may be. In Committee, the Opposition moved an Amendment to require the consultative council to present reports direct to the Minister. I stated that if a report was to be presented before its publication it would be better for it to be embodied in the area board's report, in the first instance, before going to the Minister. I think that this is the appropriate way of dealing with this matter.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: This goes a considerable way towards meeting the request that we made on the Committee stage. I would have regarded it as more or less satisfactory, but for the argument that developed on Clause 7. The Clause, as it stands, gives power to the Minister to issue directions for the report to be submitted and then published. We should like to know whether we can obtain the assurance from the Minister that he will take steps to see that a consultative council's report is of such a nature or in such a form as to give a true picture not merely of what it has done but of what it has failed to do.
  We were told, in effect, during the discussions on the consultative councils that, if the desires of the Parliamentary Secretary are to be met, little or no publicity is to be given to their proceedings, particularly in any case where they have failed to give satisfaction. If effect is given to that view, one of the chief objects of the Opposition in urging the Minister to put forward this Amendment will be defeated. The object of these reports is that the public shall know what has happened to representations made by the consumers. I want once more to emphasise that the statutory protection of the consumer is being abolished. Judging from what the Parliamentary Secretary said on Clause 7, it is clear that what he intends is that the consultative councils should pursue their work in a condition of darkness.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 13, line 27, at the end, to insert:
  "and shall at the same time lay before each House of Parliament a report with respect to the exercise of his functions during that year under this Act and the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1936, except as regards matters which in his opinion it is against the interests of national security to disclose."
  Under Section 30 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, the Minister was required to make an annual report to Parliament, but as these were sometimes very voluminous, it was thought desirable to make it possible to summarise the general activities and present them in a more abridged form. Provision is made for the presentation of a report in respect of the exercise of a Minister's functions in relation to these Acts.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 9.—(Compulsory purchase of land.)
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 13, line 31, at the end to insert: "(except section two thereof)."
  This and the following two Amendments are not entirely drafung. On the Committee stage it was urged by hon. Members opposite that in the application of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation (Procedure) Act, 1946, to the acquisition of land by electricity boards under this Bill the provision in the 1946 Act for speedy acquisition of land should be omitted. Section 2 provides for the speedy acquisition of land, and hon. Members opposite proposed that should be omitted in the application of that Act to this Bill. This and the following two Amendments deal with that point.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendments made.
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move in page 14, line 3, at the end, to insert:
  "(3) Section fourteen of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899 (as incorporated with this Act), so far as the said section relates to the Postmaster General, shall apply to the placing of an electric line in pursuance of any right purchased under this section in like manner as it applies, to the execution of works involving the placing of lines in, under, along, or across any street or public bridge."
  This Amendment applies the provisions of Section 14 of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, to Acts in which, under the provisions of Clause
  288
  9 of this Bill, the board compulsorily acquires the right to place an electric line over land. The provisions of Section 14 are to the effect that if an undertaker wishes to exercise these powers he has to give notice to the Postmaster-General. In the event of there being a difference between the undertaker and the Postmaster-General, Section 14 provides for certain machinery for the resolution of differences, and provides also for the payment of compensation in the event of damage being caused to the Postmaster-General's property. This Amendment seeks to say that if the Electricity Board, acting under the terms of Clause 9, compulsorily acquires the right to lay wires across land, it must, in the same way, give notice to the Postmaster-General in order that the question whether the proposed laying of the line will damage the Postmaster-General's property can be determined in the way in which it is determined under Section 14 of the 1899 Act.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 10 (Power of Electricity Boards to promote and oppose Bills.)
  Amendments made: In page 14, line 13, after the first "and," insert "any Electricity Board."
  In line 15, leave out "the Authority or," and insert "an Electricity."— [[Mr. Shinwell.]

  CLAUSE 13.—(Vesting of assets of electricity undertakings.)
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I beg to move, in page 16, line 23, to leave out "and," and to insert:
  "(ii) all agreements between any authorised undertakers and any railway undertakers for the supply of electricity to the railway undertakers for the purposes of haulage or traction, and all transmission lines used wholly or mainly for the purpose of giving a supply to any railway undertakers for the purposes of haulage or traction; and"
  The proviso to Subsection (4) of this Clause specifies certain assets and categories of assets which shall vest in the Central Authority/not an area board. They include such things as generating stations. We propose to add to those particular types of assets agreements for the supply of electricity to railway undertakers. We provide in Clause 43 that the Central Authority shall be responsible for the supply of current to the railways, and it

  289
  is appropriate that the Central Authority should take over agreements to supply the railways with electricity.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 17, line 33, at the end, to insert:
  "(d) for any reference (however worded and whether express or implied) to the directors or any director of the body there were substituted, as respects anything falling to be done on or after the vesting date, a reference to such person as the appropriate Board may direct;
  (e) for any reference (however worded and whether express or implied) to any officer of the body there were substituted, as respects anything falling to be done on or after the vesting date, a reference to such person as the appropriate Board may appoint or, in default of appointment, to the officer of the Board who corresponds as nearly as may be to the first mentioned officer."
  Subsection (7) of this Clause deals with the adaptation of agreements which are transferred from electricity undertakings to electricity boards. The Subsection did not contain the necessary machinery for transferring the word, "director," to the appropriate officer in the board, and this Amendment seeks to remedy that omission.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 17, line 37, to leave out from "any," to "and" in line 38. and to insert:
  services under the appropriate Board to be selected by that Board, which are reasonably equivalent services."
  During the Committee stage Members opposite took exception to the word, "comparable," and suggested that the word "equivalent," would be clearer. We adopt that suggestion in this Amendment.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We regard this Amendment as an advance. but it still remains the case that the services can be selected by the board. The Minister has said that the protection of the subject still remains, but there is no doubt that a great monopoly is being set up which will have power to select for itself services which it regards either as reasonably comparable, or, in the words of the Amendment, "reasonably equivalent." This is an example of the dangers to which the ordinary citizen will be exposed working
  290
  under a system in the creation of which, according to the Government, this Bill is only the forerunner.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 17, line 39, leave out "two," and insert"four."—[ The Solicitor-General.]
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 18, line 6, to leave out Subsection (8), and to insert:
  "(8) Other documents, not being enactments, which refer, whether specifically or generally, to any such body, shall be construed in accordance with the provisions of the last foregoing Subsection, so far as applicable."
  This Amendment is designed to meet a criticism which was advanced by Members opposite in Standing Committee, when the Subsection was objected to on the ground that the drafting was obscure. We have tried to simplify it in this new Subsection.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Nobody will deny that this Amendment makes a considerable improvement. If anything was necessary to show the advantage of Opposition criticism this Amendment is an example.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I beg to move, in page 19, line 1, to leave out paragraph (c).
  When this Clause originally came before the House the only director who could claim for compensation because of cessation of office, or any other cause, was a managing director. During the Committee stage, two Amendments were accepted by the Government. The first was that directors whose duties were substantially those of an employee could claim, and the other was that any director who had liability in respect of fees earned, or expenses incurred before the vesting date, could claim. It may be argued by the Government that these are concessions for which Members on this side of the House should be grateful, but I would make it clear that both these Amendments were merely playing with a situation which we knew would result in the gravest possible consequences.
  In proposing to leave out this paragraph, we are trying to bring directors into the same category as all other persons employed in electricity companies. By Clause 49, any person whose contract

  291
  is taken over by a new corporation may receive compensation in accordance with regulations to be issued by the Minister. We are seeking to ensure that directors shall have an equal chance with others working in the industry of having their claims considered. We are not seeking in any way to make directors a privileged class. The Minister has admitted on many occasions that directors are a class of which the nation may be proud, and we are asking that their services to industry shall be treated in the same way as those of other people who have played their part in this vital service to the community.
  I am afraid that the inclusion of this paragraph in the Bill is merely due to political prejudice on the part of Members opposite. That is the only reason for its retention, so far as I can see. I' have tried to study the background which governs the Government's attitude towards directors, and I need only remind the House of what the Minister said last night. Talking about directors, he said:
  "Have they in mind the chairman of the board of an existing supply company who has attacked this Bill, who has declared that its provisions are dangerous and fatal to the future of electricity supply in the country? If they have in mind such a person, I say quite frankly that, whatever hon. Members may think about it, if I have to appoint electricity boards it would be quite improper to appoint to such boards a person who was definitely opposed to the nationalisation of the industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1947; Vol. 439, c. no.]
  It may well be that people are opposed to the nationalisation of the industry, but the Minister must appreciate that such people may be very good servants to the industry, in the sense that, although they may think nationalisation to be against the best interests of the industry; they are prepared to serve the new authority, now the decision has been taken, as they have done in the past. A statement like that can only lead Members of this House to have the initial impression that the Minister is against anybody who happens to have the word "director" attached to his name.
  I think that that impression is more than substantiated when one considers what the Minister said in Committee. I admit that the right hon. Gentleman arrived rather late on the occasion in question and did not have the benefit of
  292
  having heard all the arguments and, particularly, the very reasonable arguments put forward by his Parliamentary Secretary. I should like to recall to the House just what the Minister said when he was refusing this Amendment upstairs:
  "Of course, it is not a satisfactory answer to the hon. Gentleman"—
  meaning my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster)—
  "He says the reason we are doing this is because some directors have stood up to me. They may have appeared to have been standing up to me but in effect what they are doing is to stand up for themselves."
  I do ask the Minister whether perhaps tonight he would like to reflect on that statement, and whether he really feels it to be true. Does he really believe that the directors of an industry which he has praised many times in this House deserve what he has said about them? If I may, I should like to continue to quote the Minister's remarks on that occasion. He went on to say:
  "They are quite satisfied with the present dispensation; of course they are. They have been doing very well out of it, and naturally they resent this proposed new dispensation."
  Can the Minister produce any evidence to substantiate that charge? Can he really say that any director in the electrical industry, although he may "oppose nationalisation, is determined to wreck this proposal in order to satisfy his own ends? I doubt it very much, but if he can the sooner he makes that evidence available to this House the better. He went on to say:
  "Let us see what these directors are. There are many discarded politicians who have become directors of all sorts of undertakings."
  To which my hon. Friend, the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) very rightly interjected, "Ben Smith," an interjection which the Minister left alone, going on to say:
  "There are hon. Members on the other side who are guinea-pig directors of companies. I do not know whether they do a full time job of work, but if they do, let them get up and say so; let them tell us what they do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 27th March, 1947; c.467-8.]
  I have quoted those extracts from the Minister's remarks because I think that they show beyond any reasonable doubt that the Minister is not considering directors as a particular class who have helped in the industry which he himself has said repeatedly in this House has done well by the country, but is allowing his own

  293
  prejudice against directors as a class to override his judgment. If I may say so this Amendment, if it were carried, would reflect his calmer thoughts rather than his political statements either in the Committee or on the Floor of the House.
  I should like to ask the Minister to consider for a moment the terms of Clause 49. Under that Clause any agreement which is taken over by the board is subject to such regulations as the Minister may make concerning the terms of compensation that may be awarded to anyone whose services are dispensed with. Can he inform the House why directors should not be included under this Clause? The Clause is permissive, and he may make any directions he likes. If he really and sincerely believes, as he appears to from the extracts I have quoted, that there are guinea pig directors, he is perfectly able under Clause 49 to make whatever restrictive conditions he likes to make sure that such directors shall not obtain any benefits. But if, as we say on this side of the House, these directors who are engaged in the industry at the moment are worthy of compensation, then if their services are dispensed with surely in the most elementary terms of justice they should be included in Clause 49.
  Mr. Speaker: I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there are Amendments on the Order Paper to Clause 49. We cannot discuss them on Clause 14 since one cannot anticipate a discussion. Otherwise, quite frankly, I shall be obliged not to call the later Amendments.
  7 45 P.m.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I apologise if I have trespassed, Mr. Speaker, but no doubt you are aware that Clause 49 in its general implications was used very widely upstairs during the previous stage of this Bill, and I hope that I was in Order in referring to it in the same general way without prejudice to any subsequent Amendments.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is on a very delicate line because we cannot discuss Amendments to a Clause which we have not yet reached. There are Amendments down to Clause 49 and I hope that we shall have an adequate discussion on them.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I wished to introduce Clause 49 only in its most general terms and merely to say that I should like directors to be included in its provisions. I thought that that was permissible, but if I have trespassed on later Amendments, Mr. Speaker, I apologise.
  I should like to ask the Minister just whom he intends to penalise under this provision. He has talked a great deal about guinea-pig directors, and as far as I can understand what he said in Committee and elsewhere his objection to the removal of this Clause is that in his opinion no director of an electricity company has ever done anything which deserved any credit from the country as a whole. I would ask him whether he is aware of the large number of directors, who—although they are not full-time directors and therefore do not come under this Clause—by part-time service through a holding company and through its subsidiaries do in fact qualify, not under the Clause but in practice, for any compensation that the Ministry may like to declare.
  I should like to ask him also if he has considered the question of professional experts. Where a large scheme of hydro-electrical development is going forward it may be necessary for a company to engage a professional expert who understands as far as possible the latest practice in these matters. What would happen to him? He will not be a full-time director; he will certainly not be a director whose terms of employment correspond to those of an employee. He will recieve no compensation, although he may very well have given up the whole of his practice in order to take part in this development of the electrical industry. Why should he be debarred from coming in?
  In particular, I should like to ask the Minister about these people who have been managers or have held some equivalent position in the industry but who, through old age or ill health, are no longer able to hold those positions. They are promoted to be members of the board so that their services may be maintained and so that their knowledge may be kept available to the company. The Minister is upsetting all that. In spite of his natural desire to help his colleagues, I hope he will consider these cases. They are cases of very considerable personal importance, even if he does not think so. For myself I would rest my case on what was said by

  295
  an hon. Member on the other side—the hon. Member for Reading (Mr.Mikardo)— which was as follows:
  "Surely every member of the Committee will agree that it is right to give compensation to those men at present engaged in the industry, irrespective of what they are called, who are doing a job of work and that it is wrong to give compensation to those who are not doing a job of work, irrespective of what they are called. In this matter the word 'director' should neither confer privileges nor be made the subject of hostile discrimination."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E. 27th March, 1947; c. 462.]
  That is all we are asking of the Minister tonight, and I believe that the views of the hon. Member for Reading—with whom I often disagree—are on this occasion far more representative of what this House feels than what the Minister has said on previous occasions.
  We are only asking the Government to do what this House has always done through centuries of legislation—to ensure that whenever we interfere with private enterprise, whenever we interfere with the rights of the individual, that individual has the right to compensation and to have his case heard. That is what we ask, and on that I rest my case. I ask the Minister to abandon his prejudices and to allow directors, as any other class of individual, to have their case heard, and if they be worthy of compensation to receive it.
  Mr. J. Foster: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I think the relevance of Clause 49 is this. Clause 13 provides that certain contracts shall vest in the new authority, and under Clause 49 compensation is provided for all those contracts which vest in the new authority. Therefore, if the Subsection is left out, the contracts with the directors will vest, and Clause 49 will operate to ensure that directors will receive compensation. That is the position under the Bill. When the matter was considered in Committee, besides the observations of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), who said that a person who does a full job of work should get compensation, something was said by the Parliamentary Secretary to that effect. He said that if a director worked he should have his contract. The Amendments which the Government accepted in Committee did go a certain way, but they did not go far enough. They did include two cases which would otherwise have caused
  296
  grave injustice, namely, the case of the director who was performing the services of an employee and the other case to which my hon. Friend has referred, but they still left out the director who performs a full time-job in different companies and who performs a valuable service.
  It is, I would submit cheap politics to gibe at directors and, the moment the word "director" is mentioned, to do as the right hon. Gentleman the Minister does, and pretend that they are only guinea pigs, that they are harming the industry, and will sabotage the new authority when it is brought into being. That is very cheap politics. What is undoubtedly the fact, and it has been admitted on both sides of the House, is that a great number of directors do an honest and decent job, provide the direction of these companies in a responsible manner, and perform a useful service. Now you can have a full-time director in various companies. His whole day may be occupied in directing various parts of the industry, yet he will get no compensation. Why? Because a sort of political Aunt Sally has been set up that directors are no good. I cannot help suspecting that it is because some directors have shown a good deal of courage in opposing the right hon. Gentleman; they have opposed him, and now they have to pay the penalty.
  Hon. Members opposite are very apt to think that any opposition to them is either impertinent, subversive, or a bad example to foreigners. They have not learnt—all Governments are alike in that respect—that people who oppose can do so quite sincerely and, having perhaps lost their position, can then pitch in and try to help the country. But no, they have to be punished for opposing, and directors have been singled out by the right hon. Gentleman as the persons who have led the opposition outside this House to the nationalisation proposals. Therefore, in view of the extensive programme of nationalisation, it is to be seen that what happens to people who oppose is that they are to be punished and not properly compensated.
  In my submission, the right hon. Gentleman should act in accordance with the principle expressed in Committee by the Parliamentary Secretary and the hon. Member for Reading, who said that the

  297
  person who does a full job should be compensated. Certain persons who do a full job are not being compensated under this Clause. In another argument, if I remember rightly, the Parliamentary Secretary said that there would be no services under the new authority comparable to those of directors. I do not agree with him, but assuming that what he says is partly correct, surely people who are made redundant and who have been doing a full job should be compensated for their services. It is only justice, and the right hon. Gentleman having accepted these two Amendments, I do urge him to complete the picture by saying that he accepts the principle that a man who does a full job of work should be compensated.
  Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest and Christ-church (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) was good enough to inform me before the Debate began that he intended to quote from some of my speeches in the Committee and outside, and I gathered from what he said that he was about to make a devastating attack. I told him that I did not mind in the least as long as he did not take up too much time, as I was anxious to get the Bill through. However, I make no complaint; I am bound to say that I did not detect anything in the nature of a devastating attack. On the contrary, I thought he was very mild. An attempt has been made by the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment and by the seconder to create prejudices, yet at the same time they asked me to divest myself of prejudices. I have no difficulty at all; I can take an impartial view, strange as it may appear to the other side, for it is one thing the other side cannot do. What is the case they present? In dealing with it I shall ignore all the innuendoes and insinuations which I detected in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest and Christchurch, because they have got nothing to do with the case. What are they asking? They are asking that directors without exception no matter who they are, of private electricity supply companies should be compensated on the transfer of their undertakings to the British Electricity Authority.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre rose—
  Mr. Shinwell: Does the hon. and gallant Member deny that?
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Yes. I thought I had made that clear, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. All we are asking is that directors, like any other class, should be eligible for compensation as provided by the Clause.
  Mr. Shinwell Directorswithout exception?
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Yes.
  Mr. ShinwellDirectors without exception—directors as a class—should be eligible for compensation. Then we have to discriminate when it comes to whether or not they are to receive compensation? Presumably the hon. and gallant Member has in view the setting up of a tribunal for the purpose—or leaving it to the Minister, although I do not expect they would agree to leave it to the Minister— [HON. MEMBERS:"NO."]—especially after what they have said about the Minister. Let us see exactly what this means. They have quoted my speeches and the speeches of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee, but they refrained from quoting their own. I will repair the omission, but I will not take up as much time as the hon. Members did. The hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment said in the course of his speech in Committee that one of the charges permitted should be for ex gratia payments to directors or others who had served the companies. I said that if that were done it would be possible to pay substantial sums —mark you, substantial sums—either to directors or to other persons, even if those persons were subsequently transferred to the British Electricity Authority. That is to say, they would get the best of both worlds—they would receive compensation and in addition would be found good jobs in the British Electricity Authority.
  8.0 p.m.
  I made an offer to the hon. Gentlemen. I said that if they would put down an Amendment to the effect that small sums could be paid by way of ex gratia payments to those persons, specifying the sums which they had in mind, I would consider it. I said that if it was only a matter of £100, £200 or £500—if it did not amount to a very large sum globally.—it would not concern me unduly. What had I in mind, when I said that? The

  299
  hon. Members concerned were not referring to managing directors, who are covered, or to directors who could be regarded as employees of electricity under takings that is to say, to a director who was employed full time, and might be regarded as an officer of the undertaking. Hon. Members opposite were concerned with directors, whom I called guinea-pig directors. Some of them are discarded politicians. Some of them receive only a minimum payment in the form of fees, perhaps £100 or up to £500 a year, or perhaps small fees for attending meetings. I said I was prepared in those circumstances, if a suitable form of words to sponsor this point of view could be provided by the Opposition to consider some arrangement to provide ex gratia payments of that kind. No attempt has been made to find such a form of words. I left the matter to the Opposition. What they now propose is to exclude the whole of the Subsection so as to bring all directors into the purview, in relation to compensation payments. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]
  Let me deal with the substance of this case. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that I am prejudiced against directors. The hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster), not for the first time but without any evidence, has accused me of being prejudiced against certain directors who, he says, have attacked nationalisation. Who are the directors who have attacked nationalisation? Not the ordinary director who receives a fee or some remuneration for part-time services, but managing directors like Sir Robert Renwick and Mr. William Shearer.
  I am not complaining about the attacks. Those directors are perfectly entitled to attack nationalisation if they dislike it; but those men are not excluded from compensation by the provisions of the Clause. They have contracts with their existing undertakings, and those contacts for personal services must be respected. I have no prejudice against those gentlemen, in spite of the fact that they have attacked, in the most vehement and occasionally untruthful way, the nationalisation proposals. They are to be compensated. It may well be that if they have technical and administrative qualifications they may be employed in the new undertaking. Who can say? It will not be for me to
  300
  decide that matter but for the British Electricity Authority.
  I repeat what I have said. The average part-time director, whom I have rightly described as the guinea-pig director, is not much concerned in the promotion of electricity supply. For one reason or another he is appointed as a director of an electricity undertaking, but he does not possess high technical qualifications, unlike, for example, the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley), who has a thorough and adequate knowledge of the industry, and who is in quite a different category. So far as those persons are concerned, there is no justification whatever for recognition.
  If there were an amalgamation of electricity undertakings or, as sometimes occurs, absorption of one undertaking by another, does one expect the part-time directors of the absorbed undertaking to be compensated by the major undertaking? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] If they are, on what basis are they compensated? Let hon. Members opposite face that question. Let them produce the form of words which they think is desirable in the circumstances. The fact is that hon. Gentlemen opposite who have moved the Amendment and who have made such a song and dance about it, are not so much concerned about these poor directors, or about the managing directors, the big fellows who are protected under the Bill. They are concerned to create prejudice against the proposals of the Bill. They have done so all along the line. I gave them an opportunity. They cannot say that I was ungenerous. There are my words, in the Committee reports. I said, "Get a form of words. I will consider ex gratia payments.'' They have failed to do so. In my judgment, they are ruled completely out of court.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Since the famous case of Satan rebuking sin I do not think there has been anything funnier than the Minister of Fuel and Power rebuking other people for trying to create prejudice. Creating prejudice might be called his stock-in-trade. We do not complain about it. It is the most valuable of the assets which we have. Next to the Attorney-General—and nobody can surpass him, of course—the Minister of Fuel and Power is an easy top of the tree among manufacturers of prejudice, and, of course, Conservative votes. [HON

  301
  MEMBERS: "By-elections."] I certainly have very happy recollections of a by-election with an 18,000 majority and all my opponents forfeiting their deposits. We will leave it at that. We will try to deal with the occasional argument which the Minister interjected into what was a very amusing speech which all of us on this side thoroughly enjoyed.
  The Minister suffers occasionally from amnesia, lack of memory, which is no doubt inevitable because of the great strain which is put upon him. He cannot always remember what he said in Committee. The Minister had been addressing the Committee at some length upon the subject of guinea-pig directors. They differed from the ones which he intended to compensate, the managing directors, the whole-time people. He suggested that the other people did not really come in at all. Of course, he forgets that he addressed the Committee upstairs at some length and that he gave as chief example of the people whom he would not compensate, Mr. George Balfour, who one would say was engaged consistently in electricity companies.
  Mr. Shinwell: We cannot compensate Mr. George Balfour.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Of course, he has passed beyond the power of any Minister to injure him any more. If such a director existed today, one admittedly engaged in the active prosecution of electricity undertakings in many quarters of the globe and in particular in many quarters of this island, the Minister would say, "Simply because all his time was not taken up with one company, I will write into the Bill a Clause specifically debarring him even from having his case considered." That is our objection here. The Minister says, with the air of one who sees an abyss yawning before him, "Here are people whose case can be considered. Here is an injustice which we must remedy at all costs. What a terrible matter. Sympathy might overcome me. I will tie my hands in advance. I will make sure against any danger of softening. I will see that no danger of softening comes over me at all." Therefore he says, "In case some person like Mr. George Balfour may come up for consideration, I will specifically write a Clause into the Statute saying that he cannot be considered on any account."
  302
  We are willing to trust the Minister and to let him consider the matter under the Clause which he himself has drawn and which we shall reach later on. It deals with these matters and gives the Minister power to write regulations—a power which the Minister has never shown any unwillingness to assume—but debarring himself specifically from writing any regulations to deal with this small class of person. Then he makes the astonishing suggestion that because we detect a certain amount of prejudice in this we are treating him unfairly.
  For what reason has the Minister written this Clause into the Bill? He has failed to give us any reason. We were prevailing on the Parliamentary Secretary on the 10th day of the Standing Committee to meet us on this point when the Minister came down and answered us with a certain amount of acerbity. At that time I was asking him to meet us in safeguarding the case
  "that has been made on this side of the Committee of a director who, although not engaged whole-time, is engaged on several appointments which, in fact, amount to whole-time employment."
  At that point the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) interjected
  "Like the Solicitor-General?"
  That was a reference to the fact that on many occasions there had been a disappearance of the Law Officers from that Committee. The Minister was quite plain about it. He said:
  "The answer is, 'No.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E. 1st April. 1947; c. 472.]
  We are again bringing the matter up. We cannot believe that for the sake of dealing with this comparatively small number of persons he will persist in this particular fashion. A part-time director is not a thing we can banish. The Minister is saying, "If you are a part-time director you will be excluded by my Clause from having any kind of consideration of your case." I have myself piloted Acts of one kind or another by which employment was in many cases swept away. Under the Local Government Act for Scotland, for instance, the Scotish education authorities were swept away, and those who had been officers under the education authorities, many of whom were not full-time officers, were eligible for compensation.

  303
  The principle of part-time employment, which is the principle worked in this House, has always been acceptable, for whole-time Members of Parliament were never thought desirable. A person who sits on a board to which he brings a general knowledge of affairs, is as valuable as a person who sits in Parliament with a general knowledge of affairs, and the idea of writing into a Statute that a case could not be considered for a person who is a part-time director is foreign to the general idea on which this House has proceeded for so long. We cannot even yet believe that the Minister has considered the matter seriously, and we would ask him to think again. He is in melliferous mood, which is clearly due to the fact that his long task on this Bill is drawing to its close, and if he has not to concern himself with any other nationalisation Measure he may have time to administer the country instead of having to spend as much time here as he is doing in writing what one might call frivolous and vexatious Clauses into the Statute Book. We say that the number of persons is small and the amount involved trivial, but the number of injustices is more. For all those reasons, let the Minister at least admit the right of these people to go to court when they feel aggrieved.
  8.15 p.m.
  Colonel Clarke: There is some misconception on the other side of the House as to the principles of the appointment of directors. J do not suggest that the Solicitor-General is in any doubt, but I believe there is some doubt on that side. The usual thing is that a director is appointed by the shareholders for a certain period. It depends on the articles of association of the company. It might be for three years. Usually a certain number of directors retire each year, so that the Board retains continuity. It works out that one director is appointed for a period of about three years. During those three years he cannot be got rid of. He has to fulfil his term. He can only be given some inducement to retire. From that has grown up the system of compensation on retirement. As a rule, when a company is taken over by another company or board, either the directors of the smaller company are taken on to the board of the larger or some system of compensation is brought in.
  304
  In this case a very large undertaking is taking over a number of smaller ones. On the vesting date those directors will be thrown out of work. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There is no other word for it. In many cases they will lose their means of livelihood. We want to know why they are being treated differently from other employees. They are men who give their time and are paid for it. Some of them who are full-time directors give a great deal of their time. They are, therefore, employees of their companies. We cannot see why they should be treated differently. All we ask is that they should receive consideration in the same way as all other employees do. I cannot see where the difference is between these men who are called directors and those who are called managers or servants of the companies in other ways. We all know that in any organisation—it does not matter so much what the man is called; he may be the chairman, the president, the secretary or the treasurer—there is generally one man who really carries on the show, and in companies it is very often a director or a manager.
  I cannot help feeling that we have grounds for being nervous that directors as a class are being prejudiced by this Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) just now read certain passages of the proceedings upstairs. Turning up the proceedings for the same day, I found other instances which the Minister will probably remember. He said:
  "It would, I think, be embarrassing if we had in existence, after the vesting date, bodies of directors who have no functions to perform other than to look after the interests of the stockholders …"
  That was the matter being discussed. He went on:
  "…who might, for many reasons, be a bit troublesome. They are troublesome before the vesting date, and while there is no reason to assume that they will be uduly troublesome afterwards, we had better take no risks.…It is no use deceiving ourselves about certain people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 27th March, 1947; c. 475-6.]
  That does not give the impression that the Minister is out to help directors. I feel that he does not like them, but I do not see that for that reason they should not have a fair deal over this matter in the way other employees do. In addition to the various classes of directors which have been mentioned by my hon.

  305
  Friends, there is one type which seems to me to be extremely valuable. He is the man who has perhaps started as an engineer or a manager in one of the companies, then becomes a consultant, is put on a board, and from that, owing to his abilities, is put on a number of boards. He spends his time in attending board meetings and travelling between them, reading the necessary minutes, keeping up with the trade journals and various other information, as well as with the various societies, in' order to be up to date with his profession. He gives his whole time to it, not to any one company but to a number of companies and is
  extremely valuable. Is it not fair to suggest that a man of that type should at least have his case heard and not just be wiped out, as this Subsection will wipe him out if it is allowed to stand in the Bill?
  Mr. Gallacher: If any directors are unemployed at the vesting date, cannot they do what we did—take their unemployed banners and get out on the march?
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 283; Noes, 92.

  Division No. 278.]

  AYES.

  [8.21 p.m

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Alpass, J. H.

  Durbin, E. F. M

  Irving, W. J.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Ede Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Jeger, G (Winchester)

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

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

  Attewell, H. C.

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapet)

  John, W.

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Evans, S N. (Wednesbury)

  Jones, J. H (Bolton)

  Ayles, W. H.

  Ewart, R.

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

  Fairhurst, F.

  Kendall, W. D

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Farthing, W, J

  Kenyan, C

  Baird, J.

  Fornyhough, E.

  Kinley, J.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Field Capt. W. J.

  Kirby, B. V

  Barton, C.

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

  Lang, G.

  Beattie, J. (Belfast, W)

  Follick, M.

  Lavers, S.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Forman, J. C.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Benson, G.

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton;

  Leonard, W.

  Berry, H.

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Beswick, F.

  Gaitskell, H. T. N

  Levy, B. W.

  Binns, J.

  Gallacher, W.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S

  Lindgren, G. S

  Blyton, W. R.

  Gibbins, J.

  Lipson, D L.

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Gibson, C. W

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W

  Glizean, A.

  Logan, D. G

  Bowles, F, G. (Nuneaton)

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Longden, F.

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

  Goodrich, H. E.

  Lyne, A. W

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  McAdam, W.

  Brooks. T J. (Rothwell)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

  McAllister, G.

  Brown, T. J (Ince)

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Bruce, MaJ. D. W. T

  Grenfell, D. R.

  McGhee, H. G

  Buchanan, G.

  Grey, C. F.

  Mack, J. D

  Burke, W. A

  Grierson, E.

  McKay, J. (Wallsend) '

  Byers, Frank

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Callaghan, James

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Maclean, N (Govan)

  Carmicnael, James

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  McLeavy, F.

  Champion, A J

  Guest, Dr. L. Hader

  Mainwaring, W. H

  Chater, D.

  Gunter, R. J.

  Mallalieu, J P W

  Chetwynd, G. R

  Guy, W. H.

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  Manning, C (Camberwell, N.)

  Cobb, F. A.

  Hale, Leslie

  Manning, Mrs L (Epptng)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Hall, W. G.

  Mathers, G

  Collins, V. J.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Medland, H M

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Messer, F.

  Comyns, Dr. L

  Hardman, D R.

  Middleton, Mrs L

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Hardy, E. A

  Mikardo, Ian

  Corvedale, Viscount

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Mitchison. G. R.

  Cove, W. G.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Moody, A. S.

  Crossman, R. H. S

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Daggar, G.

  Herbison, Miss M

  Morley, R.

  Daines, P.

  Hicks, G.

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

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Hobson, C R

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Holman, P.

  Moyle, A.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Nally, W.

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

  House, G

  Naylor, T. E.

  Deer, G.

  Hoy, J.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Hubbard, T.

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

  Delargy, H. J.

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

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Diamond, J

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Driberg, T. E. N.

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

  Oldfield, W. H.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Viant, S. P.

  Paget, R. T.

  Skeffington, A. M

  Wadsworth, G

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Skinnard, F W.

  Walkden, E.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Walker, G. H

  Palmer, A. M. F.

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

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Parker, J.

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

  Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Parkin, B. T.

  Snow, Capt. J. W

  Watktns, T. E

  Paton, J. (Norwich),

  Sclley, L. J.

  Watson, W. M

  Pearl, Thomas F.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Piratin, P

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F

  Weitzman, D.

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Sparks, J. A.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Popplewell, E

  Stamford, W

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Steele, T.

  West, D. G.

  Price, M. Philips

  Stephen, C.

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

  Pritt, D. N.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Proctor, W. T

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Wigg, Col. G. E.

  Pryde, D. J.

  Swingler, S.

  Wilkes, L.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Sylvester, G. 0.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Randall, H. E.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Ranger, J.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Willey, 0. G. (Cleveland)

  Rees-Williams, D. R

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Reeves, J.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

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

  Reid T. (Swindon)

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Rhodes, H.

  Thomas, I. 0. (Wrekin)

  Williamson, T.

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Willis, E.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Thomson, Rt. Hon. G R. (Ed'b'gh,

  E) Wills, Mrs. E A

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Woodburn, A.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Woods, G. S.

  Royle, C.

  Tiffany, S.

  Wyatt, W.

  Sargood, R

  Timmons, J.

  Yates, V. F.

  Scollan, T.

  Titterington, M. F

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Tolley, L.

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Shackleton, E. A. A

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

  Sharp, Granville

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Shinwell Rt. Hon. E.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L

  Mr. Pearson. and

  Shurmer, P.

  Usborne, Henry

  Mr. Collindridge.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Vernon, Maj. W. F

  NOES

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Galbraith, Cmdr T. D

  Nutting, Anthony

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Osborne, C

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Peake, Rt. Hon. 0

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

  Hare, Hon. J H. (Woodbridge)

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Beechman, N. A.

  Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V.

  Pickthorn, K.

  Bennett, Sir P.

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

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Birch, Nigel

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0.

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

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Raikes, H. V.

  Bower, N.

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

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Hurd, A.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T

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

  Ropner, Col. L

  Butcher, H. W

  Jarvis, Sir J

  Scott, Lord W.

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Shepherd, W. S 'Bucklow)

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Lancaster, CoL C. G

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Snadden, W M

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Spence, H. R.

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

  Low, Brig. A. R. W

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Sutcliffe, H-

  Cathbert, W. N.

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

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

  Darling, Sir W. Y.

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Thornton-KemsIey, C N

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Macdonald, Sir P (I. of Wight)

  Touche, G. C.

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

  MacLeod, J.

  Vane, W. M. F

  Drayson, G. B.

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Drewe, C.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Wheatley, Colonel M J

  Duthie, W. S.

  Marples, A E

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  York, C.

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Morris- Jones, Sir H

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

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

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Mr. Studholme and

  Gage, C

  Morrison, Rt Hon. W S. (Cirencester)

  Lieut.-Colonel Thorp.

  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: I beg to move, in page 19, line 42, to leave out Subsection (13).
  For the benefit of hon. Members who have not an intimate acquaintance with the Bill I should explain that Subsection (13) which we are moving to omit, says:
  308
  "Subject to the next following section, every body to whom this Part of this Act applies shall be dissolved on the vesting date."
  To a large extent this Subsection, although a comparatively short one, is one of the most vital in the Bill. It compulsorily dissolves all the existing companies on the vesting date. The re-

  309
  sult of that is that we shall shortly begin consideration of a number of very complicated Clauses, all of which are rendered necessary by this Subsection, and practically none of which would be necessary but for the decision of the Government to take this particular action. This action is unprecedented. It was not taken in the case of the Coal Industry (Nationalisation) Act. In that case companies were left in existence after the vesting date, to be wound up if they saw fit, or to continue in existence with the compensation money accruing to them, if they saw fit. This has not been done in the case of the Transport Bill. Companies are to be allowed to continue in existence, in the case of that Bill, for the time necessary to wind up their affairs after the vesting date.
  Now, for the first time, we are being asked to pass a provision which says that on the vesting date these companies shall cease to exist. In the view of Members on this side of the House, no adequate reason for this exceptional step has been given up to the present moment. In the course of the Committee proceedings upstairs, the Minister said:
  "These undertakings are to be taken over lock, stock and barrel.…Obviously, if that is done, they will be left with no functions to perform after the vesting date."
  That is, if the Minister will forgive me saying so, sheer nonsense. The proof of that is that it has been necessary to insert in subsequent Clauses complicated provisions setting up a stockholders' and shareholders' representation to perform, inadequately as we think, the functions of winding up that ought to have been, and easily could have been, performed by the companies had they remained in existence beyond the vesting date. Because of this action, these complicated provisions have had to be inserted. The Minister went on to say:
  "It would, I think, be embarrassing if we had in existence, after the vesting date, bodies of directors who had no functions to perform other than to look after the interests of the stockholders in respect of the distribution of the assets.…"
  That seems to be a very inadequate reason to put forward for inserting all these complicated provisions. Perhaps the real reason at the back of the Minister's mind is provided in the remaining words of that sentence of which I have quoted the earlier part. He said:
  310
  "…and who might, for many reasons, be a bit troublesome. They are troublesome before the vesting date, and while there is no reason to assume that they will be unduly troublesome afterwards, we had better take no risks."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee E, 27th March, 1947; c. 475–6.]
  That is the nadir of Governmental argument. I do not know whether it would be in Order to discuss the subsequent Clauses, but hon. Members may take it from me—and they will learn how right I am as discussions continue tonight—that Clauses 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25, very largely originated because of Clauses 17 and 13. It will be necessary to detain the House at some length on all these Clauses. Broadly speaking, the effect of Clauses 17 and 13 is to make necessary all these very complicated provisions. We believe that no adequate reason for this has hitherto been given. We still believe that it would be much simpler both for the Government, the Civil Service and the shareholders if this Subsection were omitted and the existing directors were allowed, after the vesting date, to wind up their affairs. The method which is proposed in this Subsection is one which was not followed in the cases of the nationalisation of coal and transport.
  Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with this matter at some length, but I can reply quite shortly, which is as much as the argument really deserves. There is no point whatever in continuing in office a body of directors if they have no responsibilities to perform.
  Mr. Hudson: They have.
  Mr. Shinwell: Well, there has been no indication of the usefulness in their functions, so far as I can see, except, of course, that hon. Members have in mind that, after the vesting date, if these bodies continue as an entity, the directors would also be continuing and would receive their usual emoluments, and, to that extent, we would overcome the difficulties presented to us by the last Amendment, of which the House has already disposed. We cannot go back on that decision now.
  What were the arguments adduced by the right hon. Gentleman in the Committee? They are on record. He said that boards of directors should be kept in being to advise the Central Electricity Board during the transitional period. So

  311
  far as this will be agreeable to the new authority, their services can be transferred, and, therefore, they can give guidance to the new authority without retaining the undertakings. Then, the argument was presented to us that the board of directors should be allowed to represent the security holders. There was no provision in the Bill for this at first, but the point has been met, and it has now been decided, and provision made in the Bill, that directors may now be elected as stockholders' representatives. That point has been cleared up.
  The final point, to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred and upon which much was said in the Committee proceedings, was that the procedure which it is proposed to adopt differs substantially from the procedure adopted in relation to coal and transport. As I have so often said, it does not follow that the procedure adopted in one nationalisation scheme is appropriate to another nationalisation scheme. In the case of the coal industry, where the colliery undertakings, for the most part, had possession of collieries, but with ancillary and subsidiary undertakings like coke ovens, brickworks and the like, it was desirable for many reasons that the companies should retain their identity for some time after the vesting date, and some of them are"still in existence, although I understand that many are now going into liquidation.
  In the case of electricity it is quite different. Here is a series of undertakings dealing, not with a variety of projects, but with one—the provision and distribution of the electricity supply. As hon. Members know, we have set up an organising committee to make the necessary preparations for vesting day, when the transfer is to be effected, so that we shall not be caught napping when vesting day comes, but will be able to say that we shall no longer require the services of the existing private directors. That is the position. The right hon. Gentleman can say what he likes and use all the vituperation he likes in saying that what I have said is not true, although it is not necessarily vituperation to say that anything said by me is untrue. It is quite natural to expect it from the right hon. Gentleman, but I say that these are the facts of the situation, and I am going to ask the House to reject this proposal
  312
  In my judgment, it is not entirely but to some extent, a wrecking Amendment, and, if this proposition were accepted, it would hamstring the Bill.
  8.45 p.m.
  Colonel Lancaster: I am sorry that the Minister was not present to hear some of the comments made by several hon. Members on his speech in the course of this Debate. The speeches today seemed to indicate, just as much as when this matter was discussed in Committee, that there was something of indecent haste in the way the Minister wanted to get rid of these boards of directors. Listening to his line of argument, one got the impression that their activities had been against the best interests of the industry. As I remember it, I think that the Minister, in fact, did advance that reason as the cause behind the desire to nationalise the electrical industry. He had previously suggested that it was efficiently run, yet, when it comes to the question of whether or not these directors are to remain in being—not paid, as suggested by the Minister, and not on behalf of their shareholders, but to carry out quite properly a function which they would desire to carry out to see that the industry or their part of it was* effectively and efficiently handed over to their successors— the right hon. Gentleman sees no reason for that. If the matter were to be limited merely to the managers or technicians, it would be like one battalion taking over from another in the line and wanting no advice except from the signals officer, and saying, "We are not interested in what the remainder of the officers of the battalion may know in regard to the general situation." There is no difference.
  If the Government do not wish to avail themselves of the information, -guidance and help that would undoubtedly be forthcoming, they could turn it down, but to close their minds to it because of prejudice, and to deny to themselves and, in fact, to the nation the advantages they could procure by turning to the previous controllers of this industry, seems against the interests of the nation as a whole, whatever one's political views may be. Why should it be suggested that directors who for many years have carried out their functions and duties in a most conscientious manner would, at that moment, cease to continue their duties towards the industry which they have

  313
  for long so faithfully served? Indeed, if their advice or guidance was in any way unsatisfactory, it need not be acted upon. Whether it is that the Minister is unwilling to withdraw from the position which he very unwisely took up in Committee, I do not know, but it seems to me on this occasion that he has once again interjected into this matter—which is nothing more than administrative policy—a great deal of unnecessary prejudice. I think that he is very unwise to do that, and I hope that this Amendment will receive the support it deserves.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) I am a little sorry that the Minister was not able to wait to listen to any comment upon his speech, more particularly as it might rightly be said that a substantial part of it was devoted to setting up what purported to be the Opposition arguments and then an assumption that, of course, they fell down. In that portion of his speech I think the right hon. Gentleman was really less than fair to us. He omitted the fundamental, if not the most effective or skilful argument which has been put from this side. I would ask hon. Members opposite to bear in mind that they themselves may find cause for regret in this before many years have passed. The fundamental argument is this. They have come to power after two generations of propaganda in favour of socialisation with compensation, and it has been very frequently argued against them in the past that what they were offering was actually a figment, because if one nationalises on sufficiently a large scale, one cannot possibly have anything real with which to compensate. It is, therefore, of extreme importance to them that it should be made clear that they are compensating in this Bill. I am quite clear in my mind about the difficulty of Order. I do not propose to argue about the compensation part of the Bill.
  What I am trying to argue about is the meaning of the word "compensation" itself, and whether that is or is not affected by this Amendment, and I submit that it is. Compensation has always meant, in logic and theory, and has always meant in our Parliamentary history, as could be shown by reading all the statutes right back to the beginning of the 18th century and earlier that when
  314
  the State takes away asset x from person A, person A receives something equivalent to asset x I hope that that is simple. If Subsection (I3)MS left in the Bill, then, with the partial exception of one earlier Act passed by this Government, for the first time in history that will cease to be true. Here it is proposed to take away x from one entity; the Government are purporting to compensate by giving something which one cannot pretend to be the equivalent of x to somebody other than the expropriated person, and the machinery for doing that is by providing that on the vesting date the company shall go out of existance. It lands the whole Bill in a position where it is not consistent with any previous general statement about nationalisation, or compensation for assets taken over by the State, and where it is not consistent with any previous use logical or chronological of the word "compensation."
  What is the result? The result is a long list of Clauses—almost all those between Clauses 13 and 24. Almost all of those Clauses have had to be put in to try to bridge the logical gaps left by this essential and fundamental defect in the whole structure of the Bill. If any hon. Gentleman who was not on the Committee upstairs has taken the trouble—I do not suppose anybody has—to read through all our Debates, even allowing for prejudices on one side of the House or the other, he will agree with me that the only argument of the Government was, "Oh, well, we cannot see any other way of doing it." There was no positive argument for what was being done. There was no argument at all, except the assumption that His Majesty's Government want to take over these things and that this is administratively the easiest way to do it. I do not believe that can be effectively controverted, and if that is so I suggest that this House ought to accept my right hon. Friend's suggestion for the deletion of Subsection (13).
  But I will also say to hon. Members opposite that if there is any truth, even only 48 per cent. of truth, in the case I have been putting up—I do not suppose for a moment that the case I have been putting will in those terms get down within 24 hours to the electors of Cowcadders, for instance, but in time I have little doubt that it will silt down that this Government have already made it

  315
  quite plain that really large-scale nationalisation is not compatible with compensation in any sense previously contemplated either by the English dictionary or by English law. If the people of this country do get that into their heads then that is the end of the Mensheviks opposite and the Bolsheviks, too, because I am sure the real Bolsheviks would not tolerate their support.
  Mr. Harold Roberts: This is a Bill to nationalise the electricity services. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am sorry to indulge in platitudes which appear to annoy the other side, but really one must suit oneself to one's audience, and hon. Members need reminding of this. A little time ago there was the Bill to nationalise the coalmines. Nationalisation means taking away from a man or a corporate body something which he has, and vesting it in the State.
  Mr. Follick: Like the Post Office.
  Mr. Roberts: It may be a good or bad thing, but it is not a necessary corollary that the man should be condemned to death or the corporate body wound up. Indeed, the Minister has told us that, in the case of the coal companies, it was highly necessary that they should remain in being, and then he rather incautiously added that many of them are being voluntarily wound up. It is for the Government to show some particular convenience in doing this, not for the other side to show that the Bill will not work without it. A little amusement is welcome in these days, and I think that for the Minister to load a speech with insinuations and complaints of vituperation from the Opposition, and then to go out is really a very amusing effort. His speech was a campaign against directors as such. I admit they may be vile creatures, but I should think they have the ordinary rights of human beings—namely, to be responsible to their stockholders, who are perfectly capable in due course of winding up those companies if they think fit to do so. Why is that not done? The Minister has kindly told us—because to do it in that way would be fatal to the whole scheme, which is what he says this side wants. Why should it be fatal to the whole scheme? Fatal to the scheme, I suppose, because it leaves at large competent corporate bodies. I
  316
  feel grateful to the Minister for making not only an amusing but an instructive speech —very amusing, with smear tactics and envenomed attacks on this side, obstructing us in getting at his own motives.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I think that hon. Members on this side of the House are rather at a disadvantage in discussing this Amendment because of the subsequent one on which we must not trespass; but if one is entitled to assume that the arguments which my right hon. Friend did advance were sound, then nothing can be more unconvincing than the speech the Minister made. What it really came to was, that arguments of the greatest possible import in the commercial world were worth no answer at all. Having made that ex parte statement for which he advanced no reason, he then went on to say that what we were interested in on this side of the House was to preserve the possible emoluments of directors; and he implied that the only directors we were concerned with in this House and elsewhere were the "guinea-pig" directors. He finished up by saying that, obviously, circumstances must change, and that what the Government might think equitable in the case of coal, would not be equally equitable, in their view, so far as electricity was concerned.
  9.0 p.m.
  Surely, the one argument he advanced —which was that whereas coal had many ancillaries, electricity had none—is about the one argument he could not sustain for in the last two days we have already had arguments to the effect that the Government have found it necessary to put down special Clauses on this very thing, in order to ensure the continuance of the very ancillaries the existence of which the Minister now denies. Equally, have we not spent time earlier today in ensuring that these ancillaries can carry on, although the companies themselves may cease to exist? It does seem to me that a very great point of principle is involved here. The company as such is responsible for whatever may happen to those assets which it controls.
  The Government are taking over those assets under terms of compensation which we shall be able to discuss later. I am afraid that if I were to go into that any further you would rightly rule me out of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It is most

  317
  unfortunate, because it is practically impossible to make one's argument. However, I hope I may be in Order in saying to the Financial Secretary that the essence of company law is that the company is a separate individual. I would only quote him the case of Saloman versus Saloman in 1897, which is apparently a textbook case for everyone indulging in this particular branch of legal practice. If that is so, the Government have no right whatsoever to disband a company until it has finished whatever affairs it may be responsible for. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because it so happens the 100 years of company law, as exemplified by this case, determine that that is so. If it is the intention of hon. Members opposite to throw over the whole of company law, let them say so. I know that is very easy; and the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) would throw over anything. But we are still assuming in this House that law means something. Of course, if it does not mean something to hon. Members opposite, then that case goes. We are still assuming that it does. If that is so, the Government have no right whatsoever to effect, as they are doing, under Clause 13 a provision which is directly opposed to every principle of company law ever enunciated in this country.
  I go one stage further. In Standing Committee B at the moment we are considering a new Bill designed to remodel company law. That law guards and protects every class of shareholder. At the moment, by dissolving the companies we are ensuring that none of those rights will; in fact, be satisfied. Is the Financial Secretary satisfied about that? How can we spend a great deal of time in one part of this building ensuring that the rights of every class of shareholder should be respected, and in another part wipe out that very right in three short lines, so far as the Government are concerned ? How can those two things be correlated? Is there any logical or justifiable reason for so doing? In the Standing Committee the Financial Secretary gave one very short reason. He simply said: "Here is a corpse. Jolly good show. Let's bury it as soon as possible." That was all he said. He reminded me of Macbeth who, when he was plotting the murder of Duncan, said with great éclat as he stood on the moonlit scene:
  "'twere well it were done quickly."
  318
  I think that sums up the position. That may be the position, but if it is the position, then let the Government come out openly and say that that is what they are doing; that they do not mind about company laws; they do not mind about precedents, or about the rights of shareholders. If they are just going to do it, let them bow and acknowledge the advice given to them by the hon. Member for West Fife.
  The Financial Secretary advanced one other reason. He could not see any reason why directors should be kept alive to act as a post office. If that is so, then why does he, under another Clause, appoint a stockholders representative to fulfil the same functions? It simply does not make sense. As my right hon. Friend has said, half the Clause we are to discuss later would not be necessary if there were not these provisions in this Subsection. If the Government were acting on the basis that when they are taking over the assets of a company, the company has to be compensated for those assets, all these provisions about distribution of dividends, restrictive practices and so on would become unnecessary. The Government would take over whatever assets they found, and all the provisions, metaphysical and hypothetical, which I do not believe can ever be made to work, could have been avoided. As I have said, we could go back to the sound principles which have been British law for 200 years. This is the first time that a departure of this nature has been made, and it is the first time that the principles of company law have been flouted. I can only finish by quoting three more lines from the same speech by Macbeth:
  "—But in these cases,
  "We still have judgment here; that we but teach
  "Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return
  "To plague the inventor."
  Commander Galbraith: Like my hon. Friends, I cannot understand why on earth the Government have put in this Subsection. Someone has remarked that administratively it is the easy way out, but I think it is the difficult way out for the Government. It is most extraordinary the number of difficulties which have been brought about by introducing this Subsection. We have had no explanation as yet why the Amendment should not be accepted. The

  319
  right hon. Gentleman based the whole of his argument on the fact that no useful function would be served by a company remaining in being. That is simply not true. If hon. Members will look at Clause 18, they will see what a stockholders' representative has to do. The right hon. Gentleman rode away with his usual cheap gibes at the directors. Anyone who has dealt with the affairs of these large companies knows that they like to treat their employees in the best possible manner. That is particularly true in regard to the electricity industry. It has been the habit of many of these companies when men come to retire, to ask the shareholders to make certain payments to them.
  By the provisions of this Bill the directors are prohibited from following that usual course. If the company were to be kept in being—remember that the Government are taking over only the assets—and the interests that had been earned up to the vesting date were coming in to be distributed, that money would be available to the company to do justice in the company's eyes to old and valued servants. That right is taken away from them. I am speaking from practical experience, and with knowledge of servants of the company of which I am a director, who are now about to retire. The whole tradition of that company has been to give remuneration to these men and to make recognition of the great services which they have rendered possibly over a lifetime, to the company. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how this is to be done in view of the provisions in this Bill, and the fact that the company is to be wiped out at the vesting date, although there is still money to come to the shareholders? If he will do so, I shall be grateful to him because that would relieve some of us of a great deal of anxiety.
  Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that can be done even though the company has no functions to perform afterwards and would, therefore, have to be wound up?
  Commander Galbraith: If the hon. and learned Member will look at Clause 18, he will see all the things that have to be done. I do not think that the House will want me to go over all the points in
  320
  this case, and all that the stockholders' representatives have to do, and all the things which have to be done by the directors of the company. Let me assume that the last dividend was paid on 1st January and the vesting date is 1st April. There will be money accumulating to the shareholders between those dates. That money goes to the shareholders' representative to be distributed among the shareholders. In normal events, it would come into the hands of the directors, and, if this Amendment were accepted, the company could decide whether there were men in their service to whom some of that money could be paid, and the shareholders would say whether they would like them to have it before the final distribution was made.
  Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Even if the company was going to be wound up?
  Commander Galbraith: It cannot be done if the company is being wound-up. The company distributes on the vesting date, and that is wrong from every point of view, including that of the Government. Therefore, I do not understand why they cannot accept this Amendment. I hope that the Financial Secretary will have something to say on this particular matter, and that the Government will think again concerning it.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hal): There is very little that I can say in addition to what has already been said by my right hon. Friend. It is true and we were aware in Committee upstairs, and have been made aware again tonight, that there is a certain amount of feeling on the other side because in this Bill we propose to put the companies out of existence as undertakings on the vesting date. It has been truly said that in other nationalisation Measures which this Government have passed, we have taken another course; but that is neither here nor there. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] We are not hidebound to one particular method. Here we have taken what we think is the commonsense way of dealing with this matter. What is happening is that not only the undertakings which belong at the moment to what I may describe as private companies, but also the area boards and other authorities of that kind, apart from the local authorities who do not come under this particular Clause, are all, on

  321
  the vesting date, to come under the Central Electricity Authority. In so far as the undertaking is a purely electrical undertaking it will go out of business.
  9.15 p.m.
  Later tomorrow, if not tonight, we shall deal with a new Clause which the Minister has put on the Order Paper to meet the case of electricity companies which also supply gas or water, in addition to electricity. We shall make provision for companies of that kind, after they have split, if they wish to split, to continue in existence. There is a reason there why they should, because in addition to the electricity undertakings which pass to the Central Authority, there is something to look after which would necessitate a board of directors remaining in charge But here, as my right hon. Friend has said, there will be nothing left for the directors to look after. Many of the members of these boards of directors are keenly averse to this Measure.
  Colonel Clarke: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to holding companies with assets, or companies with assets abroad?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am referring to companies which will go out of existence. I do not want to labour this matter too long, because we have many Amendments to deal with yet, and my right hon. Friend has put the case concisely. There are two opinions about it, and Members opposite have every right to hold the view they do. But it was argued when the Bill was before us earlier that it would be best for all concerned that on the vesting date directors who had ceased to have any functions to carry out should go out of existence as directors. The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) made the valid point that under the Companies Acts directors have a right in connection with the assets of the company. But what he did not say was that under the Companies Act, 1929, provision is made for a company to go out of existence almost automatically if the directors cease to function for the purposes for which the company was brought into existence. I think it is under Section 295 of that Act that the Registrar can communicate with a company to ascertain whether it will continue in operation. After certain preliminaries, and letters passing to ascertain beyond any
  322
  doubt what the facts are, he strikes that company off the register automatically after three months. This Subsection gets rid of all that, and does the job in an easy and painless fashion.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The provision which the right hon. Gentleman has referred to is a voluntary one, where shareholders themselves agree to the cessation of the directors' activities. It does not cover in any sense a forced acquisition as is here contemplated.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: That may be, but I do not want to get into technicalities with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The point I was making is still valid.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: It is not.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have no desire to go into this matter further, as the Subsection puts it beyond doubt. The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) said that many boards of directors would like to stay on a little while to make some provision for old and valued servants who have served them over a long period of years. He will be glad to know, and the House will be delighted to know, that it will still be possible for those directors to do as many of them will desire to do—that is to make provision for old and valued servants in this way. There is nothing to prevent them from doing it before the vesting date, and neither the Minister nor any one else will raise any objection even if it does, to that extent, dissipate the assets of the particular undertaking. In addition, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows as well as I do, under Clause 48 (1) further provision is made for the granting and setting up of pension schemes for the people whom I am sure he has in mind.
  Commander Galbraith: I thank the Minister for his courteous reply, but the 'other point does not arise.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Very well, I will close on that note. As I say, I do not think that anything could be said from this Box which could satisfy the hon. Members opposite on that point. I can add nothing more to what has been said, and I must ask the House, if it will, to reject this Amendment.
  Colonel Lancaster: May I ask the Minister to deal with a point to which I ad-

  323
  dressed myself? Does he not consider that it would be a benefit to those taking over the industry to have consultation during the transitional period, with those who previously controlled it?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think my right hon. Friend answered that point when he said that those who had technical knowledge, as many of them have, would be asked to co-operate when the authority took over the undertaking. Those who do not desire to do so would-disappear under this Subsection and I have no doubt that everyone would be glad that they were out of the way.
  Mr. Sidney Marshall: Can the Minister say what would be the effect of this Clause on a company which would have to pass to the electricity board and which also had an undertaking in another country?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I think that question will arise on a later Clause.
  Sir Arnold Gridley: May I ask the Minister one question? If the shareholders of a company desire to receive the Government scrip and wish that it should be held by the board for the purpose, perhaps, of borrowing a certain amount of money and investing it in other types of business, what right or
  justification have the Government to say to a body of shareholders, '' You shall not deal with this British electricity scrip in this way"? Surely when a property is being paid off the board should deal with the compensation which should be held over by the shareholders as they think fit and not as the Government care to direct?
  Mr. Hopkin Morris: I have listened to this discussion from the beginning, and in view of the Government's own argument I am at a great loss to understand why they do not accept this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary admitted that there was something to be said for both sides. One reason why these bodies should continue after the vesting date is that there might be a dividend payable subsequent to that date. They should then distribute the money in their hands between that date and the vesting date according to the views the directors may hold about certain activities of the company. If that be the case and on the right hon. Gentleman's own argument, there is no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not accept the Amendment.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 101.

  Division No. 279.]

  AYES.

  9.25 p.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Brown, T J (Ince)

  Dodds, N N.

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Bruce, Maj D. W. T

  Driberg, T E. N.

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Buchanan, G

  Degdale, J (W. Bmmwich)

  Alpass, J. H

  Burke, W A

  Dumpleton. C W

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Callaghan, James

  Durbin, E. F. M

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Carmichael James

  Ede Rt Hon. J C

  Attewell, H. C.

  Champion, A. J

  Edwards, Rt. Hon Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Chater, D.

  Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Chetwynd, G. R

  Edwards, W J 'Whitechapel

  Ayles, W H.

  Cobb, F. A.

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

  Cocks F. S.

  Evans, S N (Wednesbury)

  Bacon, Miss A

  Collindridge, F

  Ewart, R.

  Baird, J.

  Collins, V. J.

  Fairhurst, F

  Barstow, P. G

  Caiman, Mist G. M.

  Farthing, W J.

  Barton, C.

  Comyns, Dr L

  Fernyhough E.

  Beattie, J (Belfast, W.)

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

  Field Capt W. J

  Bechervaise A. E

  Corlett, Dr J

  Fletcher, E G M (Islington, E.)

  Benson, G

  Corvedale, Viscount

  Follick, M.

  Berry, H

  Cove, W. G.

  Forman, J. C.

  Beswick, F

  Crawley, A.

  Fraser, T (Hamilton)

  Binns, J.

  Crossman, R. H S

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Blackburn, A. R

  Daggar, G

  Gaitskell, H. T. N

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Daines, P.

  Callacher, W.

  Blyton, W R.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Canley, Mrs. C. S

  Bottomley, A. G.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Gibbins. J.

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Gibson, C. W

  Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)

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

  Gilzean, A

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

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Glanville, J E. (Consett)

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Deer, G

  Goodrich, H E.

  Brook, D (Halifax)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C

  Brooks. T J. (Rothwell)

  Diamond, J.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Mainwaring, W H

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W

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

  Crey, C. F

  Mann, Mrs, J.

  Smith, S H. (Hu'l. S.W.)

  Grierson, E

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Solley, L. J.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Griffiths, Rt Hon. J (Llanelly)

  Mathers, G

  Soskice Mat. Sir E

  Griffiths, W. D. (Mos Side)

  moedland, H. M

  Sparks, J. A

  Guest, Dr L Haden

  Messer, F.

  Stamford, W

  Gunter R J

  Middleton, Mrs. L

  Steele, T.

  Guy, W. H.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Stephen, C.

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham. E.)

  Hale, Leslie

  Moody, A. S

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Hall, W. G

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Swingler, S.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Morley, R.

  Sylvester, G. 0.

  Hannan, W (Maryhill)

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

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Hardman, D. R.

  Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Hardy, E. A

  Moyle, A.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Hastings, Dr Somervilie

  Murray, J. 0

  Thomas, D. E (Aberdare)

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Nally, W.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Naylor, T. E.

  Thomas George (Cardiff)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

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

  Hewitson, Capt. M

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

  Thorneycroft Harry (Clayton)

  Hicks, G.

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Hobson, C. R.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Tiffany, S.

  Holman, P.

  Oldfield, W. H

  Timmons, J.

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Titterington, M. F.

  House, G

  Paget, R T

  Tolley, L.

  Hoy, J.

  Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G

  Hubbard, T

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing W.)

  Palmer, A M F.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Parker, J.

  Usborne, Henry

  Hughes, H. D (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Parkin, B. T

  Vernon, Maj. W. K

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Viant, S. P.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Pearson, A.

  Walkden, E.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Peart, Thomas F.

  Walker, G. H

  Irving, W. J.

  Piratin, P.

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)

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

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Jones, D T. (Hartlepools)

  Price, M Philips

  Watson, W. M.

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Kendall, W. D.

  Proctor, W. T

  Weitzman, D

  Kenyon, C.

  Pryde, D. J

  Wells P. L. (Faversham)

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Wells, W. T (Walsall)

  Kinley, J.

  Randall, H E

  West, D. G.

  Kirby, B. V

  Ranger, J

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

  Lang, G.

  Rees-Williams, D H

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Lavers, S.

  Reeves, J.

  Wigg, Col. G. E.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Reid T. (Swindon

  Wilkes, L.

  Leonard, W

  Rhodes, H.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Levy, B. W

  Robens, A.

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Lindgren, G. S

  Rogers, G H. R

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Lipton, Lt -Col M

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Logan, D. G

  Royle, C

  Williamson, T

  Longden, F

  Sargood, R

  Willis, E.

  Soollan, T

  Wills, Mrs. E. A

  Lyne, A W.

  Segal, Dr S

  Woodburn, A

  McAdam, W.

  Shackleton, E. A A

  Woods, G. S

  McAllister, G.

  Sharp, Granville

  Wyatt, W.

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Shinwell Rt Hon E

  Yates, V. F.

  McGhee, H G

  Shurmer, P.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Mack, J. D.

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Younger, Hon Kenneth

  McKinlay, A. S.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Maclean, N. (Govan)

  SKeffington, A. M

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  McLeavy, F

  Skinnard, F W

  Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell.

  NOES

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col G.

  Gage, C.

  Astor, Hon. M.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Galbraith, Cmdr, T. D

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Corbett, Lieut.-Col U. (Ludlow)

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Beamish, Maj T. V H

  Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col 0. E

  Grimston, R V.

  Beechman, N. A

  Crowder Capt. John E

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Bennett, Sir P

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Hare, Hon. J H (Woodbridge)

  Birch, Nigel

  Darling Sir W Y

  Harvey, Air Cmdre. A. V.

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

  Davidson, Visecuntess

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

  Bower, N.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D

  Henderss John (Cathcart)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Drayson. G B

  Howard. Hon. A.

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

  Drewe, C.

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

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

  Duthie, W. S.

  Hurd, A.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T

  Eden, Rt Hon A

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W)

  Butcher, H. W

  Elliot, RI. Hon. Walter

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

  Byers, Frank

  Foster, J. G (Northwich)

  Jarvis, Sir J

  Chennon, H.

  Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)

  Keeling, E. H.

  Clarke Col. R. S

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

  Lambert, Hon. G

  326

  327

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W

  Longford-Holt, J.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

  Spence, H. R.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T

  Neven-Spence, Sir B

  Sutoliffe, H.

  Lipson, D. L.

  Nutting, Anthony

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

  Low, Brig A. R. W.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H

  Thornton-Kemsley, C N.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Osborne, C.

  Thorp, Lt.-Col R. A F

  MacAndrew, Col. Sir C

  Peto, Brig. C. H M.

  Touche, G. C.

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Pickthorn, K

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Macdonald, Sir P (I. of Wight)

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Wadsworth, G

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Raikes, H. V.

  Walker-Smith, D

  MacLeod, J

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

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

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Marples, A E.

  Roberts, H (Handsworth)

  York, C

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

  Marshall, S. H (Sutton)

  Ropner, Col. L.,

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Scott, Lord W.

  Mr. Studholme and

  Morris-Jones, Sir H.

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Major Conant.

  CLAUSE 15.—(Disclaimer of agreements and leases.)
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 22, line 5, to leave out from "notice," to the end of line 8.
  The Amendment is designed to meet a request made by hon. Gentlemen opposite that contracts for personal services should be put on the same footing as other contracts under Clause 15. If a notice of disclaimer is served under the Clause, the question whether the necessary conditions are fulfilled to make a disclaimer possible can be referred to arbitration for decision. As the Clause is at present worded that does not apply to a contract for personal services. Before it can apply, the Minister's consent has to be obtained. What we have done, to meet the criticism of hon. Gentlemen opposite, is to remove the necessity for obtaining the Minister's consent in the case of personal services, so that these contracts are on exactly the same footing as all other contracts.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: As the hon. and learned Gentleman says, this Amendment is a concession to us, for "which we are duly grateful.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In page 22, line 37, leave out" and agreements for leases."
  In line 39, leave out "or agreement for a lease."
  In line 40, leave out "or agreement.' —[ The Solicitor-General.]
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 23, line 20, after "agreement," to insert, "or lease."
  Subsection (7) provides that agreements in respect of which the Minister's consent has been obtained shall not be liable to
  328
  disclaimer. The Amendment extends that protection to cover leases, and to cover not the making of the agreement in the first place, but a variation of the agreement after it has been made.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendments made.

  CLAUSE 16.—(Subsequent transfer of property from one Electricity Board to another.)
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 24, line 6, at the end, to insert:
  "Provided that the Minister shall consult the Central Authority before making any such order."
  This Amendment and the following one, in line 9, at end to insert,". and they shall consult that Board before making any such order, "are designed to meet a request made by hon. Gentlemen opposite during the Committee stage. It provides that the Minister, when exercising his powers under Clause 16, which relates to the transfer of property between one board and another, shall consult the Central Authority and the board before he exercises his powers.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendment made.

  CLAUSE 17 (Compensation to holders of securities of bodies other than local authorities.)
  Mr. Nigel Birch: I beg to move, in page 24, line 11, to leave out Clause 17.
  The purpose of moving this Amendment is to raise the whole question of the method of compensation adopted by the Government. As the House will recollect, that method is the method of Stock Exchange values. I am particularly sorry that the Minister is not here. He has popped out again. He has been

  329
  very fugitive in his attendances today. I am particularly sorry, because this is the one part of the Bill where the Minister is likely to attain his object—the only part. I particularly want to refer to certain remarks he made on Second Reading. I have already had a contest with the Financial Secretary on the subject, and it is like boxing with a bolster—an occasional feather comes out but very little reaction is obtained. The Financial Secretary is very fond of quoting, "Let us Face the Future." He did it many times in Committee. As he rightly said, in "Let us Face the Future" it was laid down that fair compensation should be paid for nationalised industries. What we are asking is that that pledge should be carried out and that justice should be done to the holders of these securities. There is only one way of ensuring fairness and justice, and that is to have independent arbitration on the basis of "willing buyer—willing seller." That is to say, the business should be valued as a going concern on the basis of "willing buyer—willing seller."
  That is the purpose we are really after in moving this Amendment. We shall not get our next Amendment called—in line 11, to leave out Subsection (1), and insert:

  "(1) Each of the bodies to which this Part of this Act applies, other than a local authority, shall be entitled to be compensated by the issue to them by the Central Authority of British Electricity Stock of such amount as, in the opinion of the Treasury, is at the vesting date of a value equal to the value of assets vested by this Act, which value, if not agreed, shall be determined by arbitration under this Act as the amount which the assets might be expected to realise if sold as one unit in the open market as assets of a going concern by a willing seller to a willing buyer on the basis of

  (a) the net annual maintainable revenue, that is to say, the net annual revenue which the assets as a whole might reasonably be expected to earn in the future, if they were not transferred from such body, and

  (b)the number of years purchase to be applied thereto,

  (2) For the purposes of the foregoing subsection the Arbitration Tribunal shall have regard to all relevant circumstances, but shall not make any allowance either because the acquisition will be compulsory or because the distribution of compensation among the several bodies will involve expense; and the Tribunal shall not allow in favour of any body any increase in value, which the assets may be expected to have after transfer by reason of their being in the hands of an Electricity Board."

  330
  That is what we are after. The words we have put down are based on words used in the Coal (Nationalisation) Act. Therefore, they are words which hon. Gentlemen opposite have themselves used. What are the Government's objections to having this independent arbitration? The first objection, which has always been urged, is one of administrative difficulties. The Minister made that point particularly on Second Reading, and the Financial Secretary repeated it upstairs. I would like to quote what he said. It is worth remembering. This is in my collection of Glenvil Halliana. He said:
  "I am trying to show that even supposing we had attempted to take the net maintainable revenue as our standard, it would have been impossible, as the Minister showed in his Second Reading speech, because of the chaos obtaining among the various electricity undertakings …It would have been impossible even if other objections did not enter into it …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 16th April, 1947; c. 606.]
  There are five very solid reasons why the administrative difficulty should not be the dominating consideration. The first most obvious objection is that if it is a question of doing justice, the fact that it is difficult to do justice should not enter into the question at all. Justice is a superior consideration to administrative convenience, and therefore should not be urged. The second point is that one of the reasons of administrative inconvenience urged by the Minister and the Financial Secretary is that one has great difficulty in valuing an electricity company because of the varying franchises. That is a hopeless argument because the fact that a company has limited franchises makes it much easier to value and not much more difficult.
  9.45 p.m.
  The whole trouble when you are valuing something is what you should pay for the goodwill. If you know precisely what the expectation of profits is, it makes it much more easy. The next reason—and I commend this to the Financial Secretary—is quite a new one and is what the Government themselves are now doing in the new Clause they have put down for the acquisition of nonstatutory undertakings. It is a very interesting Clause. For compensation for non-statutory undertakings, these provisions are laid down:
  "There shall be paid by the Central Authority to the undertakers, by way of compensation for the transfer of the electricity

  331
  undertaking, such amount as the undertaking might have been expected to realise if—
  (a) it had been sold as a going concern on the date of transfer in the open market by a willing seller to a willing buyer; …
  (c) this Act had not been passed."
  It goes on to say that—
  "Any question arising under this Section …shall, in default of agreement between the undertakers and the Central Authority, be determined by arbitration under this Act.…"
  That is precisely what we are asking for in our new Clause, and the Government have themselves done it in the case of the non-statutory undertakers. I would say that gives the whole case away because there are no less than 300 non-statutory undertakers, and their accounts are drawn up on many varying bases. No question of franchises comes in, which makes it easier to value and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) pointed out yesterday, the accounts of statutory undertakers are closely circumscribed by legislation and regulation, and, therefore, they are far easier to deal with than the accounts of these non-statutory companies where the Government coolly say, "We value 300 of them if you happen to want that."
  The fourth argument is that the present method the Government have adopted will be more convenient administratively. Will it be more convenient? There are 188 companies to be taken over, listed in the Schedule to this Bill, but only 45 of those companies are quoted on the Stock Exchange. Therefore,143 companies are not, and for those we have to fix a notional Stock Exchange price and, failing agreement on that notional price, the matter must go to arbitration. Not only have you to fix a notional price of the company but you have to fix a notional price for each class of security in that company. and many have five different classes of security. If you take the average as five, you will need to have 700 separate assessments, and it does not seem to me to be particularly convenient administratively.
  Surely, what the Government want to do is not to have any delay in their vesting date, and there is no reason at all why going to arbitration should delay the vesting date any more than it has delayed the vesting date in the coal nationalisation scheme. All it does is to
  332
  cause a certain amount of inconvenience to the holders of these securities, and the Minister has never been very solicitous for their interests. Therefore, I should have thought it would not have worried him very much. So much for the argument of administrative convenience. If the case is as I have put it, the case is not very strong.
  Turning to the second point, which is that the Government say it is unnecessary to have an independent tribunal because the Stock Exchange is itself an independent tribunal, the right hon. Gentleman has himself urged that consideration. Now it is very curious how superstitious are those who believe in materialism. Hon. Members opposite now believe in the plenary inspiration of the Stock Exchange. I notice that hon. Members opposite who have something more to lose than their chains are particularly enthusiastic on the subject of the Stock Exchange. This argument of the plenary inspiration of the Stock Exchange puts the Minister into a very awkward position. That is why I wish he was here, because he argued on Second Reading, and made a great point of this, that the companies have behaved badly because they have watered their capital and put up their dividends much too high. That was greeted, naturally, with great applause from the claque behind. Supposing he believed that. Could there be a stronger argument for not taking the Stock Exchange price? If the Minister believes that and believes he is paying more public money for something than it is worth, because watering capital means putting up fraudulently the value of the company on the Stock Exchange. The Minister has the choice of saying that he is giving away State money unnecessarily or of saying that he deliberately misled the House and if he takes the second line I hope he will apologise.
  Our objection to Stock Exchange prices is that the value of any stock on the Stock Exchange, if it is going to be nationalised, depends entirely on what people believe the compensation is to be. Once it is known that anything is going to be nationalised nothing else matters The Argentine Railways they were valued on the Stock Exchange at £125 million and with the very active assistance of His Majesty's Government they were sold to the Argentine Government for £150 million. That is not to say that that is

  333
  what they were really worth. They were really worth a great deal more, but their value on the Stock Exchange was based on the guess of what could be got out of the Argentine Government and nothing else, and the Government gave active support to the companies in getting more than they were valued at on the Stock Exchange.
  The usual answer which is given to this argument is that there are two dates—the option of taking the date before the Genera] Election or the date of the Bill. In passing I would point out that prices were in fact kept down before the Election because nationalisation was very actively canvassed for, and in 1943 a great deal of propaganda was put out. I will not insist on that argument. But the fact is that we are not comparing like with like. There would be more in the Government's case if they were compensating the holders with Government securities on the level which those Government securities stood on the first date and not on the level of the vesting date. Consols 2½ per cent stock stood at the time of the Election at about 84. Since then they have been up to 98½ and now have come down to 93. There are very long odds that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will rig the market up before the vesting date to pluck a few more feathers. But even supposing he does not, on the Government's argument holders should be compensated on the basis of old consols at 84 and not 93.
  The effect has been even more marked on non-Government securities. Everyone can see that the Government's policy is inflationary, and so there has been a larger rise in ordinary shares as people want to contract out of Government paper because they know it is going down in value. If we take stocks similar to electricity stocks, in security we find that there has been a much bigger rise between these two dates. I take William Younger 5 per cent. preference shares—out of compliment to the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) who has as noble brewing blood in his veins of as deep a brown as any hon. Member in this House —they have appreciated by 17 per cent. In the case of Yorkshire Insurance company there has been a rise of 46 per cent. In the case of the Westminster Bank there has been a rise of 16 per cent., whereas the rise in the electricity undertakings
  334
  has been negligible between the two dates because the dominating factor was what we were likely to get.
  Obviously, the price was purely a matter of guesswork as to what the compensation was likely to be. Therefore, there has been an extremely heavy capital loss owing to the fact that the Chancellor has "rigged the market" between the two dates. This causes great hardship to many people, but I am not arguing today upon an ad misericordiam basis, though a case could well be argued on that basis. I am arguing purely on the basis of justice, and justice has not been done. What the Minister wishes to do is to start his business off with a reverse subsidy from the holders of these securities. Justice, in the Minister's view, is the interest of the stronger.
  Colonel Clarke: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I wish to attack, from another angle, the Clause which we desire to delete. My hon. Friend the Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) has dealt with it capably and thoroughly from the angle he has taken. One aspect of this Clause is that it means that the State is taking over the assets of the electricity industry without any valuation. That, of course, may be an easy thing for the Government to do, but it is a very unsatisfactory and a lazy thing to do. There is no real check of the book value of what they are taking over. In the case of the coal industry they have got, or will have, a pretty accurate valuation. I believe it is a wrong thing to buy an industry or anything else the value of which one does not know, but it leads to worse things. In this case, for example, it will prevent any proper depreciation of the assets to be worked out. This emerged in the Debate yesterday. It will be impossible to work out what the proper depreciation should be if the assets are not known. If the depreciation figures cannot be put into the accounts, the accounts are practically valueless, because in an industry of this sort depreciation is very heavy, and if depreciation figures are not correct, the accounts will give a purely artificial view of the industry. By adopting this method of buying up the assets of the industry the Government arrive at the following three results. First, the country does not know what it is

  335
  getting in real value. Secondly, proper accounts cannot be kept because they cannot properly depreciate unless they know the value of their assets. Third, if proper accounts cannot be kept no one in the country will know whether the industry is being run at a loss or a profit, or is being subsidised from other sources. For these three reasons, in addition to the cogent ones put forward by my hon. Friend, I am seconding the Amendment.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Those who were Members of the Standing Committee will recognise this Clause and the speeches so far made upon it, as old friends. I am afraid I can do no other than add my quota in the shape of the same speech or the same arguments in, I hope, an abbreviated form, and perhaps in a slightly different order. The points which have been made with such felicity by the two hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite they have made before, and of course the answers to them must necessarily remain the same. It has been said on the occasion of more than one nationalisation Measure that this Government are not wedded to any particular form of compensation. They lay down one basis and one only; that is, that compensation should be paid, and that compensation should be fair.
  10.0 p.m.
  This is not the first Measure that has been introduced for which compensation Clauses have been drafted. As the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) has reminded us, it is true that in several previous nationalisation Measures we have taken the net maintainable revenue as the basis of compensation. We would have been willing to do it here if it had been possible, but for reasons which my right hon. Friend gave at some length it was not possible. I thought those reasons were conclusive. I have refreshed my memory since we began discussing this Bill on Report stage by looking again at what he said with, I hope, an unbiased mind. I came to the conclusion that what he said was conclusive. The hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley), in what he said yesterday with reference to the various franchises, bore out what my right hon. Friend said on this matter in his Second Reading speech.
  Mr. Birch: Would the right hon. Gentleman indicate what is the difficulty
  336
  about the valuation of companies with limited franchises?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: To make it quite clear I will read what was said. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power said:
  "As regards the private companies. The problem is one of some complexity As I have already indicated, the companies engaged in the distribution of electricity operate on a limited franchise."
  He continued later:
  "If it were a case of buying out a few companies, or parts of companies, it might be possible to make a detailed valuation of the assets of those companies. The House must appreciate that the problem of determining the value of those assets is almost unexampled in its difficulties. A company might be operating …"
  Perhaps the hon. Member for Flint will listen to this because I am trying to be fair in this matter. We want to be fair, in the present situation, to the shareholders of these undertakings My right hon. Friend said:
  "A company might be operating on 20 franchises which could be bought out by 20 different local authorities at 20 different dates. It would be necessary to determine the value of that particular portion of the company's assets which could be attributed to each franchise. To separate a portion of the assets of an integrated undertaking and then value that portion is very difficult, if not impossible."
  Then my right hon. Friend elaborated his argument, and, later said:
  "Many of these franchises have already fallen in …"
  In fact, many fell in before the war began and it was only the coming of the war which prevented their ceasing altogether and the local authority who had the option taking over. Then the Minister said:
  "There is a further complication about the concept of net maintainable revenue as applying to electricity company undertakings."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1947; Vol. 432, cols. 1417–8.]
  My right hon. Friend went on to deal with the varying rates of dividend paid by these companies. Many of them, as the House knows only too well, have a monopoly and have used the powers conferred on them to declare very large dividends from year to year. It would be grossly unfair, if we laid down a net maintainable revenue applicable to them, to have to take in some cases a very high

  337
  rate of dividend when, in others which have felt more responsibility to the public in their duties and were not charging the consumer so much, so high a dividend was not being paid. Therefore, we take the Stock Exchange price as the most likely method of arriving without too great difficulty at what could be considered a fair price to pay.
  The hon. Member for Flint said that I or my right hon. Friend, in an earlier Debate, talked about the Stock Exchange as an independent tribunal. Surely, so it is? It is not an independent tribunal in the sense in which a body which is set up for a definite purpose, which can hear very detailed evidence and have documents placed before it, can be described as a tribunal, but the value placed by the Committee of the Stock Exchange in their daily list is a true guide of the price which a willing buyer is prepared to pay a willing seller for certain shares. The hon. Member quoted—and I will not carry this too far—the price of Consols, and he thought that we ought to go back and take the price of these stocks at a given date as the basis on which compensation should be valued. If he takes that date on the one hand, why does he not want to take it on the other? He did mention the fact that we had taken certain dates, and I think these dates are fair. The one set of dates, the first set, was pre-Election, and I do not suppose there is anybody in the House who really believed that the General Election result would be what it was. [ Laughter.] There is nothing funny about this. I think everybody, from one end of the country to the other, was startled—
  Mr. Birch: And appalled.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: —was startled by the majority which this Government received, and, at any rate, whether that is accepted or not, I think that what I am about to say will be accepted—that nobody on that side of the House believed that the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) would not carry that party into office, even if the majority was not a very large one. It is true to say that the Stock Exchange, before the result was made known, was not under any shadow of an impending Labour Government with a nationalisation policy. So far as stocks and shares quoted on the Stock Exchange were concerned, the Stock
  338
  Exchange imagined that the present state of affairs would continue, and possibly continue indefinitely. But, if it would be fairer to the stockholders that another date should be taken, we have a second date— a date just before the King's Speech which announced the Bill which is now before the House. Therefore, in giving the choice of these two dates, we have been as fair as possible to the shareholders. The only alternative would have been a long and laborious calculation, absorbing a great many people and involving the use, and the immobilisation from other work of many kinds of technicians in order to arrive at a true value. To do that would have been very difficult, if not impossible, because of the various franchises under which the undertakings operate.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: The right hon. Gentleman referred several times to what he called the difficulty of the franchise, and he has stated that one of the main difficulties was that there was a very large number of companies with different franchises running for different purposes. Could he tell the House, for its information, how many companies there are with more than one kind of franchise ?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I could not offhand, but, if the right hon. Gentleman is interested, I will certainly, if I can, get that information for him, and if the House would like the information, I will see that it is conveyed to the House before these proceedings end. All I can say now is that there are a very large number indeed. As my right hon. Friend indicated in his speech on the Second Reading Debate, the ramifications are pretty considerable. The exact number does not really matter. The point is that it is well known that electricity has always been looked upon as being in a category by itself. It is a service essential to the community, like the railways, and in recent years, at any rate, it has never been allowed to operate as freely as it liked. In its own area and under Act of Parliament it has been given a monopoly in certain areas, but has worked under limitations. More often than not local authorities have had the option at some time or other of taking control of a particular undertaking.
  It is my contention, and I hope that my hon. Friends will agree with me, that that makes a considerable difference

  339
  when we are trying to do justice to the individuals concerned and are trying to decide what compensation should be paid, and on what basis. The hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) mentioned non-statutory companies. It is true that there is a fair number of them, but they are quite tiny. If his argument is that because they are there, and because, in order to be fair, we are treating them rather differently from the larger undertakings, we should let the "tail wag the dog," I am afraid I cannot agree with him.
  The undertakings with which we are dealing form the overwhelming bulk for which this type of compensation will be paid, and number well over 96 per cent. of those which come under this Bill. Unless I am pressed, I will not go into a long argument on the point about Consols which was put to me by the hon. Member for Flint because I do not think it is germane to the matter. It is true that Consols were 84 on the date in 1945 which he mentioned, and that they had been up to 98½. I think they are now down to 92, 93 or 94. [An HON. MEMBER: "So what?"] So what? It does not really affect this argument. It might be useful if one were discussing gilt-edged securities, but it has nothing to do with this Clause, which lays down the basis of compensation which is the same in wording and intent, so far as this side of the matter is concerned, as that which appeared in the Transport Bill and in the Coal Industry (Nationalisation) Bill. Therefore, I would ask the House to reject this Amendment. We believe that the basis laid down in the Bill is a fair one, that it is just to those concerned, and that, from every point of view, it it is the only fair basis that could be taken in this case.
  Mr. Norman Bower: There are just two points I wish to make on this matter to which no reference has yet been made on this occasion. First, I want to point out to the Financial Secretary that this policy of compensating shareholders according to Stock Exchange values is absolutely and completely contrary to the Chancellor's present policy as exemplified in the Profits Tax on distributed profits which he imposed in his recent Budget, and which had as its object to induce companies to plough back
  340
  into the business as much of their profits as possible, and to distribute to the shareholders, in the form of dividends, as little as possible. It is abundantly clear that the more a company distributes in the form of dividends and the less it ploughs back into the business, the higher its shares are likely to be quoted on the Stock Exchange. Therefore, in the future, in view of this policy which has now been adopted, there will be a great temptation to all other companies which are likely, or which may think they are likely, to be affected by future nationalisation Bills, to disregard the Chancellor's expressed wishes and to distribute as much as they possibly can in the form of dividends while the going is good, so that when the time comes for them to be taken over their shares will stand at the highest possible value on the Stock Exchange.
  10.15 P.m
  My second point is this. As the Financial Secretary has admitted that his speech was largely a repetition of the speech he made in Committee, perhaps I may also be allowed to repeat an argument which I made then. That is that the Stock Exchange value on any given day bears no real relation at all, and is no real guide, to the price at which the great majority of shareholders in these concerns would be willing to sell their shares. It is simply a guide to the value at which on any particular day a very small number of shareholders are willing to sell their shares to a very small number of buyers. The fact is that the great majority of shareholders in these companies are not willing to sell at all. They want to hold on to their shares. They are being forced to sell, and if any big buyer such as the Government went into the market determined to acquire control of these companies by the ordinary methods of the Stock Exchange, by buying up all the shares or buying a sufficient number to force all the shareholders to sell out, there is no doubt they would have to pay a much higher price than the price at which the very few transactions take place on any given day.
  I submit, therefore, that that argument, which anybody who is conversant with Stock Exchange procedure knows to be true, completely knocks the bottom out of the argument that the Stock Exchange price on any given day really represents

  341
  the price at which willing sellers of these shares, or shareholders as a whole, would be willing to sell to a buyer. These shareholders are being forced to sell, and, therefore, they ought to be given a fair value for the shares which they do not want to get rid of, and not a purely artificial price such as the Stock Exchange quotation on any particular day.
  Mr. Lipson: We have been told that the Government are anxious to be just in this matter. I think that is the feeling of the whole House, but we have been asked to accept the Government's interpretation of what is just, and that is where the difference between the two sides of the House lies. The Financial Secretary has told us that there are certain difficulties in the way of so adjusting this matter that the holders of these electricity securities should, under the new setup, have the guaranteed income which they had before. I cannot see why these difficulties could not be resolved by resorting to arbitration. The arbitrator would be able to take into account all the factors which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, and this procedure, would have this advantage that the Government would not only be just, as they are anxious to be, but they would appear to be just to those whose securities they are proposing to take over.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Harrow (Mr. Bower) that it is not a case of a willing buyer and a willing seller. In this case it is an anxious buyer and an unwilling seller, and an entirely different situation has been created. In the first nationalisation Measure brought in by this Government, the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, the principle of arbitration was accepted, and that met with the general recognition that it was a fair and just way of proceeding. What I do not like about the Government's proposal is this. They are themselves arbiters in a matter in which they are directly concerned. They are arbiters in the sense that they have chosen the particular test by which the value of the securities should be determined. The Government are satisfied that the Stock Exchange price is a really fair and just price. But then, that may be the decision of the arbitrator; and if the arbitrator accepts that, then nobody would quarrel with him.
  342
  I speak as one who accepts the main principle of the Bill. I voted for the Second Reading. But I am anxious, anyhow, that in all our nationalisation proposals we should be fair to those who, I believe, have rendered a service in the past to the country by helping to finance the electricity industry at a time when the State was not prepared or was, for one reason or another, not able to do it. It is, indeed, true that a great many people have relied upon what they have considered certain conditions. If the Government persist in taking the Stock Exchange value in determining these things, those people will find that their income is very seriously curtailed. I ask the Government to look at the matter again in the name of the very principle they themselves have invoked, the principle of justice. What I understand by justice is not only justice from the Government's point of view, but also justice to those whose security it is proposed to take away.
  Colonel Lancaster: I want to limit my remarks to two aspects of the matter. The first is whether or not it is feasible to adopt any other method than this Stock Exchange value method. I do not think that, merely because another method would be a lengthy or difficult task, the Government thereby are entitled to say they are going to approach it only in this way. If their intention is to do justice they should not be deterred by the mere thought of the work involved. But so far as the Stock Exchange value is concerned, I think my hon. Friend the Member for West Harrow (Mr. Bower) put it very cogently when he said that at any given moment the Stock Exchange price does not, in fact, represent the value of an undertaking. If matters were as simple as that, then at any given moment it would be possible, by purchasing 51 per cent. of the shares of a company, merely at the valuation of the Stock Exchange, to obtain control of that undertaking. The Financial Secretary knows perfectly well that nothing of the sort, would, of course, occur. If he wants proof of this let him look at the prices ruling today of some of the leading coal companies. A great many of the shares. have gone up, since it is perfectly obvious that their Stock Exchange value at a given moment has no relevance to their value as going concerns as between a ready buyer and a ready seller. That is shown

  343
  by even the method the Government employed in regard to arriving at the global sum they did arrive at.
  I do not think the Financial Secretary really, in his heart of hearts, has any faith in this method. He propounds on the Floor of the House precisely the same arguments as he advanced upstairs, but he is now attempting to stand up to the criticism of the method as such, and if he continues to maintain that he is desirous of seeing justice done, surely to goodness he should apply some other method than this wholly unsatisfactory one.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary said very truly that all he had done tonight was to repeat the arguments that he made upstairs, but I do not think he has made them even as effectively as he did on that occasion. In the first place, he talked about franchises. What the Financial Secretary said was so difficult is being done every day. Take a particular company in the Division next to my own. The Bournemouth Corporation are trying to buy out that part of the electricity corporation which supplies its own power. It takes in three different local authorities. One is a rural district and the other is an urban district. There has been no difficulty whatsoever' in ascertaining which part of the franchise applies to Bournemouth I do not know on what grounds the Financial Secretary says that this matter is so very difficult, but for the last 40 years nobody has ever found it difficult to make such an apportionment. In a change of companies it has been done time and time again, when nobody has found it the least trouble.
  The Financial Secretary went on to say that under the Bill the situation was rather difficult in the case of companies which had distributed dividends in excess of what they should have done. He did not say that in the case of a company which had so abused its position, or which had assumed a more generous policy, there would be benefit under the Bill. A company which has tried to develop its property and to follow the dictum of the Chancellor of the Exchequer might not stand so high on the Stock Exchange as the company which has not done so. How can the Financial Secretary say that it is difficult to deal with this situation? Our Amendment
  344
  is the only way in which he can ensure that the Government take over every company at its equivalent valuation. An hon. Member has already pointed out that the Government appear to have no idea of the value of the assets they are taking over. What in fact the Government are doing is to buy a whole series of shares at prices which they assert are fair without knowing first of all what they are buying, or making any estimate whatever as to whether they are buying at a just price from people who have done well, or at an unjust price from people who have done badly.
  10.30 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary knows that Stock Exchange prices at any given moment reflect the intrinsic return which an investor may obtain from a company. Suppose the date which the Financial Secretary chooses is just prior to the dividends being paid, the shares of the company will be much higher than those of an equivalent company whose dividends has just been passed. What allowance is made for that situation in the price which the Financial Secretary mentioned? I could cite a number of such anomalies. The whole thing goes very much deeper. The Financial Secretary has ignored a principle which has been fundamental to the whole of our commercial practice. When one takes over the assets of a company one has to compensate the company for assets which are not those of the share-sholders. I know that that sounds difficult, but there are three distinct kinds of company in question.
  There is the company with it assets and there is the shareholder. The company "owns the assets and unless this fundamental fact is borne in mind, one is bound to get the whole terms of compensation wrong. The position of the company in regard to its assets has been long established. I have earlier this evening quoted the case of Salamon v.Salamon, where it is laid down that the company is an individual entity and is not responsible to the people who have signed its articles of association. Thus the company is responsible for its assets and if one tries to truncate it, and compensate the shareholders, one gets all these anomalies. If one wants to value the assets and compensate the' company all these troubles fall apart. The distribution of assets and all the other problems would

  345
  then disappear, but the Government are trying to take assets from the one side and pieces of paper on the other without reference to these fundamental issues of company law.
  I would try to mention two parallels to bring it home. Let us take the case of a town council. In that case the mayor and the burgesses are responsible to the town. Suppose somebody takes over the town hall, the last people to be recompensed would be the ratepayers. Nobody would dream of paying somebody among the ratepayers, and quite obviously compensation would be to the town council. Let us take the case of this House of Commons. The Government are responsible to this House and we are responsible to the people. Our complaints have been rightly upheld where a Minister has gone above the heads of hon. Members by going straight to the people instead of to this House. It is quite demonstrable that the Government are not being fair, and unless this chain is pursued one is bound to get these anomalies. I do ask the Government therefore to consider the fact that, by adopting this policy they are breaking every fundamental rule of company law. By following this policy they are giving the least possible advantage to those who have tried to benefit the community, and they are going to land this country into an unknown expense for something which they cannot assess. They are breaking the principles on which we have built our strength and, equally, they are denying those who have striven to benefit this country from any reward which they might reasonably expect from any Government, be it Left or Right.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: I apologise for intervening without having heard all the Debate, and I intervene on only one point. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said—and I was glad to hear him say it—that the Government wished to be fair, and my objection to this Clause is that the Government are not being fair. It has been pointed out on many occasions that in their various nationalisation schemes the Government have adopted several inconsistent methods of compensation. These inconsistent methods cannot all be just, but it is a well known point of logic that they can all be unjust. This particular one is unjust for the simple reason that it does not purport to value the thing which is being taken over.
  346
  Some hon. Members have spoken as though the shareholders were having their shares taken over. Nothing of the sort is taking place. There is no provision in this Bill to deprive the shareholder of his share. If there were such a provision, then it would be a matter for argument whether or not it was right to take over his share at the Stock Exchange valuation. There would be a great deal to be said on that point; but in the present case no share is being taken over. The assets which are being taken over are those of a different person, namely of a company, and the company is then being wound up. After the winding-up, the shareholders are entitled to something by reason of the winding-up. That is how the matter stands in law and-equity.
  The thing you have to value is the assets of the company which you are taking over. There is no attempt to value those assets. The right hon. Gentleman says it might be difficult to value them. Whether that is true or not, that is no reason for abandoning the attempt. If you are to do justice, you must attempt a valuation of the thing you are taking over. You are taking nothing from the-shareholder: you are taking everything from the company. Therefore, what you have to value, if you are to be just, is what you are taking from the company. If you do not do this, you are demonstrably not making any attempt to be just. If you make an attempt to be just, and value what you take from the company, and what the company has lost by reason of your measure, then the next question is how what the company gets is to be divided among those entitled to the assets on the dissolution of the company; because under Clause 13 the company is being dissolved. On such a dissolution, if there were any difficulty as to the allocation of the compensation, that is a matter with which the courts would have no difficulty in dealing; or it could be dealt with by appropriate provisions in this Bill.
  But what is quite fantastic is to say that you will take over the assets of the company, but you propose to value the shareholding of a different person, from whom you are taking nothing. The right hon. Gentleman, in his reply to the Debate, did not deal at all with that point. It is not improper that I, speaking as a lawyer, should express quite simply why this pro-

  347
  vision is perfectly shocking to anyone who has any regard for law and equity. I am not myself making any statement on whether, in the final result, the individual shareholder will get too much or too little as a result of what the Minister is doing. I think it is quite possible that in some cases he will get too much, and in other cases much too little. What is certain is that he can only get the right amount by a complete fluke, because there is no reason whatsoever why the effect of what the Government are doing should bear any relation to justice or equity. I assure the Government that the -credit of the nation is affected by this matter. One cannot do what, on the face of it, is demonstrably unjust and think that the national credit will not thereby be affected. If what we, on this side of the House, contend is correct, and so far there has been no answer to it, this Clause will injure the national credit: because the Government are saying that they will nationalise the industry, and that they will compensate someone else, by a method which does not purport to be just. I hope we shall get a reply tonight from some other Minister I am 'surprised at the absence of the Minister of Fuel and Power. I should have thought that this was one of those matters—the national credit—for which he should care something more than a "tinker's cuss."
  Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: If in fact the shares were taken over at valuation—the point mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mi. H. Strauss)— would that not automatically give the shareholders the assets of the company?
  Mr. Strauss: I am not called upon to deal with that point, for this quite simple reason, which I am sure the hon. and learned Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas) will appreciate, that there is no Clause in the Bill which purports to take over the shares. If there were a Clause in the Bill which purported to take over the shares I should be perfectly willing to argue whether the proposal for valuing those shares was just or unjust, but I do not want to transgress the rules of Order, and it would be absolutely out of Order to discuss whether this would be the fairest valuation of the shares if they were to be taken over.
  Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: In view of the hon. and learned Member's answer does
  348
  he now realise the unreality of his previous argument?
  Mr. Strauss: I appreciate that my previous argument was entirely sound or the hon. and learned Member would have replied to it. He has not replied to it and if he has any response to make he will no doubt get up and make it now.
  Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: The reply is quite clear in the question. If the Government choose to 'take over all the shares at a valuation, then they would control all the assets of the company. What this does is to short-circuit the procedure of taking over the assets of the company, and the shareholders' compensation is assessed in accordance with the way the Government have decided. The hon. and learned Member should address his remarks to the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre), who is no longer in the House, and not to the logical distinction between the company and the shareholders. He should remember the method which the Government have adopted, and the question of whether there should be a tribunal basis or whether it should be that basis, to which the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) addressed his remarks—the basis of the Stock Exchange value.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: I think that the hon. and learned Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas) has really put his finger on the point which divides the two sides of the House. Those hon. Members who have listened during the last hour to the arguments cannot fail to have been struck by the fact that the cogent arguments advanced from this side of the House have not, in fact, been met. What is the gravamen of our charge? We say that the Bill—and this is admitted on both sides—provides for the taking over of the assets of the electricity companies and that the members of the Labour Party, who subscribed to the views outlined in "Let us Face the Future," quite genuinely and sincerely wanted to see the promise carried out that compensation should be given in respect of the industries that were nationalised, and that that compensation should be fair.
  The problem really arises, what is fail compensation? If the assets are to be taken over, how is fair compensation to be arrived at? In the case of the coalmines the amount of compensation was

  349
  decided by a tribunal. Neither the shareholder, the Government nor the company has the final say. It is provided by the tribunal, and we say that that is the simplest and best way of arriving at a fair compensation. In support of that argument, there is the case of the nonstatutory undertakers, where the Government have accepted the principle of arbitration, though the new Clause which should have been already passed has not been passed for reasons which I need not go into. In the case of the majority of the 188 companies whose names appear later on in the new Schedule, the Government themselves admit that, in order to arrive at a fair figure, it will be necessary to go to arbitration.
  10.45 P m
  We say that, having admitted that arbitration is the fair method, it ought to be adopted as regards the whole of the assets of the companies. There are two possible arguments against that. The first is the question of delay. It may be argued that to go to arbitration would mean the expiry of considerable time and that that would have a deleterious effect on the industry because it might be expected to postpone the date of the taking over. That argument does not hold water because it could quite easily be arranged for the assets of the industry to be taken over on the vesting date and leave the filial determination of the sum to be paid until afterwards. In fact that is what is being done. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury will remember that he moved a new Schedule embodying what is called the bank scheme in Committee, but he himself admitted that the final adjustment would not be done in the course of January or February next year. He admitted—I am speaking from memory—that before the thing was finally cleared up probably two years or more might elapse.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me when I say that was only a change of the stocks certificate itself notionally. Under the new plan, stocks certificates still in the possession of the holder would become the new Central Authority stock with the amount notionally written in to show the change. It does not mean that the amount is not known. It is very well known. It is simply that the registration will not have taken effect in some cases for two years
  Mr. Hudson: What I was trying to show was that whatever may be the final stage will not take place for anything up to two years. That will not prevent the assets of the whole of the industry being effectively vested in the Government as from that date, and therefore as far as the Government taking over through the new Central Authority and running electricity is concerned, the delay in ascertaining its real value is not material from the point of view of the national interest.
  Therefore, we come to the final argument about delay and that is, that it would take some time and it would be more difficult. As has been argued by all hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken from this side, the Government are now driven to the conclusion that they will not do something which is fair because to do it would be difficult. That is a denial of justice. It would not be so frightfully difficult to ascertain all these various sums—the value of the assets. Indeed, an attempt will have to be made to make a valuation of the assets if, as we said yesterday, it is desired in future to have any real idea of whether it is paying its way or not.
  I am perfectly certain that if the question were put to the vote of the shareholders in the various companies concerned as to whether they would accept the Government proposal of taking the Stock Exchange values finally, or whether they would wait until there could be a proper ascertainment, subject to arbitration, I am sure that no one on this side of the House has any doubt which shareholders would choose. When hon. Members go into the lobby, as presumably as they will when I sit down, let them remember that, if, as I believe, the shareholders would say that they would prefer the basis of compensation which I suggest for the assets that are being compulsory taken over, that is definite and overwhelming proof that, in the opinion of the people mainly concerned, the party opposite are not carrying out the pledge they gave at the last Election. For the sake of fairness and their own conscience I would beg them even at this late stage to think again.
  Mr. Piekthorn: I had hoped all through this Debate that it would not end without the Minister being here. This is a very important part of the Bill and it would have been sad if he had been detained too late to have heard this stage of

  351
  our discussions. I was a little surprised at the use, in a condemnatory sense, by the hon. Gentleman just below the Gangway, of the word "legalistic" as applied to the argument as to the difference between a corporation and shareholders. I wonder if he did not feel that there was a great deal more legalism in the Government sense—notional whatnots and all that. I wonder if he did not think that that was far more legalistic and far more metaphysical than the alternative scheme which has been proposed from this side. This is more than a matter of legalism or metaphysics, though for that matter I see no evil necessarily either in metaphysics or in legalism. The hon. Gentleman below the Gangway invited us to leave these legalistic difficulties and to explain some straightforward practical reason why it made any difference.
  There is a straightforward reason which has not perhaps been plainly put in its exact connection; and it was that question of his on the straightforward practical side of this matter which has brought me to my feet. This is a straightforward practical proposal. As a result of this confusion between the corporation and the individual we have been landed with these difficulties. I would refer to two companies; and I am not speaking on hypothesis, but of two companies of which I know enough, I think, to speak dogmatically. The directors of A company got into their heads some two years ago that there was likely to be a valuation on Stock Exchange values, and after consultation among themselves and some of their friends, they agreed that they would make their dividends as high as they decently and properly could should the Government put compulsion upon them. Company B, having just the same sources of information, makes the same guess, but decides that it ought to con-
  tinue its business exactly as if it did not think there was any question of nationalisation. The practical effect—not legalism—is that company A has behaved in a manner which I think the friends of the Government would describe as antisocial, because it put up Stock Exchange values; Company B gets smaller compensation. That is one result of the logical difficulties which lie at the root of everything in this Bill.
  There is another point I would like to make. It is a point which was put very cogently, and, I think quite unanswerably by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint (Mr. Birch). The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said he would not go into it very deeply; nor did he. But if I may try to put the point—I hope I am going to get this right, I think I am—if I may try to put it in quite a simple way—on any hypothesis upon which Stock Exchange figures—I will not say values—are the right ones, upon that same hypothesis the thing given in exchange for what is being taken should-also be as it was at the date chosen. Surely that is quite right. The payment should be as the payment was on that date on the Stock Exchange list, upon any hypothesis which makes the Stock Exchange figures valid. The simplest way possible to bring this home is to say to any Member opposite who holds sound stocks and shares. "Would he be willing to sell them now at the prices ruling on the dates chosen in this bill?" If hon. Members opposite feel any doubt at all about the answer to this question, they must feel that this way of fixing what is called compensation, in my judgment both logically and etymologically wrongly, they must agree that this method is wrong.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 253; Noes, 102.

  Division No. 280]

  AYES.

  [10.57 p.m

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Battley, J. Ft.

  Buchanan, G

  Adams, W T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Bechervaise. A E.

  Burke, W. A.

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Benson, G

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

  Alpass, J. H.

  Berry, H.,

  Callaghan, James

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Beswick, F.

  Carmichael, James

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Blackburn, A. R

  Chamberlain, R. A

  Attewell, H. C.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Champion, A J

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W

  Cobb, F. A.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Cocks, F S.

  Ayrton Could, Mrs B

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

  Cotlindridge, F.

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Braddook, T (Mitcham)

  Collins, V. J.

  Baird, J

  Brook, D (Halifax)

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Barstow, P G

  Brooks, T J. (Rothweli)

  Comyns, Dr. L,

  Barton, C.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

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

  Corlett, Dr. J

  Janner, B.

  Ranger, J

  Cove, W. G.

  Jay, D. P T

  Rhodes. H

  Crawley, A.

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Robens, A.

  Crossman, R. H. S

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

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Daggar, G.

  Jones, D. T (Hartlepools)

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Daines, P.

  Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

  Royle, C.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Keenan, W.

  Sargood, R.

  Davies. Ernest (Enfield)

  Kenyon, C.

  Scollan, T

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  King, E. M.

  Sharp, Granville

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

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Davies, R. J (Westhoughton)

  Kinley, J.

  Shinwell Rt Hon E

  Deer, G.

  Lang, G.

  Shurmer, P.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Lavers, S.

  Silverman, J (Erdingion)

  Diamond, J.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Simmons, C J.

  Dodds, N N

  Leonard, W

  Skeffinglon, A. M.

  Donovan, T.

  Levy, B W.

  Skeffington-Lodge, T C

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Lewis, A. W J. (Upton)

  Smith, C (Colchester

  Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich)

  Lindgren, G. S

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

  Durbin, E. F. M

  Lipton, Lt -Col. M

  Snow, Capt J. W

  Ede. Rt. Hon. J. C

  Logan, D. G

  Solley, L. J

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Longden, F.

  Sorensen, R W.

  Evans, S N (Wednesbury)

  Lyne, A W

  Soskice, Maj Sir F

  Ewart, R.

  McAllister, G

  Sparks, J A

  Fairhurst, F.

  McGhee, H G

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

  Farthing, W J.

  Mack, J D.

  Stubbs, A. E

  Fernyhough, E.

  McKay. J (Wallsend)

  Swingler, S.

  Field Capt W. J.

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

  Sylvester, G 0.

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

  McKinlay, A S.

  Taylor R. J. (Morpeth)

  Follick, M.

  Maclean, N (Govan)

  Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)

  Foot, M. M.

  McLeavy, F.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Forman, J. C.

  Mainwaring, W H

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Fraser, T (Hamilton;

  Mallalieu, J P W

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

  Freeman Peter (Newport)

  Mann, Mrs. J

  Thorneycroft Harv (Clayton)

  Gaitskell, N

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Tiffany, S.

  Timmons, J.

  Gallacher, W.

  Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)

  Tolley, L.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S

  Mathers, G

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G

  Gibbins, J.

  Medtand, H. M.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L

  Gibson, C. W

  Middleton, Mrs L

  Walkden, E.

  Gilzean, A.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Walker, G. H

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Mitohison, G. R.

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Goodrich, H. E.

  Moody, A S

  Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Morgan, Dr. H. B.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

  Morley, R.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Crey, C. F.

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

  Watson, W M

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Grifrson, E.

  Morris, P (Swansea, W.)

  Weitzman, D.

  Grffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Moyle, A

  Wells P L. (Faversham)

  Griffiths, W D. (Moss Side)

  Murray, J. D

  Wells, W T (Walsall)

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Nally, W.

  West D. G.

  Gunter, R. J

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Westwood, Rt. Hon. J

  Guy W H

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Whileley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Hale, Leslie

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

  Wigg, Col. G E.

  Hall, W. G.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Wilkes, L.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

  O'dfield, W. H.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Hannan, W (Maryhill)

  Oliver, G. H

  Willey, O G. (Cleveland)

  Hardy, E. A

  Orbach, M.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Harrison, J

  Paget, R T

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Hastings, Dr Somerville

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Williamson, T.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Palmer, A M F.

  Willis, E.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Pargiter, G. A

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Hewitson, Capt M

  Parker, J.

  Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J

  Hobson, C R

  Parkin, B. T.

  Holman, P

  Peart, Thomas F.

  Woodburn, A.

  Holmes, H E. (Hermworth)

  Piratin, P

  Woods, G. S.

  House, G

  Platts-Mills J. F F.

  Wyatt, W.

  Hoy J.

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Yates, V. F.

  Hubbard, I.

  Popplewell, E

  Younger, Hon. Kennety

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing W.)

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Zilliacus, K

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Price, M, Philips

  Hughes, H. D (Wolverhampton, W.)

  Pritt, D. N

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Proctor, W. T

  Mr. Pearson and

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Mr. Micbael Stewart.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Randall, H. E

  NOES

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E

  Astor, Hon. M

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

  Crowder, Capt John E

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P G T

  Davidson, Viscountes

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Butcher, H W

  Dodds-Parker, A D

  Beechman, N. A

  Byers, Frank

  Drayson, G B

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Channon, H

  Drewe, C

  Birch, Nigel

  Clarke, Col R. S.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A

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

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon Walte-

  Bower, N

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Cooper-Key, E M

  Gage, C

  Bracken, Rt, Hon. Brendan

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

  Galbraith, Cmdr T. D

  354

  355

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

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  George, Lady M Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Macdonald, Sir P (I. of Wight)

  Roberts, Maj. P. G (Ecclesall)

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Mackeson, Brig. H R.

  Ropner, Col L.

  Grimston, R V.

  MacLeod, J.

  Scott, Lord W.

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

  Shepherd, W. S (Bucklow)

  Hare, Hon. J H. (Woodbridge)

  Macpherson, N (Dumfries)

  Spence, H. R.

  Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A, V

  Manningnam-Buller, R. E

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col Rt Hon. Sir C

  Marples, A E

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Henderson. John (Cathcart)

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Studhoime, H. G

  Holiis, M C.

  Marshall, S. H (Sutton)

  Sutcliffe. H

  Hope, Lord J

  Morrison, Maj. J. G (Salisbury)

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

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon W S (Cirentester)

  Tlomas, J. P. L (Hereford)

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

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Hurd, A.

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

  Touche, G. C.

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E''b'rgh W)

  Nutting, Anthony

  Vane, W M. F

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

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon Sir H

  Wadsworth, G

  Jarvis, Sir J

  Osborne, C

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Keeling, E. H

  Peto, Brig. C H. M.

  Ward, Hon. G. R

  Lambert, Hon G

  Pickthorn, K.

  Wheatley, Colonel M J

  Lancaster, Col. C. G

  Ponsonby. Col. C E

  Willoughby de Eresby Lord

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T

  Poole, 0 B. S. (Oswestry)

  York, C

  Lipson, D L.

  Raikes, H. V

  Low, Brig A. R. W

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Lieut.-Colonel Thorp and

  Ma or Ramsay.

  CLAUSE 18.—(Appointment of stockholders' representative.)
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 28, line 16, at the end, to insert:
  "The regulations made with respect to the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof shall be made not less than two months before the date prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, but without prejudice to the varying of any such regulations to such extent as may subsequently appear to the Minister to be necessary."
  This Amendment is designed to meet the arguments adduced by hon. Gentlemen opposite during the Committee stage with regard to the position of the stockholders' representative. Subsection (I) of Clause 18 provides that the stockholders' representative shall be appointed before such date not later than the vesting date as may be prescribed. Under Subsection (4), certain regulations can be made with regard to the mode of appointment and the tenure and vacation of office of the stockholders' representative. It was said by the Opposition—and we took the view that there was considerable force in their arguments—that as the Clause stood, the regulations might not be made until a time very shortly before his actual appointment, and that would be unsatisfactory and would be unfair to the stockholders. Therefore, we are proposing that these regulations governing the appointment of the stockholders' representative, his tenure and vacation of office shall be made not less than two months before the prescribed date. That, I think, meets the point put by the hon. Members opposite.
  Major Peter Roberts (Sheffield, Eccles-all): This is an Amendment on which
  356
  we pressed the Government in Committee, but we asked for three months. I am glad that we have advanced so far that we now have a period of two months. The whole question of representation and the appointment of stockholders' representatives, I think, comes under the question of the vesting date. The Government have, however, gone some way to meet us. Whether two months will be sufficient or not I am not at the moment prepared to say, but this is, to some extent at least, a helpful Amendment.
  Colonel Clarke: I want to support what has just been said. The real reason why we should have three months is the great number of shareholders there are in some companies. Proper notice of meeting has to be given, and it might possibly happen that a meeting is adjourned. Other accidents might happen. Last year, for example, owing to the coal shortage, there was a great difficulty in getting notices printed, and that caused delay. A period of two months is running it rather fine, and while grateful for what has been given, I think that the three months we asked for in the first place is really to be desired.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move in page 28, line 19, after "Act" to insert:
  "and any person to whom any such property, rights, liabilities or obligations which have so vested have been subsequently disposed of."
  The next Amendment in line 23 is consequential on this. It deals with Subsection (5), which relates to the granting of facilities to stockholders' representative to make inquiries and generally to examine books and documents for the purpose of

  357
  discharging his duties. It was said that the assets of the body after they had vested in the board might have been disposed of by the board, for example, under Clause 5 (4) and under Clause 6 (3), both of which made it possible for the board to dispose of assets vested in it. This Amendment provides not only that the board in whom assets vested in the first instance shall afford facilities, but that any person to whom the board disposes of assets shall afford the same facilities to the stockholders' representative. It also enables the stockholders' representatives to acquire the services of ex-employees of the body who are now in the employment of the board or in the employment of other concerns to which assets taken over by the board may have been in turn offered or disposed of. This makes it easier for the stockholders' representative to discharge his functions by making certain that he will have all the facilities he may require to that end.
  Colonel Clarke: This is substantially what we asked for upstairs, and we accept the explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made. In page 28, line 23, leave out "officers of the Board as he," and insert:
  "persons who were officers of the body and are in the employment of the Board or of the said person as the stockholders' representative.' '—[The Solicitor-General.]

  CLAUSE 21.—(Control of dividends, interest and other payments.)
  Mr. Gaitskell: I beg to move in page 30, line 30, to leave out from the third "the" to "liable" in line 31, and to insert:
  "resolution of the directors was passed authorising or recommending the payments shall, subject to the provisions of this section be."
  This Amendment goes with several others on which, therefore, I might also speak. It deals with the question of the control of dividends and interest and the safeguarding of assets during the transition period. I do not think hon. Members would challenge the necessity of some control of this kind. Once we accept the principle of compensation on market value, it is obviously necessary to take steps to ensure that the assets of the companies taken over are not disposed of. It is also necessary incidentally to provide, as we do in a later Clause, for the payment
  358
  of dividends and interest after the vesting day in respect of a financial period prior ? to the vesting day. Clause 21 lays down in Subsection (2) how much money may be paid out in dividends. As originally drafted it provided that where excess dividends were paid, there was liability on the directors in the following manner;
  "that all persons who are directors of the company at the time payments were made are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Central Authority an amount according to the amount of excess"
  Claims made by the Central Authority on this matter are subject to arbitration.
  11.15 p.m.
  The first thing we do in this Amendment is to close the gap which was pointed out to us in Committee by the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) and we are grateful to him for drawing attention to this loophole. He pointed out that as the Clause was originally drafted it would be possible for directors to recommend an excess dividend and resign before the date of the payment of the excess dividend, and thereby escape any penalty. We are therefore taking care of that by making the liability fall on the directors who were present at the time the resolution was passed authorising or recommending excess payments. The Opposition also claimed that the words "jointly and severally" which originally occurred in the Bill were too wide and indiscriminate, and they argued with some force, so we thought, that some directors might carry a much heavier responsibility than others. It is therefore proposed to insert, "subject to the provisions of this section" instead of the words" joint and severally."
  The other Amendments are consequential and relate to a similar problem which arises in connection with payment of excess dividends for past periods or paying away of capital in a form which is not permitted. One of them makes it plain that the tribunal, in dealing with any arbitration on this matter, shall not, as I have already explained, regard the directors as jointly and severally responsible but shall differentiate between them. It may exempt any director on the ground that he was not responsible and order different amounts to be paid by different directors. It only remains for me to make a reference to the Opposition Amendment which also deals with this matter. It proposes that a tribunal shall make whatever orders it thinks just, having regard to all

  359
  the circumstances. It differs from our Amendments in this respect, that whereas we want to lay down that all the excess money that has been paid shall be recoverable from the directors, this is not the case with the Opposition Amendment. We take the view that it is necessary to lay down responsibility as far as possible for this amount, a rather unpleasant matter which we do not like.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: On a point of Order. Can you say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, which of the Amendments on page 3977 the Minister is addressing himself to, because there seems to be a very extensive range of discussion in his remarks.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I am obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I was considering that point myself. I think it would be sufficient to finish at the Amendment in page 32, line 29, and not deal with the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman is now dealing with in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). It raises a different question altogether.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I am only trying to save the time of the House. I will, of course, accept your Ruling. I was referring to it in order to save time, but I will leave it and reserve my remarks.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The House is under a slight difficulty because of a situation 'which caused you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, a certain amount of difficulty, and it is naturally more difficult to the less well instructed Members of the House. The Parliamentary Secretary was attempting to deal with a position of manifest injustice which has been created by the previous provision of the Bill, that is to say, the penal provision against directors who have been guilty of mishandling the affairs of their companies. All this arises from the foolish policy which the Government are adopting—the policy of taking these things over on a Stock Exchange valuation instead of on a proper valuation. This has led us from absurdity to absurdity, but the Parliamentary Secretary has gone some way to meet us in that he has admitted the point that directors might be subject to penalties on account of something done when they were not present, and when they could not be present. and which, in fact, they opposed.
  360
  We have tried to modify the mandatory provisions which ruled that all directors should be grouped together for something concerning their own property and in connection with which they had made some mistake. The Parliamentary Secretary tended to stray on to our Amendment, but on that we shall have something to say ourselves. We believe wholeheartedly in it, and we shall say something stronger in its favour than any remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary. These concessions are made as a result of appeals which were put forward by us in Committee. They go some way to meet our wishes, but the fundamentally foolish policy which the Government are adopting makes it difficult for one to know what to do. But it is a step in the way of righteousness.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My right hon. and gallant Friend stated that the Amendments to which the Parliamentary Secretary has referred did represent some belated repentance on the part of the Government, although it was a repentance of inadequate degree. The Government have paid some attention to the argument which has been repeated again and again in the Committee stage that what they were providing for under this Clause was to penalise a director for the act of a company, and furthermore, to penalise a director who was not present when the decision was made, and even a director who had voted against the action which was the subject of complaint. It is some sign of improvement that even the Government cannot persist in such an attitude of calculated injustice. But the concession does not go for, It only says that the tribunal may let out a wholly innocent director. A director who voted against the action which caused the trouble —a director who was strongly opposed to it—may still be liable and he is left to the good sense of the tribunal. I must repeat that it is not going far enough to leave the possibility that a wholly innocent person may risk such a heavy liability.
  Apart from that, even if the tribunal does, under the Government's Amendment, excuse the innocent director, the only consequence is to increase the penalty on the others. If hon. Members will look at the Amendment at line 29, they will see that it is still provided that the full amount of the Authority's claim

  361
  shall be met, and all the tribunal is entitled to do is to redistribute the liability among the directors. Therefore, by righting the injustice against the wholly innocent director, the Government have done it by the cheapest possible method—that of increasing the penalty on those whose action has been referred to the tribunal. Therefore, it is right to point our that this Amendment does, in some respects, increase the penalties. For that reason, while one welcomes any recognition of even the most rudimentary justice by a Member of this Government, this is only a token repentance and does not carry us very far.
  Major P. Roberts: I feel that even this repentance is not going to be very helpful. The Parliamentary Secretary says he does not like it—I admit that; but surely this arises out of the clumsy method of dissolving the companies on the vesting date.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The House has come to a decision on that matter, and we cannot discuss it again.
  Major Roberts: What I wanted to point out, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, was that though some inconsistencies have been put right, it surely does not make the whole position workable, and does not help very much.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I beg to move, in page 30, line 42, after "other," insert "class of."
  Once again, I am afraid that this Amendment goes with the one immediately following it, and also with one further on in the Order Paper, in page 31, line 7. I apologise, but I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that it is not my fault that the Amendments come in this particular order. I will endeavour not to confuse the House. This Amendment deals with an entirely different matter. As the Clause reads, we have come to the conclusion that the position of new issues is not entirely clear, and it has been pointed out to us that if a company happens to make a new issue in, say, the year 1947, the Clause would be, or might be, capable of certain interpretations. For instance, as the Clause reads, in the case of any other securities, payment of dividends at a rate not exceeding 4 per cent. per annum, or the annual rate paid in respect of the last financial year, are the maximum. Clearly, in the case of a new issue there could be no previous
  362
  dividend paid, and therefore shareholders who took up the new issue would be restricted to a maximum of 4 per cent. Obviously, that might be very unfair in certain conditions; if, for example, a new issue were made of a type of share identical with another which was standing on the market, and in respect of which a dividend of 15 per cent. might be paid.
  The words which we propose to introduce here, "Class of" put that matter right. It means that the dividend which may be paid on the new issues are 4 per cent. or the dividend which was paid on the comparable or same type of share in the previous financial period, whichever is the greater. There is one part of the proviso which relates to the third Amendment. in page 31, line 7, at end, insert:
  "and
  (ii) where a fresh issue has been made after the said date of securities of a class mentioned in paragraph (c) hereof, being a class on which the annual rate of dividend paid in respect of the said last complete financial year exceeded four per cent. per annum, the payments of dividend permitted under this section on the securities so issued shall not, except with the approval of the Minister, exceed a rate of four per cent. per annum."
  The said date is the date of publication, 10th January, 1947, of the Bill and payment of dividend in excess of 4 per cent., can only be made with the approval of the Minister. I think the House will appreciate that this Amendment is to prevent abuses, and I apologise for having taken so long to explain it and for it having been complicated, but I have en-deavoured to make the position clear.
  11.30 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: As the Parliamentary Secretary said, these provisions are complicated, and they are not made less complicated by the fact that one has to pursue these. Amendments up and down the Order Paper to make sure that one is at the Amendment to which the Minister is addressing himself. This also was argued out in Committee upstairs, when the Minister saw the justice of the contentions which we advanced. On that occasion we had the advantage of the presence of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who now appears to have retired home. We had a lucid and courteous explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary and we were able to impress—I will not put it any higher than that—the Minister with the justice of our

  363
  case, which was a remarkable achievement for one morning. We welcome again the steps which have been taken. We will find more and more of these complicated provisions, until the culmination sometime tomorrow night when we shall see the difficulty of the methods of the procedure which the Government have adopted.
  Mr. Gallacher: That is not right. This does not arise on a point of procedure, but out of the fact that we are paying compensation. If we stopped paying compensation all our troubles would be gone.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Unusual as it may seem, both the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and myself are in agreement on this point. He would adopt a different procedure to that which I would adopt, but both are agreed that it is the procedure adopted by the Government which is causing the trouble. The procedure here has been modified,' and certainly to the advantage of all concerned. We say that if the Government would pay more attention to some of the claims which we put before them we believe they would improve the matter still further. We propose to support the Amendment and not to divide the House on it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 30, line 44, after "paid" insert "on that class of securities."—[Mr. Gaitskell.]
  Mr. Gaitskell: I beg to move, in page 31,line 5, after "made," to insert:
  "or, with the approval of the Minister, out of any reserves applicable for the purpose of maintaining interest payments and equalising rates of dividend."
  Under Clause 21 (2) the payments of interest or dividend can only be made out of revenues for the period to which the payment relates, but it was pointed out on the Committee stage that it would not be uncommon for companies to pay dividends in some cases out of reserves which have been set aside for that purpose. That was recognised by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to! the Treasury and we gave a promise that an appropriate Amendment would be introduced on the Report stage. We are now carrying out this promise. This is the appropriate Amendment to see that we provide for the dividend to be paid not merely out of the net revenue for
  364
  the period but also out of reserves applicable to the purpose of making any such payments. However, this is subject to the approval of the Minister.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, this Amendment to some extent meets what took place in Committee but some of the points made seem to be quite extraneous to anything we discussed. In the first place, we tried to secure that in this interim period a company should be permitted to meet its dividends irrespective of whatever the Minister might say. He has now produced an Amendment where he says that a company may meet its commitments subject to the permission of the Minister. We, on this side of the House, can see no reason whatsoever why the Minister should come into this at all.
  We are talking for the moment about a vague period between the time that the Bill becomes law and the time of the vesting date. During that time certain dividends and interests will become due and we can see no reason why the Minister should have any say in the control of the dividends during that period. Surely it is entirelv a matter for the companies concerned. The dividend they may distribute is entirely controlled by this Bill, and therefore for the Minister to reserve to himself the right to say whether these dividends may be distributed or not, seems to us to be quite extraneous to the consideration. Whether the Minister likes it or not I am afraid we have to face this position now that the Minister is doing his best without this Bill to prohibit companies from fulfilling their obligations. He has some sort of personal spite against anybody who is engaged in business. I have made a few speeches during the Report stage and I have not said that before.
  Now we come to an Amendment like this where the contractual obligations of a company are to be subjugated to the veto of the Minister. The Parliamentary Secretary in moving it, if I may say so, in his clear and lucid terms, gave no reason why the Minister should be concerned in this at all. I would like to ask the Minister why he is concerned and what right he has got to interfere in this normal transaction, and to say whether a company shall be fulfilling its obligations or not. Secondly, I do not think the Amendment meets our objection. We have tried to ensure that during this interim period the

  365
  obligations of a company should be met irrespective of what be their present trading position. When they distribute dividends, or whatever it may be, they always have at the back of their minds whether they can continue. All we tried to do in Committee was to ensure that during this interim period the shareholders should receive in the general run of events, something commensurate with what they have been entitled to receive in the period.
  We on this side of the House say: "Why should these words be put in?" Why should not the phraseology of our Amendment be accepted, for I understand that it is not being accepted. Surely a company, if it has done its best by the community, should be able to make a final disbursement ? I would press the Minister on this. Time and time again in this House he has said that the electricity companies have done well by the community. I challenge him on it now. He has said time and time again that the electricity companies have done well by the community, so why should they not be entitled to make a final disbursement to their shareholders commensurate with the funds that they hold in the company. Why should he insert this word "reserves"? Why is he not prepared to accept the Amendment we have put down? All we are seeking to do is to ensure that the shareholders, before the industry is taken over, should receive their last payment in accordance with the reserves of the company in which they have taken a stake.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think it would be reasonable if we could have a few words of explanation as to the insertion of the words, "with the approval of the Minister." I think the Minister is quite ready to give such an explanation. My hon. and gallant Friend quite reasonably asks that such an explanation should be given. He is entitled to have it.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I will certainly explain why we want to put in the words "with the approval of the Minister," and why we cannot accept the Opposition Amendment. We do not take the view that there should be, so to speak, an unlimited right on the part of companies to increase their dividends to the permitted rate out of any money for assets which they may have.
  366
  The Opposition, in a sense, I think, have recognised that because they have put down in their Amendment "out of undistributed profits properly applicable for the payment of dividends." I must say that that is not nearly as clear as Members opposite might think. For example —if I may return to our particular word"reserves"—it may well be that one company has been in the habit of distributing dividends out of its general reserve funds In certain cases for equalisation. But there are other companies who never do this, and if it were the case that a company came along and said, "Well, it is true that we never paid dividends out of our general reserve before but we are going to do it now" we should look at that with suspicion. I think the whole basis of this discussion in Committee was that it was a normal practice to equalise dividends out of reserves. If it is the normal practice, all right, we shall agree to do it. But if it is done at the last minute merely to make the shareholders better off at the expense of the Central Authority, then we mean to retain the words "with the approval of the Minister.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do not really think that the Minister has fully grasped the desire which we had in putting down our Amendment; for the purpose of these things is to promote sound commercial policy and to maintain an ideal which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has enjoined upon the community—to improve finance and retain funds and not to distribute everything. Take an example: each of two companies has built up reserves. One company has suffered from several oscillations before the vesting date and has occasionally paid out of reserves to equalise its dividends. The other company has provided reserves also, but it has not suffered oscillation except in the final year. Surely it is greatly to be desired that both companies, having accumulated reserves, should be able to even off these fluctuations which do take place. We are not asking that they should be distributed unduly or in any unfair way. We put in the words, "properly applicable" and that leaves discretion to the Minister. But the Minister binds himself in advance by saying: "Out of any reserves applicable for the purpose of maintaining interest payments or equalising rates of dividends."

  367
  11.45 P.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary has just explained that we can only have "properly applicable if the company had been in the habit of making such payments. Consider the position of a prudent company which had made such provision. Let us consider, for instance, a man who takes out a fire insurance policy and then complains because he has not had a fire. That is very bad financial policy— that people should have fires for the purpose of collecting insurance. A good insurance company actually gives an accident-free bonus and a company not drawing on its assets for the purpose of equalisation should not be penalised against another company which has built up reserves for the purpose of producing equalisation. But the Minister has refused to do this. I wish he could continue to give further consideration to this point between now and the Bill reaching another place, and that he will allow the words set out in our Amendment, which, admittedly go some distance towards meeting the point the whole Committee desired to meet and are, I think, better than the ? words the Minister has set down, in order to carry out that purpose.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made:
  In page 31, line 7, at end, insert:
  "and
  (ii) where a fresh issue has been made after the said date of securities of a class mentioned in paragraph (c) hereof, being a class on which the annual rate of dividend paid in respect of the said last complete financial year exceeded four per cent. per annum, the payments of dividend permitted under this section on the securities so issued shall not, except with the approval of the Minister, exceed a rate of four per cent. per annum."
  In line 13, leave out from "the," to end of line and insert:
  "resolution of the directors was passed authorising or recommending the payments shall, subject to the provisions of this section. be."—[Mr. Gaitskell.]
  Consequential Amendments made.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I beg to move, in page 32, line 29, to leave out from "make," to the end of line 31, and to insert:
  "such orders against the said directors as will secure the payment to the Central Authority of the total amount for which the directors are liable on the claim, but the tribunal may exempt any director from liability, on the ground that he was not responsible for the acts
  368
  giving rise to 'the claim, and may order different amounts to be paid by different directors, having regard to the extent to which they were respectively responsible for those acts."
  I have already referred to this Amendment in connection with earlier Amendments, but in order to clarify the position, perhaps I may say a few words. What we have done here is to make it possible for a. tribunal which considers claims against directors by the Central Authority in respect of excess dividends to allocate the blame, as it were, between different directors, and order different amounts to be paid by different directors.
  Mr. Speaker: I think I ought to point out at this stage that there is an Amendment to this Amendment. My impression is that the next Amendment—in page 33, line 8, to insert:
  "(10) This section shall not impose a liability on any person in respect of any act done in pursuance of a resolution, unless such person voted in favour thereof,"
  also follows on the same subject, and I think it would be convenient if we could take them together.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out from "as," to end, and to insert:
  "it shall think just, having regard to all the circumstances."
  Our Amendment to the proposed Amendment does seem to be the common-sense way out of the difficulty. No one, I imagine, wishes to assist directors who have deliberately attempted to flout the will of the House to escape penal or financial consequences. Equally, I imagine, no hon. Member wishes to see a director, who is only technically in error in this very difficult matter, suffer a very heavy financial penalty, and as the 'Government's Amendment to this Subsection stands, it is impossible for the total body of directors, looked at altogether, to escape liability for the complete sum. Our Amendment seeks to deal with the difficulty of punishing the guilty while sheltering the innocent by putting the whole matter into the hands of the tribunal to decide how it thinks fit.

  369
  By Clause 26, elaborate steps are taken to set up what the Government hope will be a responsible and impressive tribunal. That being so—and I admit great trouble is taken over its exact composition—why not trust that carefully composed tribunal to do right? It is extremely difficult for us in this House to envisage every possible situation that might arise and call this Clause into operation. On the other hand, when one has this tribunal, whether this Amendment is accepted or not, it does seem reasonable to give to that tribunal the full discretion to do what is just. Further, if the tribunal is not allowed to do what is just, but is fettered in some way, as it certainly would be as the Clause is now, it follows logically that it will be doing less than justice. Under our Amendment to the Amendment, it will be doing justice. If it is not free, it will not be able to do complete justice. I appeal to such lingering respect for justice as may remain on the Treasury Bench to consider whether our Amendment does not do justice, and at the same time do no harm whatever to the fabric or intention of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman concedes that all he wishes to do in this matter is justice, and that the tribunal he has set up is a competent body, why cannot he accept our Amendment and allow this tribunal to do, unfettered, what it thinks to be justice?
  Mr. Raikcs: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
  I wish to make a passing reference to the other Amendment which, I understand, is being discussed with this one. With regard to what the hon. and learned Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has said, it seems to me that there are two categories concerned. The first point is that the tribunal should be given a free hand to deal with every case on its merits when it is dealing with directors who have not in fact, voted for or supported a particular resolution. There are occasions when directors have, for example, passed a dividend before the publication of this Bill, a dividend which they were compelled by their duty to pass but which, under the Minister's Amendment as it stands, they might be compelled to retract, although at the time they were compelled to accept the liability.
  370
  The second point on which I want to say a word deals with the question of directors who have either been absent, or who have voted against what has been objected to. The Minister has met us to some extent. In future, directors who have either been absent or have voted against a resolution are, subject to the discretion of the tribunal, to be exempted from liability. I suggest that it is absurd, when a man has voted against the thing complained of, that he should be compelled to go before a tribunal at all. Surely, in cases where directors are completely without blame, as in these circumstances, there is no obligation on them to appear before a tribunal, because they have not done anything in respect of which they can be considered to have done wrong. All our Amendment to the Amendment does is to relieve a director in these circumstances from being brought before the tribunal, instead of leaving the final decision to the discretion of a tribunal which really ought not to be considering his case at all.
  12 m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: My hon. Friends have, it seems to me, put a very strong case, to which I trust the Minister will give further attention. What they ask for is that this tribunal, operating admittedly in very novel circumstances, should have some direction and advice from the House of Commons; and secondly, that these new proposals should make an exception in the case of a director who has done his best to remove himself from their sweep. Admittedly these are principles which in ordinary company law would be very novel, but then the whole procedure is very novel, and the problem which it is sought to solve is novel. We ask the Minister, having gone so far, to meet us by setting up this tribunal, which, in the words of his own Amendment—
  "may exempt any director from liability, on the ground that he was not responsible for the acts giving rise to the claim".
  —which is really introducing some very novel conceptions into our commercial and legal system. Having gone so far, we ask that he should go a little further. These penalties which are being legalised by these proposals are very great indeed. The proposals will have a hampering effect on the conduct of business by directors. I do not think the Minister will go further tonight, but if he could say whether, in

  371
  fact, he will give further consideration to the matter between now and consideration in another place, it would be greatly to the advantage of all concerned. I cannot believe this is the last word of the Minister on this matter. I think that the further attention of those who are experts—and I do not claim to be one of them—in company law, and the directors who are faced with a difficult and novel situation, might lead to a still clearer opinion being delivered by Parliament on a new position. All of us must admit that
  no clear opinion has yet been delivered by Parliament and the people who are going to operate this and still more the people who will fall under the sweep of the new provisions, and who are to be faced with a number of new situations which it will be impossible to foresee, and in which they will have no guidance of any kind whatsoever.
  Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment.'
  The House divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 83.

  Division No. 281.

  AYES.

  12.2 a.m

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Caitskell, H. T. N

  Manning, Mrs L (Epping)

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Gallacher, W

  Mathers, G

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Medland, H. M.

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Middleton, Mrs. L

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Gibbins, J.

  Mitchison, G. R

  Attewell, H. C.

  Gilzean, A.

  Moody, A. S.

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Glanville, J. E. (Cansett)

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

  Awbery, S. S.

  Goodrich', H. E.

  Morris, P (Swansea, W)

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Gordon-Walker, P C

  Moyle, A.

  Baird, J.

  Griffiths, D (Rother Valley)

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Barton, C.

  Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Bechervaise, A E

  Gunter, R. J.

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

  Beswick, F.

  Guy, W. H.

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

  Blackburn, A. R

  Hale, Leslie

  Noel-Buxton, Ladv

  Blenkinsop, A,

  Hall, W. G.

  Oliver, G. H

  Blyton, W. R.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Orbach, M.

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Paget, R T.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Hardy, E A.

  Palmer, A M. F.

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

  Hastings, Dr Somerville

  Parkin, B. 1

  Brook, 0 (Halifax)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Pearson, A,

  Brown, T J. (Ince)

  Hobson, C R.

  Piratin, P.

  Burke, W A

  Holman, P.

  Platts-Mills, J F. F.

  Butler, H W (Hackney, S.)

  Holmes, H E. (Hemsworth)

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Byers, Frank

  House, G

  Popplewell, E

  Callaghan, James

  Hoy, J.

  Price, M. Philips

  Carmichael, James

  Hubbard, T

  Pritt, 0. N.

  Chamberlain, R. A

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

  Pryde, D J.

  Champion, A.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Randall, H E.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W)

  Ranger J.

  Collindridge, F.

  Hutchinson, H, L. (Rusholme)

  Robens, A.

  Collins, V. J.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Colman, Miss G. M.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Janner, B

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

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

  Jay, D P T

  Royle, C.

  Corlett, Dr. J

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Sargood, R

  Cove, W G.

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

  Scollan, T

  Crawley, A.

  Jones, D. T (Hartlepools)

  Sharp, Granville

  Crossman, R H S

  Keenan, W

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Daggar, G

  Kenyon, C

  Shinwell Rt Hon. E

  Daines, P

  King, E. M.

  Shurmer, P

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Davies Ernest (Enfield')

  Kinley, J

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lang, G

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Deer, G

  La vers, S.

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Delargy, H. J

  Lee, F (Hulme)

  Solley, L J.

  Diamond, J

  Levy, B. W

  Sorensen, R. W

  Dodds, N N

  Lewis, A, W J. (Upton)

  Soskice, Maj. Sir

  Driberg, T E. N

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Ede Rt Hon. J. C

  Lipton, Lt -Col M

  Stewart, Michael (Felham, E.)

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Logan, D. G

  Stubbs, A E

  Evans, S N (Wednesbury)

  Longden, F.

  Strauss, G. R (Lambeth, N.)

  Ewart, R.

  Lyne, A. W

  Swkigler, S.

  Fairhurst, F.

  McGhee, H G

  Sylvester, G. 0.

  Farthing, W. J

  Maek, J D.

  Tsylor R. J. (Morpeth)

  Fernyhough, E.

  McKay, J (Wallsend)

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdara)

  Field Capt W. A.

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

  Thomas, I. 0. (Wrekin)

  Fletcher, E G M (Islington, E.)

  McKinlay, A. S

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Follick, M.

  McLeavy, F

  Tforneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Foot, M M

  Mainwaring, W. H

  Timmons, J

  Forman, J. C

  Mallalieu, J P W

  Tolley, L.

  Fraser, T (Hamilton)

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Usborne, Henry

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Wadsworth, G

  Walkden, E.

  Whileley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Wigg, Col. G. E.

  Woods, G. S

  Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Wilkes, L.

  Wyatt, W.

  Watkins, T E.

  Wilkins, W, A.

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Watson, W M.

  Willey, 0. G. (Cleveland)

  Zilliacus, K

  Weitzman, D.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Walls P. L. (Faversham)

  Williams, W. R. CHeston)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Wells, W. T (Walsall)

  Willis, E.

  Mr. Joseph Henderson and'

  West, D. G.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A.

  Mr. Simmons

  NOES.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Osborne, C.

  Barlow, Sir J

  Grimston, R. V.

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Birch, Nigel

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Pickthorn, K

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

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Poole, 0 B. S. (Oswestry)

  Bower, N.

  Haughtor, S. G.

  Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

  Hollls, M. C.

  Raikes, H. V.

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

  Hope, Lord J.

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W.

  Howard, Hon. A.

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

  Buchan-Hepburn, P G T

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

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Butcher, H. W

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

  Channon, H.

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

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr Roland

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Jarvis, Sir J.

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Scott, Lord W.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Spence, H. R.

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

  Macdonald, Sir P (I. of Wight)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Crowder, Capt. John E

  McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Studholme, H. G.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Macmiilan, Rt. Hon Harold (Bromley)

  Thomas, J, P. L. (Hereford)

  Dodds-Parker, A D

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N

  Drayson, G. B.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Touche, G. C.

  Drewe, C.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Marshall, S. H (Sutton)

  Willoughby do Eresby. Lord

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  York, C

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W S. (Cirencester)

  Gage, C.

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

  Lieut.-Colonel Thorp and

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

  Nutting, Anthony

  Major Conant.

  Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

  CLAUSE 22 (Final payment of dividends and interest.)
  Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move in page 33, line 24, at the beginning to insert:
  "In appointing an auditor under this Subsection in the case of any body, the Minister shall first offer the appointment to one of the auditors who signed the last balance sheet of the body or examined that balance sheet on behalf of the Electricity Commissioners, and."
  This is another example of the readiness of the Government to make concessions to the Opposition when they make a reasonable proposition, and as this matter was under consideration during the Committee stage and it was thought that the company's auditor would be the best person to decide the revenue available after the vesting date, I decided, because it was a reasonable request, to make the necessary alteration to the Clause. The accounts are subject to a double audit; first by the company's auditor, and again by the auditor appointed by the Commission.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I beg to move, in page 34, line 35, at the end, to insert:
  374
  "(5) Where the sums paid to the stock holders' representative under the foregoing provisioas of this section are insufficient to enable him—

  (a) to make the interest payments referred to in paragraph (a) of Subsection (3) of this Section at the maximum rates permitted under the last foregoing Section; and

  (b) to distribute to the holders of the securities referred to in paragraph (6) of that Subsection gross amounts equal to payments of interest or dividend on those securities at the maximum rates so permitted;

  and the body possessed immediately before the vesting date reserves applicable for the purpose of maintaining payments of interest and equalising rates of dividend, the Central Authority shall, if the Minister authorises them to do so, pay to the stockholders' representative an additional amount equal to the total amount of the said reserves so possessed or to the total amount of the said deficiency, whichever is the less, and the stockholders' representative shall apply that amount in like manner as the other sums paid to him under this Section.",
  The Amendment which we have just accepted allows a company, with the approval of the Minister, to draw upon reserves if current revenue is insufficient. This, of course, applies only up to the vesting date. But after that it may be that the permitted rate cannot be paid by the stockholders' representative because of

  375
  lack of revenue. This Amendment allows the stockholders' representative to pay the full amount of reserves if the Minister approves. This is the same arrangement as we have already made for the final payment of dividend by the company.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I am not quite clear about this Amendment. In most cases a company would make an equalisation of dividend payments not out of reserves, but out of the carry-forward. As I read this Clause, this practice would be prohibited. The only way in which a stockholders' representative could carry this out is if there was a reserve on the balance sheet, and I should like to hear what sort of reserve it is and if it would be possible for the stockholders' representative to carry out, what this implies, which is to make an equalisation of dividend possible. I submit that, as worded at the moment, the thing is quite impracticable because there is no reserve on the balance sheet which would be available for this purpose. If the word "funds" were introduced, they would be in a position to carry this out.
  12.15 a.m.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I do not think there is any need to detain the House on this matter. We do not, in fact, attach too much importance to the words used, but we would like to make technical inquiries and, if necessary, to introduce an Amendment in another place.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 34, line 36, leave out from "payment," to second "of," in line 37, and insert.:" made by a stockholders' representative under the foregoing provisions"—[Mr. Gaitskell.]

  CLAUSE 24.—(Re-opening of transactions resulting in dissipation of assets.)
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 37, line 10, to leave out from the beginning, to "on" and to insert:
  "This Section shall apply in any case where."
  This is the first of a series of Amendments the purpose of which is to recast Clause 24. That Clause deals with the re-opening of transactions which have resulted in the dissipation of assets. The Amendments seek to meet a number of points which were made in the argument during the Committee stage by
  376
  way of criticism of the Clause as it stands at present. I will enumerate the various points with which it is sought to deal. First, charitable payments are excluded from the scope of the Clause—a point made by the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley). This is designed to meet his argument on that particular aspect. Secondly, the point was made that there should be some time limit within which the Electricity Board could make an application under the Clause. That has been done by inserting a 12 months' time-limit, which we think is a reasonable period.
  Thirdly, there was a certain amount of criticism of the wording of the Clause. It was suggested that it did not make clear on whom the onus was placed. The Amendment makes it clear that, in the first place, the onus is on the board to make out a prima facie case. The argument by the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) on a matter of drafting is also dealt with by leaving out certain words which he claimed were redundant; and it finally makes it clear that the order shall not be made against directors because the action has diminished in some degree the personal responsibility which rests on them and as a result of which they have benefited through any transaction they have made. This series of Amendments deals with these various points.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In page 37, line 27, leave out "that."
  In fine 30, leave out from "body," to the end of line 32.
  In line 33, leave out "Subsection." and insert "section."
  In line 35, at end, insert:
  "(ii) to any payment or other transaction made or entered into for any charitable purpose; or
  (iii) to any payment or other transaction to which the previous consent of the Electricity Commissioners was given for the purposes of any enactment other than this Section, or which has been approved in writing by the Minister, either generally or specially, and whether before or after the date of the payment or other transaction."
  In line 36, leave out from beginning, to first "all," in line 37, and insert:
  "The Central Authority may, at any time before the expiration of a period of twelve months beginning with the vesting date, make an application to the arbitration tribunal in respect of any transaction to which this Section applies, and."
  In line 41, leave out from second "the," to end of line 42, and insert:
  "transaction in respect of which an application is made is a transaction to which this Section applies."
  In page 38, line 5, leave out "as it thinks just."
  In line 6, leave out from second "the," to "for," in line 8, and insert:
  "application (other than the Central Authority) as it thinks just, having regard to the extent to which they were respectively responsible for the transaction or benefited from it."
  In line 39, leave out Subsection (7).— The Solicitor-General.]

  CLAUSE 27.—(Procedure and enforcement of orders of arbitration tribunal.)
  Amendments made:
  In page 41, line 33, leave out "for the re-opening," and insert "in respect."
  In page 42, line 27, leave out "for the re-opening," and insert "in respect." —[Mr. Gaitskell.]

  CLAUSE 31.1— (General duties and powers of Central Authority and Area Boards in financial matters.)
  Sir A. Gridley: I beg to move, in page 44, line 38, to leave out from "Act," to "as" in line 39.
  If it meets with the approval of the House, I propose to discuss along, with this Amendment the two following Amendments, namely:
  In page 44, line 43, to leave out from "account," to end of Subsection, and insert:
  "(including without prejudice to the generality of that expression provisions in respect of their obligations under Section thirty-eight of this Act)"
  In line 43, at end, insert:
  "(2) It shall be the duty of each Area Board so to exercise and perform their functions under this Act as to secure that taking one year with another the revenues of the Area Board are not less than sufficient to meet their outgoings properly chargeable to revenue account (including without prejudice to the generality of that expression provisions in respect of their obligations under Section thirty-eight of this Act)."
  They all deal with the same subject. and can be discussed together. If necessary, they can be put separately later on.
  Mr. Speaker: I think it would be more convenient if the hon. Member discussed the three of them together, as they are all on the same subject.
  Sir A. Gridley: The purpose of these three Amendments is to meet the objections which we discussed when we were dealing with these matters in the Standing Committee. The first Amendment proposes to strike out the words:
  "including their functions in relation to Area Boards."
  The objection which we have to the Clause is that it provides that the combined revenues of the Central Authority and the area boards together are not less than sufficient to meet their combined outgoings. I am not now dealing with accounts. That was a misunderstanding in the Standing Committee. It was thought we were referring to separate accounts. We quite understood that there would be separate accounts, but what we object to is the revenues of the boards being lumped together, and then, when taken together, they are not to be less than sufficient to meet the combined outgoings. Our view is that provision should be made by which each board should balance its revenue and expenditure, its expenditure, of course, including the necessary reserves for depreciation, plus any reserve fund for which there is authorisation.
  Under this Clause, unless this Amendment is adopted, there will be no possible comparison between the areas, and we will not be able to compare the efficient working of one with the other. I think the country expects that if it is eventually decided that there shall be 14 areas of supply throughout the country, the working of those areas shall be shown in such a fashion that we shall be able to judge whether the North of England is doing better than the South of England, or whether the East is doing better than the West. If all these figures are lumped together, there is no possibility of making any comparison. In the past it was possible to make comparisons because the figures were published. As everyone knows, before the war the Electricity Commissioners published the most voluminous figures of all undertakings in the country, and, perhaps even more important, the performance of the great power stations of the country were all tabled. There was a great deal of emulation provoked between the owners of different stations to see which would produce energy at the lowest possible cost. All these points of past experience are of extreme value, and the country does

  379
  not desire that we should lose the benefit of those former comparisons when we set up a new type of organisation for the industry. Therefore, we ask that there shall be, not only separate accounts, but separate balancing of income and expenditure.
  Supposing we look for a moment at the central authority standing in the relation of a holding company to its 14 subsidiary undertakings in these 14 areas. No holding company with 14 subsidiaries, under private enterprise, would be satisfied if some of those subsidiaries paid handsome dividends and others made losses. All would have to stand on their own feet. Each one would have to produce satisfactory results; if not, those responsible for the management of the unsuccessful undertakings would have to make other arrangements. In the same way here, the Central Authority is to be a parent, or father, or supervisor, or whatever you like to call it, of all these 14 area undertakings, and the Central Authority ought to satisfy itself that each undertaking is working on a proper and sound commercial basis.
  Colonel Ropner: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. Gaitskeil: As the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) has said, we discussed this matter in Committee, and I am afraid that the Government have not changed their mind on this matter any more than he has. I want to emphasise that we are dealing here simply with the statutory provisions about the area boards, and the balancing of their accounts. We are not saying here that the area boards must not balance their accounts. We are merely discussing whether we should put in the Bill a specific provision to show that they must always balance their revenue and their expenditure. Nobody disagrees that the Central Authority which is, after all, financially responsible under the Bill for the whole organisation, has to balance its accounts taking one year with another. That is the phrase we have used. The question is, therefore, simply limited to the position of the area boards.
  First, I do not think that whatever we do about this will necessarily prevent comparisons between area boards. These accounts will be published, as the hon. Member pointed out, and the publication of the accounts will enable a comparison
  380
  to be made. Secondly, comparisons can be made, and may be extremely valuable, on the basis of the cost of distribution of electricity, but that, if I may say so, does not necessarily mean in all circumstances that each area board must match its outgoings with its receipts. What we feel about it is this: we do not want to lay down that in all circumstances, an area board must 'balance its outgoings and its receipts. We conceive that there may be circumstances in which it would be reasonable for a time for an area board to work on a deficit. There are, of course, in the Bill much larger areas than we have hitherto had, and it is one of the purposes to provide a balance—a geographical unit—but we cannot be sure that some of these units may not be involved in disproportionately heavy expenditure on rural electrification. It would be perfectly sensible. There would be nothing wrong in it if they made a deficit on that account for a time. All we say is, "Let that happen; the Central Authority no doubt will have to give its approval; let it happen if it is necessary; do not rule it out altogether." On those grounds I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.
  12.30 a.m.
  Major P. Roberts: I wish to ask one question for the purpose of clarification. There was a suggestion by my hon. Friend, in moving this Amendment, that under this Clause as it now stands there may be some question of subsidising one area by another. I would like to be quite clear what the Government's intention in principle is. Is it their intention that they are going to ask the highly industrial areas to subsidise the rural areas—in other words, to put up the charges? In the case of Sheffield, as effecting their exports, it might have the effect of increasing the cost which they would have to charge to the people who purchase their goods abroad. It is right that we should know what is the Government's principle. Is it that in order that the rural areas may have electricity, the industrial areas will have to subsidise them, and have their costs put up? I am asking that in order that we may know in future.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I would like to support what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Ecclesall (Major P. Roberts). It appears that what the Parliamentary Secretary has

  381
  said simply means that he will not accept this Amendment because he is perfectly aware that certain area boards are going to make a loss and, therefore, other associations will have to subsidise them. All that this Amendment is designed to do is to ensure that, where that happens, the results of this particular procedure should be shown. If the Minister will not accept this Amendment, he is declaring that he is unwilling to show the expenditure for rural electrification. One of the points deals with reserve funds. Why are the Government unwilling to accept something that will show the contributions of the area boards, and cause them to take this particular matter into consideration when they make up their accounts? I can only conceive that this is due to what we stated in Committee, that the reserve funds are to be used for purposes other than those really desired. I can only feel, if these Amendments are not accepted, that it is because the Government are not willing to divulge the expenditure that may occur in any one area for one or other reason, and because the Government are not willing to enable the House—and through the House, the country—to understand and comprehend what exactly is the expenditure in any particular area. I ask someone on the Government Front Bench to make this position clear, since as the Clause stands it would seem that the Government simply want to get away with one consolidated fund which will give the least possible information. That is something to be deprecated.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: I hope that there is not a very great deal between the two sides of the House on this matter. I think we can reasonably believe that individual areas, although in the long run they ought to be regarded as balancing their accounts, in the short run obviously can have either a profit or a deficit. It is clear that as the area boards are to buy their supplies of electricity from the Central Authority, in effect their expenditure is the revenue of the Central Authority, and as the Clause stands I think the Parliamentary Secretary will admit there is nothing to prevent area boards from subsidising each other or subsidising the Central Authority. All we want to be assured is that, broadly speaking, the Government accept the proposition that the Central Authority and each of the area boards stand on their own feet over
  382
  a period of years. If the Minister can give us an assurance that that is their desire and intention—possibly the actual wording of our Amendment does not secure that—the matter could be reconsidered.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Our position is, I think, perfectly clear on this Clause. We do not want to put into a statute any provision saying that area board accounts must balance year by year. I would not, personally, dissent from the view that it is desirable that accounts over a period of years should be balanced. Very likely the Central Authority will insist upon this, but as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, that is a different matter from the question of whether they are subsidised by tariffs charged by the Central Authority being high or low. I pointed out in Committee that even if we were to make a provision of the kind asked for, in fact it might be evaded very easily by the Central Authority charging different tariffs.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: What we really want to get at is that the accounts shall show the true state of affairs and that there shall be no hidden subsidy as between one area board and another. If an area board is to make a loss for a year or two because of development, it would have a good case, but there is no reason why that case should not be made in public.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I accept that. There is no difference between us.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: In regard to the second of the three Amendments, how does the Parliamentary Secretary square what was just said with the question of reserve funds?
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 32.—(Fixing and variation of tariffs.)
  Sir A. Gridley: I beg to move, in page 45, line 14. to leave out Subsection (I) and to insert:

  (1) The prices to be charged by the Central Authority for electricity supplied by them to Area Boards shall be in accordance with such tariffs as may be fixed by the authority from time to time, and approved by the Electricity Commissioners.

  (2) The tariffs shall be so framed as to include as part of the charge and show separately—

  (a) a fixed kilowatt charges component;

  (b) a running charges component, and for this purpose the fixed kilowatt charges component and the running charges compos

  383
  nent shall be ascertained in accordance with such principles as may be approved by the Electricity Commissioners; or the tariffs may be framed in such other manner as may be determined by an order of the Electricity Commissioners, but such an order shall not come into force until it has been laid before each House' of Parliament for a period of not less than thirty days on which that House has sat, and if either House of Parliament before the expiration of that period presents an Address to His Majesty no further proceedings shall be taken thereon.

  (3) The tariffs fixed under this section shall be such as taking one year with another will not result in a financial loss to the Central Authority as respects any area and accordingly may if the Central Authority think fit, be different for different areas."

  We have the strongest objection to the provisions of Subsection (I) as it stands at present. I want hon. Members to look at this Clause and see exactly what it does. It is not always the case that hon. Members opposite are following the Clauses we are discussing. This Clause provides that the prices to be charged by the Central Authority for the supply of electricity to the area boards shall be in accordance with such tariffs as may be devised by the Central Authority from time to time. In other words, the Central Authority can say to the 14 boards, "You are to take all the current you require in bulk from us at prices or tariffs we shall decide." That seems to me to be a most extraordinary position for the area boards to be put in. These area boards will, presumably, have upon them responsible men to take control, together with officials, engineers and first-rate technicians. Are they to have no say whatever in whether the bulk supply terms are satisfactory or sound, or a commercial proposition, or not? That is the primary objection we have to Subsection (1) as it now stands.
  What we want to know is if there is any difference between the area boards and the Central Authority on bulk supply terms, who is to settle such a dispute? There is no provision in the Bill for dealing with a dispute on what, after all, is a vitally important matter to the area boards—the price of the current they are to distribute. In this Amendment we suggest that if there are any differences the tariffs shall be settled by the Electricity Commissioners, but if the Commissioners are to go, there must be some other body or tribunal to whom the matter in dispute can be referred for
  384
  arbitration. The Clause as drawn is, of course, silent as to how the tariffs to be imposed are to be framed and, therefore, our Amendment suggests how that shall be done—the fixed kilowatt charge plus a running charge. That has been the practice sponsored and approved by the Electricity Commissioners for many years and we desire—and I think every electrical engineer in the industry desires —to see that this method of framing tariffs is continued.
  There is often much misconception when talking about tariffs. What we mean here is that we are endeavouring to reach, as far as possible a standard form of tariff and not a standard price. A standard form of tariff and a standard form of price are not necessarily alike. In fairness to the consumers, a standard form of tariff is right. We had discussion on this matter in Committee, and I think then the Parliamentary Secretary quite agreed that this was a proper form of tariff to adopt, and, therefore, we want to see it written into the Bill. We also want to secure this safeguard, if we can against the risk of subsidization, the Central Authority subsidizing the area boards or vice versa, and we' want to secure when the tariffs are settled that there will be no question of one board subsidising another.
  Major P. Roberts: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I do so particularly on the ground of monopoly. Speaking from the point of view of the industries of Sheffield, I feel most strongly on the matter. We are here having the producer of electricity fixing the tariffs the boards will have to pay. In the past, under the 1926 Act, and other Acts, there were safeguards, and I am not at all satisfied that the consumer councils will be strong enough to deal with the Central Authority in this matter.
  12.45 a.m.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Here, again, we are discussing something we went into fairly thoroughly upstairs, though, of course, I make no complaint of that; but I would like to point out that in attempting to introduce some sort of outside arbitration into this matter of the tariffs charged by the Central Authority, the hon. Member is applying a false analogy. He is thinking in terms of the position that ruled at the time of the 1926 Act—the terms

  385
  the Amendment are very largely taken from that—wmhen one had the Central Electricity Board, and a very large number of distributing units, some of them companies and some municipalities. There was no financial tie-up between the Central Electricity Board and the various distributing units and it was no doubt natural to provide for arbitration at that time.
  But the position under this Bill will be wholly different. The Central Authority is financially responsible to the Minister, and, through him, to Parliament, for the whole business. It is, in fact, in precisely the same position—and the hon. Member used this analogy himself on an earlier Amendment—of a holding company in relation to subsidiary companies. Surely, he is not suggesting that the terms on which a holding company may dispose of electricity to a subsidiary should be subject to outside arbitration? I know him too well for that. It would never be dreamed of, and there is no more occasion for it here than there would be in cases of that kind. Supposing the Central Authority were to charge a particular area board a tariff which appeared high, we must not overlook the fact that sitting on the Central Authority in rotation are chairmen of the various area boards, and they will no doubt make their weight felt. If they were charged too high, the reserve funds of the area board would be affected, but in any case the Central Authority is responsible, and I cannot see that any serious consequence is likely to arise.
  About laying down the form of tariff, what I said in Committee was that, by and large, the form of tariff enacted in the Amendment is the common one. But is it not rather unwise to tie ourselves down in the Statute to a particular tariff? I have not the experience of the hon. Member in the industry, but I have friends in it, and I have often heard from them that in the matter of tariffs there is room for a great deal of experiment. If he is right, and engineers think that this form of tariff should be adopted, there is little doubt that the Central Authority will adopt it, but I would prefer to leave the matter as it is.
  The last point is on the position of area boards, and the tariffs not resulting in any loss. There is also the point, to which I do not think the hon. Member made any reference, that the tariffs might be different for different areas. In response to
  386
  the wishes of the Opposition, we have put down an Amendment specifically providing for that, which I will move in due course. As regards the Central Authority fixing a tariff which would involve it in a loss with the area board, I do not think we should be too dogmatic. I agree that we ought to know what is happening, and I am all for the greatest possible publicity —no proper comparison can be made without it—but I do not think it is right to rule out this method. Let us remember that if we did adopt this, and the Central Authority was tied down not to make a loss on any tariff, it would have to go to immense pains to ensure that it did not do so, and would almost certainly overcharge the area boards, because it would be afraid of making a loss. I suggest that it is much better to leave it to the common sense and experience of the men who will be running the concern.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I beg to move, in page 45, line 17, at the end, to insert:
  "and different tariffs may be fixed for different area boards."
  I mentioned in the course of my remarks on the previous Amendment that we had put down this Amendment which provides that different tariffs could be fixed by different boards. I do not think it needs any further explanation.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I suggest that the next two Amendments, in page 46, line 23, and page 46, line 26, be taken together.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, in page 46, line 23, after "persons," to insert:
  "and shall not exercise any undue discrimination against any person or class of persons."
  The second Amendment is in page 46, line 26, at the end, to insert:
  "8. Subject to the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1935, every person shall on application be entitled to a supply of electricity on the same terms as those on which any other person in the same area or part of an area is entitled under similar circumstances to a corresponding supply."
  These Amendments provide that there shall not be discrimination against any person or class of persons. It arises out of the fact that the Bill before the House is repealing so many of the rights" by which consumers have hitherto been protected. The consumer is at present pro-

  387
  tected by Section 22 and the Schedule to the Electricity Supply Act, 1922 and we can see no reason why that should be repealed. It is not so very long since the provisions were inserted, and in fact they have been found valuable up to now. We do not believe that the mere fact that this large public authority is subject to the remote control of Parliament is sufficient protection to the consumer. Therefore, we suggest that these words should be written into the Statute here and now as set out in the Amendment.
  It was suggested we should also discuss the Amendment in page 46, line 26. This, again, is a still older provision of protection which goes back as far as 1882—that is, to Section 20 of the Electric Lighting Act, which is being repealed by this Bill. The Bill provides that in future, tariffs are to be used except when they are not appropriate. Therefore, we make reference to tariffs in the Amendment. Frankly, it seems to us that the general contention of the Government in all this matter that no one need fear the loss of statutory protection—because the whole thing can come under the review of Parliament and the Minister can be subjected to questions in the House—does not make up for the loss of statutory protection which Parliament thought worth while to provide. These matters have been under the control of a Statute, though many of the bodies which were operating were public bodies. The onus, I think, is on those who desire to secure a change. In the extensive repeals asked for, we think it right to ask—what is the justification for these extensive repeals and by what protection do the Government intend the user to be covered over and above the illusory protection of an occasional question in Parliament and the "beat up" of a Minister once a year on a Supply Day?
  The Solicitor-General: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman argued his case for both these Amendments, although technically he only moved the first one. He said that the protection afforded to consumers was illusory and we had put them in a much worse position than before, but it is specifically provided in Subsection (7) that area boards
  "shall not show undue preference to any person or class of persons."
  The protection previously afforded is specifically reproduced in Subsection (7).
  388
  The right hon. and gallant Gentlemar seeks to add
  "and shall not exercise any undue discrimination against any person or class of persons."
  and I should have thought that, as a matter of course, the words "show undue preference" would have covered the converse case. If you exercise any undue discrimination against any person, you are offending against the express words of Subsection (7). While I do not think they add anything to what is already in the Bill, I am quite prepared to accept them. I am the more ready to do that because there is some slight doubt raised by the case of the Attorney-General v. Wimbledon Corporation, decided early in the war. The second Amendment has technically not been moved, but as it has been argued, perhaps I may say that we cannot possibly accept it. We reproduce in this Bill the relative provisions of the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, the Schedue to which has hitherto regulated the right of consumers to a supply of electricity. Section 27 of the Schedule is specifically incorporated in this Bill, and the consumer, under the terms of this Bill has the same right to demand a supply of electricity as he had under the terms of the 1899 Act.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Does it cover non-statutory consumers as well?
  The Solicitor-General: It distinguishes between statutory and non-statutory consumers and gives statutory consumers, that is, consumers occupying premises within 50 yards of a supply main, a right to demand a supply, and creates a penalising provision against the area board which now supplants the statutory undertaking if it does not supply them. We have extended the right of the statutory consumer in this way. Hitherto the statutory consumer was one who occupied premises within 50 yards of a distribution main, and it had to be laid down under the request of any six persons along a street. We have widened the expression "street" to include any other route. Thus the area board is obliged to lay down a distribution main along routes or ways— unidentified streets, shall I say ? That was an obligation statutory undertakings were not under in the terms of the 1899 Act. We have placed the area boards under that obligation. In point of fact, the statutory consumer is in a better position than hitherto. The second Amendment

  389
  seems to extend that point further and to cover the hitherto non-statutory consumer. We see no case for that. We leave the statutory consumer in the same position as before, subject to the extended right to which I have referred. We cannot see the case for covering everybody who, hitherto, would not have ranked as a statutory consumer.
  10. a.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We are grateful to the Government for accepting the first Amendment. As the learned Solicitor-General has pointed out, it is from everybody's point of view a good thing that the first Amendment is accepted. As regards the second Amendment, it would be ungracious to press the Government unduly, but Section 20 of the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act was intended to cover the non-statutory consumer and we thought that some provision for the nonstatutory consumer should be included here. We shall look at the Solicitor-General's remarks again, and all the more so because of his drawing our attention to this provision for the right of demand, not only along streets, but also along routes. Does the learned Solicitor-General mean routes such as have in the part of the country where I live? Over the border there are routes far from any habitable place. Does this mean that anybody with a bridle path or field route has the right to have a main laid under it? I think the Solicitor-General will find he has accepted a far-reaching responsibility, but we are grateful, and thank him for the concession that is made.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 33.—(Investigation into and modification of provisions of Act of 1943 egarding price of electricity supplied under s. 16 (1).)
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I beg to move, in page 47, line 9, to leave out from "in," to "the," in line II, and to insert:
  "sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 4 after the words 'resultant sum 'of the words' increased (except in the case of a station to the establishment of which consent was given under Section two of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909, or Section eleven of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, after.'"
  The purpose of this Amendment is to make more clear the intentions of this Subsection. First, the Subsection refers to a station established before 5th August,
  390
  1943, and the word "established" we regard as being too ambiguous. The Amendment makes it clear that the stations in the case of which an adjustment may be made are all stations except those whose establishment comes after the date in question. The second thing is that the Amendment makes it clear that certain words are to be inserted only in sub-paragraph (a) As provided at present, it might be understood that both sub-paragraphs were affected. This is not so, and we think that this Amendment makes it quite clear.
  Commander Galbraith: How will this affect the sum received by the North of Scotland Board ? Is it going to increase it or reduce it?
  Mr. Fraser: It does not affect that. This only makes quite clear the intention of the Subsection. As it was, it was not quite clear inasmuch as nobody had determined when a station could be said to have been established—whether it was when the first sod was cut or when generating began, but this makes that point clear.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Gentleman is optimistic to say it makes it quite clear. It may perhaps be necessary to-expand it in another place, but I do not intend to delay the House on this occasion.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 34(Borrowing powers of Central Authority and Area Boards.)
  Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 47, line 16, after "Minister" to insert: "and with the approval of the Treasury."
  Subsection (I) of this Clause provides that, in the event.of temporary borrowing being required by an area board, the Central Authority can, with the consent of the Minister, make the necessary arrangements. When this matter came before the Committee, objection was made to this provision on the ground that this matter should not be left exclusively in the hands of the Minister. It was suggested that Treasury approval should be sought. I must confess that I was a little surprised at the suggestion because I understood that the Opposition were not satisfied that in every case we should seek the consent of the Treasury. However, the submission was made by the Opposition in the course of the Debate, and I agreed to make the necessary Amendment

  391
  in the Clause. That is why the Amendment appears on the Order Paper.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Consequential Amendment made.

  CLAUSE 36(Apportionment of liabilities in respect of stock and borrowed moneys as between Central Authority and Area Boards.)
  Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 49, line 17, to leave out "lines," and to Insert "general principles."
  This is merely intended to improve the terminology of the Clause. The words lines settled from time to time "were regarded as being somewhat ambiguous. It was suggested that we might arrange another form of words, so we have substituted "general principle" for "lines."
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 38.—(Reserve funds of Central Authority and Area Boards.)
  Mr. Birch: I beg to move, in page 50, line 9, at the end, to insert:

  (a)the aggregate of the sums contributed by the Central Authority in any financial year shall not exceed an amount equal to one half of one per centum of the book value of the assets for the time being vested in the Central Authority;

  (b) the aggregate of the sums contributed by any Area Board in any financial year shall not exceed an amount equal to one half of one per centum of the book value of the assets for the time being vested in that Area Board;

  (c) the contributions to be made by the Area Boards in any financial year shall be determined rateably in proportion to the book value of the assets for the time being vested in each Area Board;

  (d) the maximum amount standing to the credit of the said fund shall not at any time exceed an amount equal to ten per centum of the values of the assets for the time being vested in the Central Authority and in the Area Boards."

  Clause 38, lays down provisions for a central reserve fund and for reserve funds for the area boards. What we seek to do in this Amendment is to fix the maximum annual amount which can be added to these reserve funds. I should emphasise that this has nothing to do with ordinary depreciation, but only with the amount to be put to the reserve fund. The object in moving this Amendment is to prevent this State monopoly, which can clearly charge what it likes, charging higher rates for electricity than are altogether necessary, in order to build up a large reserve fund. When this was discussed in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary said
  392
  that in the long run the consumers of electricity would benefit by the putting of extra amounts to reserve; but as Lord Keynes once said, in the long run we shall all be dead. I doubt very mucn whether there is a great deal in the Parliamentary Secretary's contention.
  The Parliamentary Secretary also said that this Amendment sought to fix the reserve fund without reference to the book value of the assets. He further said that it was very unlikely that the Opposition would agree that the book values were the same as the real values. In view of what took place yesterday, that is all we could put down, because the Parliamentary Secretary definitely refused to carry out a revaluation of the assets, which we maintain would be clearly necessary. If those assets are not revalued, the only thing we can do is to take the book value. That is what we are doing here. What we are really seeking to do is to re-enact the provisions of the Seventh Schedule of the 1899 Act, which had the same effect, and it seems to us wrong that complete liability should be given to the boards to pay out reserves in any way they happened to like. That does not affect the full employment policy because it affects what capital works are undertaken, and not how much is put to reserves. What we seek to do is to see that the consumers get the benefits to which they are entitled.
  Colonel Clarke: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I am a little surprised at the Opposition putting this Amendment on the Order Paper, and still more so that it should have been moved by the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch), because I always regarded him rather as an anti-inflationist, and I am inclined to regard this as an inflationary Amendment.
  Mr. Birch: Would the hon Gentleman accept it?
  Mr. Gaitskell: I did not say I would disagree with the views of the hon. Member for Flint on inflation. Our attitude to this is much the same as it was when we discussed this matter in Committee. We do not think it is sensible to tie people down in this way. After all, the members of the Central Authority and the area boards will be persons of experience, and I do not think there is any particular gain to be got from saying

  393
  that they must not set aside more than so much. Supposing they do go in for a conservative policy, it can only be for the benefit of future consumers. That may not be very attractive to the hon. Member for Flint, but, returning once more to the inflationary aspect of the problem, I should have thought it would be far more realistic if we were to do nothing of this kind, but to insist on certain minimum amounts being put to the reserve, because one thing of which we can be quite certain is that the consumers generally would be pressing for lower charges. I do not think we need have any fear that the policy of the boards will go too far in the direction of penalising the present for the benefit of the future.
  I do not altogether agree with the hon. Member for Flint that this has nothing to do with a full employment policy, but at this hour of the morning I do not intend to pursue what some may think is rather an academic argument. As regards the total amount to be put to reserve, there is not much to be said for laying it down in detail in the Measure. On the question of the reserve payments by the area boards, which should be in proportion to the book value of the assets, the hon. Member for Flint said that this was the only thing they could do, because we had not agreed on a standard value of some kind. That may be the only thing that he could suggest, but I do not think it is a very good suggestion, because the book value of the assets would not necessarily be the right criterion to apply at any rate as between the municipalities, whose policy in the matter of writing down the values of the assets has been one thing, and the case of the companies, where the policy of valuation has been quite different. I do not think we can take the relative book values as determining what the various area boards should pay, as a number of factors have to be taken into account including the prospective revenue and costs before the matter can be settled. I think we should leave that to the Central Authority to determine.
  1.15 a.m.
  Colonel Clarke: What value does the hon. Gentleman suggest?
  Mr. Gaitskell: I think that is a matter we must leave to the Central Authority to work out.
  Amendment negatived.

  CLAUSE 39.—(Application of Surplus Revenues of Central Authority and Area Boards.)
  Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 51, line 25, to leave out "Central Authority may" and to insert:
  "Board may, with the approval of the Central Authority."
  During the Committee stage the hon, and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) moved to substitute "area boards" for "Central Authority" in the Subsection as it was originally drafted. The purpose, as I understood it, was to ensure a greater degree of responsibility on financial matters at the area board level. The point seemed to me to be a valid one and I agreed to consider the matter at a later stage. The Amendment now proposed provides that the area board should have the power to determine, with the approval of the Central Authority, how their surplus revenue should be applied, and, to that extent, it will provide a greater measure of autonomy in financial matters to the area board.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 40.—(Sums which are to be chargeable to revenue account.)
  Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 51, line 31, after "capital" to insert "and proper provision".
  This is purely a drafting Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 51, line 32, to leave out "and obso lescence."
  The word "obsolescence" gave offence to the Opposition, and on consideration we agree that the term was a little offensive, and we propose to withdraw it.
  Amendment agreed to.

  CLAUSE 41.—(Accounts and audit of Central Authority and Area Boards.)
  Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to move, in page 52, line 2, to the end, to insert:
  "and shall comply with the requirements as to the accounts of companies contained in any general Act for the time being in force, so far as capable of application."
  I think that the intention of the Amendment is evident on the face of it, and requires almost no exposition. The Bill provides that the accounts are to conform to the best commercial standards and unless

  395
  we have a convincing reason I cannot see anything against the argument that the best commercial standards must include compliance with the Companies Acts. It may be that there is some objection to such specific mandatory words in the Bill which has not occurred to us, but it seems to us that there is no objection. It makes the thing clearer and tighter.
  Colonel Clarke: I beg to second the Amendment.
  The Solicitor-General: We feel that we cannot accept this Amendment. I suppose that the effect of it would be that, for example, under the present Companies Bill, all the requirements set out in the First Schedule would have to be complied with in relation to accounts of the boards and the Central Authority. A number of provisions of that Schedule would be, or might be, inappropriate. There is power under Clause 116 (I), of the Companies Bill to make alterations from time to time. In the requirements under the Schedule, one does not know what these alterations may be in form but they would be determined according to the requirements of companies, and that might, or might not, be appropriate to the requirements of the Clause. We feel that the provision already lays down the best standard which can be used for this purpose. We have stated that the accounts must be drawn up in accordance with the best commercial standards and we feel that having laid down that standard, we cannot really improve upon the matter by putting on top of that standard a requirement to comply with statutory enactments, the precise terms of which are not yet known, and which may be altered from time to time. We feel that the Clause should remain as it is.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am very disappointed with the reply of the Solicitor-General. His reply fell under two heads. First, he set out' to argue that the present term in the Bill" the best com-
  mercial standards" was a more precise criterion than the provision of any general Act of Parliament then in force—in effect of course, the Companies Act. It is an extraordinary proposition. Surely, a Bill at present going through the House, brought forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman's own Government, will necessarily provide a more precise standard than the best commercial standards in force? Surely there can be no comparison, unless the Solicitor-General is seeking to suggest that the Companies Bill is thoroughly badly drafted ? I am sure that is not his suggestion. Surely, an Act of Parliament must be the criterion, and not the practice of outside companies?
  The learned Solicitor-General gave no reason at all why the great commercial monopoly being set up by this Bill should not comply with the standards which it is thought should be applied to private companies. We are setting up a monopoly under this Bill, and we should insist, if anything, on higher standards than those imposed on companies which are not monopolies and which are competing with each other for the attention of the public. It seems most unfortunate that the learned Solicitor-General should decline to agree that the standards which we are to impose upon private firms should not also be imposed upon this great monopoly. The learned Solicitor-General's argument was so unsubstantial that one wonders whether there was not some other reason in his mind for rejecting so sound a proposition as that contained in this Amendment. His argument was not only unworthy of his office, but was unworthy, if I may say so, of his own reputation. If there is really no better argument against applying the standard of his own Government's Companies' Bill to the Central Authority, then I think the House must accept the Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes, 71; Noes, 185.

  Division No. 282.]

  AYES.

  [1.25 a.m.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Channon, H.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Birch, Nigel

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Bower, N.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Drewe, C.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Bracken, Rl. Hon. Brendan

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

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walte.

  Braithwaite, Lt-Comdr. J. G.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E

  Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Crowder, Capt. John E.

  Fraser, Sir I (Lonsdale)

  Butcher, H. W.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Gage, G.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Rolawe)

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Marshall D. (Bodmin)

  Spearman, A. C M

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Spence, H. R

  Haughton, S. G.

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Henderson, John (Calhcart)

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Strauss, H G. (English Universities)

  Hope, Lord J.

  Noble, Comdr A. H. P

  Thomas, J. P. L (Hereford)

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Nutting, Anthony

  Thornton-Kemsley, C N

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

  Osborne, C.

  Thorp, Lt.-Col R. A F

  Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

  Touche, G. C.

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

  Pickthorn, K

  Vane, W. M F.

  Lambert, Hon G

  Poole, O B. S. (Oswestry)

  Wheatley, Colonel M J

  Lancaster, Col. C. G

  Price-White, Lt.-Col. D

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig O.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Raikes, H. V.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

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

  Mr. Studholme and

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Major Ramsay.

  NOES.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Griffiths, W D (Moss Side)

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Gunter, R. J

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

  Hale, Leslie

  Popplewell, E

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R

  Price, M. Philips

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Hardy, E. A

  Pritt, D. N.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Hastings, Dr Somervitle

  Pryde, D J.

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Randall, H. E.

  Awbery, S. S

  Herbison, Miss M

  Ranger, J

  Baird, J.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Robens, A.

  Barton, C.

  Holman, P.

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Bechervaise, A. E

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemswerth)

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Beswick, F.

  House, G.

  Ross, William (Kiln-.arnock)

  Blackburn, A. R.

  Hoy, J.

  Royle, C.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Hubbard, 1.

  Sargood, R

  Blyton, W. R

  Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W)

  Scollan, T

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Sharp, Granville

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

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Brook, D (Halifax)

  Jay, D. P. I

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E

  Brown, T J (Ince)

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Shurmer, P.

  Burke, W. A.

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

  Silverman, J (Erdington)

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

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Simmons, C.J.

  Byers, Frank

  Keenan, W

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Carmichael, James

  Kenyon, C.

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  King, E. M

  Snow, Capt. J. W

  Champion, A. J

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E

  Solley, L. J

  Cocks, F. S.

  Kinley, J

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Collins, V J.

  Lavers, S.

  Soskioe, Maj. Sir F.

  Comyns, Dr L.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham E.)

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

  Levy, B W

  Stokes, R. R.

  Cerlett, Dr. J.

  Lewis, A W J. (Upton)

  Strauss, G. R (Lambeth, N.)

  Crossman, R. H. S

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Daggar, G

  Logan, D. G

  Swingler, S.

  Daines, P

  Longden, F

  Sylvester, G. 0.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Lyne, A W

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  McGhee, H. G

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Deer, G

  Mack, J. D.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Delargy, H. J.

  McKay, J (Wallsend)

  Thorneycroft Harry (Clayton)

  Diamond, J.

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

  Timmons, J.

  Dodds, N N.

  McKinlay, A S

  Tolley, L.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  McLeavy, F.

  Usborne, Henry

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J C.

  Mainwaring, W. H

  Wadsworth, G

  Edwards, W. J. (Whiteohapel)

  Mallalieu,' J. p. w

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Mann, Mrs. J.

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

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

  Manning, C (Camberwell, N.)

  Watkins, T. E.

  Ewart, R.

  Manning, Mrs L (Epping)

  Watson, W. M.

  Fairhurst, F.

  Mathers, G

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Middleton, Mrs. L

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Field, Captain W. J.

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon W

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

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

  Wigg, Col G. E.

  Follick, M.

  Morris, P (Swansea, W.)

  Wilkes, L.

  Foot, M. M

  Moyle, A.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Forman, J C

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Willey, 0. G. (Cleveland)

  Fraser, T. (Hamilton;

  Nicholls. H. R. (Stratford)

  Williams, J. (Keivingrove)

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

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

  Williams, W. R (Heston)

  Gaitskell, H. T. N.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Willis, E.

  Gallacher, W.

  Oliver, G. H

  Wills, Mrs E A

  Ganley, Mrs C S

  Orbach, M.

  Woods, G S.

  Gibbins, J.

  Paget, R. T.

  Zilliaous, K

  Gilzean, A.

  Palmer, A. M. F

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Parkin, B T

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Pearson, A

  Mr. Hannan and

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Piratin, P

  Mr. Collindridge.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  1.30 a.m.
  Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 52, line 2, at the end, to insert:
  "(2) The form of the said statement shall be such as to secure the provision of separate information as respects the generation of electricity, the distribution of electricity, and each of the main other activities of the Electricity Board concerned."
  There was some anxiety expressed in Committee about the powers of the Central Authority's area boards in respect of the manufacture of electrical fittings. It was suggested that unless the greatest care was exercised in the presentation of the form of accounts, it might be possible for the area boards to compete unfairly with private manufacturers engaged in the production of these articles. Consequently it was thought desirable to provide a form of words which made it clear that in the presentation of the accounts there should be the necessary separation in detail so as to ensure that there would be no possibility of a global figure being presented which would conceal the charges which had arisen from the manufacture of these articles. That is the purpose of this Amendment. It is intended to satisfy those engaged in this class of business, and I think, on the whole, it is desirable to do so.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Pickthon: I beg to move, in page 52, line 20, at the end, to insert:
  "and copies thereof shall be made available to the public at a reasonable price."
  There is a further Amendment in page 52, line 20, at end to insert:
  "and copies thereof shall be on sale at a reasonable charge at the offices of the Central Authority."
  I do not think it is necessary for me to explain the purpose of this Amendment. The purpose is to have copies of these statements readily accessible to the public, and I know of no objection to that.
  Mr. Birch: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. Shinwell: When this matter was raised in Committee, I intimated that I saw no objection to the principle, but I am not satisfied about the form of words, and if the House agrees I should like to give them further consideration, while accepting the principle embodied in the Amendment.
  Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CLAUSE 42.—(Provisions as to North of Scotland Board.)
  Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 54, line 5, to leave out from "undertakers," to "shall," in line 6.
  This is a drafting Amendment intended to meet a point raised by the Opposition. The words proposed to be left out are regarded as unnecessary.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Hannan.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

HOLIDAY TRAIN SERVICES (CUTS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [[Mr. Hannan.]1.36 a.m.
Mr. Shurmer (Birmingham, Sparkbrook): I realise that the hour is rather late, but unfortunately the matter I want to raise cannot wait. But for having lost the Adjournment a few weeks ago I would be prepared to postpone this opportunity and chance my luck again. In reply to a Question I put to the Minister of Transport on 28th May about the cut in holiday train services which was to begin on 10th June and continue until 5th October, the right hon Gentleman said that during this period coal stocks must be built up by every economy that could reasonably be made. I entirely agree, but I do not agree that this should be done at the expense of the workers and their families, many of whom for the first time in their working lives have secured holidays with pay and are looking forward to taking their families away for a short but well-earned holiday. I shall be told that the cut is already in operation, and that nothing can be done. Surely that cannot be true. I am not prepared to stand for that. The railway companies could easily put on extra trains at any time. It is not a question of rolling stock. The railway companies made this statement only a few weeks ago:
"The railways anticipate a record holiday traffic this summer. But all hopes of providing the public with any better facilities

401
than last year were shattered when, in accordance with a decision of the Cabinet Fuel Committee, the Minister of Transport directed that, in order to save coal, the summer time-table service must be reduced by 10 per cent. As compared with 1046. With fewer trains for more passengers, the difficulties experienced last year in regulating the crowds at stations will be greatly increased."
It is also said that it means that only a limited number of trains can be put on. It was planned to put on extra expresses this season. I wonder whether the Minister was aware, before he made this Order, that there are 33,000,000 people in the United Kingdom who can, this year enjoy holidays with pay.
Many hon. Members will know the difficulties at holiday times, and the crush and scramble there was to get away in prewar times, when there were far fewer people taking holidays and plenty of special trains. What will it mean this year, with this cut in operation? What chance will people have to get away for a time? We are appealing to people for increased production, and at the same time we are preventing them getting away for a well-earned rest and from the rush and bustle and smoke of the crowded cities. I am sure we should reap the benefit in increased production if the worker had a chance to escape from these conditions. We all know the many privations people are called upon to endure which for a time cannot be avoided, but I am sure the cut in holiday trains need not have been made. If it were a question of millions of tons of coal, one would realise the necessity of conserving that amount, but the cut will amount only to 250,000 tons of coal or less than one day's production.
It is not the Minister of Transport who ought to be in the dock, but the Minister of Fuel and Power. He ought to be there, for issuing an order which prevented the running of extra holiday trains. We are told we need to build up a stock of 15 million tons for the winter. We have already, with 17 weeks to go, nearly 8½ million in stock, and the position of the mining industry improves week by week and there is every sign of an increase in coal production. In addition, 22,000 more men have entered the industry since the decision was taken. Surely the Minister can risk less than one day's coal production to give a little break to the war weary ? For many years I have lived in slums among thousands of the working
402
class, and I have known their lives and homes for 26 or 27 years. I know many are war weary and austerity weary, and now they are to be holiday weary when for the first time in their lives they have the chance to go away. This year, seaside and other holiday resorts have got back near to normal accommodation. Holiday camps are being opened for the first time, all in readiness to cope with the increase in holidays-with-pay. What will be the position with this cut in operation? Unless people are lucky and have cars many will be left behind. I have a car and I can take my wife on holiday, but I am conscious that poor people who have not been able to get cars of their own stand a good chance of being left behind to stay at home in drab surroundings.
Let us see what the position means in extra coal production. Take 80 days in July, August and September. 350 tons a day from 817 pits would mean less than half a ton per pit per day. Has anyone at the Ministry gone into that? I ask the Minister seriously to consider what the after-effects of this train cut will have, not only on production, but on the weary housewife who needs a change from the everyday humdrum existence of home life; and on the children too, many of whom very seldom get a chance of going to the seaside and some of whom are looking forward for the first time in their lives to having one. I urge the Minister not to get up and tell me that it is too late now, but to realise that there is a chance of giving the railways an opportunity of putting extra trains on so that during July and August people can go away for a holiday. I urge the Minister of Transport to take a chance so that these people can have a holiday and to put on extra trains. I feel confident that the workers will be prepared to recognise that some concession has been given them to get a holiday.
Squadron-Leader E. Kinghorn: I would like to add my voice to that of the hon. Member who has just made such a well documented speech on, the cuts in railway services. I speak, as a Member for a seaside resort—from the receiving end. The hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) has given the case very well from the point of view of the people who come from inland towns to have a few days' recovery every year at our seaside resorts. From the point of view of my own constituency, this is no

403
luxury. It is the continuation of the normal economic life of the constituency. In my constituency there are hotels that had been requisitioned during the war. They have been refurbished by grants from the Board of Trade and this year they were planning to get into their stride. Many people run hotels and workers in them have been looking forward to having the normal peacetime holiday traffic and have been hoping to make this holiday season recoup, hardly what they lost during the war, but the loss they have to face during the long winter months when they are preparing for the rush of visitors during the holiday season. Then there are the boarding houses, in which people get ready the rooms they do not use themselves in preparation for the rush.
Our working people are very much concerned in this. Their ordinary jobs rely on the holiday traffic. Even the houses of a great many normal working people in the town which I represent are made over so that in the holiday months they can put up a number of working people. It is part of the economic life of the town, and if they work for wages during the winter months they look forward to the weeks of summer when they can do extra work to make a bit of money to tide them over the winter. It is not a luxury to take a holiday. Any specialist on industrial psychology and health knows very well, and has proved time and time again, that working men and women must have periods of rest, of complete change from their industrial surroundings, which they normally get in seaside resorts. It is just at the time of year when these savage cuts are operating that they take their holidays. I suffered myself from this today when I found that the train I wished to catch was not running. It is possible for stationmasters to put on extra trains even if schedules are arranged. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider that holidays are no luxuries, especially in towns like Yarmouth, Lowestoft, Brighton, where people expect to make their living from the holiday traffic.
1.49 a.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. G. R. Strauss): My hon. Friends, the members for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) and Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn), have put very forcibly the inconvenience
404
which is undoubtedly going to arise and affect a considerable number of people during the coming months as a result of the cuts in railway services which have been decided by the Government. I can assure my hon. Friends that nobody regrets this decision more than we do, but we have been forced to the conclusion that in the national interest it is essential to make some saving during the summer in the coal consumption of the railway companies. Might I just give my hon. Friends and the House one or two facts. The decision was arrived at a little time ago to make a cut of 4 per cent in railway running during the summer months. That is not a large percentage, but it will save 10,000 tons a week and about 250,000 tons altogether. It is impossible, or anyhow most undesirable, to make any cut in our freight trains. It is also undesirable to make any cut in the peak hour trains when people in already overcrowded conditions are coming into or leaving London and other large cities. To make the necessary cut in train mileage it was therefore necessary to reduce the remaining railway services, namely, the "off peak" suburban trains and the longdistance trains.
That decision will principally affect holiday traffic. There is to be a cut of 10 per cent. in these long-distance trains and "off peak" suburban trains. The railway companies however have been at great pains to make these cuts where they will least inconvenience the public. They have in fact cut a great many "off peak" suburban trains so as to make the holiday trains as frequent as possible. To consider the reduction in proper proportions we must remember that the cut will be about 10 per cent. on last year's service but there will be the same number of trains running as in 1945 and about 10 per cent. more than in 1940. I say frankly that we have no indication whether summer traffic will be larger this year' or not. Last year the traffic was substantially below the year before, and up to May of this year there was a steep drop indeed in passenger traffic on the railways; not only during the particularly cold weather of last winter, but up to early May. The drop amounted to 20 to 25 per cent. But that of course does not mean that there will be a drop during the coming summer holiday months.
Mr. Shurmer: I do not think the hon. Gentleman ought to mislead the House.

405
He knows full well that in 1944 the extra passengers were troops, and they are not travelling now.
Mr. Strauss: I can assure my hon. Friend that he is mistaken. There was a drop in ordinary monthly season tickets—
Mr. Shurmer: In season tickets?
Mr. Strauss: No. I am sorry. I meant in monthly return tickets used by the ordinary visitor to holiday resorts for his return journey. There may be more holiday makers this year—it is anybody's guess. There may be a fall. But every effort will be made within the resources of the railway companies, and within the overriding condition that the companies must cut their coal consumption by 250,000 tons, to relieve congestion where it is bad. I would furthermore remind the House that although there is a complete embargo on the running of special trains, there is no embargo on relief trains, and relief trains will be run wherever possible within the limitation that the railway companies must save this amount of coal.
There is no doubt that inconvenience and discomfort to many holiday makers will result. It is inevitable. I regret this very much, particularly.as I fully endorse my hon. Friend's view that it is highly desirable, in the interests of the individuals concerned and the national economy, that our people should take their holidays this year. They deserve and need their holidays, and it will be good for the national productive effort that they should take their holidays. It
406
is also desirable that they should be able to travel to and from the various resorts where they will take their holidays in the maximum comfort. But I am afraid that it will not be possible for all of them to do so. Great efforts have been made to effect a measure of staggering; in particular to get holidays starting in the middle of the week instead of at the weekend, but we have had no success. During certain rush periods of the summer, bad travelling conditions will therefore be unavoidable. But the over-riding consideration must be the need to accumulate coal stocks for the winter. It is all very well for the hon. Member to say that only 250,000 tons are involved, but that is really a large tonnage, and if we can save that amount for the winter it will be very well worth doing.
I say, in conclusion, we greally legret the necessity for cutting the summer train service, but it has been forced upon us by national conditions. Every effort has been made, and great care taken, by the railway companies to effect the cuts so as to inflict the minimum of hardship. But it is impossible to avoid it altogether. One can only offer this consolation to those who will suffer—they will, know when they have to travel in discomfort. that their sacrifice is directly contributing to the conservation of coal for domestic and industrial needs next winter. And that objective, I am sure they will agree, must in the national interest have number one priority.
Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes to Two o'Clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Domestic Work (Austrian Women)
  Domestic Work (Austrian Women)
  Catering Industry (Wages Inquiry)
  Catering Industry (Wages Inquiry)
  Prisoner-of-War Labour
  Prisoner-of-War Labour
  Limbless Ex-Service Men
  Limbless Ex-Service Men
  NATIONAL SERVICE (OPTED MINEWORKERS)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (OPTED MINEWORKERS)
  SERVICE PENSIONS (STATISTICS)
  SERVICE PENSIONS (STATISTICS)
BRITISH ARMY
  Requisitioned Land, Essex (Restoration)
  Requisitioned Land, Essex (Restoration)
  Territorial Army (Regular Officers)
  Territorial Army (Regular Officers)
  African Troops, Kenya (Shooting Incident)
  African Troops, Kenya (Shooting Incident)
  Damaged Property, Colchester (Settlement)
  Damaged Property, Colchester (Settlement)
  Gun Site, Hampstead Heath
  Gun Site, Hampstead Heath
  Camp, Braunton (Baths)
  Camp, Braunton (Baths)
  Venereal Disease (Germany)
  Venereal Disease (Germany)
  Personal Injuries (Claims)
  Personal Injuries (Claims)
  ARMED FORCES (SHIPPING ACCOMMODATION)
  ARMED FORCES (SHIPPING ACCOMMODATION)
  PRISONERS OF WAR (REMITTANCES)
  PRISONERS OF WAR (REMITTANCES)
  ALKALIZING TABLETS (IMPORTS)
  ALKALIZING TABLETS (IMPORTS)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Preserving-Bottles (Screw-Tops)
  Preserving-Bottles (Screw-Tops)
  Export Work
  Export Work
  Small Wooden Spoons
  Small Wooden Spoons
  Knitting Wools
  Knitting Wools
  Non-Utility Bedroom Furniture (Hotels)
  Non-Utility Bedroom Furniture (Hotels)
  Children's Shoes
  Children's Shoes
  Rubber (U.S.A. Imports)
  Rubber (U.S.A. Imports)
  Government Imports
  Government Imports
  Japanese Cotton Cloths
  Japanese Cotton Cloths
  Textile Industry, Japan (Re-establishment)
  Textile Industry, Japan (Re-establishment)
  British Motor Cars (Foreign Imports)
  British Motor Cars (Foreign Imports)
  Grantham Productions, Limited (Factories)
  Grantham Productions, Limited (Factories)
  Cotton Mills (Re-opening)
  Cotton Mills (Re-opening)
  Textile Industry (Approved Groups)
  Textile Industry (Approved Groups)
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  Schemes, Bristol
  Schemes, Bristol
  New Towns, Manchester Area
  New Towns, Manchester Area
NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Old Age Pensions
  Old Age Pensions
  Local Offices
  Local Offices
  TROOPSHIP "EMPIRE TROOPER" (ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR)
  TROOPSHIP "EMPIRE TROOPER" (ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR)
  EDUCATION (DEVELOPMENT PLANS)
  EDUCATION (DEVELOPMENT PLANS)
AGRICULTURE
  Grantham Productions, Ltd. (Tractors)
  Grantham Productions, Ltd. (Tractors)
  s.s. "Eucadia" (Returned Tractors)
  s.s. "Eucadia" (Returned Tractors)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Electric Toasters and Razors
  Electric Toasters and Razors
  Printing Machinery
  Printing Machinery
  SCOTTISH SPECIAL HOUSING ASSOCIATION
  SCOTTISH SPECIAL HOUSING ASSOCIATION
  H.M.S. "BERWICK" (ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS)
  H.M.S. "BERWICK" (ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS)
  TUDOR AIRCRAFT (USE)
  TUDOR AIRCRAFT (USE)
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Regional Hospital Boards
  Regional Hospital Boards
  Water Supply, Kettering Division
  Water Supply, Kettering Division
  ROYAL AIR FORCE DEPOTS (PERSONNEL)
  ROYAL AIR FORCE DEPOTS (PERSONNEL)
  CHIEF CONSTABLE, HULL (INQUIRY)
  CHIEF CONSTABLE, HULL (INQUIRY)

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
2.35 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, we propose to interrupt the debate and adjourn for dinner after my noble friend the Leader of the House has spoken this evening. The debate will be resumed after a suitable interval.
I should also tell your Lordships that, after consultation through the usual channels, it has been agreed that the sitting for public business to-morrow, Wednesday, should begin at 11.30 in the morning when we hope to get through the proceedings on the Statistics of Trade Bill and on the Second Reading of the Fire Services Bill before luncheon. The House will then adjourn during pleasure and the sitting will be resumed at 2.30, when the first business will be the debate on Lord Hailey's Motion on the recommendations of the Inter-departmental Commission on Oriental, Slavonic, East European and African Studies. This will be followed by the Report stage of the National Service Bill. We shall hope to reach the Committee stage of the Transport Bill between 3.30 and 4 o'clock.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE COUNCILS.
LORD ADDINGTON: My Lords, I rise to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask whether His Majesty's Government are aware that Section 14 (d) of S.R. & O. 1947 No. 889 makes no provision for the imposition of a penalty upon persons who do not disclose their interest in contracts, and whether His Majesty's Government will apply the provisions of Section 76 of the Local Government Act of 1933 to all such cases.]
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, this provision of the Local Government Act refers to local authorities and provides that members of those bodies who offend against the provision shall be liable on conviction to a penalty not exceeding £50. It does not, however, extend to members of executive councils. No similar provision is included in the National Health Service Act: and there is, of course, no power to create a criminal offence by regulation. It follows that the noble Lord's wishes could only be met by further legislation.
It would, however, be possible to provide by regulation that an offending member of an executive council should be disqualified from continuing to hold office. But the number and type of contract into which an executive council might enter is extremely small compared with those in which local authorities are concerned. Executive council contracts will be limited to such matters as stationery, printing, office equipment and possibly in some cases works of adaptation to an office. It has not, therefore, so far been thought that the danger that members will fail to disclose an interest in contracts is sufficiently great to necessitate a special provision disqualifying those who fail to do so.
The matter will, of course, be kept under review, and if it should be shown in the light of experience that the regulations need strengthening, further provision could be made on these lines.
LORD ADDINGTON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his answer. This is obviously a question of principle and it does deserve to be carefully watched so that abuses do not arise in these bodies, that are extremely similar to those for which Parliament has provided.

RAILWAY ACCOMMODATION.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether the war-time rule that, in cases when on trains there is no accommodation in third-class carriages, passengers may, with due regard for the prior claims of first-class ticket holders, occupy first-class seats, still holds good.]
LORD WALKDEN: Passengers holding third-class tickets may occupy seats in first-class compartments only with the express permission of a member of the railway company's staff. The instruction on this matter to the staff, which is still in force, is that when the third-class accommodation on a train is seriously overcrowded they may permit holders of third-class tickets to occupy seats in first-class compartments without extra charge. But before giving such permission they must consider the needs of first-class passengers likely to join the train at subsequent stations who might thereby be deprived of seats. I would add that where first-class fares are advertised, the companies are under an obligation to provide suitable accommodation for first-class passengers.
EARL HOWE: Is the noble Lord aware that on some of the railways, notably the Southern line from Worthing, a first-class passenger who wants a seat goes to a third-class carriage every time; and that under the operation of this rule the privilege referred to is very much abused?
LORD WALKDEN: I am afraid I am not aware of details of that kind, but if the noble Earl will let me have particulars I will have the matter looked into.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
CITY AND COUNTY OF KINGSTON-UPON-HULL ORDER;
COUNTY BOROUGH OF DARLINGTON ORDER;
COUNTY BOROUGH OF IPSWICH ORDER;
BOROUGH OF BRIDGNORTH ORDER;
RURAL DISTRICT OF BLACKWELL ORDER;
RURAL DISTRICT OF MILDENHALL 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.

AGRICULTURE BILL.
2.38 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, I feel that it is a great privilege for me to be here to-day to introduce this important measure to your Lordships' House. Many people—some of them among noble Lords in this House—have contributed to the principles which underlie this Bill. Particularly should I like to call to mind the contribution of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, Lord Addison, who through the years when agriculture was not very much in the picture, sowed seeds which are now reaping a rich harvest. Great credit is also due to various noble Lords and members of the Opposition Party and to members of the Liberal Party who have also brought ideas and expounded principles which have been acted on. But I must say that finally it has fallen to the Labour Party and to my right honourable friend, the Minister of Agriculture, to select the best of these ideas, to put them together, to bring this measure into being, and to present it to Parliament.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has said—and here I think I can express the feelings of all your Lordships when I say we welcome him back very warmly from his tour to the Antipodes, where he has done so much good in his contacts—this is the Great Charter for British agriculture. It has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, that we have a plethora of charters; but I suggest to your Lordships that this is a very great one; in fact, if one might use an agricultural term, this is a grade A charter. What I think has given us the greatest satisfaction is the way in which this Bill has been welcomed by all sections of the community, by all sections of the industry, and by all political Parties. The major provisions and principles which underlie this Bill have been welcomed by the Central Landowners' Association, the National Farmers' Union, the agricultural workers' unions, and in fact, by everyone who participates in the industry.
It is, too, a remarkable thing that the election manifestos of the three different Parties are almost unanimous in what they advocate for agriculture; and if your Lordships will forgive me for a moment whilst reading a paragraph or two—because I do not wish to misrepresent any of the Parties, particularly when they

109
agree with us—I would like to say what are the main features. All Parties stressed the necessity of planning for stable conditions in the industry, which would allow the farmer to look ahead to the future with confidence, and get on with his job of providing agricultural products needed by the nation, instead of living from hand to mouth, as he did in the years between the two world wars, always wondering how it would be possible to overcome the next difficulty. They emphasized, too, the need for the greatest possible efficiency in the industry. The various manifestos also acclaimed the remarkable success of the war-time experiment of agricultural executive committees. They agreed that any policy should take advantage of the experience that had been gained and make these committees a permanent feature of the agricultural industry.
There are two other things to which I should like to call to your Lordships' attention. The first is a remarkable document issued by the Royal Agricultural Society for England in 1941, as to which, I think, Lord Courthope played an important part, in which farmers, agricultural workers, landowners and professional organizations unanimously stressed these same fundamental purposes. Especially, and finally, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a memorandum issued in 1943 by a group of Peers under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. This document carried the signatures of Peers of all Parties, including the Leader of the House. In it, if I may again quote by reading the: beginning, they say:
"If we want a prosperous countryside, we must be prepared not only to accept, but actively to bring about the changes it entails. Happy-go-lucky farming, chaotic distribution, and the landowner who is a mere rent receiver; these are not the things which we can enjoy or endure, and at the same time have a prosperous countryside. We must choose one or the other. Our choice is definitely for the prosperous countryside."
The Government's choice is also for a prosperous countryside, and we believe that this Bill provides the necessary machinery to enable that goal to be achieved.
Inevitably the Bill cannot cover all the matters dealt with in that report. There are such things as the marketing of produce. Obviously the distribution of food is vital to the agricultural industry, but it cannot be dealt with in this Bill. It is
110
at present more within the province of the Minister of Food; but it is a matter which will have to be dealt with at another time. But still talking of this Report, with regard to points dealing with the best use of land, with ownership, management and husbandry, I think your Lordships will find that the principles incorporated in this Bill are very much the same as the Report. For example, the Report suggested that minimum standards of good estate management and good husbandry should be laid down, and that landowners and farmers who were unwilling or unable to comply with those minimum standards should make way for others who could do so. The Report also envisaged the setting up of a Land Commission to manage land acquired by the State in one way or another. The Report stressed the necessity of modernizing the law relating to landlord and tenant and bringing it into conformity with modern conditions. I would again remind your Lordships that all these matters dealt with by this group of Peers as long ago as 1943, have been adopted and incorporated into this Bill. I should also like to say that we have examined them and had very full consultation with the industry. From the first moment when we set out to draw up this Bill, we consulted the various sections of the industry, and threshed out the questions which arose. There was also very thorough examination in another place, and as a result of this discussion and examination many constructive suggestions were made. Many of them have been adopted, either as they were or modified, and have been incorporated into the Bill. And one can indeed say that the Bill has had a surprisingly good welcome from all concerned.
Now, if I may, I should like to give our ideas behind the Bill—what we look to agriculture to do and what we are trying to do for agriculture. In the opinion of His Majesty's Government agriculture is not a self-contained industry that can be considered as an isolated unit; it is part of a complex pattern which is formed by the economy of the country; just as this country, cannot be looked at as a separate unit, but as part of the very complex pattern of the nations of this world—and that pattern, my Lords, is painted in rather sombre colours. In fact we think that, if we are going to get the good standard of life which we want for the people of this

111
country, we must re-model our economy very drastically; and the crying need, in regard to which I do not think there can be any disagreement, is that agriculture must become as efficient as possible. In fact, you will find on examination of the Bill that efficiency is the keynote of the whole measure. It is the criterion on which every clause has been judged; it is the touchstone upon which all our ideas have been tested. Second to the efficient use of the land we have been considering the prosperity of those engaged in the industry. When I say "second" it is only because we believe that the two are closely interlinked—that you cannot have prosperity without efficiency, and that efficiency will lead to prosperity.
There is a third point, which is not so obvious, but one to which we attach considerable importance, and that is the outlook or state of mind of those engaged in the industry. We think that such things as decent houses, water supply, electricity, transport, shopping facilities, are all extremely important. But as well as those we want to try to introduce into the industry friendliness, a harmony of outlook, so that we can get the different sections of the industry working together happily and realizing that the prosperity of each individual section is bound up in the prosperity of the whole industry. In this respect, I think the experiment in war time of the almost self-governing functions of the agricultural executive committees has pointed the direction which we should follow.
Having perhaps created a little diversion by dealing with the philosophy behind the Bill, I would like now to try to show how the Bill itself is going to bring our ideas into practice. In Part I, we have started out to remove the dread which hangs over every farmer, and has hung over every farmer in the past—the dread that, although he may contend successfully against the many perils of agriculture, those of weather, of disease, and so on, he may, even if he manages to overcome all these, find when he harvests his grain and the results come in, that through a fall in prices in outside markets, all his efforts have been rendered useless. In order to give a sense of security and confidence to the industry, we have provided in Part I an assured market and guaranteed prices for the most
112
important products of the agricultural industry. For this purpose, we are continuing as a permanent feature the annual agricultural price reviews which have been held every February. As most of your Lordships know, when these reviews are conducted, prices are fixed after the industry is consulted.
Crop prices are actually fixed in the year previous to that in which they are to be harvested, while the actual prices of fat stock, milk and eggs are fixed for a year ahead with minimum prices laid down from two to four years ahead. The object is to enable a farmer when he sows his grain to know the price he will get for the crops when he collects his harvest, and to enable him when he rears his cattle to know well ahead the minimum prices which they will produce. He will know that the market will not collapse, and that he will not be under the threat of loss through fluctuation of prices. Thus, I do claim that here we can be almost boastful. We can, I think, say that no Government could give greater assistance to the agricultural industry than will be given by an assured market and these Government guaranteed prices. The guarantee is being given in respect of the most important products, something like 75 per cent. of the total output in agriculture. I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Minister has power to add to the list of these products which appear in the First Schedule to the Bill. But he has not the power to take products away from the Schedule; so the farmer has secured that, short of another Act of Parliament, these products which are actually listed will remain on the Schedule and under the guarantee.
I am sure that some of your Lordships will have noticed—I know that Lord Bledisloe has done so, for he has kindly called attention to it—that there is one very serious omission from the Bill. That of course is horticulture. I would say very strongly that horticulture is very much in the minds of His Majesty's Government at the present time, and the fact that it has been left out of this Bill is merely because of the difficulty of devising some scheme which will provide the right form of security to that part of the industry. Owing to the difficulty of producing an appropriate measure, the seasonal nature of the trade and the

113
perishability of the produce, it is extremely difficult to guarantee fixed prices for horticultural produce as you can in the cases of, say, wheat or barley. But we are examining the position and conversations are now proceeding. We hope that eventually it will be possible to take steps to give the industry economic security, enabling it to develop on sound and and stable lines. I should like also to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that in the past the only security that could be provided was through tariffs. Conversations are of course going on at Geneva on this very subject. These conversations are not concluded, so one cannot say very much about the matter at the present moment. But clearly the result must be very important to the horticultural industry. Apart from that, however, we fully recognize the need for security in the future.
One other question which I should like to bring to your Lordships' notice also comes under Part I. As I have said, we are giving this guarantee, and in another place certain objections were raised and prolonged discussions took place with regard to the phrase "quantitative limitation." It was suggested that quantitative limitation was too much of a handicap. I should like to try to explain to your Lordships what we have in mind in this connexion. I think it is clear to everybody that in the immediate future we need all the food that we can possibly produce in this country. There is no question at all about that. The reason why we have put in this limitation is that this is not a short-term measure. It is, in fact, a long-term measure. The Treasury, on behalf of the British taxpayer, are undertaking a very big responsibility in the matter of the guarantee which it is proposed to give to ensure prosperity to the industry. His Majesty's Government feel that there must be some power to limit this guarantee in possible unforeseen circumstances in the future. This is not an immediate thing. But it is providing a reserve against possibilities, a limitation with respect to the distant future. But in order to give confidence to the agricultural industry, we have gone as far as we can.
My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, in the Third Reading debate in another place, said that His Majesty's Government were prepared to accept an unrestricted liability of assur-
114
ing a market for the whole output of the guaranteed price commodities, for as far ahead as can reasonably be foreseen, subject only to two reservations—sugar beet and oats. The reason for the reservations was this. Obviously it would be useless to encourage the production of sugar beet to a greater extent than the factories can absorb. That is to say, the limiting factor is the processing capacity of the existing sugar beet factories. In the case of oats there is a special difficulty in that it is on the whole much more a fodder than a cash crop. With these two exceptions we do go as far as we can. Further we can add other products if it is deemed fitting to do so, and it might be that were new products added it would be advisable to limit the amounts produced.
Now I wish to pass from Part I to Part II of the Bill. As I have said, we are giving considerable security to the industry, but we expect something in return. As your Lordships know, there is a very limited amount of land in this country, and that, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, ought to be used in the best possible way and cultivated with the maximum of efficiency. Therefore we have insisted as a return for these guarantees that farmers and land owners must maintain reasonable standards of good husbandry and efficient estate management. That is the key to the second Part of the Bill—to ensure that our land shall be properly farmed; that the farmer shall have a chance to manage his land efficiently, the estate management and equipment being appropriate to enable him to do this.
I do not want your Lordships to look on this as a sort of threatening gesture or anything of that kind. It is indeed a helpful gesture. In this connexion I would like to mention the institution of the National Agricultural Advisory Service and the Agricultural Land Service. I think very few people realize what a great benefit those services will be and how far reaching their activities may become. By means of the advisory service we can advise any farmer on his problems. If the questions prove to be difficult—some queer disease may appear—the district officer can refer it back to the Regional Officer, who may refer it to the research laboratory; and in this way, immediately a problem arises on the field, it can be referred to the best scientific experts and

115
an answer brought back to the farmer. It will be a two-way traffic. The research workers will get immediate information as to the problems and dangers affecting the farm. In the same way the Agricultural Land Service will advise on estate management, farm buildings and so on.
We hope when the services are finally under way that they will be fully appreciated and used. If the efficient assistance given freely to the farmers is not used, there is, ultimately, power in this part of the Bill to put a farmer under supervision. Again this is not necessarily an unfriendly, threatening gesture; it is a helpful one. The farmer will be given every possible assistance when under supervision and if it were thought his husbandry was extremely bad he could be directed as to what he should grow and how he should plan his production. It is only after this supervision has been continued for at least twelve months that it would be possible for the Committee to recommend his dispossession. He has of course the right to take his case to the Minister or the Minister's agent and finally if dispossession were decided on he would have the right to appeal to an independent tribunal. The important point of this is that the final decision of this appeal tribunal is binding on the Minister as much as on the farmer or landlord as the case may be. The decision of the appeal tribunal is absolutely final. There is nothing in this part of the Bill for the good owner or good farmer to fear and even the bad owner and bad farmer has every opportunity to improve his farming.
Part III of the Bill deals with agricultural holdings and it is the most complicated part of the Bill. I do not propose to go through it in detail as it will probably be discussed in Committee, but I would like to draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 31, on security of tenure. This has had a certain amount of discussion in another place. Under the 1923 Act a landlord was liable to pay compensation if he turned out his tenant, and it was envisaged at the time that this would be a deterrent and that in practice a certain amount of security in tenure would be provided. In the opinion of His Majesty's Government, and of the National Farmers' Union, this deterrent is not sufficient, and in fact in the case of
116
very wealthy landowners it would obviously not mean very much. We have therefore devised other means which would provide security of tenure to the farmer. As I have said, the efficient use of land has been our criterion and if we are going to have the land farmed efficiently we must provide some reasonable security of tenure to good farmers so that they can look ahead and plan production effectively.
We decided that the best means of achieving the purpose was that, should a landlord give notice to quit to a tenant and a tenant should object, it would not become valid until the Minister gave his consent. That is the fundamental principle of our plan. Furthermore, in order to produce a uniformity in the administration of this, it was thought best to provide some formula which would guide the committees and tribunal so that the whole country will work this rather difficult provision uniformly. Therefore under subsection (3) of the clause we lay down certain cases where the Minister is able to grant notice to quit. I would like to mention that this clause was originally drawn much tighter than it is now, but after discussion in another place my right honourable friend thought it more reasonable to widen the provisions of the clause and Amendments were introduced accordingly. The Minister can grant notice to quit in three cases. Firstly, if in his opinion it is necessary to provide more efficient farming. This is farming generally and not farming in any particular holding. It has a very wide interpretation. Secondly, if the land is wanted for agricultural research or education or for some other important agricultural need. And thirdly, if an owner when he created the tenancy had some other intention which he wished to carry out in the future: an obvious example is that of an owner who bought a farm for his son in the Forces, intending it for the use of his son when he came back. In those circumstances the Minister may give his consent to a notice to quit if the hardship would be greater in withholding consent rather than giving it. I think, if it is agreed that it is desirable to give security of tenure to the good farmer, that this is probably far the best, if not the only, way in which it can be done.
I go on to Part IV. This embodies the smallholdings policy of the Govern-

117
ment. I think the important and interesting point in this part is the fact that for the first time smallholdings have become part of agricultural policy. Before, they have been used as a social policy, either to reward Service men or to meet unemployment; but now we look on smallholdings as part of the agricultural industry. We wish to use smallholdings as a ladder for the agricultural worker. In the past there has been almost no means whereby an agricultural worker who has saved up a little capital can get his own land or holding, and we hope in this Bill to help the agricultural worker, with generous grants from the Government, to get his smallholding so that if he is efficient he will be able to make a success of it and rise in the industry to have a big farm. This part of the Bill will be administered by the county councils subject to supervision by the Minister. One thing we particularly want to encourage is the spirit of co-operation. The future of smallholdings would be enormously benefited by the enlargement of the co-operative system. We want to use the very valuable experience of the Welsh Land Settlement Society and of the Land Settlement Association and to encourage further ventures of this kind. Quite a lot has been done in horticulture, and in some cases very successfully.
Part V, the final Part of the Bill, contains the provisions for carrying out this policy. The most important part is perhaps that the war agricultural executive committees are to be made permanent. They are going to be the linchpin of our whole policy. I would like to say here that I think it is impossible to overrate the importance we attach to the work of those committees. During the war they did a magnificent job and we are going to use them in the role of agents of the Minister for carrying out our present policy. We have two principles in mind in regard to this. In the first place we want to get every section of the industry represented on the committees; we want every voice to be heard and every viewpoint to be expressed; but once the members have been chosen they become the agents of the Minister and they are not representing their own interests as such any longer. They will, we hope, try to promote the general efficiency of agriculture and carry out the
118
policy which has been laid down. We can ensure, under the system of panels from which members are chosen, that every section of the industry will be represented, but once they are elected they become one body playing a very important part in the promotion of efficiency in agriculture.
The second thing is the Agricultural Land Tribunals which are the final courts of appeal whose decisions will be binding upon the Minister as well as upon the owner or farmer. They will be composed of a legal chairman appointed by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, a landowner and farmer, and if necessary two assessors. This part of the Bill also sets up the Agricultural Land Commission which I would remind your Lordships was envisaged in the report of the Committee under the Chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. This Commission is for the purpose of managing land acquired by the State or in the hands and control of the State. Your Lordships may wonder what this land would consist of. In the first place there would be land from dispossessed owners under Part II of the Bill. There may also be land not wanted by the Forestry Commission. The Forestry Commission might acquire quite a large tract of country part of which they wish to plant with trees, and part of which they would wish to devote to sheep farms, or to be used in some way for agriculture. Then there would be land sold or given to the State; there would be land that might be taken over in lieu of Death Duties or Estate Duties; and particularly there would be land bought under Clauses 82 to 94 of the Bill.
I would just like to say a few words about that last category. The point is that there may be cases—concerning, perhaps, large Fen areas—where land is being farmed reasonably efficiently, but which could, with the expenditure of a lot of capital and with a lot of trouble and labour, be turned into much more valuable land. Indeed it might need draining on an enormous scale; it might also be necessary to construct roads and buildings, even villages. Obviously it would be very unfair to ask the private owner of this land to put down thousands of pounds which he could not possibly afford. Incidentally, I may point out that in such a case it would not be possible to dispossess the landlord under Part II

119
of the Bill, because he is only required to maintain a reasonably adequate standard of management. He might be keeping a reasonably adequate standard of management, yet at the same time this potentially very productive land may be used to relatively small advantage In such a case we consider it wise to give the Minister power to purchase the land compulsorily. There are various provisions to be complied with before this is done, but eventually the Minister would take over the land. Land in the various categories which I have mentioned could possibly be let out to other tenants and some could be farmed by committees, but generally we consider it wise to allow the Land Commission to be responsible for land acquired by the State.
There are of course various other matters in the Bill. There are clauses to prevent the undesirable splitting up of farm units, particularly by speculative builders; there are clauses to allow experimental adjustment of farm boundaries; and other clauses deal with such things as statistical information which we must have if we are going to hold price reviews. It is absolutely necessary, if these reviews are to be agreed by everybody, that we should have power to get the necessary figures and facts in connexion with the industry. There are also the various powers given to the Minister to make grants for field drainage and water supply and lime, and powers to control pests and weeds. The Minister is also empowered to continue the Agricultural Goods and Services schemes.
I have kept your Lordships a long time, but finally I would like to say that this Bill is only the beginning; it is the foundation stone and a very solid one, and I hope it will be truly laid this afternoon. I should again like to remind your Lordships that this Bill has been welcomed in principle from all sides of the industry. It is a good, sound, solid measure and we believe it will create the conditions under which the industry can achieve that prosperity which we all want to see. I therefore move that your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
3.19 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I am quite sure that I am speaking for every
120
one of your Lordships in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, on the manner in which he has laid this Bill before us. It is a long and complicated Bill, and the noble Earl has given your Lordships, in a not very long speech, a very clear picture. Although the Bill is long and complicated, I can say that it is certainly a good deal less controversial than some of the Bills we have been considering during the last few days. It is less controversial, but I do not think many of us would be prepared to allow it to be said that it is in any way less important. As the noble Earl has just said, this Bill does attempt to lay the foundations for the future working, possibly for many years, of the industry to which this country owes more than half its present food supplies, and to which many of us think, if sufficient encouragement were given, the country might owe a good deal more than that. Our task, therefore, to-day and during the succeeding discussions which we shall have during the Committee and Report stages, is to make sure that the foundations that are being laid are sound enough to enable us to get on with the really important matter to-day—namely, the production of every single ounce of food from our soil.
The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, has already referred to the very considerable amount of agreement which exists within the industry and between the different political Parties. He has reminded us of the conference called by the Royal Agricultural Society under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Courthope, when an agreed policy was put out. He has also referred to this small pamphlet, Post-War Agricultural Policy for Great Britain, to which a number of your Lordships were signatories, in company with the now Leader of the House, Viscount Addison, and myself. When the noble Earl referred to the agreement and the things which were written in this Report, I was not absolutely sure how far he was referring to them as a tribute and how far as a warning, lest any of us might venture to express any disagreement later on with what he said.
There was just one reference in his introduction which I am a little sorry he made. He said that the Government were anxious to introduce a spirit of friendliness into the countryside. Now we are prepared to admit that we owe a

121
great deal to the beneficence of His Majesty's Government, but do let the noble Earl take it from me that we do not need either this Government or any other Government to help us introduce a spirit of friendliness into our countryside. It is something that has been handed down to us over the centuries. It was something that was most amply and admirably expressed in the conference to which both he and I have referred, and upon which not only the landowners and farmers, but also the agricultural workers were represented. You have only to walk into any farmyard in the country in order to see the relationship between master and man. I challenge a member of any other industry in this country to say that there is in fact such a spirit of friendliness in his industry as there is in the countryside to-day and has been for years.
As I think the noble Earl suggested, this Bill is really a series of balances. On the one hand there is the attempt to give security to the industry—security of market and security of price. On the other hand, there is the setting up of machinery—or in some cases the continuance of the existing machinery—for ensuring efficiency. On the One hand again, we see that at any rate for the moment the principle of nationalization of land is laid aside. On the other hand, we see strong controls imposed upon the landowner and the farmer, coupled with the ultimate power to dispossess and take over a property or a farm. In subsequent stages of the Bill we shall perhaps be able to discuss whether in all cases the balance which has been achieved is completely fair, but I do think we should all of us admit for the purposes of Second Reading discussion that this Bill is a genuine attempt at a fair compromise. The noble Earl did pay a handsome tribute to others who in the past have expressed the ideas which are now represented in this Bill. I am only sorry that it is sometimes claimed in your Lordships' House and in the country—perhaps with an excess of enthusiasm which sometimes comes to the best of us in making week-end speeches—that this comes not as a result of years of discussion and agreement between the Parties, but as a triumph of Party policy. We are very anxious in agriculture to keep right away from having the industry thrown into the Party mêlée. In a Bill
122
like this, which does represent so much agreement, it is a pity that it should be claimed in any quarters as a triumph for Party policy.
May we now turn to Part I of the Bill itself, "Guaranteed prices and assured markets." Guaranteed prices and assured markets are things for which the industry has been crying for years. In Clause 3 and Clause 4, your Lordships will see, the Minister has very wisely taken upon himself the power to attempt to accord these guarantees in a number of different ways. I think we would all agree with him that he is very wise to have the machinery as flexible as possible. In Clause 2 and Clause 5 we see the machinery laid down whereby prices for crops which are mentioned in the First Schedule are accorded a price guarantee for one year, and livestock and livestock products are negotiated for two years and sometimes for four years—at any rate, negotiated as to the minimum price.
But there is one point which is, I think, worrying us very considerably. The noble Earl himself did not really refer to it, but when we look at the heading of Part I, we are all naturally very pleased with what we see. Then we read further down, and I should have liked the noble Earl to tell us just why he thinks that the words in Clause 1 in fact really give the industry either a guaranteed price or assured markets. Let him look at it from the point of view of an investor willing to put his money into a company. The prospectus of that company claims that it has assured markets for its products, and he examines their right to make such a claim. He finds that they have a guarantee for such part of their product "as in the national interest it is desirable to produce in the United Kingdom." Now I do ask the noble Earl if he would invest his money in that company, accepting their claim that they had a promise of assured markets.
It is quite true that on the Third Reading in another place—and the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, referred to it—the Minister made a statement which, at any rate for the next few years, was thoroughly reassuring. The noble Earl has given the words, and I will not repeat them to your Lordships. There are no fears in any of our minds about the next few years. We all of us know perfectly well that there is a shortage of food in

123
this country and a shortage of food in the world which is likely to continue at any rate for another four years. Some of us may take the view that it is likely to be a longer problem than others believe, but at any rate I think there would be general agreement on the period of four to five years, and, therefore, a guarantee from a Minister saying: "We will take all your produce during the next four or five years when we are going to be short," is not really tackling the problem at all. What we want to know is, if and when world prices fall, is it going to be considered desirable in the national interest to produce less in the United Kingdom? This guarantee contained in Part I, Clause 1, of the Bill really does not begin to touch that fear that is in all our minds. We do get a year or so's warning of the price that we are going to be given but we get no guarantee that that price will be adequate; we get no real guarantee of everything being taken.
I do not think it is sufficiently realized that at the present moment, when we talk about guaranteed prices, a system of guaranteed prices is operating in a very large mass of cases in such a manner as to keep prices down. They are actually operating to-day, even in times of shortage, against the farmer. Would any of us like to contend that the farmer could not go out, if there were an open market, and sell his eggs for more than 3s. 7d. a dozen? We guarantee to the farmer the price of his wheat; we are guaranteeing it at 80 per cent. less than Canada is selling her wheat under the world's market at present. We are guaranteeing the British farmer a price about 30 per cent. less than we are paying to the United States and 40 to 50 per cent. less than we are paying to the Argentine when we can get it. We are guaranteeing the British farmer £45 a ton for linseed but we are paying £53 a ton to India. I am not complaining of this; I think it is probably wise, taking the long view, to have a moderate price based on fair cost of production, and it is quite right and natural in times of shortage to have a system of limiting prices. But do let us be quite clear what we are doing; do not let us operate on a basis of complete illusion. It simply comes to this, that what I have said does not in any way affect the principle of the Bill,
124
but it does make me feel that we are really completely free to examine this Bill in its details with the utmost care without being weighed down by any un-due or exaggerated sense of the benefits that we are receiving.
Perhaps I might be allowed to turn for a moment to Part II of the Bill. There, as the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, has said—and in this I think he was speaking for all of us—I do not think any of us, certainly very few of us, would wish to disagree with the general thesis of Part II, which lays down the principle to which certainly personally I am committed and many other noble Lords in this House are committed, that, if a landowner is either unable or unwilling to take proper care of his land, then he has no just complaint if it is handed over to somebody who will take care of it. Indeed, the idea that the ownership of land is in fact a trust is an old-fashioned idea rather than a new idea.
There are a number of points I would like to raise here. I hope that landowners are not going to be penalized, particularly at the present day, by being unable to get the labour and material for carrying out essential work that they are only too anxious to do. After all, if your Lordships turn to subsection (7) of Clause 16, your Lordships will see that there only a period of twelve months is given to the landowner before a supervision order comes to an end. It may be that that twelve months is only a minimum, but nevertheless hanging over his head is this sword of Damocles. If the noble Lord wants to add to what his colleagues said in another place and add an assurance in respect of this provision of twelve months, then I think it is an assurance we would very much like to have and to see actually inserted in the Bill. Twelve months is just plain nonsense; no one can begin to prepare an estate in twelve months. In many areas it takes more than twelve months to get all the necessary permits and licences.
Then the question of appeal is one that must be looked at very carefully. At the present moment there is no appeal to the Tribunal against being put out under supervision. I hope that this is a point that the noble Lord will be prepared to discuss in Committee. I know that he feels, because he said so himself during his speech, that it was a helpful step to

125
take to put a man under supervision. Believe me, the landowner or the farmer who is put under supervision will not entirety feel as does the noble Lord. He will be held up to the countryside for his inefficiency and for his unwillingness or his inability to carry out his duties. It may well affect the whole credit of the estate, and I suggest that it is rather more serious than perhaps the noble Lord thinks to put an estate and farmer under supervision. Therefore, we ought to consider the question of granting an appeal back to the Land Tribunal at that stage.
There are one or two other points also that I would like to mention, among many that we can discuss in Committee. At the present moment there is no reference whatsoever in the Bill to the possibility of an estate that has been put under supervision, and then is about to be taken over by the Minister, being handed over to the Commission. I think this was discussed at a certain length in another place but I am going to ask the noble Earl to think again on this point.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: There is a provision for that in the Bill.
EARL DE LA WARR: Where? Perhaps the noble Earl will deal with it later. I confess I have not seen it. I have taken a certain amount of legal advice and I do not think my legal adviser has been able to find it. If it is there, it is tucked away rather skilfully; perhaps we could make it a little more obvious. I can think—I have it in my mind—of a personal case of an estate before the war where the landowner was getting very old and losing grip. He had a son, whose one desire it was to put that estate right. The son went to a college and took a three years' course, and spent two years on farms and in estate offices, training himself. Would it really be fair, in a case like that, for that young man to be disinherited without even being given a chance? We have accepted the principle of this Bill and we hope that no alteration in this Bill will be in any way used for the purpose of undermining the principle and intent of the Bill. But I think that is covered by Clause 13, and that the Minister, therefore, is not at any moment likely to lose grip of the situation.
One other point, about which I feel rather strongly, is that if an estate is taken over as a result of a landowner not carrying out directions that are placed upon
126
him by the Minister or his representatives, then it should be for the body—that is, the Land Commission—that take over the estate to carry out those same directions themselves. Otherwise it might well be that a landowner had to give up his estate because he had had exaggerated directions placed upon him, and then, when he was out of the estate and it had been handed over to the Land Commission, they found themselves in agreement with the landowner that in fact he had been given an exaggerated kind of direction. I would like the noble Lord to consider some Amendment on these lines. I am not going to refer at any great length to Clause 31 there are other noble Lords who want to speak about it, and I should prefer to leave it to them. But I would say this: that there will be nobody in this House who would disagree for a moment with the simple statement that it is vital that a man who is farming his land should have security, not only of market and of price, but also of tenure. Let us beware, in attempting to find a balance—and I give the Government full credit for trying very hard to find a fair balance, though I do not think they have succeeded—of bringing too much stability into the situation so that you are never going to get a farm vacant on which to start a young man or anyone else coming into the industry. Let us beware lest we completely destroy the interest of the landowner in his estate. The noble Earl read a sentence or so from a little document that some of us signed in which we spoke of the landowner as a mere rent receiver. I hope that the Government are not going to turn the landowner into a mere rent receiver by making it impossible for him ever to get hold of his own bit of land, to farm it, or to put his son into it. Some of us feel that perhaps the Government have tipped the balance a little far one way, and we should like to discuss the matter in greater detail when we come to the Committee stage.
Finally, there is the question of rents. There can be no question that if these immensely increased burdens and obligations are placed upon the landowners' shoulders, rents will have to go up. That is something which we have got to face. The National Farmers' Union have boldly faced this issue and have come out with a statement saying they recognize that rents will have to be raised. I should like to have heard a corresponding statement

127
from His Majesty's Government. If the land were nationalized, and all the millions—sometimes we are told that it is £500,000,000, sometimes £1,000,000,000; anyway it is guess work—that we are told are needed to be spent on the land were spent by the State, the State would have to choose between making a free capital grant to the industry, and raising rents; and it is quite obvious which they would choose. They would have to raise rents. Just a little encouragement by a statement from the Government on this point would, I think do an immense amount of good. It is true to say that rents to-day are certainly not more than in 1870. I think they are slightly lower. Can any of us think of any other section of the community that is asking an 1870 price for its commodity? I should like to have a statement from the noble Earl speaking for the Government as to what they really mean by the words "an adequate return on capital invested". If they would say that they include rents in the definition of those words, and that they will take into consideration the possible raising of rents in their price reviews, I believe they would go a long way towards meeting some of the anxieties of the landowners who are having such immense new increased obligations put upon them.
I am very sorry indeed that the Minister in another place felt it necessary during the course of the Bill to take to himself power to make cropping directions. They were needed during the war, and my personal view is that the food position in the country to-day is such that they are needed now. But the power already exists under emergency regulations—and that is where the power belongs. I admit that in Clause 95, the Minister tried to safeguard the position. I think he tried hard, by making it necessary to have an affirmative order every year that this power is continued. I agree that this is a concession; but still I cannot believe that in this essentially long-term Bill it is right to insert this provision for emergency powers. By all means say to the landowner or the farmer that he has got to manage his estate or farm his land well, but do leave to him in normal times the right to choose his own crops, and his own stock. If we do not, I fear that we might be in danger of destroying some-
128
thing very precious and quite irreplaceable. The farmer, by the circumstances of where and how he lives, has to come to his own decision on how to fight the weather, how to make the best of his soil, how to crop it, and how to stock it. He needs courage and self-reliance and a spirit of independence that I do not believe this country can lightly afford to destroy in any quarter at the moment. As businesses, whether they are publicly conducted or privately conducted, become ever larger and larger, and greater and greater, a section of our people become dependent on wages and salaries for their living, having to make no decisions and take no risks, so it seems to me that it becomes more and more important to preserve the self-dependence, the self-reliance of the countryside.
We all agree that there has got to be a certain amount of control in this country, as the noble Lord said, where our resources of land are extremely limited; but cannot we also agree on this: Let it be the minimum control needed rather than the maximum? Let us examine every clause of this Bill from that point of view, and let us see to it that, when there have got to be these controls, then also in every case wherever possible there is an appeal against that control, and that that appeal is as easy as possible to make in order to be freely available, not only to the large landowner who may get all the advice, legal and otherwise, that he wants, but also to the smallest smallholder. I ask His Majesty's Government to accept my assurance that in the few remarks that I have made on behalf of myself and of certain colleagues who sit on this side of the House, we do approach this Bill in a spirit of friendliness. There are a number of suggestions that we desire to make on the Committee stage, but if the noble Earl opposite will consider them in the spirit in which I have tried to speak, then I believe that together we can co-operate in making this Bill a really useful piece of machinery for the future of the agricultural industry.
3.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT WIMBORNE: My Lords, the importance of this Bill to which your Lordships are being asked to give a Second Reading to-day cannot be overestimated. To my mind, it is a good deal more important than the Transport

129
Bill, which this House has been so laboriously but diligently trying to improve during the past few weeks. After all, as far as the ordinary citizen is concerned, I do not think it matters very much to him whether the engine of the train which takes him daily to work bears the initials "L.M.S." or, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, "N.U.T.S." But I know that it does, and will, make a great difference to him if the food supply of this country should be interrupted by discontent or disorganization within the agricultural industry.
So far as we can see, it will be a long time before we shall be able to import as much food as we should like from abroad. There is, as we all know, a world shortage of many staple commodities, and, even if there were not, this country does not at the present moment dispose of enough foreign exchange to import as we did before the war. Therefore, as far as I can see it, for many years we shall have to extract from our own soil as much as we can, and, bearing those facts in mind, I take the view, as do many noble Lords on these Benches, that this agricultural charter, as it has been called, or something very like it, ought to be put on the Statute Book with the least possible delay. The Bill is, I think, a praiseworthy attempt to lay down the principles under which agriculture shall be conducted in the future, and as such is eminently worthy of being given a Second Reading. Unlike some of the measures which the Government present to Parliament, it is not based upon an idealistic and usually unworkable doctrinaire theory. It is the fruit of the earnest co-operation of the various interests that make up the industry, and I think one may say that those various interests, through their representative bodies, have shown considerable statesmanship in not pressing their sometimes opposing points of view too far. And the Bill also embodies a great deal of the vast wealth of experience which has been gained in intensive farming during the war.
I do not intend to detain your Lordships long in going into the details of this Bill, and I shall say very little about Part I and Part II. Part I is, of course, of great importance to the industry, but I think it is to some extent temporary
130
and provisional, and time will be required to see how it works out. Part II at first glance does give the Minister quite enormous powers, leading eventually to dispossession. But I think—and here I agree with the noble Lord opposite—that the safeguards are such that no reasonably efficient owner or reasonably efficient occupier should have anything to fear from that particular Part of the Bill.
I think it is when one comes to Part III that one comes to the difficult part of the Bill. To begin with, it is extremely difficult to understand but, as I understand Part III of the Bill, it practically rewrites the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1923. A glance at the Seventh Schedule will prove that straightaway. The 1923 Act is the Statute under which landlords and tenants have lived and worked for the past quarter of a century, and it is of extreme importance that this new provision, under which no doubt we shall work for the next quarter of a century, should be workable and clear. While on the question of clearness, I do hope that the Minister will be able to introduce his consolidating measure as soon as possible. I know he has promised to do so but, in the present state of congestion in legislation, it may be some time before he can implement that promise. I therefore have a suggestion to make to the noble Earl opposite. Could not his Department produce a simple clear pamphlet setting cut what the relationship between landlord and tenant will be when this Bill becomes an Act, something on the lines of the White Paper? I am perfectly certain it would be of the greatest value to all engaged in agriculture, and of even greater value to anybody contemplating doing so. I have seen the Bill referred to as "the Farmer's Bible." If a pocket-edition could be produced in the language of the Authorized Version, I am quite sure that every farmer would read his Bible.
One must leave the detailed consideration of this Bill and especially Part III until a later stage, but I do think that at first glance the landlord has been unduly harshly treated under Part III. The noble Lord, Lord De La Warr, talked about the balance. I think the balance has been tilted a little bit too much the wrong way. The tenant farmer has been given a great measure of security. This was referred to in another place as "super-security." But one must not

131
forget that it is the landlord who puts up the capital and as a rule is content with a very low rate of interest. I think these provisions will work very well as between the perfect landlord and the perfect tenant, but suppose a landlord has a dispute, for some reason quite unconnected with farming, with his tenant. Today the landlord can pocket his pride and, by paying compensation resume possession of his land; but, as far as I understand it, under this Bill he will not be able to do so. He will have to prove that his tenant is a bad farmer, which is not an easy thing to do. I think that you may get, under the Bill as it stands now, situations which might be intolerable.
Another point. If I have read the Bill aright—the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong—I think the position is that if a landlord wishes to farm his own land the Bill gives him no assistance in regaining possession. He, too, has to prove to the Minister that he can, by taking it over, farm it better than it has been farmed. That is something which will be equally difficult to prove. Again if he wants to put his children in is there any provision which will help him? I do not think there is. The result of this, I believe, will be that you will keep new capital and new blood out of the industry. All sorts of people, one knows, will buy farms, leaving a sitting tenant in, and hope when they retire, later on, to be able to farm the place themselves. But under this Bill that is going to be extremely difficult. It seems to me that the only time you are going to get any change is when the tenant dies. I think that Part III should be examined very closely in Committee, and it maybe that the Government may then be inclined to make some concessions on the lines which I have suggested.
I do not intend to say anything about smallholdings. That is not because I do not think they are important, but because I do not know much about them. But certainly this part of the Bill is almost worthy of a Bill to itself, seeing that it changes the whole of the policy of land settlement in this country. A point which has not yet, I believe, been raised in connexion with this Bill in your Lordships' House but was referred to at some length in another place, is the matter
132
of the new county agricultural committees. I thoroughly agree with all that has been said about the work done by the county war agricultural executive committees. They certainly did yeoman service during the war, and if we can get the personnel to enable them to go on giving that service they will continue to be extremely valuable, I am sure. But I wonder if they will be able to cope with the amount of work that will be thrust upon them? The twelve good men and true who make up each of these committees will, I think, be cruelly overworked. I do not quite see how the farmer members—there are only three on each committee—will be able to carry out all their duties with the committees, and, at the same time, manage to escape penalties which may be incurred under Part II of the Bill. You cannot farm land efficiently and, at the same time, carry out the duty of sitting regularly, perhaps for considerable periods, on a committee which meets in the county town which may be a considerable distance away from your farm. I feel that there is a good case for the enlargement of the composition of these committees especially on the side of the farmers and workers. This enlargement might be made so that a farmer might, when he is busy on his land, miss a meeting of the committee without feeling that he has let the county down.
One clause, I think it is Clause 78, deals with power to obtain agricultural statistics. No doubt this is admirable in theory. The Minister has explained clearly why the Ministry need these statistics. But does not this clause mean in practice that there will be another deluge of forms for the unfortunate farmer to fill up? As those of your Lordships who farm well know, quite enough of one's time is already taken up by the filling in of forms. So while recognizing the value of this clause I do hope that the Minister will use restraint in availing himself of the powers which he takes under it.
I have touched on one or two points which seem to me of importance, but I have kept my remarks brief because I know that many of your Lordships wish to take part in the discussion. There is, however, one further point upon which I would like to say a few words. It is a matter upon which I feel very strongly —namely, that of labour. This Bill has

133
quite rightly been described elsewhere as not an Agriculture Bill but an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. No Bill that is introduced, if it does not get down to the cardinal problem, which is one of manpower, can be called an Agriculture Bill. Yet the only reference to labour that I can find on reading the Bill appears in Clause 1. I take the words out of their context. They are to the effect that you must produce food consistently with proper remuneration and living conditions for workers in agriculture. The operative words are "living conditions." What do "living conditions" mean? They mean housing. As I have said before in your Lordships' House, unless the Minister of Agriculture can induce his colleague the Minister of Health to take a more lenient view on the question of giving licences to private people to build new agricultural cottages and reconstruct old ones, this problem will not be solved. Your labour problem may even get worse.
I have always maintained, and I shall always maintain, that building agricultural cottages is not a job for the local authority. It does not fit in with their schemes. No local authority is going to take two cottages out of a little terrace or a little crescent in order to build cottages for someone away up on a hill. I think it is extremely important, if we are going to keep our labour force on the land—and it is small enough now—to go straight away to see if we cannot get the housing situation improved. As things are at present, as soon as the agricultural labourer finds himself in a position to leave the land, as soon as he can find a house to go to, he will go. And who would not? After all if you can live in a comfortable house near shops and cinemas, and do half the work for probably double the wage, the temptation is very great. The competition for labour from other industries is so acute that I am sure the inducements that will have to be held out to farm workers in the future will be very great indeed. And you must not run away with the idea that the farm worker is not a skilled man. He is a very highly skilled specialist, and he is extremely adaptable. I know farm workers who are first-class mechanics, and as a body they are most certainly not afraid of hard work. If you house your labour well and make your people happy, not only will you keep them but you will get recruits
134
into what after all is a fascinating occupation. I cannot stress that too strongly. I think that some action should be taken in this matter, and taken quickly, otherwise this Bill which noble Lords on these Benches warmly welcome and to which they intend to give every assistance they can in order to pass into law, will not be worth the paper it is printed upon.
4.8 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, in his introduction of this Measure gave us a very fair and adequate explanation of the intentions, or perhaps one should say the aspirations, of His Majesty's Government as set out in the Bill. But, of course, the stage having been reached of those intentions being translated into print, it is inevitable and proper that we should now pay less attention to intentions than we should to the actual phraseology of the Bill. It will be agreed, I think, that Part I is really a vital part of this Bill. It is a most important part of the Bill because it purports to contain guarantees which are to provide the stability without which agriculture cannot hope to prosper in the years to come. Of course, as the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has made clear, these guarantees are not at the present moment actually required by agriculture at all, nor are they likely to be required for quite a long term of years.
Agricultural production, at the present time, is very strictly controlled, and the importance of Part I, in my view, is in that portion of it which is to put on to the Statute Book the obligation on the part of the Government to fix prices after consultation with producers. That is really important. It is not now the value of guarantees to agriculture which matters so much but that the control of prices should be fixed in direct relation to the cost of production. This Part of the Bill places an immense responsibility on the representatives of the National Farmers' Union in preparing their statistics so that the Government shall have adequate information on the points which are specified. And there is great value in that method of consultation. But I have doubts whether those of us who belong at any rate to the older generation are going to see any great need for guaranteed prices. A relaxation of control is the thing which we are more likely to ask for as the years go by than a guarantee of prices, but that is as may be.

135
To look at the matter from the landowner's standpoint for a moment, it will be agreed that the whole trend of agricultural legislation over a long term of years has been gradually to diminish and finally abolish whatever political and social privileges may once have attached to the ownership of land. But we have now reached the further stage in which land owning is, I am not saying reduced, but confined, once and for all to a business proposition. That is the intention of this Bill, and we ought to approach it from that standpoint, and see if in the Bill there is adequate opportunity given to the landowner to treat it as a business proposition as it is clearly the intention he should. I find these encouraging words in the very first clause of the Bill —"and an adequate return on capital invested." Those are interesting words, and I have looked at the Bill from cover to cover and read it with care; but I was unable to find a single paragraph in which this pious intention is implemented. There is nothing whatever in the Bill which purports to give capital any return whatsoever on its investment. But I value those words very much, quite apart from the fact that they are not followed up in the Bill, because they do offer a very large protection to a landowner who finds himself in difficulties in the matter of maintenance.
If we look at Part II of the Bill for a moment, we find that Clauses 9 and 15, dealing with rent and obligations, produce really a rather curious state of affairs. An owner who has neglected the proper maintenance of his farm buildings has usually done so from lack of financial resources. That is a commonplace. That, of course, is going to be no reason why he should not be arraigned before the Minister that is, the county agricultural executive committee, and later the agricultural land tribunal. But what sort of thing would he say? If he were I, he would say to the land tribunal: "The first clause of this Act lays it down that capital should receive fair remuneration. What would you think a fair remuneration would be?" The agricultural tribunal would say: "What is the rate of interest on Government securities? 2½per cent. or 3—call it 2¾. Obviously that is a reasonable return on capital invested in land." I and thousands of other landowners
136
would have not the smallest difficulty in showing that for many years no one received more than 1½ per cent. What would the tribunal say then? It would throw a white sheet over the man who had been arraigned and tell him, "Go home, there is nothing we have to say." That would be quite all right from the standpoint of the defaulting landowner, but it is no use for what we want to see done, the buildings and farm premises properly maintained.
It is not the object in any way to find loopholes in the Bill to let off the defaulting landowner, but to enable the landowner for the greater interest of the land to maintain the fixed equipment in a manner in which it should be maintained. That is a position we must all aim at. That brings us back to the point the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, raised. What are we to do? It is a very serious matter and we have to bear in mind that the agricultural landowner to-day is not merely an individual. There are many different kinds of landowners—individual owner, the corporation, the local authority and the State itself—all of whom are equally affected by this principle. There is nothing in the Bill to enable this question of rent to be dealt with in a comprehensive or national manner, as it should be. We know the establishment of rent courts is a very controversial subject, but I wish the Government had had the courage to put the machinery for establishing rent courts into this Bill so that we might have had the advantage of the favourable or adverse opinions which would undoubtedly have been expressed if the matter had been ventilated in this place. It is extremely regretful that that has not been done.
We are bound to face this problem. We know that in certain parts of England the land is adequately rented but over the greater part the land is grossly under-rented, because the owner of the land is unable out of that rent to do what he is intended to do by this Bill and would do of his own conviction, to maintained the buildings of his farms in proper order. In Part I of the Bill, Clause 2 (3) says:
"…the Ministers shall consult with such bodies of persons as appear to them to represent the interests of producers in the agricultural industry."

137
I am thankful that producers are always to be consulted, but the word "producer" limits consultation to farmers. It eliminates any consideration of this rental problem. I feel that this very large problem of rents is excluded from vital consideration when these prices are fixed, and that ought to be taken into consideration, as they are not now, because they will have and should have an affect on the fixing of those prices. If you leave rent out of account when discussing the fixing of prices for agricultural produce you are making it impossible for certain other vital parts of this Bill to be implemented. If you took rent into proper account when prices were fixed, there would then be some reasonable chance of the county agricultural committees and the Minister being able really to put into operation Clauses 9 and 15.
I hope the Government will think over this matter very seriously. There is nothing antagonistic to the Bill in what I am saying. We are all confronted with an almost, insoluble problem. Landowners, whether individual, corporation, local authority or the State, really do not know what to do about it. We are at the moment in grave difficulties over materials and labour, but presumably that phase will pass. High costs will not. We are faced, possibly for all time, with an increased expense in maintaining these buildings out of a relatively smaller rent, and if we want our buildings properly maintained—I am not speaking of the defaulting landowner, who is in a very small minority—we must put our heads together to see what we can do to provide adequate rent out of which these buildings can be properly maintained. Out of a gross rent of £1 you can presumably be able to find 15 or 16 per cent. for maintenance of buildings. If the rent is £2 you do not merely double the amount available for maintenance; you will receive more than that because other overheads do not increase with the increased rent, and consequently you have a very much larger amount of money available for this vital purpose. I would go even further. There are very few landowners who would object, once an adequate rent was fixed for them, to a certain percentage of that gross rent being spent compulsorily on their buildings. I should not object to it at all. I
138
have imposed some form of compulsion on myself for many years. You cannot do anything with the rents that prevail in the large arable parts of England, and this Bill is going to fall to the ground in a vital particular.
I will pass from that point, and come to the matter of dispossession in Clause 16. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, referred to this, but I must refer to it again. Dispossession is a very serious thing. Dispossession of a tenant farmer is in itself a serious matter; but dispossession of a landowner is vastly more serious, because if you dispossess the tenant farmer, you are interfering with that tenant farmer's mode of life, but if you dispossess a landowner, you will probably be interfering with an inherited property, which may have descended to the defaulting landowner over generations, and to which his posterity is looking forward for perhaps as long a term of generations. You talk about visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children—that was laid down as being the proper thing to do—but I think this is carrying it a little too far. The defaulting landowner—there are some—is arraigned before the agricultural land tribunal. He goes to the agricultural land tribunal and says: "I am a bad man. I stand here before you in a white sheet. I have a first class heir. Dispossess me, and hand it over to my heir." What do the agricultural land tribunal say? They say: "That is outside our jurisdiction."
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: They do not.
LORD HASTINGS: They do. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, said there was something in the Bill which took account of the heir. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has been unable to find it, I have been unable to find it, and nobody else is able to find it. The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, will be speaking in due course, and if he can relieve our anxieties nobody will be more grateful to him than I myself, unless perhaps it is the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. But it is not in the Bill. I can read just as well as the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, and I cannot find it. Let me come back to my illustration. The agricultural land tribunal will say: "We will have nothing to do with that. You have been brought before us as a bad man. You are an

139
acknowledged bad man by your own confession. We know you are a bad man, and we give to the Minister of Agriculture the right to dispossess you. We know nothing about the heir." Of course, the thing is intolerable. Why should the Minister be permited to dispossess an admitted defaulter, when he has a successor who will be able and is most anxious, to rehabilitate that family property and deal with it as it ought to be dealt with? We must have something in the Bill which will provide for that.
I come, lastly, to the much disputed Clause 31. I think everyone in all Parties admits that no man can farm efficiently without a proper degree of security of tenure. That is not really an arguable proposition. We know it is so. In the vast majority of cases a reputable farmer has enjoyed security of tenure for generations. There are always exceptions to every rule, but that is the general rule. But when we admit what I have already admitted, and with which everybody will concur, we have to be very careful that we do not go too far. I imagine this Government would not wish, any more than I would, to establish a closed shop in agriculture. There is a very grave risk of doing that if you give security and make it too absolute. We must avoid that somehow, and it will be contrary to the major interests of agriculture if we do not.
There is no industry in this country which is, and always has been, more urgently in need of fresh capital than agriculture. You do not want to keep it out; you want to bring it in, if you are to ensure that less and less land comes into the market, whether for sale or for hire, than has been customary in the past. Under this clause you will make the man who has capital at his disposal, and is anxious to invest it in land, say: "The case is hopeless. I cannot find an opening, and my money goes into something else." Agriculture is very much the loser on that account. It is not only a question of the money; there is also the case of the individual. Take the case of the young man who has an ambition to go into agriculture, who has taken the trouble to teach himself the elements of the profession, and whose uncle, or some kind friend, has found him enough capital to launch out. He looks for an opening, but he does not
140
find one. What does he do? He joins the Advisory Service; he adopts the principle of "Safety first," and takes the taxpayers' money instead of contributing to the taxes. We want to avoid that, and we must try somehow or other to strike a happier balance than has been struck in this Bill. I admit that it is not easy.
There is one other point only in this connexion, to which, if I remember rightly, the noble Earl, Lord De la Warr, referred, and which I should like to re-emphasize. The right of an owner to occupy his own land is a fundamental right, as will be held by ninety-nine people out of a hundred, to whatever political Party they belong, and it is not a right which ought to be interfered with on grounds of expediency. This Bill makes all kinds of provisions for making certain that the owner-occupier occupies his land as it ought to be occupied. If he makes a failure of his occupation, he will be turned out. But you cannot condemn him before he has got there; you cannot say he is going to be inefficient before he is tried; and you cannot say he will make an inadequate contribution to agriculture unless you give him the chance of undertaking it Why should there be such great difficulty, as is prescribed in this Bill, over an owner entering into occupation of his own land? I would agree that where a tenant is removed in order to make room for the owner, he ought to have adequate compensation, by all manner of means. Let the security be given in most cases, but let there be an exception to be made of the owner who wishes to occupy his own land, which I regard as a fundamental right of man. You can then impose, if you like, special terms of compensation which, so that he may enjoy that reasonable privilege, he would be required to pay in order to remove the tenant. That is a way out.
I will not speak for more than a few moments longer, but I would like to emphasize what the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said in regard to Clause 95. I have had many years' experience of advisory service work in agriculture, and I know that there is only one sure foundation upon which to build an advisory service, and that is a foundation of good will. If you float off your Advisory Service with compulsory powers, you will handicap that service in a most unwise way. When a farmer knows that he is subject to compulsory

141
cropping off, and that the Advisory Service, acting not as advisers but as snoopers, can come on to his farm and observe what he is not doing, and how much remaining land he ought to put into this, that, and the other, which he is not putting, and are empowered to override that man's judgment as to what he shall grow and what he shall not grow, then you condemn your Advisory Service to futility from the start. Let that Advisory Service be confined to its proper job of advising the farmer how to make the best of the crop which he himself has selected to grow, and then you will be getting the best out of the land. If you do it in the reverse way, you will not get very far. I hope that this particular clause which, as the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has said, is not really necessary now, may be taken out of what is a long term measure, because it is a short term emergency only which calls for such provisions.
I apologize to your Lordships for having spoken as long as I have, and at the present moment there is nothing more I wish to add, although, of course, there are many more points of this Bill which are Committee points and not matters of principle which will require to be gone into with the greatest possible care. At the moment I think I have, in so far as my own judgment has enabled me, touched upon those matters of high principle, and I can only thank your Lordships for having listened to me for this length of time.
4.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I should like to join with my noble friend Lord De La Warr in congratulating the noble Earl opposite upon his most comprehensive survey of a long and complicated Bill, his clear exposition of it and, if I may say so, his convincing eloquence. During the last forty years I have inflicted upon the two Houses of Parliament more speeches upon agricultural problems than have any of my compatriots. I am conscious that I ought now to stand down in favour of the many younger men in your Lordships' House who have, I am delighted to notice, exceptional ability in dealing with agricultural problems and a remarkable degree of experience unknown to many of their forefathers. But as one who has devoted his life almost wholly to agricultural interests, I cannot resist, as
142
I approach my 80th birthday—even if it be my swan song—extending the most cordial and whole-hearted welcome to the principle of this epoch-making Bill, embodying as it does for the first time in our history a charter of stability for the nation's most vital industry. Begotten by the threat of starvation coupled recently with the shortage of dollars, conceived by a Coalition Government and brought to birth by the present Labour Government, this measure, in my judgment, at long last rescues British agriculture from the cockpit of the Party politicians. If this measure be justly administrated solely in the national interest, not only will our British husbandry cease to be the shuttlecock of political partisans, but it will result, I am confident, in a vast increase of primary products which, after all, are the only real and fundamental wealth of a nation.
How my dear old ex-colleagues of another place, Harry Chaplin, whom we affectionately called "The Squire," and Jesse Collings, the sturdy old farm worker who invented the wise phrase "Three acres and a cow," would have rejoiced if they had lived long enough to see the prospective rural renaissance that is adumbrated by this measure. I would fain believe that their shades are here in sympathy with us today. For at least two generations—except, of course, in war-time—farming has been a risky and an unprofitable industry; therefore, as the noble Lord who has just sat down so strongly emphasized, there has been little or no incentive to farm worker, farmer or landowner to pull his full weight in the matter of maximum food production. The industry has been wholly unable, out of its own resources, to treat its participants with justice or with a reasonable prospect of reward. The agricultural worker has consequently been ill-paid and ill-housed, and has lacked a ladder for economic advancement. Many of the most efficient farm workers have left the land—some of them many years ago—to enter more lucrative urban employment.
The same, of course, has happened to the farmer class. Thousands of the old farming families, whose methods I was taught as an agricultural student over half a century ago to admire and to emulate, have taken their capital and experience into other more promising

143
fields of industrial adventure. The Bill marks the virtual extinction—except as a factor in actual food production—of the class of country squires to which I and many generations of my forbears have been proud to belong, but I recognize reluctantly that vital national needs must take precedence over the claims of any section of the body politic, however deserving. The successful operation of this Bill must be viewed—as indeed the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, and the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, have indicated—in the light of the factors which have in the past impoverished our British countryside and materially lowered the average standard of British husbandry.
As regards the farmers, we have to-day a relatively low average standard of farm practice, but, like our farm stock, we still have some of the best in the whole world, although nowadays we also have some of the worst. I would venture to suggest that the Government courageously resist the temptation under this Bill to afford any fixity of tenure to people in the latter category. The old type of landowner has had to give place to those who have built up fortunes in other, far more prosperous industries, who do not depend upon their land for a livelihood and who, while receiving uneconomic rents, are able out of other resources to provide up-to-date buildings and equipment. All praise to them. But I, for my part, venture to express the opinion that an industry which cannot maintain itself efficiently out of its own resources is indeed in a rotten and corrupt state.
Two major influences have dominated and, in my opinion, vitiated agricultural policy in the past, one being the dear food bogy, the fact, of course, being that we agrarians have provided or have attempted to provide our urban compatriots with food at less than its true value, both in nutrition and in monetary cost. The other restrictive influence is the fear that any statutory benefit to the farmer would percolate through to the landowner in increased rents. Theoretically, possibly that is correct, but in practice it is wholly fallacious. In fact, as Lord Hastings himself has indicated—and I would emphasize this—agricultural land in Great Britain, for its quality and its accessibility to markets, has been for the last fifty years the lowest rented farm land in the whole world, yielding on its capital
144
value and equipment now, as Lord Hastings suggested, about 1¾ per cent. As the result of a very careful and equitable survey which was conducted by the Central Landowners' Association about twenty years ago, I am prepared to put the figure as high as 2¼ per cent., but I think noble Lords will all agree that a return of less than 2½ per cent. from capital property and capital investments is wholly inadequate to maintain and improve the equipment of a great industry.
This Bill appears to overcome most of these past frustrations. If I offer some criticisms—and they will be very few—I hope they will be deemed constructive and helpful. My noble friend Viscount Wimborne expressed the hope that ere long there would be something in the nature of codification or consolidation in regard to agricultural legislation. In no industry is it more needed, and unless it is provided, and possibly helped by such a simplified pamphlet as Viscount Wimborne has suggested, this legislation will add to the embarrassment of those engaged in food production, although it may add materially to the incomes of lawyers. Another point about this Bill—it is really the same point put in another way—is this: so much of this Bill is legislation by reference, particularly reference to the Act of 1923. The time has come when we, in this House, as a reforming Chamber should continue to make a strong protest against legislation hastily drafted and largely framed by reference to previous Acts of Parliament.
The noble Earl who represents the Ministry of Agriculture here referred to the fact that I, in a communication to him, had regretted the omission of the produce of horticulture from the provisions of the First Schedule to this Bill. I should have thought that there were at any rate some non-perishable horticultural products that are of vital importance to the health of the nation, which, at least by regulation, could be included in the list of commodities for which market prices are assured. I have in mind, for instance, dessert apples, the bulk of which to-day come from overseas. I have also in my mind such an important crop as black-currants which are the main source to-day of Vitamin C for our young people, and in the interests of the health of the nation they deserve every premium to be put on their production. I regret the

145
omission of wool, and I regret it all the more having recently been on an agricultural good will mission to farmers in Australia, which, after all, provides over 80 per cent. of the whole of the wool required for the clothing of the world, and which is undoubtedly to-day suffering from a lack of confidence regarding the future of wool and the perpetuation of the pure bred merino sheep from which the finest wool is obtained. The very fact that several million of our sheep have been wiped out by the severe weather of last winter is surely also an indication that some sort of guarantee might well be given to those who are prepared, by raising sheep, to provide both mutton and wool.
I regret also the inclusion in Part II of the Second Schedule of buildings and other structures which, apparently without reference to the landlord, may be erected on farm premises and which, in fact, may alter the whole character of the holding; and yet eventually the owner will be subjected to compensation for their provision. I see in the Bill that the Minister is to have some say in regard to the provision of buildings and other permanent structures. I venture to hope that his discretion will be used, at any rate in regard to those buildings that are of such a description as to alter, in the hands of future tenants, the whole character of the farm and the method of farming. Having been, in the past, chairman of our leading agricultural research station as well as another important national research station, I regret very much that no scientists are included amongst those who are eligible for appointment to the Agricultural Land Commission which will manage land vested in the Minister, or, indeed, among the assessors on the Agricultural Land Tribunal who, under the Ninth Schedule, are to be chosen from a panel which is to be nominated by the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. I cannot help thinking that a good many of these problems, particularly in regard to management of land, will nowadays be affected by scientific considerations which merit the appearance upon the Commission, if not upon the Tribunal, of a person of recognized scientific qualifications.
I very warmly welcome another part of the Bill which my noble friend Lord Wimborne has suggested (and I am not
146
sure that I do not agree with him) might well have been placed in a separate Bill altogether—namely, Part IV, comprising Clauses 47 to 67 in reference to smallholdings. Smallholdings are now, I am glad to notice, definitely accepted as part of the national agricultural structure, based on economics and the definite provision of a ladder for the efficient and industrious worker to rise to a prominent position in the industry, as he is able to do in most other competing civilized countries. This will be especially welcomed in our oversea Dominions, where the experienced British agricultural immigrant is badly needed at the present time. Many of these men who pass from our towns on to the land in our oversea Dominions have to go through some two or three years of extremely difficult experience, trying to learn something about agricultural practice, which by means of this ladder of smallholdings as now interpreted might well be obtained here at home before they migrate.
I am glad to see statutory recognition given to land settlement associations, honourably associated with the names of two members of your Lorships' House—namely, the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, and the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore. What I should like to be made known is to what extent the efficiency and the continuity of the smallholding depends on co-operative methods. I should like very much to see, if it were possible, either in the Bill or by regulation, financial help from the Government made conditional upon the adoption of co-operative methods by intending smallholders. One word about the definition of a smallholder. In both Houses for many years past I have always deprecated basing the definition of a smallholding upon acreage. Acreage is not necessarily to my mind a justifiable basis for a smallholding. You may have a very large holding, or a considerable holding of several hundred acres on the Wiltshire chalk downs, or on the Cotswold Hills, which were equivalent in reproductive value to no more than fifteen or twenty acres of really rich land in the Evesham Vale or elsewhere in our more fertile districts. On fertile land you may have a fifty-acre fruit or tomato farm, with an annual turnover of £10,000 and a net profit of £3,000. Surely those are not the people whom you contemplate benefiting by this

147
tax-supported or loan-supported system of smallholdings.
The Bill wisely contemplates greater and more intimate co-operation between the State and its officers, the home food producers, and the research stations, and other sources of scientific knowledge, such as exist now in most civilized countries. That is markedly so in parts of Australia, from which I have lately returned. We in this old country hold no monopoly of knowledge or experience. There is much that we can now learn from our grown-up daughters overseas if we will only have the wisdom and foresight to do so. In conclusion, may I say not only "May God speed the plough", as we used to say in days gone by, but also the great purpose in many directions which this Bill seeks to achieve. As perhaps the veteran agriculturist in this House, on behalf of the whole agricultural community of England and Wales, I make bold to say to your Lordships' House, to this Government, and to this nation: If you will give us the tools and your full confidence we will not let you down.
4.55 p.m.
LORD QUIBELL: My Lords, this Bill has received such almost universal commendation that there seems little more that one can say. But the noble Viscount who has just resumed his seat mentioned that he thought sufficient provision was not made in the Bill for the employment of scientists. My own view with respect to agriculture has always been that the best man to know what to grow on a farm is the farmer himself; and the only advice he needs from the scientist or from modern methods is how to deal with weeds and pests, and how to use "artificials". With regard to the scientist advising the farmer what he should do with his farm I should like to point out that there are often four or five different kinds of land on a single farm, and it is only by experience that the farmer, his sons, his bailiff, or his labourers can tell what crop is the most suitable to grow.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: May I interrupt the noble Lord? What I asked was that there should be a scientist, not to advise the farmers, but to advise the Minister, who would be taking over other people's land.
LORD QUIBELL: It ultimately filters down to the man who is actually dealing
148
with the land. In speeches in another place many years ago I used to point out that there is only one thing that will put agriculture on its feet, and that is giving economic stabilized prices for the different commodities that the farmer grows. That is the foundation of all agricultural prosperity. Years ago a large number of noble Lords on the other side of the House were preaching Tariff Reform; others were preaching Free Trade. So far as agriculture is concerned, it is true that only in the last few years have we seen the effect of our propaganda work done in the early days. The policy urged has been acclaimed by every section of the community as the only policy that will save British agriculture. I am convinced that that is so, and I am delighted that the Bill has received such universal support in this House.
The Agriculture Bill has been called a Charter, and I believe it verily is a Charter. It is not by any means a perfect Bill, and I suppose that most of us could level some criticism at it. But I remember another Charter that was once written, although not in a Parliament; it was a Charter written by a very famous lawyer called Feargus O'Connell. He wrote the Charter for the famous Chartist Movement, and in handing over the Charter to Lovett, who was the secretary, he said: "Here is your Charter, but remember that he who is to be a success in life is he who first knows his case, then states his case, then proves his case, and then sits down. The man who aims at nothing is sure to hit it." I think in regard to the Charter, in regard to this Bill, that it is like every other Bill: It is in its wise administration that its greatest value lies.
Now I come to the smallholder, about whom the noble Earl has spoken. I was greatly in favour of the smallholder, and I have not changed much except in this regard: I have seen many instances of a smallholder, starting early in the morning and finishing late at night, never knowing what kind of crop to grow, and when he has grown a particular crop, finding that he has no market for it—all this being the reward for slaving for 365 days in the year. You can take it from me that many of these little smallholders were soon disillusioned about what they could get out of a smallholding; and I warn

149
you, so far as my experience is concerned, not to expect too much, unless this price level fixed for commodities filters down to some of the crops and commodities which the smallholder is likely to grow. So far as I can see, no provision is made in this Bill for that.
May I now say a word about these committees which are to be set up under this Bill? The war agricultural committees have been complimented on their work during the war, and undoubtedly they did some fine work. But, like every other committee—because all committees are human—they made some bad mistakes. Their job was the big farm. I know one such farm where the farmer had five or six thousand acres, and he was one of the most important members of an agricultural executive committee. He could not do the job, or at least could not do it properly. I have known directions to be given for the ploughing-up of a clay field that ought never to have been ploughed up. However, as a result of this wrong direction, it was ploughed up and it never grew a crop that was worth sixpence, so to speak, because the opinion of the man on the spot was never taken into consideration. The man who had been on the farm for thirty or forty years, and knew the particular field and what it was likely to grow, said it was no use except to be put down to grass, which he had done for many years; but he had to plough it up, and in order to make a contribution to the war effort he tried to grow a crop on this soggy and completely unsuitable clay.
These committees—and there is one within my own knowledge—have made not only that mistake but many others. As I say, they would not be human if they did not make some mistakes, but it is essential that the committees should be able to devote themselves entirely to their work. I should think the best thing would be for the work to be a full-time job. They would then come into direct contact with the particular area over which they have the responsibility for giving directions. I know one man who was a gentleman farmer. I have heard gentlemen farmers described in Lincolnshire—I do not know whether you have heard them so described—as persons who are neither gentlemen nor farmers. I do not know whether that is true or not, but that is a Lincolnshire description of
150
them. With that gentleman it was really a casual job, but this is far too important a job to be casual. If a farmer is to be directed he should be directed or instructed by a man who is competent, and who takes into consideration the local circumstances of the case.
I am also pleased that, so far as the farmer is concerned, he is to have the right of appeal. So far as the landowner is concerned, my feeling is rather mixed, despite the eloquent speech that was delivered from the other side. I have had some experience of dilapidations. I have been trying to put some right quite recently on a farm. I might say that the case was that of a farmer owner, and he got away with it. So one might suggest that if you farm your own farm you might receive a sympathetic hearing when you go to the Income Tax authorities. Now the dilapidations to which I refer were on a large estate on which there were 47 farms and the dilapidations were worse than any I have ever seen. It was in Wales. I went to farm after farm, and I said to the agent who came to see me one day: "This is all due to the fact that this has not been painted. Attention has not been paid to this farm; it has been neglected". His reply was: "The other agent who was here before me would not do anything at all. All he wanted to do was to produce to his master a good balance sheet." So he said to the farmer who was with him: "How long is it since you had this place painted?" He replied: "I have been here 47 years, and I have never had anything done yet." We are talking about 2 per cent. I know what his rent was. No repairs whatever had been done on that particular farm, and his rent was nearly £300 a year. Nothing had been done, and he had been there for 47 years.
You could multiply that sort of thing in regard to many of the other farms that I went to, and quite a similar story could be told all over that estate. For that reason, so far as sympathy towards a landlord goes, and particularly the landlord of the kind I have described, my feeling is rather mixed. But the farmer also was a bad farmer. When I saw the owner—who was at that time a member of this particular House—and he was talking about dilapidations and so on, and about the amount of money that had been spent on repairs, he said to me: "What

151
would you do? I wanted to be rid of this man, but he was protected by a certain Act of Parliament. He is a filthy farmer and is producing milk to be sent into Liverpool and to be sold there to the people for them to drink." He said: "If I get rid of him I have to compensate him, even though he is a bad farmer." What happened to the man I do not know, but I think it is a pity that the Lord did not breathe upon him and take him to his heavenly home. I think that such a man ought to be shot for the filthy conditions in which he was producing milk and sending it into a great town like Liverpool, where infant mortality was very great at that time.
So far as the ordinary farmer is concerned I think he should be given certain securities. I agree that, so far as the landlord and farmer are concerned, the land is really held in trust for the nation. I also agree that if the farmer is not farming the land to its maximum capacity—without the qualification that there is in this measure—is not producing from it everything that can possibly be produced, then the Ministry should be pretty severe in dealing with him in view of the circumstances in which we are now living. Food is short, and is likely to be short. In my view, our first consideration should be not, as in the past, to import cheap food and to starve the agricultural industry and everyone engaged in it, but to produce the utmost possible amount of food that we can in this country, and to give stabilized prices to those who produce it, in order that they may pay a fair wage to the agricultural labourer and secure, as the Bill states, a fair return for themselves. In answer to something that was said by the noble Lord who preceded me, I would say that if a landlord is called upon to put his farms and buildings in a proper state of repair, then, like every other citizen in the country in similar conditions, when he does so he ought to be able to ask for a return on the money which he expends in bringing those buildings up to the required standards.
5.12 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, in common with other noble Lords who have spoken, I welcome this Bill as a genuine attempt to do something for agriculture. I do not think that it is by any means perfect, but I do think that it should pro-
152
vide a solid foundation upon which a prosperous agriculture can be built. There are, however, one or two points about which I am not altogether happy. The first one has already been touched upon by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. In Clause 1 it is set out that the Bill seeks to promote an industry "capable of producing such part of the nation's food and other agricultural produce as in the national interest it is desirable to produce in the United Kingdom." I do not like those words at all. It seems to me that they would enable the Government to get away with anything short of murdering the farmers. For instance, for a few years past, the Government have been encouraging farmers to grow pedigree grass seed. Many have done so, and have had to wait a considerable time for a return on their money. In Buckinghamshire alone we have over 4,000 acres in use in this way. Now the Government has started importing cocksfoot from Denmark and elsewhere of very inferior quality, and, as a result, the growers have been unable to find a reasonable market for their seed. That does not seem to me to be fair. Under this clause, the Government can do this sort of thing at any time they like in the future with regard to other products. I should like to see some different words in the Bill, which would allay the anxiety of those of us who wish to see a fully productive agriculture.
Secondly, I am a little nervous that the Bill is going, to a certain extent, to upset the relationship between landlord and tenant, by introducing the State as a third party. For many years past the landlord and tenant system has, in the main, worked very well, and I think that that has been acknowledged by the Government. I hope that the result of this Bill will not be that the landlord will become a mere cypher with little to say in the management of his estate, or as to the choice of his tenants. It is quite right that if an obligation is placed upon the tenant farmer to farm his land according to the rules of good husbandry a similar obligation should be placed on the landlord to manage his estate well. But I think it would be disastrous if controls and regulations should prevent that personal relationship between landowner and tenant which is essential on all well-managed estates. Therefore it is to be hoped that the county committees will use

153
their very wide powers over landlords and tenants sparingly.
On almost every occasion on which the word "Minister" is mentioned in this Bill, the actual work will fall on the county agricultural executive committees. Therefore, they will become very much more important than they are at the present moment, and they will be very much harder worked. With those committees will rest all the decisions in such matters as termination of tenancies, splitting up of holdings, the issue of certificates of bad husbandry, and countless other things. It follows that these committees and their officials and the N.A.A.S. should consist of the very best people available. I wonder whether if, as a result of this extra work, the Minister will not find it difficult to obtain the best people to sit on the executive and district committees. The number of people who can find time for voluntary work of this kind in addition to their own activities is very limited, and I think it very important also that the officials should not be left with too much to do. In this instance I would beg to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, when he said that he thought that working on the executive committees should be regarded as a full-time occupation. I think that the very essence of this Bill is that work on such bodies should be voluntary, and should be contributed by all three parties in the industry.
It is important also that the officials of the National Agricultural Advisory Service should be recruited not only from among men who have passed through agricultural colleges and who have many degrees and letters after their names, but also from the ranks of practical farmers—men who have had similar experience and who can talk the same language as other farmers. I hope that the Minister will see that this is ensured, for it is particularly important in the case of the N.A.A.S. One of the new jobs which the committees will have to do is that of ensuring that estates are properly managed, and that fixed equipment is maintained. I do not think that at the moment the committees are altogether suited for this duty. In most cases the procedure for the dispossession of a landlord will start in the district committees. Very few of these committees have any representative of the land owners among them, and it
154
is only just that before drastic directions are served on a landlord he should have his case investigated by an expert sub-committee composed of people who have knowledge of estate management. I would like, therefore, to see some provision in the Bill that every county should have a management sub-committee appointed to deal with cases of that kind.
In spite of these relatively minor criticisms I do feel that with the co-operation and good will of all three parties in the industry, and with efficient district and executive committees, this Bill will be a great step forward to an efficient and prosperous agriculture in the future.
5.20 p.m.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, in company with everyone who has spoken so far, I welcome this Bill and shall of course vote for Second Reading. Indeed I could not do otherwise, as I am one of the parties who had some share in the programme that was drawn up under the auspices of the R.A.S. and submitted to the late Government and which I was always given to understand was accepted by them in principle. The Party of the noble Lords opposite has brought the Bill in, and they are therefore entitled to all praise for its success and also all blame for any parts of it that might fail. Although I welcome the Bill, I am not shut out thereby from criticizing certain parts of it or hoping to make some improvements in it.
The first criticism is the title of this Bill; because it is not an Agriculture Bill. I have been a member of your Lordships' House for forty-five years or more, and I wonder how many hundreds of times I have heard from the Front Benches on both sides that agriculture is a partnership of three interests inter-dependent on each other—the agricultural worker, the farmer, and the landowner. I have heard it hundreds of times here and outside and I have never heard it gainsaid. I look on it as an accepted fact. But what do we find in this Bill labelled agriculture? The agricultural worker, who has usually been regarded as the most important factor seeing he is the most numerous, does not enter into the Bill at all. He is hardly mentioned. The farmer is well catered for in every direction. The landowner is very frequently mentioned, but so far as I am able to judge practically all mentions are penal ones.

155
This Bill has been called, and I think I have called it myself, the Bill of strawberry jam and Gregory Powder. The farmer gets plenty of jam and plenty of powder; the agricultural worker gets no jam and no powder; the owner gets no jam but a double dose of powder.
This Bill would have been an Agriculture Bill if it had provided for what has already been mentioned. There should be periodic surveys and, in consultation with the industry; consideration, first of all of the just claims of the agricultural worker to remuneration, then consideration with appropriate bodies of the right rent which will not form a burden on the industry, and then a fixing of the prices that will meet these two cases and give a reasonable profit to the farmer. May I say in passing how extremely pleased I was when my noble friend on my left said a word in favour of rent courts? For twenty years I have been trying to get some support for rent courts in my own Association, C.L.A., of which the noble Lord has been so long a prominent member, and this is the first time I have ever had a word of support from anyone. What interested me is that whoever started this Bill set out with a clear intention of having an Agriculture Bill, because in the very first subsection they use the words:
"with proper remuneration and living conditions for farmers and workers in agriculture and an adequate return on capital invested."
Why they fell away from that I cannot say, but clearly they have.
One word on the capital invested, because we have heard a lot about it and I wonder if everyone appreciates what the capital concerned is. Shall we take what I think would be a very adequate farm in my part of the world—200 acres arable and 50 acres grazing, with four pairs of good cottages and a good set of buildings. We would call that a very good farm. The value of that land might be £5,000 without anything on it. To whom that would belong I could not say. I would presume the State; it has long ceased to have anything to do with the landowner. Equipment, live and dead stock, might amount to £5,000, possibly £6,000. The rest of the capital is the replacement of four pairs of cottages, which is £10,000, and the replacement value of the farmhouse and buildings, which would be at least £12,000, and you
156
have to add to that such things as roads, electric light, water and gates. The landowner has in fact put up a capital of something like £25,000. So it is easy to see the question of capital is of some importance to him and he has attached considerable importance to that opening subsection of the Bill, which he looks on as something pretty good, until he reads the Bill through, of course.
A word on one or two other things, and I shall try to avoid repetition of what has been said already. Part I is most important to farmers in a Bill like this, which I describe as a Farmers' Bill. We in the National Farmers' Union look to the N.F.U. to see they make a good bargain, and I trust them to do it. There is one thing in this part of the Bill that worries me, because I am bound to say we never thought of it when we had our preliminary discussions with the R.A.S. and others. What happens when you have two disastrous years in the farming industry? We had in my part of the world a pretty bad year last year, and this year I have never seen anything like the state of the crops. They are simply fantastic. We are going to have an appalling time and it seems to me that guaranteed prices are not going to do them much good. I would have thought it not outside the purview of the high intellectuals who are at the disposal of the Government to have devised some scheme like a dividend equalization reserve which would enable farmers to carry through. We did not think of that when we produced our proposal. It never struck us as likely that two years after the war was over we should find taxation at the level it is now. We could hardly be blamed for not expecting such a thing as that to happen.
Part II starts by defining estate management and good husbandry. Naturally, it must be somewhat vague, and possibly open to amendment; it could hardly be otherwise. But I must call the attention of the noble Earl, and of your Lordships, to one thing that strikes me as rather remarkable. Under good husbandry there is no mention of drainage. Those of your Lordships who, like myself, have served throughout the war on a war agricultural committee will agree with me that there was no single factor which was such a cause of lack of production as the defective drainage with which we started the war. We must have spent millions of

157
pounds in putting it right, and it is a matter of regret to me that it is even to-day beginning to go back seriously throughout the country. This omission is the more remarkable owing to a sentence in the explanatory memorandum. I look on this memorandum as somewhat in the nature of the Apocrypha to the Bible. It is not quite so holy as the main work, but still it is very holy. It definitely states there that hedges and ditches are fixed equipment and the business of the land owner. If that really were so, the land owners might just as well shut up shop, because it would be quite impossible for them or their tenants to go round the farms and keep all the hedges and ditches in order. I refuse to believe that that is the intention of the Bill.
I think I ought to say just a word about the penalties attaching to this matter, because they are severe indeed. The penalties may include such a thing as driving a man to bankruptcy; they certainly include his losing his property, and his home; and they certainly include his losing his living. If you consider the treatment meted out to someone who commits a criminal assault, or some beastly crime, which would render him liable to a year in prison, you will find that under British law every effort is made to see that he has a fair trial—there are the twelve good men and true, a Judge in robes, and all the rest of it, and he can appeal to an Appeal Court. We are rather proud of the justice of our country. But these men are really going to suffer a far greater penalty. What are they to be convicted for? During the seven years I have been on a war agricultural committee I have known quite a lot of people who have been penalized in this way. I think, without exception, they have committed one of four offences: (1) they were very old; (2) they might be suffering from an illness; (3) they were suffering from lack of money; and (4) they were the victims of supreme stupidity. I admit that they are serious offences. I really do think we want to look with considerable care at these clauses, and more especially at the composition of the agricultural appeal tribunal.
Do your Lordships really think this appeal tribunal is adequate? There will be one man with a small legal experience, one landlord selected from a panel, one farmer selected from a panel, and possibly two assessors. I do not know
158
whether the assessors are to have a vote or not; we are not told that. I think they are probably in the nature of expert witnesses. Is that really a tribunal that should have the right to inflict these penalties? I find myself very doubtful about that. It does seem to me that you are substituting for the legal processes of this country, which have been admired throughout the world, a process of rough justice, and I would commend to your Lordships the words that were used by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, last night, that when justice becomes that rough, it ceases to be justice. I think those words are well worth remembering in connexion with this matter.
Part III has been alluded to and I would again call attention to the Apocrypha in reference to line 39 on page 10—Clause 13. If I read it aright, it is an invitation to your Lordships to have a good go at this clause. What does it say? It says in effect, that this clause was compiled in a very great hurry, and is in fact half baked. If the Apocrypha says that, it can hardly cause surprise if this House takes advantage of what I presume to be the advice given there. Really the main thing which has been spoken about is this question of termination of tenancy, which imposes a relatively new form of ownership, and quite a new form of process for what was, after all, the ordinary bargain between man and man. I think your Lordships ought to consider what in fact is likely to be the result of this very important change. A tenant can be dismissed only under an extraordinarily difficult process. It is quite true that he was not often dismissed before, because I understand the average length of a tenancy was twenty-two years, which seems to be a reasonable time. But it must be remembered that a few words in the nature of "We do not think your farm is looking quite as good as it was, and we think it had better have a change," have been very beneficial in the case of many farms. But now it is only under an elaborate system that a change of tenancy can be made.
What I fear is that you will get a farmer just above the borderline of being dispossessed, getting older year after year, who will remain there until he is eighty, while around his bed hang a certain number of septuagenarians waiting for his decease; they will know that no land is likely to be left to anyone less than

159
seventy, because you will never be able to get him out. That is the position with which we are faced, and I hope the noble Earl will give it a little consideration. Part IV, of course, receives general commendation, and I would only say that Part V will have a little to do with the effect of Part IV, because how are you going to have smallholdings if you cannot get people out of the farms? I presume that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and tenants of farms who cannot be removed will hang on until death do us part.
There are one or two things I would like to suggest to your Lordships for consideration. The Land Commission and county executives are to be established. The Land Commission are to render a yearly report, and I would suggest they should also render yearly accounts. I think that would be a sound thing. After all, they are to some extent the judges of farming practice, and it seems to me that it is up to them to show how it is to be done, and done without great loss. Might I suggest also that the time has come when county agricultural executive committees should present accounts? I have been seven years a member of one of them and I have not the faintest idea—nor has anybody else—what my war agriculture committee has cost the county, and I think it ought to be known. This expenditure of millions of public money ought to be made known. I am told that the Ministry themselves do not know what it has cost. You have done away with some Committees, and I do not know that they are frightfully mourned, but, at the same time, they had a certain advantage. One advantage was that you knew what they were spending to the last penny, and the other advantage was that if you did not like them you could get rid of them. That seems to me to be an advantage, and I rather regret the passing of the Council of Agriculture. I know I shall not have very many fellow mourners, but at the same time I think your Lordships should remember that it was the only body which, on a national scale, got together the three parties we have mentioned, and endeavoured, occasionally with success, to get them to reach a mutual point of view. There is much to be said for the Council of Agriculture, but I would like to see some other body take its place.
160
I really finish with a question which I want to put to the noble Earl, and I would refer to page 3 of the Apocrypha which says in paragraph 2:
"For such reasons the Government attach the greatest importance to the maintenance of a stable and efficient agricultural industry, and it is their hope that this legislation will provide the foundation upon which the industry can safely build for many years to come."
I would like to ask whether that is the considered opinion of the Government and not only the Apocrypha. I feel quite certain it is the considered opinion of our present Minister of Agriculture—and we have seldom indeed had a better one. It is, I believe, the considered opinion of the noble Earl, who has so clearly and efficiently presented this Bill to us, as I believe it is probably the opinion of the noble Viscount who leads your Lordships' House. But what I want to know—and I trust I may receive an answer—is this: Is that the opinion of the Government, or do His Majesty's Government regard this as a stepping stone on the way to nationalization?
The other day in another place the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for some obscure reason, appeared to be in charge of the Bill. In that position he was asked whether this was a stepping stone to nationalization, and he made perfectly clear what his opinion and wish was, which was that it was a stepping stone to nationalization. So pleased was he that he burst into song—indeed, a hymn. It may well be the song that has been in his heart. He said, "Yes, a stepping stone. Part of the host are across the stream and some are crossing now." That was heartily cheered, and perhaps it is a little unfortunate that the stream mentioned in the hymn is the stream of death. Nevertheless, he heartily welcomed the crossing of the industry over that stream. As I said, I entirely acquit the noble Earl of any part in that. The only symptom in his speech which I view with any alarm was the words, "This is only a beginning," and I trust he is not going to tell us that this is a beginning to the crossing of the stream.
This Bill has all the elements of being of the greatest assistance to industry, but it depends upon the way in which it is administered—there is no doubt about that at all. If it is administered in the interests of the nation and not for any one section, it can do an infinity of good,

161
but if it is administered in the spirit of hatred and malice and all uncharitable-ness, or even with the urge to totalitarian government, it may do an infinity of harm.
5.46 p.m.
THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH: My Lords, the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of this Bill said that he felt privileged to do so. He has every right to be proud of moving the Second Reading, and I think your Lordships will agree with me when I say that he did it in a very clear and lucid manner. I, too, feel privileged to take part in this debate, because whatever the future may hold this Bill is undoubtedly a great promise for that future. Your Lordships may not agree with all its provisions, but it is quite fair to say that it is generally welcomed.
Because I am sure we are all very anxious to hear the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, I propose to speak for not more than ten minutes. I would just like to say that Part I is undoubtedly very warmly welcomed. Although the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, thought that a man might not want to put money into a business with the guarantees which are here set out, I still think they are very good guarantees. Whether a man would invest money or not I do not know, but they are undoubtedly good guarantees. I think Part II can be regarded as the price we must pay for Part I, and it may be a very heavy price. The noble Lord, Lord Quibell, painted a picture of a very bad landlord. I do not deny that there are and have been bad landlords, but I do not think it is right to say that the picture he painted is a very general one. I think that go per cent. of the landlords have done their best to see that their property has been maintained in good order, but I know from my own experience that Death Duties have made a tremendous difference in that respect.
I would also say that as we now have this Bill the whole idea of landlord and tenant is going to be changed, because we are now going to have a really strict business partnership. Up to the present farmers have not painted their gates, they have not kept their ditches very clear, and the landlords at any rate have not always bothered to keep the roofs and walls in repair. But it has been a kind of partnership in which neither partner
162
has done his part, and neither one has bothered very much about it. I do not think that is good enough, and I am sure it will not be good enough. Therefore, we have these very stringent provisions. Time will tell how they are going to work. We must do our best to see that they do work. As regards supervision orders, I feel, like other noble Lords, that twelve months is a ridiculously short period. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, who speaks with great experience, has put it more eloquently than I possibly could; but I would like to add my small voice to his. It does seem quite fantastic that that should be envisaged at all. Perhaps we can hear something about that later. I would also like to know if I may ask—I do not expect to have an answer now, but possibly later—what is the position about a landlord or an owner wishing to gain occupation of his land in order that he may farm it himself or in order that his son may farm it? I think that is very important, and I am sure many noble Lords would like to hear some clarification of that point.
As regards Part III of the Bill, which has been referred to by my noble friend Viscount Wimborne, he has rightly said that it is a good thing to see the position of agricultural holdings improve because in one county near me the custom is entirely different from that of my own county. A farmer takes over a farm in my county (Rutland) and he says: "Oh! we do not do it this way in Lincolnshire; it is quite different. I am not going to agree to do that." It is high time this was changed, and I very much welcome the change.
I also think, in company with other noble Lords, that the sooner we hear something about the Government's policy for reconditioning cottages, the better, because it is said that a landlord must see that his land is farmed efficiently, but that is a thing we cannot be too worried about. We must be able to recondition our cottages and at the moment there is not much prospect of doing that. I hope that we are not going to be encumbered by other legislation—it would not be in order to refer to the other legislation—and I do hope that that will be borne in mind. I will not say any more now except that the Bill is undoubtedly a very welcome one, and I feel privileged to have taken part in this debate.
5.53 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I feel it a great privilege, after the lack of unity that sometimes characterized our debates on the Transport Bill, to be able to speak to-day in this debate which is characterized by a very different disposition, but may I, before I comment on some of the substantial criticisms, or rather, comments, on the Bill, reply to the question which was put specifically to His Majesty's Government by my noble friend, Lord Cranworth, who has been good enough with Lord Hastings to explain to me that they are compelled for other reasons not to be with us any longer. His question was, whether the "Apocrypha" represented the policy of His Majesty's Government, and he distinguished His Majesty's Government from the Minister of Agriculture, which I confess I do not. Referring to the statement in the Explanatory Memorandum:
"For such reasons the Government attach the greatest importance to the maintenance of a stable and efficient agricultural industry, and it is their hope that this legislation will provide the foundation upon which the industry can safely build for many years to come",
the noble Lord asked me if that was the considered opinion of His Majesty's Government. My reply is: "It is." I may make some reference before I finish to many of his other very entertaining criticisms, but I would like to assure the noble Lord that we have no intention of administering the Bill in a spirit of hatred and uncharitableness. I think the spirit in which my right honourable friend, the Minister, has conducted with many interested parties the negotiations which led to the framing of this Bill, is sufficient evidence that that is not our disposition at all.
I should like to join with the noble Earl who opened the debate in saying how glad I am at long last to be participating in a debate on a Bill affecting agriculture which receives support from men of all Parties. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, for many years I have been striving and hoping for this, and I am quite sure that every noble Lord, irrespective of Party, is animated sincerely with the desire to use this instrument for putting this great industry at long last on a secure basis and one which will encourage enterprise, initiative
164
and improvement. In that respect I might perhaps say with what great interest I have been able to read from the Dominions the records of the journeys of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and his wonderful missionary enterprises on behalf of agriculture, particularly on behalf of the Old Country.
Now let me come to some of the comments which the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, made, all of which were, I think, entirely well-founded, and must receive careful attention. I gathered that the impression he formed from the fashion of this Bill was that there was no length of time assured for either assured prices or for guaranteed markets—or words to that effect. He and I worked together in the formulation of the document to which reference was previously made, and I do not think it is physically possible, in an industry of this kind, which produces a great and an increasing variety of products, to do more than take general powers establishing the machinery, to exercise them and to state the periods for which they are provided. For example, as the noble Earl knows very well, the machinery contemplates, so far as prices are concerned, that there will be periodic fixations of prices, which periods will be longer in the case of livestock which take longer to grow than in the case of a corn crop, which takes a shorter time to grow. But even in the case of a corn crop it will be long enough for the farmer to be able to plan the next year; and that, of course, is a vital ingredient in proper agricultural planning.
That is why these different periods are attached to any price arrangements and I think they are indispensable; I do not think you could manage things practically on any other basis. It will be a continuing practice, and in that way we shall assure, whatever Government is in power, the continuance of this system. The noble Earl raised the point—and he stated it truly—that in fact at the present moment many agricultural products are sold in this country at a lower price than would be realizable if the whole matter were left free in this time of world scarcity. That is perfectly true. But I think that is the test of the system. I like it much better than letting the thing go wild, because it is the reverse side of the picture that had the disastrous effect upon agriculture for two generations; it

165
was because there was no control, and because prices went down and down with the slumps in the world market, that the industry was largely ruined. You cannot have it both ways. It seems to me you have to assure stability over a long enough period, and it may well happen, as it is happening now, that in some cases prices are less than would be realizable in this time of scarcity in a free market.
Let us look at our Canadian wheat market. The price this year is $1.60, but across the border wheat (or even their own free wheat) can be sold for a great deal more in what is called a free market. That is true. The Canadian farmers are well aware of it, and there has been a certain amount of feeling—in an entirely friendly way—between the Canadian authorities and ourselves. But why is it that the scheme is supported? Many people suspect, and it may well be true, that there may before long be a slump in these prices. But during the next four years, under the system of contract, they have security of prices; and even if that is less than the prevailing world price, a fictitious temporary high price, it is security that matters. That is what we are aiming at, and that would be the form of my reply to that kind of criticism. But we are perfectly willing to consider any suggestions that will make the Bill more effective, useful and easy to work.
EARL DE LA WARR: I was not complaining. I only said we wanted to have the matter quite clear and not to have any illusions about what might happen.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I hope I have been able to dispel the illusions. Another point which was made, and which was dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, also, was the duty of the good landlord. I do not take the dismal view the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, seemed to take about the future of the good landlord. I think he has a place in this, just as satisfactory as that of the good tenant. I am really a little disappointed that there have been no tributes to the Labour Party for treating the landlord as he is treated in this Bill. When I remember some of the dreadful prognostications as to what would happen to landlords if ever there was a Socialist Government in power, and compare them with the proposals in this Bill, I think
166
it must be a great source of comfort to many. I was hoping we might have had a tribute in that respect; but as we have not had it, I will pay it myself.
I quite agree that at the present time and with the existing scarcity of labour and materials it would be quite unreasonable to give orders that could not possibly be executed. I cannot imagine any sensible committee doing such a thing. I should like to express complete agreement with the substance of the contention of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, that of course you cannot expect agricultural buildings to be maintained in a proper state of repair unless there are adequate means provided by the rents to pay for their being so maintained. Of course you cannot; that is an obvious piece of arithmetic. I was exceedingly interested to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, was so enthusiastic for rent courts. I was not previously aware of it. His Majesty's Government have been too timid to include a provision for rent courts in the Bill. I think there is some sort of misunderstanding as to the position. There is nothing to prevent a landlord if, in his opinion, a higher rent is necessary for the purpose of carrying out building, and so on, from giving notice of an intention to increase the rent. The provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, are not in this respect altered by the present Bill. If the tenant likes to object he can object, and the case will be dealt with under the provisions of the Bill. Arbitration is already provided for, and that is not in the least altered by anything in this Bill.
But, for all that, I confess that I view the future with some apprehension in this respect. We have discussed Amendments in this House referring to the cost that would be incurred in the re-equipment of agricultural holdings, capital expenditure up and down the country and so on. Whatever the figure is, it is a prodigious one, and I should not wonder—I am speaking entirely for myself and not on behalf of His Majesty's Government—if before long some comprehensive provisions had to be made for securing that increased and improved equipment is really provided. I think that is absolutely essential. But the cost, as I say, will be prodigious, and there can, of course, be only one way of providing it, and that is by the profits of the land. That is obvious. The noble Earl, Lord De La

167
Warr, deplored the necessity for continuing to give cropping directions.
EARL DE LA WARR: No; I said I thought they were still necessary—as emergency measures. But I was sorry they were to go into a long-term Bill.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I do not share the noble Earl's view. We must aim, through the operations of these committees and through the improvement of knowledge, to raise the standard of cultivation, which is very much required, as we all agree; and there must be in the hands of a responsible body, the committees in this instance, power to give directions if necessary. I think it is inescapable. There are some members of the farming community who do not respond very readily to any other method of exhortation. It is essential that the standard of cultivation should be improved, and for that reason I think that the retention of the kind of power to which the noble Earl called attention is required in the Bill.
There was one other matter to which I should refer and which I think has given rise to some misapprehension. I must not be taken as giving a legal interpretation of the Bill, but Lord Hastings asked what was to be done in the case of an owner whose estate was in a bad way and the subject of an order under the Bill, where that owner wanted his son to be appointed to carry on the business instead of himself, rather than that it should pass out of the family. He thought there was no provision for that emergency in this Bill. In that respect he is, I am glad to say, misinformed. If you look at page II, you will find that there is special provision for that particular emergency. There you will find directions to secure good estate management under subsection (1) (a). That should be coupled with subsection (2) (a) which states that:
"a direction given under paragraph (a) thereof may impose requirements, restrictions or prohibitions as to the carrying out of work and may require that the management to which the direction relates shall be entrusted to a person appointed by the owner.…"
So that the owner, if he likes, can appoint his son. That was deliberately inserted in order to safeguard eventualities of that kind. In that respect, therefore, I think there was some misunderstanding.
One other point relating to the same state of affairs was with regard to dis-
168
possession orders. I gathered that the noble Lord was under the impression that in these cases there was no appeal; that the decision or order was final. That is not correct. Where a committee decides, and it is subsequently approved, that a place shall be under supervision, no appeal arises. That is decided by the committee and approved by the Minister, and so on; but in a case of dispossession it is not so. If you look at page 16, you will see that it is specifically provided in Clause 16 (5) that
"Any person to whom notice of a proposal is given under the last foregoing subsection, may require that the proposal shall be referred to the Agricultural Land Tribunal."
In that case, therefore, there is necessarily an appeal at the option of the person on whom the notice is served.
That brings me to another small point which was raised by Lord Cranworth, and I have come to the conclusion that he had not read the Bill as carefully as he had read the "Apocrypha," because I gathered that the noble Lord thought that there was to be only one tribunal, and he said that this tribunal would be so grossly overworked that it could not possibly deal with the work that would fall to it. He is under a misapprehension, and I would, therefore, recommend him to turn from the "Apocrypha" to the Bill, and he will see on page 62, Clause 73:
"For the purposes of this section the Minister shall by order constitute such number of areas, together comprising the whole of England and Wales, as he may consider expedient"—
that is to say, the country will be divided into districts—
"and for each area so constituted there shall be established an Agricultural Land Tribunal."
So there will be a tribunal in each area and not one for the whole country.
I think, if I have followed my notes adequately, I have dealt, in the main, with all the points that have been raised in the course of the discussion, except a number of rather minor Committee points. I myself regard this occasion as a great occasion in the interests of British agriculture. Here we have proposals which, at long last, embody in legislative form the determination of the nation to give that security to this industry which is absolutely a first essential of its progress and improvement, and it is for that reason that I should like to join with many other

169
noble Lords in welcoming the Bill, and to assure them that we shall gladly receive their co-operation so far as they have any suggestions to make for improving it in Committee.
6.16 p.m.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, in company with every other member of your Lordships' House who has spoken, I welcome this Bill. I think it is a good Bill, and I am glad to see it put forward very largely from a non-Party point of view. I congratulate the noble Earl, the Parliamentary Secretary, for the way in which he introduced it. Not only was his speech extremely clear, but it was also very frank and straightforward. The criticisms that I am going to make of the Bill will, I hope, be understood as not being in any sense put forward from a Party point of view. Of course, I accept the pledges which have been made by not only the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, but perhaps still more, because of his position, the Minister of Agriculture himself. But Ministers change and Governments change, and therefore one likes to see in an Act of Parliament these matters laid down so clearly that, whatever the Government, they are bound by the terms of the Act, and therefore cannot get outside it. For that reason I am afraid I do not look at this Bill so much as a charter for farmers as many people do.
There are so many qualifying phrases in Part I. There is the qualifying phrase that I think was referred to by my noble friend Lord De La Warr, in Clause 1, subsection (1), where there is the well-known phrase: "such part of the nation's food and other agricultural produce as in the national interest it is desirable to produce in the United Kingdom." That is a qualification of size. There is a still worse one in Clause 4, subsection (1) (b) (i), in the phrase "for securing that subject to any specified limits of quantity, a producer…shall…be enabled to sell…at the specified price." I hope I shall be forgiven if I mention what is perhaps a tender point at this moment with the Government—potatoes. Potatoes, as my noble friend knows, is a crop which varies very considerably from year to year. Sometimes you get a bumper crop and the whole market is flooded, and sometimes you get disease and then there is a
170
shortage. The Treasury, I know, look with great suspicion at any guarantee of the price of potatoes for that reason. Although no doubt we shall be bound by the pledges of Ministers now, I am looking forward to this Bill as a long-term measure, and I therefore think that this phrase weakens the whole of Part I very seriously indeed. I know that many farmers think so too. I agree that a Government which is going to pledge itself to give a price must watch its step, if I may put it in that way, but I think it would be only fair—and I think all members of all Parties would agree that it is fair—that where a direction is given to farmers, under Clause 95, I think it is, or in relation to a farmer who is under supervision, that then that farmer should receive the full price for the acreage which he is ordered to sow with that particular crop. Obviously questions of quality must be taken into consideration. Anyhow if he is ordered to grow a much larger acreage of wheat or potatoes, he should receive the full guaranteed price for the whole of that, whatever the policy of the Government may be for the rest. That seems to me to be only fail.
I now turn to Part II about which I fear I have to be a good deal more critical. It is entitled: "Good Estate Management and Good Husbandry." I am afraid that I think it ought to have a sub-title: "Nationalization Little by Little." When the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, asks if nationalization is intended, I say that it is here. It is a curious fact that, throughout the whole Bill, the Minister is given many powers for acquiring land, compulsorily by purchase or by agreement, but there is only one clause, and that hedged round with a good deal of qualification, under which the Minister is entitled to sell it. Nor is there anything in the Bill to say that where an owner is to be dispossessed he has the right to sell the land to some other private individual who will manage his estate better than he did.
May I draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 16 (2) on page 15? There is there a curious provision to the effect that:
"Where the Minister proposes to purchase any land under the last foregoing subsection and is satisfied that it is necessary for the purpose of securing the proper management thereof that he should acquire any other land which is being managed by the Same person…"

171
the Minister may buy it. In other words, if a landowner manages one farm badly, under this provision, as I see it, the Minister is entitled to buy the whole of his estate. It is quite easy to argue that to secure proper management you cannot manage one isolated farm, say, in the Wolds of Yorkshire or the Highlands of Scotland, or in the West Country, alone and by itself. It is uneconomic. Everyone knows that to manage isolated farms situated long distances from other areas means that it is more than likely that such farms will not be properly looked after. Certainly it will be very uneconomic and very expensive. Under this clause, as I read it, the Minister could buy the whole of a very large estate.
Then take the next subsection, subsection (3). This begins by stating that where "any person having an interest in land" says he thinks it necessary that the land should be taken over by the Minister, the Minister can buy it. What do you mean by "any person having an interest in land"? Are we not all interested in land? Good heavens! We had many letters to the Press from all quarters not long ago when the question was raised of setting up an electric power station opposite to St. Paul's Cathedral. That was a question of land. Anybody can say that he is interested in land, and anybody, therefore, can say to the Minister that he thinks it necessary that the Minister should take certain land, and the Minister is entitled to do so.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I wish to point out to the noble Earl that there are several limitations on that later on in the same subsection.
EARL STANHOPE: I am aware that there are, but those limitations are so extraordinarily indefinite that I think that if my noble friend attempts to interpret them, he may find himself in great difficulty. However, I hope that when we get to the Committee stage my noble friend will be ready to deal with this point.
Next I desire to come to the question of dispossession of landowners and farmers. By the terms of the Bill landowners and farmers in various events have the right to appeal to the agricultural land tribunal. In many cases, I think, that will be good enough. It will
172
be a question of rough justice and no very great harm will be done in many instances if mistakes are made. But where it comes to a question of dispossession that is a very different matter indeed. Let us see how it is done. First of all, the land is inspected, and I think that my noble friend Lord Carrington made an extraordinarily good point when he said that the amount of extra work that is going to be thrown on the shoulders of the county agricultural executive committees is going to be tremendous. They are not only going to have to deal with matters connected with good farming, but also, for a period, they are going to have to deal with cropping arrangements—things which they have been doing in the past—and in addition they are now going to be brought in between the landlord and tenant. And there may be a very large number of cases for them to deal with.
In war-time all sorts of people took on all sorts of war jobs as part of their contribution to the effort of winning the war. But the war is over now, and most of us have to earn our livings. The kind of people who can afford to give up a vast amount of time to the work of these agricultural committees and subcommittees are getting fewer and fewer and the work which is going to be put on them is getting greater and greater. What will happen? As Lord Carrington pointed out, a great deal of this work is going to be done by officials—officials of the Ministry. Now if there is one quality civil servants have above anything else it is that of extreme loyalty—loyalty to their Ministers and loyalty to each other. When one official makes a mistake, as my noble friend knows, he gets support right up to the highest level. I have known a case in point, with regard to land which was being dealt with by a Government Department. I was told that the owner of the land in question had not got a leg to stand on, that the claim that he was putting up was entirely wrong. I said: "This owner is prepared to submit the question to arbitration; therefore why not let it go to arbitration? If he has not got a leg to stand on so much the better." But no, the officials did not think that that ought to be allowed. This was the view of various officials who had inspected the particular area. But the matter went to arbitration. I took steps to see that it

173
did. And the result was that the Department lost the case and had to pay costs. That only shows that mistakes are made even though, right up at the top of a particular Department, you get a statement that the case is absolutely water tight.
Now what happens when standards are suspect, an owner is said to be managing land badly, or a farmer is said to be farming badly? The land of the man in question is put under supervision. His properly is later inspected by still more officials to see whether he is making satisfactory progress. The same officials, probably, report that the progress made is not sufficiently good. Then a dispossession order is made. The landowner or the farmer appeals to have his case taken to the land tribunal. At this point I must say that I think my noble friend weakened his case in this regard. As he stated, there are to be a number of land tribunals. And what is to be their composition? They are to consist of one member of legal experience appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and two members appointed by the Minister. I am aware that one will represent the farmer and one the landowner, but both are appointed by the Minister, and are responsible to him. Similarly, as I understand it, the agricultural executive committees have to take orders from the Minister and carry out his directions, as laid down in the Bill.
What is the procedure under which the tribunals are to work? If you turn to Clause 74, which is on page 63, you will see that this is laid down in the Bill.
"On any such reference the Tribunal shall determine—

(a) whether the conditions as to which the Minister must be satisfied before taking action are fulfilled…."

What conditions does that mean? It means that the various steps that the Minister is compelled to take have been carried into effect, that the land has been inspected, the man warned, notice given, the supervision order made, and so on. That is merely procedure. What next?—
"whether, having regard to their determination under the foregoing paragraph and to all the circumstances of the case, the Minister should or should not take the action proposed."
What do you mean by "circumstances of the case"? Do you mean that the man who is accused can have those who bring
174
the charge against him brought up to give evidence on oath or does it mean merely they can say they have reported to the Minister that this man is inefficient and therefore he must be dispossessed? I have never heard of such a procedure. It is not a court of law. And although they might give perfectly fair decisions, they come under very grave suspicion.
There has been throughout the country a good deal of suspicion of these orders of dispossession. So far they have affected only farmers. I am told there have been 12,000 cases—I have not the faintest idea whether that is right or not. At any rate it is a pretty large number. If courts are set up like these with no rules of procedure, they will not deal similarly with similar cases, and wrong decisions will be given, and the orders of these courts are final. It is essential that there should be some appeal from these rent tribunals to a properly constituted court of law presided over by a Judge of the Supreme Court. You not only want to do justice but to seem to do justice. If you had a court of that kind, you would strengthen procedure all the way through. No one in your Lordships House wants to stand up and protect the bad landlord or the bad farmer, but we want to see justice done.
What does dispossession mean? For the farmer it may mean that he loses his means of livelihood. Who is going to give him another farm if he has been dispossessed? Under the Bill every new tenant has to be approved by the Minister; and will the Minister agree to a farmer who has been dispossessed going into another farm? Of course not. He will have to go and find another job, and perhaps he is a middle-aged man with no money behind him. Think of the owner-occupier, more often than not the little man, who owns a farm and lives on it and has put perhaps the whole of his war gratuity into it. He is turned out of his home and loses his means of livelihood. And the whole of that may be by the decision of a tribunal which is not a legal tribunal, consisting of one man appointed by the Lord Chancellor and two by the Minister and with no means of procedure according to the ordinary courts of law. I pray the Government to think it over and give it a great deal of further consideration. My right honourable friend has not the kind of countenance for setting up any sort of

175
Star Chamber. He is far too benign for that kind of thing and I hope he will look into it again.
Part III deals with the relations of landlord and tenant. I think the Minister is being extraordinarily unwise. He is coming in between the landlord and tenant. There are some bad landlords who turn out good tenants but they are exceptional, and I have always understood that exceptional cases make bad law. The ordinary landlord does not turn out a good farmer. Under the law as it stands he has to give him compensation, probably up to two years rent. I am told there are rich landlords who can afford to disregard that, but not many of these are left. Dilapidations never cover the cost of putting things right and there is always an additional charge. Practically every new tenant wants something new done when he comes in. Every change of tenancy means a good deal of cost to the landowner and a landowner dislikes spending money unnecessarily in these days unless he feels he must. You will get a number of tenants about the water line, just good enough not to be turned out. I could give a case of my own where I saw a tenant farmed very badly and I got one of the biggest experts to look at the ground. He said I was right in dispossessing the tenant—the land would have become almost derelict if I had left it—but if I thought I was going to get the certificate of bad husbandry I was wrong.
I admit that things have improved during the war but they will not be kept up now the war is over. Farmers do not like to turn out their neighbours and they will turn a blind eye on farms indifferent and bad. When the landlord wants to turn a man out, he applies to the Minister and the Minister says, "No, my officials do not report that man as sufficiently bad to turn him out." Of course the Minister is going to support his officials, but the landlord has probably a higher standard in his mind as to what that land could produce. Is that to the detriment of the country? We are all trying to get every acre of this country to produce every scrap of food it can, and therefore to put the Minister as a third party in this business and make the tenant practically dual owner is going to make it still more difficult to get tenants
176
out of holdings where they are not doing their work properly. What happens is that you get a young fellow who takes a farm and makes a bit of money and wants to get a bigger farm. Perhaps a landowner would like him as a tenant because he would be better than the man who is the tenant, but he cannot get the farm and so the young farmer cannot rise in skill in farming. One of my present tenants, a man who has now got a fairly large farm of 400 acres, at any rate for my small property, is my best tenant and doing extraordinarily well. I admit he did not succeed a man who was turned out for bad farming but one who gave up for health reasons, but he is the kind of man you want to encourage. To make it more difficult for a man of that kind to find a farm is exactly the kind of thing the Minister should avoid at all costs. I hope the Government will think again about interfering between landlord and tenant.
With regard to smallholdings, I hope the Government will change their policy in regard to food supply. Smallholders above all live on small produce, poultry and pigs. I know of one case of a very hard working tenant. His wife used to drive many miles into market every week and the agent responsible for that property asked her why she spent a whole day in market. She said: "I know you won't take advantage but I have a very bad market if I do not clear £2 every time I go there and that pays our rent." She sold poultry and eggs and plucked her fowls and sold them trussed and got a very good price. They cannot get the food to feed their fowls now and until you alter that policy the benefit of setting up smallholdings does not exist. I submit that that requires further consideration. I have talked about pigs and poultry, and I apologize for having been rather inconsequent in my remarks in this respect.
There is an obligation put upon land owners which does not seem to me to be fair, in that a landowner can be ordered by the Minister to supply additional buildings on a farm. But an agreement for tenancy is a contract between a land owner and a farmer, and that farm is let for a certain purpose under that contract. Take, for instance, a general farm where the tenant makes up his mind that he wants to keep pigs. He then applies to have a number of pig houses put up where

177
he can keep pigs. If the Minister agrees, he can put them up and charge the land owner; or the landowner has to do it. Not everybody can breed pigs satisfactorily, and this man may fail, and he may leave the farm with one year's notice. What happens then? The next tenant does not want to keep pigs; he has seen pig breeding to be a failure, and he goes back to general farming. But that landowner has been compelled to put up vast buildings for an entirely different object from that for which the farm was originally let.
Take another case which I know—that of a farmer who became interested in milk. He thought he saw a big profit in producing milk, and he thought of the cheque coming in regularly once a month, and all the rest of it, which looks so attractive. He did not realize that you may buy a very good bull, and you may have one or two very good cows, but it does not follow that you will have milk-producing cattle when eventually they are old enough to be milked. As my noble friend knows, breeding cattle is an extraordinarily risky business; and very often it does not pay. There is the case of a man who finds it is no good, and he gives up keeping cows. Those of us who have had to produce modern milking sheds, where farmers insist on having the cows in all night—as mine do—and adequate cowsheds for a good number of animals, know that it is almost as expensive as producing a school, with perhaps almost more cost per place per cow than it costs per child at the school. Such is the way in which these matters work. To compel an owner to do something quite different from the terms of the contract he has made with the tenant of the farm seems to me to be a matter which requires further supervision.
I have one last point, and I apologize for keeping your Lordships longer than I had intended. I do implore the Government to think twice before they get a very large acreage of land scattered throughout the whole of Great Britain. To get scattered farms taken over in that way because they have been poorly managed or poorly farmed, and then to have agents running all over the place looking after them on behalf of the Government, will cost a great deal of money. It will also entail a vastly increased Civil Service, and noble Lords who sit on the Government Front Bench know that they are under pretty severe criticism for the num-
178
ber of civil servants they employ. What is to be the number brought into being by this Bill when it becomes an Act? It will be a large number. I do hope the Government will strengthen that provision by which the Minister can sell land, and that where it is uneconomic to have a farm here, a farm there, and a farm somewhere else, perhaps 50, 60 or 80 miles apart, they will then sell that land to a suitable owner, or an occupying owner, and get rid of managing it themselves, If they can forget the idea that everything should belong to the State, I think they will not only be saving the taxpayer a great deal of money, but saving themselves a great deal of worry as well.
I close by saying that I think this Bill has in it a vast amount of good. I think there are points, as I have ventured to try and state, which require improvement. I hope this House, as it always does, will look upon this Bill with an open mind and with no Party predisposition whatever, and that when the Bill leaves this House it will be generally agreed by owners, by farmers, and by the men they employ, that it is a better Bill than it was when it came here.
[The sitting was suspended at a quarter before seven o'clock, and resumed at a quarter past eight.]
THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: My Lords, I have no great confidence in this Bill. I feel that farmers and land owners are going to sacrifice a great deal of freedom, and suffer a great deal of additional official interference, in return for the few benefits that are incorporated in the Bill. The chief advantage incorporated in the Bill is that of guaranteed prices and guaranteed markets; I must admit that that is a very big thing, and probably the most important feature of the Bill. But I believe that on the whole the guaranteeing of the prices and markets may be a lot more difficult than is at the moment supposed; I think the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, made that point earlier this afternoon. There may be international complications; there may be disagreements between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Food and, as has been said already, this Bill is undoubtedly a long-term Bill. In a few years, when the food shortage has passed, the Government may find themselves embarrassed in guaranteeing the prices and markets.

179
I am convinced also that on the whole the Bill will do a lot towards destroying the confidence which has existed for a great number of years between landlord and tenant. I think the destruction of that confidence will take place owing to the fact that a third party is entering into the agreement between the tenant and the landlord. You are reaching a state in which the agricultural committees are taking a big part in the general affairs of the land. This will undoubtedly destroy a great deal of confidence which has existed for a great many years between landlord and tenant.
My criticisms of this Bill are mainly from the point of view of a landlord, because I feel that the landowner is definitely getting a rather raw deal from this Bill. We know, of course, that that is to be expected from legislation passed by a Socialist Government. Part II of the Bill may fall very hard on land owners—especially Clause 14, which will require the landlord to undertake compulsorily large repairs on an individual farm. I am convinced that the low standards of farm buildings in many parts of the country to-day are mainly owing to the very great effect of death duties on agricultural properties. I do not believe that that point has been made sufficiently strongly this afternoon. I know of quite a number of properties where the land owner has been only too prepared to spend all the money he could on keeping his farm buildings and farm cottages in a decent state of repair, but, owing to the effect of death duties, it has been physically impossible, because he has not had the money.
An excellent illustration of this, I believe, came into the national Press the other day. A noble Lord who is a member of this House (the noble Marquess, Lord Bath) who had, I understand, a very large scheme for modernizing farm buildings and farm cottages, was about to carry out this scheme when suddenly his father died. He succeeded to the estate, and death duties to the extent of 70 per cent., or whatever it was, were levied on the estate; naturally it was not then possible for him to carry out that scheme, because he could not afford it. If we had not had these appalling death duties on agricultural properties in the last twenty years, there would have been tens
180
of thousands of farms and cottages in a good deal better repair than they are to-day. I know that in talking about death duties I am probably out of order, as we are discussing the Agriculture Bill, but I feel that if something could be done perhaps to reduce death duties on agricultural properties there would be no necessity for the complicated provisions in this Bill for compelling unforunate land owners to spend large sums of money which they do not possess on repairing their farms.
Under Clause 35 of the Bill, there is provision—and I think quite fairly—for either the landlord or the tenant to go to arbitration as regards the question of rents. A great deal has been said this afternoon about rents and I am afraid a lot of what I intended to say has already been said, but I would like to add my comments. I know that the National Farmers' Union have agreed to this Bill, but I wonder whether they realize that the Bill undoubtedly means a general raising of rents all over the country. Undoubtedly in the Bill the landowner will have to undertake greater expenditure than he did before. In order to meet that extra expenditure he will have to raise the rents of his farms. That will undoubtedly be very unpopular in the country. This Bill is supposed to be to help the agricultural community generally, but if you start introducing provisions which will mean raising the rent, and come between landlord and tenant and cause unpleasantness between them, the Bill will not achieve its object.
If the fairly large landowner has any rents which are, so to speak, surplus from his farms, in nine cases out of ten he has to spend that money on repairing farm cottages, and in some cases the weekly rental of a farm cottage to-day is ridiculous. It is equivalent to the price of a packet of Player's cigarettes. Very often you find a perfectly good farm cottage let at a rent of about 3s. 6d. a week, and next door you find one, not much better, belonging to the local council, the rent of which is 15s. a week. I believe that is grossly unfair. In most large properties—and I speak from personal experience—it is not a question of getting 2½per cent. on capital invested; it is a question of getting no percentage at all.
I would like to say one word about Clause 16, which refers to the right of

181
appeal to the land tribunal. I feel most strongly about this. In a question of dispossession, there should be a right of appeal to something above the land tribunal. I believe something has been said to-day about the land tribunal. I have spoken to a number of farmers in my district and they all have no confidence in this land tribunal. I cannot see how you can call an appeal to the land tribunal independent when, after all, the Minister sets up the land tribunal, and he is, so to speak, almighty. What he says goes. The land tribunal consists of only three people, with a possibility of having two more assessors, and the chairman is a legal chairman appointed by the Lord Chancellor. I do not consider that that is a proper court of appeal. I think we ought to go to the only truly indedependent court in the country—the court of law. I feel there will be no confidence in these tribunals. Incidentally, are they to be provided with mansions, like the officials of the National Coal Board? What are their terms of reference? What are they to be paid? There is a great deal of room for improvement in the composition of these tribunals.
Clauses 84 and 86, to my mind, leave the door open for the piecemeal nationalization of land. I think it is most unsatisfactory that the Government or the Ministry of Agriculture should be allowed to hold land and farm it, and I hope that Amendments will be moved in the Committee stage which will prevent this. I can see taking place a gradual snowball of land ownership by the Ministry of Agriculture. Over a period of years more and more land will be owned and farmed by the Ministry of Agriculture or the agricultural executive committees. We know also of a fair number of cases where farms farmed by the executive committees are farmed very badly. I myself could name two or three, and I think it is a bad precedent that they should be allowed to increase their powers and chances of farming. Those clauses should be modified to prevent land being nationalized, which is what it boils down to.
I believe that the present system of landowner and tenant farmer is both popular and satisfactory, and I would like to ask His Majesty's Government whether in the next Election, whenever
182
it may be—it may be next year or it may be three years later—they are to include in their programme for that Election the nationalization of land. I think they should make that perfectly clear now. We know that there is still a strong cry from the Back Bench Members on the Government side in another place for the nationalization of land, and I think that we are entitled, when discussing this Bill, to ask for a definite assurance that in their next Election programme the nationalization of land will definitely not be included. There has been a great deal of pernicious propaganda by Socialist speakers in the countryside about the landowner, and I think the Government should call a halt to that if they are to carry this Bill through to the Statute Book. In my district, I know, the agricultural workers' unions carry out the most mendacious and unpleasant propaganda against the landowner. There is no foundation whatsoever for it, and if the Government are going to pass this Bill they should call a halt to that nonsense.
8.32 p.m.
LORD SAVILE: My Lords, so much of this Bill has been covered in debate, both in your Lordships' House and in another place, that it would indeed be foolish if I, with my limited knowledge and lack of experience, were to attempt to throw a new light upon its interpretation. There are many more noble Lords after me who will bring a deeper experience to bear on this matter. However, I want to make a few general remarks about the Bill. I will deal entirely with Part I of the Bill. First of all I think all farmers—and when I say "farmers" I mean landowner, tenant and labourer—will welcome this Bill and will desire to congratulate the Government upon introducing such a measure, especially as it has the outward appearance, to all intents and purposes, of being in every way an economic plan and not merely a political manifesto.
It is important that this Bill should not be a political manifesto, for certain obvious reasons. Everyone knows that it is not the slightest use talking the politics of agriculture to the farmer. He does not trust politics; he does not like politicians. At home at the moment,

183
my own tenants are becoming increasingly suspicious of me because of my prolonged absence in Westminster dealing with two Bills. Several months ago, when I was going round some of my farms, I told tenants that the reason for my absenteeism as a landlord was the fact that I was at Westminster on Committees dealing with two of the Bills which most concerned them. Their reply was, "Oh, I suppose we shall have to read these Bills every night for the rest of our lives." This Bill has been variously described as the Farmers' Bible, the Magna Carta for farmers, and the Farmers' Manual, and, in your Lordships' House, as the Apocrypha. But is it really that? Our duty between now and the time when this Bill reaches the Statute Book is to go on improving it, with one objective in view—to persuade the landlord, tenant and labourer that they can have confidence—or should I say can regain confidence—in the industry. Anything in the way of ruthless political direction should be resisted where not absolutely essential.
Now why must this Bill be a sound economic plan? I think it is for two reasons: first, because we must somehow satisfy the nation's food demands, and secondly, because of the effect on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget. I believe that a healthy kind of agriculture which will satisfy both those things can be founded on a dominant dairy farming and livestock rearing industry. I told your Lordships the same thing last December. I believed then, as now, that this is the only way of stabilizing the industry, and that arable farming should come in as a means of supplying the necessary feeding stuffs for our herds and flocks. Of course we have had to back-pedal this policy, and we shall have to do so for years to come—certainly for much longer than I thought six months ago. This Bill, if not a Bill for all times, will, we hope, be for a great deal longer than the immediate emergency will last. I realize that there are large tracts of England—for instance in Norfolk and Suffolk—where arable farming must always be predominant in agriculture. But the fertility of our soils, our lovely grass lands, and our climate make a great part of our country ideal for animal husbandry.
184
Stability and security run hand in hand. Without one you cannot have the other. I think that there is an old American proverb which runs: "When wheat is a dollar a bushel all is well on earth." Where would our farmers be if that was so there, or anywhere? To-day the great majority of the arable farmers are hoping to cash in on their farms while the going is good, or else are hanging on a little longer hoping that something will happen to give them a living. We shall sooner or later be moving from the Utopia of a sellers' market towards competition by our Dominions as well as by countries to whom we shall wish to sell our exports, and we shall necessarily have to supply them, in turn, with compensating markets in this country. Unfortunately, the principal imports into this country will be agricultural products, and how can we expect the arable farmer to put everything he has into his farm with the knowledge that overnight his savings may disappear in the face of world competition?
As an example of what must be in the farmer's mind as well as in mine, take the illustration of a granary. Suppose he has filled that granary with last year's harvest, without hope of being able to sell at the price which that produce has cost him. Suppose that he has again been ordered to grow enough grain to fill another granary in the following year, and again to incur loss. Can you expect that farmer to carry on with the same spirit and with the same efficiency that he has formerly shown? Efficiency in farming is one of the great things which is stressed in this Bill, but very careful forethought and planning will be needed if the standards which we all want to see attained are in fact to be reached. The main factor in creating efficiency and stability is marketing. In this country we have a market second to none; that needs no advertising at all. Everyone knows the nutritional value of milk, butter and cheese, as well as of meat, poultry and vegetables, but our present difficulty is to supply our wants in that direction. We are importing these essentials from our Dominions and from various other countries, including Holland and Denmark, whereas if British agriculture could concentrate a little more on stock-raising and dairy farming we should be better able to look after ourselves in that respect.
There is one thing which backs up such a structure, and that is the Milk Market-

185
ing Board. That may not be of assistance to the farmer who lives near a town but it is most decidedly to the farmer who lives away from a town. He knows that whatever he produces he can sell, without wondering about the possibilities of finding a market, or having the dread and fear that there will be no market at all. Surely that is an incentive to enthusiasm and efficiency to raise the standard of production to the maximum. Several of my tenants have recently expressed the desire to go in for a T.T. herd of cattle. The will for such a policy is there, but in my part of England, at any rate, the will is directed by the pocket. As in everything else, there are two sides to every problem, good and bad, and I think the significant point in such a structure is lack of manpower to back it up, due to a lack of a vigorous rural housing policy. My noble friend, Earl Gainsborough, hit the nail on the head when he again reminded the Government that we would like to know something about the reconditioning of cottages and rural housing, and I share with other noble Lords the regret that not very much, if anything, appears about housing in the Bill.
Then there is a lack of capital. The subsidies and grants for food are to-day a terrible burden on the resources and finances of the people. The subsidies cannot go on for ever. I rather doubt if they can go on much longer, having regard to the way the Government is spending its money. I urge the Government to realize that if only they could give the dairy industry a capital grant, the dividends from such a grant would be phenomenal; so much so, I am firmly convinced, that there would no longer be any need to subsidise it once it was firmly established and on its feet.
8.43 p.m.
MARQUESS TOWNSHEND: My Lords, in venturing to address your Lordships for the first time, I ask for that indulgence which you are always kind enough to give to beginners. I will not keep you very long, as many of your Lordships have dealt in great detail with the principles of the Bill and, being such a newcomer, I feel that my contribution will not be of much value.
The first point I should like to make is that in the First Schedule, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has pointed out, there is no mention of wool. In Norfolk,
186
where I come from, we have been brought up in the tradition of fat cattle and sheep. It has in fact become an institution in Norfolk until recent years, and it has been the basis of our economy. In looking after the land, nothing helps so much as sheep and fat cattle which return to it the muck we need. The treading of sheep has been a very important point in maintaining the land and providing us with the quality in our barley for which I think East Anglia is rightly famous. The reason why we have no sheep at the moment is that there have been no prices comparable with the cost of keeping a ewe flock on the farm. Many years ago every one of our farms at home had on it a ewe flock. Nowadays I have only one. It is a very sad sight. The reason why I ask whether wool prices could be mentioned is that the price of wool surely has a great effect on the quantity of sheep kept.
In regard to fat cattle, it appears to me that there is no firm enunciation of policy in the Bill to encourage us to return to our empty yards the fat cattle we need to put muck on the land. Farms definitely need this return to the land of muck which we do not have nowadays; and, so far as I can gather, the country needs beef of the first quality, which we can and should produce. I am afraid the price is the main point which holds us back from doing this. We already have all the equipment necessary.
As has been said already, there has been a great swing to milk production—chasing the cheque, I am sorry to say—and I am not sure that that is altogether a good thing in our country. I think the previous speaker said that we are primarily a grain and fat beef producing country. We now have numerous demands by our tenants to provide them with new dairies, which may or may not last. If we have dairies provided now, we shall have to alter our existing buildings or build new ones at considerable expense. This we can do, and will do, if we are sure that this is the firm policy of the Government. But we do not want to find ourselves in the position of being asked to produce the beef later on, and have to reconvert our buildings to beef production. We do not want to let our yards decay for the lack of direction from the Minister. We must produce more beef in this country. We can do it now, I think, on a fairly equitable price cost basis with other countries;

187
in future I do not think we shall always be able to buy our beef abroad as cheaply as we have done in the past. I recently had a letter from a friend of mine who went to the Argentine, in which he says that conditions there are very difficult. Apparently the cost of living has gone up threefold, and in time I think they will have a similar standard of living to our own, which will mean that our beef will cost us much more.
We are told that the twin pillars of this Bill are stability and efficiency. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, I think, said that stability will come from efficiency; but to my mind efficiency will follow stability. As I say, there can be no stability without a definite policy, and I had hoped to see it in this Bill. Other noble Lords have referred to numerous points of the Bill, and I do not want to detain your Lordships any longer than is necessary. I would, however, like to mention a small point in Clause 106, which may be helpful. Clause 106 deals with provisions as to entry and inspection. Under this clause, as I understand it, the Minister has power to authorize someone to go on to anybody's farm for the purposes of inspection. Except under Clause 3 (b), there will be no notice given to the occupier of that land; and I feel, to say the least of it, that that is unwise. It is also rather rude to walk on people's property without telling them you are coming. I think there are cases where that might be justified, as, for instance, where a farmer has applied for a grant for potatoes on acreage payment, or something like that, where it is normal for the local agricultural officer to go and see whether the acreage is what the farmer has said it is, and how the crop is doing. But when it comes to, perhaps, a formal inspection, with the possibility of placing a man under supervision, then I think it would be hard not to have him on the scene. He can quite obviously explain a number of points for which it would be rather difficult to discover reasons without his being there.
There is very little more I can say, except to welcome the Bill, in company with other noble Lords who have welcomed the Bill to-day, and to say that I hope it will be a success. I think it should be, provided that in their administration the committees try to emulate the spirit of friendly co-operation between the landlord and tenant which
188
has existed, and not, as has been pointed out several times to-day, to come between the landlord and tenant.
8.51 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, amongst the tasks which fall occasionally to members of your Lordships' House is the very pleasant one of expressing the views of the House and welcoming a new voice among our numbers. We have just listened to my noble friend the Marquess Townshend, and it gives me especial pleasure to welcome him. After all, the name of "Turnip" Townshend is well-known to anybody who has anything to do with agriculture, and in making his debut here in an agricultural debate of this importance the noble Marquess is carrying on a well-known and old tradition. It is perhaps too much to hope that he will produce anything so revolutionary as the turnip in this country, but we hope that on many more occasions we shall hear his voice raised on agriculture and other subjects.
I rise with a certain amount of diffidence on this occasion because, owing to circumstances over which I had very little control, I have not been able to listen to the greater part of the debate. The circumstances over which I had very little control consist in my interest in Bills other than the one before your Lordships' House with which I have had to deal in other places. I have, however, one or two points which I would like to put to the House. They are largely in emphasis of what I have already heard in debate, and your Lordships will excuse me if I repeat arguments already made. The first point I wish to make is with regard to the non-Party nature of this measure. And it is right to tell the House that, to a great extent, the agreement which has been reached upon this measure is due to the wisdom of the Minister of Agriculture himself. From the very early stages he took into his confidence all the bodies who were actively interested in this Bill, and as a result a large measure of agreement has been reached. It is, perhaps, owing to that fact that this Bill has not suffered under that rather destructive instrument in another place, the guillotine. The result is that your Lordships can act in your proper capacity as a revisionary body instead of as an initiating body.
Having said that, I am going to criticize. The first criticism I have is that

189
there is too much Minister in this Bill. When I say that, I mean that there is too much about county committees, because the burden will fall upon them and it is upon the work of the county committees that the success of this Bill depends. If you put too much work upon the county committees you will find that the right men, who are the busy men, will not be able to serve, and you will not have the right county committees. Therefore, I do beg of the noble Earl opposite, who is very much concerned in this, to see that so far as possible the burden will be removed from the county committees. In that connexion, may I draw attention to the fact that Clause 95 was put into the Bill at rather a late stage in another place, and it puts upon the county committees the kind of burden which they need to shed—that is, orders to grow special crops. I believe I am right when I say that they went into it fully at rather a late stage in another place in almost panic legislation.
That leads me to my next point. There is a complete structure for price regulation in the Bill. It is a good structure; it has worked quite well so far, except in one respect: His Majesty's Government have driven rather a hard bargain against the farmer. They have not used that instrument to encourage production in the directions they want, and I think that explains the necessity for placing Clause 95 in the Bill. They have not obtained what they wanted because they have not offered sufficient money. I do not blame the Ministry of Agriculture—there is the Gorgon of the Treasury standing in the background—but the fact remains that, if you are to make proper use of that price fixation scheme in the Bill, you must use it generously in order to achieve that production which is required in this country. I hope that that lesson may be learned from our present difficulties and the terrible trend of agricultural production in this country, as shown by the returns which have been published.
This question of prices was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Quibell, on the other side of the House and, as he rightly said, it has particular reference to the problem of the smallholder who starts early and finishes late. I must confess, when I heard him say that, that I began to think possibly the same words might
190
be applied to your Lordships, although I do not think many of us are smallholders! But it has a very particular reference to the smallholder who does lead a hard life—and not only the smallholder, but the small farmer also. The small farmer and the smallholder do need help, and unless the smallholder is helped, and the small farmer is helped, that ladder to higher things which is provided in the Bill will prove to be made of papier maché instead of sound wood.
The only other point I would mention is the question of security of tenure, referred to in Clauses 30 and 31, and to the control generally of tenant farmers through the Bill. It produces what is, in effect, dual ownership. Dual ownership, certainly when it comes to land, and generally in almost any other sphere, is fatal. You fall between two stools. May I say this: it was just that particular fact of dual ownership which led, in the first instance, to the real difficulties over the land in Ireland. In this Bill, unless we are careful, when we come to the Committee stage we shall have the beginnings of dual ownership—the Minister on one side and the owner of land on the other. And unless we are careful, we shall start down the road as they did in Ireland. It was very troublesome there, and it will be troublesome in this country. I will not enter into any other details. I hope that those two points, and particularly the last point, will be borne in mind by His Majesty's Government when we come to the Committee stage. And, if Amendments are moved in order to produce the right results, I hope they will be received sympathetically.
9.0 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, like all noble Lords who have previously spoken, I welcome this Bill as a genuine attempt to lay the foundations of prosperity in the agricultural industry. My only wish is to draw attention to one or two points which have already been made on this Bill, with the object of trying to help to make the foundation more secure. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House referred to the necessity of directions under Clause 95, and he implied, as I understand it, that they were necessary to persuade the rather difficult farmer, who is not farming his land as he should, to grow certain crops, to keep up to date and to take advantage of all the

191
more modern forms of cropping. But surely this is not really the point of Clause 95: that is purely a general direction to the industry that we want more wheat and is an order to the whole industry to grow it, which is a very different thing.
I do not think anybody would quarrel with the idea of directions to the farmer who is under supervision; that surely is covered in Clause 12, which gives the county agricultural committees ample power to give directions to the farmer to achieve those things which the Leader of the House mentioned. But, except in times of emergency, I think that the powers under Clause 95 are, or should be, completely unnecessary. They may be necessary at the moment, and I believe that they have to be approved by Parliament. But they definitely do not meet the case of giving directions to the individual farmer, because you cannot have an Act of Parliament to do such a thing in a specific case.
Another point which the Leader of the House referred to was the right of an heir to take over from his father if his father was dispossessed. The noble Viscount said that was possible under Clause 14 of this Bill. I may be wrong, but on reading Clause 14 I understand that there is there the power to hand over to anybody else a property placed under supervision; but I do not think it covers the case when a man is actually dispossessed. During supervision he can hand over, but not if he is dispossessed. One other point is the question of security of tenure. As has been said before, it is extremely difficult in a Bill to strike a balance between the two sides. There is the necessity for giving security of tenure to the efficient tenant, on the one side; and on the other side there must be the legitimate right, if I may call it such, of the landlord to obtain possession of a farm, for the purpose of farming it or for various other reasons. I think that the balance has been weighted too heavily in favour of, or on the side of, the tenant. No one wants to see the efficient tenant turned out of his farm—that is a thing about which there would be complete agreement by every one of your Lordships. At the moment, too, with the grave shortage of farms to let, the fact that a tenant was turned out might easily mean the loss of his livelihood; he probably could not get another farm. But I am not sure that it may not
192
prove in the end to be rather a boomerang.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hastings said, the ownership of land at the moment is shorn of all the old-fashioned trappings; it is and must be considered as a business proposition. Can the noble Lord honestly say that under this Bill as it now stands, if he obtained possession of a farm, he would be keen and would re-let it without the slightest hesitation? If he lets it he will have practically no control over his tenant. He has almost unlimited liabilities for repairs and improvements. I know that he may appeal to the tribunal over the more serious liabilities, but even without going to the tribunal he can be ordered to carry out extensive maintenance and extensive improvements, with no right of appeal whatsoever. As I think was said by the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, the whole character of his farm may be altered, and he is more or less powerless to prevent it. The tenant may then give a year's notice at any time, and he may be left with a farm grossly over-capitalized for the type of farming which the new tenant wishes to carry on. It seems to me that if a farm becomes vacant there will be a great temptation for the landlord either to farm it himself, and to get some of the halfpennies as well as the kicks under the Bill, or to sell it when he can get vacant possession.
I think that is a point which he would have to consider seriously. If this happens—and I hope it will not, but I think it is a danger—then the tenant farmer, instead of having security of tenure, will be tied to his farm. If there is not a free market in farms and there are not farms to let, then the tenant will tend to become tied to the one particular farm unless he has the capital to buy a farm. He has then to be prepared to take large additional risks, risks over which he has no control. He may not have a lot of capital himself, which means that he probably has to borrow from the bank. He has then to invest this large sum in a farm, and he has little or no control over what happens to it. If farming is bad, his capital will be depreciated. I have bought farms at £9 an acre for which the previous owner had paid £30 an acre. Surely the risk which is obvious there, is not the sort of risk which one wants to increase. One does not want to hit the tenant farmer.
The other possibility is that it may lead to the payment of large premiums for

193
the assignment of leases over which, also, the landlord will have little control. It may so happen—I hope I am being unduly pessimistic and that it will not happen, but there is the possibility—that to rent a farm the farmer will have to pay a large premium to the present tenant. The landlord can do little about it, because if he objects, the present tenant stays put. I hope that my fears are unfounded, but I think that this is a point that should be considered particularly in relation to Clause 31. I do not in any way want to protect the bad land owner or the bad tenant, but I feel that possibly in trying to stop a few abuses the clause may cause hardship for the good owner and the good tenant. I will not detain your Lordships longer. I join with other noble Lords who have spoken in saying that we must make this Bill work well. Indeed, it will be fatal to the prosperity of the countryside and of the nation if it does not do so. Therefore, it must.
9.14 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I would like to join with other noble Lords in all parts of the House in wishing this Bill well. I was particularly pleased, as I think were other noble Lords on this side of the House, to hear the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, Lord Addison, say that he was ready to receive, and he hoped that we would produce, suggestions on our side to make it a better Bill than it is at the moment. I only hope that that means that any Amendments which are put forward on this side in the Committee stage will receive consideration by the Government rather than just be dismissed in a cloak of rather polite but meaningless words, as has happened to Amendments to the Transport Bill.
There is one other general point before I come to a few small points which I have noticed and to which I think it would be useful to draw the attention of the House. The noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, made a rather bland remark to the effect that this Bill was to promote efficiency. What does efficiency mean? It means doing a job properly. And how do you do a job properly if you do not, in fact, belong to one of the four categories that Lord Cranworth mentioned? I believe that even Government Ministers want to be efficient, and you can only be efficient
194
if you have the tools with which to do your job. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will tell us, when winding up this discussion, that there is some concrete scheme to help the farmer and the landowner to get materials and cottages—materials for farm buildings, and such like—so that both farmer and landowner can, with reason, be expected to carry out the obligations which are set out in this Bill. Broadly speaking, the Bill is fair, provided one is given material to carry out its obligations.
I would like to go on to the point that the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Earl Radnor, mentioned—namely, the work of the committees. The whole basis of this Bill and its efficient working will be the committees. It is useless to talk about the Minister doing this and that when it really means it is the committee who ultimately do the job. The people who work it and take the first kick are the committee. The committee are the only people who can make the Bill work or not work, and I think the committee's functions should be clearly stated by the Minister. At the moment they are trying to do three jobs—to advise farmers technically through the N.A.A.S., which is very short of personnel but which I hope will be increased; they are trying to farm themselves, and they are trying to act as contractors.
Their farming has cost a lot of money. Committee farming, with the best will in the world, is extraordinarily uneconomical. Some figures could be quoted—possibly the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, has better access to them than I have. The Minister should say new whether, when this Bill becomes an Act, the committees should confine themselves more to administering this measure, to seeing that farmers, to put it plainly, get a move on and do their best, and to helping with their advisory service and contract work, instead of wasting a lot of time in this uneconomical farming. I do not know whether the food crisis is so near that it is still important to us to produce every sack of wheat, as my committee is doing somewhere in Putney. It is quite true; we have a little area of land in Putney where we are growing wheat at this moment.
I would like to ask a question on the security of tenure. I personally think that is a good thing, but I do not think it

195
matters very much, because, by and large, farmers have security of tenure. If you go about the country you will find landlords who have been there for generations and all of whose tenants have been there for generations. But somewhere the Bill does refer specifically to the question of altering the boundaries of farms to make them more economic propositions than they were before. We have had farms with these boundaries for centuries. How is the provision in regard to security of tenure going to affect the landowner who wishes to take three fields from farmer Jones and give them to farmer Smith, and three fields from elsewhere to give to farmer Jones, and one or other of the parties says, "No, I do not want to give up these fields"? It is a point worth looking into, and I would be grateful if the noble Earl could tell us something about that.
Lastly, the Minister in another place gave thirty-three assurances on various Amendments put forward by the Opposition that he would see that the spirit of the Amendments were carried out on the various occasions that may arise. I personally, and I am sure all noble Lords on this side of the House, have a high opinion of the present Minister, and I think that he is certain to stick by his promise. But I would remind your Lordships that his promise is binding only upon himself, and possibly upon his colleagues in the Cabinet. They may say they were not there, or that he made a mistake. But it is certainly binding on the Minister, and I am sure the present Minister would stick to any obligation he undertook, as also, no doubt, would his colleagues in the Cabinet. But it is only binding on him and on the Government. Noble Lords opposite know that Ministers come and go, and Governments come and go. You might even have a wicked Tory Government again; and we are always told by noble Lords opposite, and by their supporters in another place, that one never knows what those wicked Tories might do. They might completely reverse the assurances of the Minister. I would beg the Government, even for their own well-being, possibly in future elections, to see that these assurances are made part of the Bill. It is a bad thing just to say: "Yes, I promise I will do this," particularly as this is supposed to be a long-term Bill, when you know there is to be
196
somebody who will have to interpret your assurances later on who may not have the same view as yourself.
9.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I would not address your Lordships' House on the subject of this Bill, after so many noble Lords have spoken and covered so much ground, except for two reasons. One reason is that I want to ask a question of the noble Earl who introduced the Bill, which I hope and believe he will be able to answer. The second reason is that I would like to make the point that none of the members of your Lordships' House who has yet spoken comes from the north of England and is so familiar as I am with the conditions which we have there. I make that as a general point, and I would add that I do not propose to be so rebellious as their Lordships from Scotland have recently been on another Bill which we have been discussing. However, I think one cannot emphasize too much how different are the customs and habits, the needs and necessities, and also, thank goodness, the climates of the different parts of this country.
In a Bill of this nature it is important to recognize that. Right through this Bill we must always remember that we come up against differences, many of which are beyond our control, and, therefore, a Bill like this must be—and to some extent it is—adjusted to meet them. The Bill starts with the assumption that it is to create a stable and efficient industry. On first reading that I wondered to myself what is the meaning of this word "efficiency." "Efficiency" is a word which is used in many different senses for a number of different purposes. I remember recently seeing a longish correspondence in the Press discussing our agricultural problems. Some said that what leads to efficiency is the maximum output per man hour; others said it was the maximum output per acre per year; and there were many variations of those proposals. My interpretation of what this word means is that it is not the maximum output which we were forced to have throughout the war, but that it is probably the best way of getting as much output from the land as it will stand over a long period.
Something of that sort would seem to me to be the proper interpretation of the word

197
when used in this connexion. I think it is very important. It ties up, of course, with stability, in the sense of the demand for the total output from agriculture. Although many noble Lords have argued— and I think rightly—that it is not only the price but the long-term demand for the quantity which the agricultural industry needs, we must bear in mind that most important of all is the maintenance of the soil in fertility for a long period, and in such a state that it can continue to give that production. We are all familiar with that, but I do read that in connexion with this statement, and I would like to know from the noble Earl who has introduced the Bill how he himself would interpret it.
On the question of efficiency, we must remember that we may be looking at the production from agriculture in rather a distorted way just now. We are living in a period when shortage of food has upset all the normal systems of supply and demand. During the war we took advantage of the fertility stored in the land for a long period. In the north, at any rate, we were used to raising cattle, and a large percentage of our land was down to permanent grass—perhaps we left it down too long. At any rate, that suited the economics with which we were faced and we were very fortunate because we had those large reserves upon which to draw. That kind of fluctuation may be fortunate when it comes at the right moment, and when war calls for maximum production, but it is that kind of fluctuation we wish to avoid when we talk about stability. I think that rather emphasizes the point that behind the main object of the Bill we must keep in mind the necessity of keeping the land in the right condition for a long period of time.
Further on the point of efficiency, it is difficult to compare what is done with one kind of land, in one climate, with what is done with other land. There is the question of machinery, the size of the holding and the nature of the ground. In some conditions it pays to mechanize to a large extent, and in others it does not. You have to think of the amount of work which can be done with the machinery in relation to the capital you expend on acquiring it; and you have to consider that together with the plan of how you are to work the holding. That is not a simple calculation, nor is
198
it the same calculation for the different systems of farming which we must practice in different parts of the country.
Efficient use of the land depends, it is true, upon the proper maintenance of the buildings and the fixed equipment. A good deal has been said on that point, but I think it might be worth considering for a moment the method of land management which is being adopted in this country in relation to others. The landlord and tenant system was really the basis of modern British farming. Some of the landlords in the old days did a great deal of experimenting, and many of them vied with each other in improving the systems of farming, in educating their tenants and generally taking a lead in the industry. There is no doubt that this was the right way of bringing the industry up to date, and in fact, as your Lordships know, it really led the world at that time. But we have now rather a different situation. The economic forces have influenced people's minds and taken their activities off that kind of work. There has been a lot of talk as to whether it is better to increase the size of holdings and try to farm on a mechanized scale over very large areas, or whether it is better to go to smallholdings and try to farm intensively like some Northern European countries.
I myself believe that a revival of the landlord and tenant system is still what we require, and for this reason. In my experience, at any rate, most of the land varies enormously from farm to farm, and indeed within the boundaries of a farm. I think that our forefathers, by good fortune, generally succeeded in dividing the land into the kind of units that suit the nature of the land itself—some larger and some smaller. In some parts of the country the holdings are small, and in others they are much larger. I believe they did that by trial and error, finding the sort of areas which went together. We must admit that modern machinery does make a difference to it, but I do not think it overrides the fact that we have local variations to deal with. This Bill accepts the landlord and tenant system and seeks to make it more effective—I avoid the use of the word "efficient" because it has, to my mind, a rather different meaning.

199
The alternatives to the smallholding system are contained in this Bill. Up to now, subsidies have been paid to county councils, and that proves that the system, owing to the climate, is less economic in most parts of our country. We have had a lot of experience in this country of the smallholdings and we have found, at any rate in the North, that it is difficult to make them economic. We have had county council holdings over the whole of the country for some time, and before the war interesting experiments were made by the Land Settlement Association, some on the lines of market gardening and horticulture, although I am afraid that the war came too soon to show whether those experiments were to be successful or not.
I think it is wise to put into this Bill the general supposition that smallholders are to be further used in agriculture and trained in agriculture. You may have an opportunity to work up gradually to a larger holding and so on. I think that is wise, and that it will be generally welcomed. In fact that is being done in most countries so far; whether it should have been or not I do not know, but I know the experience of our county smallholdings committee is that men of that type have increased in numbers and they have gradually gone off by taking larger farms in some other place and starting up there. I am convinced that that is perfectly right; but we must recognize the fact that in doing that we are establishing holdings which are, in relation to their area, over-capitalized; and in that sense it follows that we need a subsidy, both from the rates and from the taxpayers' money, with which to do it.
Of course, in thinking of the different systems of land in use and occupation, there is a large body of owner-occupiers who come in somewhere between amongst the landlord and tenant system; it is difficult to compare the two. I suppose you could say that a number of farms together in one ownership would have larger resources, in the sense that the owner of the estate generally has or should have equipment for building and repairs, men permanently engaged on building roads, fences and so on; so that overheads can be sunk amongst a group of farms together. I would like to see provided the stability which is there, and I think we
200
should see an increase in the provision of mechanical and other equipment on estates of a certain size which can be used by the tenants of the estate between them. It used to be a general practice in the past and that was done at a time when the future was fairly certain, when agriculture knew where it was—a good many years ago now. It was done then and, if we can achieve what this Bill is aiming at, I think with the encouragement and easy provision of capital we may see that sort of thing, occurring again. I hope we shall.
Finally, on the point of efficiency, I think we must not forget that the real basis is the knowledge and experience of the man himself. It applies to farmers and it applies under this Bill to officials who will be working on behalf of the Minister, the county committees and Advisory Service. That is one of the really important matters that arise out of this Bill. It is one of the troubles that this Bill brings, because it affects the education and training of a large number of men. The county committees are rather short of qualified staff now. The Advisory Service is just beginning. A few men have been drafted into it, but it is common knowledge that there is need for a great number of really competent men to do this work. Think of the state of technical education to-day. We were rather behind in this country before the war. We are now extending the universities, but it takes a long time. We have had a lot of help from the Ministry of Agriculture in connexion with agricultural education, in the work we have to do and the people we want to train. We have been extremely appreciative; but we cannot get the buildings put up and we cannot get the professors and lecturers to teach the young men and put them through their courses of agriculture. It all takes time. This is not a criticism of the Bill, but a warning.
As regards the education of the farmers themselves, we have in the Education Act a very comprehensive system of further education. We are to have farm institutes and county colleges, and there is to be specialization for men who are undertaking agricultural careers. We want help from the Ministry of Education. In my county we have our development plans at work. What do we do now? The country is faced with many difficulties, and it is obvious that we can-

201
not get buildings put up. We shall not get young men any better educated than they are now until we have the things we need. That is a difficulty we must face. We must hurry as fast as we can, but there is room for anxiety in regard to the working of the new system until it can be adequately staffed, because, as many noble Lords have said, this scheme depends entirely on the agricultural committees; and unless they can get going we may have a good deal of difficulty in working it out.
This is a complicated Bill. Unfortunately everything we do in modern times leads to more complications and confusion. It seems almost impossible to get a simple and straightforward statute which says quite clearly what it means and seeks to do. This is not a criticism of the Ministry, but of the way in which we live and conduct our affairs. I would not attempt to offer any explanation as to why it should be so. There are a number of points mentioned in the Bill to which I should have liked to refer, but they have been well covered already. Clause 31 is a difficult and complicated affair. It contains two cross-currents. One is the difficulty of getting rid of an incompetent tenant. Experience during the latter half of the war and since shows that county committees are not so keen to dispossess a tenant, and I think that will continue to be so in the future. I have a strong idea that the tendency will be for the Minister's power to be exercised in the future. At the same time the power of the landlord to remove an unsatisfactory tenant is a little further diminished. I do not wish to argue this point as to whether the landlord or the Minister should remove an unsatisfactory tenant; but I am convinced that somebody ought to. I hope that we may find a way through this Bill to make it easier to do that.
There is another point which is raised on Clause 31, which is the need of the owner of the land, when it is not vacant or required immediately, to be able to occupy his land at some time in the future, be it for himself or his son, and various other arrangements of that sort. To my mind those are two quite different questions, and I think in discussion we should keep them clear of each other. I would like to refer to the clause in regard to supervision, and I would say, even were it not for the present difficulties, that it would still be rather a short period.
202
However, we shall be discussing that at a later stage in the Bill. There is another point that I think wants a little explanation, and that is Clause 84, which gives the Minister power to acquire land when he thinks it is not likely that it will be reasonably managed and looked after by its present owners. It is intended to operate in various specified districts—the Fens, and particular cases like that.
One can well appreciate the need for it in those special cases, and on that score I do not think one should criticize it; but even though it has what are described as, and what are, safeguards in it, I would suggest that it is drawn in such a way that it can, in the future, be applied to any ordinary agricultural plan. I quite appreciate that that is not intended in the Bill, but I rather think it is possible that it can be read in that way by some malicious person, if such a person ever got into the Ministry of Agriculture. I would suggest that the real intention might be made quite clear. Furthermore, for the sake of the sort of argument which arises on Clause 86—which contains the power, a very necessary power, for the Minister to be able to buy up land or farming units which have been wrongly broken up and to put them together again—the meaning should also be made clear. I think there it can be misunderstood; and the power, again, can be used by a malicious person in the Ministry of Agriculture either for preventing or for considerably delaying ordinary deals which are perfectly proper sales of land and sub-divisions and so on, which often arise in land management itself.
That brings me to the point which has been made more than once but which I think is very important. There is less opportunity than there was before for a landowner to re-arrange the boundaries of his farm. That is a thing which all owners of property are trying to do. A man gives up one farm; you add so much to another, and so on, and it raises the question of giving notice on a small part of a farm and simply paying compensation on that part. People can often do that, and the result is an advantage. I take it that now it would be a case of relying on the county committees to approve actions of that sort. As I understand the Bill, it can then be done. But it will not be any easier. There are enough difficulties in doing that as it is.

203
On the point of the committees, it has not been suggested, but I think it is important, that as they are to be responsible for supervision and management, as well as for the farm, they should have some form of land management committee to help them. They have I think, two members suggested or nominated by the landowners in the county who have to help them with farm matters. The district committees composed of the local farmers in their part of the county, I believe I am right in saying, have no advisory help under this Bill on the question of the management of the land. Not many farmers know a great deal about it. They know what they want with regard to their own buildings, and so on, but they have not the necessary general experience in connexion with the provision of buildings or the arrangements which have to be made in these matters, and although they may be ready with the best will in the world to play their part I think they may be a little at sea. Only people who have been trained as land agents or who have otherwise had experience in the management of estates can really do this work efficiently.
I would suggest that if there is not room for it as a provision in the Bill, there should be arrangements made in some part of the Bill to make it possible for these people to have the benefit of the advice of an advisory committee composed of people in professional practice in their counties—land agents or something of that sort. I am not suggesting that additional members should necessarily be appointed to these bodies, but that these bodies should have the benefit of the advice of professional people who understand the work. For indeed it is very intricate work. I hope that by methods of that sort we can get the flexibility which is required to work this Bill in the different parts of our country, with their varying needs. This can be and should be a very useful measure. Unlike the Bill we have been discussing lately, which seems to me to have been constructed from the top downwards and is therefore likely to fail, this measure appears to have been built on a foundation and to have been built upwards. Its construction seems to be sound because it uses the men in the industry itself to do the necessary work of helping it along. I think that is a very sound and wise
204
policy, and I join with other noble Lords in hoping that it can be evolved into a really useful machine.
9.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, I had prepared a more carefully cooked dish of criticism of this Bill than I am now going to offer your Lordships, as in the last few hours I have been busy collecting crumbs of oratory and ripe wisdom from other mouths than my own. It is not easy at this late hour to go into particular details, and references to clauses of the Bill and schedules have largely disappeared from my revised notes. But I should like to start by acknowledging, as my noble friend the Earl of Radnor has already done, the fact that throughout the course of the construction of this Bill, before it was printed, the Minister and the Ministry have consulted in a very full degree—as I well know, having been one of those consulted—not only with landowners, of whom I was one, but with other parties concerned in the industry. On that, however, I would like to make one reservation. With regard to perhaps one of the most important clauses in the Bill there was not full consultation at the time.
I do not think that anybody, on any side of the House, has risen during the course of this debate without saying that we welcome the Bill and hope that it will work. Of course we do. Our whole hopes for the future of our farms lands, the future of the landowners, the farmers and the workers, depend upon whether this Bill works. And we hope that it will work for another reason. We all know that Mr. Tom Williams, the present Minister of Agriculture—I personally knew him long before he was Minister of Agriculture—has been a consistent follower of the fortunes of the farming world and has been a consistent friend to it. And when the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, gets up and says that this is a Grade A Bill, many of us agree, but those of us who know the very serious dangers which may occur if the Bill goes wrong in any large degree will know that, if your Lordships will forgive my making an atrocious pun, it will be a very "grim and grey" day for agriculture in which there will be no possibility of getting on with the job on the farm.
In so far as this Bill follows the collective wisdom shown in the recommenda-

205
tions of the Royal Agricultural Society of England's conference of 1941 we have no quarrel with it, and many will have no quarrel with it in so far as it follows the recommendations made by the committee of ten Peers of which my noble friend Earl De La Warr was chairman at a later date. But it is impossible, on reading the Bill, not to ask oneself how widely certain provisions have diverged from those earlier almost unanimous forecasts of what should be done. First it is necessary to take the very much wider principle of a secure agriculture as it affects this nation, and secondly, the balance which the quid pro quo gives in questions of land management and good will as it affects particular interests. I do not think there is any member of this House who would deliberately put the sectional above the wider national claim, but none the less it is necessary from time to time, keeping always the widest national claim in view, to consider how particular actions will affect sectional interests to the detriment or betterment of the national interest.
If I may make one digression, I would like to take up the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, on one remark which he made about the raised standard of cultivation in this country, in which he implied, I think (I am open to correction), that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said that there is a serious deficit to be made up in the national efficiency of agriculture. If both my friends on either side of the House meant that in relation to a self-imposed standard, I would most heartily agree, but if they meant it in relation to a general world standard I feel that our farmers have not so much to be ashamed about as those words imply; because though I fully agree that there are better practices in other countries in individual cases, and better conceptions in other countries, by and large our average of production and general efficiency in the face of difficulties, especially in the last seven years, has been such that it would be very hard to find a country in which it was surpassed.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: Perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to interrupt him. I was referring to the average standard of agricultural achievement in this country compared to what was operative half a century ago. I pointed out that, due to the extreme impoverishment of the whole of the industry, there was not as high an
206
average standard of husbandry in this country as we used to have in the old days.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: I am glad the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has said that, because I always yield to him; and certainly in dealing with past history I would not question what he says. I was only questioning the statement in relation to the average standard of other countries abroad. To come back from that digression, I believe that on every side of this House, and in every serious thinking part of the nation which wishes the nation well, there can be no doubt that it is desired that this Bill in all its measures should be finally passed through this House and another place as an agreed non-Party measure. But however non-partisan we all may feel, if this House and this Government insist that certain measures within the Bill go unchallenged and unamended, it may be found that certain parts of the Bill will later be so unworkable that a revision will obviously be necessary to correct mistakes made in all good faith in the Bill. It would be a tragedy if it were necessary to make those corrections (because they may be numerous) as a Party measure and not as an agreed measure on all sides. I do beseech His Majesty's Government to consider anything that may be said in Committee and on Report stage with the object of limiting to the utmost extent the necessity later on, regardless of Party, to correct mistakes which it is impossible to foresee beforehand.
I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Cranworth, who started the fashion of Biblical allusions in this particular debate. In looking at Clause 1, and reading the assurances of what the noble Earl, Lord Cranworth, called the "Apocrypha," I am tempted to think that the voice is the peculiarly silky and downy voice of Jacob, but sometimes the hands are the very hairy hands of Esau and Government bureaucracy. If I may continue the Biblical allusion, so far as I can remember, the incident of the mess of potage preceded the incident of the presentation to blind Isaac. Have we in Part I a mess of potage for which we may all too carelessly have sold our birthright? My noble friend, the Earl of Huntingdon, in his clear, honest, and able speech, said that confidence was demanded by all; and, among other arguments, to show that confidence could be had by all, he

207
said that 75 per cent. of the products of British agriculture were listed in Schedule I of the Bill.
But is a negotiated guaranteed price the only form of security which is necessary for confidence in British agriculture? The noble Viscount, Lord Wimborne, speaking from the Front Bench of another Party—and I am sorry he is not here now and I am open to correction if I am wrong—seemed to imply that we turned to British agriculture as a pis aller, a last resort, because we could not import foodstuffs ad libitum. That is not the spirit in which to approach agricultural production in these Islands if we are to have confidence in future. But, there are other forms of security as well as the security of a negotiated price. Not so very many months ago, at the close of hostilities, we were told that pigs and chickens were necessary for our diet at home, and that we should proceed to breed more pigs and chickens. Many of us did so, but there was no security about the foodstuffs with which we were given to understand we might look forward to receiving to feed our animals. I am not going to explain the reasons—whether they were right or wrong—which led to as complete a volte-face in those days as we had in the Corn Production Acts twenty-five years ago. The fact remains that, whatever we might have expected for our bacon, that security was completely dashed by the lack of food with which to make the bacon.
Many speakers to-night have referred to the fact that horticulture has been left out of Schedule I. I think there are few people who know the conditions in agriculture who would say that the products of horticulture could be included in Schedule I. But we want a feeling of security, as well as the announcement which the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, has made that the Minister of Food is considering marketing schemes, and so forth for agricultural products, however difficult their covering by guarantees may be. I know from a perfectly good authority that lettuce, however small in quantity they may be, are being imported to-day from the United States, the country where we are crying out for dollars. To go back to Biblical references: Let not thy left hand know what the Ministry of Food doeth. It may be that that is a small
208
item, but that anybody could even consider bringing in lettuce from the United States is a bad omen. I have had staying with me recently an Italian who has been busy organizing the import by air of luxury fruits into this country. They are not the citrus fruits which of course we need, but things like cherries and strawberries, which are taking the cream off our own home grown market.
We want something better than that in the way of guarantees. Apart from this, I do feel that there are serious dangers from the international standpoint so long as Part I of the Bill remains drawn as it is. I have not heard any noble Lords touch on this point to-night, and I do so with great diffidence but with a considerable cynicism born of past experience in watching international negotiations. Unless my friend the Minister of Agriculture is tied up as closely as humanly possible to a fully productive agriculture in this country; and unless ministerial assurances have been given by all parties in the Government, it is very difficult, when dealing with foreign negotiations, not to sell your own home agriculture across the seas. I give this as a very sombre warning. It is a most dangerous thing.
If we want foreign exchange or foreign loans from a country which has an agriculture which may compete with ours, can we be certain, unless we are tied to a real, steadfast system of maximum production of what we can reasonably well produce at home, that some Minister, not the Minister of Food but some other Minister, will not say at the last minute (because it will be very hard to resist saying): "Well yes; we will give this up in the national interests; we will not grow any more chickens in this country and we will not make any more cheese because this other country wants, in return for foreign exchange, to have that market for itself." Alternatively, if it is a question of dealing with awkward frontiers or bases for the security of some power whom we want perhaps to appease, or with whom we want, at any rate, to have a friendly attitude and a friendly approach, is it not going to be easy to say: "The British farmer is less important than international peace with that land"? Making that appeasement will not make the slightest difference to international peace or international commerce. Apart from that, I think it will be possible, with the opportunities we have to-day for dealing with

209
gluts in the shape of things like potato meal factories on the one hand or a deep freeze for vegetables and so forth on the other, to get far greater security for many commodities which to-day are very difficult to deal with.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has pointed out, we have also omitted the question of wool. It is not only a question of wool from the Dominions' standpoint. I am convinced, as a man who has tried, off and on, to keep sheep economically in this country, and who has talked to shepherds and hill farmers alike, that wool is one of the key commodities to guarantee, and guarantee if necessary at a high price, in order to make certain that we keep up the sheep population in this country. If we keep up the sheep population, we have the greatest safeguard against waste of grass and crops that we can possibly have. It is the most economical thing that we can do. I have personally worked out in the last few years that, under a wool quota system for instance, you could fix the value of wool to the home-growing farmer at five shilings a pound and not increase the price of a suit by more than one-and-sixpence.
If the policy side of the Bill fails, the machinery still remains. It is no good saying that it will not work, because it will work, but in a very ill-considered and bad way. I myself would therefore have liked to see, as a prelude to this Bill, a full and sufficient policy, a full and sufficient guarantee of production of the ordinary good things that we can produce in this country, preceding Parts II, III, IV and V of the Bill. The dangers in view, with all the good will in the world on the part of the Government and the Minister, cannot be minimized. We must therefore turn our attention to criticizing to some extent the machinery.
In general—because these things have been dealt with in particular by so many speakers—I would only say that the concept of many parts of the Bill is that British farming and British landowning will have virtue instilled into it by bureaucracy, by the Minister's knowledge, the Minister's wisdom and experience, and not by the people in the counties working together on their joint problems. However much may be hoped for from that conception, I am afraid that, so far as I can read experience, it will at best mean
210
only a negative absence of wrongdoing, or at worst, very clever circumvention. Of course, like all responsible noble Lords who have spoken—and I think every one of us can be classed as such—we are for the dispossession of the bad landlord and the bad farmer; there can be no question of that. So far as I am concerned, long before any provisions of this Bill were written I had written it in print.
But I am much more doubtful, having taken that just and right sanction against extreme cases, whether it is right to create that long Bailey bridge between original sin and final damnation, of bureaucracy intervening at every turn. I believe it could have been possible by other means to have created the conditions where responsibility can flourish. Irresponsibility could have been dealt with by relying on that ultimate sanction of dispossession, if you will, with more drastic measures even than are envisaged in this Bill.
If all were well, if it were possible to rely on the best of all possible committees functioning in the best of all possible ways on all occasions, there would be very little harm done by these provisions. Like so many other noble Lords who have spoken to-night. I myself have experience of between seven and eight years of work on these committees, having watched them in other counties than my own; and, though I have nothing in general but the very highest praise, not only for the committees themselves, but for their devoted staffs, I freely at this point confess that in 1939 I had not a very high opinion of the technical staffs of this country. In 1943 to 1947, however, I began to form the highest opinion, not only of their devotion to the cause, but of their practical common sense, after they had had the experience of field work. But, as has been pointed out by many noble Lords, the committees who function must be of the highest order, the cream of the agricultural community. The Minister himself has said the same thing.
The Earl of Huntingdon said it was impossible to overrate the importance of the committees. They are going to be given a task far more invidious in peace-time than it would have been in war—far more invidious in that there are many more opportunities for interference than there ever were before. At the same time, if they are the old members of the committees they will be tired and overworked, if they are young members of the commit-

211
tees they will be busy men who are trying to make their own farms function. As Earl Stanhope has pointed out, it is not going to be easy to get the right committee men. That information is nothing new to His Majesty's Government, because I have personally written screeds on this point in private to them. I think it is going to be increasingly difficult to get the men you want to represent agriculture, if there is to be this constant necessity by Statute to interfere between landlord and tenant.
That is only one side of the question. The other side is the technical staff. In the long run I share the hopes which the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, has expressed on the working of the National Agricultural Advisory Service between the farmers and the scientists, but I think it is only fair to say this: that owing to the necessary Treasury regulations, the National Agricultural Advisory Service to-day is not as good as it would have been two years ago. Many of the best men who helped during the war have left for other reasons, and recruitment has been increasingly difficult.
In the United States I believe that forty-seven out of forty-eight States dissociate their advisory service from the police service completely at the present moment. Whatever may be the future, it is necessary to have the advisory service and the police service mixed up completely at the moment, and there is great danger unless you have men of the highest quality in the National Advisory Service, and they are sufficient in numbers to percolate every district. That, I think, is a grave danger which I think it is only right and fair to point out to the Government. Parts II, III and V constantly call for interference at the county scale, at the committee scale, between owner and tenant, and between the tenant and the carrying out of his ordinary job as a farmer. So it is not easy to see how this is going to be worked, in all good faith, with the present staff.
I think that the county agricultural committees, if I may perpetrate an Irishism, should be the first stage of the ultima ratio regis not prima ratio Regis as they are to-day, because throughout this Bill the curious premise seems to run that the landlord is almost ipso facto a rascal and the farmer is almost ipso facto a fool, and wisdom alone lies in the
212
Minister and his advisers. I know that that is a generalization, but, none the less, if you search through the Bill I do not think you will find that it is such a very unfair criticism. There were, I believe, thirty-four assurances given during the Committee stage in another place that the powers to be given under the Bill are to be used reasonably and wisely. More than one speaker has asked that those assurances, wherever possible, should be written into the Bill, and I join in that request. But is it not the case that assurances of this sort, though meant in good faith as they undoubtedly are, are a little like the assurances of officers in the Indian Army before the mutiny who said "My men would never do that." Or are they not like the assurances some of us have heard from a Master of Hounds who says: "My hounds never run riot, you could cover them with a sheet." As we know when we go out later, changed circumstances sometimes make those same hounds run other game than the fox they are after. You cannot be sure that something totally new, such as the control of the landlord, which, according to my understanding of county committees is very little understood, is going to lead always to the sweet reasonableness which seems to be expected.
If I may I will now come to one short point which was made by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, on Clause 16 (7). It deals with the handing over of land to an heir. The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, said that there was the opportunity, under the Bill to hand over to an heir, and I think he said that there was that opportunity if the owner who is. being dispossessed agrees. But we all know that that will not fulfil the whole programme. Like many of your Lordships, I have had a lot to do with farmers. I know that many of them, when they get old, get very cranky and say that they are not going to be moved, and nothing will get them into agreeing to move until the moment is passed for doing it. That has been one of the tragedies to be encountered in going to see farmers in dispossession cases, and it may perhaps be one of the tragedies in connexion with ownership cases. For that reason we would like to see some form of Amendment introduced, either at the Committee stage or at the Report stage, which would make handing over to an heir possible even when an owner has been refractory

213
up to the last moment, with due safeguards, of course, to ensure that there shall be no evasion, and that the heir is the proper man to carry on.
I do not honestly think you will get happier relations by this constant statutory interference between landlord and tenant. The happiest times between landlord and tenant to which I can cast my mind back were the days in which there were practically no written agreements, and even if there were, nobody paid any attention to them. The days when people were prepared to hold land as a matter of charity and sentiment were not healthy, however fine such a sentiment might have been. But a better business arrangement need not necessarily imply adherence to a legal contract on which there is constant hostile appeal.
On Part IV I have very little to say except that in the last fifty years or more we have not, for various reasons, had anything approaching a peasantry in this country. Part IV, which we all welcome as a great effort to re-establish on a sound basis some form of peasantry in this country, is the small man's chance to rise. But we have so little experience of it—only the Land Settlement's magnificent work. Can we say that the Government alone is the only body capable of managing such an experiment and directing its lines? I believe that if the private landlords and farmers of good will were encouraged to set up suitable smallholdings and to make schemes, we should have the widest flexibility possible; but it is going to be very difficult to do that if (I know this is outside the purview of your Lordships' House) Government finance can only be given to Government sponsored schemes.
One word about that much discussed question of tribunals. I feel with my noble friends who have spoken that a tribunal is very necessary as a court of appeal from the regional tribunals, and that the Government should seriously consider establishing a tribunal of the standing of a High Court to which appears can be made from the regional courts. Clauses 84 to 87 of the Bill I cannot agree are entirely necessary. I would make only one plea: that what is necessary is not so much statutory interference—the less you can have of ith the better—but the recreation of conditions in which men who
214
love the land, be they farmers, farm-workers or owners, can serve it to the best of their ability.
10.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I would first like to fulfil the very pleasant duty of congratulating the noble Marquess, Lord Townshend, on an extremely fine maiden speech. Not only did he impress us with his eloquence but he also showe that knowledge of a practical farmer which will be extremely valuable in our debates in this House. We hope to hear him often again. Next I should like to say how extremely pleased I am, on my own behalf and that of my right honourable friend the Minister, at the very friendly reception that this Bill has been given from all sections of the House. If I may use a Biblical allusion, I came into this House this afternoon feeling rather like Daniel in the Lions' Den, but fortunately the lions have been extremely kind and, although one feels that there may be some constructive criticism awaiting us on the Committee and Report stages, the general principles of the Bill are accepted and agreed. That is very gratifying because—and here I will agree with noble Lords who have already mentioned it—one does hope to keep this measure out of the field of Party controversy.
The hour is getting late, and I do not want to go into details on the Bill. There are, however, one or two points I should like to mention. First, I should like to say that all the points which have been made by noble Lords—some of them valuable points—will be considered seriously by His Majesty's Government, and we will see what can be done, if possible, to increase the efficiency of the Bill. There are various matters which seem to be in some doubt. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, I think I am right in saying, drew attention to the words in Clause 1 of the Bill, "and other agricultural produce as in the national interest it is desirable to produce." That seemed to worry the noble Earl a little. I should like to assure him that there is no sinister meaning in it.
EARL DE LA WARR: It does not mean anything.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: There is no sinister meaning, which I feel that some noble Lords fear. All we mean is

215
that some of our food—citrus fruit is a very good example—must inevitably be produced outside this country, as we have no way of growing citrus fruits on a big scale. This is merely the wording to express what is a very obvious fact. The noble Viscount, Lord Wimborne, in his speech made a very constructive suggestion about a pamphlet. That we will certainly consider. There are other questions which seemed to raise doubts in the minds of your Lordships. One was the question of rent, and I should like if possible to clear that up. There is nothing to stop a landlord from raising his tenant's rent, and should the tenant object to this, there is provision under Clause 35 of the Bill for arbitration. I should like here to point out that rent is one of the factors considered in the February price reviews.
EARL DE LA WARR: May I interrupt the noble Earl? Does that mean that rent is included in the definition of "adequate return on capital invested"?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I do not understand the noble Earl's point.
EARL DE LA WARR: I asked the noble Earl if he could tell us whether in the words of Clause 1, "adequate return on capital invested," he included the capital which resulted in a rent being paid.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Obviously the rent paid would be among the factors giving a return on the landlord's capital. I do not want to pursue this matter, but there are two other points which seemed to cause anxiety. One concerned the emergency powers in Clause 95. The reason for the insertion of this Clause in the Bill is not in case there is another war, because obviously in that event—which we all hope none will ever see—there would have to be all sorts of emergency regulations. But we hope to dispose of Defence Regulations—to do away with them completely. Therefore, we have left in the Bill under this clause powers to deal with an emergency such as exists to-day, where shortage of food is very serious indeed, and when this country has to play its full part. We need agriculture to produce certain foods which are essential. The only reason for this clause is to cover the possibility of such an emergency, so that we do not
216
have to bring in new legislation. There is nothing sinister or difficult in that.
Now the other question was the question of tribunals about which the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, seemed to be rather perturbed. I should like to point out that in the composition of these tribunals, to which all appeals will go, the Chairman of the tribunal will be appointed by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, and the representative farmer and the landlord on the tribunal will be chosen from a panel by the Minister. But that does not mean that they will be under the orders of the Minister in any way. Once chosen they will form part of an independent tribunal which will try the cases. I think some noble Lords had in their minds that the tribunals would be like the committees, that they would be acting under the influence of the Minister, and if they did not carry out the Minister's instructions they would be liable to be given notice and discharged. Of course that is far from the case. The panel members will be absolutely independent just as the Chairman will be independent. We have done our best to try and provide independent judgment on these very vital questions of dispossession.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, made a very constructive speech, and I do not want to pursue him into the question of what is efficiency and what is not efficiency, although we all have our ideas on that subject. I should like to assure him that we will take into consideration his extremely fruitful suggestions. The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, made one or two points about prices which are, of course, very important. I would like to reassure noble Lords once again that horticulture will be studied very closely—we hope to bring security to that very important section of the industry.
The hour is getting very late, and I do not want to go into other points which undoubtedly will be considered in Committee. It has been said that this Bill itself will not produce one bushel of wheat—of course we know that. That can only be produced by the industry, and I should like to assure noble Lords that we do not intend to farm from Whitehall. We want to give as much scope as is possible both to the committees and to the individual farmer. I think one is sometimes apt, in looking at a measure

217
like this, seeing all the responsibilities and the various activities of committees, to feel that all the time they will be watching the farmer, pouncing upon him, directing him, and so forth. Those powers are very largely in the background, and we hope that farmers themselves will take the initiative and choose their own particular crops to grow on their own particular land. We hope too that the industry itself will help to build up a prosperous and happy agriculture, producing in abundance the food which we vitally need to-day. I ask your Lordships again that you give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LORD CROFTON
Petition of Edward Blaise Crofton, Baron Crofton in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the Elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report upon to the House.

PRESTON CORPORATION BILL
Report from the Committee of Selection. That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the Consideration of the said Bill:

L. Monson,

L. Strathcona and Mount Royal,

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

L. Kenilworth (Chairman).

L. Kershaw,

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

CERTIFICATE FROM THE EXAMINERS
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for the following Bill:
BOROUGH OF CROYDON (RATING).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

BOROUGH OF CROYDON (RATING).
[Petition for Bill.]
Examiners' Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders: Referred to the Standing Orders Committee.

  BROMBOROUGH DOCK.
  BROMBOROUGH DOCK.