Sitting of 26 June 1947

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  FELIXSTOWE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
BRIGHTON CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
  MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRACTION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL

    MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LEEDS) BILL
    MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TORQUAY) BILL
    Read the Third time and passed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (GLOUCESTER) BILL,
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TUNBRIDGE WELLS) BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

TRANSPORT BILL (PETITIONS)
Commander Noble: I beg leave to present a Petition, signed by 23,000 persons, who are either stockholders, employees or users of British railways. Your Petitioners believe that the Transport Bill will deprive them of their property without just compensation and will discourage enterprise in the industry. They therefore ask for a full public inquiry before any change is made in the ownership of British railways. The Petition concludes with a Prayer that the Transport Bill may not be passed into law.
Petition to lie upon the Table.
Mr. Vane: I beg leave to present a Petition objecting to the Transport Bill, signed by 23,000 persons, who depend on road transport for their supplies of goods and passenger services. They say they believe that the proposed State monopoly will be less efficient and more costly than the present transport system and ask for a public inquiry into it before the new proposals become law. The Petition ends with the following Prayer:
"Wherefore your Petitioners humbly pray that the Transport Bill may not be allowed to pass into law."
I beg leave to present a further Petition, signed by 164,000 persons, engaged in or using road transport, asking that proposals for the nationalisation of the industry may not pass into law. The Petitioners say they fear that under Government-owned transport services many of them will lose their means of livelihood and that the result will be harmful to the trade and industry of the nation. The Petition concludes with the following words:
"We, your Petitioners, humbly pray your honourable House to reject any proposals which may hereafter be submitted to Parliament for the approval of legislation with the object of replacing private enterprise in the provision of road transport by a nationalised or Government-controlled system of transport, and your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
Petitions to lie upon the Table.
Mr. Bowles: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Am I right or wrong in assuming that the Procedure lays down that in the event of your coming to the conclusion that any Petitions presented to this Honourable House are frivolous you have the right to kick them out?
Mr. Speaker: These Petitions have all been to the Public Bill Office and have been passed. I should be very sorry to abolish what is an ancient right. One may or may not agree with the subject of a Petition, but it is something which every hon. Member has the right, on behalf of his constituents, to present to the House of Commons, and I cherish these traditions.
Mr. Bowles: May I make it quite clear that I was not complaining at all about the presentation of these or any other Petitions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have not said anything to indicate I was. All I was asking was whether or not, in the event of your coming to the con-

653
elusion that any Petition was frivolous, you had the right yourself to kick it out.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not think that I am going to examine every Petition presented before the House. I have an Office which deals with that. If they pass it according to the Rules of the House, I do not presume to say that it is ridiculous or anything of that sort. I really must trust to the good faith of the hon. Member who presents it.
Mr. Mikardo: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Without in any way querying your Ruling, which was welcomed by hon. Members in all parts of the House, may I ask if it is not a fact that in the case of these Petitions with regard to the Transport Bill there are recorded instances that women signed them in the mistaken belief, of which the sponsors did not disabuse them, that they were petitioning for the return of soldiers from the Far East?
Mr. Speaker: I am not aware of that

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  PRISONS

    Farm Work, Leicester
    Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men from Leicester prison are going out to work on farms; what application has been made to him for more labour to be sent from the prison; and when he proposes to send additional help to agriculture.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): At present 30 prisoners from this prison are working on farms. The prison authorities are anxious, if possible, to increase the number of prisoners so employed, and will do so to the extent that men are available who are fit for such work and can be trusted to work outside the prison and that staff is available for their supervision.
    Mr. Janner: Whilst I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask if it is true that the Leicester Agricultural Executive Committee have pleaded for more men; and could he urge upon the authorities at Leicester prison to do
    654
    all they can to send out such men as can be reasonably spared?
    Mr. Ede: The real limiting factor at the moment is shortage of staff. I am desirous, and so are the prison authorities at Leicester, that as many suitable men as possible should be used, but the staff is inadequate.

    Staff, Shrewsbury (Allegations)
    Mr. W. J. Brownasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has completed his investigation into the allegations, sent to him, of serious malpractices at Shrewsbury prison, involving prisoners and staff; and with what result.
    Mr. Ede: Two members of the staff of this prison were convicted at the end of May of offences of trafficking with prisoners which had occurred some months before the publication of the newspaper article to which I understand the hon. Member to refer. The allegations in that article of a smuggling plot carried out on a vast scale by a group of prison officers are without foundation, and the publication reflects most unjustly on the staff of this prison.

    GREYHOUND RACING (MID-WEEK BAN)
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if, in view of the fact that 65,000 spectators recently attended a mid-week motor cycle speedway meeting at Wembley Stadium, where mid-week greyhound racing with much smaller attendances is prohibited, and that on Wednesday, 14th May, 15,066 people attended a football match at Bradford, he proposes to reconsider his almost complete ban on mid-week greyhound racing.
    Mr. Ede: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hynd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the total estimated attendance at the mid-week racing at Ascot last week was about one million, and does he assume that all producers attend greyhound racing and that the people who attend all these other things are non-producers?
    Mr. Ede: No, Sir, there are no greyhounds at Ascot.
    Mr. Hynd: In view of the untenable position of this matter, will the Home Secretary be prepared to receive a deputation about it?
    Mr. Ede: I have received the organisers of greyhound racing in the country from time to time. If they desire to see me again, I am always available
    Sir Wavell Wakefield: Has the Home Secretary any idea what time in the afternoon or the evening these gatherings referred to in the Question took place, and is there any evidence at all that production was interfered with in any way?
    Mr. Ede: No, I could not give an answer to the first part of that supplementary question without notice. I have no doubt that to some extent production was interfered with, but there was a reason why the particular football match was held on that afternoon.
    Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that mid-week evening greyhound racing has been banned in Stoke-on-Trent, but is permitted in Chester, with the result that special omnibuses are being run in the evenings from Stoke-on-Trent to Chester; and if he will review the position in order to allow evening greyhound race meetings in Stoke-on-Trent
    Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I am informed that special licences for bus services have not been issued, or existing licences for tours and excursions used, for this purpose On one occasion 58 persons went under a private hire arrangement.
    Mr. Davies: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask if he is prepared to review this situation in the near future, because it seems there is some discrimination between industrial and non-industrial districts so far as this bar is concerned, irrespective of the merits of it from the point of view of fairness?
    Mr. Ede: I have this matter continually under review, I receive and consider representations from time to time, and I endeavour to act according to the weight of evidence which is placed in front of me.

    CHANNEL ISLANDS (REHABILITATION SCHEME)
    Mr. Baldwinasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are available to an applicant under the Channel Islands (Property) Rehabilitation Scheme where he is not satisfied with the decision of the committee.
    Mr. Ede: The Scheme is financed entirely by local moneys and administered in each Island by a committee appointed by the States of that Island. Any appeal against a decision of a Committee is a matter for the Island authorities to deal with.
    Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware that many of these inhabitants left at a moment's notice to serve in the Armed Forces of the Crown, and that when they returned to the Channel Islands they had to appear before a rehabilitation committee who adopted Gestapo methods? Is there no appeal which can be made to any authority at all?
    Mr. Ede: The appeal is to the Island authorities. These Islands are self-governing.

    EXIT PERMITS, GERMANY
    Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has completed his inquiries into the case in which a married woman of British birth, whose visit from Germany to her sick sister in England he authorised in December, did not receive an exit permit until May; who was responsible for the delay; and whether steps have been taken to avoid similar delays in future.
    Mr. Ede: Although inquiries into this case are not yet complete I understand from my noble Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, that this lady's application for an exit permit did not reach the Entries and Exits Branch of the Control Commission at Dusseldorf until 12th February, that delay then occurred because this Branch was unaware that a visa had been authorised by the Home Office, and that further delay occurred when the application was referred to the Combined Travel Board, the appropriate tripartite authority. My noble Friend is conducting an inquiry in

    657
    Germany with the object of eliminating delays of this kind and evolving a more simple and expeditious procedure.
    Mr. Keeling: As the Home Secretary said a few days ago that the officials in charge of this matter are not under a Minister responsible to this House, will he say whether it is intended to bring them under the control of a Minister responsible to this House?
    Mr. Ede: I and my noble Friend are having the whole of this machinery looked at with a view to ensuring that responsibility should be fixed and such delays as I have detailed in this answer avoided in future.

    PUBLIC MEETING, LONDON (DISTURBANCE)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to statements by the North London magistrate on Monday last, regretting that the police had not arrested a number of Fascist speakers as well as those who had disturbed their meeting and emphasising that the principle of free speech should not be used to create disorder or to insult a body of people; and what action is to be taken against persons or organisations indulging in the kind of provocation referred to by the magistrate.
    Mr. Ede: It is an offence for a speaker at a public meeting to use threatening, abusive or insulting words whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, and it is one of the duties of the police to take proper action for the enforcement of this provision. I share the magistrate's desire that this duty shall be kept constantly in mind.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Is the Home Secretary aware that the Fascists are now holding open-air meetings in Hackney in close proximity to a camp of German prisoners of war, and is that not something which ought to be stopped?
    Mr. Ede: No, Sir, I do not know that one can limit free speech in that way. It depends upon the words that are used, and if words are used that bring people within the penalties of the law, I trust the police will see that the offenders are brought in front of the appropriate tribunals.
    Mr. Quintin Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring the terms of this valuable Statute to the notice of the learned Attorney-General and the Minister of Fuel and Power?

  PUBLIC HEALTH

    Hospital Patients (Children's Visits)
    Mr. Solleyasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that it is the practice at the Orsett Hospital in Thur-rock, in common with many hospitals throughout the country, not to permit children to visit parents who are patients in non-contagious or surgical wards, even if the parents are confined to the wards permanently or for long periods; and what steps he proposes to take to end this practice.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): My information is that children are allowed on visiting days to visit parents who are long-stay patients in this hospital. Visiting in other cases is generally discouraged in order to avoid the risk of infection, the disturbance of other patients, or causing distress to parent? or children.'
    Mr. Solley: Can my right hon. Friend say when it was he got this information, and in respect of the second part of his answer, is it not a fact that many hospitals—for example, in Liverpool—prohibit visits from children and in many cases cause grave distress to parents who find themselves in hospital.
    Mr. Bevan: My information is of the most recent, but I certainly will make further inquiries and find out whether there are less facilities here than in other hospitals. I think the hon. Member will agree, however, that it is necessary to try to avoid infection.
    Mr. Solley

    Local Authorities (Health Committees)
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Health which local health authorities have constituted health committees for the services to be provided in Part III of the National Health Service Act, 1946; which authorities have not yet constituted such committees; and which have prepared proposals for submission.
    Mr. Bevan: All local health authorities, except two, have constituted health committees, and proposals have been submitted for my approval by 25 authorites. I will, with permission, circulate the names of the authorities in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the information referred to:
    (1).Local health authorities which have not yet constituted a health committee—

    (1) Norfolk County Council. This authority, however, has appointed a health services reorganisation committee which is engaged on the preparation of proposals.

    (2) Cardiganshire County Council.

    2.Local health authorities which have submitted proposals under Part III of the National Health Service Act, 1946:

    Section 26. (Vaccination and Immunisation).

    Section27. (Ambulances).

    County Councils.

    County Councils.

    Berkshire

    Berkshire

    Cornwall

    Cornwall

    Isle of Wight

    Isle of Wight

    Oxfordshire

    Oxfordshire

    Radnorshire

    Radnorshire

    Salop

    Salop

    Surrey

    Surrey

    County Borough Councils.

    County Borough Councils.

    Barrow-in-Furness

    Barrow-in-Furness

    Bath

    Bath

    Birmingham

    Bootle

    Bootle

    Brighton

    Brighton

    Burton-on-Trent

    Burton-on-Trent

    Doncaster

    Doncaster

    Gateshead

    Eastbourne

    Hastings

    Gateshead

    Huddersfield

    Hastings

    Middlesbrough

    Huddersfield

    Portsmouth

    Middlesbrough

    Wallasey

    Nottingham

    Walsall

    Portsmouth

    Reading

    Rotherham

    Wallasey

    Walsall

    Local Executive Councils
    Mr. Somerville Hastingsasked the Minister of Health whether, in selecting representatives of the medical profession for the local executive councils under the new Health Act, he is asking for nominations from the medical committees in the various areas and whether he is aware that in not a few of these areas medical committees were elected in 1938 and there has been no election since.
    Mr. Bevan: Appointments of medical members to executive councils are made
    660
    by the local medical committees, and not by the Minister. I am aware that in most areas there have not been elections for panel committees since 1939, and, therefore my recognition of local medical committees for the new service has been provisional.
    Dr. Segalasked the Minister of Health how and by whom, is the chairman of a local health service executive council selected; which local bodies are consulted; and what qualifications are required in assessing suitability for this post.
    Mr. Bevan: Chairmen of executive councils are appointed under the National Health Service Act by the Minister of Health. I am making careful inquiries in each case, but there have been no formal consultations. No particular qualifications can be specified: my object is to get good chairmen.
    Dr. Segal: Is the Minister aware that in at least one area public opinion has been outraged by the appointment of a chairman who has had a pecuniary interest in hospital contracts in the past? Is it already too late to reconsider this appointment?
    Mr. Bevan: I do not know the instance which the hon. Member has in mind, but I would like to point out to him and other hon. Members that in these appointments I am not concerned with party or political considerations, but to get the right kind of chairmen for the bodies who have to do this work. If there is any instance of nepotism, or near nepotism, I would like the hon. Member to bring it to my notice.
    Dr. Segal: May I ask the Minister if he is aware that in this particular instance the chairman has no party attachment whatever?
    Mr. Bevan: I would like, if there is any charge whatever of the kind at which the hon. Member has hinted, to be given specific information, because if it is true, obviously the person is undesirable.

    Nurses (Training Course)
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that a mental nurse of many years experience, who holds the diploma of the Royal Medico

    661
    Psychological Association and who desires to increase her efficiency as a mental nurse by becoming a State-Registered (General) nurse in addition, has to undergo three years' training, whereas an individual who has two years' nursing experience in the Services can take the same examination after one year; and whether he will take steps to reduce this inequality of treatment.
    Mr. Bevan: It is contemplated that this training period will shortly be reduced to two years.

    Ophthalmic Service
    Mr. William Griffithsasked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to ensure that an adequate supply of frames and lenses are available to implement the provisions of the National Health Service Act in relation to the supplementary ophthalmic service.
    Mr. Bevan: I propose to consult with representatives of the industry about the supply of frames and lenses for the National Health Service.

    Medical Profession, Negotiations (Report)
    Dr. Segalasked the Minister of Health whether any interim report will be issued to the House on the progress of negotiations with the negotiating committee of the medical profession; and when this interim report can be expected.
    Mr. Bevan: No, Sir. I anticipate that these negotiations will remain confidential until the outcome is known.
    Dr. Segal: Can the Minister give an assurance to the House that, if at some future date an interim report is received, it will be first circulated to hon. Members of the House, rather than issued for private circulation among the 55,000 medically qualified members of the public ?
    Mr. Bevan: These are negotiations with the profession about the conditions on which they propose to serve in a national service. They do not directly concern hon. Members of the House, except in their medical capacities. For instance, 11 there were negotiations going on between the Government and members of the Civil Service on conditions of employment, the decision would not be first announced to the House of Commons.
    662
    This is essentially a matter for the medical profession in the first instance, and afterwards for the House, if it so wishes.

    Health Centres (Land Acquisition)
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Health to what extent major local authorities are, at the present time, able to acquire land to enable them to build health centres when conditions are more favourable; and whether he will take steps to increase these powers where they are insufficient.
    Mr. Bevan: There are ample powers it Section 58 of the National Health Service Act, but I am advised that these cannot be exercised yet. Provincial authorities can proceed under the Public Health Act, 1936. The powers conferred by the corresponding London Act are narrower, but I fear that I cannot promise legislation to increase them.
    Mr. Hastings: Does my right hon. Friend realise how important it is that sites that are required for health centres should not be lost for all time, because sufficient powers are not available?
    Mr. Bevan: I doubt whether sites are being lost. At all events, it is no use at the moment acquiring them too far ahead of time, because the health centres could not be built at the present time' for lack of building materials and labour owing to the prior claims of housing. Next year the position may be different.

    Drainage Arrangements Martham
    Mr. Medlicottasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the drainage and sewerage arrangements at Martham, in Norfolk, appear to be below the standard aimed at by his Department;, and if he will cause an investigation to be made with a view to recommending some improvements, both of a short-term and long-term character.
    Mr. Bevan: I am aware of the need for improvement. The Blofield and Flegg Rural District Council have prepared a scheme for the area which has been considered by the County Council. I am inviting the former to submit the scheme to me for investigation.

  HOUSING

    Crabmill Lane Estate, Birmingham
    Sir Patrick Hannonasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the condition of families living in the squatters' camp, Crabmill Lane Estate, Birmingham; if steps are being taken to provide alternative accommodation for these families; and if the hutments on the estate will be demolished.
    Mr. Bevan: The Bromsgrove Rural District Council have recently been authorised by my principal housing officer to improve the water supply and sanitation at this camp. In the interest of good local government, I hope also that the council, as the housing authority concerned, will assume full management until alternative accommodation can be found for the occupants. This is not yet available, and it is not at present proposed to demolish the huts.
    Sir P. Hannon: While I express gratitude to the Minister, may I ask him if he will give a more urgent push to the council concerned for the removal of these huts?
    Mr. Bevan: I am very conscious of the situation there, and have actually asked representatives of the authority to see me.

    Unoccupied Premises, West London (Conversion)
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to requisition large unoccupied houses and blocks of flats in West London for conversion into hostels and halfway houses for families made homeless by court orders and notices to quit and who, at the present time, are either accommodated in public assistance institutions, or dispersed amongst already overcrowded relatives and friends.
    Mr. Bevan: Local authorities are already doing this. They have adequate powers, and know my desire that they should press on with the work.
    Mr. Sparks: Is the Minister aware of the continued distress throughout the whole of greater London as a result of families being evicted and that these families are being told by local authorities that there is no hope whatever of
    664
    their being accommodated, which is causing very great distress? Will he give an assurance that his Department will place the maximum facilities at the disposal of local authorities to set up additional halfway houses and hostels for these evicted tenants?
    Mr. Bevan: We are encouraging local authorities to do so in every case which is brought to our notice. Hon. Members know that in London there is a very great difficulty about the conversion of large buildings inhabited by families, which makes great inroads into materials and labour. I am deeply conscious of the difficulties of housing in London, which, indeed, exceed those of any other part of the country.

    Agricultural Workers' Cottages (Grants)
    Brigadier Raynerasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that applications for the financial grant in respect of cottages built privately for essential agricultural workers have been refused on the ground that the cottages carry a service tenancy; and, in view of the acute shortage of agricultural dwellings, if he will take steps to ensure that the building of new ones is not discouraged by any discriminatory ruling.
    Mr. Bevan: No, Sir; it is only cottages carrying a service tenancy which attract subsidy under Section 13 of the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946.
    Brigadier Rayner: Will the Minister agree that private owners only attempt to build agricultural cottages if they are urgently required, and will he undertake that where the grant is refused he will find the cottages in some other way within a period of two years?
    Mr. Bevan: Cottages are being provided in the countryside to a far larger extent than for many years past. But we are not prepared to give public money to subsidise tied cottages.

    Rent Restricted Houses (Repairs)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, owing to the inability of some owners of rent-restricted houses to pay for repairs at the present high costs, there is a danger of

    665
    some localities becoming slums, and of some houses which are to be included in the Minister of Town and Country Planning's lists of buildings of historic or architectural interest becoming uninhabitable through decay; and what action he proposes to prevent this.
    Mr. Bevan: Legislation would be required to amend the Rent Restrictions Acts and I am afraid there is no prospect of this in the near future.
    Mr. Keeling: Will the right hon. Gentleman make any suggestion in the meantime as to how those houses are to be repaired?
    Mr. Bevan: I would like the hon. Member to realise that it was for the first time in the history of Parliament that the Central Housing Advisory Committee was asked to report on the preservation of buildings of historical or antiquarian interest. If there are licences required for those buildings, licences would be forthcoming, but no public money can be found until Parliament has sanctioned it.
    Mr. Janner: Is it not a fact that for many years essential repairs, which have been paid for by tenants under the increase allowed under the Rent Acts, have not been put into operation, and is it not high time they undertook and performed the obligation required of them?
    Mr. Keeling: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Timber Supplies, Blackpool
    Brigadier Lowasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the timber shortage facing contractors for the current housing programme in Blackpool; and what steps he is taking to ensure that sufficient timber is available.
    Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir. There is a general shortage, but every effort is being made to secure more imports, and I expect some improvement in supplies soon.
    Brigadier Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that as far as possible timber importers in the area who have timber available which is about to go to housing contracts are not ordered by the Ministry of Supply to send it elsewhere
    666
    to Government factories, or to transport undertakings ?
    Mr. Bevan: It may often happen that the factory has a priority over the house.
    Mr. Medland: Will the Minister give an undertaking that before this very badly needed timber is sent to towns like Blackpool, "blitzed" cities will have the first call on the timber?
    Mr. Bevan: Plymouth can always be relied upon to make its wants known.
    Commander Galbraith: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the order of priority? Is not housing first priority?
    Mr. Bevan: In some instances, in the development areas, it is rather more important to have employment for people than to have idle people living in houses, and there priority is often given to factories, and I think the House will endorse that.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in one urban district in the same county all progress on houses has been stopped for nine weeks owing to lack of floorboards?
    Mr. Bevan: If housing construction has been held up for lack of floorboards it is because the contractor has ignored the advice I gave many months ago.
    Brigadier Low: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that people who go into these houses built by local authorities are idle people?
    Mr. Bevan: No, but that it often happens that factories have priority over houses.

    Architectural Drawings (Examination)
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that practically every set of ordinary architectural or housing drawings now submitted to Government Departments for approval is examined by not less than four separate groups of Government-employed architects, each group having the right to require alterations; and if he will take steps to end this waste of money and delay caused by this duplication of effort.
    Mr. Bevan: No, Sir. If the hon. Member has particular cases in mind I shall be glad to look into them.
    Mr. Bossom: Is it not desirable that this work should be expedited and that four different groups of Government-employed architects should not have the same privilege to cause delay?
    Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is making an allegation without bringing any evidence in support of it.

    Temporary Houses (Garden Soil)
    Mr. Sargoodasked the Minister of Health whether the circular letter from his Department with the reference No. 2(5)92056/7/110 relating to the pro vision of top-soil for gardens of tenants of temporary houses has been sent to every local authority, or was it addressed only to local authorities in the Metropolitan area; and how many of such local authorities have failed to make use of the opportunity provided by the terms of the letter referred to.
    Mr. Bevan: The letter was sent to local authorities in the County of London, eight of which have so far submitted schemes for approval.
    Mr. Sargood: Will my right hon. Friend consider making special representations to those local authorities which have not yet taken advantage of this circular letter?
    Mr. Bevan: I should certainly make inquiries first to see whether it is necessary.

    Water Pipes, Berkeley
    Mr. Alpassasked the Minister of Health if, in view of the bad housing conditions in many parts of the area concerned and the urgent need for new houses, he will expedite the delivery of pipes necessary for the scheme to supply water to Berkeley, Sharpness and district.
    Mr. Bevan: I am aware of the necessity for providing the Berkeley area with a piped water supply as early as possible and have approved a scheme for this purpose. I understand that the pipe manufacturers are unable to start deliveries before January, 1948, in view of the large arrears of orders. I regret that I am unable to secure earlier delivery.
    Mr. Alpass: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the absence of a water supply has hindered the development of this district, and prevented the building of houses where they are desperately
    668
    needed, and that this scheme is one of the most urgently necessary in the country? In view of that fact, will he be kind enough to look into the matter again to see if he cannot speed somewhat the supply of the necessary materials?
    Mr. Bevan: This district has been waiting for a water supply for many years. My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that it is now about to get it.

  EDUCATION

    Women's Training Colleges (Places)
    Mr. Ralph Morleyasked the Minis ter of Education, in view of the shortage of women teachers, particularly infants' teachers, what steps he is taking to ensure that there are sufficient places at training colleges and university departments to provide for all young women of the necessary standard who wish to train as teachers.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Hardman): The provision of training college places for women is being expanded as rapidly as building difficulties allow, and it will be further expanded when it is possible to use emergency college buildings to provide training of the normal type.
    Mr. Morley: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is alleged that 3,000 intending women teachers have been unable to find places either in training colleges or university departments this year, and by what date does he think that state of affairs will be rectified?
    Mr. Hardman: I can only say that there has been a considerable expansion in the last year or two. When one considers that there was training provision before the war for 4,500, which in 1944 had risen to 5,600, and in 1946 to 7,200, I think my hon. Friend will see that a certain expansion has taken place. We expect the acceleration shown in these figures to continue.

    Fleming Committee (Recommendations)
    Mr. Morleyasked the Minister of Education if he is now in a position to state his policy on the recommendations of the Fleming Committee and the relations betwen the public schools and the State system of education.
    Mr. Hardman: The Fleming Committee recommended that opportunities of education in the public schools should be made available to boys and girls capable of profiting thereby irrespective of the income of their parents. For that purpose they devised two alternative schemes, of which Scheme A was largely adopted in framing the new regulations for direct grant grammar schools. It has not been practicable to implement Scheme B, but I am, nevertheless, anxious that such accommodation as can be made available in independent boarding schools should be at the disposal of local education authorities to supplement the provision which they are, and will be, in a position to make within the maintained school system.
    Mr. Morley: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that no grants will be made out of public funds to public schools unless accompanied by a concomitant measure of public control.
    Mr. Hardman: No, Sir. At the moment I cannot give that assurance.
    Mr. Lipson: Can my hon. Friend say whether the public schools have not, up to the present, offered more places for pupils than local authorities are prepared to take?
    Mr. Hardman: No, I cannot admit that at this stage either. Where there is an opportunity at the present time to take a good form of education where it is available, and local authorities cannot provide boarding provision, I feel that local authorities should have the freedom to take advantage of the type of education available under the independent school system.
    Squadron-Leader Fleming: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why it has not been found practicable to implement Scheme B of the Fleming Committee?
    Mr. Hardman: I cannot give that information this afternoon, but I give an assurance to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this has been looked at very carefully, and it is not practicable at the present time. I am not suggesting that what is being done now is the final answer Personally, I hope it is not.
    Mr. King: Would my hon. Friend consider one recommendation of the Fleming Report and invite public schools
    670
    which offer these facilities to invite one or more representatives of the local authority on to the governing body or council?
    Mr. Hardman: One distinguished public school—Mill Hill—where some 40 places are available to the local authority, is already admitting local authority representation.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Would the non. Gentleman agree that a large number of independent boarding schools have very readily provided places?
    Mr. Hardman: Yes, I do most certainly. A great many have done that, and I gratefully admit it.

    Local Authorities (Boarding Schools)
    Mr. Morleyasked the Minister of Education what steps he is taking to enable and encourage local education authorities to set up their own boarding schools and so obviate the necessity of giving grants to send children to private boarding schools.
    Mr. Hardman: Local education authorities have been urged in Circular 90 and in Circular 120 to provide boarding schools and accommodation in so far as building facilities and other circumstances allow. I do not regard the use of places in independent boarding schools as an alternative to provision by local education authorities, but as a valuable addition to it.
    Mr. Morley: Is it not a fact that very few local education authorities have made provision for boarding schools in their development plans; and has my hon. Friend's Ministry made any representations on that point to the local authorities?
    Mr. Hardman: Every development plan is considered solely on its merits. I am not prepared to admit the statement which my hon. Friend has made, because many authorities have, in fact, made some provision for boarding accommodation. Where Ministerial representations are required they will be made.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say how many such boarding schools are already functioning or are in course of construction?
    Mr. Hardman: The answer is "None."
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Is it not a fact that all building priorities for education up to 1949 are now to meet the raising of the school-leaving age and to reduce the size of classes? Is it not common sense, if boarding school education is to be undertaken at present that the pupils have to be sent to independent schools, although on what basis no one seems to be quite clear?
    Mr. Hardman: It is true that priority No. I is in connection with the reduction of classes and the provision of accommodation for those who will remain at school because of the raising of the school-leaving age.
    Mr. King: While it is desirable that local education authorities should have boarding schools, and that they should be first-rate, is it not equally desirable that all boarding schools should take some quota of State-aided pupils, so that class segregation shall be diminished as soon as possible? Was not that the unanimous recommendation of the labour and trade union representatives?
    Mr. Hardman: I entirely agree with the sentiment expressed.

    New School Sites (Demolitions)
    Dr. Santo Jegerasked the Minister of Education whether, in considering the applications of local authorities for compulsory purchase orders to secure land for the implementation of school building programmes, he will ensure that those cases in which demolition of occupied houses is necessary shall be delayed until housing accommodation is more plentiful and in any case shall not be dealt with before those in which no destruction of housing accommodoation is required.
    Mr. Hardman: In considering proposals to acquire land, whether by agreement or compulsory purchase, my right hon. Friend always has regard to the nature of any buildings already erected on the land. Furthermore, under Defence Regulation 68 C.A., housing accommodation cannot be diverted to non-residential purposes without the consent of the housing authority.

    Vacant School Building, Eastcote
    Mr. Beswickasked the Minister of Education for how long the school build-
    672
    ing in Joel Street, Eastcote, Middlesex, has been vacant; and for what purpose it is intended the school shall be used.
    Mr. Hardman: The Middlesex local education authority purchased these premises in February, 1947, and I understand that they had been vacant for at least a year before that. The authority propose to use the school for seriously crippled children, for whom there is a great shortage of accommodation, as soon as the necessary alterations can be carried out. In the meantime, the-premises may be used as an infants' school.
    Mr. Beswick: What assistance is being given to the local education authority to enable it to make the necessary conversion in this case?
    Mr. Hardman: Every assistance is being given, and it is hoped that the premises will be ready for the use of the crippled children in the last period of 1947, but it is possible that it may be next Easter before the school can be opened.

    Men and Women Teachers (Numbers)
    Mrs. Leah Manningasked the Minister of Education (1) whether he is aware that, in terms of men and women teachers required, there will be 11,500 too many men and 9,000 too few women in 1951; how this disproportion has arisen; and what' steps he is taking to remedy the situation;
    (2) if he has considered the statement made by Dr. Alexander on behalf of the Association of Education Committees to the effect that, unless the school building programme is materially speeded-up, a substantial proportion of the teachers due to be trained during the period 1946–52 cannot be employed; and what steps he proposes to take to meet this situation.
    Mr. Hardman: My attention has been drawn to the statement to which my hon. Friend refers. I should not like to be regarded as committed to the figures quoted by my hon. Friend, but I agree that the increase in the establishment of teachers needed for carrying out the programme of educational reform is likely to be secured more rapidly for men than for women. This is because the increase on the men's side is being secured to a larger extent than on the women's from

    673
    emergency as distinct from normal training. My right hon. Friend will shortly be discussing with representatives of the local education authorities and of the teachers these and other matters affecting future staffing policy.
    Mrs. Manning: Can my hon. Friend give any assurance to these men who, it is asserted, are in excess of requirements, that they will find posts for them when they come out of the training colleges; and could my hon. Friend answer the other part of my Question in regard to how this disproportion has arisen when it has been pointed out to the Ministry over and over again that they were not training enough women?
    Mr. Hardman: In regard to the second part of the supplementary, I would say that we are aware that the implementation of the Act of 1944 requires a very large number and a great variety of educationally trained people, men and women, and we are not prepared to admit that the trained personnel who come from the present schemes will be in excess of our general requirements.
    Mr. Frank Byers: Upon what size of class is the total number of teachers based? If there is a surplus of teachers, will my hon. Friend use that surplus to reduce the size of classes as far as possible?
    Mr. Hardman: The whole question is being investigated. There is an important committee of the Ministry which is going into all these matters and, as I have said, we are consulting the local authorities and the various teachers organisations. We intend that everything shall be' done as quickly as possible to; have the teachers available for a drastic reduction in the size of classes in both primary and secondary schools.

    School-Leaving Age
    Mrs. Manningasked the Minister of Education if he will announce the raising of the school-leaving age to 16 years and the introduction of county colleges by 1952 at the latest.
    Mr. Hardman: No, Sir. I am unable to announce any date by which the draft Order in Council for raising 'he school age to 16 will be laid before Parliament and attendance at county colleges made compulsory.
    Mrs. Manning: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that this would be one of the ways in which the young men from the Forces who are supposed to be in excess of requirements would be reassured that there will be posts for them?
    Mr. Hardman: We are very well aware of this possible way of using in the field of education these people who are coming out of the Forces.
    Mr. K. Lindsay: If my hon. Friend is aware of that but, at the same time, turns it down, could he see that the recruitment of teachers by sex, qualification and numbers has a closer relation to the accommodation which is available and to the number of pupils?
    Mr. Hardman: I am not going to commit my right hon. Friend in turning this particular matter down but, if it is turned down, this will be taken into consideration.

    Pupils' Record Cards, Lancashire
    Mr. Stanley Prescottasked the Minister of Education if he will ensure that the standard record card to be issued by the Lancashire local education authority, or any other local education authority, will not require schoolchildren to render to their teachers confidential reports on their parents or on their home life.
    Mr. Hardman: I cannot conceive that any local education authority would require schoolchildren to render confidential reports on their parents or on their home life. I certainly should not countenance any such action.
    Mr. Prescott: I am very glad to hear the Minister's assurance, but is he aware that a draft got out by one local authority does ask for that very information? If I send him particulars will he investigate the matter?
    Mr. Hardman: If we can have the particulars we shall certainly investigate. As I have said, the Ministry would not countenance such an imposition.

    Graduate and Specialist Teachers
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsayasked the Minister of Education whether his attention has been called to the shortage of science and mathematical teachers in

    675
    secondary grammar schools, of art and domestic science mistresses in girls' secondary schools and to the reluctance of both young men and women to enrol for graduate courses; to what fact does he attribute these shortages and this reluctance; and what remedies does he suggest.
    Mr. Hardman: I am aware that there is a shortage of domestic science teachers and that the number of applicants for training is greatly in excess of the capacity of existing colleges. It is our aim to secure considerable expansion of the training facilities as and when the necessary buildings can be made available. I am aware that there is some shortage of suitably qualified teachers of the other categories referred to, but I have no definite evidence of the extent of the shortage. I know of no reluctance on the part of young men and women to enrol for graduate courses, but the Interim Committee for Teachers is being asked to consider the probable future requirements of the schools for graduate and specialist teachers.
    Mr. Lindsay: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the view of the Barlow Report that it is a very serious thing if we are not going to get the number of scientists coming forward to the universities, through the shortage of highly qualified trained scientists in the grammar and secondary schools of the country?
    Mr. Hardman: Yes. I think one of the troubles is that so many of the highly trained scientists are going to other professional work. Nevertheless, it is the responsibility of the Ministry to see that a sufficient number of them are available.
    Mrs. Manning: Does not my hon. Friend agree that this vicious circle really starts with the number of girls who are allowed to take such subjects as history and English and who never have their minds directed towards the possibilities of scientific work?

    University Students (Grants)
    Mr. Kingasked the Minister of Education what is the number of students at British universities in receipt of financial aid from the State or from local authorities in December, 1939, and December, 1946, respectively; and if he will
    676
    estimate, in the light of the Ministry's present arrangements, the number expected to be in receipt of such aid in December, 1951.
    Mr. Hardman: In December, 1939, 5,554 students at universities and university colleges in England and Wales were receiving direct financial aid from my Department, and about 6,000 were being helped by local education authorities. Many students were receiving help from both sources. In December, 1946, the comparable figures were 20,273 and 7,000. The number of students receiving help from both sources was still considerable, but had been reduced. I regret that I am unable to give a reliable estimate for December, 1951, in view of the many uncertain factors involved.
    Mr. King: Does not that figure of 20,000 represent more than 10,000 persons who are in receipt of F.E. and T. grants? Will not these grants cease in September and will not the position be that the proportion of the persons in universities for whom fees are paid will be diminished by many thousands instead of being increased?
    Mr. Hardman: The answer is that the breaking down of the figure of 20,273 shows: 917 State scholars, 59 Royal scholars and students in science, 4,988 students aided under the regulations for the training of teachers, 570 open scholars and open exhibitioners receiving university supplemental awards, 1,205 State bursars in science, and 12.534 students assisted under the further education and training scheme.
    Mr. King: Is any scheme likely to be announced which will affect those holding F.E. and T. grants which will not now be available?
    Mr. Hardman: The possibility of any alternative scheme being announced is being considered.
    Mr. K. Lindsay: Will all those men who are now serving in the Forces be eligible for these further education and training grants even though the scheme ends in September or thereabouts?
    Mr. Hardman: I cannot commit my right hon. Friend to that point at this stage,, as it is under discussion.

    PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS (SELECTION)
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the great increase in both senior and junior public appointments due to nationalisation and other developments towards public enterprise under the Labour Government, for which he and other Ministers are directly and indirectly responsible, he will give consideration to adopting as Government policy the methods of selection now being developed in large-scale industry, known as scientific selection, which proved of such immense value in both industry and the services during the war, due to the clearly understood principles and practical advantages involved.
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. Most of these appointments are on the staffs of public boards. Selection of staff is a function of management and it will be for the boards to decide what methods to use. In the case of Civil Service appointments, these methods are already being used.
    Mr. Cooper: Would my right hon. Friend have regard to the methods used in making public appointments by the Labour Government of Australia; and further, would he have regard to the methods used in the War Office during the war as a result of the advice given by experts operating under Sir Ronald Adam which gave very fine results?
    Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I am familiar with some of the methods to which my hon. Friend refers. I quite agree that there is something prima facie to be said for them. No doubt the public boards will keep them in mind but it is their responsibility and the Government do not wish particularly to interfere with them. We will keep the point in mind.

  ECONOMIC POSITION (GOVERNMENT POLICY)
  Mr. Osborneasked the Lord President of the Council, in view of the desperate economic position of the country, what steps the Government propose to try next to improve it.
  Mr. H. Morrison: I cannot accept the suggestion that the economic position of
  678
  the country gives cause for despair, and I deprecate the defeatist attitude which seems to underlie the hon. Member's Question. I have every confidence in the capacity of the British people to surmount the difficulties which are facing them in common with most other countries.
  Mr. Osborne: May I first congratulate the Leader of the House on the colour of his tie—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Beswick: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to my right hon. Friend's tie?
  Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but I did not hear what the hon. Member said.
  Mr. Osborne: May I ask the Leader of the House how he can reconcile the answer he has just given with the statement made a few days ago by the Paymaster-General that we were in an "economic jam," and that, if the export drive failed, rations would have to be cut by half? Who is speaking the truth?
  Mr. Morrison: It is not for me to arbitrate between myself and the Paymaster-General, but my hon. Friend tells me that, if his speech had been more amply reported, another impression would have been given.
  Mrs. Jean Mann: Does not my right hon Friend agree that there is still something that could be done to increase production, and that there are a great many people drawing unearned incomes who never worked in their lives and who have no intention of working? Does he not think that it is time that a group of people drawing unearned incomes, who are mostly neurotics, should not only be cured of their neurasthenia, but should be made to help towards the recovery of the country by being forced into productive effort?
  Mr. Speaker: If we pursue that matter further, we shall be getting very wide of the Question.

  EMPLOYMENT

    European Voluntary Workers
    Mr. Prescottasked the Minister of Labour how many European volunteer workers it is proposed shall enter this country within the next six months for employment in the textile industry; and if such persons will be trained operatives.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): I am afraid I cannot forecast how many European volunteer workers among those to be brought to this country during the next six months will be found suitable, with or without training, for employment in particular industries.
    Mr. Prescott: Has not some inquiry been made as to the capacity of these persons, and, if any such inquiry has been made, would not the information asked for be available ?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, Sir, that is quite true, with regard to unattached women, whom we can allocate quite easily and forecast how we can deal with them, but we cannot forecast how many we shall get in the next six months.
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Labour how many European volunteer workers have come to this country since 1st January, 1947; how many have been placed in employment; and at whose expense are the remainder being accommodated in holding camps.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The present scheme for introducing European volunteer workers started towards the end of April. Up to 21st June, some 11,500 had entered this country, and about 3,900 had started work; many more were under submission to employment. Five hundred more arrived on 23rd June. The cost of accommodating them in holding camps until they are placed in employment is borne on public funds.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is it not a fact that the European voluntary workers are not being readily absorbed, and can the right hon. Gentleman give the reasons why.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The contrary is the fact. They are being absorbed at such a great speed as to prejudice our opportunities of resettling the Poles, and there has been a very good reception for them in industry.

    Wool Textile Industry (Part-Time)
    Gammansasked the Minister of Labour to what extent opposition has been made by the trades unions to part time working by women in the wool textile industry; and what steps he is taking to overcome it.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I have no knowledge of any such difficulty affecting the development of part-time working by women in the wool textile industry. On the other hand, there are about 8,950 women engaged on part-time work in this industry.

    Transport Stoppage, Lancashire
    Mr. Prescottasked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the recent strike of transport workers operating road passenger services in Lancashire; and if he has been asked to intervene.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The stoppage of work in certain provincial omnibus services arises from dissatisfaction among the men concerned with a recent unanimous award, relating to conditions of service, by an independent arbitration tribunal mutually appointed by the two sides of the industry. The trade unions have properly accepted this award and are pursuing in a constitutional manner certain issues that have been raised, a special meeting of the National Council for the Omnibus Industry having, been fixed for tomorrow at their request. Meanwhile, it would not be appropriate for me to intervene and I have not been requested to do so. The Government have, however, made it clear that the country cannot afford the dislocation caused by this stoppage, and I am glad to say that a number of the men have already returned to work; those who are still on strike should follow the recommendation of their unions and return to work forthwith.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Whisky Sales (U.S.A.)
    Mr. Bossomasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the revenue he obtains from every bottle of whisky sold in America; and how much from every bottle sold in this country.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): From exports to the U.S.A. we obtain, not revenue, but dollars. On home sales, this excise is 18s. 4½d. a bottle.
    Mr. Bossom: Does not the Financial Secretary agree that a certain relaxation should be made in the matter of supplies of whisky for our own people here, and that it would be a great benefit?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: That, surely, depends upon one's point of view, and also on one's taste.
    Major Bruce: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is high time that we increased the price of whisky to the United States so as to get more dollars?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Surely, we must assume that the distillers who export the whisky to America get the best price they can.
    Mr. Bowles: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that, if we exported to the United States the expected exports at the price we pay in this country, we would make 256 million dollars, which is the same amount as this country spends on tobacco? May I also ask him, since he has just stated that the distillers know their job best, whether it has ever occurred to him to check up on the amount that goes, out of the price at which it is sold to the United States, to the various people who handle it over there, and whether this very valuable and staple export of this country might not be a proper job for bulk selling, instead of leaving it to private enterprise?
    Hon. Members: Nationalisation.
    Mr. Bowles: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter of the failure of the Government to understand the seriousness of the situation on the Motion for the Adjournment on Monday next, when I hope many hon. Members will be present.

    Joint Savings Bank Accounts (Surviving Owner)
    Mr. Granville Sharpasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, on the death of a person who has a joint account in a Post Office Savings Bank, the Inland Revenue Department request the Post Office not to transfer the account to the surviving owner until the deceased person's non-liability to death duties has been established; whether he is aware that compliance with this request, coupled with his Department's delay in establishing such non-liability, causes hardship to many widows who have no other savings; and what action he proposes taking to remove the cause of such hardship
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The object of these arrangements is to safeguard the Revenue. If my hon. Friend will send me particulars of any cases which he has in mind I will have inquiry made.
    Mr. Sharp: While accepting my right hon. Friend's offer to deal promptly with individual cases, may I ask him if he can justify this action of freezing small savings in order to assist the Inland Revenue Department?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: They were not always small. The difficulty has been that, frequently, there were joint accounts of this kind where although one of the persons, in whose names the account was held, died, the other was free to draw out the deposit. We are looking into that matter to see if my right hon. Friend can alter the limit.

    Hungary (Credit)
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons His Majesty's Government propose to loan, or to sanction, a loan So Hungary of £500,000.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Export Credits Guarantee Department agreed to guarantee this credit in order to increase Anglo-Hungarian trade.

    Savings Movement
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied with the present rate of net savings obtained by the National Savings movement.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Not entirely, but we are still at an early stage of the financial year and the chairman of the National Savings Committee assures me that he is confident of reaching his target.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see the unwisdom, and has he not by now observed the result, of linking the national savings appeals to a piece of Socialist Party theory, namely, the four-to-one local authority housing ratio?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I could not for a moment accept what the noble Lord says. As a matter of fact, the facts are directly contrary to the observations which he has made.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will tell us the Business for next Week?
Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir.
On Monday, 30th June—Third Reading of the Electricity Bill, and Motion to approve the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland Transport and Mail Agreement.
On Tuesday, 1st July—Supply (8th allotted Day); Committee. The Ministry of Food Estimate will be considered.
On Wednesday, 2nd July—Supply (9th allotted Day); Committee. The Post Office Estimate will be considered.
On Thursday, 3rd July—Supply (10th allotted Day); Committee. The subject for debate will be announced later.
On Friday, 4th July—Second Reading of the Crown Proceedings Bill [Lords],and further progress will be made with other Bills now before the House.
During the Week we shall ask the House to consider the new Ways and Means Resolution relating to Cinematograph Films, and the Motion to approve the Purchase Tax (Charges) (No. 1) Order.
Mr. Eden: With regard to Supply Day subjects, perhaps it will be convenient to the House if I explain that we intended to ask for the Colonial Office Vote on an early Supply Day, but decided to postpone doing so until the Report on the Colonies had been published, so that hon. Members in all parts of the House could have an opportunity of considering it before we had the Debate. I understand that the Report will be available by the middle of July. Perhaps the Leader of the House will confirm that, or give any other information he can about it
Mr. Morrison: I am advised that the Colonial Office has not published a report of its work since 1939. My right hon. Friend has made a report which is now in the hands of the printer. We think it would be for the general convenience of the House for hon. Members to have an opportunity of studying this document, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, before we debate Colonial affairs. It is hoped that the document will be available to hon. Members early next month, and no doubt the usual channels could make the appropriate arrangements.
Sir Henry Morris- Jones: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the House may have an early opportunity of discussing the Report of the Select Committee on the Members' Pension Fund?
Mr. Morrison: I think it is clear that that Report will require to be considered, at any rate, if there is any difference of opinion about it. No doubt hon. Members have it in their minds, but it is a matter for the House, and not for the Government. The Government will study it, and, possibly, give such guidance as the House might wish to receive We have the matter under consideration. Hon. Members have only just received the Report, and are no doubt considering it. I had the point in mind, and we might have to arrange for a short discussion if that is the wish of the House
Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we may expect the Consolidating Order, which I understand has been promised, knitting together the various Orders which have been issued in connection with Civil Aviation?
Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. This is now in hand and is being done. We hope it will be available at a not distant date.
Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Will the Leader of the House say whether it is the intention of the Government to make any statement on the situation in Rumania concerning which, it is reported in the Press, the Government sent a note to the Rumanian Government yesterday?
Mr. Morrison: I should hardly have thought that came under the Business for next week. If the hon. Member wishes that to be done, perhaps he will communicate with, or put down a Question to, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Sir H. Morris-Jones: May I ask another question about the Members' Pension Fund Report, that is, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when the Government are considering this matter, they will do so in terms of a Motion in order to enable the House to have a wider discussion on it than the terms of reference of the Select Committee's Report? I am sure there is a teeling in many part of the House, especially in

685
view of a recent instance, that this matter should be considered in a much wider aspect.
Mr. Morrison: The Report itself is in pretty wide terms. Therefore, I should think that any Motion relating to it will necessarily be in wide terms, and will keep the matter open for a fairly wide discussion. If a discussion takes place, we shall not resist the idea of it being adequately wide for the purpose.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  7TH ALLOTTED DAY
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1947–48
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a further sum, not exceeding £40,be granted to His Majesty towards defraying the charges for the following services relating to the Board of Trade with particular reference to the production of civilian goods for the year ending on the 31st March, 1948, namely:

  Civil Estimates, 1947–48

  £

  Class VI., Vote I, Board of Trade

  10

  Class VI., Vote 2, Services in Development Areas

  10

  Class VI., Vote 4, Export Credits

  10

  Class X., Vote 1, Ministry of Supply

  10

  40."

  —[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

CONSUMER GOODS (SHORTAGES)
3.36 p.m.
Mr. Medlicott: I am very glad to have this opportunity of initiating a Debate on the subject of the shortage of consumer goods, a subject of primary concern to the Board of Trade. A few months ago, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade was asked in this House whether it was proposed to set up a consumers' council. In reply, he said that the interests of consumers were best looked after by Parliament and by particular associations. Whether in referring to "particular associations" he had in mind the Housewives League is not for me to say, but he was certainly correct when he said that the interests of the consumer are best looked after by Parliament. I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will welcome this opportunity today of discussing a problem which is of widespread interest, and, indeed, of widespread concern—the shortage of consumer goods.
It is rather remarkable that, in spite of a good deal of lip service, the interests of the consumer' are not always dealt with as early and as urgently as they ought to be. It used to be the maxim in business that the customer is always right, but now, it seems, that the customer hardly has any rights. When there is an

687
industrial dispute, the claims of everybody else are examined. The workers, the unions, and the management are all represented, but the consumer just has to wait for his goods until the dispute is over. When there is a transport strike, everybody's interests are debated except those of the passenger for whom the service is provided, and whose money keeps it going. While the dispute goes on, he just has to walk. When the coal industry was nationalised, all the interests, except one, were treated as of great importance. The interests of the miners and of the owners were discussed; the functions of the Coal Board, the machinery of operation, the status of the executives, and the powers of the Minister were all discussed with care, and even enthusiasm. But what about the householders for whom, after all, the coal is largely produced? They have to accept what is sent to them, and if they complain that they cannot burn slate, they find that they are just wasting their time. Therefore, we can well afford a day of Parliamentary discussion in the interests of the consumer as a class because he is a universal class—the category which embraces all classes.
What are the items in respect of which we are concerned about shortages nowadays? I am speaking, of course, of those items for which the President of the Board of Trade is responsible. The list is formidable. In passing, I would say that it is rather irritating when the expression "in short supply" is used. When a mother has hunted in every shop in the town for a baby's milk bottle, it is rather irritating for her to be told that they are "in short supply," because, as far as she is concerned, they are non-existent. At first, I thought I might have to spend some time in compiling a list of the shortages in some detail, but I think the President of the Board of Trade will hardly expect me to go over that ground which must be already far too familiar to him, because in recent months the columns of HANSARD have been full of instances of shortages of all kinds.
Without attempting to do more than select one or two examples, and, of course, leaving on one side the basic shortages of timber, fuel and steel, which are outside the right hon. and learned Gentleman's purview, we have shortages of carbon black for tyre manufacture.
688
soda ash for the manufacture of wool textiles, white lead and glycerine for paint manufacture. Those are only four examples of the many items of raw materials of which we are gravely short. In the realm of agriculture and fishing, the items for which the Board of Trade are responsible again show many shortages. Tractors, farm machinery generally and lorry tyres are among those items. The conveyance of sugar beet depends on the ample supply of transport within certain limited times, and that supply is always in jeopardy each year. The -supply of rubber boots and galvanised buckets is also very limited. In the fishing industry, there is, as we all know, a serious shortage of fishing nets, and the manufacturers are unable to promise delivery for a very long time ahead.
It is when we turn to the home that we find that the shortages are still more widespread and serious. Over the whole range of furniture and clothing, the facts are too well known to need recapitulation. Clothing of every description, and especially nylons, is very scarce. Curtain net, perambulators, blankets, china, glass, pottery, footwear and miscellaneous household commodities have been mentioned in this House in recent months, and, to a large extent, the Minister has been very frank and has accepted the fact that there are serious deficiencies. Indeed, one recent statement made by the Minister is overwhelming proof of this. He said that every month he received from the public—I am not sure if it is 90,000 or 900,000 letters—
The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): The figure is 1,225,000.
Mr. Medlicott: I was almost afraid to quote figures approaching the million mark, but it is indeed a staggering position when the Minister receives over one million letters from members of the public on this problem. One finds, as a rule, that people do not write letters for fun; at least, only a small proportion do so. On the whole, most letters received by Ministers and hon. Members are written with a genuine desire to seek information or to bring forward some bona fide matter. The figure does, indeed, show a very disquieting picture. I am not suggesting that any one of those items in itself is a vital matter. What I suggest

689
is that the cumulative effect is very serious, both from the point of view of public morale and as a symptom of something wrong with the management of our affairs.
I have just returned from a business journey to Belgium, and it was the first time I had been there since I left that country at the end of the war. I was deeply impressed by the difference in the situation today from what it was two years ago. In 1945, the British Forces were living in Belgium on rations, clothing and equipment supplied in great abundance from this country. The Belgians themselves were on short commons. But now the position is reversed, and it is the British visitor who has to ask for cheaper rooms in the hotels and who sees the shops full of those consumer goods which are in such short supply in this country.
Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Could I ask a question? I also have been to Belgium, and I was told by one of our own officials there that the standard of living of the workers in Belgium was lower than in 1939. One must not be deceived by the shop windows.
Mr. Medlicott: That may well be, but, after all, it is the shops from which the consumers obtain their goods. [An HON. MEMBER: "It has the largest black market in the world."] I can only state that in Belgium, without any reference to the black market at all, it is possible to buy a large number of goods which are completely unobtainable here. That is the only point I wish to make, and it is in some respects proof that Belgium has made a quicker recovery than we have. I believe the Belgian war effort was not of the same nature as ours, but she did suffer from occupation. Her economy was disrupted by the Germans. Many of her factories were switched over to processes very different from those of peacetime, and she has had to overcome these difficulties. She has done so in a very interesting way. One is entitled to ask whether it is not due, in some measure, at least, to the fact that her industries and manufacturers have not been subjected to the same amount of Government interference as those in this country
I said that the shortages were bad for morale. I do not wish to exaggerate that
690
aspect of the matter, but it is, nevertheless, a fact. These things do affect the morale of the people in time. We shall, no doubt, be given a large number of reasons for the shortages. We shall be referred to the need of the export trade, as to which we on this side of the House are entirely in agreement. That must be the basis of our return to prosperity. We shall also be told about the financial position, the fuel crisis, the shortage of labour and raw materials, and the magnitude of the task of conversion from war to peace. The most important reason will probably not be mentioned from the other side of the House; that is the crippling effect upon our national economy of the effort to introduce Socialism in our time. Of course, I would hardly expect the Minister to admit that. At one time it used to be said that the Board of Trade was so called because it was not a board and did not do any trade. Nowadays, of course, it does a great deal of trade—or at least it has a great deal to do with trade. There is a distinction. But, without being patronising, I would like to say that the reputation of the Board of Trade and of the Minister in business and industrial circles, stands probably a good deal higher than the reputation of almost any other Minister. That is shown by the answers given in this House to the numerous Questions which are always answered with courtesy and patience.
We are entitled to ask what is the Government's ultimate policy in regard to the trade and business of the nation. Is it doomed to be ultimately strangled by the octopus-like tentacles of nationalisation? Are bulk buying and price control and central direction to be retained as permanent features of our economy? Or is there in due time—but at the earliest possible date—to be a genuine willingness on the part of the Government to restore to British business a real measure of freedom? I mentioned just now some of the many items which are scarce at the present time. They have one feature in common, that in normal and, I think, happier times, they were nearly all the products of British private enterprise; they were the results of the particular genius which the British people have for vigorous and open competition conducted by merchants with the avowed object of making for themselves reasonable profits but, at the same time, providing a wide range of goods

691
for the customers, both at home and abroad, at reasonable prices. I know that to criticise and even to deride British business enterprise, and to attack the profit motive, is part of the normal propaganda of certain sections of hon. Members opposite; although one can welcome the rather more helpful attitude that has been shown by the Board of Trade itself, because, after all, our overseas investments and the favourable balances of trade and the rising standards of life which were built up in prewar and pre-Socialist days were very largely built up by the genius of British merchants and traders, by our inventive genius and by our manufacturing capacity.
Mrs. Braddock: What about the unemployed?
Mr. Medlicott: There is a tendency to put rather too much emphasis on the shortage of raw materials. There is obviously a grave shortage, but it is not the full explanation of the shortage of consumer goods. The problem of labour is equally acute. The President of the Board of Trade himself, at his production conference in January at Bradford, said that there was an overall shortage then of 750,000 men and women in industry, and that the position could not be cured by getting labour from other industries, as that would only create another shortage. I doubt whether that is, in fact, the whole position. I am going to suggest that there is a definite maldistribution of labour, and that the total available amount of labour has not been used for the output of consumer goods to the extent possible. In 1939, there were approximately 3,287,000 people engaged in what can be described as the "consumer industries"—those producing mainly consumer goods such as clothing, furniture, food processing, and the like. But at the present time the number so employed is only 2,836,000, a drop of 451,000. Therefore, there is a reduction of nearly 500,000 workers in the very industries supplying consumer goods, and I venture to suggest that that is a very legitimate and real factor to be taken into account, and to be dealt with by the Minister, I hope, in his reply.
We shall be interested to know what plans the President of the Board of Trade has for this admitted problem of the
692
labour shortage in the very industries with which we are here concerned. I agree that production of certain articles has shown a substantial increase in the last two years. Footwear, cloth for clothing, and certain items of linen and bedding have all shown an encouraging upward trend in 1946 as compared with 1945; but, even so, it is still far behind the demand, and one wonders what is to happen if and when the Government's housing programme gets well under way. We must not spend too much time discussing hypothetical matters, but the time will come when there will be—we hope there will be soon—a great increase in the number of houses, and, therefore, a great increase in the number of young married couples who will set up home for the first time and who will make an enormous demand on the shops for goods generally. Seeing that already the production of goods is so far behind the actual demand, one wonders what plans the President has in mind to deal with that upward jump which will come upon us in due time.
I want to say a word as to the numbers of men and women who are engaged in the entertainment and gambling industries. I am making no criticism of these callings as such. I am as fond of football and of the theatre and the cinema as anybody. But we can hardly claim that we are carrying out a policy of strict austerity when we have, I believe, upwards of 200,000 people—the figure is difficult to ascertain with precision—engaged in sorting out football pool coupons and showing people into their seats at cinemas and theatres.
Mr. Keenan: And training racehorses.
Mr. Medlicott: Yes, and in training racehorses. However, the fact is we have great numbers engaged in providing amusements. While all that is part of the maintenance of morale, there ought to be some limit.
Mr. Richard Adams: What does the hon. Member suggest as an answer to these problems?
Hon. Members: It is the Government's job.
Mr. Medlicott: I was coming to that point. At least, I was going to make a suggestion. Because the idea of the

693
direction of labour is entirely repugnant to this side of the Committee—and, I believe, it is equally so to the other side—I wonder whether all the inducements that would achieve the same end have been thoroughly examined. It would be presumptuous in a private Member to pretend he has a solution to what is an enormously difficult problem. I wonder if the President has conferred with his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the possibility of dealing with this matter by some form of persuasive taxation; whether, for example, there would be objection to allowing higher tax reliefs, or even a lower rate of tax, on earnings in certain selected industries. The fertile geniuses who devised Pay-As-You-Earn could take a problem like this in their stride.
Mr. Beswick: According to the Income Tax returns, there are 250,000 people enjoying an average income of £760 a year, none of whom does any work at all. Would the hon. Gentleman suggest the same kind of persuasive taxation to be applied to them?
Mr. Medlicott: That is already admitted in principle by the existence of the earned income allowance, which has been an accepted feature of taxation for many years past. This further suggestion is going only one step further in the same direction. It would do away with all the disadvantages of the direction of labour. People would be free entirely to choose their callings, but in those callings where they were making a smaller contribution towards national recovery they would be able to make up for that by paying a slightly higher amount of tax. Anyhow, I do suggest that an inquiry into that type of inducement is well worth pursuing, because it is infinitely better to deal with these matters by way of inducement than by way of direction.
I should like to say a few words on the question of substitutes. Here again, some months ago the President of the Board of Trade urged industrialists to use substitutes wherever they could, as long as they were easily available. That was excellent advice. I am wondering whether British manufacturers have been given the opportunity of having access to that remarkable dossier of trade information which was uncovered by the Allied Joint Intelligence Objectives Committee
694
at the end of the war. This dossier comprises several thousand tons of reports, covering over a million different items, and the information in it, containing complete formulae, is available to American industrialists in the American Department of Commerce, and elsewhere in America. In it there are formulae for the manufacture of special types of porcelain and of synthetic mica; the methods of metal fabrication, of needle manufacture, and processes for making ladderless, run-proof stockings; also formulae covering the whole range of liquid and solid fuels, metallurgy, synthetic rubber, textiles, chemicals, plastics, drugs and dyes. All this information is there for examination and use. These processes were developed by Germany in just such a situation as that with which we are faced today, namely, a grave shortage of raw materials. I believe that the American and Russian industrialists are drawing upon this source of information almost daily, and I should like to know whether our manufacturers have been given an equal opportunity of doing this.
Mr. John Lewis: Is not the hon. Member aware that people have been sent to Germany and elsewhere in Europe, and that reports have been published by Government Departments, which are available to manufacturers?
Mr. Medlicott: I am aware of the existence of those reports, but I believe this dossier, which is available in the American Chamber of Commerce, is even more comprehensive—possibly on the technical side—than anything we have yet seen. However, I merely ask for the assurance that in this matter we are at least as well equipped, and that our industrialists will at least have equality of access with their American and Russian competitors.
One further point in regard to raw materials is that this is a moment at which the drive for salvage should certainly be intensified. I will mention only one case, and I make a present of it to the Minister. I understand that every year the people of this country break 150 million milk bottles. I thought at first that the figure was a misprint, but I understand that that is, in fact, the number: 150 million milk bottles are broken every year. That is a staggering figure, and I suggest that the Government should do all they can to revivify the

695
salvage campaign. They should draw the i attention of the public to the way in which small wastages can grow into something really serious; and the co-operation of the public should be invited.
During the war the great question was not so much were we going to win—we felt pretty confident of that—but, "how long is it going to last?" I think the same question is being asked today by many people in regard to this matter of austerity: How long is it going to last? To make a somewhat obvious remark, we are today enjoying a welcome spell of sunshine. In case that seems irrelevant, let me add that there are few things more important to good spirits than the weather. But the time is not far distant when we shall be looking ahead to the prospect of another hard, cold winter. It may be a very hard winter, with queues and also cold winds and all those disadvantages which come with our northern climate.
The British public depend, for their sustenance and comfort, largely upon three Ministers—the Minister of Food, the Minister for Fuel and Power, and the President of the Board of Trade. From the Minister of Food we get courtesy and eloquence, but perhaps not very much in the way of variety or stimulation. From the Minister of Fuel and Power we get a good deal of heat, but very little of it is suitable for domestic consumption. From the President of the Board of Trade we hope to get something today, even if it is only a ray of hope.
I do not believe there is anything fundamentally wrong with this country, except possibly the existence of a Socialist Government. But I do believe that we are a little bit jaded and in need of a tonic. Hon. Members opposite have, very rightly, stressed the importance of the five-day week for workers; and I believe they do that largely because of the tonic effect of the altered and reduced hours of labour. I am not saying whether we agree or not; nevertheless, I think the basis of the five-day week is its tonic effect. One wonders whether the Government realise that the nation at large needs a similar tonic. For eight years now we have lived under conditions of strain and austerity; and even now, two years after the end of the war, for many people life is still drab and somewhat colourless.
696
We on this side of the Committee believe that many of the nation's difficulties are due not entirely to external factors, but to the mistaken policies and ineffective administration of the party opposite. The President of the Board of Trade has jurisdiction over many of those little, things which go to make life comfortable and enjoyable, but we believe that he is handicapped, and gravely handicapped, by the doctrines which he advocates. Within the limits of those self-imposed handicaps, we urge him, in all seriousness, to adjust his policy, so that by giving greater scope to the efforts of British manufacturers and British businessmen there may soon flow into British homes a more ample measure of those goods of which they stand in such urgent and serious need at the present time.
4.12 p.m.
Mr. Osborne: I am very pleased indeed to have been called so early. I have been rather caught on one leg, because I had no idea that I should have the good fortune to catch your eye so soon, Major Milner. The question of shortages is one about which there can be no two opinions. That there are shortages of consumer goods, we all agree. But to realise the extent of those shortages it is necessary, I think, for hon. Members such as the hon.' Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Medlicott) to go to America and to see there the superfluity and abundance of consumer goods in the shops. We have slipped so long and so far that we do not realise how much we have given up of our prewar standards, and it is only by going across to America we can see what life really could be for all classes. [HON. MEMBERS: "In America?"] In America.
Mr. R. Adams Mr. R. Adams rose—
Mr. Osborne: No, I cannot give way. We have to do that to realise how far we have slipped. I was in America for eight weeks and returned about three weeks ago.
Mr. Hobson: You should have stayed there.
Mr. Osborne: One of the astonishing things there is that the country is full of drive, go, and vim. [HON. MEMBERS: "And strikes."] Everybody is enjoying a higher standard of comfort, a standard which I should like to see everybody in

697
this country enjoying. Hon. Members opposite, as is already evident, do not like the comparison between that country and this—
Mr. R. Adams Mr. R. Adams rose—
Mr. Osborne: No. Let me point out to hon. Members opposite, who are so anxious, that in this week's edition of "Time," an American magazine which is a reasonably reliable paper—[Interruption.]Obviously the evidence is not palatable. Their correspondent from Poland says this:
The Polish people are better fed, roughly as well dressed, and almost as well housed as the people of Britain."
The President of the Board of Trade can do what he likes with that. In order to establish how far we have declined, I will read what the President of the Board of Trade wrote in a book, which every Member should read, when he was serving under a distinguished Conservative Prime Minister. He wrote this:
"And look first at the state of our country today, in the closing hours of the greatest world war. There is no unemployment, little or no poverty, and the standard of living and nutrition is higher than ever before the war, because the people can afford proper nourishment."
I challenge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that the conditions today are as good under the Socialist Government as they were when he wrote those words. The consumer goods are not as available in the shops today as they were during the war.
Mr. Douglas Jay: Is the hon. Member aware that the country was then living on Lend-Lease and on charity from the United States?
Mr. Osborne: Is the hon. Member aware that we are still living on Lend-Lease, although it is now called a loan. For an expert, I am surprised at him. If hon. Members opposite want any further evidence of our deteriorated position, they should read their own newspaper. It is stated, in the headlines of this morning's issue of the "Daily Herald," that the T.U.C. have great anxiety that the electricity position will be worse this winter than last winter. I ask the President of the Board of Trade, if the position is worse this winter, whether it is not reasonable to expect that the production of consumer goods will be worse.
Mr. Sparks: No.
Mr. Osborne: I am asking the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Shurmer: Read the article.
Mr. Osborne: We shall, no doubt, have the old excuse from the President of the Board of Trade that there is a shortage of labour and materials. It is a fair excuse.
Mr. Shurmer: It is true.
Mr. Osborne: It is obvious that hon. Members opposite do not like the truth. This excuse has been overworked. I wish to give two examples from my own trade, about which I know just a little, namely, the hosiery trade. In 1937, we were putting men's socks on the home market at the rate of 7.5 million pairs per month. According to the Government's own figures, we are today producing 3.3 million. In view of these figures, can it be said that we are better off? I ask hon. Ladies to take note of my next example. In 1937, according to the Governments figures, we were putting on the home market 25 million pairs of ladies' stockings per month, whereas today we are providing only 9.2 million pairs. That is the first fruits of Socialism, and it is some indication of the present poverty of the Socialist administration.
I will now deal with the excuse that materials as well as labour are causing the shortages. Most of our textiles, as the President of the Board of Trade knows, are made of wool. According to the Government's Statistical Abstract, we have in stock 585 million lbs. of wool. Last month, the consumption of wool for the home market came to 35.7 million lbs., which means that we have 18 months' supply of wool in hand. It is utter rubbish to say that in this trade which affects hon. Ladies so seriously, we are short of raw materials. Nothing of the kind. In addition to this huge supply of wool, the Joint Organisation have something like six years' clip available. Instead of having a shortage of materials we have too much, and therefore the excuse in the hosiery trade does not hold good. I claim that the shortages are due to the mismanagement and misplacement of labour, and the fact that we are not getting more than 65 to 70 per cent. out of the labour we should get.

699
One of my factories, in Leicester, was occupied during the war by the Navy. We have got it back now, and it is practically ready to produce. It employed 550 people before the war. Hon. Members know that the hosiery trade is short of 46,000 women as compared with prewar, so how can we get these 550 workers to start this factory? There is no hope of increasing the supply of consumer goods unless such factories are started again. One of the best-known textile houses in the Midlands told me that their labour force is about 51 per cent. compared with prewar. They did get down to 42 per cent., but by hard work they increased the figure to 51 per cent. There is no prospect at the present time of getting back to 100 per cent.
Mr. Scollan: Bring them up to Scotland.
Mr. Osborne: That is bad Socialist planning.
Mr. Scollan: It is common sense.
Mr. Osborne: Then why do the Government not adopt it?
Mr. Scollan: They are adopting it.
Mr. Osborne: Then why ask the question? Not only have they got only 51 per cent. of their prewar labour, but, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, because the turnover of labour in the textile industry is abnormal, with people coming and going, production is dislocated. Because firms cannot get regular runs they attain only 45 to 50 per cent. production. Are we really short of labour in this country? There are approximately the same number of people in this country as there was before the war. I believe that the real reason is that Socialism will not work; it may be all very fine on paper but it will not work in practice. The two factors which make the economic machine go, are, firstly, the hope of award, and secondly, the fear of punishment. The Socialist Government have tried to take away both of these driving forces, with the result that we are not getting the production.
Mr. Beswick: Are we to understand that the Government are preventing the hon. Member's firm from offering some form of award to these 550 workers?
Mr. Osborne: If the hon. Gentleman will possess his soul in patience, I will tell him. The President of the Board will say to me, "What should be done?"—that is, apart from getting rid of the Socialist Government. The labour force is here, the material is here, the machines are standing idle—why are we not getting the goods? [An HON. MEMBER: "Where is the labour force?"] There are as many people in the country today as there were before the war. The Socialists prefer them to work in football pools instead of making textiles.
What should be done? I suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that there are three things which should be done. First, he should get the workers and the employers together; he should forget the poster campaign, which has failed so badly, and impress on the two organisations the fact that this country is facing a battle of production as important as was the Battle of Britain; and emphasise that if we lose it—and I prefer to believe what the Paymaster-General said, rather than what the Leader of the House said—that we shall be really up against it. If we can only get our people to realise that we are up against it, I think that we shall get the necessary production. What we have to do especially is to say to the men—such as the members of the Railway Clerks' Union who are demanding a 35-hour week, while the women are being asked to do two jobs—"Stop hiding behind the skirts of the women and do an honest day's work." If the President of the Board of Trade could say to the work-people and employers that at the end of 12 months' hard work, shortages would be ended, I think he would get the effort which is needed; he will not otherwise.
Secondly, if we are to get the production we need, we have to alter entirely our basis of taxation. The first thing I would do is to sack the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that his ideas of taxation are too rigid and that he and his policy are the greatest hindrances.
The Chairman: I do not think that taxation arises on this matter.
Mr. Osborne: I must obey your Ruling, Major Milner, but if you will permit me, I will try to establish why this is important.
The Chairman: Taxation is not the point at issue. The question that I have to decide is whether it is relevant within the terms of the matters which we are now discussing.
Mr. Osborne: I am greatly obliged to you Major Milner, and I will try to keep within your Ruling. When I was in America, I found that a knitter could earn 100 dollars a week quite regularly. Over here, if a man earned £8, £9 or £10 a week for doing the same kind of work, he is lucky.
Mr. Rhodes: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us what are the wages of the women?
Mr. Osborne: As far as I can remember, the worst-paid women get 30 dollars and the best-paid about 60 dollars, while a man can get between 50 dollars and 100 dollars plus according to his output; but they get the production because there are incentives and rewards. There is something for them to work for. Over here, we cannot get production because we take away the results of a man's labour. I think that is an essential reason why we are not getting production, and why there is a shortage of consumer goods. For example, a single knitter in one of my factories is now earning £6 a week. If I ask him to work harder, and he gets £10 a week, out of the difference of £4 extra, he pays 30s. in Income Tax through P.A.Y.E., and he says, "Sir, I am not going to do it"; and we cannot get the production. In America, taxation is not so oppressive. It does not start so low and it does not go so high.
If hon. Ladies opposite want the things which we in Leicester produce, they will have to encourage the men to work. It is not only that taxation seriously affects the average working man; it affects administration as well and technical management. The President of the Board of Trade knows full well that management today is perhaps the most vital factor in our production drive. I can give an example to the House in which a job was offered at £8,000 a year to a man in the South of England if he would go to the North—an increase in salary from £3,000 to £8,000—but he would not go. He would not move his place of residence because the difference between £3,000 and £8,000, when he had paid taxation, did not make it worth his while. May I give
702
the President of the Board of Trade another example—he need not shake his head at it, either Recently, a man engaged in producing consumer goods spoke to me about building a new factory. It was to cost him £50,000 to build and equip. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will listen to this. He said that, after consideration, he would not build it because if it were successful, he would get only is in the £ out of what he earned.
The Chairman: The hon. Member is dealing with matters which fail to come within the Board of Trade Vote.
Mr. Osborne: I thought that we were dealing with shortage of consumer goods.
The Chairman: I think the hon. Member is dealing with Income Tax, which is not the real matter under discussion, although it may have some slight and passing relevance to the Vote.
Mr. Osborne: It is not a slight issue; it is a major issue. I think that it is the most vital thing. We are fools not to look at it, if I may say so.
My third suggestion to the President of the Board of Trade is this. I beg of him to suspend for six months the export drive in consumer goods, to put these goods into our own shop windows, and let our people buy them. They will not work harder and produce more goods if they are to have only paper money which they cannot spend. If the export drive were suspended for six months, and the women were allowed to spend their husband's wages, they would see that the men worked harder.
Mr. Shurmer: Let the hon. Member wait until he gets home.
Mr. Osborne: I can only think that the hon. Member suffers very badly at home. I believe that if these three things were done—if restrictions on output were lifted, if taxation were altered, and if consumer goods were put in the shops, we should get the economic recovery. Things would move faster, and I believe that we should get the things which we are now lacking.
Mr. Harrison: Will the hon. Gentleman develop the point about punishment? The hon. Gentleman and I are very good friends, but I would

703
like him to develop the line which he suggests regarding punishment. I am interested personally, and I am sure that the House is interested.
Mr. Osborne: I am afraid that you, Major Milner, would not allow me. I may, however, say this to hon. Members opposite; if we do not have some discipline in our own country, the outside world will discipline us, and I think the President of the Board of Trade will agree with me in that. Finally, when this Socialist Government was returned two years ago with its huge majority, the people of this country, especially the poor people, expected a better and a fuller life.
Mr. Shurmer: They have got it.
Mr. Osborne: They were entitled to expect it, and we hoped, as everyone hoped, that they would get it, but I think this afternoon's Debate has shown that the shortages have deprived them of their hopes. As my last point, I want to quote what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said on page 78 of his remarkably good book. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is it?"] It is "Towards a Christian Democracy," and I advise all hon. Members opposite to read it. He said this, and he might have written it for this Debate:
"Continual professions without performance are the most damaging form of advocacy. It drives people away in a bitter disillusionment, and leaves a vacuum of purpose in their mind which can easily be filled by totalitarianism, materialism, paganism or any other evil idea."
That is the position we are getting into, and unless something drastic is done, as the leader of the I..L.P. said before he died, the people of this country may turn in disgust from Socialism to something far worse on the Left.
4.33 P.m.
The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): It might perhaps be convenient to the Committee if I were to intervene shortly at this stage, though I had hoped that there would be more for me to speak about and answer than has been apparent in the two speeches so far made.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not risen so early in the Debate he might have had a few more arguments to answer.
Sir S. Cripps: As a matter of courtesy to the Committee, I was asked to speak early in order to provide perhaps some further facts. At present the Committee seems to be debating without any facts. [Interruption.]The noble Lord can speak presently if he wishes, I am sure. The facts upon which we are now proceeding seem to me to be of importance. It really is no use comparing this country with America, either before or after the war. Our standards have never been the same as those of America, and we do not expect them to be today. I should have thought that the material comparisons were two, first, what we were able to do before the war in our then position in regard to production, and, second, how far in the last two years since the end of the war we have been able to pick up our production from the point to which it had then fallen. I would like to say a word or two about those two comparisons; but, in making the comparison with before the war, one must also take into account the factors which are making the situation today more difficult than it was before the war as far as consumer commodities in this country are concerned. Of course, the principal factor, obviously, is the difficulty about the balance of payments.
Before the war we were receiving a very large volume of imports annually without having to export anything in exchange for them. It was the result of the past indebtedness of other countries, in the form of dividends or of repayments of capital sums, by which means some £100 or £150 million worth of goods or more were received for which we had to make no payment in return. Now, of course, in order to get that volume of imports, we have to send exports out, and we therefore have a much greater emphasis on the export side of our economy than we had before. We must expect, out of our total production, to have to devote a larger proportion to exports and a smaller proportion to consumer goods at home. Therefore, even if we had fully recovered from all the results of destruction by blitz and everything else during six years of war, we should expect now to find that our standard of consumer goods was considerably below what it was before the war, as we have to send a larger proportion of our goods abroad. That is one of the most important factors to bear in mind when

705
comparing our present position with the prewar position.
There is, however, another very important factor so far as the consumer market is concerned, and that is that there is much greater consumer power today in this country than there was before the war. Hon. Members will recall that there was a large volume of unemployment right up to the autumn of T939, and the capacity to purchase and the standard of goods purchased were both much lower than they are today. It is extremely noticeable in a number of goods, to which I will refer in a moment when I am making a comparison between the two, how much the standard has gone up particularly in all goods relating to children, such as prams, children's clothes, children's footwear and so on. People are not only more careful about their children and more anxious to give them what is best for them; they are also able today to get much more for them than they could in the years before the war. In those circumstances, one would not expect to find the demand satisfied even if we had got back to our prewar volume of production, because the standard of production has gone up. There are, therefore, two factors tending to make the standard of consumption rise above the standard of production, first, the export drive which reduces the volume of production of consumer goods here, and, second, the rise of consumption standards above their prewar level.
Mr. Osborne: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not making allowance for any increase of efficiency during the eight years. Surely he must allow for that factor?
Sir S. Cripps: I am coming to that in a moment; I am talking now about the volume of demand and supply. So far as manufacturing capacity is concerned, two factors have intervened. One is what one would have got to by the normal growth of efficiency in production, and the other is a war for six and a half years, which, so far as civilian industry is conerned, completely stopped any increase in efficiency of production. There has been no opportunity of introducing new machinery, as the hon. Member knows very well, either in the hosiery trade or in any other. It is just beginning to come in now in small quan-
706
tities. Not only that, but there has been very great destruction and dislocation, and it would be a miracle if today we were able, despite six and a half years of war, to point to a normal increase in the last eight years, of productivity. Indeed, any increase at all would be very surprising.
There has also been the dislocation which both hon. Members have mentioned caused by the shift of the working population. Workers were taken out of many of the older civilian industries and were put into the very newest industries, and it is not surprising that they prefer to remain in the newest industries as long as there is work for them. They do not want to go back to the old industries where conditions are very much worse, and that of course is the great difficulty in Lancashire, where a great many new factories of the most up-to-date character in light engineering and similar trades were placed during the war, and where the demand for labour today is still very great. The engineering industry, as hon. Members know, has engaged in it over 300,000 more people than before the war, and those 300,000 have been taken from somewhere else in the course of the war. People were taken from anywhere and put into the industry, and 300,000 of them have stayed in it, although a great deal of the engineering industry still think they are very short of labour because they have got the markets if only they could- supply more.
Taking that situation and those facts, I should like for a moment to see what has actually happened as regards a comparison with prewar production. In a great many things—and I will touch only the major items—it has not been possible either for labour or raw material reasons to increase output to anything like as much as we should like, but there are a considerable number of items where we have gone well above the prewar production already and yet there is still a greater demand than we can satisfy. Take children's and infants' leather footwear, a matter about which we continually receive complaints of shortage. In 1935, which is the only prewar year for which we have figures but which is a normal year, the output was 29.3 million pairs a year, while the current position is an output at the rate of 39.4 million

707
pairs a year. Despite that, there is a shortage—I am not suggesting there is not—but the industry has responded to the extent of 40 per cent. increase over prewar output and still a shortage remains. One must not decry the efforts of the industry simply because there is still a shortage. I should like to make it clear that neither I nor my Department manufactures any of these goods about which we are talking. These goods are all produced by private enterprise, because all industries for which I am responsible are private enterprise industries.
Mr. Osborne: Could we have the figures for men and women's footwear?
Sir S. Cripps: No, I am dealing at the moment with those items of which there is a greater production than there was prewar. It does not apply to men's and women's shoes, because we have concentrated on children's and infants' shoes inasmuch as we regard these as important. Prams and folders are another item about which I am constantly asked questions, and in 1938 output for the home market was roughly 550,000 a year; in April, 1947, output for the home market was at the rate of 669,000 a year. Despite that, there is still a shortage. I could go through a great number of other kinds of goods like electrical goods of different kinds, safety razors, combs, tobacco, lighters, and sports goods, in all of which there is an increase over actual prewar output. That is not an unsatisfactory element. When we are discussing shortages it is just as well that we should see what is on the credit side as well as what is on the debit side, because it is unfair to the workers and people of this country if we stress only the things of which there is an acute shortage, perhaps for some very good reason, and do not stress those things in which production has come along very well owing to a good effort by management and workers alike.
The second comparison I want to make is between the present time and the end of the war. There, of course, one would expect to find very substantial increases, and increases more or less all along the line. That is, in fact, what one discovers. If I may take some of the major items and the percentage change, comparing April, 1947, with April, 1945—April,
708
1947, is the last figure we have—we find these increases: footwear leather—I am referring to all kinds of footwear—48 per cent.; rubber, 614 per cent.; cloth wool, 37 per cent.; non-wool, 48 per cent.; wool blankets, 43 per cent.; hollowware, 71 per cent.; prams and folders, 108 per cent.; and utility furniture, 345 per cent. Those are the increases in the main blocks of production between the present day and the end of the war. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) referred to a passage in a book for which I was responsible, but I think he will see from it that his statement that we were worse off today than we were then was not very accurate. In any class of goods which hon. Members care to take, production today is greater than production was then and greater by a very considerable amount.
Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: We on this side of the Committee are willing to concede the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument that two years after peace was established, consumption of civilian goods is higher than at the end of the war.
Sir S. Cripps: I am glad to hear that, because the right hon. Gentleman's supporter behind him put exactly the opposite argument. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me in something so obvious. If we take these figures—they were all published in detail on 3rd May in the "Board of Trade Journal," and I will not go through them now—they all show this very substantial increase, or a very substantial recovery towards the prewar production of 1938, even where they have not yet reached that figure.
There are certain blocks of goods in which there is great difficulty, principally those which depend upon raw materials from overseas, of which there has been an acute world shortage. These raw materials include hard wood, linseed oil and other matters perhaps of similar but less important character; and, second, those articles for which there is ample raw material, but in which there is in the particular preparatory industry a real shortage of labour which we have not been able to cure. When the hon. Member for Louth spoke of the raw material for the hosiery trade being wool he really meant

709
yarn, and the difficulty, as he knows, is to get worsted yarn and woollen yarn.
Mr. Osborne: But the raw material is there. It is a matter of labour right at the beginning.
Sir S. Cripps: For this industry the raw material is not there, unfortunately, because the yarn is not there.
Mr. Osborne: Because of the labour.
Sir S. Cripps: Certainly, because of the labour. There is ample wool and cotton in the country but that is not the case with rayon. There is not such a supply of wood pulp, but that is another matter.
There are two categories of these extreme shortages, one of them depending upon the capacity to import raw materials, and the other on the capacity to get labour to work the raw material when it comes into this country and so feed many industries which eventually supply the public. As far as the raw material is concerned, we hope that the world situation for those raw materials, of which we have been particularly short, is now improving. As far as hard wood is concerned, there are quite definite signs of a letting up in the market for it, which should enable us to obtain substantially larger quantities in the coming year than we were able to obtain last year. That should enable us to manufacture considerably more furniture, in which trade there is unfortunately short-time employment and unemployment, entirely due to the shortage of hard wood.
Second, as regards the industries in which there is a shortage of labour for work on ample raw material supplies, the worst, of course, are the textile industries which influence a very large number of other industries, which are bound to use different kinds of textile material in the course of their manufacture. We have done our best to assist the cotton and woollen industries to get a greater input of labour, but eventually the task must be upon the employers in those industries to make conditions attractive enough to draw labour to them. As both hon. Members have said, we are not going to direct labour; that is not part of our policy and therefore there must be means by which industries can be made attractive enough to draw the labour to them, whether it be whole-time or part-time, both of which I hope we shall be able to use in all the
710
textile industries. But at the present time, despite the efforts that are being made on all sides—by the trade unions, by the employers, by the Ministry of Labour, by the Cotton Board and by other people—we cannot get the labour that is required. There has been a Very slow improvement over the last year; indeed it has been extremely slow, and not sufficient to give that increase that we want both for exports and for home consumption.
The hon. Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Medlicott) suggested that the morale of industrial production would be improved if the Labour Party were to change its policy—if I may put it in that shorthand way. I suggest to him that that would be the most devastating thing for the morale of the people of this country. One thing that really cheered them up since the war was the last General Election. [Interruption.]I should not mind a bit trying it again tomorrow with the hon. Member—
Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: With the same posters?
Sir S. Cripps: If they used the same posters, I would willingly try, and particularly if they had the same broadcasts. But, after all, whether that be right or wrong, the hon. Gentleman can hardly imagine that his suggestion would be taken seriously by any Government. Having been elected to put through a policy which we believe to be right, it would be wrong for us to adopt the Opposition's policy in any circumstances. We shall, therefore, continue with our policy.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: And lead them to disaster.
Sir S. Cripps: I am quite prepared to take the test of what happens. The real trouble with-the hon. Member for East Norfolk was that he could not suggest anything concrete that he would like to see in this situation. Of course, we should all like people to work harder; anyone can say that. We should all like to get more raw materials if we could buy them, and we should all like to see more goods produced and put in the shops to be distributed at lower prices. All that would be admirable, but having followed his speech very carefully I could not deduce any means by which the hon. Gentleman

711
suggested that this desirable state of affairs could be arrived at.
Mr. Medlicott: The implication of my remarks was that it would result from the change of Government.
Sir S. Cripps: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I thought I was right when I said that that was roughly what his argument came to and that there was nothing more constructive in it. No doubt he will go out into the country trying to get the change of Government, but in the meantime he has no other suggestions to make.
Mr. Medlicott: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's Government is charged with the responsibility of dealing with this problem, and we have played our part by drawing attention to its seriousness.
Sir S. Cripps: If that is all the reason why this day was chosen for the discussion of the shortage of consumer goods, then I am obliged to the hon. Member for the information. I thought that these occasions were generally chosen in order that hon. Members might make suggestions as to what steps could be taken to improve matters.
Mr. Beverley Baxter: Is not the advocacy of a change of Government a policy in itself? When the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a Member of the Coalition Government and a general in the field had done badly, they put him away and appointed a first-class man like Montgomery in his place. I say that that is an act of policy, and that it would be an act of wisdom to turn this Government out.
Sir S. Cripps: I quite appreciate that that is the only policy which the hon. Gentleman has; it is what we call power politics. All he cares about is getting the other side out and getting in himself. He does not mind what he does when he gets in. The hon. Member for Louth raised the question of women's fully-fashioned stockings.
Mr. Osborne: I did not say "fully-fashioned."
Sir S. Cripps: Those are the only kind of stockings to which women pay attention nowadays. The hon. Member said that before the war we were making or
712
using 25 million pairs a month, and that now we were making only 9.2 million. Of course, he knows very well that roughly half of them were imported before the war and that there are substantially no imports today, and that the great difficulty so far as women's stockings are concerned is the shutting off of imports.
Mr. Osborne: The average production in this country was 23 million pairs and imports amounted to 2 millions only, which is not a half. I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not wish to mislead the public.
Sir S. Cripps: What I was pointing out to the hon. Gentleman was that he was talking about the number of women's stockings that were available in this country, which included the imported stockings as well as the manufactured ones. The availability of fully-fashioned stockings actually included 50 per cent. that were imported, and it is not to be wondered at that there is a shortage of fully-fashioned hose today seeing that we import practically none. I am merely explaining to the hon. Member that that is another of the reasons why there may be shortages in particular commodities and that although you may be quite prepared to buy, as far as balance of payments or anything else is concerned, you cannot in fact, get the goods because they are not available—at any rate in the form in which you want them. I do not want to go into any of the further details. I have no doubt that hon. Members will mention certain detailed commodities about which they would like particulars, and my hon. Friend who is speaking later in the Debate will be prepared to deal with any of those special cases. All I can say on the general matter is that we are doing our utmost to stimulate private enterprise, along the lines of those improvements which have been suggested by the various working parties to maximum production.
We hope that as soon as the Industrial Organisation and Development Bill has passed through another place, we shall be able to set up in many industries suitable bodies which will give to industries that degree of stimulation which some of them apparently lack today, and we shall hope that by that process—which can be only

713
a gradual one—by an increase or efficiency in industry, and by an increase of manpower where there is now a deficiency of manpower, we shall be able to climb back to the levels of production which existed prewar, and then go even further above that point so as to satisfy the even larger demand that exists today as compared with prewar. That will be the improvement in the standard of living which we hope to reach.
I cannot hold out to the Committee any hope of an immediate or spectacular change. It is inevitably a slow job. We are still suffering and will continue to suffer for some time from the effects of the war, both in manpower and in materials, and until we have been able to overcome them and to get a much freer supply of commodities and raw materials, which we hope to import, we shall not be able to rectify this shortage in consumer goods. In the meantime, we must maintain as large a volume of exports as we possibly can, in order to maintain the balance of payments. We must, of course, have regard to the needs of our own people in making our volume of exports as large as possible. It is a very difficult balance to strike in all the many articles with which we are dealing. We have to deal not only with things like boots but with all the different qualities of boots, or whatever it might be. We have tried wherever possible to export goods which have the greatest value to us for export and to retain at home goods which have a definite utility value for our people. We have managed in addition to keep down prices, especially of the ordinary commodities which are purchased by the ordinary people, and this has enabled them to buy what is available at a reasonable price.
Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: Could my right hon and learned Friend take the opportunity of dealing more fully with a matter upon which he has just touched—utility clothing. I believe it is of some concern to many manufacturers, who feel it is not worth while to carry on if the utility scheme is to be discontinued.
Sir S. Cripps: There is no question of discontinuing the utility clothing scheme until we get to a very much better standard of supply. Discontinuance would mean an enormous loss in volume of garments, and it would also mean a
714
lowering of the standard of those garments. Therefore there is no intention of any sort to discontinue the scheme. On the main Debate, I hope I have been able to answer one or two of the questions that have been put to me. The Parliamentary Secretary will, I hope, try to answer the rest.
Mr. Medlicott: Would the President of the Board of Trade, before he sits down, deal with the point that I put to him of making available to British industrialists the rather special kind of information to which I referred?
Sir S. Cripps: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. Exactly and precisely the same information as is available in the United States is available to British industrialists through the Board of Trade. In addition to that, there have been published 2,144 reports on specific industries, many hundreds of thousands of copies of which have been sold. They are available in the Stationery Office and if the hon. Gentleman would read those reports I am sure that he would find them interesting and stimulating.
57 P.m.
Sir John Mellor: I wish to refer to the allocation of certain Government-owned factories at Grantham. During the war those factories were occupied by a company known as British Marco. The affairs of that company were investigated by the Public Accounts Committee in 1942 and a Debate took place in the House of Commons on 7th October that year. There was associated with British Marco a company called Grantham Productions, Limited. The hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) was managing director of both those companies. I should like to make it clear that I am not here to attack the hon. Member for Grantham. My target is the President of the Board of Trade. If, incidentally, any facts that I may state should cause any pain to the hon. Member for Grantham, I shall be sorry, but I must not be deterred from my purpose.
Before the end of the Coalition Government, these factories were allocated by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then President of the Board of Trade, to a company named Aveling-Barford, Limited. I should like to state that I have no direct interest whatever in Aveling-Barford, Limited, but

715
bearing in mind the onslaught which was made upon one of my hon. Friends in the early hours of this morning for omitting to disclose that he was a vice-president of a non-commercial body, I should act on the safe side—
Mr. Harrison: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Could the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) inform the Committee in what way the matter to which he is now referring bears upon the question before the Committee?
Sir J. Mellor: I am disclosing what interest I have in this company. It is likely to arise through a shareholding in some other company; thus I may have an indirect interest in the affairs of Aveling-Barford, Ltd. These factories were allocated to Aveling-Barford before the end of the Coalition Government by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then President of the Board of Trade. When the Caretaker Government came in, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) reconsidered the matter and confirmed the decision of his predecessor that the factories should be allocated to Aveling-Barford, Ltd. After the General Election when the Socialist Government came in—
Mr. James Hudson: On a point of Order. Is it in Order, in a Debate upon shortages, for an hon. Member to raise matters concerning one particular firm? Can the affairs of Aveling-Barford, Ltd., or of any other firm be brought before this Committee in all their detail?
The Chairman: This is a Debate on shortages. I imagine that this matter has a bearing upon the subject. The hon. Member is raising the case of a factory and alleging that its allocation was the responsibility of the Board of Trade. It seems to be perfectly in Order.
Sir J. Mellor: The matter I am raising affects the question of shortages. When the President of the Board of Trade Trade assumed office immediately after the General Election, he at first allowed this allocation to stand. Representations were made to him by Grantham Productions, Ltd., and as a result of them he re-opened the matter. In fact. he delegated the decision to his then Parliament-
716
ary Secretary, the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith). The result of the report of that hon. Gentleman was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman changed the allocation. He withdrew it from Aveling-Barford, Ltd., and allocated the factories to Grantham Productions, Ltd. On 19th December, 1946, I asked the President of the Board of Trade why he had reversed the decision of his predecessors in office and—
The Chairman: I assume that the hon. Member intends to relate his remarks to the Estimates now before the Committee, namely, those for 1947–48. So far he appears to be dealing with previous years.
Sir J. Mellor: The allocation of these factories will affect the year under review, and I submit that it is essential to give the history of this matter, otherwise it will be impossible for the Committee to appreciate whether the action of the President of the Board of Trade has been wise or unwise.
The Chairman: I do not quite know what is in the hon. Member's mind. We are mainly discussing the production of civilian goods for the year ending 31st March, 1948. Unless the hon. Member relates his remarks to that question, he will not be in Order. If he assures me that he intends to relate his remarks to that matter, then he will be in Order.
Sir J. Mellor: The allocation of these factories must affect the production of goods in that period. Major Milner. The question arises as to what is to be produced in those factories, and that, I submit, would be in Order. As I was saying, on 19th December, 1946, I asked the President of the Board of Trade:
"Why he reversed the decision of his two immediate predecessors in office that a factory at Grantham should be allocated to Aveling-Barford, Ltd., and allocated it instead to Grantham Productions, Ltd.; and what steps he took to satisfy himself that the latter company had sufficient capital available for the mass production of motor-cars."
The right hon. and learned Gentleman replied:
"of the applicants for this factory, Aveling-Barford, Ltd. at first put forward the strongest case. Subsequently, however, Grantham Productions, Ltd., who were associated with the occupying contractors, supported their claim to retain the factory for peace-time production with evidence of improved financial and productive resources. Having regard to all the circumstances. I

717
decided that Grantham Productions ought not to be denied the opportunity they sought, and that they should, accordingly, be allowed to remain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1946; Volt 431, c. 2149.]
The evidence of improved financial and production resources proved to have misled the President very much because in November, 1946, that company went into liquidation with £250,000 worth of unsecured creditors, including £23,000 due to the Government for P.A.Y.E. At the same time an associated company, called the Coverley-Kendall, also went into liquidation, in this case compulsory liquidation, and severe strictures were made by the Official Receiver on the management which had caused the failure.
The Chairman: I must ask the hon. Member for his assurance that he proposes to relate his long catalogue of events to the production of civilian goods for the year under review. If he is merely going to enter into a catalogue of past events that will not be in Order by itself; he must relate them to the production of goods. Would he give me his assurance on this point?
Sir J. MellonI am relating a sequence of events, and I submit that it would be misleading to the Committee if I gave a part of the story and not the whole.
The Chairman: If the hon. Member will forgive me, it is not a question of sequence of events; it is a question whether he is now leading up to matters coming within the year 1947–48. If he tells me that he is proposing to do that, I shall accept his assurance, but if he is merely entering into a long catalogue of past events, having no relation to the year under review. he will not be in Order. Would he give me his assurance on this matter?
Sir J. Mellor: It is unfortunate that I shall have to cut out a great deal of what I regarded as essential to a clear and comprehensive review of the question.
Mr. Walter Fletcher: On a point of Order, Major Milner. Surely, if the Committee is to be able to take an intelligent view of this matter and if, as a result of this sequence of events, goods were not produced because a factory was allocated to one company rather than another, a description, step by
718
step, of how that deficiency has come about must be in Order.
The Chairman: The hon. Member is probably right, but the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) was entering into a long catalogue of past events. If he tells me that he is leading up to the question of the production or non-production of goods in these factories in 1947–48, I shall accept it.
Sir J. Mellor: Surely, Major Milner, in matters of production steps taken in a previous year, leading up to the non-production of motor cars instead of the production of agricultural machinery, must be in Order.
The Chairman: That question is not in issue. The issue is the culminating effect of those steps. I must dissociate myself from any knowledge of the circumstances of the case, and if the hon. Member will assure me that he proposes to bring to the notice of the Committee, and the President of the Board of Trade, the fact that there has or has not been production of civilian goods in 1947–48, as a result of the events which he is now relating, I will accept that.
Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: Are we discussing the allocation of these factories in 1947, Major Milner?
The Chairman: No; we are discussing the production of civilian goods for the year ending 31st March, 1948. If that production was affected by events in 1946, or in 1945, it would be in Order to relate them.
Sir J. Mellor: I think you will agree. Major Milner, that I am in Order when I say that these factories have been virtually idle since last November. What we are anxious to consider is what their future will be, and I trust that if I stick to that line I shall be in Order. I cut out any references I intended to make to all the discussions which were said to have taken place, and come straight to the occasion when the managing director of Aveling-Barford was invited to go to the Board of Trade, where he saw the Second Secretary. On that occasion he was informed that the factories had been allocated to a group headed by a gentleman named Cotton. That was a very considerable surprise. When this was publicly announced, I

719
asked the President of the Board of Trade the following question:
"For what reasons the factories recently occupied by Grantham Productions, Ltd.—"
Mr. Kirkwood: On a point of Order, Major Milner. Is the hon. Member in Order in saying that he put that question to the present President of the Board of Trade. Was it not put to a previous President of the Board of Trade?
The Chairman: The question which the hon. Member put is not a point of Order—it should be addressed to the right hon. and learned Member now holding the office of President of the Board of Trade.
Sir J. Mellor: I am sorry. I should have said that I asked this Question on 17th June this year. May I repeat the Question? It was to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman:
"For what reasons the factories recently occupied by Grantham Productions, Ltd., now in liquidation, have been allocated to a syndicate headed by Mr. Cotton; and why no application from other companies has been given equal consideration."
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade replied:
"The group in question have acquired the assets of Grantham Productions, Ltd., from the liquidators with a view to continuing the production of the tractors for which those factories are already substantially equipped, and we have accordingly agreed that the allocation should continue to them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June, 1947; Vol. 438. c. 204–5.]
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the allocation was made to this group with a view to their continuing the production of tractors, but during the week before that question was answered, Mr. Cotton, as head of the syndicate, had endeavoured to sell the assets, which he acquired from the liquidator of Grantham Productions Ltd., for £110,000, to Aveling-Barford for £300,000—
Mr. Bowles: On a point of Order, Major Milner. I was wondering whether you would give us some indication about this. This appears to be destroying the Debate, which was to have been a good Debate on the general question, if there is one, of an alleged shortage of goods. May I ask whether the hon. Baronet is in order in dealing with these firms, for it seems to me to be a
720
matter which should be raised on the Adjournment. I wonder whether you would give some indication to the Committee that you deprecate this detailed examination of the activities of one firm or another.
Mr. J. Lewis: Further to that point of Order, Major Milner. Would the hon. Baronet not be quite in Order if he were discussing the shortage of motor cars or tractors and said that that shortage arose as a result of what happened in the past?
The Chairman: I am bound to say that the hon. Baronet seems to be more concerned about relating past events than dealing with the subject before the Committee today. I agree to a large extent with what was said by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles). Is it not possible for the hon. Baronet to curtail his recital and come to the results of those events?
Mr. Kirkwood: On a point of Order, Major Milner. Is it not the case that when you have drawn the attention of an hon. Member to a particular item three times, he is not in Order in proceeding with it. You have drawn the hon. Baronet's attention to this three times. Everybody will support you.
Mr. W. Fletcher: That is an Alice-in-Wonderland argument.
Sir J. Mellor: If you do not wish me to proceed, Major Milner, I shall abide by your—
The Chairman: It is not a question of my wishing the hon. Baronet not to proceed. It is a question of how far he brings his remarks within the purview of the Board of Trade Vote relating to the production of civilian goods which is before the Committee. I believe I have made myself clear. I have also pointed out that the hon. Baronet seems more concerned about relating past events to this subject than in relating the situation in 1947–48 to it.
Sir J. Mellor: I am very much obliged for the way in which you have approached this matter, Major Milner. Perhaps I might explain my point. It is that the Board of Trade have allocated these factories to people who acquired them without any real intention of producing anything and who tried to make a quick profit by acquiring the assets with which, in the view of the Board of Trade

721
apparently, the allocation of the factories must be bound up. Having acquired the assets of Grantham Productions, Ltd., in liquidation, they then tried to dispose of those assets at a considerable profit. Apparently the view of the Board of Trade has been that the factories must follow the assets of the liquidated company. My point is that the President of the Board of Trade should have secured that these factories were occupied by some firm of high standing and experience so that he could rely upon the production of some article which was required and was well proved by experience.
What has happened has been that the President has agreed to the factories passing into the hands of the Cotton Syndicate who purchased the assets of Grantham Productions, Ltd., in liquidation and are not genuine producers at all. For all we know, and for all the Board of Trade know, they have never produced anything. They are just financiers. That was the only reason for my mentioning Aveling-Barford, because they were originally allocated the factories by the two predecessors in office of the President of the Board of Trade. As they were an old-established Grantham firm, they were the obvious alternative. That is the point I wish to pursue, Major Milner. If that is in Order, I hope you will allow me to proceed.
The Chairman: The hon. Baronet is proposing to relate his remarks to the current production of civilian goods from these factories?
Sir J. Mellor: Yes, Major Milner.
Mr. Lyttelton: On a point of Order, Major Milner. Is it in Order to talk about the allocation of factories by the Board of Trade on the Vote we are now discussing? You have ruled, I suggest, that it is a slightly separate question from the manufacture of civilian goods.
The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Motion on the Order Paper has particular reference to civilian goods produced in the year ending 31st March, 1948, but that does not exclude all other matters within the Votes. I think the Debate must also have some relation to the production of civilian goods.
Mr. Lyttelton: With respect, Major Milner, I suggest that the allocation of factories which are not making munitions must come within the terms of the Vote we are now discussing and that the hon. Member is perfectly in Order in criticising the allocation by the President of the Board of Trade to men whom he alleges are not industrialists. I suggest that is in Order. I am trying to be helpful.
The Chairman: I understand that the allocation did not take place in the year 1947–48, and, therefore, however much it may be the responsibility of the Board of Trade, it does not come within this Board of Trade Vote. The hon. Baronet must relate the events to 1947–48. He has done so in a word or two in passing.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): Perhaps I ought to intervene, Major Milner. The allocation to which exception has been taken did take place in the current year.
Sir J. Mellor: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Naturally we were very anxious to discover the identity of the parties to whom these factories had been allocated, and so I asked the President of the Board of Trade this question on 23rd June:
"…if he will identify the members of the group to whom he allocated the factories…"
The reply was:
"Mr. F. Sidney Cotton has represented the purchasers of the assets of Grantham Productions, Ltd., for whom the allocation of the factories is to continue."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1947; Vol. 439, c. 34–5.]
All he said was that Mr. Cotton represented the purchasers. I wanted to know the identity of the purchasers. I am rather doubtful whether the President of the Board of Trade himself knew their identity, except that they were merely represented by Mr. Cotton. It is very important that that should be known. On 24th June I asked a further question as to what experience and financial resources qualified the group for the production of tractors, and the answer by the Parliamentary Secretary was:
"We have had adequate assurances concerning the financial resources of the group…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th June, 1947; Vol. 439. c. 33–4]
He was entirely silent on the point about experience. The point of experience is at least as important as the question of

723
finance, and this goes to justify my point, which is that the Board of Trade allocated these factories to speculators rather than to producers. It is of the utmost importance at the present time that articles of proved capacity should be turned out, but the tractors produced at these factories are virtually untried. I understand they have no novel feature, and, therefore, no special experimental value. The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Dye) last Monday, in a supplementary question to one I had asked previously, called attention to the necessity for the models of any tractors being thoroughly tried out on the farms before they are produced at this or any other factory. It was stated in the "Grantham Guardian" of 20th June—a newspaper which I think is controlled by the hon. Member for Grantham—that:
"Supplies of raw materials have been assured by the only authority in a position to assure them."
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether that is correct, whether any assurance has been given and, if so, out of what allocation will these supplies, which consist largely of steel, have to come. Existing tractor makers are already very short of steel and if their allocation of steel were increased, then, even with the existing resources of labour and space at their disposal, they would be able to increase their output of well-tried and well-known tractors by at least 20 per cent. Representations have been made to the President of the Board of Trade by the Grantham borough council that these factories should pass speedily into firm hands. Why were no alternatives considered? Why did the President consider himself so irrevocably committed to Grantham Productions, Limited, and then to the purchaser of the assets of that company when it passed into liquidation? There is no reason why the factory should follow the assets. I understand there is no lease, but in any case I feel quite certain that if there were a lease or an agreement of any kind, that agreement could not be assigned without the consent of the President of the Board of Trade. I feel certain that a reservation of that character must have been put in any agreement that the Board of Trade made.
Surely, the President should have taken this line: he should have made it perfectly clear to all concerned that the
724
factory would not necessarily follow the assets unless the purchasers of the assets were people who could be relied upon to produce. As it is, he has allowed these factories to become the sport of speculators. His duty is to secure production and I think it is a great pity in this long, sad story that he does not now decide to pocket his pride, cut his loss, and allow the factories to pass into the hands of some competent firm which will make really good use of them.
5.32 p.m.
Mr. Kendall: It is rather unfortunate that this subject has had to be debated today. I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) that it is spoiling the general tone of the Debate. Nevertheless, because of the tremendous publicity in the newspapers recently, I personally welcome this opportunity of clarifying many things that have been printed, and many of the misstatements made this afternoon by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor).
I would like to go back a little over the history of these factories. We built them at Grantham, on behalf of the Government, in 1940. We worked hard on them, we defended those factories, we had great loss of life among our personnel. When the war was coming to an end, I looked around to see what we could do to ensure peacetime production at Grantham. I am sure no one will challenge me on the fact that I was seriously concerned with the prosperity of my own Division, as every hon. Member is concerned today with the prosperity of his constituency. The factory developed tractors, and we worked very hard indeed to produce them. They were a good job and a cheap job. For many reasons that I would like to give—and I am sorry this is not the right time to give them—we were not able to get into production, and we had a misfortune at Grantham which has happened to others—indeed, it is not many years since the farmers themselves were in financial difficulties and somebody came to their help. Nobody came to our help, so we had this misfortune. Eventually, a group came along saying that they would guarantee the continuity of that business. I want to correct the hon. Baronet on this point—we never stopped the production of tractors at any time even during the

725
liquidation period, and we have during the last few weeks, been re-hiring personnel to step up that production.
I would like to correct him on another matter. I have this assurance from Mr. Cotton—and so have the Board of Trade—that he never tried to dispose of the assets of Grantham Productions to Bar-ford's at all, but was given to understand that Barfords had some kind of new small tractors that they purchased from some inventor somewhere, and I believe that Cotton tried to get an amalgamation of interests so that both should be made under the same roof. Cotton did, in fact, reject the offer made by Barford's to himself for the purchase of those assets, and I ask, why do Barford's keep on clamouring for these factories? They have their own in Grantham. It is only a few months since they discharged some hundreds of personnel and they have not re-hired them. They claim they have a tremendous shortage of material; presumably they have not got any more. They were assigned two other factories in Grantham known as Sites 12 and II, 36,000 square feet, where we employed 1,700 people. They have a few workmen there. Why this clamour for these other factories? Surely, it cannot be that they want to get a monopoly of the labour of Grantham. All I and my folk want to do is to ensure that there shall be the fullest employment in the town and a diversity of employment. That is our desire, and I am sure the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield cannot suggest for one moment that I have been in that business at Grantham for the purpose of speculation. On the contrary, I have worked extremely hard there—
Sir J. Mellor: I did not refer to the hon. Gentleman in that connection. I, was referring to the Cotton group, as it is called, whom the President was unable to identify in answer to my Question and to whom he was unable to attribute any experience of production. It was to all those people I was referring as speculators.
Mr. Kendall: That is all very well, but it raises two points. The hon. Baronet, at the beginning of his speech, raised the question of the Public Accounts Committee in 1942. I was involved in that because I over-produced, not because I under-produced. I was criticised by the Public Accounts Committee of that time
726
for having been too good an engineer, doing too good a job, and making too much paper profit. That is what I was criticised for, and I cannot understand the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield suggesting now that I should, by my connection with the Cotton group, have become less of a good engineer than I was before or less of a good production man than I was before. I am still at Grantham when I am not in the House of Commons. That is how I occupy my time—producing and improving those tractors for which we have sales today of something like 35,000 on the order books.
Sir J. Mellor: The hon. Member says he is still their production man. It is rather surprising that when I asked the President of the Board of Trade what experience of production this group had, he was not able to give me any answer, and was not even able to refer to the hon. Member for Grantham.
Mr. Kendall: Obviously I cannot answer for the Board of Trade. They have not invited me to join them. Because of the many misstatements the hon. Member has made, one presumes he has been badly briefed, and here in the galleries are those who are taking a keen interest in the Debate. I do not know whether they have come for a busman's holiday, but it is very significant. I, and a loyal team of men who have stuck by me through all that troublesome period of time, have had the one desire to work hard and to produce badly-needed tractors. The overwhelming material used in the production of tractors at present is ordinary cast-iron, not steel, for which we have a huge capacity, and we have been able to find it in the country through our own ability. If these factories had been assigned to someone else, about a quarter of a million pounds worth of tractor material would have been thrown on to the scrap heap and not used at all, and 150 to 200 personnel would be fired immediately. I draw the attention of the Committee to this. I am not being mean or nasty, but not one single man to my knowledge who had to be fired during the liquidation period was hired by the Bar-ford Company. They said: "Where do you come from"? and if the answer was "Grantham Products," they were told "We are not interested." Hundreds of men are having to leave Grantham and

727
go out of town. It is my job, not only as an ex-employer of labour, but also as Member for the Division, to do my very utmost to ensure that there shall be a job of work for all who wish to work in that Division.
I am sorry I have to stand on my feet and say these things, from a personal standpoint, but I. welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has found this occasion to raise this subject, because the thing which has done us so much harm in recent months has been newspaper publicity. It has put off many folks who were coming into this job, not only to ensure immediate success, but to ensure that we should branch out and "go to town" on this job. I am sure this Debate will stop that kind of publicity which has gone on in the last few days so that we can get down to business, and stop the silly business of who is to get what. We have been assigned the factories and we want to work in them.
5.43 p.m.
Mr. Maurice Webb: I do not propose to make any comment on the issue which has been raised, except to say that I think it is a very great pity it has been brought before the Committee this afternoon. It may well be that it is a matter which should be investigated by the Committee, but I think it is inappropriate that it should have diverted us from the very important question of the supply of civilian goods.
Sir J. Mellor: If the hon. Member agrees that this is a matter which probably ought to be investigated, will he say what opportunity I should take to raise it, if not now?
Mr. Webb: It is not my business to advise the hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) how to raise these matters. I would merely say that if I had an important matter of that kind to raise, I would probably raise it on the Adjournment.
Sir J. Mellor Sir J. Mellor rose—
Hon. Members: Order.
Mr. Webb: I am sorry—
The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has already spoken on this matter in great detail.
Mr. Webb: I want to come back to the subject of the Debate. I think the Committee will feel indebted to the Liberal National Party for choosing this subject. I think a Debate like this is overdue and that in the stress of events we must give a time and place for the hardships and troubles of our own people. One of the greatest of these is the difficulty they are finding in securing adequate supplies of many kinds of consumer goods, particularly in the case of housewives, and the difficulties they have with clothing and looking after their children. I do not feel I am called upon to rebuke those housewives who have been rather exaggerated in their criticisms of the Government and have come down to the House and made rather spectacular demonstrations of their dissatisfaction. It may be that they have been imprudent and unwise, but we must look to the causes of their feelings and the circumstances which cause housewives everywhere to make this kind of demonstration. That is our duty today. Whilst we must recognise the hardships caused by continued shortages—and there are such hardships—I think we should not allow the picture to be distorted by overstating it.
I think there has been a tendency to denigrate the effort this country has made in the last two years—industry as a whole, not merely the Government, but workers and managers in co-operation with the Government. With some assistance from this House they have been responsible for a remarkable achievement in general production in the last few years, and we should not denigrate that achievement. There has been a marked increase in the flow of a very large range of goods and if proof is required of that, we have only to look at the profits of the great distributing firms of the country. There is as good an index as we can get. I see that Marks and Spencers, a firm which lives on consumer goods, yesterday declared a profit of £2,500,000, an increase of £500,000 on last year. It has declared a dividend of 45 per cent., making a total of 60 per cent. on the year, as against 50 per cent. last year. That is pretty good going. The chairman declared, in explaining these figures, that there was a. marked increase in the production of goods last year. The British Home Stores and Woolworth's both declared record dividends, and Gamage's managed

729
to do quite well last year with a profit of 100 per cent. Then there is Lewis's, a firm over which the noble Lord who is leading the Conservative Party out of the wilderness, presides in his spare time. Last week I noticed he was complaining about his shirt tail being guillotined and apparently it is an embarrassing thing for him to go round the country in that state. But when he takes the chair in Lewis's board-room, he has a different story to tell. Declaring an all-time record profit of over £2million, he said:
"It is due to the large increase that has taken place in the supply of consumption goods."
Lewis's have got everything, apparently, except shirt tails. I think it is important for us not to draw the wrong conclusion from these figures. We have to be realist about them. I think they are significant in so far as they register a fairly substantial improvement in consumer goods, but in some cases the profits are due to excessive profit margins and the Board of Trade might look into that. But I think more is due to the supply of trashy, shoddy material which ought not to be made at this time.
That brings me to a suggestion I want to make to the Minister, that he ought to stop the great waste of materials and labour and power which is going on in the production of cheapjack merchandise. Our shops are full of junk. I do not know how they get the materials. So far as I have been able to investigate the matter, it appears that they get them in little pockets, but these little pockets add up to a totality which is quite formidable. I hope that the Board of Trade will have a most stringent examination made of the sources of supply for this cheapjack frippery and nasty nonsense, which are not necessary now, and which are diverting resources from much more essential goods.
My main submission goes much deeper. I believe that one of our major economic weaknesses at this time is that we are producing far too many types and varieties of goods in almost everything which is manufactured. Figures were recently given in the House of the different sizes and types of motor cars. They were quite staggering. Similar figures could be given for almost every kind of household equipment, utensils and
730
fittings. It seems to me that there is an imperative need now for greater standardisation of what we produce. That raises the problem of consumer choice. I believe that consumer choice should be as wide as possible, that the right to select, the ability to exercise one's discretion in purchasing what one wants, is itself a very important element in satisfying need. But this country must now face very hard facts. The fact is that we cannot, in the next five to ten years, have both quantity and unlimited choice. We can have either one or the other, but we cannot have both. For my part, I am for quantity, with some degree of choice.
My main suggestion, therefore, to the Board of Trade is that there ought to be standardisation of fewer well-designed types of goods in almost every field. That would enable us to speed up output enormously, and eliminate much waste of time, labour and materials, and I think would go far towards solving the problem. That is the key to the whole problem, and I would like to know the Minister's view. After all, he is now equipped with the instruments. A Measure has been passed through this House, and there is the whole mechanism of the working parties. They give the Minister the instruments with which he can now influence and guide production. One of the prime jobs to which he should now apply these instruments is to secure greater standardisation and specialisation in industry.
Finally, a word about textiles. I represent Central Bradford at the moment, a constituency which is the centre of the wool textile trade. Standardisation is not easy there, but from talks I have had with people in the industry, I believe it is possible to secure some increase in the output of textile piece goods if there is some degree of greater standardisation. In the textile industry in Bradford we have two much more immediate problems, which I would like briefly to raise. The wool textile industry is still far too short of adequate labour. Everything possible is being done to recruit labour, and the responsibility is finally that of the industry and not of the Board of Trade. The industry really must make its conditions much more attractive, and some employers are trying to do that. We in the West Riding were promised a large sup ply of displaced persons. They seem to

731
have been lost on the way. Only a handful arrived, and there is great disappointment in the industry. When the President of the Board of Trade was recently in Bradford, he undertook to raise the matter with the Minister of Labour. I would like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies to the Debate, when we may expect in the West Riding a larger supply of displaced persons to increase our labour force.
At the same time it is no use overcoming that if we are to have other bottlenecks and shortages. There is a danger which threatens the whole clothing supply of this country, arising out of the shortage of soda alkali. The woolcombing section of the industry, which is the beginning, where the yarns begin to be fabricated, cannot keep going with the present allocation of soda alkali. It is getting 100 per cent. of last years supply, but the very minimum which it needs to keep the present number of combs running is 120 per cent. of last years supply. If the woolcombing end of the industry does not get soda alkali, to that extent it will slow down production throughout the whole of the industry. This is a most urgent problem. I do not know what is happening about it, but the Board of Trade should be looking at it with the greatest urgency. A factory at Northwich, which is the only producer of soda alkali in this country, says it cannot produce more unless it has more coal. There is a clear case, on the basis of priorities, for that factory at Northwich to have more coal, and I hope that the matter will be looked at.
I have tried to bring the Debate back to the matter before us, and to make one or two suggestions which I think are of some consequence. I think we are entitled, as a country, to take heart from what has been done. The burdens are heavy for us, but they are really not beyond our capacity to bear. They are certainly not beyond our capacity to bear if we can see any hope of some sign of easement and improvement in the near future. I think there are signs of such improvement. It is the prime duty of the Committee, in this Debate, to urge the Board of Trade to give us more of such signs so that we may give encouragement and hope to our people.
5.56 p.m.
Mr. Spearman: Perhaps the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Webb) will allow one who has had considerable experience of standing on one leg to pay a tribute to the very clear and thoughtful speech he made under such physical difficulties, so splendidly overcome. I will show later how much I disagree with certain things the hon. Member said, particularly with what seemed to me the tendency towards complacency in the present situation. I would like to join with him in expressing the view that this Debate should provide an opportunity for ventilating the cause of the consumer. Perhaps too much attention is sometimes paid to vested interests which can bring pressure to bear, and too little to that most important person, the consumer. If, in particular, I refer to the trade union movement, it is not because they are the only vested interest but because at the moment they are the most vocal and perhaps the most restrictive in their influence upon the Government.
We are all aware of the acute shortages there are at the present time, and I know that the President of the Board of Trade has an extraordinarily difficult job. He has to hold the balance between what ought to be exported and what ought to be consumed in the home market. We would naturally like to see more in the home market, and the greater incentive which that would provide, but equally we realise how desperately important it is to increase our export market, particularly at this time, when we have still got a sellers' market, which may not last too long.
I do not feel at all competent to criticise the President of the Board of Trade in the allocations he has made, but I would like to make two passing criticisms. One which I often met in America was in the form of a query as to why we are sending so much of our precious exports, not to America, which is longing for them and which has shown itself very helpful to us, but to those countries from whom we get nothing in return except cancellation of a debt and a debt incurred in defending them. The second point I would like to make is to ask whether we are not devoting too much of our resources to making capital equipment which is mainly exported to soft currency countries, because America and

733
Canada do not want it, rather than consumer goods, not for our consumption but for sale abroad.
Every hon. Member fully realises how desperately serious the position is, but I do not think the country as a whole does. The position is that about one-third of our imports today are not being paid for. They are coming "on tick." Clearly we have to import less or export more. Of course, it may be that when the American Loan, on which we are now depending for something like one-third of our exports, is exhausted, the Govern-men may then say, "We have a large stock of gold, perhaps £700 million, acquired through the repatriation of South African securities, and we will use that." I suggest that, perhaps, that would not be a very wise action. I would be glad if we could have some assurance from the Government on that point. It would seem to me to be rather comparable to a general in battle, in a panic, sending the cooks into the front line. It would not be a very wise course to use up all our gold. Therefore, we must face the fact that we are approaching the time when exports and imports must be made to balance. It may be that we can get another loan, but eventually those two legs have to be the same length. Are we going to concentrate on the painful process of shortening the long leg, by importing less, or lengthen the short leg by exporting more and making them balance in that way?
The President of the Board of Trade suggested that he had had no constructive criticism from hon. Members on this side. I wish to suggest—and here I am in disagreement with the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Webb)—that perhaps the present system of control is more responsible for the present shortages than is generally recognised. I say that, because I believe that in the country today we are not producing anything like what we are capable of producing. I believe that there is huge concealed unemployment and a huge amount of men who are occupied in making unnecessary goods. Therefore, I think that if we put our back into it, if labour were in the right place, then we could move towards the prospect of balancing our trade accounts. Why are we not doing that? Before the war we depended on what I think is technically
734
Called "price mechanism," which is so often reviled by hon. Members opposite. I will describe what I mean by that. In those days we depended for what was produced on consumers' choice. If the consumers wanted certain articles and were prepared to pay more for them, then manufacturers produced more. They extended their factories and perhaps they increased wages in order to attract more labour. In that manner, the consumers by their choice in the market place were able to exert their pressure on what was produced. It was a system of voting.
By and large, I do not believe that any better system can be used for getting the right things produced in the right place. Naturally, when war came, when there were such shortages, controls had to be imposed to make sure that vital necessities were fairly distributed. Because those controls worked rather better in wartime than we anticipated, I think hon. Members opposite were rather too enthusiastic about the way those controls would work in peacetime when conditions are very different. I suggest that conditions are different for three reasons. First, however brilliant a brains trust the right hon. and learned Gentleman can collect about him, I doubt whether it is possible to plan in Whitehall just what the consumer requires. In wartime what is required depends upon the demands made by military strategy, guns, aeroplanes, etc and it is very much easier to plan production. Secondly, in wartime there is an immense degree of co-operation, from patriotic motives and also because people realise that the hardships and inconveniences are temporary and not permanent. We need only look at the growing black market to see that co-operation is not present today. Thirdly, there was a considerable degree of direction of labour in wartime. I would hate the idea of direction of labour in peacetime, but I suggest that to try to control half of the economy of the country and leave another half out of control is an idea which just does not make sense.
For all these reasons we must face the hard fact that a control system in peacetime in a democratic country will not work without the aid of a machine gun, to put it vividly, to the extent which it will work in wartime. Of course, I do not suggest that we should abandon all controls at once. It may be that some people hold

735
that view and, by so doing, they are the worst possible supporters of their cause. It is unfair of hon. Members opposite if they attribute to those who want a lessening of controls the statement that they want to abolish them entirely and suddenly. One does not blame a doctor if a patient dies of an overdose of medicine. The medicine may be very good, but if the patient-takes the whole bottle in one dose it may well be fatal.
I believe that at present the price level is getting out of line with reality. That is leading to economic frustration, queues, and shortages. I think many hon. Gentlemen opposite believe that the right plan is to control the price of essentials and let luxuries take their way. That, I suggest, will inevitably defeat itself unless the Government are prepared to adopt an extraordinary degree of totalitarian methods. If one looks round the shops today, one sees those worthless luxuries to which the hon. Member for Central Bradford referred. That is what happens if we do not apply the stick to a degree that would be intolerable in a democratic country. Then people will go for the profit motive and will make the things which they can freely sell, regardless of whether or not they are really required. We must face the fact that in a democratic country there must be a great degree of choice. I do not see that this policy is necessarily inconsistent for a Socialist Government.
It is still open to the Government, if they see that a certain section of the community is getting too much, to tax them more. It is open to them, if they think prices are too high for a certain section of the community to be able to buy goods, to give them greater allowances. But to upset the whole system in order to stick to controls would seem to be rather like throwing out the baby with the bath water. Some hon. Members say that to allow prices to rise, not, of course, precipitately, but to let them rise appreciably and allow an automatic control to take place, would create great hardship. Of course it would. I realise that, but I suggest it would cause less hardship than the poverty and unemployment which otherwise we may have if we do not use our resources right. Hon. Members opposite should get a clear perspective on this matter. When the stabilisation
736
policy was introduced, the price level was about 20 per cent. above prewar and wages about 30 per cent. above. Today the price level is the same and wages have gone up by 65 per cent.
About as much is being spent today on beer as is being spent on water, rates and rent. In those conditions, I think we are some way off acute shortage and hardship, through lack of buying facilities. The Government should admit that their policy of running the country on controls and not moving towards price mechanism has proved a failure by the results as we see them. If only that were all, it would not so much matter. It is the prospect of much greater shortages when the American Loan is used up and we move away from a sellers' market and are unable then, however hard we work, to retrieve our position. I believe that the Government are drifting between two policies, the one a firm effective control which would require measures never known before in this country or outside any totalitarian machine, and the other a return to the price mechanism. That drift, inevitably, will be fatal to the economy of the country. At the risk of being gibed at by the President of the Board of Trade, I suggest that if it is really their greatest aim just to maintain the present position—if that is their plan—they had better give way to another Administration who, perhaps with a greater experience, would promise less and perform more.
6.10 p.m.
Mr. John Lewis: I have listened to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman), and I always follow him very carefully in a Debate on this type of subject which we are now discussing, but I must say that, when he referred to the price level and consumers' choice as the two factors which affected production, I was somewhat surprised. I should have thought that he would have taken into account the availability of raw materials, which existed prior to the war, but which does not exist today, and that he would have regarded that shortage as a salient factor in his argument. I think that the Committee as a whole is bound to agree that, whereas, in normal circumstances where there is no shortage of raw materials, a shortage of civilian goods does not arise, there are certain shortages today which we

737
must be prepared to accept as existing entirely as a result of the war and the fact that there are insufficient goods to go round. I think we must also ask ourselves whether or not any of these shortages are avoidable, and it is to avoidable shortages that I want to apply my remarks.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have often suggested that the Governments bulk buying policy is responsible to some extent for shortages. I do not say that I accept that argument. I feel that if, as a result of bulk buying, it is possible to do away with speculation in futures in the cotton industry, and if, instead of passing through six hands from grower to spinner, cotton only passes through two or three, it may be justified, but I am not satisfied that bulk buying is a success in all aspects of our economic policy. I am not prepared to accept the suggestion that ganging-up against us in other countries does not take place, and, for that reason, I suggest that the Prime Minister should appoint a special committee to go into this question and report to Parliament, in order that we may be advised in which respects our bulk buying is successful and in which respects it has failed, if it has failed at all. We are told that it is difficult to get certain raw materials in the United States. The Board of Trade makes representations to our Raw Materials Mission in the United States, and sometimes they succeed and at other times they fail, but I know for a fact that, in the United States, there are merchants in every big town who have large stocks of raw materials on their hands, and that, whereas missions have made representations and failed to obtain the materials required, private buyers have gone over there and have purchased them. What I am suggesting is that Parliament should be advised in which respects our bulk buying policy is a success, and that we should face up frankly to those aspects of our programme in which it has failed, if at all.
I was very pleased to hear the President suggest that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, in his winding-up speech tonight, will deal with the specific aspects of shortages of detailed commodities. I intend to apply myself to one specific shortage—that of tyres and of carbon black. A very serious situation has arisen in the tyre industry.
738
When the war was over, it was extremely difficult to acquire the labour force necessary in order to produce the tyres which we need for domestic purposes, for fitting on the motor cars we are exporting, and for export. By dint of great effort, some of the difficulties were overcome, but today we are faced with the situation in which thousands of people in the tyre industry are on short-time and in which there is a tendency on the part of men on short-time to look for jobs in other industries.
This situation is not likely to improve in the near future because the carbon black, which in the main is responsible for the shortage, will not be available in this country in any increased quantity until August. So much is that the case, that manufacturers and unions have combined and issued a document to the workers in the industry asking them to stay in the industry in spite of the fact that they are engaged on short-time and are not earning a full week's wages. What I am going to say to the Committee is that this is a shortage which was avoidable. I am going to argue that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is directly responsible for the shortage. I shall not do so in any vexatious spirit, but I am going to attempt to prove that the President of the Board of Trade has not taken the resolute and positive action which he should have taken, in spite of the fact that he has been warned by myself and others over a period of two years.
I hope that hon. Members who are conversant with this industry will forgive me if I explain for the benefit of others precisely what is the material known as carbon black, because it may also help the Parliamentary Secretary in replying to differentiate between the carbon black which is vitally necessary for the tyre industry and other products to which the term is loosely applied and which are suitable for the paint trade and general pigmentation purposes. Carbon black for the tyre industry is a special form of reinforcing black produced from natural gas. There have been no other materials on which experimentation has taken place which have yet proved a substitute for channel black. There are other form? of carbon black which may be suitable in some respects for incorporation in the synthetic rubber industry such as furnace black. The problem is that of the avail-

739
ability of channel black for our tyre industry. and this comes exclusively from the United States. It is obtained from the burning of the gas from the oil wells in Texas. We have, over 26 years, bought £17 million worth of this material from the United States, and this represents at the present rate a consumption of 44 million dollars over a similar period. Half a million tons of carbon black are produced in America annually, and 95 per cent. of it is used in the tyre industry there. We are using 30,000 tons in our own industry, which has a very much smaller output.
At the moment, as a result of the shortage of this material and of our failure to import the quantity which we require from the United States, our tyre industry is in jeopardy. If all the carbon black in the world was available in August, there is still a possibility of a serious labour shortage in the industry. It is no good suggesting that we should export motor cars without tyres, because the same shortage exists in the United States, who would be unable to help us out. I think I can claim to talk with some authority on the subject, because, during the war, I was responsible, as is well known by the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan), for the compounding of the master batches for a high proportion of our bomber tyre programme, and I know how important it was that every shipment of carbon black should arrive in this country in good time. If it did not, the whole of our transport system might have broken down and we should have been unable to meet the needs of the Service Departments. It is not possible to make tyres without carbon black, using only crude rubber and cotton, as they would last only about 3,000 miles, whereas the carbon black acts as a reinforcing agent and enables a service life of approximately 20,000 miles to be reached.
I told the Committee a moment ago that there is no substitute. I wish to emphasise that point because I believe that in his reply my hon. Friend may make reference to attempts to introduce some form of domestic production of carbon black which is quite unsatisfactory and could not be applied to the tyre industry. No satisfactory substitute has as yet been found for channel black.
740
Before the war, the German chemical industry produced 30,000 tons of carbon black. It was made from anthracene residues, crude naphthalene and employed 2,600 million cubic feet of carrier gas. It does not need my right hon Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power to tell us that we have not that quantity available for this purpose in this country. Every hon. Member knows that. But not only that—the U.S. experts who came over here say that our products are far too expensive to permit an industry to be set up in this country, irrespective of whether or not the resulting product would be suitable for the tyre industry. And as I have said it has not been established that it would be suitable.
Hon. Members might ask what is the alternative, and why I say that it was the responsibility of my right hon and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade to overcome this difficulty and not to place the tyre industry in the position in which it finds itself at the present time. I believe I can give an effective answer to that. According to a reply given to me by my right hon. and learned Friend, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company's holdings produce 165 million cubic feet of gas every day, which, by employing a simple burning plant, is sufficent to produce 25,000 tons of the carbon black which we need for our tyre industry in this country. That is four-fifths of our national requirements, and would save us, approximately. 4,350,000 dollars.
My right hon. and learned Friend has made it quite clear that we are unable to do anything in this country at the moment, because I am sure that if it were possible for him to provide this material, he would not permit underemployment to take place in the tyre industry. He knows what a serious crisis we are facing in that industry. He has said from time to time that it is necessary for us to conserve our dollar resources because every dollar is valuable. Not only is it vitally necessary, from the point of view of our national dependence, to provide this carbon black from the sterling area, because the United States of America are quite incapable of even supplying their own requirements at the present time, but also because we are faced with the fact that we are having to expend valuable dollars for this com-

741
modity which is available in the Middle East.
Hon. Members will remember that I said that 165 million cubic feet of this gas is escaping into the atmosphere every day instead of being used to produce the carbon black we need. I say that my right hon. and learned Friend is responsible for the present position because he has taken no positive action. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be in a position later to say that they have taken effective action. I also say that my right hon. and learned Friend is responsible because he has been warned. He received a warning that this situation would arise.
Mr. Brendan Bracken: How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman control the Middle East?
Mr. Lewis: I will come to that point. In point of fact, my right hon. and learned Friend said that he had been in negotiation with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and that he was not at liberty to disclose the nature of these negotiations. It was pointed out in the Press a day or two ago that the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company have a share capital of approximately £20 million, of which the British Government hold £11,500,000. In these circumstances, one does not need to be an eminent advocate to know that the British Government control the policy of that company because they hold the majority of the shares. Therefore, if my right hon. and learned Friend was incapable of disclosing the deliberations taking place between himself and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, it was because he did not want to reveal discussion's which were virtually taking place between His Majesty's Government and himself.
I was telling the Committee that my right hon. and learned Friend had been warned. I think I ought to make it clear that responsibility for tyre production did not always rest in his hands. When the war ended, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply was the Minister responsible for dealing with this industry. On 25th August, 1945, after the Election, and as a result of the experience which I had gained during the war, I communicated with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, and I hope that the Committee will bear with me if
742
I read a few words from a letter I addressed to him. I wrote:
"Resulting from the declaration of the American Government that Lease-Lend is coming to an end, it has occurred to me that consideration should be given immediately to the question of making ourselves self-sufficient in those materials, and particularly in those raw materials in respect of which we have to rely exclusively on the United States of America. As you are no doubt aware, the rubber industry generally, and the tyre industry in particular, have no alternative to the use of carbon black in its process of manufacture, and practically all our supplies have always been obtained from America."
The Committee may be interested to know that at that time there was, approximately, a two to three weeks' supply of carbon black in the hands of the larger tyre manufacturers in this country, and that had one shipment failed to reach its destination, the entire industry would have come to a standstill.
In reply to that letter, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply said that he was arranging to send a team of experts to Germany in order to investigate the position. I would point out that there was provision in Germany, as I have already explained, to produce a commodity which is not suitable for incorporation into tyres made from crude rubber. The only type of commodity that is suitable is that which is produced by burning natural gas known as channel black. My right hon. and learned Friend is not able to produce to me any authority which will refute this statement. I was born into this industry, and can claim to have a highly specialised and technical knowledge of it. I challenge my right hon. and learned Friend to prove that the efforts made to produce this material domestically from by-products or primary raw materials, will result in the manufacture of any product suitable for incorporation in tyre compounds. The only alternative supply of carbon black other than that from the American source, on which we have relied for so long, is from Persia—from the sterling area—where this vast quantity of gas is available every day and is being put to no useful purpose.
In 1945, I discussed the matter with my right hon. and learned Friend, and he requested me to draw up a memorandum. On 14th November, 1945, I sent him a memorandum and the following is a short passage which I shall read from it:

743
"I believe there would be general agreement that we must take steps at the first possible moment to make ourselves independent of American sources of supply, and in view of the critical position in which our tyre industry finds itself at the moment, I suggest that a small committee be set up to consider the whole question as a matter of emergency."
As a result of that memorandum, I received a most interesting letter from my right hon. and learned Friend, to which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will refer in his reply. On 26th November, 1945, my right hon. and learned Friend wrote:
"I fully share your view that we should lessen our dependence on the U.S.A. for supplies of this material as soon as possible, and I am pleased to be able to tell you that proposals are under consideration to establish its manufacture both at home and abroad in the sterling area."
He said also in that letter that he did not think there was any necessity whatsoever to set up a special committee. My right hon. Friend, however, did arrange for me to discuss this matter with Sir Thomas Merton, who is the Scientific Adviser to the Board of Trade, and also with Sir Frank Smith of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. At that time as long ago as 1945, Sir Frank Smith assured me that the gas was available for the production of channel black in large quantities, and he went so far as to suggest that a plant should be acquired from Germany and set up in Persia to produce this material.
The team sent out by the Board of Trade eventually went to Germany. They brought back nothing, and any information which was available could not have assisted us in overcoming our difficulties to the slightest extent, because not only were the raw materials not available in this country but, as I have pointed out and will continue to point out, the product could not be suitably employed in the tyre industry and could be only a second rate substitute.
Time dragged on, and as is usual in these matters, one got no further. On 18th February, 1946, having heard very little, I communicated with an Under-Secretary of the Department with whom my right hon. Friend put me in touch, and at that time I wrote him:
"The fact that you are waiting until the team returns with information based on the production of raw materials which are not available in ample supply and which it was
744
agreed should only receive consideration should the other project be found to be unworkable, is obviously quite contrary to the arrangement made, and is purely a further procrastination which, having regard to the fact that our tyre industry depends upon the supply of carbon black, is. in my view. inexcusable."
There was this procrastination from week to week and month to month, and during that whole period my right hon. and learned Friend was being warned that the situation which we are now facing, the shortage of tyres and unemployment in the tyre industry due to the shortage of carbon black, would arise. Following that, I wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend and asked him for an interview. Subsequently, but not immediately, I had one without result. I shall omit what took place during 1947, and merely say that throughout the period I continued to press him to take some positive action.
On 27th May, 1947, I put down a Question to my right hon. and learned Friend asking him about discussions which had taken place between the Government and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. In his reply my right hon. and learned Friend said that he was not in a position to disclose this confidential information. As I have already pointed out, the British Government hold a majority of the shares in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and, therefore, in those circumstances, was not my right hon. and learned Friend bound to disclose the precise nature of the negotiations which had taken place? I think this habit of secrecy acquired during wartime has been carried too far. Parliament is entitled to know more, and My right hon. and learned Friend was quite unjustified in failing to disclose this information. It may be that he will be able to satisfy the Committee and myself on this matter. Nothing will please me more than to hear that he is doing something about it, but it is no laughing matter when thousands of men in the tyre industry are out of work. In those circumstances, I feel my right hon. and learned Friend was bound, in accordance with Parliamentary procedure, to disclose precisely what discussions had taken place between him and the company of which the British Government is the largest shareholder.
My right hon. and learned Friend went further. When I asked him to justify the existence of the Inter-departmental Committee which had been set up, he said that

745
he was not bound, in the circumstances, to do what I asked. I do not know as well as other hon. Members who have been in this House much longer than] have, precisely what a Minister of the Crown is expected to disclose to Parliament and what he is entitled to keep to himself, but I do maintain that if a Minister of the Crown sets up an Interdepartmental Committee which is vitally concerned with production, it should be his duty, when called upon by a Member of this House, to say precisely what that committee is doing, and he should also be prepared to justify its existence. I do not say that in a vexatious spirit, but I did feel that an unfortunate element of arrogance and impertinence has entered into the Minister's answers in substitution for the facts. I think that was unjustified and uncalled for.
Parliament is entitled to know what goes on. We are not at the moment in a state of war when the disclosure of vital information would be of benefit to the enemy. I assume that even certain hon. Members opposite have the interests of the nation at heart, but one thing at least can be conceded, and that is that those on this side of the House are entitled to know what is going on as well as anyone else, and my right hon. Friend should have disclosed the information for which he was asked. The carbon black purchasing mission which my right hon. Friend sent to the United States has returned. It has failed to do anything to alleviate the present condition, which is understandable, but one understands that further supplies will be available in August. Until that time at least, this crisis in the tyre industry will continue and the men will be on short time.
I want to put certain questions which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will answer tonight. First, what is the position in regard to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company? Have any steps whatsoever been taken to establish burning plants in the Middle East? Why have these plants not already been established over the past two years, having regard to the pressure which I and other hon. Members have been putting on my right hon. Friend? Is there any secret agreement with the United States of America, who have a monopoly in the supply of this material, which makes it impossible for the British Government or for the Anglo-Iranian Oil Com-
746
pany to set up these plants? I would also like to ask if working conditions are so bad in Persia that no further expansion of output is possible at present. It may be, having regard to the war and conditions which existed prior to it, that before any further expansion is possible, decent houses would have to be built for the workers and conditions of labour improved. If that is the case, it would be interesting to know how the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was able to increase its profit by £4 million, bringing the total profit up to £9,500,000 for the current year. Why has the report of the Interdepartmental Committee set up by my right hon. Friend not been published? Why should he set up a committee to compile a report on the supply of an essential raw material upon which thousands of people are dependent, and then say he is not going to publish the report? In that instance again, Parliament and the public are entitled to know what is going on.
Finally, I would like to know what steps my right hon. Friend proposes to take in the event of his being faced with a reduced labour force in the tyre manufacturing industry as a result of the present under-employment. I do not know if my right hon. and learned Friend has been through a compounding plant, but it is one of the dirtiest jobs in the country. The men who work there are stripped naked, the black giving them the appearance of negroes, and it is one of the most unpleasant forms of employment imaginable. They are now on short-time. They are looking elsewhere for employment; I have had consultations with the unions, and they are very much disturbed by the possibility that by the time increased quantities of carbon black are available, the labour force in the tyre industry will be seriously diminished. What steps does my right hon. and learned Friend propose to take in that connection, should he be faced with that situation?
I hope he will appreciate that, having no financial interest in the import or supply of carbon black, I have agitated over a considerable period in order to stress that this waste material—the gas which is escaping at the rate of millions of cubic feet per day in the Middle East—should be put to some useful purpose. If that had been done during the last two years we should not be taced with

747
the present situation. My right hon. Friend has admitted that there is enough there to produce four-fifths of our requirements. I feel I am justified in putting this case and asking him to explain why no positive action was taken, or why today, as a result of the shortage of carbon black, we have under-employment in the tyre industry which is having a serious repercussion on the output of tyres. The Committee is entitled to a frank statement.
Perhaps, I may tell my right hon. Friend something of which he is unaware, and that is that the supply of natural gas in America is drying up. It has been found more useful by piping to employ it for domestic fuel and chemical purposes—so much so that they will not have available for us the quantities necessary for our tyre manufacturing industry. That will make it all the more necessary for some positive action to be taken by the Board of Trade to ensure that our industry shall be self-sufficient in the supply of this material, and independent of the one source of supply, which is the United States. My hon. Friend must say in his reply why nothing has been done over the past two years.
6.41 p.m.
Mr. Oliver Lyttelton:. I hope the Committee will forgive me if I do not follow the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) into the intricacies of carbon black. He told us it was a product of natural gas. I trust that the Committee, and least of all the Government, will not regard his speech as a similar product, because I regarded it, personally, as a very weighty speech calling for a number of answers. When the hon. Member was asking the Government why no positive action had been taken in this matter, he made what I thought, if I may say so, was an ingenuous request, for if the Government were required to explain why no positive action had been taken in this or that, the Committee would be kept up for all-night sittings on a great many consecutive nights.
Let me deal, first, with the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. It was a typical speech by leading counsel. He was talking about the shortage of commodities. Certainly, there must be no
748
shortage of red herrings. because he drew one or two or more of them across the trail. In a Debate which concerns the shortage of consumer goods I should have thought that we would have heard rather more than a few toots on his synthetic trumpet that the production of children's and infants' footwear—which we all welcome—had achieved an increase over 1938 figures. If he had had time he would have been able to give us separately figures of perambulators, safety razors, combs and lighters. Really, I think that was hardly worthy of the occasion. He then devoted a large section of his speech to the discovery of that amazing achievement of the Government, namely, that the production of civilian goods two years after the end of the war was higher than it was while the war was in progress. We need hardly come into the Committee to hear that. That was one of those blinding flashes of the obvious to which we are sometimes treated. He then regaled us with a lot of statistics showing how certain items had gone up since 1945. I do not want to follow him into those matters. That speech, delivered as it was in the most courteous tones, added nothing to the sum of human wisdom—only a few red herrings- During the interesting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Medlicott)—
Sir S. Cripps: A Liberal National.
Mr. Lyttelton: I never forget my friends, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not, either. My hon. Friend drew a comparison between this country and Belgium, which was received with some derision by hon. Members below the Gangway on the other side. I think they were quite wrong; and I think my hon. Friend was quite right to draw attention to this very interesting comparison. Belgium has been a very well managed country, so far as its economy is concerned, and ours has been a very ill managed one. I thought the comparison was particularly interesting because of the similarities between the economy of Belgium and the economy of our own country. The differences are chiefly of size and not of nature. Belgium is the most highly populated country in Europe, and supports 8,400,000 people within its very narrow frontiers. Ours is a very highly populated country. Belgium has an artificial economy, and

749
ours is not less artificial. Just as Great Britain has only one industrial raw material of importance, namely, coal, so has Belgium. The production of coal in Belgium is today about 25 million tons a year, or roughly, three tons per annum per head of the population. Ours is higher than that, four tons or more per head of the population. The soil of Belgium is not abnormally fertile. Taking the bad with the good, the same is true of our own country. So that Belgium depends for the balance of her economy upon buying raw materials abroad, working them up, and exporting finished articles. I see, Mr. Beaumont, that you are getting a. little restive, but I would assure you that this is only my indirect way of showing how shortages of consumer goods can be overcome, and I am shortly coming back to our economic situation.
The Deputy-Chairman: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there was no sign of restiveness on my part. It must have been his conscience.
Mr. Lyttelton: Unlike that of many Members of the Front Bench opposite, my conscience never gives me any rest. But just as Great Britain has only one natural raw material, so has Belgium, and her economy has to be balanced by buying raw materials and working them up. Let us look for a moment at the situation of Belgium when she was liberated. All of us, particularly those who were Ministers at the time, remember the depths of misery into which she had sunk under the German occupation, and none of us is likely to forget the slender margin and the narrow line that separated that friendly people from famine and starvation. It is a matter of pride to everyone here that we were able to bring some help to her in those days, and the sympathies of Belgians, which have always been with us, I think are warmer towards us now than they have ever been. Admittedly, the material destruction in Belgium was not on the same scale as it was here, but I would remind the Committee that the damage to the Belgian railways was greater beyond all comparison with anything that our railways suffered. It was many months, too, before the Port of Antwerp could be worked efficiently and to its full capacity. It is also true—I am trying to be quite fair—that after Lend Lease ceased the Belgian Government
750
acquired considerable sums of dollars and pounds sterling from Allied spending in their country; but, for purposes of comparison, we have enjoyed since the American Loan, at least a comparable command over dollars.
Taking it as a whole, with these one or two provisos, there is not only a remarkable similarity in the economics of these two countries, our own and Belgium; but, also, a close comparison can be made between the state in which Belgium found herself when she was liberated and that in which we found ourselves when the war was over. There was an hon. Member, whom I do not see in his place now below the Gangway, who characterised my hon. Friend's comparison as "rubbish." I am going into some figures. Let me turn to the economic situation in Belgium. There is no petrol ration; there is no clothing ration; and there is no rationing of boots and shoes.
Mr. Cobb: There is a black market.
Mr. Lyttelton: I shall come to that matter. The hon. Member must possess himself in patience. Though licences are required for domestic and industrial building—and I have been at great pains to check these facts—they are obtained with an ease that would astonish the ordinary British citizen and British applicant, and turn his flushed, angry face green with envy. Let me turn to the production of consumer goods. Let us take 1938—not the period when Belgium was liberated, because that would give astronomical figures dear to the heart of the Board of Trade when taking a false reference period. Let us take 1938 as the reference period, and say that it equals 100. The production of cotton yarn is in. Is that a rubbishy comparison to make with out own position? For wool the figure is 176.6—and these are yarn: cotton cloth is 97; and woollen cloth 159.
Mr. Cobb: How big is the industry?
Mr. Lyttelton: I am comparing an industry in a country of nine million people, which is not as big as an industry in a country with 45 million people. I am comparing the state of Belgium now with what it was in 1938, and I suggest there is nothing tendentious whatever in such a comparison. The production of electricity in Belgium is 131.7—
Mr. Rhodes: To be quite fair, the right hon. Member should point out that there was no concentration of industry in Belgium, as there was in this country during the war.
Mr. Lyttelton: I am much obliged to the hon. Member. I confess I had forgotten that particular point; I would have put it in otherwise. That is quite true; these industries were not concentrated. However, electricity cannot be subjected to the same objection, which I think is a perfectly valid one to the argument. Electricity is 1317; paper, 124; coal, about 90; glass for building, 90 per cent. of prewar. Are these comparisons which my hon. Friend was making to be described as "rubbishy"? I think not. Belgian cigarettes are one-third the price of British—
Mr. Cobb: Give the figures for major industries.
Mr. Lyttelton: Does not the hon. Member think electricity, or coal, or steel, or textiles major industries?
Mr. Cobb: Could we have the steel figures?
Mr. Lyttelton: Certainly. I think I have already given them. The output of finished steel is about go per cent. of prewar, and of raw steel higher than prewar. I have already given the figures for coal. Let me turn to the question of prices and wages. Wages in Belgium, in terms of the Belgian franc, have multiplied by about three; and the prices in terms of the Belgian franc are also about three times prewar. Now those prices which I am quoting are not from any cost-of-living index; they are not weighted averages, but are taken from the actual retail prices in Belgium. That is the answer to the hon. Member's question about the "black market." These are the retail prices of these things in the shops. I am not suggesting, of course, that the standard of life in Belgium has ever been quite as high as our own—I want to be quite fair—but it has restored itself to its prewar state in a way which is altogether different from that which we have been able to achieve in this country. So far from these comparisons being rubbish, I think they contain a great lesson for ourselves, in these figures and in this situation. I believe Belgium has been a well-
752
managed country, and has pursued a policy which has been both sound as to timing and as to objectives. In both these respects I believe our policy to have been unsound. As a consequence, Belgium's recovery has been quicker and more complete in every respect than our own.
Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman tells the Parliamentary Secretary what to say in answer to this little excursion, let me go on to say what are the great differences between the economic policy which Belgium has pursued and the one which we have pursued. They are these. Belgium has concentrated largely upon imports into their country. That was done with two objects: above all, to build up the physical strength of the people; to build up the standard of life, to restore incentive; and, so to speak, to get the population in a fit condition and in a fit state to work hard. These are points which my hon. Friend the Member for East Norfolk raised in his speech. We concentrated upon exports first in time, and at all costs: "Austerity and exports" was the motto of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Belgium concentrated on imports, for another reason besides the one I have given, namely, in order to check and reverse the inflation which had been left by the Germans. Their monetary policy was not expansionist, any more than any country's should be in time of scarcity and boom. Ours has been expansionist. The right time to employ an expansionist monetary policy is at a time when the business cycle is in recession. But the Belgians saw this, and therefore it was upon the consumer and import goods that the Belgians concentrated to begin with. They left the export drive till a later date.
How has that worked out? At one time the unfavourable balance of trade, expressed in Belgium francs, reached the figure of 25½ milliards of francs. That was when they were pursuing this policy of concentrating on the domestic consumer. This has been altered, according to the latest figures which I have, to imports of 24 milliards and exports of 17 milliards; or a deficit of only 7 milliards of francs. I very much hope that when we are talking of consumer goods the Government will study this lesson very closely, and will not be too proud to learn

753
from the smaller countries, whose affairs have been very well managed. It is not too late to learn, even for the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
There is one other point about Belgium to force my comparison home. Belgium has not gone "whoring after false gods," even under her Socialist Government, which is another comparison between Belgium and our own country. She has not considered nationalisation as a cure for anything. She has waited for that. I dare say it will come later on. But she has waited for it, very wisely, until some lively industries are in production when that remedy could possibly be applied, which is very poisonous to me but is no doubt very agreeable to other hon. Members. I say the Belgium problem has been the same as our own, but how different has been the policy; how different has been the method, and how practical and sane the approach: In Belgium rapid recovery and steady increase; and in the United Kingdom, some slow recovery and increasing shortage—except, of course, in the matter of combs, lighters and safety razors.
Mr. Douglas Jay: For the sake of accuracy, may I ask is it not the case that Belgium's recovery has been partly financed by the sale abroad of large quantities of gold which Belgium was able to preserve safely on the other side of the Atlantic during the war, because she was not fighting?
Mr. Lyttelton: I do not think the hon. Member can have been in the Committee during the earlier part of my speech. His point is perfectly correct. Belgium disposed of some dollars or gold assets. But since the American loan, nobody can say that we have not had at least a comparable quantity of hard currency per head of the population at our disposal.
Mr. Cobb Mr. Cobb rose—
Mr. Lyttelton: I really must get on. I do not want to keep the Committee too long. There was an American Senator who spoke for 10— hours the other day, and I have no wish to emulate his example.
Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Member wanted to ask another very pertinent question.
Mr. Lyttelton: I will give way, then, if he has something of substance to say.
Mr. Cobb: Is it not a fact that the Belgians have spent all their dollars, while we have not? What would the right hon. Gentleman advise the Belgians to do now that they have spent all their dollars?
Mr. Lyttelton: Honestly. I do not know where the hon. Member gets his facts. If he looks into the matter—I suggest a not very curious action before asking such a question—he will find that the amount of actual gold and hard currency in the possession of Belgium now is higher than it was after the end of the war. I would be quite prepared to explain to the hon. Member how these calculations are made, and to show him the official reply from the Belgian Embassy, which I have outside.
For a short time, I wish to turn to one or two subjects of wider interest; for we are discussing not only consumer goods, but wider matters. I do not want to weary the Committee with another survey of our international balance of payments. I will try to be very short. In the White Paper the Government estimated our unfavourable balance at £350 million; that is for this year. It was quite obvious that, like so much of that White Paper, it was entirely out of date on the day it was published, but somebody had not remembered to alter the figures. Up to the end of April, the unfavourable balance had already amounted to £180 million. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will correct me if I make any slip in the figures.
Sir S. Cripps: I have not got them with me.
Mr. Lyttelton: Then may I lend the right hon. and learned Gentleman a copy of the Statistical Digest? I should have thought that the figures were so familiar to the President of the Board of Trade that it would have been quite unnecessary to supply him with his own document. After all, this is the central factor in our economic situation, and the President of the Board of Trade ought not to say that he has not got the figures.
Sir S. Cripps: I did not understand that we were to discuss the whole economic situation on the Board of Trade Vote.
Mr. Lyttelton: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks at the Order Paper, he will see that the Debate can range over a very large area. I did not notice him interrupting his hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis) who spoke about carbon black.
Sir S. Cripps: It happens that the Board of Trade has some responsibility in that matter. I am dealing with the Board of Trade, and I am not responsible for the balance of payments.
Mr. Lyttelton: The balance of payments is a result of trade. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting that this unfavourable balance is due to repayment of debts abroad, but if he is not, I should like to know how these figures come out except as a result of trade?
Sir S. Cripps: I am not suggesting anything.
Mr. Lyttelton: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he is not suggesting anything. I can therefore get on with the speech. As I was saying, up to the end of April, the unfavourable balance had already amounted to nearly £180 million. That is at the rate of £540 million a year, and not £350 million, which is in the Government's White Paper. Out of these exports to the value of £82.6 million in the month of March, only £7 million worth were destined for the North-American continent. The figures are £3.2 million to Canada, and £3.7 million to the United States. It would be conservative to say that the only other hard currency we are collecting in any appreciable quantity is Argentine pesos. If we put the exports to hard currency areas at about £12 million, we should be on the high side, and hon. Members should remember that this is out of a total export of £82 million. It means that about one-seventh of our exports are going to hard currency areas, or about 14 per cent. Our imports for the same month are £130 million, out of which at least £68 million were drawn in that month from hard currency countries. It is not only that our unfavourable balance of trade is running at £540 million a year, but there is the additional and disquieting fact, taking March as a characteristic month, that more than 50 per cent. of our imports are drawn from hard currency countries, while less than 14 per cent. of our exports go there in return.
756
I am aware that the Government take a very serious view of this matter, and I cannot think that anything but good could come out of making some suggestions about measures for meeting the situation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman taunted my hon. Friend for not making enough suggestions, and I cannot, in the time available, make more than one or two. I must, first of all, refer to the subject, which I have discussed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in private, of fixed or variable prices. I assure him that I only wish to be helpful on this. Let me take a simple example. Suppose that a foreign country made an inquiry for a large number of diesel engines, and the number required meant that delivery would take two or three years. How can the manufacturer of diesel engines, in the uncertainties which surround him, quote a fixed price? On the other hand, how can we expect a foreign country to buy our products if they are subject to variable price alterations?
It is true that when the sellers market was at its height—and it is less of a sellers' market now—the foreign buyer just lumped it, and felt obliged to place orders in spite of the risks involved. These conditions are passing. I am sure we all know cases where American exporters are quoting fixed prices, while we are obliged to quote variable prices. I do not think it is an overstatement to say that we are "obliged" to do that. How can a manufacturer, working on an allocation of solid fuel about which he has no reason whatever to feel any confidence, depending on an allocation of steel from a Government Department or agency, and having no means of hedging on the markets for his requirements of copper or lead, be expected to quote for an uncovered risk of two or three years? The Government will not allow the price mechanism to work, or commodity exchanges to be open; indeed, they are shutting them down, and I see an hon. Member opposite who was responsible for one of these murders. Lastly, there is the threat of nationalisation hanging over us all, and day by day this flickering background of uncertainty widens and deepens.
Mr. Messer: It is not a threat, but a promise.
Mr. Lyttelton: That makes it a good deal worse. As the sellers' market gives

757
way to the normal market, and then perhaps to the buyers' market, we shall not be able to quote fixed prices and do business abroad because of these uncertainties. I do not wish to be particularly controversial tonight, but I should like to explain how fallacious is the statement that 80 per cent. of our industry is to be left to private enterprise. It is, perhaps, literally true, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman who made the statement would not wish to say anything misleading if he could help it, but in its application it is untrue. If 80 per cent. of private enterprise is to depend for coal, electricity and transport upon allocations by the Government, how can it be described as private enterprise? It is enterprising only to the extent that the Government allows it to be enterprising, and it is private only to the extent that a public authority is willing to dole out the essential supplies and services.
On top of all this, we hear threats of nationalising iron and steel, which, if applied, will put a "half nelson" upon freedom of private enterprise. No doubt that would be a very agreeable indirect result for the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who has already been very helpful over this matter of fixed and variable prices, to say whether he cannot extend the machinery of the Exports Credits Guarantee Department, so that, in the light of our present situation, some insurance facilities might be extended over this widening range of risk. It may involve legislation, but I have not yet found this Government very timid about legislation. Would it not be rather amusing to have a Bill before the House which was really going to help our trade? It would receive great support from this side, and it would be most novel to find a Measure which does something, instead of Measures which are always telling us not to do something. I now wish to turn to the location of industry. This Act was drafted by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was President of the Board of Trade, and it was introduced and passed when I was President of the Board of Trade.
The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman cannot of course deal with legislation.
Mr. Lyttelton: This was merely a historical reference. I did not know that it would be out of Order. I expressed the view that the powers contained in the Bill would seldom have to be used, if ever, and that the Bill would be entirely unnecessary in order to get a proper and well-balanced distribution of our industries. I think that prophecy has turned out to be correct, and I believe that the Board of Trade this year has continued to do good work, as it did last year, for the location of industry. I think that it would be very nice if the Parliamentary Secretary or the President himself were to acknowledge sometimes the very great help he has received from industry in the development areas.
This makes it all the more imperative that the fullest explanation should be given of the extraordinary series of events—I can describe them in no other way—which have taken place at Grantham, and were exposed this afternoon by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor). The facts which he has put forward deserve the closest attention and the fullest information from whoever is to reply for the Government.. I shall listen with the greatest interest to the reasons advanced to justify this extraordinary action. We now learn with astonishment that the factories themselves have been allocated not to an industrialist, but to a financial syndicate, which is now, within my knowledge, hawking both the assets of Grantham Productions—I am weighing my words very carefully—and also the promise of allocation of the factories, round the City. I cannot understand why the Board of Trade should take so little trouble to identify the antecedents of this syndicate and those who are connected with it, and why, in any case, a middleman who is not an industrialist has been put in possession. I shall await with the utmost interest a very full explanation of these extraordinary events.
I want to take up a few minutes on the subject of allocations of raw materials. I can best do that by an illustration. Allocations of raw material in peace time can only effectively be undertaken by a committee consisting of a bookmaker, a senior wrangler and an astrologer. These gentlemen are in very short supply, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman would say. It is beyond the possibility of human intelligence or cal-

759
culation to get all the priorities into order. Allocation, like most other things, is now being done very badly. I will give the Committee an instance. It is the scientific instrument industry. In passing, I might remark that it is an industry which is very much in front of the United States. The needs of this industry in steel are about 5,000 tons a year, and the total value of the products is £50 million.
The Chairman: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is getting a little wide of the Votes under discussion.
Mr. Lyttelton: I was trying to curtail my remarks. Major Milner. I had intended to say that one of the great mistakes which the Board of Trade made was in parking out the engineering industry on to another Minister. That was a very great organisational blemish and this is the sort of thing to which it leads. There is an important high conversion factor in this industry, and it can only get a trickle of steel.
The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman must keep a little closer to the matter under discussion.
Mr. Lyttelton: I am most anxious to keep within your Ruling, Major Milner. I think I have made that point sufficiently clear. I would like to conclude my remarks by dealing with the subject of vicious circles. When we are talking of consumer goods, we shall be told of the vicious circle—the shortage of raw materials, the shortage of consumer goods, shortage of piece goods leading to shortage of groundnuts from West Africa, and so forth. This is a vicious circle. We all know it to be so, and the whole history of the Government in economic matters is crusted with vicious circles. The principal industry in which they are engaged is making vicious circles. "Too much money chasing too few goods."
The result is too many controls, and the controls result in too many officials to apply them, and that leads to lower production and the need for more controls and more controls means more officials, and so on. This is a vicious circle. There are also things called virtuous circles. It is now our duty to break out of these vicious circles wherever we can and take some risks. When we begin, however small the beginning, many problems will start unwinding themselves. We can narrow the gap between money and goods
760
by increasing supplies if only for a short time and decreasing the export of consumer goods, and we can create less money. When the Government have done these things, we shall find that many of the more vexatious controls can be relaxed. Officials can be released who will become available for production, production will be increased, fewer controls will be necessary and the virtuous circle will start unwinding some of the problems.
I end by saying that in these matters the Government have timed the thing wrongly. It is said that the Walker Cup for golf, the Derby Cup for the three-year-olds, and the Davis Cup for lawn tennis have now stamped on them "Export only." We have overdone the export drive in consumer goods, which has resulted in too little incentive, too little work, too low a rate of production; and the right thing to do is to try to release more consumer goods even at the expense of exports, make up on exports by exports of capital goods and get on with that export drive when we have built up our people a little more. That is the sensible way. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a little too logical in these matters and he must look more to the human side. He has not spent his life in industry. He has always come down as a sort of god from the machine and addressed powerful speeches to the workers; but he has not had the job of spending all his life in dealing with these human problems, and I think he has got the timing wrong.
To sum up, I ask the Government to take a deep breath and look again at the economic background. I ask them to leave nationalisation where it has got to already. Let them leave it until they have tried their fortunes at another General Election. I make no complaint if they get in then and let the thing roll on. At the moment we are all under the threat of nationalisation. Nationalisation is halting the national recovery. I ask them to absorb the lesson of the virtuous circles as well as the vicious circles. Ministers will find it easier if they wake up every morning and say, "Great man that I am, Socialist that I am, my resolution for to day is to relax my grip on somebody or something, however small."
7.20 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: It is not really for me to antici-

761
pate the Ministerial reply to the speech which has just been delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Alder-shot (Mr. Lyttelton), but I do deprecate somewhat the analogy which he has drawn between Belgium and ourselves, for the reasons that, after all, Belgium did escape something of the hardships of warfare with which we were afflicted, and Belgian industry did not have to produce-the great armaments programme we had to sustain in this country. Furthermore, it will be in the right hon. Gentleman's own memory that in the early stages of the war this country sacrificed a great number of securities to the Americans in order to pay for our war supplies, and that was a great drain on this country at the time. I myself believe that that particular policy need not have been followed; I do not think we need have squandered our assets in that way, but that is past history. Nevertheless, the Government then in power was one with which, in some measure, the right hon. Gentleman was associated.
A point of some importance which has been mentioned by the Opposition concerns the comparison of export prices with import prices. We are having to pay inflated prices for some of our imports of raw materials, while on the other hand—and I think a comment was made on this point in the "Daily Express" only two days ago—the prices we are getting for our exports are, in some cases, greatly disproportionate to the prices we are having to pay for our imports of raw materials. So far as the President of the Board of Trade is able to watch that point, he might encourage the export trade to try to obtain a more equitable price for some of the goods we are now exporting.
The only solution of this problem of supplying the country with the consumer goods it requires is a vast increase in production. It is a question of produce or perish, and I think the President of the Board of Trade has taken the right step in deciding that we must first of all increase our production so as to enable us to export. Comparisons are very often odious, and perhaps the comparison with Belgium will prove to be another example. We do not yet know what the position of Belgium will be, resulting from the particular policy it is following, in comparison with our position under
762
the policy which is being followed by the President of the Board of Trade in endeavouring to keep this country financially solvent, and solvent from the point of view of exports compared with imports.
I would like to reter to one matter in particular which affects the availability of consumer goods in this country, and that is the extent to which a contribution is being made to the availability of those consumer goods by the development areas and the factories which are being built up in them. I have read with considerable interest the report of the Select Committee on Estimates which deals with the administration of the development areas, and I would like to refer to one apparent defect in that report. In making it I do not think the Committee had full regard to the problems which are besetting the tenants of factories in the development areas. The Committee should have gone deep down into industry and should have inquired from those who are actually using the factories whether they were getting the support of the Board of Trade which they really ought to expect. Are industrialists in the development areas in fact getting help from the Board of Trade, or are they experiencing a certain amount of hindrance? I have information—I do not want to be unduly critical, but I think it would be in the interest of the future development of those areas—which I think it would be well for the President of the Board of Trade to take into consideration. I have certain criticisms to make which I believe will be helpful.
First, there is a case in which the Board of Trade did not give all the help it might have given in connection with a factory estate which was being developed in my own constituency in Middlesbrough. I have the facts at first hand. A gun site was encroaching on what was destined to be an area in which factories would be built to produce the consumer goods of which the country is in such need. The Board of Trade in that case did not give the departmental backing it should have given, and which would have enabled the site to be cleared quickly. In the end the fight had to be carried on by the local authority in direct negotiation with the War Office. That was a case where we might have looked for every support from the Board of Trade.

763
In the case of another Tees-side estate 10 factories are scheduled to be built. At the present moment there are only four bricklayers, two trainees and one apprentice working on those factories. That is a very pathetic state of affairs. It is an area in which there was a large amount of unemployment before the war and it is vitally important for those factories to be built as soon as possible. When the matter was raised by those in the district who saw what was going on and wrote to the Regional Board for Industry in Newcastle, they received a letter to say that this was not any concern of theirs. That is the real tragedy. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to take up that sort of thing with the Regional Boards and see that they give such matters their full consideration. If the Regional Board for Industry in an area does not interest itself in such problems as that, to whom else can the industrialists in the area look for assistance?
There was a third example of a number of tenants of factories on the Aycliffe Estate. They reported recently to certain hon. Members of this House their complaints about the difficulties they had met with in various directions in trying to carry out their production programmes. First, they complained of the inefficient administration of the estate. That is something I think the Board of Trade should look into straight away, because it is hindering production. Their second complaint was on the subject of the exessive delays in the completion of factory alterations. The third was that the stores of building materials were being sadly mismanaged; factory alterations were held up for months at a time, and then it was found that the very items required were in the stores. A fourth ground of complaint was the lack of executive authority on the estate. The tenants, in other words, found it difficult to get a decision out of anyone, and in the end had to bring the matter before hon. Members of this House to get their problems attended to. A fifth charge was that the estate development company did not appear to be interested in this particular estate, and that is a serious charge. Again, if the management board of the Estate Development Company does not take an interest in these things, where else are the industrialists to get help ? They made a further
764
comment that there seemed to be an excessive number of consultants employed by the board, which held up decisions. Their sixth point concerned the excessive cost of alterations, and costing statistics have been provided by the tenants to show that they could have got the alterations done very much more cheaply than when the work was done by the Estate Development Company.
Here I come to what I feel to be the important point. If all these problems crop up in this way, what is the best way of solving them quickly? I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that there is a very simple way. The factory tenants themselves put forward a suggestion that a fully representative factory estate committee should be formed. There are such committees at the present time, but they have not yet got the essential power to enable them to speed up decisions. If things go wrong, they can see them going wrong on the spot, but they have no power to put them right. I ask that there should be a large measure of democratic control over the way in which factory estates are managed. They should not be left in the hands of a number of bureaucrats who are distant from the problems and who all the time are bedevilling the decisions which are required. It will, I believe, become almost a classic remark, which was made in this House a short time ago by my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) when he said that if this Government does not break the bureaucracy, bureaucracy will break this Government. It will break the Socialist Government. Let us realise this also, that it is not only this Government which will be overthrown by the bureaucracy. If bureaucracy remains unchecked in its ever-increasing stranglehold it will undermine any Government and it will destroy democracy itself, which is an even more important matter.
In this report of the Select Committee on the administration of the development areas there is a comment made by one of the civil servants themselves on page 9:
"The whole of the Trading Estate organisation is tied up to our Central Headquarters here in London, in the directorate or industrial estates."
I do not think that a truer remark could be made by a civil servant in public, and he had only to add, "tied up with red tape" to make it read correctly. "The

765
Times" two days ago commented on the Prime Minister's remark on the Civil Service. I do not want it to be thought that I am attacking the Civil Service, because we all realise that it is doing in many ways a good job. "The Times" referred to the way in which the Civil Service is deciding upon its own efficiency. As long as it is so deciding, we cannot expect to reduce bureaucracy, and we cannot consider what the new organisation is to be. If the final word is left to the Civil Service and if they are to be both judge and jury in their own case, we shall never change the bureaucracy into something better, and it will not be subject to analysis in the way it would be analysed if outside industrial experts were brought in.
I make a plea therefore for the one solution which I believe is the key to this whole problem. Again I quote from "The Times" of 25th June, from a letter from Mr. J. F. Eccles, referring to the efficiency in building, and this is what he wrote in a letter:
"The key to the test was the formation of a fully representative joint production committee empowered to discuss any matter relating to the affairs of the building company."
He said that that was the key to their success. In other words, he fully understood and fully implemented a scheme of joint consultation. Aiming at achieving the efficiency by which the Civil Service itself functions and in particular the Board of Trade, I suggest it might make use of this method of joint consultation instead of stifling it. On the other hand, I think there are very few people who really understand joint consultation. One case in point where it was understood was a cotton factory in Nelson, that of Messrs. Walter Pollard where they were able to introduce a full scheme of consultation dealing adequately with such things as welfare, and they were able to put up their output by 25 per cent. compared with prewar. That includes a number of additional people recruited in their own factory; but in addition to that, the individual employee has stepped up his output by 5 per cent. compared with prewar.
I think that sort of example shows the importance of joint consultation, and tends to disprove the assertion so often made, that the workers of this country cannot or will not produce in the way they used to do. In other words, if we
766
endeavour to obtain the full co-operation of the workers, explain what is required, and appeal to their intelligence and enthusiasm by setting before them the full facts of the case, we will get their cooperation in every case. There was another case of an engineering firm, the Glacier Metal Company here in London where they have stepped up their production to a considerable degree, and "The Times" made reference to that matter on a leader page article on 20th May. This example, therefore, has been substantiated by public pronouncements. I might add that the chairman of this company, Mr. Wilfred Brown, has broadcast many times on the important matter of joint consultation.
During the war when we were concerned with the vital matter of production, which is quite as important today, the method that was employed was the building up of what is equivalent in peacetime to the regional boards in industry under the Board of Trade. At that time it was under the Ministry of Production. The machinery for clearing the bottlenecks in production was most effective and it hinged on the fact that the workers themselves in the separate works, were encouraged to put forward their criticisms and suggestions as to how production could be improved; and when they realised that they had an important part to play in war production and saw their contact with the over-all problem, they responded in a most remarkable degree. I suggest that if we give them the opportunity to have the same bottleneck clearing system and apply it to some of the bottlenecks, which no doubt unintentionally but which are nevertheless being manufactured by the Departments themselves, we shall get similar results now.
The regional organisation at the present moment is undoubtedly inefficient. It is not producing the results which it did during the war, and I think one of the reasons for this is that the Government themselves are not using it. When the Cabinet, realising the importance of production to this country, started the production drive, on 10th March last year, when the Prime Minister gave his broadcast and appealed for the Dunkirk spirit, they did not think in terms of how that drive was going to be carried through. In other words, they depended on exhortation instead of linking that exhortation

767
with an explanation of the scheme by which the separate industrialists, the trade unions and the workers in the factories could link their individual efforts to the over-all pattern, as was done during the war. I believe the Cabinet, particularly at this time, needs to give a great impetus to the regional organisation for industry, for it could be the means of implementing full joint consultation between the Government and industry.
I gave notice that I would raise this matter on the Adjournment. I put down a Question regarding the organisation for the regional boards for industry and their functions. Very briefly I should like to indicate what occurred. I wanted to explain the Cabinet's production drive in my district and how the workers could best devote their time and attention to implementing the exhortations which they were receiving from Ministers. I asked what the function was and I received most unsatisfactory replies. My suggestion was that the problem would be clearer to the industrialists if they could see the pattern of the organisation for these regional boards and that a diagram of the organisation with a descriptive leaflet should be published The existing leaflet which was issued by the Board of Trade describing the organisation was not very imaginative and did not give a clear picture of the organisation, which I felt was essential if we were to see what the contacts were between the bottom and the top levels.
I received a letter from the President of the Board of Trade, after asking certain Questions in this House. In that letter the President said that the diagram which I had sent him with certain gaps, which I suggested might be filled in by the Board of Trade, could be filled in by me because I had been given the answers to those Questions. That was not a suitable reply for the President of the Board of Trade to give on a matter on which he should himself take full responsibility as the Minister responsible for ensuring the country's industrial co-operation. I believe, in point of fact, that the advisers to the Minister were misleading him when they advised that this letter covered the points, because it was only possible for the impetus to be given to the regional organisation if sponsored by the Minister himself. That was in December of last year. Eventually, in April, I got a letter
768
to say it was intended that a descriptive leaflet should be published. That is too long to wait for such an important matter, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give me an assurance that this matter will receive his immediate and proper attention because it still has not been published. When the crisis came along the region boards had quite a useful job to fulfil and the chairman of one of the regions, in sheer desperation, himself published a leaflet. It was not adequate and could not be because he had not the full facts before him, but the attempt was there, and it was an indication of the great importance and the necessity of this publicity, which was thereby suggested.
Finally, I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he would give attention to certain points. First of all, I should like the allocation of factories—to which reference has been made by some hon. Members opposite—to be made the responsibility of the regional boards for industry. In that way I think there would be a certain democratic control over those allocations and they would not be made purely on the decision of the Department and, in some cases, without the full knowledge of the local conditions. Then, when this leaflet that has been promised is published, I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should get people to put it across who understand what joint consultation really means. When the Department of the Board of Trade dealing with industrial efficiency does have its contact with industrialists I want that section to refer to the regional organisation of industry and to show the industrialists how they can make use of it, and I want the same thing to apply to the Cabinet Ministers when they speak to industrialists. Lastly, I suggest the regional organisation should be taken from the Department and placed under the Lord President of the Council in association with the economic section which is being built up. If economic planners had the use of this machinery, they would see that it is applied generally without the interference of separate Departments which do not, in every instance, realise the importance problems involved, or how to solve them.
7.42 p.m.
Viscountess Davidson: I welcome this opportunity of

769
saying a few words from the point of view of the consumer. At the last Election I think we all realised that whatever Government was in office afterwards would have to cope with shortages both of food and of raw materials. Those of us who were wise made no promises, but we hoped that within a reasonable time some improvements could be expected. During the war those of us who were Members of Parliament kept very close to our constituents and I think we helped to keep up their morale. We realised that the people of this country would face anything—restrictions, controls, difficulties—as long as they felt that they were necessary, as long as they felt that the Government were being efficient and, more important than anything, as long as they felt that they had confidence in their leadership; sometimes also, confidence in their own Member of Parliament helped as well.
Shortages now are as great as ever; in fact, they are greater, and people are losing faith in the leadership which is being shown. They are not convinced that the continuation of these restrictions and shortages is really necessary. The Government lay great stress on the need for increased exports, and obviously greatly increased exports are absolutely necessary if we are to live, but we are told that there are to be greater shortages than ever in the home market. Can one blame the women of this country if they register a certain amount of anxiety? May I say that personally I have found that the President of the Board of Trade and his Parliamentary Secretary have always shown the greatest courtesy to me, and have always been very helpful in the many cases I have brought to them? In view of the fact that, according to what the President said today, they now have to deal with some 1,300,000 letters every month, I am really astonished that we receive any replies at all, but it shows the anxiety in the country.
I am convinced that no man can really understand what it means to run a household today even those men who think that they are the greatest help to their wives. They may be excellent at washing up and assisting in similar directions, but although they think that they understand they really cannot, because it is the women who have to do the day-to-day jobs of running about from shop to shop looking for the
770
things needed in everyday life who really realise the difficulties. I cannot run through the whole of the shortages because there are too many, but they include linen, sheets, towels, cups and saucers, linoleums. carpets, floor-coverings, children's footwear and so on. As I have said, it is only those women who have gone from shop to shop searching for these things whose views are worth considering. I know I was fortunate—as many in this House were fortunate and as the President of the Board of Trade was I am sure fortunate in his household—in that at the beginning of the war we had a fairly adequate supply of linen. But I can assure the Committee that today I have not one sheet which is not end to middle and middle to end, with patches all over.
What is the position of the small householder who, during the war, has had to put up a number of evacuees who used her linen and sheets? The Board of Trade gives one the usual quite polite but inhuman reply, "Everybody in the household can give one or two coupons towards more of the necessary towels and sheets." Have those hon. Members who have helped their wives to wash up experienced what it means to dry with towels that are holes all through and are so thin that they never dry at all? But it is the attitude which people are meeting on the part of Ministers and the Government which they resent today. "It is all quite easy and anyone can produce a few coupons." Try to produce a few coupons when you have to clothe four or five growing children—boys who every holiday must have a new pair of shoes at nine coupons a time—and you will soon find that even with the whole of the books in the household pooled there will be very little left for the absolutely necessary linen required to run a home.
The President of the Board of Trade is a very austere man, and I know that he has strong views on uncooked food and the advantages of cold baths, but I am sure even he realises that you cannot run a house without linen, and that to go on expecting that at this stage, after seven years of war, ordinary small householders should have the linen or could possibly spare the coupons is trying the patience, of the public very far. What worries us so much is the attitude of the Government, the self-complacency and, if I may say so, the resentment when there is any

771
criticism from outside. I have always understood that the more able a man was the more willing he was to receive criticism, and that it was only the small-minded person who did not like it.
I beg Ministers to realise that the position is now very serious and that there is real reason for anxiety in the minds of women at the present time. There is no question of politics involved. Why should the Government adopt the attitude that because a certain number of women get together and put forward their views there is some political motive behind it? I assure them that there are housewives in my constituency and I have not the slightest idea whether they are Socialists, Communists or Conservatives. All I know is that they are equally anxious. It is curious that the views of the trade union organisations are welcomed with open arms, and that if they are strongly expressed we generally see the Government taking immediate action. Are not the views of the housewives entitled to be met with the same courtesy and appreciation instead of—I am sorry to say on some occasions—with insult and abuse?
I always feel that just as an hon. Member of this House represents the whole of his constituency without respect in the least to party politics, so the Government should represent the views of the whole country. They should represent all sections of the community, irrespective of politics and should not be suspected of looking after only their own political supporters. I sometimes feel that there is now no freedom of speech unless the views expressed have been blessed by the Minister in question. On this side of the Committee we are not only unhappy at the shortages of the ordinary necessities of life, but we are unhappy at the prices of goods. All goods not pegged by large subsidies are running up in price. The Government's own index of wholesale prices, as opposed to their "phoney" cost-of-living index, has been rising rapidly since the Government took office. The public is beginning to realise this and is becoming extremely anxious as to where the tendency is leading us. The Government will be faced by shortage after shortage, merely because of their attachment to their political creeds, and their profound belief in the principle of the State owning and running everything.
772
I would recall to the Committee what was said just now about bulk buying, because it is so very true. One has only to go abroad to other countries—I have just been to Argentina—to realise what a disaster Government bulk buying is. The Government buyer is heard miles off, like a herd of elephants, and they get ready for him. There is no doubt that it considerably influences the charge which is made for the goods that we require, and then those goods are very often in short supply. The Government should use for this purpose the traders, who know their job, have done it often before, and know the tricks of the trade. [Laughter.]I can assure hon. Members that there is nothing laughable about it. It is a fact that if you know your job you get the best for the public and safeguard their interests. [Interruption.]I am not interested so much in the views of hon. Members opposite as in the views of my constituents. I am speaking on their behalf. If the traders were allowed to do their own work we should see a great difference.
I had an opportunity during the war of sitting upon a committee of inquiry into the Ministry of Food, when Lord Woolton was there. Several hon. Members opposite were my colleagues and we were deeply impressed at the way in which that Ministry was run. Lord Woolton had brought in men who knew their jobs, and they did their own jobs. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are still there."] No, indeed they are not. Many of them have gone. The Ministry was so well run at that time that our committee did not even consider it necessary to make a report.
The Government can never tell the people how long shortages will continue. During the war there was always a very real hope that when Hitler was defeated the worst time would end. The people see in front of them now only increasing austerity. They see more and more shortages, and, in fact, woe on woe. The Government cannot say anything definite because they do not know when the people who are producing will realise the urgency to themselves as well as to the whole population of more production. That is one of the really important points. The workers have to realise that there cannot be an improvement in the situation until they begin themselves to increase production. It means—unfortunately I

773
know hon. Members will not like to hear this—having to undo much of the Socialist propaganda and political education they have carried out during the last 30 or 40 years. That will take a long time for only lately Ministers themselves have taken part in that propaganda. Let me quote one sentence written by the present Minister of Food. He said:
"Our conclusion is that, however hard the workers work, they will remain workers, and poor workers at that. Hard work will not make the workers any richer, but it will make their employers much richer. It does not take any higher wages to keep a sober, industrious worker, than a 'gay and feckless one. Hence the propaganda in favour of the workers becoming patterns of sobriety, parsimony and thrift. For the exercise of these virtues by the workers would first of all benefit, not them, but their employers."
Now these very Ministers are, day after day, begging for better production, begging the nation to pull together as they did in the war. They cannot undo their own propaganda and political education in five minutes. The harm has been done and I am afraid that it will be a long time before it is undone. The whole population must realise that our survival depends on increased production, on pulling together and producing on an ever-increasing scale; otherwise, the present situation is not likely to improve. The Government alone are responsible for the shortages that exist owing to their own economic policy which has created uncertainty in industry, slowed down production, and delayed the recovery of the country.
7.55 P.m.
Mrs. Wills: I am glad to follow the hon. Lady the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson) because I agreed with very much that she said. I agree that the women of this country are having a raw deal at the present time. We do want more goods. I do not agree that we are getting fewer than we had before. We are getting some more, but the increase is not quick enough and we want more still. I feel that employers are not putting as much effort as they could into getting this increase of goods.
Not enough attention is paid to part-time workers. I know that the hours of work of part-time workers cannot be regulated very well, because the workers may come in an hour or two late, and
774
they may go an hour or two early. More can be done, as was done during the war, to organise the industry of these part-time workers. We should thus get a lot more work done in the country. When it comes to the question of women workers not going into some of the jobs in which they were employed between the wars, I say that in the main those jobs were in "sweated" industries. The Government of the day had to adopt trade board measures in those industries to force the employers to pay enough wages to keep body and soul together. That is the sort of thing that has left a bad taste in the mouths of women. Women are the mothers of the future. They have daughters, and they watch jolly well that the daughters do not go into those industries in which they themselves have suffered. This is the sort of position we ought to look into. A great deal of this kind of thing was suffered between the wars, and it will take a long time to wash it out of the memories of women.
Let us look at another aspect of this situation. Why are the goods not in the shops? Because they are in people's pantries. I speak from long experience in the distributive trades. Goods which we used to turn over only five times a year are now turned over 10 or perhaps 12 times. We can sell the whole lot of certain classes of goods within half an hour of receiving them, whereas it used to take us very much longer. The reason-is that people have the money to buy them. They need them in their homes. People also need nice homes. Some people have lived their whole lives with the ideal in front of them of a nicely-furnished home. They are now in the position to buy that nicely-furnished home, as soon as things are available for them to accumulate.
I agree that there are shortages, but many people who feel those shortages are those who never felt any shortage before On the other hand, people who did not have enough before can now look round and see how much they have today for which to thank God and to count their blessings in that respect. I am not becoming satisfied with what we are getting; I still think that more could be done. I think the Board of Trade could do with a psychologist in the Department to get their propaganda over properly, and to give encouragement to people to work. I believe we should get more

775
people to work in industry if we said to them, "Work for the glory of Britain," or "Work to satisfy Britain," instead of "Work or want."
When we are talking about this subject we must realise that there are different points of view. I can remember when there were no curtains in the windows of houses, not because shops were not full of curtains, but because there was no money in the houses with which to buy them. We must remember that a poster like "Work or want" applies in some places, but not in others. In Scotland, for instance, there is a surplus of labour, and to put up such a poster before people who have no job is simply ridiculous. So we ought to devise a different kind of publicity from that if we wish to encourage workers to work and employers to give them an opportunity of working. We also ought to get more co-operation, on the regional boards in industry, between employers and workers, because together they can pull any hot chestnut out of the fire. Together they can get over all the difficulties which lie before them.
We must be positive in our appeal. Many people want to know what there is to do. It is no good saying "You can gaze into shop windows"—although that is jolly hard work—or "You can produce something." We must be more positive than that, and the Ministry of Labour can help by talking to women in various parts of the country, particularly in the new housing estates, and could take work to them. I believe that work connected with the clothing industry, which does not need large machinery, could be taken to these women, could be taken to small workshops near their homes.
We want many of the simple things in our homes that we have done without for a long time, things which make all the difference to a home. I agree with the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead that men do not know what it is to manage a home without all the things and comforts which women like to have. We have to try to make do, so that our neighbours do not notice our deficiencies. There are all sorts of trials to the nerves of women. They want a pat on the back, and should be encouraged for what they have done. There are no more faithful members of the community than the women of this country.
776
If they are duly encouraged, I think it is possible to get more out of women than out of men. So I ask all hon. Members to think again about the way in which they approach this problem, because I am convinced it is being wrongly approached today. Those who have had to work hard in the past are not afraid of working hard in the future; they are happy at their work, given the right conditions. If we ask for the job to be done, if we give instructions in the special problems that women have before them, they will do at least one and a half, if not two, jobs in one.
As for what has been said about Lord Wooltons good housekeeping, it is very easy to be hospitable, to be a good house-' keeper if you have a full pantry, and Lord Woolton had a very full pantry. Do not let us forget that. He had Lend-Lease, and food which was imported from other countries which sent it to us in order to win the war. It has been said that women have political views, and, of course, they have, but it has not been the women so much who have been political; it has been the organisers of the political campaigns. When it comes to prices, we are asking for more and not fewer controls, because we want to keep commodities within reach of the population. So I say, let us alter our propaganda, if we can call it that, and urge the women to come forward. Let us tell them how good they are, and how much they can do, and I am sure they will not disappoint us.
8.8. p.m.
Mr. Hollis: As a member of the weaker sex, perhaps I may interpose a few observations in this Debate. The thing which has struck me as most extraordinary is that after the President of the Board of Trade made his careful and lucid speech, giving details of commodities which were now in slightly greater supply, it was some hours before my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman) was the first speaker to call attention to the fact that the standard of living we are enjoying today is one which we axe enjoying, not because of the triumphs of Socialist production, but because we are living "on tick," through the American Loan. We are living on the proceeds of a great capitalist civilisation, whether we like it or not. This so-called planned

777
society of ours has been able to go on only because there is an unplanned society which does produce the goods—
Mr. Follick: They have not had their factories smashed.
Mr. Hollis: I am well aware of that. I can assure the hon. Lady the Member for Duddeston (Mrs. Wills), whose speech we so much enjoyed, that Lord Woolton did not have an easy time. She said that he had a full pantry, but the fact is that our ships were being sunk constantly—
Mrs. Wills: He did have an easy time.
Mr. Hollis: I do not want to discuss the general question of America on this occasion, although nobody, at times, has been more alarmed at certain tendencies of American policy than myself. Nevertheless, I believe that if an American inquirer tried to discover from Members opposite what was the position of consumer goods in this country, he would be somewhat puzzled. First, he would be told that our people were now eating better than in the past; then he would be told that we were carrying out a vast social reform, that we were introducing a five-day week. Then he would be told that unless we produced more there was grave danger that our rations would be reduced; then he would be told that the Americans were reactionary, that America was a capitalist country, and was riding for a fall, that it was a sign of their own decadence that they still had a six-day week.
America would be asked for a little more money and at the same time they would hear us say, "The Americans are stupid people and do not understand the British point of view." They would be entitled to be puzzled, in the same way as all foreigners are entitled to be puzzled when the people of this country talk about and denounce privileges. In the eyes of the vast majority of the people of the world it is an enormous privilege. to be British at all. This country enjoys a standard of living a little above that of the great majority of the inhabitants of the world. It is a curious moral cowardice that it is held to be wickedness for an individual to want a higher standard than his neighbour, but not for one country to want to have a higher standard of living than another. Nevertheless, I entirely agree that we should enjoy a higher standard of living in this
778
country than the average of the world, 'but clearly we can do so only if we produce the' goods. No one expects other nations to keep us in that condition unless we produce the good for ourselves.
The fundamental problem and the fundamental solution, as has been admitted at other times, is volume of production. In considering what the solution is, I entirely agree with those who say that there is no substitute for hard work by all classes of the community. No one would deny that. I entirely agree that we cannot have a larger cake unless we produce a larger cake. I also entirely agree that the problem is not so much one of shortage of labour as one of maldistribution of labour. One could develop and improve on that point if more time were available. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Duddeston about the basic necessity being one of co-operation. These theoretical debates about the best way of organising the industry of the country are highly important and highly proper at their right time, but the fundamental and terrible and serious fact today is that there is still uncertainty. I am not intending to be alarmist; I want to be a realist. There is uncertainty whether we shall get through the next years or months, or not. If we do not get through those next months or years, theoretical debates about the best way of organising industry are unimportant because they will not be realised anyhow. That being so where we differ, we must differ, but where we are able to co-operate we should agree to do so.
We have had a most valuable speech from the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis), in which he gave an instance from his own deep experience of how certain demands were made by the employers and trade unions in the rubber industry for co-operation. In general, when the White Paper was issued it was most remarkable that the Trades Union Congress and the Federation of British Industries made almost identical demands as to the practical steps that were required in order to pull the country through at any rate, its immediate difficulties. Let us, at any rate, concentrate on those things on which we agree and on which we can pull together, and let us not waste our ammunition and energy on debating and fulminating on issues which are sometimes unreal

779
and on other occasions may have some eventual reality but are irrelevant to the solution of our immediate problems.
8.14 p.m.
Mr. Skeffington: I did not think that I should ever be grateful to the members of the National Liberal section in the House, but I think we are all grateful that they have raised this very important subject today so that we can discuss the real shortages that exist, and, what is of even greater importance, get the picture in its right perspective. If one takes the speeches of the two hon. Ladies who have just spoken and puts them together, one begins to see the sort of problems facing a very large number of our citizens. Before I come on to the one or two special points I want to raise, let me say that I was a little surprised that the major evidence of shortages here, produced by the hon. Member who opened the Debate was a comparison of this country with Belgium. I have not the precise statistics as I thought the Debate was confined to shortages here and not in Belgium, but because there are highly-priced goods in some of the shop windows of the capital of Belgium, it is going a long way to suggest that a successful economy has been built up there.
When that theory was developed by the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) I was amazed, because, frankly I thought many of his facts were bogus. He said there is no petrol rationing in Belgium. What is the proportion of motor cars as a method of transport in Belgium to this country? It bears no relation at all, for there they have largely horse-drawn and animal-drawn vehicles. I think we should find that whereas there is one motor car to 20 persons here, it is one to some hundreds in Belgium'. The short answer is, therefore, that there is no possible comparison with Belgium, with its very compact commitments, and the great commitments of this great victorious Power which has had to spend not only so much in winning the war, but so much after winning the war. We have world-wide commitments, and to pretend that the economy of Belgium can bear any relation to ours was a most extraordinary argument coming from the Conservative Front Bench. We shall soon
780
get a new Pan-Belgium movement if that kind of utterance goes on.
I suggest, however, that in the Debate today there has been very little evidence from hon. Members opposite that the present shortages' are due to Government maladministration. I believe there are certain things the Government are not doing right, and that we brought to point them out if we know them, or if we are convinced that we are right and the Government are wrong. However, we have heard very little from hon. Members opposite on this. It may be a tribute to their discretion or reasonableness, or it may be that it is impossible to say, if one is honest about it, that in the situation after two world wars in 20 years one would not expect to find many of the shortages which now exist.
I was glad that the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Medlicott) paid some kind of tribute to the Board of Trade in his speech, although I did not altogether like the terms of it.. He said that it was better than some other Government Departments, and that might not be taken as highly complimentary. I think it ought to be said in this Committee that the Board of Trade have had a most distasteful job to do. They have been dealing with the pent-up demands of consumers for seven years during which they have not been able to buy. The whole framework of our economy has been affected by two world wars in 20 years. It was inevitable that some kind of scheme had to operate where there were shortages. That is admitted, even by the Opposition. In an exposition to which I shall not give free publicity. there is a solemn declaration that no control would be removed from any commodity so long as it was in short supply. Therefore, I think the Board of Trade have done their distasteful job with great efficiency. They have been extremely ingenious in the schemes they have put up, and they have tried to see that shortages are fairly shared. I would like to place on record my tribute to the very fine job they have performed.
Before coming to one or two specific cases of shortage which have been brought to my notice, I am wondering whether or not as the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mrs. Wills) said, the Board of Trade puts itself over to the ordinary public, even to the ordinary retailer. It is no use saying,

781
as the President did this afternoon, that all these figures have been given in the "Board of Trade Journal" because, although it has a good circulation among people interested in that kind of reading; it is not read by the average retailer and by the average member of the public. Linked up with the production campaign, there ought to be many more facts about our situation at home, about the difficulties, about the time people will have to wait, and about our achievements. For example, I believe it is a fact that, owing to the conclusion of the Japanese war at a much earlier date than was forecast, we had to have a great acceleration and great diversion of materials to the production of clothing for demobilised men. That was equal, in the period from August, 1945, to August, 1946, to something like 100 million clothing coupons. It was a great achievement of the clothing industry that they were able to produce these articles long before the men left the Services, but it meant that the poor civilians had to wait longer. That is a fact which ought to have been made known, so that the people would get a true appreciation of the position. Too often the Board of Trade is too remote from the ordinary person. I think the publicity should be improved and the Ministry of Food newspaper publicity could be emulated. These problems should be discussed on the wireless so that people could understand some of our difficulties. Why not let an administrator, a manufacturer, a worker and a consumer discuss once a week some specific problem of civilian shortages?
There is a matter which ought to have been raised by one of the lady Members. I must raise it because I have received letters on the question. Although I have a lot of letters I have not many on shortages, but I have had many letters about children's clothing. We have heard the Minister of Health say that there is a high level in the birthrate, and it is not likely to decline. Only today I received a letter from a retailer in my Division expressing concern about shortages of children's clothes. It says that at present there are acute shortages of pyjamas and sleeping suits, small vests and socks. I hope we shall get an indication that some steps are to be taken to increase the supplies of these things. The other day I saw that very soft graded wool is held almost entirely for export, yet certain children's
782
clothing can only be made from soft wool. I would like to know whether that is accurate. I am told that certain types of baby wool can be obtained only on blue coupons, or on green books, and I would like to know if this is correct.
There has been a very big increase in many household supplies. There has been an increase of 71 per cent. in hollowware, but there are gaps even there. There are shortages of cups and saucers. My own Division of West Lewisham has the distinction of having received the greatest weight of high explosive bombs in the war of any district in London. I put a Question to the Board of Trade asking if they were convinced that the distribution of cups and saucers in my Division was sufficient. I received an answer that if I could produce any evidence that the distribution to any retailer was below the average, they would have it looked into. Being a very simple person, I did not know what the average was, but, with the assistance of the Chamber of Commerce, a number of instances have been got out. We found that one retailer's supply is woefully defective as compared with last year. In cups and saucers together the supplies have been 59 per cent. less than last year; in cups only, 62 per cent.; in tea plates, 50 per cent.; in pudding plates, whatever they are, 68 per cent., etc. I should not only like to feel that my Division was getting a square deal, but I should like also to hear more information about the industry. I believe it has been said that the pottery industry is taking a much higher quota of coal than was originally anticipated. No doubt that will help a great deal.
My final point hinges, to some extent, on an observation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Webb) in connection with shortages and in connection with the wastage of manpower and materials on certain items. It is true, as he said, that in certain respects there is a great deal of trash in the shops. That is true at any time, but now the waste of manpower and materials is absolutely criminal, whatever the material or whatever the manpower may be. I would like to see the application of two principles which are now familiar to us, and which have worked with a good deal of success in some industries—the fixing of maximum prices on as wide a range of goods as possible, and employing with that a test for minimum quality. It

783
is important, particularly for the poorer sections of the community, that they should not be forced to buy shoddy goods because they are cheaper, goods which in the long run are most uneconomical for them as well as having been most uneconomical to produce.
The linking of price control with a minimum quality standard is essential. I tested the matter by way of Parliamentary Question and I got a satisfactory reply, but it takes time to develop these things. The application of these two principles is vital. It would permit something which hon. Members opposite like, and which I certainly like. If we merely fix a maximum price and a minimum quality it leaves the field open for the very best form of competition. It is not preventing anyone from selling below the maximum price or offering goods of a higher quality than the minimum standard. The great thing is to safeguard the consumer. If we do that we shall be taking steps not only in his interests but in the wider interests of the nation.
8.28 p.m.
Mr. Hurd: As I listened to the President of the Board of Trade and to the smooth words that came from him, I could not help wondering whether he and his Department realise how rigorously they control the lives of everyone in this country, and indeed the future conduct and development of our industries. I am a farmer and I know what it is when one wants the smallest piece of timber for repairs and one has to get a licence, and that is only one tiny control. I was interested in the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) about the allocation of the armament factories at Grantham, because the way that space and steel are used will decide whether the farming community in this country are to be properly equipped with tractors for the next year or two and whether we are to retain the export market we are developing today.
The Committee should know that the present makers of tractors—and all of them have to get their steel out of the one agricultural allocation—are only working to 65 per cent. of capacity. That means that if one goes into the Ford Works today they can boast that a new
784
tractor comes off the production line every 3½ minutes, but it could be every 2½minutes, if they could get the steel. They have the men, the equipment and the skill. It is lack of steel that is holding them up. The point which my right hon. Friend raised is relevant to the proper use of labour and resources in food production here. Are we to see tractor producers, not only Ford's but David Brown's and the Standard Company, get a full share of steel so that they can meet the needs of farmers here and be in a strong position to carry on in the export trade when the sellers' market has gone and when American competition in the world will be extremely keen? I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give a clear and definite reply to the points raised by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Walkden: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied himself, or are his friends satisfied, that the factories which now exist to produce tractors and agricultural machinery are all producing to capacity in accordance with the amount of steel or metal allocated or made available to them?
Mr. Hurd: I should think so— certainly. They know the state of the waiting list. Farmers have to wait eight months for a Fordson tractor.
Mr. Walkden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that during the period of office of the predecessor of my right hon. and learned Friend there was a factory in my Division which ought now to be employing 1,500 engineers? They have been fiddling about since 1945, or 1944, and I doubt whether they have produced half a dozen tractors since then. They ought to have been employing all these engineers, but the factory is now in such a condition that we are ashamed at the progress which has been made.
Mr. Hurd: That is just an example of how very tricky the development of a new tractor is, and how very careful the President of the Board of Trade should be before he allows any of our resources to be frittered away on rather uncertain projects.
Mr. Walkden: That was under free enterprise.
Mr. Hurd: I want to mention as a complete contrast a case where the Board of Trade have failed to show any enterprise

785
or give any forward guidance. I think they have been a little hasty in the Grantham case. I have in my constituency quite another instance. There was before the war an old-established furniture factory which was converted to make aeroplanes during the war years. In 1944 they applied to be allowed to start the manufacture of furniture again, for which they had skilled workers and all the proper equipment. Correspondence went to and fro, and eventually workers at the factory wrote to the President of the Board of Trade. On 25th February they wrote:
"During 1946 our labours have been dissipated and lost to the country as, throughout the year, we have, through no fault of our own, been practically workless."
A month later, on 25th March, the Parliamentary Secretary replied saying that the firm could not be designated for utility production because of shortage of timber for furniture making, although it was recognised that furniture was their sole production before the war. He said he realised the difficulties with which the furniture industry is faced at present, and added:
"We know that much hardship must in evitably fall upon employees in the industry as a result of the present unfortunate conditions."
I echo the words of the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Skeffington). It is criminal, month after month, to waste skilled labour and resources. If that factory in Newbury could not be allowed the raw materials so that it could return to its proper job of furniture making, a clear indication of that should have been made months ago. The President of the Board of Trade carries a very heavy responsibility and he has not yet told this factory what is to be done We heard today that the right hon. and learned Gentleman hopes that there will soon be some more hard wood coming into this country. I hope and pray that the workers in Newbury will be able to make that hard wood into furniture and that their factory may get to full work again. In conclusion, I ask the President of the Board of Trade to try to do better than he appears to have done in these two cases. He carries very great responsibilities and the manner in which he uses his dictatorial powers will make or mar our country for many years to come.
8.35 P.m.
Mr. Chetwynd: One point which has not emerged sufficiently so far in this Debate, is the really searing effect of the war upon the whole of our economy. A country cannot go through the events of those six or seven years, in the way in which we did, without feeling the effects for a considerable time. It is quite beside the point to try to compare our recovery with that of Belgium, on the one hand, and America, on the other. I think we can say that, before the recent fuel crisis, we had reason to feel proud of the smooth transition which we had made from war to peace production in this country, and that there was every sign at the beginning of this year that, if things had gone on in that direction, there would have been a considerable lessening of austerity throughout this year. It was the fuel crisis in February and March which brought us face to face again with this hardship and shortage and continued austerity. But for this, the promise of better supplies in the shops, more goods on the counters, shorter queues and so on, would, in my opinion, have been a reality.
In spite of the very rapid recovery which we have made since February and March, we still feel the serious effects of that time. For instance, footwear, about which we have heard so much today, fell from 10.4 million pairs in January to 4.5 million pairs in February. Perambulators for sale fell from 59,500 in January to 36,600 in February, and the loss of production of utility furniture was from 3.9 million units to 2.4 million units. If we add those losses to the losses which are due to the shortage of labour, shortage of raw materials, increased demand owing to more wealth being available and owing to the increased birth-rate, we have some idea of the scope of the problem which the Board of Trade, in co-operation with industry, have been trying to solve since the end of the war.
One major factor must be taken into account, but there has been very little mention of it so far. It is important that we should expand our capital equipment, and devote as much of our resources of wealth and materials as we can to expand our basic industries, because, even when we are producing consumer goods, the future will be very

787
dismal indeed. There again, we have a considerable record of which we can be proud. In 1938, we spent £308 million in new capital equipment, and in 1945 we only spent £118 million, but in 1946 we spent £493 million on capital equipment, which was roughly equivalent to the amount we had been spending prewar. From this year's Economic Survey, it is quite clear that we must devote a considerable proportion of our resources to carrying on this redevelopment of our industry, and we cannot expect, as some people wish, to devote the whole of our resources to consumer goods, if we are to succeed in the future. It is reasonably clear that units, dockets and coupons, and all the rest of these irritating necessities have to continue for some time.
I would like to refer to what is, in my opinion, the most acute shortage, at least in my own area, and that is men's clothing. It is virtually impossible to buy a shirt in the North-East, and size 15½ has not been seen for months. People have to wait something like 12 months between the order and getting even a semblance of a response. Together with the effects of the fuel crisis, the recent high level of sales in April, when coupons became available, has really denuded the shops in the North-East. There is a marked shortage of boys' wear, particularly raincoats, and a marked shortage of socks, pants, trunks and shorts. I do not know what the answer is, but, in London, one can walk into shops and buy these things, and there is a considerable increase in supplies to London as against the North-East. I am wondering if this is due to the fact that, now that there is a free market in these goods, the suppliers are supplying those firms who dealt in large quantities before the war, whereas we, in a development area, with a low purchasing power, were not able to get hold of these goods. I wonder if that has something to do with this acute shortage. I would be very grateful if my hon. Friend could look into that important point and let me know whether we are getting a fair and equitable share in the North-East. Can we have a better distribution of clothes? We admit that there is an over-all shortage, but we feel that the distribution could be a little more just.
I have received a letter from a lady in my constituency deploring the shortage
788
of wool. She says that owing to this-shortage, the manufacturers are not now making long combinations, and, as a result, the old ladies in my constituency are suffering from rheumatism because they have to wear short vests, and so on. I do not think that we can do anything about that now. Indeed, I do not think that the younger generation would stand for it. But it is just one of the problems which the Board of Trade have to face.
I would now like to deal with what seems to be a gross misdirection of labour and raw materials. Already, there are signs in the shops of over-production of certain articles. At the end of the war, many firms in the light metal industry, who had rapidly expanded their production, changed over very quickly to peacetime production. Since then, they have been flooding the shops with all kinds of pots and pans, fireguards and companion sets with which to keep the hearth tidy, and so on. During the last few days, I have had a good look round some of the stores in London, and there seems to be a glut of pots and pans, light metal goods, certain small plastics, ash trays—as the Chancellor has cut down smoking these latter do not seem to be necessary—leather bags with zipp fasteners, and lampshades. A few months ago it may have been a desirable thing to have all these goods, but it does not help the harassed housewife to see the shops littered with them. If we are to prevent a similar situation to that which we had last winter, in regard to the over-production of electric fires, now is the time to look into the over-production of non-essential goods to see if we can divert the labour and material into-more useful channels.
I would like to deal with something which, I believe, can help us to better times. There has been a rapid expansion of factory development in the development areas, and, although in the past I have criticised the Board of Trade in this matter, I do not think they have been given sufficient credit for the. amount of new factory space and new employment which has been provided. But the whole of this development is likely to be handicapped in the very near future unless we have a real policy with regard to distribution of raw materials. I have a letter from a firm in the North-East, though not in my own constituency, which had been induced to go there to manufacture dresses, and so on. They say that in the

789
last 17-week period they were able to book only 10,000 yards of material as against 70,000 yards in each of the three previous periods, and are faced with having to sack a large number of men and women, particularly women, unless they can get an increased supply of cloth. But they Say that similar firms in London, Birmingham, and elsewhere in areas of manpower shortage, are getting more than they can handle.
It seems-to me that, although there is a free market in this commodity, the Board of Trade could give a much more positive direction to the suppliers of this material to see that an increased quota is allocated to those firms-which have come to our aid in the development areas. I do not know what action my hon. Friend can take in the matter, but it seems quite reasonable to expect that, even if we took some cloth from firms in good areas, the labour which would be displaced as a result could easily find alternative employment. We could take up the slack in development areas and use it to increase production. That seems a right and proper thing to do. It means the reintroduction of controls, but I think it would be a worth while thing to do. Although we admit that austerity must and will continue, and we cannot see the end of it, if the Board of Trade put across their case properly the public will accept this austerity with a much better heart than has been demonstrated in the past. It should be pointed out that if we produce for export as much as we can, not only shall we survive the present shortages, but the future will be good for the majority of the people in this country.
8.46 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Eresby: I would like to take the Committee back to the very interesting speech which we heard from the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Webb). May I, a fellow sufferer myself, record my admiration of the way in which he has overcome his grievous difficulty? There must be a certain affinity between those who have lost limbs. The other speech to which I wish to refer is that by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman).
I agree with a good deal that the hon. Member for Central Bradford said, but I think he produced one extremely fallacious and misleading argument at the
790
beginning of his speech. It will be remembered that he argued that because certain large distributing firms, such as Marks and Spencer, Woolworth's, and Lewis's, with which Lord Woolton was once connected, were making large profits today or had declared increased dividends, therefore, all was happy, business was better and the consumer was being well served and supplied. Hon. Members opposite must realise that they won the last General Election. That may have been rather a shock to some of them, but they must recognise that during the last two years that they have been in power they have virtually brought about an economic revolution in this country. There has been substituted an artificial, Government-controlled price level for the free price mechanism which we knew before the war. That being so, it is useless to take the same yardstick of profit to prove that an industry or business is well conducted and progressive and gives good service. As many hon. Members know, because a firm or industry makes large profits, or even if the worker earns large wages, it does not mean that the industry or the worker are better off than their competitors. If we are to get back to healthy business in this country, we must return to the system of the free price mechanism.
Our present position is unhealthy. I am a producer in a small way. I am connected with one or two productive firms, and conditions today are really too good to be true. It is not particularly difficult to make profits. The workers are satisfied; they are earning good wages. But as a conscientious producer, one feels that something is not quite right. One's business is not as efficient as it ought to be. There is not the drive that one would like to see. One asks oneself what is wrong. Who is suffering? Of course, the person who is suffering, or "taking it," is the consumer. Once we have an artificial economy such as we have today, the producer is fairly safe; he is organised. Labour is fairly safe; that is organised. As the President of the Board of Trade knows, one can exert a certain pressure on Government Departments who decide these questions of prices, but the one large body in the country which is not organised is the consumers. So many hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken today have expressed dissatisfaction or annoyance with the fact that we do have these various organisations of housewives in

791
this country. But they are really very understandable, and I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been the first people to recognise that, because they know that until labour was organised it did not get very far. It is rather the same in this case, when we have the other two organised bodies. Until the consumers are organised they suffer.
Mrs. Jean Mann: Is the noble Lord referring to the housewives who are organised by the transport interests?
Lord Willoughby de Eresby: I am not. I think I have given a perfectly legitimate argument. When we have the artificial Structure for which Socialism stands, we have the trade unions on the one side and the producers on the other organised, and exercising pressure on the President of the Board of Trade and on other Ministers to keep a price level which will give them profits or good wages; and, as I say, I think the consumer possibly suffers from that. I think the other reason things appear better today than they really are is the fact that we are subsidising inefficiency amongst producers and amongst the workers to a certain extent—with the American Loan, as well. I feel that we are not really going to have a healthy state of business again until we go back to a free price mechanism. I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite will immediately say, "You wish to remove all controls straight away." I only ask the President of the Board of Trade to remember what my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) said, that there is all the difference between waking up in the morning and saying, "What cant I free?" and waking up and saying "What can I restrict?" I also know that when we start removing controls, undoubtedly we are going to cause hardship to a certain number of people in this country. To finish quickly, I would say only that. for myself, I would far sooner subsidise the consumer than—and let us face the fact that we are doing this—subsidise a good many inefficient producers or workers in this country at the moment.
8.53 p.m.
Mr. Mallalieu: I agree with the noble Lord that the consumer is carrying the baby, but I would not
792
agree with him for one moment that the way to ease the burden would be to return to the ordinary price mechanism. I would not do that until the distribution of income is very much more equal than it is at the present time.
Lord Willoughby de Eresby: But there is taxation.
Mr. Mallalieu: In the old days the operation of the ordinary price mechanism acted most unfairly. It weighted tremendously the demands of certain people, and made very light the demands of the poorer sections of the population. I think we shall ease the consumers' burden much more by getting the producers— and the Government—to look at this lack of drive of which the noble Lord is conscious in his own business, and see what reason there is for it. I would say that, in the industry which is the main industry in my constituency, and which has been an interest of my family for, perhaps, 500 years, the lack of drive in the wool textile industry at the present time is obviously due to two things: first of all, the difficulty of getting labour back into the mills, and, secondly, the difficulty of getting the best output that is possible from the labour that is in the mills.' The reasons we cannot get labour back into the mills at the present time are many. I have not time to go into the details now. One is the bad conditions of the past—the shockingly bad conditions. They are better now, but still not right. Possibly, another reason has to do with pay. I am not certain. The third and most serious reason why people will not go back into the wool textile industry is the fear of unemployment. We had bad unemployment in the 20 years before the war. We are desperately afraid of getting it again.
The lack of full productivity from the labour that is in the mills seems to me to be due to several reasons. One is that many of the mills are obsolete; the layout is bad. They do not get a steady flow of production. There is a good deal of wasted effort in going from one part of the mill to another. The second reason there is not the fullest possible productivity is the shortage of coal; mills are not getting full-out working. During the winter the mills were stopped for many weeks. We are not working on full capacity, quite part from labour shortages, because of the fact that we are

793
not getting enough coal. It is also a fact that what labour there is is not concentrated in the most efficient mills so that a smaller number of mills could work flat out. The labour is spread out among a large number of mills, and that is wasteful and brings down productivity.
The third reason why I should say productivity in the industry at the present time is not high, is what I can only describe as a lack of interest. That seems at once to be a criticism of the operatives, but it is not a criticism of the operatives at all. It is a criticism of the management. I was always taught—and subsequently when I became an officer was proud to believe—that if the morale in a ship's company was bad, it was not the fault of the men but the fault of the officers. I believe that a great deal of the poor productivity in many of our industries today is the fault of the management, in that they do not go about the job of arousing the interest of the operatives in their work. For instance, I saw one man working in an engineering shop at a very small part, and I asked him what that small part was for, what machine it went into: he did not know; he had not the faintest idea. How can a man possibly have an interest in his job if he does not know the purpose of that job ? The fact that that man did not know the purpose of his job was not so much his fault as the fault of the manager in the shop in which he worked.
We find the same sort of thing in the textile industry. At the present time there are spinners who are letting shoddy yarn go through. When that yarn gets to the weaving shed the weaver gets going on the job, and after a time has to stop the loom, unpick the work and go back. If the spinner had been taught to realise the dependence of the weaving side on good quality spinning, she would have appreciated that any shoddy work by her would penalise not the boss so much as a fellow worker, who would lose wages and time.
There are various solutions to the two difficulties which our industry is facing at the present time. The inability to attract labour and the inability to get the best use out of the labour when we have attracted it are the two problems. The first one I consider to be a job for the Government. With this fear of unemployment we are not in a position at
794
present to tell people that if they go back into the mills in Huddersfield they have a safe job. We cannot possibly tell them that, because we have no data whatever to go on. The only way in which we can get the data is to try—difficult though the job is, and rough though the final conclusion would be—to make an estimate of the sort of capacity we want that industry to have. Once that has been done—and I know it is a difficult job, but I think it ought to be done—we could say, at any rate roughly, that there will be work for many years to come for a certain number of workers. Having worked out the capacity which is wanted from the industry, we should proceed to get it. We should do that, in the first place, by scrapping altogether a great many obsolete mills. In order to make the capacity right we might have to build a few new mills. In any case, whether we build new mills or whether we merely improve the best existing mills, we should give mills we are going to work absolute priority for machinery and equipment. Because that would prevent new machinery from going into obsolete mills, we should cut down the long delivery delays which the machinery manufacturers at present find unavoidable.
By concentrating our textile effort into a smaller number of mills, we should do several things. We should increase the recruitment into the industry, because the fear of unemployment would be diminished and its attractiveness heightened, because the worst types of mills would have been closed down, and only those mills in which the conditions were better would be those into which we should be asking the people to go and work. We should solve our recruitment problem in that way.
But we shall not solve the problem of productivity, until we get down to this question of arousing interest. That can be done in several ways. There is one mill which has a first-class training scheme at the present time. It does not merely give practical training. The trainees are given lectures on the whole of the industry, its various sections, and its relation with other kindred industries. The trainees at the end really know what their job is about. That is one way. The second way of arousing interest is to encourage, by every possible means, the establish-

795
ment of production committees. They would be well worth while, even if they were used only for information. It would make the workers feel part of a team.
But these committees could be used for much more than that. If the boss wants to find but where there is serious waste in his shop, he should go to the people in that shop who know the answer. The production committees should be used, in fact, as an integral part of management, as well as for providing information. If we do these things, we shall be doing a great deal to increase the productivity of the workers, and we shall go a long way towards cutting out the shortages in the shops of textile materials and clothing of all kinds of which we have complained in this Debate.
9.2 p.m.
Mr. Butcher: The President of the Board of Trade was hardly fair to my hon. Friend the Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Medlicott) in upbraiding him for not making suggestions on how the difficulties should be overcome. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is surely too old a Parliamentarian not to know that the purpose of a Supply Day is to secure the redress of any grievances before granting the Vote. It is our duty to seek to redress the grievances under which the people are labouring, and it is the duty of the Government to give assurances that these grievances will be removed. Many hard things have been said about the President of the Board of Trade from both sides of the Committee. and I, for my part, may have one or two more hard things to say before I have finished. I dissociate myself from those critics who couple the right hon. and learned Gentleman with the Minister of Fuel and Power and the Minister of Food as being the three architects of shortages. There is an amazing difference between these three right hon. Gentlemen. The President of the Board of Trade thinks before he speaks, and has a magnificent administrative record in the National Government. He puts the national interest before party propaganda. There is also another difference. The two other right hon. Gentlemen have produced positive shortages in coal and potatoes. I wondered, when I read about the strictures of the Lord President of the
796
Council on the Jeremiahs who brought mournful tidings to the people, whether the last person to whom he had been speaking was not the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Despite the increase in production of lighters and razors, the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was hardly designed to remove the misgivings of the people. Many, hon. Members have spoken of the present serious shortages, and at one point I commenced to make a list of those shortages to which specific reference was made. I do not think any useful purpose would be served if I quoted the list, and in any case it would be wearying in its length and repetition.
I think the motive lying behind all the speeches was this: Who would have thought that more than two years after the achievement of victory the home consumer would be so terribly short? The position in the average home—this is a matter which does not lend itself to statistical definition, as the President knows, but I believe that it is a statement which will be agreed by every man and woman in the country—has not been maintained even since VE day. The people of this country are sufficiently sensible to recognise that while the country was mobilising its efforts for the prosecution of the war, there would have to be a steady deterioration in civilian standards. That was expected; it was welcomed, and all sections of the community accepted it willingly. Nor, indeed, could that be reversed over night. It is impossible until a factory has been reconverted, for it to make any contribution to civilian production. Therefore, I do hot attack the Government because the change over did not take place in May, 1945, or even in September, 1945. My attack is that, having commenced, this process of reconversion went steadily ahead until 1946, since when it has sailed steadily backwards.
During the Election of 1945—which the right hon. and learned Gentleman regarded as one of the best pieces of good news which the people had had for some time—one of his predecessors, the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, did my constituency the honour of visiting it. He said
"Before I left the Board of Trade, one of my last acts was to make arrangement for the new clothing coupon book. In that book there are more coupons for the next rationing period

797
than there were for the last. We can count on increased supplies for the civilian population, not necessarily in the next month or two but during the next rationing period."
Of course, he might have been making such a speech at that particular time, in that particular place, for purposes of electioneering. Let me immediately dissociate myself from any such suggestion. [Interruption.] Do hon. Gentlemen opposite suggest that that was the sole purpose why that statement was made? I believe that the right hon. Gentleman now Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking from the knowledge which he had gained as President of the Board of Trade in the National Government, in which the present right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench also played a distinguished part; and knowing the productive capacity of the people when it was organised for peace as it was organised for war, he promised them increased clothing coupons. In fact, he printed them and incorporated them in the clothing book. The figures of production for 1946 were extraordinarily satisfactory. All the way through, there was a rise which gave us great hope in our hearts. We all thought that the shortages were on the way to be mended, and that, having reached a certain point, there would be a steady working back to the comfort of prewar days. But the shortages in every field seemed to get worse and worse.
Sir S. Cripps Sir S. Cripps indicated dissent.
Mr. Butcher: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. In a shop of one of our cities, I saw an ordinary man's shirt, such as the right hon. Gentleman or I would wear. Neither of us, I believe, is particularly fussy about his clothes. There was a ticket on it, which did not say exclusively American or French, but bore the single word "sold." Did anybody in this country imagine that we should ever reach an age when an ordinary man's print shirt would be ticketed in a shop window as sold to prevent a queue forming up outside? On another occasion a business acquaintance of mine was asked whether he had had a successful business trip. "Yes," he said, "indeed I did—I was able to cancel a lovely lot of orders." That is the state to which this country is being reduced under the present Administration. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laugh, but perhaps they will allow me to read to them
798
some words contained in the "Board of Trade Journal" for 21st June of this year, dealing with' the stocks of civilian clothing:
"The fall in stocks is more serious for men's and boys' wear than for women's, girls' and infants' garments, since in the former case the stock level is now the lowest yet recorded and stocks of men's garments are down to less than three weeks' sales."
That is not Tory propaganda, that is an extract from the "Board of Trade Journal." The hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Webb), who spoke with great eloquence, made a plea for the overcoming of these shortages by greater standardisation. It is an astonishing thing that whereas throughout the world the sellers' market is ending, and the buyers' chance of choice is coming in again, we should have it urged in a most thoughtful and constructive speech by one of the leaders of the Labour Party that we should have greater standardisation of goods. I do not know how far he would carry his standardisation. In some things it is desirable; perhaps there are too many sizes or fittings in a good many things, but how far are we to carry it? One of the worst shortages at the moment is in clothing and in textile goods. Are we to have standardised garments, shapeless in cut and utterly standard in size? How far are we to carry it? Why not, for example, just have bags with a hole cut for the head to protrude through, and as for the material, I feel I am right in suggesting that a suitable material would be sackcloth, and that it should be ornamented with ashes.
There is another matter in which I think distribution is entirely unsatisfactory. We see on all the hoardings these "work or want" posters, but I cannot remember a good word having been spoken for the Governments publicity during the whole of this Debate. Let me say at once that I appreciate the difficulties in distributing goods which are in short supply. The President of the Board of Trade has done an extraordinary difficult task, and he still has a difficult job to continue, but I do think it is time that some of the allocations were reexamined. I refer, as one example of the sort of thing I have in mind, to the allocation of newsprint as between the London daily papers, the provincial daily papers, and the weekly journals. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that I have written to him on

799
this matter, quite recently, and I have had the advantage of a most speedy reply. Evidently, out of his enormous fan mail of 1,225,000 I was specially favoured, and I thank him. But who is advising the President on the distribution of newsprint? Has he really gone to all the sources; have the weekly newspapers as distinct from the daily newspapers been brought into consultation? There is widespread dissatisfaction; is it not time, in those matters where controls must be continued, for the President to say that he will re-examine those matters and start afresh, carrying with him the people concerned as far as possible?
I would also ask the Committee to examine the latest available figures in the "Board of Trade Journal" for certain commodities. I have to pick my way here, but if we take the last available figures for certain months—maybe March or April—and compare the rates of production for those months with the average rates of production for the same commodities for 1946, we find that there has been a diminution in certain commodities, to which of course the fuel shortage has been one contributory factor. The fact remains that on that basis we are producing less leather footwear on the average than the 1946, less cloth, both woollen and non-woollen, fewer units of bedding, less knitting wool, less mending yarn, fewer blankets, fewer utility wardrobes, although we may be producing more utility furniture in other categories, less linoleum and fewer cups and saucers.
The Government have not shown that consideration for the housewife to which she is entitled. Go to any china and glass shop today and it is impossible to buy a decorated tea service, because all these things are for the export market. If one turns from the china counter to the glass counter, it will be far easier to buy a hand painted lemonade set than an ordinary tumbler. It is possible to buy cups, but without saucers and generally cups without handles. There are a number of mugs for those who have not left the adolescent stage, but it is almost impossible to buy vegetable dishes.
The President of the Board of Trade has told us that there is a shortage in leather goods due to the shortage of fuel, and we all realise that. But if that is so why should there not be an increase in the amount of leather allocated for shoe
800
repairs? At a time when there is a shortage of shoes the leather for the repair of footwear should be kept up to the highest possible level. It is interesting to compare these days in which we live with the earlier days before the war. Money only was needed—[Laughter.] Hon. Members may find it amusing, and there was unemployment in those years, including years under Socialist Governments, which even the Minister of Fuel and Power hardly succeeded in surpassing in the early days of this year. In those days millions of people were employed at rates of pay negotiated on their behalf by their trade unions with the appropriate employers' organisation. The shops were full of goods and money was all that was required.
It is interesting to think of the position now and what we require when we purchase goods. Money is still required, but that seems to me the least essential requirement. Secondly, there must be coupons or dockets for certain articles. It is difficult to keep up with all the changes in regard to the rates of coupons or dockets required for articles. If any lady in my constituency said to me, "I have a baby at home which I desire to feed during the night; can I get a Thermos flask without a permit?" I would not be able to answer it without referring to my notes. It is doubtful if the President of the Board of Trade just now could give a categorical assurance on that. He would say, "Surely my production is so good that Thermos flasks are free of dockets." But then he would remember the Minister of Fuel and Power and he would reply, "On the whole, I think it might be better to keep the dockets running." What is still more important is time—time to go to the shops, and time to hunt for the goods we need. Finally there is influence which I am glad to say is not too high in this country—influence to persuade the shopkeeper to keep a customer a few things when that customer is unable to get down to. the shop at the exact time when the goods are due. I am thinking of things like cups, even without saucers.
Mrs. Nichol: I thought the hon. Gentleman said there were none?
Mr. Butcher: There have recently been appeals from the Government of this country to the women to enter industry,

801
and the hon. Lady for Duddeston (Mrs. Wills), to whom we all listened with great interest because of the knowledge she brought to this matter, suggested that there was a disinclination to enter certain industries because of the unsatisfactory conditions. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mallalieu) referred to the same matter, but there are other things which prevent the average woman who is running a home from entering industry. She has very little time to run her home and do even part-time work. A London firm used to use as an advertisement the phrase "Where's George?" and the answer was "He has gone to Lyonch." We might ask "Where is Elsie?" and the answer might very well be, "Elsie is in the potato queue," or it might be in the queue for shoes, or far more likely in the queue for wool to knit something for her infant child.
Mrs. Nichol: Or in the Albert Hall queue.
Mr. Butcher: Yes, it might be the Albert Hall queue. Why not? I do not know whether the hon. Lady for North Bradford (Mrs. Nichol) means that she would be in a queue for a meeting at the Albert Hall of the Labour Women's League or some other women's organisation. If these women make a sacrifice and, listening to the Government's appeal, return to industry, when they have worked and earned their money and have paid back a very large part under P.A.Y.E., as we were reminded by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), what are they going to buy on their way home ? There is not an awful lot of inducement in asking a woman to go to work to buy additional savings certificates.
I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to re-examine this matter and see if more consumer goods cannot be found for the women of this country. The hindrances to production are the disinclination to which the hon. Lady for Duddeston mentioned a few minutes ago, the high taxation, lack of goods to be bought and so forth, and somehow the circle of frustration must be broken. The Government should do more to assist the hard-pressed housewife than they are doing. Take furniture for example. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) raised the matter of the import of furniture very recently, and he asked why the import of furniture from West Africa
802
could not be increased, to which the President of the. Board of Trade replied that it was due to the fact that British manufacturers were under a limitation. They may very well be, and while I am willing to be sympathetic to the British manufacturer, we have to remember he has got his market in this country. He need not worry about a shortage of furniture for many years to come provided he gets both the wood and the labour, because he has a consumers' demand waiting for him. I am thinking of the housewife and how to bring the goods to help her. The same thing applies to the import of china and glass. I would buy glass and household goods from any part of Europe even if it means treading on the toes of trade unions or employers' federations. Let us try to start thinking about the housewives, and give the women, who are earning money in industry, something to buy on a Saturday night.
I come to the other question of breaking the circle of frustration. I ask the President of the Board of Trade if it is really necessary to send overseas all the goods we are sending at the present time. I agree with everything that has been said about the need for earning hard currency. We must do our best and increase our earnings of dollars and other hard currency, but is it necessary to export the goods on the same widespread scale to Egypt and India which we made such a great sacrifice to defend, or into Colonies like Jamaica, which have never experienced a shadow of the rationing and shortage problems which we are experiencing. I would not go so far as certain friends of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. The present Minister of Fuel and Power said on one occasion:
"Increased exports are demanded. There was never a greater fallacy in this or in any other assembly. You might imagine from what hon. Members say in the White Paper on Employment that if you fail to increase exports this country's standard of living will diminish."
Another of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues, a Cabinet colleague, the present Minister of Health said:
"By some twist of the Tory mind"—
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's approach to the problem of exports was then fully appreciated—
"it is good trade to persuade somebody in a remote part of the world to buy our goods but ruinous to allow our goods to be bought by our own people."

803
I believe that the right hop. Gentleman, when he is spurring on the Minister of Fuel and Power to increase the supplies of fuel, might take him into a corner and say, "If you will give me a little bit more coal, I will be prepared to accept a little bit of advice from you on this subject of exports." It would be a fair exchange between comrades.
Two years ago the people of this country were deluded into voting the Socialists into power by a promise of a fuller and better life. Instead of It, they see their homes and their clothes getting shabbier and their shortages more acute. They see more difficulty in getting clothes for their children. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary what message of hope he has tonight for the ordinary woman of this country. What is he going to say to the women of Sowerby who voted for him at the last election? The Government believe in planning and forecasting a long-term policy. Is it too much for an ordinary woman to say to the President of the Board of Trade of this Government of planners, "Sir, from your great wisdom, tell me on what date in 1948, 1949 or 1950 I shall be able to buy a pair of sheets without surrendering coupons, or when I will be able to get a pair of shoes for my child on the first time of asking?"
For how much longer have the people of this country to listen to Ministerial promises of better days or to threat of worse to come? While the Paymaster-General fills us with gloom and the Lord President of the Council tells us, "Cheer up through it all," the President of the Board of Trade pursues a course which I can only call restrained pessimism. The people of this country deserve better treatment than they have received over the past two years. We want to know what the future holds for them. Is the Parliamentary Secretary proposing to give them nothing but promises? Hon. and right hon. Members opposite have won one General Election and several by-elections since. Whatever the future may hold for us as individuals, for the country it holds more General Elections and by-elections. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite think about that fact.
9.28 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr.
804
Butcher) has just asked me what I propose to give to the women of Britain. He exhorted me not to content myself with giving them promises. I do not know what else he thinks I can give them tonight. I cannot produce a pair of sheets or a pair of nylon stockings from underneath this Table. I do not think that I or any of those associated with the President of the Board of Trade have indulged in promises to the women of Britain about the glorious times to come in the near future. We have deliberately refrained from so doing, and in that section of the Press which is far more friendly to the hon. Gentleman than it is to ourselves, we have frequently been characterised as austerity-minded. That is because we have pursued a course of realistically estimating our position now and in the future, and have refused to make glorious promises which we know are most unlikely to be fulfilled.
Nevertheless, I am very grateful to Members opposite for giving us this opportunity of discussing the shortage of consumer goods. Let me say straight away that nobody can be satisfied with the supply of consumer goods today, particularly as it affects the housewife and the country. But before I come to the main line of Debate, there are at least two matters with which I ought to deal briefly. The hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) raised the question of the allocation of factories at Grantham to a group headed by Mr. Cotton. Many of the assertions he made were answered by the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall), who is in a position to know, I suppose, as much as anybody, what has been taking place between Mr. Cotton and the other interested parties—
Mr. Lyttelton: Is the hon. Gentleman correct in supposing that the Cotton syndicate is the same thing as the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall), because that is what he is now saying?
Mr. Belcher: If the right hon. Gentleman will do what he asks Members on this side to do, possess himself with patience, he will discover that I am not suggesting anything of the kind. What I am suggesting is that since the hon. Member for Grantham is associated with the Cotton group, he may be expected to know something about the negotiations

805
which have been taking place. I do not intend that it is only the voice of the hon. Member for Grantham which shall be heard on this subject; I am quite prepared to say what we know about it, and to justify the action we have taken. Mr. Cotton came to the Board of Trade, and stated that he was prepared to approach—indeed that he had already approached—the liquidators, with a firm offer for the purchase of the plant in the factories, and for the business. He asked that he might be considered for allocation of the factories. Various inquiries were made, and as a result allocation was continued in favour of this new group. In view of the consideration that it was taking over the existing organisation and assets at Grantham for the making of agricultural tractors. which was one of the purposes for which the existing organisation had been designed, and because it meant that there would be little or no loss of production—indeed, production, although small, had never ceased—the views of the Ministry of Agriculture were sought After inspection, they satisfied themselves that the organisation was suitable for the manufacture of agricultural tractors, and that parts were already available which would enable a substantial output to be achieved within a short period.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) suggested that we should have in mind the need for the most rapid possible production of tractors. Here was a plant which was equipped for the production of tractors; here was a firm willing to continue that production. It received the blessing of the Ministry of Agriculture, which inspected the plant, and came to the conclusion that it was suitable for that purpose. In our opinion it was right to regard these factors as being favourable. We inquired from the liquidators and learnt from them that a binding agreement had been entered into for the purchase, and we ascertained from the group's bankers—a normal business precaution taken alike by Government Departments and private enterprise undertakings—that Mr. Cotton and his group were well able to provide, out of their existing resources, the necessary capital both for the purchase and for the running of the business.
Mr. Lyttelton: Is the Mr. F. S. Cotton against whom a receiving order was made on 15th January, 1937, the same Mr.
806
Cotton with whom the Board of Trade are now in negotiation?
Mr. Belcher: I am afraid that I do not know—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—but we did what I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman would do in his business arrangements—we went to the bankers concerned and asked them. If they assured us that it was well within the resources of the group concerned to meet their obligations, I do not think we can be subjected to any criticism for having taken that very necessary precaution. I think that was a sufficient precaution to take. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman in all his business dealings goes through the bankruptcy records to see if one of the individuals with whom he is doing business has been bankrupt at any time. I believe he would do what we did—go to the bankers and accept their assurances. My latest information is that the purchase has not been completed and that a time limit has been set. I can only assure the Committee that if the deal is not completed, it will be the duty of the Board of Trade to reconsider the allocation, because our only desire in this matter is to see that the factory and the plant shall be used for the purpose of providing employment for the people of Grantham and providing tractors, or whatever else may be produced, for the benefit of the country as a whole.
Sir J. Mellor: In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, would he be prepared to withdraw the answer he gave to my Question on 25th June, when I asked the President of the Board of Trade:
"… what assurances his Department gave to the group which acquired the assets of Grantham Productions, Ltd., before such acquisition, concerning allocation of the factories recently occupied by that company; and what conditions were attached thereto?"
The answer was:
"None, Sir."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th June, 1947; Vol. 439, c. 71]
It is perfectly evident that assurances were given before the acquisition of the assets because the hon. Gentleman has just said that the transaction is not yet complete. Therefore, those assurances were given. He has admitted that the assurances were given before the acquisition. Will he withdraw the answer he gave?
Mr. Belcher: No, Sir. Certainly not. If the hon. Baronet will read tomorrow what I have just said, he will find that what I said was quite in keeping with the answer I gave him the other day. There was no question of giving to this group during the period of their negotiations with the liquidators an undertaking that they would have the allocation. It was not the fact that their agreement with the liquidators was dependent upon the allocation being made to them. As I have just said, after a binding contract was arrived at between the group and the liquidators, it was decided to make the allocation in their favour. That is not the same thing as making the allocation during the course of the negotiations. A binding agreement had been reached, and only afterwards was it decided to continue the allocation in favour of the group.
Sir J. Mellor: Will the hon. Gentleman answer this question? Why was he unable to give any answer to my Question as to the identity of the members of this group? He was quite unable to give an answer. Had he made no inquiries as to their identity, or was he merely satisfied with Mr. Cotton as the representative of the group?
Mr. Kendall: Would it not have been better if the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) had approached me and visited the factory so that he could have satisfied himself as to the full facts before he made these assertions?
Mr. Belcher: Of course, the answer to the hon. Baronet is that it does not necessarily follow that, because I am unable or unwilling to provide him with the names of the other members of the group, the Board of Trade are not aware of those names. In fact, those names were given to the Board of Trade in confidence, and it would have been a betrayal of that confidence to have handed them out in a reply to a Question in the House of Commons. There is nothing wrong in that, and if people give information to a Government Department in confidence, that confidence should not be abused.
Sir J. Mellor Sir J. Mellor rose—
Mr. Belcher: I would be quite prepared to give way to the hon. Baronet if there were not a great many matters to be dis-
808
cussed, and I am certain it would be wrong to spend more time than is necessary on this matter when the whole tenor of the Debate has been concerned with something different.
Mr. Cobb: On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont. Is not the subject of this Debate civilian goods? How can tractors be considered to be civilian goods?
The Deputy-Chairman: As regards that point of Order, in the early part of the Debate this subject was raised, and it is quite in Order that a reply should be given. May I express the view, however, that I think it is receiving undue prominence?
Mr. Lyttelton: The Parliamentary Secretary courteously gave way. I must say that the explanations advanced on these extraordinary actions are entirely unsatisfactory to us, and are of the most perfunctory description, and that we shall take the earliest possible opportunity of considering how the matter can be raised again.
Mr. Belcher: I gave way. to the right hon. Gentleman because I thought he was about to say something which would assist the Committee. Instead of that, he has merely accused me of being perfunctory when I have already given ten minutes—one-third of the time at my disposal—to answering—
Mr. Lyttelton: I was wrong—
Mr. Belcher: —a subject which is really subsidiary to the greater part of the discussion.
Mr. Lyttelton: I withdraw that. I withdraw "perfunctory"; the rest of my statement stands. I did not intend to be discourteous.
Earl Winterton Earl Winterton (Horsham) rose—
Mr. Belcher: If the noble Lord will allow me to continue, the other matter to which I wish to pay attention in the early part of my reply is the matter raised by the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. Lewis), who spoke of carbon black. What he said about the importance of this product is well appreciated both inside and outside the Board of Trade. While it is true that there are difficulties at present, I do not think they are as great as he has suggested. I thought at one time he was going to talk

809
about mass unemployment throughout the tyre industry. There is no mass unemployment. There is a certain amount of interference with production, but as he knows perfectly well, the Board of Trade have been considering ways and means of dealing with this situation for a long period. A committee was set up under the chairmanship of a distinguished industrialist, and has been making extensive inquiries into the possibilities of production here and elsewhere. So far as the possibility of production in Persia is concerned, that has been carefully gone into, and at present, for reasons which it is not politic at this moment to disclose, production in Persia is not a practical proposition. What may happen in the future remains to be seen. We shall receive, towards the end of July, I think, certainly during August, supplies from the United States of America which will enable us to overcome the difficulties affecting the British tyre industry now, and we hope to be able to enable the tyre manufacturers to accumulate stocks.
I would say to my hon. Friend, who talked a long time, that when this Interdepartmental Committee of officials was set up under the chairmanship of Sir Charles Bruce-Gardner to go into the matter, my hon. Friend was invited to go before that committee and give it the benefit of his knowledge and experience in this matter, which he declined to do. I should have thought that, if his interest was as great as he said it was this afternoon, in the national interest he would have been prepared to go before that Committee and tell the members of it some of the things he has been telling the House today.
Mr. J. Lewis: My hon. Friend has said that I declined to give evidence before that committee. Is he aware that my reason for declining to give evidence was because my hon. Friend himself wrote me a letter in which he said that the primary purpose of the committee was to investigate production of these materials in this country. With my scientific and technical knowledge of this problem, I knew full well, as has been proved today, that it is quite impossible to produce the materials required for our tyre industry from this type of material. Is my hon. Friend going to leave this point without telling the Committee why we cannot use the 165 million cubic feet
810
of gas escaping to the atmosphere every day in Persia, which can produce four-fifths of the national requirements?
Mr. Belcher: The answer is that it is not feasible—
Mr. Lewis: Why?
Mr. Belcher: —for technical reasons, into which I do not propose to go this evening. It is not feasible to produce in Persia, and technical investigation is going on to see if we can produce in this country. in spite of all the knowledge which my hon. Friend possesses, there are others with just as great a claim to technical knowledge who are not so certain that we cannot produce here, and if we can produce here it is better than producing in the United States or in Persia.
I was glad to hear the two speeches made by the hon. Ladies the Members for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson) and Duddeston (Mrs. Wills). Quite obviously, women have a great interest in the main subject of today's Debate. It has been suggested that men do not and cannot know the difficulties which women are facing. I accept that. A man, by reason of his absence from home for the greater part of the day, is unaware of many of the trials and tribulations of the housewife today. But I make this reservation—there are quite a number of us who, because we are fathers—and I do not suppose we are confined to any particular part of the Committee—know what goes on inside the home and know more about the trials and troubles of the working-class housewife than some ladies, unmarried or married, and in comfortable circumstances without children.
When I and my hon. Friends say some of the things we do say about certain organisations, some of us know that many of the most active spirits in these organisations who at the present time are making unpatriotic criticism of this country and its difficulties, are people to whom I have referred, who do not know what the experience of the average working-class housewife is. I am prepared to concede that the mass of the ordinary housewives of the country have had a very difficult time and are still having a very difficult time, but I would hasten to assure the Committee, and

811
ladies outside, that this is not because the Ministry of Food, the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Fuel and Power deliberately restrict supplies. No one in the Board of Trade is anxious to prevent them from getting more sheets. But giving more coupons would not provide them with more sheets.
The matter was discussed by my right hon. and learned Friend this afternoon. He pointed out the reason for shortage of sheets and other textiles at present. It will not be tackled by shouting slogans across the Floor of the House of Commons, nor by demonstrations outside, but by a sober investigation of the possibilities of the position. My right hon. and learned Friend has pointed out that the shortage of labour in the mills of Lancashire is the cause of shortage of sheets. There is a great pent-up demand, which means that as soon as they appear in the shops, whether coupons have to be surrendered or not, they disappear. Even after seven years of non-replacement, the best pair of sheets in 1939 are not likely to be so serviceable in 1947.
I know that there is a similar pent-up demand for linoleum, which arises from the world shortage of linseed oil. When this world shortage is eliminated, there will be more linoleum, but because of the pent-up demand it is bound to be some time before the increased supplies can satisfy that demand. Perambulators were mentioned by the Noble Lady. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, so far as perambulators and folders are concerned, the production is already greater than it was in the last prewar year for which we have information. The answer to the perambulator shortage is that there are a quarter of a million more babies to be catered for. That is something wholly admirable. [Interruption.] The Board of Trade cannot claim responsibility for the whole increase of a quarter of a million. The noble Lady referred to the rising price of certain goods which are not subject to subsidy. Prices which are, not controlled or only loosely controlled, tend to rise when the demand seriously outstrips supply. I ask her to remember that, however prices may be rising at the present time—and the rise is on the whole very well controlled—she will find, if she will take the trouble to consult the figures for the immediate
812
postwar period after the first world war, that the rise taking place today bears no comparison to the rise which was taking place on that occasion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston spoke about the difficulty of getting people into the industries which are short-staffed at the present time. She referred to the conditions which existed in those industries, and which are making the women who have to work in those industries fearful of sending their girls into the same jobs. However true it is—and it is true—that in those industries there have been great improvements, and enlightened employers are prepared to cooperate with Government Departments in making improvements, there is that legacy of mistrust, that legacy of bad conditions, which it will be difficult to beat down. I hope that we shall secure co-operation in beating down such conditions and establishing better ones. I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Webb) about the shortage of workers in the textile industry. He asked, "Where are the displaced persons?" It is true that we hope to get into the textile industry large numbers of displaced persons. The principal limiting factor at the present time is shortage of accommodation. We are in the closest consultation with the other Departments concerned on the subject of accommodation. [Laughter.] I assume from the way hon. Members laugh that if they were in office, Government Departments would on no account enter into consultation with one another. We are doing our best in consultation with other Departments, to secure that accommodation. But it is very largely a matter for the industry itself, and it is one in which the inhabitants of the area concerned can be of great assistance to us.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot pursued the course of argument which had been followed by the hon. Member for East Norfolk, of making comparisons between this country, and, in his case, Belgium. I do not feel that there is a great deal of profit in making comparisons between this country and Belgium or the United States or any other country. We are concerned tonight with the shortage of consumer goods in this country, and how best to remedy it. I am disappointed that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any other speaker from

813
the other side of the Committee has advanced a single positive policy. The principal difference between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Holland with Boston was that the hon. Member for Holland with Boston informed us at the outset of his speech that he had no intention of advancing a policy. He thought that that was our job. I am prepared to accept that responsibility, but when criticisms are being made I think that an attempt should be made to make those criticisms as constructive as possible.
I should have liked to go over the whole field of today's Debate, but for obvious reasons it is not possible. May I say that I am not dismayed by the appearance or the conditions of our country today? I am in sufficient contact with people who travel about the world to know that whatever may be the facade, in some places behind the facade, which is frequently glamorous, there is more often than not a miserable life for the mass of the people compared with which our own is very much better indeed. I am proud of the stability of our country, having regard to the difficulties through which it has passed and is still passing. One hon. Member referred to conditions during the war years and said that it was only to be expected that we would be short of many things at that time. Surely, after six years of war, after two great world wars in about a quarter of a century, after our country has made the great sacrifices which it did, particularly from 1939 onwards, when the relationship of ourselves to other countries has changed, when we have ceased to be the world's great creditor and become the world's great debtor—surely, after all those experiences it could not be expected that within two years of V.E. Day we should be enjoying a higher standard of living than in the pre-war years. I believe that we can come through provided we are prepared to use the best elements in our country and prepared to co-operate together in this job of getting more production.
Throughout most essential industry today there is a need for greater production. It can be met in some places by greater efficiency and in others by getting
814
more labour. That may involve a transfer of labour from one industry to another, something which we would like to achieve without compulsion, in the way these things have usually been done in this country. Whatever the difficulties at present, I am confident they can be overcome. I am certain that the majority of our people, knowing the truth about our present conditions and the reasons for them, will do their best to work up our production to the point at which a better standard of living can be enjoyed by everybody. It cannot be stressed too often—it is stressed very frequently by hon. Members opposite—that there is no easy answer to this question of providing a higher standard of living. No amount of 'juggling about with coupons and dockets is going to give to the people who need those things bedsteads and sheets. It is only by the greater production of bedsteads and sheets that we are going to be able to satisfy them.
That is why the Government are doing everything they possibly can to encourage increased production. That is why propaganda is being carried out through the regional organisation to which reference has been made. I am very glad to say that we are receiving the most wholehearted co-operation both from the trade union side and from the employing side of industry in setting this regional machinery to work. I hope and believe that, as a result of these efforts, there will be a steady improvement—there cannot be a glamorous improvement—towards the day when the needs of the people of this country will be fully satisfied. In the meantime, it behoves us all to do what we can to work towards that end and to refrain from unnecessary criticism which is neither constructive nor helpful.
Mr. Butcher: I beg to move, "That Item Class VI, Vote 1, Board of Trade, be reduced by £5."
I do this in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary.
Question put, "That Item VI, Vote 1. Board of Trade, be reduced by £5."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 80: Noes, 188.

Division No 288.]

AYES.

[9.59 p.m

Barlow, Sir J

Hare, Hon. J H. (Woodbridge)

Nutting, Anthony

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

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

O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H

Bennett, Sir P

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Osborne, C.

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

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Bossom, A. C

Hollis, M. C.

Ponsonby, Col. C E

Bower, N.

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

Prescott, Stanley

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W

Hurd, A.

Robinson, Wing-Comdr Roland

BLChan-Hepburn, P. G T

Joynson-Hlcks, Hon. L. W

Ropner, Col. L.

Challen, C.

Keeling, E. H.

Ross Sir R D. (Londonderry)

Channon, H.

Lambert, Hon G

Salter, Rt. Hon, Sir J A.

Clarke, Col. R. S

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

Sanderson, Sir F.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Strauss, H G. (English Universities)

Crowder, Capt. John E

Low, Brig. A. R. W.

Sutcliffe, H.

Davidson, Viscountess

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O

Taylor, C S (Eastbourne

Dodds-Parker, A. D

Mackeson, Brig. H. R

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

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

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P (Monmouth)

Drewe, C.

Marples, A E

Thorp, Lt -Col R. A. F

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walte.

Marshall, D (Bodmin)

Ward, Hon. G R

Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E L

Maude, J. C

Wheatley, Colonel M. J

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Mellor, Sir J.

White, J. B. (Canterbury)

Fox, Sir G.

Molsor, A. H E.

Willoughby de Eresby Lord

Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

Morris-Jones, Sir H

Winterton, Rt. Hon Eart

Gage, C.

Morrison, Maj. J. C (Salisbury)

York, C

Galbraith, Cmdr

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

Gammans, L. D.

Nicholson, G.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Grimston, R. V.

Nield, B. (Chester)

Mr. Medlicott and Mr. Butcher.

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

NOES.

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Evans, John (Ogmore)

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)

McLeavy, F.

Alpass, J. H

Fairhurst, F

Macphrson, T (Romford)

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Farthing, W.

Mallalieu, J. P W

Ayles, W. H.

Follick, M.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs B

Foot, M. M

Marquand, H A

Balfour, A.

Freeman, Maj. (Watford)

Medland, H. M

Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.

Ganley, Mrs C S

Messer, F

Barstow, P. G.

Gibbins, J.

Middleton, Mrs. L

Barton, C.

Gibson, C. W

Mitchison, G. R.

Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Monslow, W.

Belcher, J. W

Goodrich, H. E.

Moody, A. S

Berry, H.

Grenfell, D. R.

Morgan, Dr. H B.

Beswick, F.

Grierson, E.

Morley, R.

Bing, G. H. C.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Morris, P (Swansea, W.)

Blyton, W R

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Morrison, Rt Hon H (Lewisham, E)

Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Mulvey, A

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Guy, W. H.

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

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

Hale, Leslie

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

Bramall, E. A.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Oliver, G. H.

Brook, D (Halifax)

Hardy, E. A

Orbach, M.

Brooks, T J. (Rothwell)

Haworth, J

Paget, R T

Brown, T J. (Ince)

Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

Buchanan, G

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Palmer, A. M. F.

Burke, W A.

Herbison, Miss M.

Parker, J.

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

Hewltson, Capt. M

Parkin, B. T

Castle, Mrs. B. A

Holman, P.

Pearson, A.

Chetwynd, G. R

Holmes, H E. (Hemsworth)

Peart, Thomas P.

Cobb, F. A.

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

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Collins, V. J.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Pritt, D. N.

Comyns, Dr. L.

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

Proctor, W. T

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G

Hynd, J. B, (Attercliffe)

Ranger, J

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

Janner, B.

Pees-Williams, D. R

Corlett, Dr. J.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Reid T (Swindon)

Corvedale, Viscount

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

Rhodes, H.

Crawley, A.

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Robens, A.

Cripps, Rt. Hon. Sir S

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Cunningham. P

Keenan, W.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Daines, P.

Kendall, W. D

Scollan, T.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Kenyon, C.

Shackleton, E. A. A

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

Sharp, Granville

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

Kinley, J.

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

Davies, S O. (Merthyr)

Kirby, B. V.

Shurmer, P.

Deer, G

Layers, S.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Delargy, H. J.

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Simmons, C. J.

Diamond, J.

Leonard, W.

Skeffington A. M

Dodds, N. N.

Lewis, J. (Bolton)

Sklnnard, F. W.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Lindgren, G. S.

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

Dumpleton, C. W.

Lyne, A. W

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

Ede, Rt. Hon. J C.

McAdam, W.

Sorensen, R. W.

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

McGhee, H G

Soskice, Maj. Sir F.

816

817

Stamford, W.

Titterington, M. P

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Stewart, Michae. (Fulham E.)

Turner-Samuels, M

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Swingler, S.

Viant, S. P.

Williams, W R. (Heston)

Sylvester, G. O.

Walkden, E

Williamson, T.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Walker, G. H

Wills, Mrs. E. A

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Wallace, G, D, (Chislehurst)

Wyatt, W.

Taylor, Dr S. (Barnet)

Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Vales, V. F.

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Thomas, I. O (Wrekin)

West, D. G.

Zilliacus, K

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

White, H. (Derbyshire N.E.)

Thurtle, Ernest

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Tiffany, S.

Wllcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B

Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell.

Twmons, J

Wilkins, W. A.

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

HOUSING (CAMP, RAYNES PARK)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Snow.]
10.8 p.m.
Mr. Palmer: Last Tuesday evening, I asked a question of the Secretary of State for War about an Army camp at Raynes Park in my constituency, and its use for housing purposes by the local authority. I have been in correspondence about this camp for quite a considerable period. My right hon. Friend presented an argument which I described as showing both procrastination and incompetence on the part of the War Office, and, therefore, I am sorry, on that account, that my right hon. Friend has not found it possible to be present tonight. I sent him a note and told him that I proposed to take this matter further on the Adjournment, and I am afraid that I shall have to speak in his absence as I would have spoken had he been present. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will pass on the information, as no doubt he will.
The camp concerned consists of Army huts in a fairly well built up area. At times, it has housed 500 men, and it could be adapted for the housing of the homeless who, in my constituency, as in the constituencies of most hon. Members, are quite considerable. In September, 1945, and July, 1946, at the request of the local authority, I asked for the release of this camp. I took the matter up directly with the then Secretary of State for War. On each occasion I was told that the
818
camp was required for military purposes. It is quite a stock answer. At the end of April this year, on one of my usual visits to my constituency, I was told that the German prisoners of war who were the last occupants of the camp had gone, and that four families of so-called squatters had moved in. It seemed to me that there was obviously no time for the usual rather leisurely War Office correspondence and, considering the matter urgent, I saw the Secretary of State for War personally and asked him for the release of the camp, as I could not see any reason for the War Office continuing to retain it. My right hon. Friend said he would go into the matter at once. I regret to say that I have heard nothing from him. On 6th May I put a Parliamentary Question, and again I received an answer which I can only describe as a War Office stock answer to Parliamentary Questions, namely that the matter was under consideration. I was once again promised an early decision. Between 6th May and, I think, Friday, 13th June, I made other approaches. I sent a note, but again all was silence. On 13th June, I telephoned to my right hon. Friend and I told him that although I regretted it, I would be forced to ask him another Parliamentary Question and that I should be obliged to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as I was fortunate in the Ballot.
In reply to a second Parliamentary Question on 17th June, my right hon. Friend said he was
"now considering using this camp for the rehousing of certain families whom I may have to assist in finding accommodation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1.7th June, 1947; Vol. 438. c. 1796.]
But while my right hon. Friend was considering, others had been acting, and the number of families who have now—I am told—unofficially rehoused themselves at the camp has grown from four to 28. Personally, I am making no comment on their action. Most of them are probably

819
in great need, but, unfortunately, so are many others who are law-abiding and look on in despair when people take the law into their own hands. This situation does not encourage respect for the law. Also, imagine the disgust of the local authority concerned. They are not allowed to allocate the accommodation to those with the greatest need, but must provide essential services to those who have taken over the accommodation.
Having delivered that account to the House, I believe the words "incompetence" and "procrastination" are thoroughly justified. I now wish to submit my main points to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. First of all, what is now to be done about this camp? It has finally been refused to the local authority, I believe, although I have given up supposing that there are final answers at the War Office. If it is now to be handed over to the local authority complete, are we to assume that these camps are only to be obtained from the War Office by physical force? Secondly, what has happened to the inter-departmental machinery which the House understood had been established last year at the height of the -squatting boom, to deal with matters of this kind? What has happened to the co-ordinating machinery between the service departments and the Ministry of Health? Had that machinery been put into motion, probably this situation would never have arisen, because I am certain that the Merton and the Morden Urban District Council, the local authority concerned, would have been prepared to co-' operate in any scheme for rehousing people in this camp.
The third point I want to put to my hon. Friend is this. When a question is raised—and I would not have taken it up personally and intimately with the Secretary of State if it had not been important, because he, like other Ministers, has many things to look after—but when a question of this sort is raised by a Member of this House, why must it take two months to get any sort of reply? I cannot imagine that that is treating this House with proper respect. In the answer I received the words were wrung from reluctant lips. To this day I have not received any communication in writing. I have had an answer, as I say, wrung from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State by telephone. That is all. Unfortunately,
820
I know that in all quarters of the House —I am sorry that, in the circumstances, it is so empty—the War Office is regarded, in its dealings with Members of this House, as being slow, uncertain and unreliable. It does compare unfavourably with the other Service Departments, particularly the Air Ministry. Some of us on these benches had hoped that when the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary of State for War took it over, he would be the vigorous new broom that would poke into all the corners of that great and ancient Department; but I must confess that it is my experience and my opinion that he has hardly moved a speck of dust.
10.18 p.m.
Dr. Haden Guest: I take the opportunity to intervene in this Debate because, while I do not pretend to be acquainted with the facts that the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer) has just put before us, I am very much acquainted with the acute nature of the housing problem in the London area, and, in fact, all over the country. The Under-Secretary of State for War, who is here tonight, might, perhaps, convey to the Secretary of State for War the suggestion I venture to make, that it is about time that an overall survey was made of the amount of housing accommodation available in Army camps, Air Force camps, or any other camps that are available—in fact, of every kind of accommodation—in view of the facts that the housing programme has had to be slowed down for excellent reasons we know about, and that the housing situation in the London area, and in many other parts of the country, is very acute indeed.
I have no doubt that hon. Members will have heard on the radio that we are to have coming from Austria shortly, 500 voluntary workers a week, who have to be housed. There are, perhaps, other displaced persons coming from other parts of Europe who will also have to be housed. Some of them may be housed in public institutions; some of them may be housed in camps; some, indeed, may be housed in houses, hotels, and so on. But I do think that it is urgently necessary that there should be an overall consideration of this acute deprivation of houses that is prevailing everywhere and causing acute suffering to many people at the present time.

821
I do suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that if he would initiate an operation that might, perhaps, be conducted as a military operation, and call it "Operation Bellenger," to clear up this housing question and ensure the utmost possible use of all camps, hotels, and any other kind of accommodation that could be made available for housing, he would confer the greatest possible benefit on the community as a whole; and he could take in his stride, in that venture, the complaint of the hon. Member for Wimbledon. There is undoubtedly a need to get a move on. We are having very nice warm weather now, but the winter will be coming on later, and we all know that that winter may, unless our coal output is increased substantially, be a difficult one. All the more reason, therefore, for drawing attention to this housing question all over the country, and to start this "Operation Bellenger," to get all the housing available at the earliesr possible moment.
10.21 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Freeman): I will reply very briefly to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest). To him I only want to say that I am of the opinion that what he said is, if I may say so, extremely sensible, and it is the sort of line along which we are trying to approach this problem. I say quite frankly to the House that one of the reasons the Service Departments—obviously it applies mostly to the War Office, but I think the other two Service Departments would probably endorse it—sometimes move slowly in this matter of accommodation, is simply because we are trying to meet now the accommodation needs of the future for our own purposes. We know that everything we give up now we cannot possibly get back in the future. Therefore, we are making a perpetual survey into the future to try to estimate what military needs there may be some years ahead, and to make our accommodation plans to meet those needs. That is a difficult operation, and I must now ask the House to exercise some patience over it.
I wish to reply in detail to the case which my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer) has raised, which I think he did in very moderate
822
terms. However, I must draw the attention of the House to his repeated use of the words "incompetence" and "procrastination." The fairest thing I can do is to leave this to his judgment when I have put my case. I will ask him to say that, whether he finds what I have to say palatable or not, those two words "incompetence" and "procrastination" are not the appropriate words to use about this case. I do not want to waste too much time in going into the interchange of correspondence over this matter. As a matter of fact, I think my hon Friend will agree that, although he may not like the nature of the answers he has been given, he has no cause to complain of not being given an answer, at any rate until quite recently. On the recent occasion this year when he raised the matter, I think he had some slight cause to complain that he should have been answered in writing, whereas, in fact, he was not. If he feels that an apology on that ground is here appropriate, I have no hesitation at all in giving it to him.
I am far more concerned with the actual facts of the case which he revealed, and I will try to explain to the House some of the difficulties in which I find myself. This is a hutted camp on requisitioned land, as he has said, in a substantially built-up area, where there is an acute housing shortage. For the last two years the hon. Member has played the part of an extremely assiduous Member of Parliament, very properly lobbying on behalf of his own constituents, for which I respect him He has asked us repeatedly if it was possible for us to release this camp. We have had to tell him that it was not possible to do so because we required it for military purposes He seemed to take a rather satirical view of that answer, but I really do not know what answer he would expect to get from the War Office. It appears to me to be a very appropriate answer for the War Office to give, that a camp is required by the War Office for military purposes. At any rate, I am prepared to leave that to the judgment of the House.
This camp has been used continuously. It has had a fluctuating population; people have gone into it and come out of it. I do not doubt that there have been occasions when it has, for a short time,

823
stood empty, and occasions when it has not been fully occupied. But, by and large, it has been used extensively. Recently, it has been used to house 500 prisoners of war who have been doing essential work, and for whom there was no other accommodation. When I tell the House that the extent of this camp is 33 Nissen huts, it will become apparent that it is not under-populated with 500 prisoners of war. The prisoners of war were evacuated from this camp permanently at the beginning of April. I am going to demonstrate to my hon. Friend that at that point we took action, or rather failed to take action, which, I think, lays us open to some degree of blame, and I propose to confess it quite frankly. At the beginning of April, these prisoners of war were evacuated, and my right hon. Friend had it in mind, in response to the urgent plea my hon. Friend had repeatedly addressed to him, to make this camp available to the local authority for housing purposes. I must interject at this point the remark that the interdepartmental machinery, about which my hon. Friend inquired, exists exactly as set up last summer, but that it is not relevant to this particular case.
It will not have escaped the notice of my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington that on 15th April last he and some of the other Islington Members raised the most distressing case, to which I replied, of those citizens of Islington who held what we call "irregular tenancies" on certain military property in that borough, against whom we were having to take eviction action. I do not want to go into all the rights and wrongs of that case again, because I explained it fully at the time, and it is on record. I gave a promise to the House that we would do our level best to find alternative accommodation for any tenants we had to evacuate from this and similar properties. I also undertook that we would not carry these proceedings to the point of physical eviction, without being completely satisfied that we had done everything possible to provide some sort of alternative accommodation. The situation which arose in the case of the Borough of Islington is reproduced in a good many Metropolitan boroughs and in the Greater London area. In examining that problem, my right hon. Friend came to the conclusion that the only way in which he could deal honour-
824
ably with what was an extremely distasteful and unpleasant situation, was to try to make available somewhere Army accommodation which would not be permanently required by us, and which could, as a last resort, provide accommodation for people who had to be evicted.
Having taken that decision, and looking at the accommodation which was available in the Greater London area, not already handed over to the Ministry of Health for housing purposes, it became apparent that the camp at Raynes Park could be used for this purpose. I told my hon. Friend a moment ago that we had been guilty of one piece of neglect in this matter. It was simply this: this camp was evacuated at exactly the moment my right hon. Friend was considering this matter and taking these decisions, and we did not take effective action immediately to safeguard against squatters.
Mr. Palmer: Does my hon. Friend know that an attempt was made to pull down part of the camp?
Mr. Freeman: We did not take immediate steps to protect it against squatters. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it would have been very much better if we had done so. The fact remains that we did not, and four families of squatters moved in very quickly. The only effective action against squatters is to fill a camp with other people. We cannot fill it with troops at the moment. We do not require it for military purposes, and therefore, we have taken the only effective step open to us, which is temporarily to dismantle sufficient of the hutting to make certain that further squatters do not get in. It is true, as my hon. Friend has said, that the number of families increased rapidly from four to the number he has given, but the situation at the moment is that there are 19 huts occupied by the squatters and the remainder are vacant.
May we go back to the problem of the eviction? There are at the present time, I am sorry to say, some fifty cases where legal action to evict families who are irregularly occupying War Department property has been taken and these evictions have got to be carried out if we are to fulfil the very important item of Government policy to reconstitute and relaunch the Territorial Army. My right

825
hon. Friend has laid down this policy: that these legal processes are to go ahead, but that no physical eviction will be finally carried out except with his personal authority in each individual case, and I need hardly assure the House that, before giving that authority, he will attempt to satisfy himself that every reasonable step to alleviate hardship has been taken. Some of these fifty families will undoubtedly require accommodation which only we can provide for them, and until we know how many require accommodation, it is quite impossible to say for certain whether the Raynes Part camp will be required or not.
It seems probable that to meet this human problem we shall require the whole of the Raynes Park camp that is left to us, and very likely more accommodation still, but it is quite impossible to decide that until eviction processes have taken their course and we know what the position is. That part of the camp which is now occupied by the squatters we are, of course, dealing with, as my hon. Friend said, through the inter-departmental machinery of the Ministry of Health, in order that that part of the camp may be administered either by the Ministry or the local authority. That is a matter which they will settle together. The remainder of the camp will have to be held until we can solve this problem of the evicted families, and if it should happen that when the eviction processes are settled we do not require the remaining part of this camp, then there is no objection whatever to offering it to the Ministry of Health who, I have no doubt, will make it available to the local authority.
I am well aware, however, that to give this explanation does not meet the needs of my hon. Friend in respect of his particular borough and the people in that borough. But, it is absolutely impossible to tackle these onerous problems of accommodation for the Army on a basis of local government boundaries.
826
The hon. Member for North Islington has asked us to make a comprehensive survey, and I think the corollary to that is to take comprehensive action in order to deal with it. It would give me immense satisfaction, as a tribute to the way my hon. Friend has pressed this case, if we could hand it over to his own local authority for their own purposes. I am quite certain that it would be bad administration to do so, and I should be guilty of breaking a promise I gave earlier to this House that I would do my utmost to provide alternative accommodation for the evicted families. I have admitted one case in which we should have acted with greater promptness and for which we are paying some penalty. So far from this being an example of incompetence and procrastination it is an example of the difficulties we are meeting in this extremely difficult human problem.
Mr. Palmer: May I be allowed to point out on the matter of bad administration that bad administration has already occurred. The Under-Secretary is proposing to hand over—or may hand over—to the local authority accommodation which they cannot use, but he proposes to keep for his own purposes, the other accommodation.
Mr. Freeman: That intervention does not really get us any further. In following the plan that we are following we are taking a course of action to deal with a problem which is every bit as serious as that with which my hon. Friend is concerned and which is just as distressing from a human point of view, and we have taken an imaginative line in trying to solve it. That shows, I think, that more humanity is being shown than a good many of my hon. Friends sometimes credit the War Office with having.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

  MAGISTRATES' COURTS (LITHUANIAN INTERPRETER)
  MAGISTRATES' COURTS (LITHUANIAN INTERPRETER)
  METROPOLITAN POLICE FOOD SERVICES
  METROPOLITAN POLICE FOOD SERVICES
  PROSTITUTION
  PROSTITUTION
  DISINFECTANTS (BOTTLES)
  DISINFECTANTS (BOTTLES)
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Defence Regulation 33B
  Defence Regulation 33B
  Women's Organisations (Advice)
  Women's Organisations (Advice)
  Hospital Equipment and Supplies
  Hospital Equipment and Supplies
  RENT TRIBUNALS, WILLESDEN
  RENT TRIBUNALS, WILLESDEN
EDUCATION
  Teachers (Emergency Colleges)
  Teachers (Emergency Colleges)
  Pupils' Clothing
  Pupils' Clothing
  ECONOMIC PLANNING
  ECONOMIC PLANNING
EMPLOYMENT
  Hotels and Boarding Houses (Domestic Workers)
  Hotels and Boarding Houses (Domestic Workers)
  Scientific and Technical Manpower
  Scientific and Technical Manpower
  WORK LOAD ASSESSMENT (TEXTILE INDUSTRIES)
  WORK LOAD ASSESSMENT (TEXTILE INDUSTRIES)
  I.L.O. CONFERENCE (GREEK DELEGATES)
  I.L.O. CONFERENCE (GREEK DELEGATES)
  CIVIL SERVANTS (PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES)
  CIVIL SERVANTS (PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Clothing Coupons
  Clothing Coupons
  "Enterprise Scotland" Exhibition
  "Enterprise Scotland" Exhibition
  Gelatine Imports
  Gelatine Imports
  Worsted Yarn (Blind Persons)
  Worsted Yarn (Blind Persons)
  Utility Furniture
  Utility Furniture
  Carbon Black Supplies
  Carbon Black Supplies
  Floor Boards
  Floor Boards
  Jamaican Cigar Imports
  Jamaican Cigar Imports
  BRITISH ASSETS, URUGUAY
  BRITISH ASSETS, URUGUAY
COAL INDUSTRY
  Opencast Coal (Transit Wastage)
  Opencast Coal (Transit Wastage)
  Household Allocation, Scotland
  Household Allocation, Scotland
  Pit-Heaps (Usable Coal)
  Pit-Heaps (Usable Coal)
  Screening and Washing
  Screening and Washing
  CANDLE SHORTAGE
  CANDLE SHORTAGE
  BANKSIDE POWER STATION (FUEL OIL)
  BANKSIDE POWER STATION (FUEL OIL)
  STEELWORK AND FOUNDRY EQUIPMENT (EXPORTS)
  STEELWORK AND FOUNDRY EQUIPMENT (EXPORTS)
  FUEL RESTRICTIONS (WOMEN'S ORGANISATIONS)
  FUEL RESTRICTIONS (WOMEN'S ORGANISATIONS)
  SOFT FRUIT ACREAGES
  SOFT FRUIT ACREAGES
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Milk and Tea Subsidies
  Milk and Tea Subsidies
  Ministry's Staff, Fife
  Ministry's Staff, Fife
  OLD AGE PENSIONER
  OLD AGE PENSIONER
  COLONIAL EMPIRE (JAPANESE TEXTILE IMPORTS)
  COLONIAL EMPIRE (JAPANESE TEXTILE IMPORTS)
  SERVICE PENSIONERS (TUBERCULOSIS)
  SERVICE PENSIONERS (TUBERCULOSIS)
  SCHOOLS, LABRADOR
  SCHOOLS, LABRADOR
  OCCUPATION FORCES, GERMANY
  OCCUPATION FORCES, GERMANY
  MAIL-BAGS (LOSSES)
  MAIL-BAGS (LOSSES)
  POTASSIC FERTILISERS (DECONTROL)
  POTASSIC FERTILISERS (DECONTROL)

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Lord Moncrieff—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Preston Corporation Bill do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills: Read and agreed to.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND DERBYSHIRE TRACTION BILL.
Reported without amendment.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Reported with an Amendment.
SWINDON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

TRANSPORT BILL.
4.5 p.m.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule:
Provisions as to Executives.
1. Each Executive shall consist of a chairman and not less than four nor more than eight other members appointed by the Minister after consultation with the Commission from among persons who appear to the Minister to have had wide experience and shown capacity
388
in transport, industrial, commercial or financial matters, in administration or in the organisation of workers.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved, in paragraph 1, to leave out "the Minister after consultation with." The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment which is really consequential on a previous Amendment already agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 129, line 25, leave out from ("by") to ("the") in line 26.—(Lord Teynham.)
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): This is one of a number of consequential Amendments and I suggest for your Lordships' convenience that we might take the whole of them together. All of these Amendments to the Second Schedule, except the one in the name of the noble. Marquess, Lord Salisbury and other noble Lords, at page 129, line 28, relate to the same subject. They are consequential upon an alteration that has been already made. As your Lordships are aware, we differed from the majority of the Committee in this matter. I suggest that noble Lords on the Government Benches should formally register their dissent by saying "Not content" and that the whole lot should be taken together without a Division.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BEVERIDGE: I beg to move the next Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 129, line 27, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Commission"). — (Lord Beveridge.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEYNHAM: I beg to move the next Amendment in the name of my noble friend the Marquess of Salisbury.
Amendment moved—
Page 129, line 28, after the first ("in") insert ("inland waterways"). — (Lord Teynham.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Our view is that this is amply covered by the other words. I should have thought myself it was not necessary.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We pat the Amendment down but I agree that by

389
inserting these words it might look as though we are excluding something else. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TEYNHAM: I beg to move the remaining Amendments to the Second Schedule standing in the name of my noble friends the Marquess of Salisbury and other noble Lords.
Amendments moved—
Page 129, line 34, leave out ("the Minister and")
Page 130, line 5, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Commission")
Page 130, line 5, leave out ("himself") and insert ("themselves")
Page 130, line 8, leave out ("Minister") and insert ('Commission")
Page 130, line 8, leave out ("himself") and insert ("themselves")
Page 130, line 10, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Commission")
Page 130, line 11, leave out ("Minister'') and insert ("Commission")
Page 130, line 12, leave out ("him") and insert ("them")
Page 130, line 12, have out ("Minister") and insert ("Commission")
Page 130, line 13, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Commission'')
Page 130, line 13, leave out ("his") and insert ("their").—(Lord Teynham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule [Bodies whose under-takings are transferred to Commission.]:
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The next two Amendments are purely verbal Amendments in order to make the matter clear. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 132, line 29, after ("The'') insert ("Company of Proprietors of the")
Page 132, line 29, leave out ("Company") and insert ("Navigation"). — (Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Securities to be replaced by British Transport stock]:
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The next Amendments clown to the one in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, are entirely verbal in order to make the designation specifically correct. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 135, line 9, leave out ("loans") and insert ("The L.M.S. Railway (Midland) loan")
Page 135,line 10, leave out ("account")
Page 135,line 11, after ("charges") insert ("Hartlepool and Clarence class C preference shares")
Page 135,line 25, leave out ("5 per cent. loans") and insert—
("5 per cent. Debenture bonds
5 per cent. First debenture stock
5 per cent. Second debenture stock ")
Page 135,leave out line 26.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The Amendment in my name at page 136, line 30, immediately following that in the name of Lord Falmouth, which has not been moved, relates to a stock which has been placed in the wrong list. It is a guaranteed stock, and therefore it should come in a later list. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 136, leave out line 30.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ADDISSON: The remaining Amendments on this Schedule which stand in my name are all verbal Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 136, line 52, after ("The") insert "Company of Proprietors of the"),
Page 136,line 53, leave out ("Company") and insert ("Navigation").
Page 136,leave out line 54 and insert—
("Ordinary shares of £100 Ordinary shares of £140'')
Page 136,line 58, at end insert—
("The Lee Conservancy Board 3½ per cent. Mortgage loan."). — (Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fifth and Sixth Schedules agreed to.
Seventh Schedule [Wagons exempted from certain restrictions under Part II]:
LORD ROCHDALE: I think there is a mistake in drafting, and I understand that the Amendment I now move is going to be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 141, line 29, leave out ("ore").—(Lord Rochdale.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: We accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Seventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
4.12 p.m.
Eighth Schedule:
Orders giving effect to Schemes.
1.—(1) Where it appears to the Minister that the scheme submitted to him makes satisfactory provision with respect to the matters dealt with in the scheme, he shall prepare the draft of an order embodying the scheme and give notice of the preparation of the draft and that he proposes to proceed with the making of the order:
Provided that, in the case of a scheme under Part IV of this Act which provides for the transfer of the whole or any part of any undertaking, the Minister shall not regard the scheme as making satisfactory provision unless—

(a) where the person theretofore carrying on the undertaking is a local authority or is a joint committee, joint board, joint authority or other combined body, being a committee, board, authority or body all the members of which are, or are representatives of, local authorities it makes provision for compensation to local authority, joint committee, joint board, joint authority or combined body, is, in the opinion of the Minister, identical, as near as may be, with the provision made in the case of transfers under Part II of this Act from local authorities;

(2) Where it appears to the Minister in the case of any scheme submitted to him that it would not be expedient to give effect to the scheme in the form in which it was submitted to him, he may refer the scheme with his observations thereon to the Commission for their further consideration and thereupon they shall re-consider the scheme in the light of the Minister's observations and may again submit the scheme to the Minister with such amendments as they think fit.
2.—(1) A notice under paragraph 1 of this Schedule shall be published—

(a) in the London Gazette, the Edinburgh Gazette, or both, according as the scheme affects England, Scotland, or both; and

(b) in such local newspapers, and in such other ways, if any, as appear to the Minister best suited for bringing the notice to the attention of persons concerned,

and shall specify a place where the draft of the order may be inspected, and copies thereof Obtained at all reasonable hours, and the time (not being less than forty days from the publication of the notice) within which, and the manner in which, any objections to the draft may be made to the Minister, and the Minister shall consider any objections made within the time and in the manner specified in the notice:
Provided that the Minister shall not be required to consider any objection unless it
392
comprises or there is submitted therewith a statement in writing setting out the specific grounds for any amendments, additions or modifications asked for, or any objection which in his opinion is frivolous.
(2) Any such objection as aforesaid may ask for amendments, additions or modifications to or of the order which amount to amendments, additions or modifications to or of the scheme.
3.—(1) If there are no objections which the Minister is required to consider, or if all such objections are withdrawn, the Minister may make the order either in the terms of the draft or subject to such amendments, additions or modifications, if any, as he thinks fit, being amendments, additions or modifications which in his opinion do not effect important alterations in the draft as published.
(2) Where any such objection is made and is not withdrawn, the Minister shall cause inquiries to be made, and the Minister may, after considering the result of the inquiries, make the order either in the terms of the draft or subject to such amendments, additions or modifications as the Minister thinks fit.
(3) The amendments, additions or modifications referred to in this paragraph may amount to amendments, additions or modifications to or of the scheme.
4. Any power or duty of the Minister under this Schedule ause inquiries to be made shall be exercised or performed by causing a person, appointed the Minister for the purpose, to such inquiries (including, so far as the said person considers necessary, the hearing of oral evidence) as the said person considers necessary and to report thereon to the Minister.
5. The Minister may, with the consent of the Treasury, pay out of moneys provided by Parliament to persons appointed to make inquiries for the purposes of this Schedule such fees and allowances, and to persons giving evidence such allowances, as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine.
VISCOUNT ADDISON VISCOUNT ADDISON moved, in paragraph 1 (i), after proviso (a), to insert:
"(b) in the case of an undertaking or part of an undertaking (not being an undertaking theretofore carried on by such a person as is referred to in subhead (a) of this proviso), the activities of which before the transfer by or under the scheme consist wholly or partly of operating passenger road transport services, and the activities, if any, of which after that transfer will not include the operation of such services, it complies with the provisions of Part II of this Schedule."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is necessary in order that the new Part II which I shall be moving later, may apply to passenger road transport services. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 142, line 3, at end, insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF ROTHES THE EARL OF ROTHES moved, in paragraph 1 (i), after proviso (a), to insert:
"(b) if the scheme is a scheme under Section sixty-two of this Act,

(i) it specifies the undertakings or the part or parts of the undertakings to be transferred and the date of transfer which shall be a date not later than twelve months after the date on which the scheme takes effect; and

(ii) it complies in the case of any undertaking (not being an undertaking theretofore carried on by such a person as is referred to in subhead (a) of this proviso) with Part II of this Schedule."

The noble Earl said: The Amendment standing in the names of my noble friends and myself is in two parts, the first of which deals with a new point. We offer this suggestion which we really believe would be helpful and constructive in assisting all concerned in inaugurating a scheme. The suggestion has really two points. When a scheme is made, the undertakings affected should be set out by name in the scheme, and when the scheme takes effect, that is, when the body to operate it is set up, then those transfers should take place within a year. There seems considerable fear that if some procedure of that kind is not established, a body may be set up who, in due course, might specify the undertakings to be taken over, and again, in due course, call upon the undertakers to effect those transfers. If that were to happen I suggest there might be a period of delay, anxiety and friction to all concerned. We feel it to be most desirable that that should be avoided, and that the best way of avoiding it would be to set out in the Bill a clear-cut scheme for the smooth working of the take-over. That is the first point.
The second point I approach with very great diffidence because I find it extremely difficult to understand the wording of the noble Viscount's Amendment. It seems to me to contain two provisos. First of all, an undertaking must be carrying on a passenger road transport business, the whole or part of which is to be transferred under a scheme, and secondly, that after the corning into operation of the scheme it should not operate any such passenger road transport undertaking. The noble Viscount shakes his head, and I may be wrong, but that is how I understand it. It will be appreciated that an operator who has part of his fleet taken away and part left on his hands, would be placed in an extremely awkward and difficult position if he were to be prohibited from
394
carrying on the part which remained on his hands. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 142, line 3, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Rothes.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I add a word on this, because I venture to think that it is exceedingly difficult to understand the last three lines of the Amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, which appears on page 3 of the Marshalled List of Amendments. Of course, it is very difficult for people who have not spent their-lives in passenger road transport services to understand exactly what we are dealing with here, and I should be very much obliged if my noble friend Lord Addison would explain it to a somewhat jaded intellect. I am glad to think that the noble Earl who has just moved his Amendment, and who is full of life and vigour which. I can no longer enjoy, is also puzzled. These are the words which puzzle me so much:
"(b) in the case of an undertaking or part of an undertaking"—
then there is a bracket which excludes certain undertakings, and in particular those of local authorities—
"the activities of which before the transfer by or under the scheme consist wholly or partly.…
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Could the noble and learned Viscount tell me from what he is reading?
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: From the bottom of page 3 of the last Marshalled List. I am trying to help the noble Viscount by letting him know why I am "flummoxed," if I may use the term, by this provision. It continues:
"the activities of which before the transfer by or under the scheme consist wholly or partly of operating passenger road transport services.…
That is all clear; but then come these words which I do not understand:
"and the activities, if any, of which after that transfer will not include the operation of such services, it complier with the provisions of Part II of this Schedule."
What is the object of that qualification? What does it mean, and what is its effect? The noble Earl who moved this Amendment is naturally alarmed lest the effect of it should be to exclude cases in which the owner of such an undertaking does in fact do some work in respect of

395
passenger road transport services. But what is the process arising from the collocation of the activities in connexion with passenger road transport services and the activities which after that transfer will not include the operation of such services? I am baffled, though I have no doubt the explanation is quite simple and I shall do my best to follow it when it is made.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: There are two quite different subjects relating to the two Amendments. The first one relates to the specification of good undertakings to be transferred, and I think there is no doubt at all that they would be specified. If your Lordships look at paragraph 4 of the Ninth Schedule you will find these words:
"…having regard to the extent and nature of the property held in the year for the purposes of the undertaking as compared with the extent and nature of the property which vests in the Commission.…"
That is to say, they must specify the property which vests in the Commission, and as far as that is concerned it is already completely provided for.
Now I come to the much more tricky point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, and I will do my best to make clear what the difference is. This Amendment of mine, which has already been accepted by the Committee, is to enable the compensation to be payable to road passenger transport services which would not otherwise be provided for in the new Part II, which is coming later. If we look at proviso (a) in paragraph 1 it will be seen to relate to passenger services run by local authorities. Therefore we have got to have a new paragraph in order to bring in the passenger services that are taken over by other persons, persons who are not local authorities; and that is what the Amendment provides for. It then becomes proviso (b). Proviso (a) relates to local authorities. This one relates to other people running road passenger services; and they will become entitled to compensation as provided for in the Schedule. That is why it is put in.
Now I come to the words in the Amendment:
"in the case of an undertaking (not being an undertaking theretofore carried on by such a person as is referred in sub-head (a) of this proviso), the activities of which before the
396
transfer by or under the scheme consist wholly or partly of operating passenger road transport services, and the activities, if any, of which after that transfer will not include the operation of such services…"
That is to say, you may transfer and pay compensation for road passenger services which that concern previously ran, but after the transfer they will no longer run; they will then be organized by the Commission; and it is in order to cover that that this is provided. These are terms beloved by lawyers. What it means is that you will have transferred this man's road passenger undertakings to the Commission, and he will no longer run them. He will then become entitled to the compensation payable under the new Part II. I think it is all right.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I will take it home and consider it and sleep over it, but I should have thought that the words were wholly unnecessary if they mean only what the noble Viscount says they mean. I cannot see what more there is to say.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I will certainly consult my legal advisers and if the words are not necessary I shall be very happy to leave them out; but I thought that we ought to make quite sure that these people became entitled to compensation.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I will say no more except that I am obliged to the noble Viscount.
LORD GIFFORD: There is one point which the noble Viscount has not dealt with and that is the question of the date of taking over. If the date is unduly delayed, it is going to put the private undertaker in a very difficult position. In the first part of this proposed Amendment it says the date shall be a date not later than twelve months after the date on which the scheme takes effect.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That relates to specifications of the undertakings which will be specified in the scheme—and they must be specified.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: While you may be specified in a scheme, the question arises as to when you are taken over. There are some provisions about carrying on in the meantime as agent for the Commission. One does not want to rush this thing unduly; on the other hand, a man may be going to contest the scheme. If

397
it is to take effect and he is to be out of business, I should have thought that in everybody's interest that ought to take place as soon as possible; and twelve months does not seem unreasonable. Is not some time limit desirable in this?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I was advised that it would be specified in the scheme. I will certainly have a look at it, but I imagine the scheme must contain those particulars.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Of course, the thing has got to be specified in the scheme, but a man may be specified and yet left in the air as to when the taking over is to take place.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: The scheme might contain a clause which would require a transfer not later than say a couple of years after the scheme; that would be most unreasonable and cause great hardship to the owners of the undertaking in question. The point of the noble Earl's Amendment, as I see it, is, so far as it relates to a date, not that the date must be fixed in the scheme—of course there must be a date fixed some way—but that it should not be more than a year later. There ought to be some limit to the possibility of postponing the date in question.
LORD BEVERIDGE: That really connects with a point I raised on Clause 44 respecting road transport undertakings. I said then that the acquisition must not take place earlier than a certain time but also not later than a certain time. I think the noble Lord who spoke for the Government is considering that point. The schemes can incorporate anything that is in the Act. The scheme for taking over road transport under Part IV can incorporate other parts of the Act, and therefore, if in any other part of the Act you have a provision which undertakes that there must not be undue delay in taking over, that will automatically come into the scheme. In any case, on this point—I am happy to agree with the noble Viscount the Leader of the House on the other point—the schemes, having in fact to come before a Joint Committee of both Houses, I should have thought that there would be ample opportunity for ensuring that the general principle, if it is accepted under Clause 44, is applied also to the scheme.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I understand that the point is that the men do not want to be left in a state of anxiety, and of course that is clearly reasonable. I am advised that it would be provided for in the scheme, but I will look into it and it will be made clear.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount. The real thing that we were frightened about was that there might be a period of delay during which the undertakers within the area of the scheme might have to run their undertakings subject to direction, and that friction and delay may arise therefrom. If I might say one more word regarding the Second Part, I followed very closely what the noble Viscount said. I had in fact appreciated how it applies to a road passenger undertaker who has the whole of his undertaking taken over; he cannot run it any more, because it has gone to the Commission. But the case that I am worried about is the case of the undertaker who only has part of his undertaking taken over, and is left perhaps with the major part on his hands. As I read the clause I understand that he would not be allowed to operate that part that remains in his possession. If the noble Viscount would be so kind as to look into that before the Report stage, with the other point, I shall be very pleased to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
4.34 p.m.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved, in paragraph 2 (1), after "A notice under paragraph 1 of this Schedule shall be, to insert "sent to every local authority whose area or any part of whose area is within the area to which the Order relates and shall be." The noble Lord said: This point concerns the notice to be given with regard to schemes. Obviously there are going to be a great many schemes, and they are going to affect very different areas. There are probably few people who have got more power in the course of all this legislation than the legal advisers to all the local authorities. They are concerned with all the laws and regulations which are being dealt with at the present moment by different Government Departments. I think it would be helpful, instead of having to search the London Gazette, that a notice should be

399
sent to the clerk of the local authority concerned. You have only got the county borough and the county council, and it would not mean a very large addition for those who are drawing up these schemes, but it would be an enormous saving to the very overworked clerks concerned, who are having a very difficult time at the present moment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 142, line 23, at the end insert the said new words.—(Lord Addington.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I cannot imagine that the clerk of the local authority would not be informed. In the first place under Clause 62 of the Bill, at page 77, as the noble Lord will see, before a scheme is drawn up the Commission shall consult every local authority whose area is within the area under consideration, and they are statutorily obliged to consult them. Then paragraph (2) of the Eighth Schedule says:
"A notice under paragraph 1 of this Schedule shall be published (a) in the London Gazette, the Edinburgh Gazette, or both…and (b) in such local newspapers and in such other ways, if any, as appear to the Minister best suited for bringing the notice to the attention of persons concerned."
It is inconceivable to me that, with all those things being done, the town clerk would not know about it.
LORD ADDINGTON: I thought it might have been of help, but in the circumstances I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in paragraph (2) (i), after "Minister," where that word occurs for the third time, insert "(unless he considers any objection to be frivolous)." The noble Earl said: This Amendment relates to the type of inquiry, which is going to be carried out in certain cases under this measure, and one of the most important of those inquiries is that to be carried out under Clause 62. If I may make one or two preliminary remarks on the general position of this inquiry—because there are one or two Amendments where there are references generally to the same point —when we were discussing Clause 63 in particular the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, made a great point that, although the powers given were extremely wide, and he was undertaking to look
400
at some of them, even so there were a number of safeguards, and two in particular. One was that the scheme envisaged under Clause 62 would be approved by Parliament, and the other that an inquiry would be held.
The first remark I have to make is that the schemes do not have to be approved by Parliament. In so far as I understand the word "approved" to mean an affirmative Resolution, that is not necessary. In point of fact, representation on the general principle of the scheme can only be made after an affirmative Resolution has in fact referred the scheme to a special committee. That means to say that the other safeguard, the inquiry, must—and I feel sure your Lordships agree—be very thorough, because these schemes are important. A great many people with different attitudes are involved, particularly the local authorities, who, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has said, will be extremely interested, and it is important that these inquiries should be conducted on a satisfactory basis. There is no hurry in this case, in the sense that it is quite clear that the Government do not intend to take action immediately. It is generally stated that it may be perhaps five years or more before schemes are put into operation. It is, therefore, all the more important that these inquiries should be well conducted, particularly as it is fair to say that the present system of road transport is not inefficient and it is certainly solvent.
The proposal in this Amendment is this, and if I may, with your Lordships' permission I will take the two Amendments which stand in my name, those at page 142, line 35, and page 142, to leave out line 37 to 41. The one at page 142, line 35, inserts that the Minister need not consider an objection raised to the draft scheme unless he considers it is sufficiently specific, or if he considers any objection to be frivolous. Then it changes its proviso clause here from, shall I say a negative position to a positive position. As the paragraph stands now it reads:
"Provided that the Minister shall not be required to consider any objection unless it comprises or there is submitted therewith a statement in writing setting out the specific grounds…"
My objection to that is that the Minister may object to, or may refuse to consider, an objection because the grounds are not sufficiently specific. In other words, he

401
would not be objecting to the merits of that objection but he is merely stating that the grounds and merits on which the case is put forward are not sufficiently specific. I think that is a poor reason for refusing to consider an objection.
If I may refer to the Amendment at page 142, lines 37 to 41, that says simply first of all, as I have said, that the Minister need not consider any objection which is frivolous; and secondly that objections must state the specific grounds for any omissions, additions or modifications asked for. I am moving this Amendment because I think it is important that those who are interested should have the fullest opportunity to state clearly their objections, and the Minister should not be able to by-pass those objections simply by stating on purely technical grounds that they are not sufficiently specific. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 142, line 35, after the second ("Minister") insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The noble Earl has spoken on this and on another Amendment which is closely related to it. With great respect I think the first must be clearly a misunderstanding because in lines 37 to 41 the paragraph says:
"Provided the Minister shall not be required to consider…any objection which in his opinion is frivolous."
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am sure the noble Viscount would not wish to misunderstand me. The first part of the Amendment is to leave out lines 37 to 41 and to insert in their place the words which are printed in the Amendment. There is no repetition.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The paragraph clearly includes the words which the noble Earl wishes to have put in. The noble Earl raised the point that the words here are not sufficiently specific. He speaks particularly of lines 37 to 41 on page 142. I am advised that they are completely specific. They call for
"a statement in writing setting out the specific grounds for any amendments, additions or modifications asked for…"
That seems to me to cover the whole thing. But I will consult with my advisers and if they are of opinion that the noble Earl's case is a good one, and that this is not sufficiently specific, I will
402
gladly put some words in. But, as I say, I am advised that they are sufficiently specific.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Possibly they may be sufficiently specific, but I think that the point of the Amendment is, that they are not sufficiently positive. The Amendment as drafted leaves it open to the Minister to object to an application because it is not specific enough. The Amendment as my noble friend has drafted it, places a definite obligation on a person putting forward an objection to put it forward in certain terms. Those terms are the same as appear in the present draft of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount will see his way to accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The point is exactly as my noble friend Viscount Bridgeman has stated. This is not a question of words not being specific enough, but a question of the negative presentation of the case. However, if the noble Viscount will consider this matter, I will willingly withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.44 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON VISCOUNT ADDISON moved, in subparagraph (2) of paragraph 3, to leave out "inquiries to be made" and insert "in the case of a scheme under Part IV of this Act, a public local inquiry, or, in any other case, an inquiry, to be held with respect thereto." The noble Viscount said: This is to make it quite clear that the inquiries should be public local inquiries. As set out in my Amendment instead of "inquiries to be made" we have specified that there must be public local inquiries. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 142, line 52, leave out ("inquiries to be made") and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Addison.)
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to amend the Amendment by inserting at the end "by a competent and impartial person." The noble Earl said: I would like, first of all, to thank the noble Viscount for putting in the words "public local inquiry" which I think will result in a very great strengthening of this part of the Bill. I am most grateful to him. In my Amendment. I am endeavouring to strengthen the position perhaps a little

403
more. I am asking the noble Viscount to agree to the inclusion of the words "by a competent and impartial person." I do not think the noble Viscount would say that that would be an improper designation of the type of man who would, in fact, be appointed by the Minister to carry out such an inquiry. The Minister has the selection and it is quite clear that such a man should be appointed. I feel sure that the Amendment is in line with the noble Viscount's wish to make these inquiries as strong as they can possibly be. I beg to move.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
At end insert ("by a competent and impartial person").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am advised that if this Amendment were accepted it would mean that it would be necessary to show beforehand that someone was a competent and impartial person, and that might result in all kinds of difficulties. I cannot, of course, imagine any Minister appointing a person who was not competent and impartial. We all know the kind of people who conduct these inquiries, and I am sure that the inquiries will be conducted by competent and impartial persons. But I am advised that the insertion of these words would put a statutory obligation on the Minister, and who in the world is going to interpret it?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Two sorts of people hold these inquiries. The Minister may send one of his officials. He may be, and indeed he undoubtedly would be, quite competent, but, on the other hand, he is scarcely impartial in the sense that he is connected with the Ministry. I remember certain other cases which we have had in which a person was appointed by the Lord Chancellor. I am, of course, quite sure that the Minister should appoint someone competent who has nothing to do with either the Department concerned or the people objecting to the scheme. That, I think, is what is really required. The object of having this public and local inquiry—and I am very glad indeed that that is conceded—is that the matter is put forward in this way. There is a scheme and objectors can come forward and, I imagine, put their case and be questioned.
404
Supporters can come and make their case and be cross-examined. It is the other side, of course, that must be put to the proof of their objections.
The kind of inquiry that I have in mind is an inquiry of the sort that we had to deal with a matter of harbours, which resulted in that very successful amalgamation on the Clyde in 1945. That inquiry was conducted by someone who was obviously quite impartial and highly competent and the recommendations made as a result of that inquiry were accepted by everyone. If the thing is done in that way, not only is there no doubt that the inquiry is, in fact, an impartial one, but everyone is satisfied. It is, of course, as important to satisfy people who go to a court of law, that they are getting justice as it is that they should, in fact, receive justice. And that, I think, is what it is intended to ensure here.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): I am afraid that I am one who is strongly opposed to this. I should very much resent these words being put in here —very much, indeed. If the Minister is so misguided as to appoint a person who either incompetent or not impartial, then the Minister ought to be dismissed. It would be the worst possible example to assert that these words, which are always taken for granted in this country, should be put in for guidance in the administration of any form of justice. Competence does not seem to be an issue. It is obvious that an official of the Ministry may be, and undoubtedly would be, a perfectly competent person. Then we come to the word "impartial." Of course, it is an elementary principle of our system of justice that if any Judge, even if he does not know it, owns a single share in a company whose business is being considered, the whole procedings of a court of law would be void, unless, of course, he discloses the fact of his holding to the parties. Sometimes, the unhappy man does not remember until about the second day of a hearing that he is in that respect an interested party. That principle is elementary, of course.
But I dislike very much the suggestion that because the man to be appointed is an official from a Ministry, therefore, he is in some way partial. Just think of all the cases that can be cited here. The Ministry of Labour affords a very common

405
illustration. Frequently inquiries into all sorts of matters are carried out by officials of the Ministry of Labour. The more I see of the work of these civil servants the higher is the opinion I form of it. I think it is excellent. I consider that to suggest that because a man holding an inquiry is an official he might so far forget himself as not to make an honest and impartial report is a completely wrong idea. I should very much regret the insertion of these words. Impartiality is a foundation of our system of English law, and I think it would be a very bad example to have those words inserted in any particular place.
LORD SALTOUN: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, but may I say that I seem to remember some such words actually being in several Bills, possibly before the war? if I am not mistaken I think that the Scottish Agricultural Wages Bill was one of them. I hope I am not wrong, but I seem to remember having some discussion with my noble friend Lord Alness about it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am quite sure that was at a time before I was Lord Chancellor.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I cannot agree with the opinion of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. It is not a question of justice; it is not a court of law, but an inquiry. We forget that the Minister is personally interested, and is not in the impartial position which the Minister of Transport was in before. Formerly, with the operators on the one hand and the consumers on the other, he was in a position of impartiality. But now he is head of a very large monopoly and for that reason cannot be regarded as in quite the same position. If the noble and learned Viscount would himself accept the duty of appointing then of course I would be perfectly willing. If your Lordships will look at Clause 6 (4) you will see provision for an independent chairman. How would that appeal to the noble and learned Viscount? Does not that seem more desirable in itself? I. think that some of the new town inquiries, which I believe were not entirely fair to some of the people concerned—I know very little about the point but I believe it was felt that there was a certain amount of Ministerial pressure in this.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord is quite wrong. The point made against the new town inquiries was that the Minister did not give evidence in chief, as it were, in support of his claim. I have never heard to this day the slightest suggestion made about either the competence or impartiality of the gentlemen who held these inquiries.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I withdraw.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It is a rather invidious point why in these inquiries one does not want to accept that the civil servant is not completely impartial. May I say as a very old Minister the last thing I ever wanted to do was to be judge in my own case? If this was an inquiry into proposals made by me as the Minister, then frankly I should not tell any man in my office to go and do the job even though I know he would do it perfectly honestly. I would he definitely at fault and extremely unwise if I chose a subordinate of my Department to conduct an inquiry at which my proposal is being challenged. I should have thought it a very wise principle to lay down, without using the words "competent" and "impartial," that where you have an issue between a Minister and outside, and the whole object of the inquiry is to decide whether the Minister's proposal is right or what the objector says is right, the man to conduct the inquiry should be someone appointed not by the Minister's Department or by the Minister. If I were in the Minister's position, I would prefer not to appoint the man myself but much rather that the Lord Chancellor should appoint him.
LORD BEVERIDGE: Before this Amendment is put—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The Amendment has been put. We are discussing the Amendment to the Amendment.
LORD BEVERIDGE: I thought it had been withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: As my name was associated with the Amendment I would like to say my views are the same as those of my noble friend Lord Swinton.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am sorry to interrupt, but the noble Earl has withdrawn—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Lord did not withdraw the Amendment. He did withdraw his remarks about Stevenage.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I withdrew those remarks.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I should like very briefly to support the views my noble friends, the Earl of Selkirk and Viscount Swinton, have put forward. If you will look at the next Amendment but one standing in the name of the Earl of Selkirk and myself, you will see that we feel that this inquiry should be one conducted as a proper public inquiry with both sides represented. That I think adds point to our view that the Chairman should be competent and impartial and in any case should be independent. If the person appointed were an officer of the Ministry, however impartial or competent he might he, the appointment would not fail to start creating a bad impression among the public. I hope very much that this principle of an independent person may be accepted.
LORD ROCHESTER: As a member of the Port of London Authority, I want to ask the Government to reconsider this point, because we feel very strongly that it is not a question altogether of impartiality but that the Minister will be a party to the inquiry. I hope, therefore, the Government will see their way to accept some variation whereby some other authority could appoint this person. If the Leader of the House would agree that the inquiry should be held by some person appointed by the Lord Chancellor, I think all parties would be satisfied. Certainly the General Council of British Shipping and the Docks and Harbour Authority Association would be satisfied. But they are certainly not satisfied at present because they feel, without calling in question the partiality or otherwise of the person appointed, that if the Minister is a party he ought not to be the judge in his own affairs.
LORD BEVERIDGE: Since the Amendment is not withdrawn I should like to say that I agree with the Government and not with those who moved the Amendment. The whole of this procedure for making schemes works up to a special Parliamentary procedure involving very elaborate controls ultimately by a Joint Committee of both Houses and a Resolu-
408
tion of each House, so that if the inquiry when made appears to be biased, it is for Parliament to exercise its control. That seems to me better than attempting to put in words which would limit the choice of person to make the inquiry, although if the Government thought that this was a good Amendment I certainly should not object. It appears to me that to leave the full responsibility to the Joint Committee and to the Houses of Parliament who must be able to examine the Report and the person who made the Report to satisfy themselves is really a better procedure than trying to insist on the character of the person chosen to make the inquiry.
LORD GIFFORD: May I remind the Lord Chancellor of some discussion which took place in this House on the National Health Bill as to the status of the tribunal and the question of a doctor remaining in the Health Scheme or not? I think the noble and learned Viscount accepted an Amendment on the principle that the chairman of the inquiry should be a barrister or solicitor of eight years' standing in order that he should be completely competent and quite impartial. I feel that the noble and learned Viscount has had sympathy with certain cases rather similar to this.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That was not a question of an inquiry but of judicial proceedings, and I do not think that had anything to do with this particular case.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Replying to the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, I would say that his reading of Parliamentary procedure is not correct. It is not necessary to have a Resolution of either House for this scheme to be put through. All that is necessary is for the scheme to lie for, I think twenty-eight days. It is only when an affirmative Resolution is passed that it may then be submitted, if it is a matter of general objection, to a Select Committee. Therefore, the regulations are not really more safeguarded than in the case of a normal regulation. I do not think that is a very great safeguard, if I am correct in what I am saying. I would like the noble Viscount to consider this question of independence. I do not know whether he is stating that he intends that these inquiries should be conducted by the officials. Is that the policy of the Ministry of Transport or

409
should someone outside conduct it? If the noble Viscount would say as to that, it would help.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: These inquiries must be left to the Minister in discharge of his statutory duties. I could not give any further undertaking, but I am sure, as I am advised by the Lord Chancellor, that we must adhere to our objection to the words.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My noble friend probably would wish to take this to a Division, but I am bound to say, and I say it with long experience, that I am quite certain that, if in these inquiries where the Minister is propounding a scheme and that scheme is objected to, the Minister does not appoint somebody entirely outside his own Department to conduct that inquiry, that inquiry would not give satisfaction although the man who is conducting the inquiry would certainly do his best. I think the Minister would be ill-advised to do so; I think it would load to constant appeal to Parliament by the special procedure, which is not what we want. We want these schemes to go through. It would have been perfectly easy for the Leader of the House to say on behalf of the Government that, where these inquiries are instituted, the person appointed, whether by the Minister of Transport or by somebody else, will be a person who has nothing whatever to do with the Ministry which is promoting the scheme or with the objectors to that scheme. If that is the object then I believe complete satisfaction will be given. If it is not, people will feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are labouring under an injustice, and that that is not the atmosphere in which we want to launch this Bill. I would beg the Government in the interests of the success of their Bill to make that pronouncement.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I would like to thank the noble Viscount for that. These inquiries must be local, and it is not for Parliament at all. The big municipalities are intensely interested in this Bill and I think they are entitled to a full and open inquiry on the spot.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The Leader of the House has given that.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Lord Beveridge said that was not so important as the special Parliamentary procedure.
410
I appreciate that. If the noble Viscount would consider this I would beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ROCHESTER: I am very sorry to press the Government on this point, but it is very important to me. I do hope it will not be left as it is at present. The Minister will be a party to the inquiry and I cannot conceive that there can be any objection to inserting in the Bill words to the effect that the appointment should rest with the Lord Chancellor. I have not voted against the Government on this Bill and I have sat here for three nights this week up to eleven o'clock. I do feel that we are entitled to some consideration from the Government on a point of this sort. The Amendment that I seek to insert, as the noble Lord cannot see his way to accept the words "by a competent and impartial person "—I see the Lord Chancellor's difficulty in accepting such words—is that in place thereof there should be inserted the words "by a person appointed by the Lord Chancellor."
Amendment moved—
Page 142, line 52, at end insert ("by a person appointed by the Lord Chancellor").—(Lord Rochester.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should be very reluctant to accept that Amendment. These are highly technical questions and in practice they are much better determined by some kind of person who knows his particular business. As things are it is very difficult for me to find the right people to do the multifarious duties which I have to perform. If I am to find people also with the necessary qualifications and knowledge to advise on schemes on the running of transport undertakings, heaven help me. I could not possibly undertake the work. I must go to competent and skilled people in this trade; I do not know them, and I should have to ask the Minister: "Who on earth shall we appoint here?"
Noble Lords have repeatedly been speaking as though it was the Minister who puts forward the scheme. It is not the Minister who puts forward the scheme; it is the Commission who put forward this scheme and when the Commission put forward a scheme it does not come into force until

411
the Minister has approved it and before the Minister approves it he has this inquiry. It is not the fact that the Minister is a party. He has to decide whether he shall or shall not approve the Commission's scheme. If he follows the practice of other Ministers he will appoint some highly skilled person who understands this sort of business, maybe a person in some position in his own office who will spend a large part of his life going round and hearing these cases and will understand the business. I could not undertake this task of appointing people to perform such highly technical work in regard to which I myself have no personal knowledge at all. Therefore I should say we should be quite wrong in accepting the manuscript Amendment moved by the noble Lord.
LORD ROCHESTER: I am sorry, but I do not really feel entitled to withdraw my Amendment; I must be content with it being negatived.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I was just going to ask the Leader of the House whether he has anything to say on the second proposal of the noble Earl behind me as to the word "independent" which is already in the Bill in Clause 6, not quite in the same connexion. I think that word might avoid some of the difficulties that have been pointed out.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I will certainly look into the point but the Minister must be allowed to appoint a type of person competent to conduct an inquiry, and I cannot imagine his appointing anybody in whose independence, impartiality and competence he had not the fullest confidence. We should be no better off if we put the word in. We do not do it in any other case that I have heard of.
On Question, Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
On Question, original Amendment agreed to.
5.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON VISCOUNT ADDISON moved, in subparagraph (2), of paragraph 3, to leave out "result of the inquiries" and insert "report of the person by whom the inquiry was held." The noble Viscount said: These new words are proposed instead of the somewhat ambiguous words in sub-paragraph (2).
Amendment moved—
Page 143, line 1, leave out ("result of the inquiries") and insert ("report of the person by whom the inquiry was held").—(Viscount Addison.)
LORD BEVERIDGE: May I ask whether the reference to a public local inquiry leading to a report means that the report is to be published. I notice that the Government have put down an Amendment to strengthen the inquiry, and there is an Amendment of my own later on requiring the report to be published.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am afraid I should require notice of that question. The inquiry is public, of course—that is provided for—so that everybody who wants can hear everything that goes on. As to whether the report is published, speaking for myself, as an old Minister who has been responsible for a great many of these inquiries, I do not remember that I ever published the report of anybody who held an inquiry. The reports are in the nature of confidential documents in the Department, and may contain all kinds of observations. So far as I know, it is not the practice for these reports to be published. However, I will inquire into it. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has been a Minister, and I do not think his reports were always published.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It entirely depended on the character of the report. The noble Viscount has just said something which filled me with alarm and despondency. What he said was that these reports are of a confidential character. There should be no obligation to publish a report of a confidential character, but that is an entirely different thing. Here what we have got is a public local inquiry on a scheme—it is true, not propounded by the Minister in person, but propounded by the Commission, whom the Minister appoints, and to whom, indeed, the Minister may give general instructions. It seems to me to be absolutely the essence of this case. The noble Viscount said that we may be quite sure that the Minister will appoint somebody who is not only competent, but of the most independent frame of mind, and the best man to make the report. What is this public local inquiry? It is right that it should be public, and it is right that it should be local. But what is it leading

413
up to? Surely, what it is leading up to is the report. Of course we must know what is in the report. If it is a wise report, it will say: "I find in favour of the Commission in this respect, and in favour of the objectors in that respect," and it will give reasons for those findings. It is a quasi-judicial report. It has then got to come up, if people object to it, and be the subject of this Parliamentary procedure. Is it really going to be suggested that we must conduct all our Parliamentary procedure without seeing the report? The answer to this must be that the report will be published.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I do not agree with the noble Viscount at all. We have both been Ministers, and we both have had considerable experience. I myself on a number of occasions have had inquiries of various kinds made—in fact, we both have. I do not remember any stipulation that the report should be published. It is of a semi-confidential nature in some respects. The Minister has to have the report, and what matters is the Minister's decision on the report. He can be challenged in Parliament, and he then has to justify himself as best he can. In order to form a correct opinion, he sends someone to make the inquiry and he has to decide accordingly, I do not know of any statutory obligation to publish all the reports of gentlemen who conduct inquiries of this kind. I well remember one case where there was a dispute on a water power scheme between Inverness and Argyll. How I was dragged into it I do not remember, but I was the Minister of Reconstruction. Apparently the two parties to the report were at such loggerheads with one another that they would not come into the room by the same door. They came in separately, by different doors, and this interesting incident was contained in the report. It did illustrate the kind of animosity that was prevailing on the spot, but it was not the kind of thing that I would have circulated in a report. I do not think it is reasonable, but I will inquire into it. It is news to me, as an old Minister, that you are compelled to publish the report of a man who is appointed to conduct an inquiry. It will certainly prejudice his report, if publication is compulsory. What matters is the decision of the Minister, and that can be challenged in Parliament. I should be very sorry to make this a statutory obligation.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Is there not a distinction between cases where a report is made on a public inquiry for the purpose of enabling the Minister to decide some particular administrative point, and such a case as this, in which the report is made for the purpose of enabling the Minister to make an order which will have the force of law, if the order survives criticism in Parliament? It really is not quite accurate for the noble Viscount to say that this report will be made simply to enable the Minister to make up his mind. I deny that. It is to enable him to make an order, which is to be subject to the criticism of Parliament. It may very well be that Parliament, when it understands the nature of the case—which can only be understood by Parliament on consideration of the terms of the report—may come to the conclusion that the Minister is wrongly exercising his discretion in the order which he may make, and accordingly the order should be quashed. I confess that I think it is very important that Parliament should not be obliged to discuss the propriety of an order of this sort, which may be considered of enormous interest in the locality where the matters are dealt with, unless the report is published. I should have thought that if this House had to consider an order of that kind, we should at once say that it was idle for us to proceed to discuss the matter without knowing the grounds on which the order was based.
LORD BEVERIDGE:May I say to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that if he will consult what was said on this Schedule in another place he will find that the Minister took a very different view from the one which he has just expressed. In opposing Amendments to strengthen the inquiry he said:
"This is unnecessary, because there is tremendous special Parliamentary procedure, and I do not want to interfere with the responsibility of Parliament."
I have an Amendment here requiring that the report should be published. I do hope the Government will accept that Amendment after consideration, because the vital thing is not for the Minister to decide, but for Parliament to decide on things which are, in fact, the alternative to legislation. Remember the Minister's powers given by these schemes, including the whole conditions of compensation for people expropriated. It is quite certain

415
that Parliament must control, and it is equally certain that Parliament cannot do that, except on Party lines, without knowledge. The way to get the knowledge is from the report. It has nothing whatever to do with the inquiries made by a Minister in the course of his Ministerial duties. It is the alternative to Parliament, and I am very glad that I asked this question. I regret to say that it is impossible for me to stay here and move my Amendment, but I hope one of my noble friends will move it for me and I hope the Government are prepared to consider it.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am sorry to be obstinate, but I am really completely astonished—with the greatest respect to the experience of the noble Lord—that he should try to make it a statutory obligation that every report received by a Minister, made by a person holding an inquiry in order to enable him to be informed in his judgment, should be published. I am absolutely astonished. I am sure it is contrary to the best interests of the community. The Minister must exercise his judgment, because it is the Minister who stands responsible and he has to justify himself. He cannot pass it off on to this man who made the report—that would never do.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I do not wish to prolong matters, but may I ask one question on this? Did not the Committee on Ministers' Powers, in their unanimous Report, recommend that all reports of this kind should be made public?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I have no knowledge of it, and I should be astonished if that were so. I am sure it is not so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.23 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 3, to insert:
"(3) The Commission shall appear at any public local inquiry by counsel, solicitor or agent in favour of the scheme and shall tender evidence, and any objector may appear at any such inquiry either in person or by counsel, solicitor or agent and may tender evidence. Any witnesses appearing on behalf of the Commission or any objector shall be subject to cross-examination.
(4) Subsections (2) to (5) of 290 of the Local Government Act 1933 shall apply to any such public local inquiries."
The noble Earl said: This is a further Amendment in the same direction, and we very much hope that it will be more successful than the two previous Amendments. The point of this Amendment is really two-fold. The first is that in carrying out these inquiries the Commission shall be represented themselves, and that any objector shall be able to cross-examine and question any witnesses put forward by the Commission. If one wants to make the slightest comparison with the judicial system, it is obvious that the Commission must present their case and must be there to answer for it. It is only then that the inquiry officer, whoever he may be, can properly have the position placed before him; otherwise he would have to conduct the inquiry himself instead of being in a semi-judicial position, which I think we are all agreed is his rightful position. The second point is that certain subsections of the Local Government Act 1933 shall apply to any such public local inquiries. Those subsections simply provide for the production of evidence and the administering of the oath. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 143, line 3, at end insert the said subparagraphs.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment falls into three parts. The first is that
"The Commission shall appear at any such public local inquiry by counsel, solicitor or agent in favour of the scheme."
Of course they can appear. If they do not want to appear, then I should think they have a pretty bad case, but they can appear if they are so minded. More than that we cannot do. The second part is that they shall tender evidence. You cannot make a man speak—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: You can by shifting the onus of proof.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: You can do that, but, of course, he would probably exercise his right to tender evidence. But just to say "and shall tender evidence" is really an absolutely impossible proposition. Then we come to the next part which is:
"and any objector may appear at any such inquiry either in person or by counsel, solicitor or agent and may tender evidence.'
Do you really mean to say "any objector"? Is there to be no question of

417
locus standi at all? We do not let people do that in this House or in another place unless they have some locus standi to be here. Assuming the objector had a locus standi, he would obviously be entitled to appear either in person or by counsel. It goes without saying that any witness who does give evidence in chief is subject to cross-examination—of course he is. Then comes the obligation to apply Section 290 of the Local Government Act, 1933. Why? Why not carry on the perfectly practicable and useful method which we apply here? Clause 120 of this Bill lays down that the inquiries held under this Bill are to be subject to Section 20 of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919. That provides that the person holding the inquiry may require any person to attend, and he may require any person to give evidence or produce any document in his possession subject to a fine. He has power to take evidence on oath, administer oaths, and so on and so forth. That is a perfectly proper procedure, and it puts the man who is holding the inquiry in complete charge of the proceedings. He can order the proceedings as he thinks right and as he thinks proper. Further than that we cannot go.
It may be objected—as it was objected in the Stevenage case—that the scheme itself was not propounded and the objectors were therefore put at a disadvantage. I can say very little on that, because that case is still sub judice and it would be very unbecoming that I should say more. But I think it is an odd position if the objector, instead of being able to give evidence as to his own objection, has to rely upon the opposition giving evidence so that he may dig up something from cross-examination. Surely he has enough from his own substantive case to give his evidence, and then if the people propounding the scheme do not attempt to refute his evidence very likely the scheme would be knocked out. For those reasons we cannot accept this Amendment.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble and learned Viscount has made some very interesting concessions. The first is that any objector with a locus standi can object. If you accept that, then I feel it should be incorporated into this clause. That is a very important concession, and if that is the view of the noble and learned Viscount, I would be very glad if that were put into the clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is provided for in substance by Section 20 of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, which is incorporated into this Bill by Clause 120.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The second point the noble and learned Viscount made was that witnesses may be cross-examinee. That may be covered by the same rule. I am afraid I have not looked up that Act, and I apologize for not having done so. The only other point I would like to make is that the value of this inquiry must depend very much upon the nature of the evidence which is put in front of it. If the Commission are not there, then clearly the evidence is much less valuable. For that reason I should have thought it would add greatly to the value of the evidence that the Commission should appear and state their case. However, in the circumstances I will not press this Amendment and I beg leave to withdraw.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I mention one thing which I hope the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, will look into? My recollection is that although there was a communal right for objectors to attend in such a case, and that they must be heard by the person who is holding the inquiry, it is not the fact that at common law such objector has a right to appear by solicitor or counsel. Counsel have a right of audience in the High Court, but I think I am right in saying—although everybody's memory is sometimes defective—that persons at an inquiry like this have not a right to appear by counsel, although no doubt the person holding the inquiry might be willing to hear counsel, and would probably be well advised if he did. I venture to think that if it is found on inquiry that such a right does not exist, it might be in the interests of fairness and propriety to put in just a few words to say that an objector with locus standi should be entitled to appear by counsel or by solicitor.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The next is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 143, leave out lines 7 to 12.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: This also is a drafting Amendment, to make the matter more clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 143, line 14, leave out ("persons appointed to make inquiries") and insert ("any person appointed to hold an inquiry").—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON VISCOUNT ADDISON moved to add at the end of the Schedule:

PART II.
6.Where, by or under a scheme made under Part IV of this Act, such an undertaking or part of an undertaking as is specified in subhead (b) of paragraph 1 of this Schedule is transferred to a body constituted or specified by or under that scheme, the scheme shall incorporate in relation to that undertaking the provisions of Section forty-seven of this Act and of the Ninth Schedule to this Act subject to the adaptations and modifications set out in the subsequent provisions of this Part of this Schedule.
7.The following references shall throughout the said Section forty-seven and the said Ninth Schedule be construed as follows—

(a) references to a goods vehicle shall be construed as including references to any vehicle registered under the Roads Act, 1920;

(b) references to the Commission shall be construed as references to the said body;

(c) references to a notice of acquisition, and to the giving of such a notice, and to the transfer resulting from or effected by such a notice shall be construed as references to a transfer by or under a scheme.

8.At the end of subsection (1) of the said Section forty-seven there shall be inserted the following proviso—
'Provided that, where the vehicle is a trolley vehicle or a tramcar, paragraph (a) of this subsection shall have effect as if, in the case of a trolley vehicle, the words "one-seventh" or, in the case of a tramcar, the words "one fourteenth" were substituted for the words "one-fifth," wherever those words occur.'
9. In subsection (3) of the said Section forty-seven for the word 'five' there shall be substituted the word 'seven.'
10. In paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of the said section forty-seven for the words 'vehicles authorised to be used under A licences or B licences' there shall be substituted the words 'public service vehicles, trolley vehicles or tramcars.'
11. The provisions of subsection (5) of the said section forty-seven shall apply where the rights of the hirer under a hire purchase agreement vest in the said body by reason of a transfer by or under the scheme.
12. The reference in subsection (8) of the said section forty-seven to this Act shall be construed as a reference to the scheme.
13. The said Ninth Schedule shall have effect as if—

(a)for sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 2 of that Schedule there were substituted the following sub-paragraph:—

'(2)In this Schedule, the expression "the last three financial years" means, in relation to an undertaking—

(a) where the undertaking has been carried on for not less than three years ending with the date in the year nineteen hundred and forty-eight to which the accounts of the undertaking for a period of twelve months were made up in the ordinary course, the three years ending with that date; or

(b) in any other case, the three years ending with the date in the twelve months immediately preceding the transfer to which the accounts of the undertaking for a period of twelve months were made up in the ordinary course;'

(b) the paragraph of that Schedule providing that in certain circumstances only two of the last three financial years shall be taken into account were omitted."

The noble Viscount said: This is a very important addition to the Schedule, and I move that it be inserted. It enables us to extend the compensation provisions, as provided for in this Schedule, to passenger transport undertakings. Your Lordships will notice, if you refer to Clause 47, which relates to other vehicles, that this proposed Part II is based upon that provision, with certain amendments relating to passenger vehicles. Some very important extensions of the compensation provisions, as formerly anticipated, are provided for in this Amendment of mine. If your Lordships will look at the top of page 58 of the Bill, Clause 47, you will see that from the compensation to be paid in respect of any goods vehicle vesting in the Commission there shall be deducted
"where one or more complete years have elapsed between the date when the vehicle was registered under the Roads Act, 1920, and the date of transfer, one fifth of the said cost in respect of the first year…"
The deduction applied to those vehicles is a fifth.
In these cases we have made the deduction substantially smaller. In the case of trolley vehicles the deduction is only one seventh; and the deduction in the case of tram cars is only one fourteenth. The proposal is, therefore, that much smaller deductions shall be made than the deduction of one fifth. This relates to buses. If your Lordships will look again at page 58 of the Bill you will see that there is

421
compensation provided in respect of cessation of business, based on a sum calculated on the average net annual profit. Here again we are extending the scope of compensation and enabling it in some cases to be as much as seven times tile net annual profit. The other provisions are really in order to make it apply to this class of vehicle, except that I must refer now to the last paragraph of all, which relates to the new part of the compensation scheme—namely, subparagraph (b) of paragraph 13 of the proposed Part II of the Schedule. That relates to the years that can be taken for the calculation of the profit.
If your Lordships will refer to the long Amendment in my name on page 9 you will see a new proposal. In the case of passenger vehicles it is provided in the scheme that the annual profit for the three years ending 1948 can be taken. These years are expected to be very good years. People have had to crowd into buses and have had to wait in queues; the buses have done extremely well. It is no doubt a very generous gesture to enable the bus companies to take three years which it is fairly certain should be exceedingly profitable years. I would like to refer to my Amendment on page 144, line 34. This relates to haulage vehicles. It has been contended that, owing to some special circumstances, there might be one year in the three years which can be taken for the ascertainment of the net annual profit which for some reason was a specially bad year, and this provides for that case. It is another very liberal concession, I think, that, by reason of abnormality of circumstance in any one of the three years, that year may be disregarded and you may take the average of the two good years, thereby enhancing the amount of the net annual profit.
There are a number of Amendments on the Paper and I must be allowed to speak with a certain measure of frankness on some of them without referring to them individually. They all have the result of increasing the amount of compensation in one way or another. I suggest that the scheme of compensation here provided is understood to be a very generous scheme. I am not a pundit on Stock Exchange matters; it is a column in the newspapers which I rarely look at. But in this particular case I was advised that if the column was looked at it would be
422
rather significant. I did not look at it myself, and the figures I now quote are those provided by my Department. It appears to have leaked out in the negotiations that the Minister was in rather an expansive mood, and I will tell your Lordships what the result was. It was at the beginning of June that this Amendment of mine appeared on the Order Paper. These are some of the effects. In the B.E.T. Omnibus Service the average price for 1946 to November 8, was 91; in May 1947, it ran to about 97. Then there came, apparently, an indication of favours to come, and it jumped up to 103. Then came the publication of my Amendment on the paper, and the price immediately jumped to 110. That does not look as if anybody thought it was going to do him much damage. Here is another important company—the Bristol Company. I see that their average last year was 91; at the beginning of May, 1947, it was 95; and then, at the first indication of this Amendment at the beginning of June, it crept up to 99. On June 18, after the period during which this had been printed, it was 108. So they seem to have had the same anticipation.
The whole list bears out the contention that the compensation is quite adequate; that whatever may be said as soon as this Amendment of mine was published the people who are concerned with Stock Exchange prices thought that shares were worth a good deal more than they were before, which does not look as if they thought it was a hard and flinty Amendment. As a matter of fact, I do not think it can be contended that the scheme of compensation is unfair. I think it is a very fair scheme of compensation, and you could not have better evidence of that than in the terms of the values attached to the different concerns to whom it applies. There it is, and I think I am quite entitled, just for once, to quote these estimates in our own support. I may say that we are so satisfied that this scheme of compensation is fair—and, in fact, I think it is almost generous in some respects—that I shall not be able to accept any of the Amendments which seek to increase the amount. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 143, line 17, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Addison.)
5.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF ROTHES THE EARL OF ROTHES moved to amend the proposed Amendment, by inserting after paragraph 7:
"(8)In subsection (1) of the said Section forty-seven the words 'three twentieths' shall be substituted for the words 'one fifth' wherever those words occur."
The noble Earl said: I have listened with great interest to the words that have fallen from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, more particularly as I happen to be a director, as I think I have already disclosed to your Lordships, of the B.E.T. If I may say so with great respect, I always understood that the noble Viscount opposite did not place great reliance on Stock Exchange prices. But, quite apart from that, perhaps the noble Viscount is not aware that our annual report, which happened to be a fairly satisfactory one, was published almost concurrently with his Amendment, and I think that may have influenced, slightly more than his Amendment, any market prices that were influenced.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but may I make a correction? I see that the figure 100 per cent. was given as the average here, but these are the averages of pre-Election prices, based on 100 per cent. These are the inherences of the prices based on what occurred after the publication of the Amendment. The result is the same, but the precise form of words should have been different.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: In spite of the hard words that have fallen from the noble Viscount, that he does not feel inclined to consider these Amendments, I feel that they are of such importance that your Lordships will allow me at any rate to state my case. Perhaps I should say, in mentioning these Amendments, that they all deal with undertakings other than those owned by municipalities. It may clarify the matter if I say that to start with. The first point that is raised is the question of depreciation. I apologize to the noble Viscount, but I did not quite catch what he said then. I thought he said that the rate of depreciation for buses was to be less than that for hauliers' vehicles; I thought they were both to be one-fifth.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The depreciation in the case of a trolley vehicle is one
424
seventh, and in the case of a tramcar it is one-fourteenth.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I think a bus is one-fifth and a haulier is one-fifth.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Yes.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: For the purposes of this depreciation the Government have taken one-fifth and it is the same for buses as for hauliers. In fact, in most of this Schedule they have taken the basis for hauliers and applied it to road passenger transport. I think it is only right to say that there is a considerable body of opinion which is doubtful whether that is the right basis on which to rely for the passenger transport section of the industry. When the final pay-out comes to be made it will probably be found that a much larger sum has been paid out for the road passenger transport section than for the goods section. Be that as it may, I would ask your Lordships to bear in mind, when considering these two sections of the industry, that there are fundamental differences between them—differences both as regards circumstances and conditions of running, and the lives and maintenance of vehicles—and since the basis for goods hauliers is being taken, that your Lordships should bear that in mind when considering the basis of compensation for the road passenger transport.
Your Lordships will appreciate that we feel there are places in which the two must be brought into line, and other places in which, owing to these differences, they ought to be brought into proper perspective. The life of a bus is quite definitely longer than that of a haulage vehicle. It is run to a fixed timetable, and it is, therefore, possible to ensure regular and constant maintenance. Before it goes on the road at all it requires a certificate of fitness from the Traffic Commissioners; and even then it is liable to examination by the Traffic Commissioners' officers at almost any time. They can order it off the road if it is not found to be in order. A bus is more robustly built. I think the care and skill that is put into the building of a bus body is well known. It was quite a common experience during the war for the industry to find itself running buses as old as fifteen or eighteen years. Even now, there are buses in first-class condition, twelve years old or more, running on the road. To a

425
large extent this has been made possible by the regular and careful major overhauls that take place, and during the overhauls it not infrequently happens that the bus body may be entirely rebuilt or an engine completely refitted. I think I have said enough to persuade your Lordships that the life of a bus is quite definitely longer than that of goods carrying vehicles, but, in case I have not done so, I would add one final word as to the wear and tear Income Tax allowance. For the seven years up to April, 1947, it was 31¼ per cent. on goods vehicles, and 25 per cent. on buses—a differential 25 per cent., the precise differential that we are asking for in this Amendment; namely, three-twentieths for buses against one-fifth for hauliers. I beg to move.
Amendment to proposed Amendment moved—
After paragraph 7, insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Rothes.)
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I should like, if I may, to support my noble friend Lord Rothes in the Amendment which he has just moved. As your Lordships will have heard, my noble friend explained the technical and commercial reasons why we thought these alterations of the percentages were well founded. There is a perfectly clear commercial case, which we have done our best to demonstrate, to show that the lives of buses are longer, and the stability of the passenger services as opposed to the stability of the road haulage services, is greater, and that therefore, as a commercial matter, it is right that the depreciation rate should be more favourable and that the multiple of the full profit should be more favourable than in the case of road haulage. Now that is something which should be considered purely as a technical matter. It is not a political matter. It is true that it is connected with the Stock Exchange, but not, I think, in the way which the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, tried to make the Committee believe. One should disclose an interest, and although I work in the City I am not a member of the Stock Exchange, nor have I bought any of the stocks about which we are talking this afternoon. But if we are to suppose in this Committee that a proposal put forward on technical grounds is bad merely because that proposal has been well received in the market, then I think is is a
426
matter into which we shall have to look more closely.
I suppose that Stock Exchange values are conditioned by two things. The first and the less important is the amount of stock available in the market for intending buyers. The second is the view that the market takes on the information it has at its disposal—and that information may be good or it may be bad—of the commercial state of a company. Let us leave aside nationalization for the moment. Suppose you have a company, whatever it may be, that is not going to be nationalized, and information reaches the market that that company has done extremely well. The market hears that the state of maintenance of the company's equipment is extremely good and the value of the company is higher than had at first been believed. That is the position in which we shall find ourselves if the case of my noble friends and myself is made out. It is a case which rests on technical considerations, and presumably the Minister and his advisers have looked into the question of the life of these buses. If their value is greater to the extent represented by our Amendments as opposed to the Amendments put forward by the Government—then we are right and they are wrong. But if our calculations are wrong, I hope the noble Lords opposite will address themselves to the question of the extent to which we are wrong. But do not let us obscure the issue by pointing to what the Stock Exchange have done, nor assume that because of a movement of Stock Exchange prices something must necessarily be wrong.
Lord Addison has referred to the last paragraph of his Amendment dealing with "the last three financial years." Here, we have two separate things. We have the question as to whether the depreciation should be at this figure or that, and that depends on the arguments we have been putting forward with regard to the increased durability of equipment. Then we have this other question, which is quite a different one, as to whether there is some overriding reason why one year should be abnormal. As we see it, that has nothing to do with the condition of buses or lorries. It is due to the state of the weather or the state of trade, or to something of the sort which we feel applies in equal measure to buses and

427
lorries. If, in the opinion of noble Lords opposite, it does not, we hope that it may be explained where we have gone wrong. But we do not think that we have. After all, the weather at the beginning of this year, which fell on the just and the unjust alike, was, if I may say so, prayed in aid by the Government because things did not go quite right in the fuel and power industry. But the weather affected lorries and buses, the road haulage and the passenger services, in equal measure. Therefore it is our contention that the Amendment to the Ninth Schedule which we are waiting to see come up for consideration, in so far as it affects road haulage does apply on its merits equally to the passenger services. For these reasons I would like to give strong support to the Amendment and to express the hope that some of the points which I have put forward may be answered.
LORD GIFFORD: Except on one point with reference to the Stock Market, I wish to speak quite shortly in support of this Amendment. Perhaps the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, might remember that before this announcement was made there was no scheme of compensation at all for passenger road transport operators. It was entirely at the discretion of the Minister. Surely that must have made owners of this stock very nervous and very worried as to what they were going to get, especially as their fellow stockholders, the holders of railway stocks, were particularly disappointed. In my view it is entirely the uncertainty, or rather the quelling of the uncertainty, which caused that slight rise which has been mentioned. As my noble friend Viscount Bridgeman has said, this particular Amendment is a purely technical matter. It is well known that the depreciation of passenger road transport vehicles is very much less than that of road haulage vehicles. That can be proved up to the hilt. Surely no further proof is needed than the fact that the Income Tax Commissioners, who are not easily bamboozled, do give a preference of slightly more than the amount asked to the passenger vehicle. Therefore it seems to me that it is a matter of complete equity that some such scheme of depreciation as is contained in this Amendment should be agreed to. It is quite certain that that is the amount that the bus does,
428
deteriorate, and the Income Tax Commissioners have accepted it. Therefore I do not see why His Majesty's Government are not able to do so as well.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I see that the estimate provided in the scheme of compensation is ten years' depreciation. The result of the Amendment put forward by noble Lords opposite would be fourteen years. That is really the difference between us. I am advised that ten years is a very liberal and fair period to accept. I should imagine—though I do not know the details of their business—that the London Passenger Transport Board do not have many buses running that have not been dealt with within ten years. I think that that is a reasonable period.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: There is a rather interesting parallel there. I think from my general knowledge it has always been accepted that the depreciation of a lorry, of a road vehicle, is heavier than the depreciation of a bus. I think it is the universal practice of the Income Tax people to accept that. What the noble Lord appears to have done here is to have singled out trams and trolley 'buses and said that those are to have a more favoured and longer life. But he still leaves the life of the buses exactly the same as the life of the lorries. That is entirely inconsistent with all Income Tax practice. I say that it is and I challenge the noble Viscount upon it. Perhaps he will verify this.
It seems to me that if you had said:" I am going to give you for your business £x, or such valuation as an arbitrator may fix," then there would have been nothing to say because the whole thing is taken over at what is considered fair valuation. But here we are considering something that is in the Government's own structure. I would much rather have had a different structure, the ordinary structure by which we buy a business on the basis of what it is likely to go on making. This is being bought on an entirely different basis by splitting the thing up into the purchase of physical assets and the purchase of good will or compensation for good will. If you are going to do it on that basis you ought to do it fairly on that basis. The noble Viscount is really saying that these people are getting quite a lot of money because Stock Exchange values have gone up. Incidentally this

429
is a dangerous argument because, as you bring the money rate down the value of securities is apt to go up. The noble Viscount had better not base himself too much on the Stock Exchange position, otherwise he will have great difficulty in resisting proposals for maintaining the value of- his new Government stock.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: It is a useful argument.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: It is a specious argument and quite irrelevant, because he has elected to split the business up and offer to buy the physical assets separately from good will. The Government ought not to have it both ways. They say, if the Inland Revenue regard a fair depreciation of a lorry as five years and five years is taken in the Bill, the lorry owner ought to accept that, because that, after all, is what you have been making in Income Tax. But as the Government themselves say that a bus has a much longer life, I think you ought to take that into consideration. And you ought to allow for depreciation what is the recognized amount.
LORD LATHAM: Is the noble Viscount quite sure that the rates of depreciation allowed by Inland Revenue for lorries or passenger vehicles are necessarily related to any given term of years? He ought to check that up.
LORD GIFFORD: I understand that the general tribunal for war damage claims take the life of 500,000 miles for a bus, which is approximately twelve years.
LORD LATHAM: Yes, but the War Damage Commission is not the Inland Revenue, which is what the noble Viscount prayed in aid.
LORD GIFFORD: But the terms he gave for Inland Revenue are perfectly correct.
LORD LATHAM: I am not saying they were not. I am arguing that there may be a difference in rate for goods vehicles from that allowed and accepted by the Inland Revenue for passenger vehicles, but dispute that either rate is necessarily related to the life of either type of vehicle.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Of course it is. The rate of depreciation depends on how soon you have got to renew. That is the Whole purpose of depreciation.
LORD LATHAM: No. If I may say so with every respect, the noble Viscount is getting into a most contentious field in the doctrine of accountancy—as to what in fact is the principle of depreciation. He overlooks the fact that the rate of depreciation may be based on diminishing value and not necessarily on the life of the article depreciated.
VISOUNT SWINTON: But the whole object here is agreement about replacement. I know that there are various theories of accountancy upon what depreciation should be related to, but I will not go into a long accountancy argument with the noble Lord, who would probably beat me on that, because he makes his living out of me—I employ him to audit my accounts—
LORD LATHAM: No objection to that.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: What the Government are proposing to do here is buy two physical assets, lorries and buses. In taking over the value of these things, they say, we are going to see, putting it quite crudely, how worn out it is and how much it is still worth. They are going to treat lorries—which wear out much more quickly than buses as everybody knows, whatever system of accountancy you apply to it—and buses both exactly the same. That is wrong. Everybody knows a bus has a longer life than a lorry and you have to take into account in making payment.
LORD LATHAM: I shall not go into the disputatious field of what depreciation should accomplish. It does not necessarily follow that, if a lorry wears out more quickly than a bus, a bus has a longer utility life than a lorry, because the standard required for a bus by the public who use it is considerably higher than the standard required for a goods vehicle. I would venture to submit that if experience were taken, and a comparison made between the accepted life of passenger vehicles in reference to the life of goods lorries there would be found to be little or no difference. Maybe it would be found that owing to the rising standard of requirements by the users of buses the effective life of a bus is in fact less than the effective life of a lorry.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am delighted to have the expert support of my noble friend who knows much more about

431
depreciation than I do. The Government Amendment allows ten years for depreciation of buses. The rate of expenses of a company in keeping its vehicles well upholstered and painted to meet the demands of passengers must be different from the demands made on a lorry. This has been gone into with great care. For example, a tram car which does not have the same wear and tear on its engine as a bus is allowed a longer period and that is quite reasonable. Noble Lords must not lose sight of the fact that this is not only payment for materials taken over, there is also payment of a percentage of the net annual income and the bus companies are allowed to pick three very plum years, the last three years to 1948, in which people have crowded on to buses and the companies have been unable to renew their fleets. They were especially profitable years. They are going to do very well out of that plum.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I do not want to follow the noble Lords who have spoken into the highly technical field as to how many years of depreciation there should be. The noble Viscount started this argument by saying that he bases the compensation for passenger road vehicles op the terms laid down for hauliers. All right, I say that the life of a bus is longer than that of a goods carriage vehicle and therefore, accepting his basis for hauliers, there ought to be a similar basis accepted for passenger vehicles and there ought to be a lower rate of depreciation. No argument from the other side of the House has dealt with it at all.
My second point is that the noble Viscount keeps on saying that these three years are very good years for bus companies. With great respect that is not the point. The point is not the total of the sum but the figures going into the sum. It is no use saying you will not get the answer you want, and therefore you are scratching out another "O" because that is not reasonable. With very great respect, I do not think I have received a satisfactory answer at all, in view of what the noble Viscount has said. As it is possibly an occasion for privilege in your Lordships' House, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.11 p.m.
LORD HACKING LORD HACKING moved to leave out paragraph 9 of the proposed Amendment and insert—
"9. In subsection (3) of the said section forty-seven, for the words 'not less than twice nor more than five', there shall be substituted the word 'seven'."
The noble Lord said: I have already declared my interest in passenger transport undertakings, and, on behalf of those undertakings in which I am interested, I think I can say that we are grateful to the Leader of the House for the concessions he has already made in connexion with the new Part II. I am not going to say that they go far enough, but we are grateful for small mercies.
With regard to the general position, which I must not discuss on this particular Amendment, I agree with every detail referred to by the Earl of Rothes and Viscount Bridgeman, but my proposal is to leave out the "two to seven" years and make something more definite, to give compensation which is based on the three years average profits on a certain fixed number of years—namely, seven. Various explanations have been given in the Committee as to why the Stock Exchange prices of certain undertakings went up when the noble Viscount Addison published his particular Amendment. There have been many reasons given for that increase, but let me add just one more, and that is that it may have been the feeling of the people who are interested in these particular shares that seven years would be granted, and not two. The Amendment of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, is that it should vary from two to seven and that the Commission should decide whether or not the years in between should be two or seven, which are multiplied by the average profit over the three years. I would assert that you are much more likely to do away with these fluctuations on the Stock Exchange if the Leader of the House had to say here and now that the number of years which is going to be fixed as the purchase price is going to be seven.
I do not think for one moment that the noble Viscount will accept my Amendment. On the other hand, it is only right that I should put the position to him if only as an argument against this peculiar rise in the price of shares. There may be

433
another reason why the price of shares went up, especially in connexion with an undertaking in which I am interested—Bristol Tramways—and that is that the noble Viscount decided he was going to take over the manufacturing side of that particular undertaking: I hope he has not definitely decided that. Whatever the reasons for the increase of the price on the Stock Exchange, that does not affect my argument. My ambition is to have something more definite in the Bill than at present exists. "Two to seven" gives little security to those people who are concerned with those undertakings. If we knew exactly what the compensation was going to be in advance, it would naturally place us in a very much stronger position. How do we know what the compensation is going to be under the terms of the new Part II which has been moved by the noble Viscount? It may be that only two years are going to be paid. If that is so, we are put in a very difficult position, as in that event the Stock Exchange prices would come tumbling down once again. I want something more definite. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to meet us in some way, I doubt whether he will, but, at any rate, nothing will be lost in making an attempt and I can always hope for the best.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
Leave out paragraph 9 and insert—
(" 9. In subsection (3) of the said Section forty-seven, for the words 'not less than twice nor more than five', there shall be substituted the word ' seven'. ")—(Lord Hacking.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I congratulate the noble Lord on what he has said. We all know him to be frank and we are glad to see the concern that he has shown that the shares have jumped up eleven points. He has a fair amount of faith in this business. I am glad the noble Lord acknowledges that we did put seven, but these concerns must vary. You could not have a statutory obligation. You must leave the people room for estimating the different circumstances which affect the value. No doubt, there could be a good case for seven years, but there is a case to be made and therefore I think we must leave it open. We make it a minimum of two and I put a maximum of seven, which, I think, is quite a handsome gesture.
LORD HACKING: In the circumstances I do not press the Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ROTHES THE EARL OF ROTHES moved, at the end of paragraph 9 of the proposed Amendment, to insert:
"Provided that in the case of an undertaking the activities of which in the period over which the average net annual profit is ascertained consisted to a predominant extent in the operation of regular passenger road transport services according to time tables approved by the licensing authority for public service vehicles, for the words twice nor more than five' there shall be substituted the words 'seven'."
The noble Earl said: I should like just to say a few words on the other Amendment, because it really is the most important one of them all.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: This is really covered by an Amendment of Lord Hacking; it amounts to the same thing.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: The noble Lord moved for a fixed seven for all buses. My Amendment tries to define a certain class of buses, but not all. The point is this—and I would like to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hacking—that we do welcome this widening of the range from two to seven. It is an important point and an improvement on the whole matter being left to the complete discretion of the Minister. When you have a wide range, the question arises: "Who gets two and who gets seven, and why?" From Clause 47 I had gathered that it is the intention of the Government to employ the highest multiplication factor of "seven" in cases of undertakings which show stability of profit, and I suggest that the pavement type bus and the regular long-distance express coaches are, beyond any doubt, the staple end of the industry. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask that the highest multiplication factor of "seven" should be applied to the more staple end of the industry.
After all, as I have already pointed out, the conditions and the circumstances of running as between buses and goods hauliers are quite different. The buses are under the Traffic Commissioners; they are licensed and they cannot have a competitor unless he goes to the Traffic Commissioners, whereas the goods haulier can do almost as he likes. If it really is the

435
case, if I am correct in saying that the staple end of the industry is intended to get the highest factor, then I think there is a good deal to be said for the pavement type buses of the description given in our Amendment. I would earnestly ask the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, either to accept this Amendment or to give me some indication, because the industry really needs it, as to what type of undertaking is going to be given seven. It is a very wide range and it is a very difficult thing to decide. If no indication can be given, then I think a quite unnecessary condition of extreme uncertainty is bound to exist.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
At the end of paragraph 9 insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Rothes.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I think that, if the company to which the noble Lord is referring have a good case, they will make their case. It will be open to them to do so, and, if they make a good case, I have no doubt they will get a longer term of purchase. But you could not discriminate between them in the Bill; it must be left open to them to make their case.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I would like to take the matter a little further. Does the noble Lord really think there is any need for so wide a range as the range between two and seven? If I understood him aright, he has just admitted that a large number of companies do make the case for the use of seven as the multiplier. But does he really think there will be cases in which so low a multiplier as two will be justified? If not, why should we have such an unnecessarily wide range as the present range between two and seven?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I should like to reinforce that. I see the difficulty of being too precise, but surely you are making the worst of all worlds; you are encouraging uncertainty, on the one hand, and gambling, on the other, if you do not really mean to have two. If nobody is to have two, there cannot be any sense in putting in two. It does seem to me that if you have a range of two at one end and seven on the other, the most capable businesses will receive seven. I find it difficult to see who will receive two. Why encourage speculative gambling by putting in two, when nobody will come down to that?
LORD GIFFORD: There was a range fixed by the road hauliers from two to five, and after due consideration His Majesty's Government have agreed to raise the five to seven. Surely, on their own argument, the bottom figure should have been raised from two to four. The road hauliers, we know, are less stable in their profits, and everything like that. We have had all those arguments, and I do not intend to repeat them; I think they are generally accepted. Surely, if the top figure is to be raised from five to seven, on the Government's own reasoning they should raise the lower figure from two to four.
LORD HACKING: I would like to support this plea. This is a rather different Amendment from mine, but it has the same ultimate effect of trying to get more than two years' purchase price. It seems to me to be a desirable thing, if you are increasing the maximum from five to seven, that you should increase the minimum from two to at least four. I know the noble Viscount the Leader of the House says that you cannot have a hard and fast rule, because some undertakings may be very different from others. He may be referring to the small passenger undertakings. They are crippled in one way, as the result of having made only a small amount of profit on the average of two to three years; if you cripple them again by the purchase price of years, they will be crippled twice. If it is possible for the noble Viscount to increase the minimum it will go some way towards meeting our objection.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I have no authority whatever to say more than I have said. I will give consideration to the noble Lord's point. I cannot say more than that.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: Will the noble Viscount give consideration to some possible definition as to who should receive seven?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: No.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I must say that I feel that very few of the points I have raised have been answered on this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I might save the time of the Committee by saying that we have great difficulty in understanding the next Amendment which is to insert the words "transferred by the scheme" in paragraph 10 of the new Part II of the Schedule after "tramcars." Perhaps the noble Earl would be willing to talk it over with us and we will see if we can arrive at some understanding. The same remark applies to the next Amendment. We really do not understand what is meant.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Does that apply right down to the end of the page?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Yes.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: We shall be pleased to discuss them later.
6.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF ROTHES THE EARL OF ROTHES moved, at the end of paragraph 13 of the proposed Amendment to insert—
"(b) in paragraph 4 thereof the words the Transferor' were inserted after the word 'property' where that word secondly occurs
(c) in paragraph 5 (3) (b) thereof the words 'of the Transferor' were inserted after the word property'."
The noble Earl said: This is the question of the abnormal year. I would very briefly like to say this about the abnormal year—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: May I interrupt the noble Earl? I think the particular point about the abnormal year is understandable, but it is dealt with by my Amendment on page 9 of the Marshalled List. I think that is the correct place for it. There the abnormal year is specifically provided for.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I had an Amendment down to leave out subparagraph (b) of paragraph 13, of the noble Viscount's Amendment dealing with the abnormal year.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The effect of that would be that everybody would be able to get the three best years. I think the fair way of dealing with it is by this new Amendment of mine, which is put down to meet the difficult cases.
LORD HACKING: Does that mean that if there is an abnormal year, then the two years' average can be taken in the case of passenger undertakings, in
438
the same way as road haulage undertakings?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Amendment to the Ninth Schedule, page 144, line 34, applies to all these undertakings. Passenger undertakings have three very good years.
LORD HACKING: Is that quite certain? One of the years is 1948. Nobody knows what is going to happen in the financial year 1948. It may be that that will be a bad year, for reasons outside anybody's control. If that is so, the passenger undertakings will perhaps have two good years, and one bad year, and if you are to make concessions for one bad year in the case of the haulage undertakings, I do not see why you should not do the same for the passenger undertakings.
LORD GIFFORD: As the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has said, no one knows what will happen in the year 1948. The road hauliers have been given the opportunity of disregarding an abnormal year. Surely, road passenger transport is in exactly the same position? It might not mean a thing, but if, through lack of fuel, or something of that kind, there is an abnormal year, I cannot see why there should be the slightest difference in treatment. The road passenger operator ought to be able to take that into account in the same way as the road hauliers. I cannot understand the argument put forward by His Majesty's Government.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The noble Lord must be of a sanguine temperament. There is obviously a great shortage of buses, and I cannot imagine that that shortage will be overcome by 1948.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It is not only a superfluity of buses that makes for a bad year. There may be a shortage of fuel, as my noble friend Lord Gifford has mentioned. All sorts of things are liable to occur. In these days in which we live, under our beneficent Government, we are encountering difficulties which we have never encountered before, not even in the war years. Therefore, we cannot regard present circumstances as so secure as they used to be before the war. I think my noble friend would be making a mistake if he ruled out the possibility of other abnormal events affecting bus companies in the same way as they affect hauliers.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: The Amendment by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House later on, will give something, and we do not wish to look a gift horse in the mouth. We have another stage to this Bill. The noble Viscount will have an opportunity of expounding to us how good or bad this horse is. When that has been put through its paces, if my noble friends are not satisfied and think something more should come in, it can then be discussed. I think we shall deal with it more intelligently if it is put down on Report, particularly as there are one or two other things which they have agreed to talk over with the Government.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF ROTHES THE EARL OF ROTHES moved to amend the proposed Amendment by inserting after paragraph 13:
"14. For the purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1945, the transfer effected by the scheme shall not be deemed to be a sale."
The noble Earl said: The industry has been left in uncertainty over very many points in this Bill, and I do think it might be considered fair to ask whether an assurance could be given that a transfer under a scheme is not a sale for the purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1945, in order to ensure that no tax is payable on the balancing of physical assets. I beg to move.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
After paragraph 13, insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Rothes.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: This is clearly a matter which must be dealt with in the Finance Act. We cannot isolate a particular group of sales like this, and I am sorry I cannot possibly accept it.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: It may be quite true that we cannot have a provision of this sort in the Bill and that it should go into a Finance Act. But I do not think that answers the question, which was whether or not these particular payments were going to attract Income Tax. If we could have an answer to that question it would clarify the matter very much, and we would be obliged.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: This must be a matter which can only be dealt with in
440
accordance with the Income Tax laws in the Finance Act. We cannot deal with it here.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: It does not seem fair to have forcible taking over of these buses or hauliers, and then to say they have got to pay Income Tax on the sale. That is the effect of what the noble Viscount is suggesting.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: It is not.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: The noble Viscount says that it may attract Income Tax. He will not go further and say that it will not.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: All I say is that this is not the place for a provision of this kind, whether it is good or bad. It is a capital asset, and not an Income Tax asset. Whether it is a good or bad Amendment, we cannot possibly put it into this Bill.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It is desirable that there should be certainty about this matter, because it is the Government who are producing a new situation from which certain legal results may or may not follow. No doubt the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, is right in saying that this is a matter which should properly be dealt with in the Finance Bill, but can we have an assurance from the Government that either the matter will be dealt with in the Finance Bill or else some statement will be made authoritatively by the Government as to what, in their understanding, the legal position will be. Surely it is desirable in the interests of everybody that those companies and the shareholders of those companies should know how they will be affected in this respect by the legislation which the Government is introducing.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I will certainly inquire into that and gladly furnish the noble Lord with a statement. But he must remember that these are capital assets which are changing hands.
THE EARL OF ROTHES: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount who has at last softened his heart a little, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, original Amendment agreed to.
Eighth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
6.34 p.m.
Ninth Schedule:
Meaning of "Average Net Annual Profit" in Relation to Road Transport Undertakings.
4. When the amount of the profit or loss for any of the said three years has been ascertained, such adjustment, if any, of the amount thereof shall be made as may be just, having regard to the extent and nature of the property held in the year for the purposes of the undertaking as compared with the extent and nature of the property which vests in the Commission by virtue of the notice of acquisition, not being property duly disclaimed by the Commission.
5.—(1) The amount of the profits made in the said three years, ascertained and adjusted as aforesaid, shall then be aggregated, and the amount of the losses made in the said three years, ascertained and adjusted as aforesaid, shall also be aggregated.
(2) If there are no profits to be aggregated, or the aggregate of the profits does not exceed the aggregate of the losses, the average net annual profit shall be taken to be nil.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in paragraph 3, to leave out "such deductions shall be made" and insert:
"the amount of any liability to Excess Profits Tax or the Profits Tax (computed, in the case of Excess Profits Tax, without regard to any post-war refund as defined in Part IV of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1945) shall be taken into account and such sums shall be debited."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is designed to make it clear that in ascertaining the average net annual profit in reference to which compensation to road transport undertakings for cessation of business is to be assessed, the amount of any liability to any Excess Profits Tax or Profits Tax shall be taken into account. There is little doubt that normal accounting practice would be to deduct these liabilities but it is undesirable that the point should be left in any ambiguity. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 143, line 41, leave out "such deductions" and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I must say that we have had a singularly brief explanation upon what looks to me to be a very odd Amendment. Nothing was done about this in another place. The Bill went all through the Committee and all through the Report and this was not one of the things which suffered so much from the guillotine. If there is a doubt about this business, it is a doubt which ought to be resolved on its merits. On
442
the face of it this seems to me to be a very bad Amendment indeed. What it does is to say that win n you are assessing the value of the business for the purpose of taking over you have got to deduct the Excess Profits Tax during the Excess Profits Tax period. Now there are two criticisms of that. You can only do that where Excess Profits Tax has been paid, and where the business has attracted Excess Profits Tax. If you have a company it is attracting it, and if you have an undertaking which is not a company it is not attracting it. You may, therefore, have two people, one a limited company and the other a private partnership carrying on a bus business. When you come to assess the profits upon which this is to be based, one of them has his Excess Profits Tax deducted and the other does not get it deducted.
Another thing is that you have very varying standards. I am not an expert in bus undertakings, but I do know a good deal about other lines of the business. One of the most unfair things about the Excess Profits Tax—except in the sense that we wanted nobody to make a profit out of the war —is that where you have a business which is old and established and which had a large pre-war profit, it was entitled to make a big profit during the war. On the other hand, you may have a new expanding business. I was concerned in one myself which was doing extremely well, but because we had no pre-war standard we were on the 6 or 8 per cent. basis. That was a business which was of great value to the Government during the war. The moment the war was over, and Excess Profits Tax went, of course it was able to make a much greater profit than it had been allowed to make during the war years. It was a very odd case as a matter of fact, because it was amalgamation of a number of businesses and the amalgamation was so carried out that we could not take the individual businesses at what they had been doing. But that is by the way.
It is quite notorious that if you have a high-pre-war standard you get a low Excess Profits Tax. A new business might be much more efficient, but there, if you had a low pre-war standard you bear a high Excess Profits Tax. In those cases it would work entirely differently in accordance with whether it was a limited

443
company or not, and whether it had a high or low pre-war Excess Profits Tax standard. But observe what is now going to happen. You are going to take over these businesses when Excess Profits Tax has been abolished. I thought we were trying to see what was a fair price to pay for these businesses. You are putting them out of business, and you are then going to compensate them, presumably in relation to what they would have done had they been able to continue in business. I understand that that is what compensation means. In all ordinary walks of life when you have two people making a deal you put a fair valuation on a, business. How do you always assess that? You look at past profits and you look at future prospects. It may be that some of these bus companies did much better during the war and one year after the war than they are likely to do in the future. But when you get away from these artificial ways of handling business, and have either an agreement to purchase or a valuation by arbitration in default of an agreement, the things are worked out together. Now in the future the Government are gong to take over these businesses and run them.
This Commission will be subject to taxation like an individual; but it will not pay E.P.T. any more, because E.P.T. has been abolished. You are taking over a business which will not be subject to E.P.T. in future. But compensation will be settled with a man as if he were subject to E.P.T. It seems to me very unfair. Even in the war period, when the Minister of Transport set a ceiling on what these people were able to make under control, he gave them a high scale They were able to make more than they would have on the E.P.T. standard.
If the Minister of Transport thought in the war that that was what they ought to be doing, it seems wrong to take a different and lower standard now. I can quite imagine that there must be some cases in which if you paid on so many years' valuation of profits without taking into account E.P.T., some people might get too much, too generous compensation. But surely the right way to assess that is this. You have a margin of two to seven years; I should have thought that in deciding how many years' purchase you are going to pay, if the parties cannot agree
444
the matter goes to arbitration. Then it is for the arbitrator to decide. He could say: "You have, it is true, the right to choose these three years, and to be assessed on them; on the other hand I claim that those years are good years. Had you been carrying on in business you would not have done so well in the next three years and you never did so well before. A fair price for you is x pounds, and that, for you, is five years' and not seven years' purchase."
Is it possible to have a firm decision on this now? It seems to me that from bringing this E.P.T. business into it when E.P.T. has come to an end and when it must work inequitably as between different classes of companies, and still more between companies and non-companies, much injustice will result. The Government may be producing other similar measures and if this were to be set as a precedent I honestly do not think we ought to be asked to accept the clause in this form; certainly not with such scanty explanation as we have been given.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: This is an extraordinary proposal, and I hope your Lordships will not agree to this Amendment. The Amendment seeks to influence the amount of compensation that is to be paid by the amount of E.P.T. that has been paid during the war. As the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has said, it is notorious that E.P.T. was most unfair in its incidence. I think there is general consent among many people, on both sides of both Houses, that E.P.T. in many respects was a most unfortunate and indeed disastrous tax. Our present Chancellor of the Exchequer had, I think, the good will of everybody, irrespective of Party, when he abolished this tax. The only justification for E.P.T. was a moral one. It was vitally important that the men who were being asked to offer their lives in fighting the war should be assured that other people were not to be allowed to profiteer out of the war. That was a great moral issue; and this was the way in which Parliament, at the commencement of the war, attempted to deal with this moral issue. But at best it was a rough, crude and makeshift plan, and it was never very carefully thought out. In practice it was found to be, in many respects, extremely unfortunate and extremely inequitable. The Government are asking us now to perpetuate this in-

445
equity in the compensation terms of this Bill.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has pointed out, this may well set a precedent for other bills which His Majesty's Government are likely to introduce or have introduced. You really, can find no logical or moral justification for it at all. As Lord Swinton has said, you may have two undertakings who are doing exactly the same business and have done for the three years, who have a fleet of vehicles exactly the same, whose financial position and prospects are precisely similar, and yet one of these undertakings during the war will have paid a great deal of E.P.T. while the other may have paid very little or none at all. That inequity of the war has gone, and we cannot help it; but to try to perpetuate this inequity in the compensation to be allotted to the firms seems to be quite wrong. Therefore, I do hope that His Majesty's Government will not press this Amendment. If they do I hope your Lordships will not agree to it, because it seems to me that compensation ought to be dealt with exactly on the terms and in the way that Viscount Swinton has pointed out. Surely that is amply provided for in the Bill, and the question whether a company did or did not pay E.P.T. is quite extraneous and should not be entertained at all.
One other minor matter I would point out is that the figure of E.P.T. that is to be taken is the figure without the refund—which appears to me to be even more unjust, because the refund, I think, was introduced during the course of the war in an attempt to mitigate, as far as Parliament could in the circumstances mitigate, the inequalities of the incidence of E.P.T. Therefore deliberately to strike out the question of the refund seems to me to be perpetuating the inequalities of E.P.T. in the most aggravated form.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I wish to support the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, in a very few words, and to emphasize how very unfair it will be if this Amendment is passed. It is notorious anywhere in the City, or anywhere else where E.P.T. applies, that it has operated in the most inequitable and unfair manner. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has pointed out that many companies who had been making big profits before the war were allowed to get off almost scot free, and on the other hand there were
446
companies who had just started up and were doing fairly well who came in and made large profits during the war and then found those profits very much reduced as a result of E.P.T. Not now, but at some time, I will give the noble Viscount a very interesting example of that. I wish to support what has been said about this matter and to ask the noble Viscount whether he will withdraw this Amendment and consider it again before the Report stage in the light of everything that has been said here this afternoon.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I
was going to say one word and it is this. I think it is clear that nobody in this Committee wants to take advantage of abnormal war profits. On the other hand, there is a case with which we are all familiar, where E.P.T. has been applied to expanding businesses which are expected to earn just as much after the war as they did during the war. It does seem rather unfair—in fact it seems very unfair—that you should attach E.P.T. to this provision in the rigid form in which it is here. I do not think anybody in this committee wants to press this matter to a Division if it can be avoided, and I would therefore suggest to the Government—and it would be very wise if the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, could see his way to do it, although I know responsible Ministers have to be consulted—that this should be taken back for consideration, and the Amendment drafted in a form which takes regard of abnormal profits. Then much public uneasiness would be avoided, and a great deal of unfairness would be avoided too.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I gladly respond to that suggestion, but may I say this about it? First of all, I do not think that whether this clause is in or not would make any difference. The Court of Appeal had to decide a case during the war in regard to an agreement which specified that the goodwill was to be calculated on a certain basis, and the basis was described to be certified by the auditors on the basis of ordinary commercial practice—nothing else. The question arose as to whether the auditors in certifying or not ought not to take as a deduction the E.P.T. They decided that they ought. They were supported by the first Court, and in the Court of Appeal; and therefore, in ordin-

447
ary commercial practice, I believe that this would be the case. That particular decision of the Court of Appeal did not come to your Lordships' House.
But it is obviously undesirable to leave this matter as an uncertainty, for this reason: that the arbitrators or tribunal who are going to pronounce on this matter, whether it be in two or three years, must know on what basis they are proceeding. If you say that they shall not deduct E.P.T., then they will give one multiplier; if, on the other hand you say they shall deduct E.P.T., it will be another multiplier. Therefore it seems to me that we should state quite plainly—and here we follow the ordinary commercial practice—whether we do or do not deduct E.P.T. On the merits of the thing, we all know cases in which E.P.T. worked hardly as between one business and another. But if we look at the thing by and large and as a whole, I think we can agree that E.P.T. was a fair tax. It was a fair tax on the whole because it prevented the war profiteer. The relevance of the date we are taking here, where we are using the past as an indication of the future, is that it is a yardstick by which we measure what is likely to happen in the future. That is the relevance of taking the past. You may find that the past had some abnormal features in it. It is notorious that all these passenger undertakings did extremely well during the war —we have only to think of the numbers of unhappy people standing in the buses, and so on. Those were, I hope and believe, thoroughly unhappy conditions which will not repeat themselves.
Therefore, if you are basing yourself at all on what happened in the past (which is relevant) as your standard for the future, it seems to me, speaking for myself, that it is perfectly fair to correct the past, to destroy the abnormalities; and that is why, by and large, it seems to me very much fairer to make it plain that we are going to deduct E.P.T. The noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition, has asked me to consult the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have no authority to say anything at all, and I have not yet consulted the Treasury about this point. I am perfectly prepared to see that the Treasury is consulted, to see whether they say or do not say that I have described it correctly, and I will put
448
to them the arguments that your Lordships have put to me. I cannot hold out the hope that the Treasury will accede to your Lordships' arguments; I feel they are more likely to accede to mine. But I will certainly put it to the test, and I will tell your Lordships what the answer is.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I say one word? The sentence in the speech which the Lord Chancellor has just delivered that affected my mind was that in which he said that he did not think it would make very much difference in the Bill; and the reason why I think that is perfectly right is that the arbitrator or the Tribunal which here has to determine, according to the terms of the Bill, and including, of course, the Schedules, the fair value of the property in question—in effect the fair value of the goodwill—has to take into consideration every relevant circumstance. If he finds, as he will do if this Amendment is passed, that during the two or three years which he has to consider there was an abnormal deduction called Excess Profits Tax charged by the Government, I am certainly of opinion that he would have to take into account those two abnormal payments of exceptional tax during those two years, and that it would affect his view as to the number of years' purchase which he ought to give.
Accordingly, my opinion is that, in a sense, if the Tribunal acted properly it would make no difference. The person who is the owner of the business to be transferred would be entitled, either on one side or the other, to have those things taken into consideration. The reason why, on my part, if I had any real influence in this case, I would say "Do not insert the Amendment," is simply this: that I am afraid that there are some Tribunals who would be misled by this Amendment and would not allow the consideration that there are those deductions of Excess Profits Duty to sway them into deciding on the years' purchase or any other detail that is involved in fixing the price. It would be wrong to say: "We will not consider E.P.T. We must deduct E.P.T. first, and we will not consider that that sum is deducted when we try to ascertain the true value of the business." That must be, and obviously is, wrong, and it is my fear that that might be the result of this clause. For what it is worth. I should be inclined to support

449
the suggestion that this Amendment should not he moved.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope your Lordships appreciate that I must ask for the Amendment now. I will carry out my promise, but I must ask for the Amendment now. If not, we must divide on it. We must have the Amendment now, unless your Lordships prefer a Division, and then we will abide by the result of the Division. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, almost entirely. What I would point out is that if you do not have this in, then of course a tribunal in assessing how many years' purchase to give would have to consider another factor—the abnormality of the years. They would have to take into account the fact of people standing in the buses and so on.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: That has got to be considered in any case.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Instead of considering the abnormality of the years they can take into account Excess Profits Tax. That is why we maintain that it is very much better to have the Amendment in to clarify the position. We have no authority not to press the Amendment, this being a Treasury matter.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do most earnestly appeal to the Government not to press this to a Division. Again and again during this Committee stage we, on this side, who are in a majority, have refrained from pressing Amendments to a Division with a view to getting a settlement by agreement. We have explained to the Government quite clearly to-night that we do not want to leave the Bill exactly as it is without this Amendment. We are quite prepared to consider an amended Amendment or a new proposal. We are quite prepared to consider this Amendment again on the Report stage, if it turns out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unwilling to alter his mind. We are perfectly reasonable about this, and surely it is not quite fair of the Government to force a Division. On this side we, being, as I have said, in the majority, have again and again postponed decisions in order to try to get agreement with the Government. To-day in this particular case where they have put down this Amendment why should they put us in this extremely invidious position?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: In reply to what the noble Marquess has said, may I say that I am willing to hold this over to the Report stage pending examination, as the noble Marquess suggests. But it must be understood that if my guidance and my instructions remain as they are at present we must insist on pressing this Amendment at the Report stage, and it will then be for your Lordships take a decision. It must clearly be understood that I am only taking this back for the time being in order to secure that examination for which the noble Marquess has asked. That does not imply any suggestion that we shall not bring the Amendment forward later.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Of course we entirely understand the position as the noble Viscount has stated it. I am very grateful to him and I have no complaint to make of any kind regarding the course which he has now agreed to take.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF CARRICK THE EARL OF CARRICK moved, in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 5, to leave out "nil" and insert "such a sum as may be just having regard to the circumstances particular to each case." The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is quite obvious and I will not waste the time of the Committee by speaking on it at length. It is designed to remove some injustice and abnormalities that might well occur. It affects very few people.
Amendment moved—
Page 144, line 11, leave out ("nil") and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Carrick.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Will the noble Earl forgive my interrupting him? The Amendments in this group all deal with matters which are covered in an Amendment which I have put down myself, That Amendment deals with the whole point. These only cover the same matter. I hope that the noble Earl will not press these Amendments seeing that they are on exactly the same point.
THE EARL OF CARRICK: If I may say so, I cannot agree with the noble Viscount about this. This Amendment affects exactly the opposite kind of man. A particular instance taken is of a man who had a fairly profitable business, who during the war had it completely

451
destroyed, and for the last two years of the war was not able to carry on his business. Now his losses are greater than his profits, but he may have a very fine goodwill.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The noble Earl's first Amendment, which he has not moved, suggests that a year in which there were special abnormal circumstances not affecting the other two years shall be left out of account. That is exactly the point covered in my Amendment. There is no difference at all. I appeal to the noble Earl not to occupy our time on this. All these points are covered by my Amendment.
THE EARL OF CARRICK: In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ADDISON VISCOUNT ADDISON moved to insert after paragraph 5:
"6. Where, by the end of the last three financial years, not less than three years have elapsed since the undertaking began to be carried on, and the transferor satisfies the Commission, or, in case of dispute, the arbitration tribunal established under Part VIII of this Act, that in any one of the last three financial years, by reason of the abnormality of the circumstances of that particular year as compared with the circumstances of the other two years, the profit made was to a substantial extent less than, or the loss made showed a substantial fall from, the average profit made in the other two years, then only those other two years shall be taken into account for the purposes of the last preceding paragraph, and accordingly for the word 'three,' wherever that word occurs in the last preceding paragraph, except in the proviso thereto, there shall be substituted the word 'two.' "
The noble Viscount said: This deals with the case of haulage undertakings which are, of course, exposed sometimes to special emergencies owing, say, to bad trade, a slump in local trade or bad weather. There might be circumstances existing such as those which prevailed last winter in which it would not be fair to take that as a sample year. This allows for the taking of two other years, and for the average of those two years to be taken. It is not applicable in the same way to 'bus undertakings because they are not subject to the same kind of competition and affected in the same way. People in the cities and towns for the most part have got to go to and fro in bad weather just as at other times. I suggest that the
452
Committee will be well advised to give these people this option which is of course entirely in their favour. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 144, line 34, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Viscount Addison.)
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Half a loaf being better than no bread, some of my noble friends and I on this side of the Chamber would wish to welcome the Amendment which has just been moved. I rise to point out that we had an Amendment earlier on the Order Paper which would extend the same provisions as are contained in this Amendment to the passenger transport undertakings. I think it was agreed at that time that if this Amendment were passed—as no doubt it will be—it should be understood that we might revert to the question of passenger transport on the Report stage.
LORD GIFFORD: The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, said that people still had to get to work in bad weather. I would remind him that in the early part of this year during the fuel crisis a very large number of people did not go to work at all and therefore did not use the buses.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 144, line 44, leave out ("the last preceding paragraph") and insert ("this Schedule ")—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Ninth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Tenth to Fourteenth Schedules agreed to.
Fifteenth Schedule [Part 1: Enactments repealed as from the passing of this Act]:
VISCOUNT ADDISON: There is an entirely drafting Amendment here. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 151, line 26, after ("ten") insert ("in subsection (1) of Section twenty-four, the words 'upon the railways' "). —(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifteenth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.
[The sitting was suspended at ten minutes past seven o'clock and resumed at half past eight.]

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.
8.30 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 2:
The Central Land Board.
(3) The Ministers may appoint a Secretary to the Board and the Board may appoint such other officers and such servants as the Ministers may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine.
(4) There shall be paid to the members, officers and servants of the Board such remuneration (whether by way of salaries or by way of fees), and such reasonable allowances in respect of expenses properly incurred in the performance of their duties, as may be determined by the Ministers with the consent of the Treasury; and any such remuneration and allowances as aforesaid shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.
(5) The Ministers may make regulations with respect to any of the following matters, that is to say:—

(a) the appointment of members of the Board, and their tenure and vacation of office;

(b) the quorum, proceedings and meetings of the Board, and determinations of the Board; and

(c) the execution of instruments by or on behalf of the Board, and the proof of documents purporting to be executed, issued or signed by the Board or by a member, officer or servant thereof,

and subject to the provisions of any such regulations as aforesaid, the Board shall have power to regulate their own procedure.
(6) The Board shall, as soon as possible after the end of each financial year of the Board, make to the Ministers a report on the exercise and performance by them of their functions under this Act during that year; and the Ministers shall lay a copy of every such report before each House of Parliament.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR had given notice to move, in subsection (2) to leave
454
out: "Ministers may appoint a Secretary to the Board, and the Board may appoint "and insert: "Board may appoint a Secretary from amongst persons recommended by the Ministers and". The noble Earl said: With your Lordships' permission I propose to move the first Amendment which stands in my name, and also the second, in a slightly different form from that which appears on the Marshalled List. My Amendment on page 2, line 10, should now read: "leave out Ministers' and insert Board, with the approval of the Ministers.' "In the next Amendment I shall ask the Committee to leave out "The Board may appoint" in line 11. The effect of these is that the subsection would read:
"The Board, with the approval of the Ministers, may appoint a Secretary to the Board and such other officers and such servants as the Ministers may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine."
Amendment moved,—
Page 2, line 10, leave out from the first ("the") to ("such") in line 11 and insert ("Board may, with the approval of the Ministers, appoint a Secretary and").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is the first Amendment on this Bill, and I always like to start well, at any rate. Therefore I should like to say that I am prepared to accept this Amendment, it being understood, of course, that the noble Earl will allow me on the Report stage to look at the words which have been rather hurriedly put together, to see if they are quite right. I have been somewhat criticized for not being in my place on the Transport Bill yesterday. May I say that I was not at the Lincolnshire. I was, in fact, working behind the scenes on this Bill, trying to make myself available to those of your Lordships who wished to come and see me on various difficulties. I was not at Lord's nor at Wimbledon, though I would very much rather have been at either place. But I was not in any way neglecting my duties.
It is extremely important that this Board should be a really good Board. If, by any chance, we get—but thank God! we have not got in this country—any sort of funny business, or dirty work creeping into our scheme, the scheme would go to pieces, and it is right that the Civil Service rule should apply that the head of a Department such as this should be appointed by the Prime Minis-

455
ter himself, or at any rate with his approval. He will be an Accounting Officer, and the Prime Minister must have the last word. But in accepting this Amendment, I thought it would not matter very much whether the formal appointment was made by the Board with the approval of the Minister, or by the Minister who certainly would have the approval of the Board. In any case, the Minister, before deciding, would according to Civil Service practice, have to have the approval of the Prime Minister. This relates to the appointment of a very important officer, and if the noble Earl thinks it is no improvement I am willing to be guided by him. I am very ready to accept it.
LORD LLEWELLIN: If I may say so, I think the noble Viscount, although he started somewhat over promptly, has started very well. I thank him for having accepted the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after subsection (3) to insert:
"(4) For the purpose of the performance by the Board of the functions assigned to them by any provisions corresponding to the provisions of this Act which may be enacted in relation to Scotland the Board shall appoint a Committee which shall consist partly of members who are members or officers of the Board and partly of members, not exceeding three in number, who are not members or officers of the Board, and the Board may delegate, subject to such restrictions or conditions as they may think fit, any of their functions to the said Committee. The Committee so appointed shall be a body corporate."
The noble Earl said: We had an equivocal statement from the noble Viscount on the Second Reading, giving one reason for the divorce of Scotland from the Central Land Board. I gave two more in my Second Reading speech, but I am sure that only one reason for divorce is necessary. It is adequate in itself. I do not propose to recount the reasons for the divorce. The only question on this Amendment is the nature of the terms of that divorce. The terms which are proposed in this Amendment are substantially drawn from the model existing in the Forestry Act, 1945. It is not exactly the same, because it was felt, from the way in which the Bill was drafted, that it would be more suitable for Scotland if the Forestry Committee were to continue to exist and to carry out
456
their functions separately. This seems to me, if I may say so, a compromise that meets the essential feature, and the essential feature which the Lord Chancellor has already emphasized is the Central Land Board for dealing with certain factors which require consideration for the whole of the United Kingdom. This is for administration locally, but no doubt the Central Board will have a good deal of administrative control in one way or another. The Bill says that the Secretary of State for Scotland is the central figure for planning for Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 13, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I said before, from the planning point of view, speaking for myself, I see no objection to a divorce, but the Amendment which the noble Earl has moved is not a divorce, it is merely a separation; it is not even that. He contemplates one Central Land Board for the two countries, but he contemplates that a Committee should be set up under that Central Land Board for Scotland. The noble Earl, if he remembers his Biblical history—I have not verified my references—may remember that when Balaam the son of Beor was called upon by Balak, the son of Zippor, to curse the children of Israel, he said he could speak only what the Lord put into his mouth. The Lord in this case is the Secretary of State for Scotland, perhaps tinged with a little Minister of Town and Country Planning. So far as I am concerned, I think that this particular Amendment should find its place in the Scottish Bill. After all, the noble Lord is not here proposing separation; he is proposing one Central Land Board, and that the Central Land Board, so far as it operates in Scotland, should operate by means of a Committee.
There is now under consideration—I think it is still before the Grand Committee—the Scottish Town and Country Planning Bill, and in a few days' or a few weeks' time we shall consider it here. It seems to me that that is the proper time at which to move this Amendment. Speaking for myself, so far as I am responsible for planning, it does not matter what is done. I must, however, leave this to the Secretary of State for Scotland, to

457
take whatever decision he thinks right on the Scottish Bill, because it is purely of Scottish application. If he, and your Lordships, think that this is the best way to do it for Scotland, I have not the slightest objection. I would only add this, and I am sure that the Earl of Selkirk would agree with me: that whether we have one Central Land Board or two separate Boards—and the present proposal is for one Board—it is essential to observe that, so far as possible, the same sort of principles should apply both in England and in. Scotland. We want neither an injustice to Scotland nor an injustice to England. That is why presumably the noble Earl has left the idea of the one Board, in order to ensure that there may be that unity of outlook, though for practical local and administrative purposes he suggests that there should be a Scottish Committee on an analogy to the Forestry Commission.
I am not at all unsympathetic to the Amendment, but I think it is really a matter upon which I ought to get instructions from the Secretary of State for Scotland which I have not yet had. If the noble Earl had suggested splitting the Central Land Board into two, then that would have arisen on this Bill, but, as his Amendment is for keeping one Central Land Board and having, so far as Scotland is concerned, the machinery of the Committee, it seems to me that it is a Scottish question which had better be debated on the Scottish Bill. I would ask the noble Earl not to press his Amendment now. We are in no way disposed to quarrel with his Amendment, but I have no authority to accept it so far as Scotland is concerned.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: While thanking the Lord Chancellor for his reply, I am not at all clear as to how strong the assurance is that the point can be met in the same way. I hope it will be open to us on Report stage to press this matter further, if we are not able on the Scottish Bill to secure our objective. I would like to support my noble friend, and in doing so I would say that I am certain the feeling throughout Scotland would be very strong indeed that we in Scotland should have our own organization, whether a sub-committee or a Board. What we desire is something which is probably quite as far as separation, but not quite the same as divorce. I think
458
something between the two is essential. The question of distance and the question of differences have been referred to before; and also the great difference in land laws. I do not think a Committee composed almost entirely of Englishmen, sitting in London, would be well qualified to deal with that, or that they themselves would want to do so. I do feel, also, that reference to the Forestry Commission is very appropriate. Without a national committee in Scotland we could not possibly handle the forestry affairs in Scotland. This will also be on a large scale, and I am sure we shall need our own people there to deal with it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I give the noble Duke this reassurance. I am satisfied that it would be quite in order to move this Amendment on the Scottish Bill. It is entirely a Scottish matter, and the proper vehicle for this Amendment is the Scottish Bill. So far as I am concerned, if I am in charge of the Scottish Bill when it is introduced, and I receive instructions to accept this Amendment, I shall do so very readily. I have no idea what instructions I shall receive, and I have no reason to suppose that shall have them one way or the other. I am sure that the Scottish Bill is the proper place to move this Amendment, and not this Bill. The noble Duke knows that it was always contemplated that the Central Land Board should have an office in Edinburgh and conduct from Edinburgh their Scottish business. That is why I presume the noble Earl did not move that the Central Land Board should be split in two.
LORD SALTOUN: I am sorry to prolong this matter. I am quite satisfied with what the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has told us. I would, however, through the noble and learned Viscount, put one point to the Secretary of State for Scotland. In the course of my life I have often had occasion to discuss Scottish legal matters with English lawyers, and very often land matters. My feeling is that they always tend to assimilate points in our Scottish system to something of which they have experience, and to argue it on the lines of those legal principles of which they have experience. If I may give your Lordships my own feelings on that matter, it is supremely irritating to deal with a man who thinks he understands you, when

459
you are quite confident that he never does quite understand you. The Scottish land system is well understood by a large proportion of the Scottish people (I do not mean that everybody understands it, but a large proportion of the population do) and it would be supremely irritating to people in Scotland who had matters to represent to feel that they were not properly understood. If you feel that you have been, heard, you may take a decision you do not like with comparative equanimity; but if you feel your case has not even been understood, you feel a grievance. I hope I have not detained your Lordships too long in putting that point, which does seem to me to be of some importance.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I do not know if I understood the noble and learned Viscount correctly. If there were an Amendment moved in the Scottish Bill to meet this point, do I understand that no consequential Amendment would be necessary in the present Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
LORD LLEWELLIN: As I am assured on that point, it does seem to me that perhaps this is largely a Scottish question and had better be discussed on the Scottish Bill. Perhaps we should be well advised to leave it now. But I very much hope that the right honourable gentleman, the Secretary of State for Scotland, will bear in mind what has been said in this House in regard to giving some kind of a separate body, but largely connected with the other, for Scottish affairs. For myself, I do not see why we do not do something on the lines of the Amendment proposed by my noble friend, because then, with the three additional members appointed to act in Scotland, there would obviously be people who knew Scottish law and who knew Scottish customs. That seems to me to be highly important for the proper functioning of this Land Board in respect to Scottish affairs. I hope noble Lords opposite will press upon the Secretary of State the deep feeling which I know exists in this matter in this House, and will not take it that because we have shortened the discussion to-night it is any the less deeply felt.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am pleased to have the noble and learned Viscount's
460
sympathy, but I am afraid I must take a very brave course and differ fundamentally with him in regard to the impossibility of imposing an Amendment of this nature in another way. I must draw the noble and learned Viscount's attention to Clause 2, which says:
"For the purpose of the performance of the functions assigned to them"—
that is, the Central Land Board—
"by the following provisions of this Act, and by any corresponding provisions which may be enacted in relation to Scotland…"
Unless there is a divorce at this stage, it is quite impossible to get away from that.
I would also refer the noble and learned Viscount to Clause 3 (1), which says:
"The Central Land Board shall, in the performance of their functions under this Act, comply with such directions of a general character as may be given to them by the Minister."
It is perfectly clear that that refers to the Minister of Town and Country Planning. If it is not put in this Bill it will be ineffective.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Would the noble Earl forgive me? I quite agree with him if he is proposing that there should be two Central Land Boards. He is not suggesting that. His Amendment is proceeding on the basis that there is one Central Land Board, and the passage he read out is consistent with their being one Central Land Board. But having secured and retained one Central Land Board he is then suggesting, by his Amendment, that there shall be a Committee, sub-committee or whatever you call it, of that Land Board in Scotland for Scottish purposes. All I am saying is that it is perfectly consistent with there being one Central Land Board. This is purely a Scottish question to be dealt with by a Scottish Bill.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I regret that I did not hear the beginning of this discussion, but what has been said by the noble and learned Viscount does not, if I may say so with the greatest respect, seem at all satisfactory. In Scotland, if you take this Bill as it stands, it says that there shall be a Minister and the Secretary of State in charge of certain functions connected with Scotland. Unless you have a Board or Committee in Scotland it will be quite impossible for Scotland to deal

461
with her own affairs on a Scottish basis. What the noble and learned Viscount says is that you have a Central Land Board or Committee, or whatever it may be, and that that Committee will be able to deal with these affairs under the Bill as it stands. As my noble friend Lord Selkirk points out, in Clause 3 of this Act it says that:
"the Central Land Board shall, in the performance of their functions under this Act, comply with such directions of a general character as may be given to them by the Minister."
It does not even say "the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland." It throws back to the Minister alone all these functions which are to be exercised under Clause 5. Why is it necessary, in the first instance, to have a separate Town and Country Planning Act for Scotland and at the same time to bring into this Bill part of their functions? Why not give to Scotland everything and not only three-quarters?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The reason for that is that we are proposing by this Bill to set up a Central Land Board and the Central Land Board are to operate in both countries; no one has any Amendment down to alter that. Will the noble Viscount realize that? No one is proposing to alter that Amendment. There is to be in this Bill, therefore, unamended as it is, one Central Board for the two countries. All that is proposed is that one unified Land Board shall have power in Scotland to appoint a Committee or sub-committee. All I am suggesting, and it seems to me obvious, is that this is a Scottish matter, to be dealt with in the Scottish Bill. If you were to split up the Land Board, then I quite agree it would have to be in this Bill; but in view of the fact that everybody is accepting the idea of a unified Land Board for the two countries, and all you are seeking to do is to set up a Committee for Scottish affairs, I suggest that that is a matter to be dealt with in the Scottish Bill and that no Amendment whatever is necessary to the present. Bill.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: In view of the noble and learned Viscount's explanation, may I suggest to him that Clause 2, so far as that wording is concerned, would not fit in with what he suggests? If Scotsmen are suspicious that they will not obtain their rights, surely it is perfectly obvious that Clause 2 is the cause of these
462
suspicions. I hope the Lord Chancellor will now say something about Clause 2 as well as Clause 1.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have said it, and I really cannot say it all over again. There really is nothing between us here. I wish the noble Viscount would not be suspicious of me.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I cannot help it, because the noble and learned Viscount is so persuasive.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The only way to be persuasive for any length of time is to be always completely candid. If there is any trick I assure the noble Viscount I will tell him, because I know that if I trip him up once I shall never do it again. I assure hire there is no trick. If he were moving to split up the Central Land Board I would tell him he ought to do it in this Bill. But as he is proposing to have one unified Board, then I say that so far as the Board in Scotland is concerned that is a matter for the Scottish Bill.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask whether the Secretary of State is to be included with the Minister?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Viscount will see that the word is in the plural, "Ministers."
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: It is quite clear that the noble and learned Viscount has not received his instructions from the noble Lord. I shall return to this on the Report stage because I am not convinced that this is a matter which can be settled simply in the Scottish Bill. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.2 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved to leave out paragraph (b) of subsection (5). The noble Lord said: Mine is a simple Amendment to leave out paragraph (b) in subsection (5) of Clause 2. The effect of it is that if this Amendment be accepted the Board, which equally with the Lord Chancellor I hope will be strong and independent, and a thoroughly good body, will be thought fit to regulate matters such as its quorum, meetings, proceedings and determinations of the Board. That is the reason why I move this Amendment. Personally, when a body of this sort are set up, I like to be

463
able to trust them to be able to do the things that any ordinary board in other walks of life do. I do not think I need take up the time of the Committee any further. With those few words I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 26, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD HENDERSON: I am happy to emulate the noble and learned Viscount by starting with an acceptance. I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: The next Amendment standing in the name of my noble and learned friend is really consequential on the acceptance of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. Now that that Amendment has been accepted there will be no power to make regulations for prescribing the procedure on the determination of the Board. It is therefore necessary to make the Amendment in order to empower the Board to fix their own procedure in determining questions under the Bill. Similar words are included in paragraph 6 of the First Schedule of the War Damage Act, 1943. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 34, at end insert—
"including the manner in which matters subject to the determination of the Board are to be determined by or on behalf of the Board."—(Lord Henderson.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am obliged for this. As the noble Lord said, it is consequential on what has been accepted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: By the next Amendment I propose to leave out "Under this Act." This is a little more than a drafting Amendment. This part alone (and the £300,000,000) applies to Scotland. The rest does not.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 38, leave out ("Under this Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Minister" and insert "Ministers." The noble Viscount said: On behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, I am moving this Amendment
464
because I believe that it affects the whole principle of this Bill so far as Scotland is concerned. I do not propose to reiterate the arguments which I made just now, and I will ask the noble and learned Viscount to say what are his reasons for not accepting this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 47, leave out "Minister" and insert "Ministers."—(Viscount Elibank.)
LORD HENDERSON: I think I can give a very simple explanation why this Amendment is unnecessary. The Bill, as it stands, gives the Minister power to issue directions to the Board so far as this Bill is concerned; it does not apply to Scotland, except in so far as the Board covers both countries. Clause 1 (3) of the Town and Country Planning Bill (Scotland), which applies only to Scotland, provides that the Secretary of State may issue directions to the Board in relation to land in Scotland, and gives the Minister, under this Bill, no power to issue directions in relation to such land. So there are corresponding clauses in the two measures, one enabling the Minister in this country to be responsible for dealing with land in this country, and a corresponding clause in the Scottish Bill which gives the Secretary of State power to deal with it so far as it affects Scotland.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: As I understand the Bill, this clause, as the noble Lord has said, gives the Minister power to issue certain directions. Those directions are bound up with the finances of the Bill. From what I understand of the finances of the Bill, there are so many millions of pounds which are allocated between the three countries, and the Minister has full power to decide with regard to that finance. If the Minister, under Clause 1, has the right of direction, in consultation with the Secretary of State, in regard to those other finances, why should the Secretary of State not have the power of direction in regard to the amounts allocated to Scotland? I do not know what they are, whether they are going to be the old Goschen eleven eighty-ninths, or not. I hope, at least, that they will be the Goschen equation. But, whatever they are, I submit, with great respect, that the Secretary of State for Scotland has as much right as the Minister here to decide how those moneys are to be allocated. Will the noble Lord

465
say whether the Secretary of State, under this clause, will have the right to give directions so far as allocations of those moneys are concerned?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We English are very slow to wrath, but really, I do think, if I may say so with great respect, that this is getting a little hard. Does the noble Viscount suggest that a Secretary of State for Scotland should be concerned in the issue of directions concerning England and Wales? Because I do not suggest that the Minister of Town and Country Planning should be concerned in any directions to Scotland. This is a direction to the Central Land Board, and anybody who has read this Bill—I say it with the greatest respect—must know that this direction to the Central Land Board is in no way concerned with the splitting of the£300,000,000, which is to be done by the Treasury and not by the Central Land Board. This is a question of directions to be given to the Central Land Board by the Minister of Town and Country Planning in England and Wales, and, under the corresponding Bill, the Secretary of State for Scotland in Scotland. Unless the noble Viscount is going to say that the Secretary of State for Scotland should have the right to concern himself in directions given in regard to England and Wales, I do not understand the scope of this Amendment. I certainly do not suggest that the Minister of Town and Country Planning should have any lot or part whatever in directions to be given to the Central Land Board in regard to Scotland.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I have not suggested for one moment—and I do not know why the noble and learned Viscount should have taken this view of the remarks I made—that Scotland should have anything to do with the direction or allocation or the moneys allocated to England or Wales. The point I made was that Scotland should have the right to have some directive in regard to the moneys to be allocated to Scotland. What the noble and learned Viscount says is that the Treasury has the right to decide that; but surely the Treasury must get the guidance and direction of the Government as to how they wish the money to be allocated and whether it is to be for England or Wales or Scotland. It is not for the Treasury to decide to allocate so much to this country or that. I cannot accept the
466
noble and learned Viscount's suggestion. It is quite a new idea. I have been connected with Governments and with public affairs for a great many years and I have never heard that it was the Treasury that directed the policy of the Government with regard to moneys to be allocated. I should like to hear the noble and learned Viscount say more about it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will try once more. Will the noble Viscount look at Clause 3? He will see:
"The Central Land Board shall, in the performance of their functions under this Act, comply with such directions of a general character as may be given to them by the Minister."
It is in the singular. Now we have to consider what other functions there are under this Bill. What I have not been able to get into the mind of the noble Viscount is that the functions have absolutely nothing to do with the division of this £300,000,000. If the noble Viscount will be good enough to turn to Clause 55 which sets up the Fund he will see that it is for the Treasury to divide the £300,000,000 between England, Wales and Scotland. This is in subsection (2). All I am saying is that this is not one of the functions of the Central Land Board and cannot be affected by any directions to be given by any Minister.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: The noble and learned Viscount suggested in his reply that the Treasury give the directive in this matter. He did not refer to Clause 3 in his reply to me. He has now referred to Clause 55 and I agree with him that under that clause the Treasury give the directive in the allocation of this money. All I can say is that that is an entirely new form of policy for any Government. I agree that it is there, but I do not agree with the policy.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Perhaps I may say that I think my noble friend's Amendment is misconceived. If we were to put in here, as is attempted by this Amendment, that the Secretary of State for Scotland is to control the Central Land Board in regard to dealing with England and Wales, when the Scottish Bill comes before us I should join with the Lord Chancellor in putting in that the Minister of Town and County Planning together with the Secretary of State should deal with Scottish affairs. I do not think Scotland would like that. The Amendment

467
is really misconceived. It is quite true that both are going to have a say in setting up the Central Land Board. When it receives directions as to its functions, there is one Minister, the Minister of Town and Country Planning, dealing with England and Wales, and, as we shall see when the Scottish Bill comes before us, there is another Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland, dealing with Scotland. That will be the position and, if I might suggest it, having explored the position thoroughly well, perhaps the noble Viscount would be good enough to withdraw his Amendment so that we may proceed to the next.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: In view of what has been said, I withdraw the Amendment, but as a great deal of money is concerned in this matter, I hope that what I have said will not be overlooked.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [General provisions as to functions of Central Land Board]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I understood the Lord Chancellor to say that the financial section, Part VI of the Bill, was entirely out of the purview of the Central Land Board, but surely they come into it in some respect in Clause 57. I find that the Central Land Board come into Clause 57, both in subsection (1) and subsection (4), and I rather think they also come in later in Clause 59, but I cannot immediately trace that. It is so in Clause 61. I cannot help thinking that the statement from the Lord Chancellor, as I understood it—but perhaps I did not understand it—was rather the opposite.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Lord has misunderstood me. Viscount Elibank seemed to think that the Central Land Board were in some way concerned with the splitting up of the £300,000,000; they are not. What the Treasury has to do is to formulate a scheme under Clause 56, subsection (4) (line 20, at page 66). The scheme has to be laid before Parliament and Parliament can annul it. All I was concerned to show for the moment was that the Central Land Board have nothing to do with the alloca-
468
tion of the £300,000,000. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that £250,000,000 is allocated to England and Wales and £50,000,000 to Scotland. The £250,000,000 for what is English or Scottish, as the case may be, is allocated and the Central Land Board do come in, because they have to present claims. But they are not concerned with the allocation of the two sums of money, and therefore there is no injustice to Scotland in Clause 3.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: They do not come in, as I understand it, on the allocation of the global sum, but they do come in so far as claims under that sum are concerned.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Local planning authorities.
4.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the local planning authority for the purposes of this Act shall, for each county or county borough, be the council of that county or borough.
(2) If it appears to the Minister that it is expedient that a joint board should be established as the local planning authority for the areas of any two or more such councils as aforesaid, or for any parts of those areas, he may by order constitute those areas or parts as a united district for the purposes of this Act, and constitute a joint board (in this Act referred to as a joint planning board) as the local planning authority for that district:
Provided that the Minister shall not make such an order except after holding a local inquiry unless all the councils concerned have consented to the making of the order.
LORD BROADBRIDGE LORD BROADBRIDGE moved, in subsection (1), after "section" to insert "and section III." The noble Lord said: In moving the Amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, it is only necessary for me to say that its object is to strengthen the relationship between Clauses 4 and III. I assume that any discussion that is to take place will take place on Clause III. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 21, after ("section") insert ("and section III").—(Lord Broadbridge.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I entirely agree with the noble Lord. Let us have a discussion of this matter on Clause III and then, if the noble Lord carries what he wants on Clause III, we can easily put in whatever Amendment is necessary here at a later stage.
LORD BROADBRIDGE: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved, in subsection (2) to leave out "such councils as aforesaid" and insert "county, county borough or county district councils." The noble Lord said: Under this Bill, as your Lordships know, the county councils and the county borough councils are the future planning authorities, and the Minister has taken power to make joint planning boards consisting of those two authorities. What is suggested here is that it might also be convenient in certain cases, where expedient to the Minister, for him to make a joint planning board out of authorities that are part of a county, as well as out of those that are already planning authorities. I think the example given is the case of Middlesex and seven other urban areas, where certain parts of the county, particularly urban parts, have worked together as a whole, somewhat independently from the rest of the county, with very great success. It is thought that in some other districts of England it might be convenient to establish separate planning authorities for part of a county that has rather a special character, with unity of interest, but with less unity of interest with the rest of the county. It is a permissive power to be exercised by the Minister in a case where he thinks it is expedient. The Minister would not be able to do that, even if he wanted to, unless this Amendment were put in the Bill. It is a suggestion thrown out for that purpose, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 27, leave out ("such councils as aforesaid") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Addington).
LORD HENDERSON: I am obliged to the noble Lord for the suggestion which he has made, but I think it is quite unnecessary under the Bill as it now stands. As the noble Lord rightly said, in the Bill the planning authorities will be the county councils and the county borough councils. The main principle which the noble Lord has in mind was met by the Government in an Amendment to the First Schedule in another place. The noble Lord will remember that the First Schedule enables a county council or a joint board to set up committees and sub-committees; and in the
470
particular case to which the noble Lord referred, of an area of a county council being brought in, it is quite obvious that a committee appointed would be able to include, and is intended to include, a generous representation of the county district representatives. I think that broadly what the noble Lord has in mind is provided for by the Bill as it stands, and, in the circumstances, I hope he will not press the Amendment.
LORD ADDINGTON: As I say, it is merely put forward as a suggestion, and I do not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, at the end of subsection (2) to insert:
"where an enquiry has been held under the provisions of this subsection the order shall be laid before Parliament and if either house, within a period of 40 days after the order is so laid before it, resolves that the order be annulled, the order shall thereupon cease to have effect, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new order."
The noble Viscount said: This is quite a simple Amendment. It provides that, in a case where the Minister makes an order for a joint board of two or more authorities, they can, if they wish, as it were, appeal to Parliament against an order made contrary to their expressed opinions. Many of your Lordships will be familiar with the difficulties which arise in local government when joint boards are set up for various purposes. I think these difficulties have been experienced particularly in connexion with planning. This is such a simple Amendment that I hope very much the Government will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 35, at end, insert the said words.—(Viscount Ridley.)
LORD HENDERSON: I am obliged to the noble Viscount for the suggestion he has made in his Amendment, and I have pleasure in accepting it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment, and is required simply to correct an oversight consequent or the introduction in another place of a new Part II of the First Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 44, leave out ("Part III of").—(Lord Henderson.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: May I inquire of His Majesty's Government whether the spelling of the word "inquiry" is correct as it appears in the Bill, or as it appears in the Amendment of my noble friend, Viscount Ridley, because they are different?
LORD HENDERSON: Whichever is the correct form will appear in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
9.25 p.m.
Clause 5:
Surveys of planning areas and preparation of development plans.
5.—(1) As soon as may be after the appointed day, every local planning authority shall carry out a survey of their area, and shall, not later than three years after the appointed day, or within such extended period as the Minister may in any particular case allow, submit to the Minister a report of the survey together with a plan (hereinafter called a "development plan") indicating the manner in which they propose that land in that area should be used (whether by the carrying out thereon of development or otherwise) and the stages by which any such development should be carried out.
(2) Subject to the provisions of any regulations made under this Act for regulating the form and content of development plans, any such plan shall include such maps and such descriptive matter as may be necessary to illustrate the proposals aforesaid with such degree of particularity as may be appropriate to different parts of the area; and any such plan may in particular—

(a) define the sites of proposed roads, public and other buildings and works, airfields, parks, pleasure grounds and other open spaces, or allocate areas of land for use for agricultural, residential, industrial or other purposes of any class specified in the plan;

(b) designate, as land subject to compulsory acquisition by any Minister, local authority or statutory undertakers any land allocated by the plan for the purposes of any of their functions (including any land which that Minister or authority or those undertakers are or could be authorised to acquire compulsorily under any enactment other than this Act);

(c) designate as land subject to compulsory acquisition by the appropriate local authority—

(i) any land comprised in an area defined by the plan as an area of comprehensive development (including any land therein which is allocated by the plan for any such purpose as is mentioned in paragraphs (b) of this subsection), or any land contiguous or adjacent to any such area;

472

(ii) any other land which, in the opinion of the local planning authority, ought to be subject to compulsory acquisition for the purpose of securing its use in the manner proposed by the plan.

(3) For the purposes of this section a development plan may define as an area of comprehensive development any area which in the opinion of the local planning authority should be developed or re-developed as a whole, whether for the purpose of dealing satisfactorily with extensive war damage or conditions of bad lay-out or obsolete development, or for the purpose of providing for the relocation of population or industry or the replacement of open space in the course of the development or redevelopment of any other area, or for any other purpose specified in the plan; and land may be included in any area so defined, and designated as subject to compulsory purchase in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, whether or not provision is made by the plan for the development or redevelopment of that particular land.
(4) The Minister may approve any development plan submitted to him under this section either without modification or subject to such modifications as he considers expedient:
Provided that—

(a) the Minister shall not approve a development plan which designates any land as subject to compulsory acquisition as aforesaid if it appears to him that the acquisition is not likely to take place within ten years from the date on which the plan is approved;

LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved, in subsection (1) at the end, to insert:
"In preparing such development plans a local planning authority shall take into account all existing agreements under Section thirty-four of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, and every such agreement shall remain in force until the consent of the Minister has been obtained to its variation or abrogation."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment concerns agreements under Section 34 of the Act of 1932. It has been pointed out that considerable concern has been expressed that under the present Bill agreements relating to the use of land between local authorities, county councils, and other authorities such as the National Trust, are to be terminated automatically; and those bodies entered agreements restricting the use of land.
A number of landlords and public authorities have taken advantage of it, and the results have been beneficial to the public. Very little or no compensation was involved in the provision of open spaces, such large preservation schemes as, for instance, downland, the scheme of Lord Astor's at Cookham, and

473
Cliveden Reach in the Thames, have come under such agreements. I am in a little difficulty, because I understand that this was raised in another place, and it is only this afternoon that we have been able to see the Amendments which the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has put down. I am afraid that neither I nor those interested in this matter have had an opportunity of considering the Amendments that have been put down, and therefore I do not know the most convenient course to take on this subject. I will move my Amendment formally, and perhaps receive a little guidance when the noble Lord replies.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 39, at end, insert the said words.—(Lord Addington.)
LORD HENDERSON: The object of this Amendment is twofold. It seeks to preserve agreements made under Section 34 of the 1932 Act until the Minister has agreed to their rescission or modification. Secondly, it seeks to secure that development plans do not conflict with any such agreements in force. The first of those two objects is met by the proposed Government Amendments to paragraph 10 of the Tenth Schedule on page 157, to which the noble Lord has referred. These Amendments provide, among other things, that these agreements shall continue in force until the Minister, on the application of one of the parties, varies or rescinds them on the ground that they are inconsistent with proper planning. The second object is not in terms secured by the Government Amendment, but is hardly worth providing for specifically. All the proposed development plans and amendments thereto will be the subject of discussion before the Minister's representative, and any owner may then object that the plan purports to override an existing agreement to which he is a party. It will then be for consideration whether the agreement ought to remain in force; and as a general proposition the Minister will no doubt allow it to remain in force unless there is a definite reason why it should not.
In the result, therefore, the local planning authority will find it necessary to review all existing agreements as part of the process of preparing their development plan. The decision will have to be taken about some agreements while the plan is being prepared, but for the most part the agreements will come up for
474
review when the first plan for the area is being considered. It necessary, however, to leave the local planning authority with a free hand to plan their area properly; the fate of any Section 34 agreement must then be decided in the light of practical requirements. Moreover, the Government Amendment also enables the landowner to take action to have an agreement cancelled. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will be willing not to press his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I quite see, and I think everybody in the Committee will see, that if you are replanning the country entirely, existing agreements cannot be held to override the needs of modern planning. But there are, of course, a great many cases in this country where landowners had a choice between two things: they could have sold land for development, or they could, for more patriotic reasons, have made it a private open space. Some landlords have taken one course and some the other. In quite a considerable number of cases they have taken the second course, and denied themselves considerable pecuniary advantage for the benefit of the countryside and the health of the community. Therefore, while these agreements cannot be held to override any important extensive plans under this Bill, it is important from their point of view that the Minister should take account of these agreements, and, where it is in any way possible, should observe them. In view of the advantages which the landowner hoped to gain for the community by his action, it would be sad in every way if the agreement were nullified entirely and unnecessarily.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I find myself entirely at one with the noble Marquess. I think he will see an Amendment on page 157 which provides that all these agreements are to continue unless and until the Minister alters or modifies them. I agree that the Minister should be required to observe these agreements, particularly in the sort of case of which the noble Marquess gives what I think is a difficult instance.
LORD ADDINGTON: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his reply. Perhaps he will consider the matter, and if necessary put down some

475
more Amendments to the Schedule when it comes along. I will certainly not press my Amendment at this stage and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HAMPTON LORD HAMPTON moved, in subsection (2) (a), after "grounds" to insert "nature reserves." The noble Lord said: I put this Amendment down at the instance of the Wild Life Conservation Committee for the preservation of nature reserves. That Committee was set up by the predecessor of the present Minister; and is, I believe, about to make a report. The object of the Amendment is the conservation of nature and natural objects of scientific value, and to secure that these should be recognized as a practical purpose within the meaning of the Bill. I am sure your Lordships will agree that in view of the threats to our nature reserves that are constantly cropping up, it is important that we should focus the attention of local authorities, wherever we can, on the need to protect such nature reserves as we have left and which are within their purview. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 6, after ("grounds") insert ("nature reserves")—(Lord Hampton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thank the noble Lord for the suggestion he has made and the trouble he has taken, and I have pleasure in accepting the Amendment.
LORD HAMPTON: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SAVILE LORD SAVILE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: We now come on to a whole crop of Amendments dealing with designation of land as "land subject to compulsory acqusition." My purpose is to restrict the designation of land so designated. The type of land referred to in subsection (2) (c) (i) is:
"any land comprised in an area defined by the plan as an area of comprehensive development."
which I believe in ordinary language means blighted or blitzed area. I also understand that in the Town and Country Planning Act of 1944, designation applied only to blitzed and blighted areas and to areas of land close by which were used as
476
an overflow to house the homeless people from the blitz. I think it is reasonable and justifiable that the same provisions should apply to this present Bill. No one would argue about that. But when we look at paragraph (b) it seems that designation has exceeded these limits.
The Minister has told us that no local authority or statutory undertaker is going to designate land just for the fun of it, or to annoy the owner; but, on the whole, the power is still there. We have been told also that owners will definitely get security from such a thing, that they will know the worst with the ten-year limit as proposed in the Bill, and that they will not be under suspense any more. The noble lord, Lord Henderson, said the same thing in his Second Reading speech. But we on these Benches do think that there is no certainty in designation, because it is possible, as a last resort, for any Minister or local authority compulsorily to acquire land under these statutory powers, whether the land has been previously designated or not. We think designation is bad for the land and the public as well. Taking the rural and the agricultural point of view, I consider that no owner or tenant is likely to embark upon a large scale improvement scheme or new methods of cultivation if the fear of designation is there; and farmers are going to lack a certain amount of enthusiasm in keeping the land in good heart and acquiring new machinery. I do not say they are right, but can you blame them? I do not think anybody can blame them.
Now take the urban point of view. Suppose there is a shopkeeper or a business man in premises, who sets up a business of his own with plenty of goodwill attached to it. Then the fear of designation comes along, and he feels he is kicked out, and he goes somewhere where he can get a certain measure of security. What happens to the business? The business will probably be let to an undesirable, who probably would want to do nothing more than coin as much money as he possibly can and as quickly as he possibly can, and that again is very bad. The noble and learned Viscount in his opening speech on the Second Reading of this Bill said these words:
"If there is complete power to prevent designation in the wrong place, surely there must be also equal power to secure development in the right place."

477
Everybody must certainly agree with that. It is most important in planning to get co-operation with everybody all round, and at times it is extremely difficult to do it. Nobody would appreciate that more than the noble and learned Viscount. I feel that too wide and indiscriminate use of designation is apt to stifle development. There is nothing we want less than to get development held up at the right place, but we want it to take place at the right time. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 9, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Savile).
LORD LLEWELLIN: Might I at this stage intervene to suggest that, as we have a certain number of Amendments down on this question of designation, it might be convenient to your Lordships generally that we should discuss the whole matter more or less at large and then perhaps have Divisions on the individual Amendments? I do not know whether that would be convenient to the Committee, but I suggest that that is probably the most sensible way of dealing with this matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think, if I may say so, that that would be a very convenient course to follow. May I say that I am very anxious that your Lordships should think as I do, that designation properly applied, and with proper safeguards, is intended to be a help and not a hindrance to the landlords. I quite agree, and I admit it at once, that the fact that your particular land is not designated is not and cannot be an absolute guarantee that your land will not be taken. On the other hand, there is a risk that any land anywhere may be taken. I want, if I can, to reduce the chances of a lot of land being taken, and to indicate as plainly as I can what land is likely to be taken. The point of this subsection which the noble Lord is moving to leave out (and I think that probably he is moving it in order to get a general discussion on the whole matter) is to enable local authorities or Ministers or statutory undertakers to acquire land for the purposes of their functions.
You must differentiate in your planning between short-term and long-term programmes. A long-term development programme may easily cover a period of fifty years or longer. The designated areas
478
will show the land which the authority hopes to develop within the next ten years. The short-term programme must obviously indicate, or should obviously indicate, what land is likely to be developed by public authorities under statutory powers. You cannot begin to reach finality until you show on your plan where the local authorities intend to site new schools under their statutory powers, or public libraries, or where the Post Office or Labour Exchange are to be built, or, indeed, to take a more obvious case, where the railway station is to be built. All those things clearly should be shown on your plan. Unless they are, your plan is a rather meaningless thing. These are the key points, the basic frame work, and we are very anxious to get all the authorities responsible for these services to play the game by us and to indicate so far as they possibly can what their future intentions are with regard to their various functions.
Accordingly the designation machinery mentioned particularly in this clause is designed to encourage public authorities to co-operate in the preparation of development plans, and thus to enable the merits of their proposed development to be properly examined at the plan stage in the proper context of the wider plan, instead of, as at present, at a series of separate and possibly unrelated inquiries held at different times under different Acts and by different Ministers. One knows how in the past authorities who had the right to take up the roads always seemed to do it in turn. First it was done by the electricity people, then by the sewage people, then by the gas people, and so on. If we could always work according to plan, how much better it would be! Having settled at the plan stage, after full and appropriate local inquiries, and so on, that certain land should be reserved for certain purposes, it is obviously necessary to have power to purchase the land and ensure that it is made available for that purpose. Of course, local authorities and most Ministers have certain powers already, but there are certain Ministers, notably the Minister of Works and the Postmaster-General, who have at present no powers of compulsory purchase. The case of statutory undertakers is much the same; if the inquiry on the development plan reveals that they ought to be able to develop certain land, then they ought, equally, to be able to acquire it.

479
Accordingly designation will enable statutory undertakings to be authorized to acquire compulsorily land reserved for their purposes and designated in a plan. But in addition to settling the short-term programme of development, a plan under the Bill must be of much broader scope. It will indicate, so far as it is possible to do so, the wider planning objects for a generation or more ahead and may tentatively indicate land as likely to be acquired for long-term statutory purposes. In this respect a plan must be regarded as flexible and subject to review from time to time. It is for that reason that we have thought it right to limit designation to that land really to be used within the period of ten years, though there is no absolute certainty about it. I hope no land will be compulsorily acquired, whatever the powers under the various Acts may be, unless it is so designated, and that owners of land not so designated may sleep tight in their beds.
What effect has designation on land? In the great majority of cases I believe this designation is in regard to land to be developed in the next ten years—it will not be agricultural land, it will be land already built over by unworthy buildings, but of course there will be some cases in which it will be agricultural land —probably near a town—and I am not going to pretend to your Lordships that I do not appreciate that agricultural land so designated will be adversely affected. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, in a very fair speech on this topic on Second Reading, pointed this out. I realize that where a tenant sees his land coloured red (or whatever it may be) on the plan, to show that it is designated, he will become rather restive, realizing that he will not have indefinite security of tenancy, and you will often have to put up with a much less desirable tenant. The Minister has drafted an Amendment to try to fall in with the suggestion put by Lord Llewellin. The effect of my Amendment is that if at the end of twelve years this land which has been designated has not been taken, then the land owner is entitled to give six months' notice and tell the Minister he must do one of two things—either buy him out or remove the designation. I am not going to say "undesignate" or "de-designate."
480
Again I point out—and the noble Lord, Lord Savile, appreciates this because he knows the point well—that the effect is not of absolute security, because the Minister would have the right to designate or acquire the land again. If the Minister were doing what he intends to do, however, he would be slower thereafter to exercise his power to designate this land once again. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has countered my Amendment by an Amendment to it. He obviously feels that my twelve years, although they may not be unreasonable in the case of built-up land, are excessive in the case of agricultural land. I will not say more than that I realize there may be a case for saying a short time is appropriate to agricultural land. I have no instructions from the Minister about this Amendment because it came in comparatively recently, and I have had so many things to do that I have not been able to embark upon this matter.
I think, however, there may well be a case that a shorter time ought to apply to agricultural land and I am quite willing, if the noble Lord will not press me at the present stage, to take this to the Minister and to discuss it with the noble Lord on Report stage. Assuming that my Amendment is accepted, I can put down some Amendment on the lines of that of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, although I do not think I can accept the short space of time he is suggesting. As I said before, I want your Lordships to realize that designation is not something designed to tease or make the landowner's position more miserable than it is to-day. It is designed to help him, and, properly directed, I believe we can make it help him.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, both in the closing words of the noble and learned Viscount's remarks, on the question of designation, and also in another place, considerable, and, as I think, undue emphasis has been laid on the value of designation to the landowner. I look at it largely from the agricultural landowner's point of view, but the same applies, though perhaps in a lesser degree, to the owner of urban land. But something that the noble and learned Viscount said rather gave me the real clue —at least I hope I am right; if I am wrong I hope I shall be put right—as to why, in fact, the Minister is so anxious

481
to get designation. The noble and learned Viscount said that the Minister is anxious that the planning authorities, or the public authorities, should indicate what their intentions are. He knows that under planning schemes before the war sufficient building development was planned, I believe, to house something like 350,000,000 people in this small island; and obviously, as a greater need occurred, the enthusiasm of local authorities increased. The case, of course, does not have such force now that the planning authority will be the county rather than the district councils, because the rating influence will not have such a weighty effect.
But quite obviously the real object behind designation is that the Minister may have a curb upon the planning authority rather than to confer a benefit upon an owner of land. As Lord Llewellin pointed out on the Second Reading of this Bill, with far greater force from the point of view of the agricultural landowner, designation puts a blight upon any agricultural land which is so designated, and will make the management impossible. It is quite true that in his subsequent Amendment the noble and learned Viscount has gone so far as to suggest that the owner of any land which is designated can, if the land is not purchased by the end of twelve years after the designation, compel the planning authority to purchase. Twelve years is an interesting period of time, because land has to be designated if it is to be compulsorily acquired in the next ten years after the plan is made. There is nothing in this Bill which prevents the planning authority—and the Minister can agree—from re-designating (not de-designating, but re-designating) at the end of the quinquennial review which will take place at the end of the ten years. It is therefore fixed at twelve years, so that the local authority can re-designate.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is what I meant: I did not mean to be tricky in this way—to have twelve years in order to do it again.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Thank you; we will, perhaps examine that later. So far as agricultural land is concerned, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his suggestion that he will examine the five years. I am not entirely happy about five years, because the ordinary agricultural tenant will give his landlord
482
only one year's notice from the due quarter day, or whatever it may be. That unfortunate landowner may be left with land for which he has to find a tenant for a very short period of time, which it will be very difficult for him to do. In fact, he may have to farm it himself, and this may involve him in considerable expense, as it is not a very profitable business to lay out money for farm land when you have it only for four years or less.
The alternative is that the agricultural production of the country will suffer severely. That, I think, is much more important than the woes of the unfortunate landlord, great though they may be. It is a very important thing—we appreciate it now, and we shall appreciate it more next winter—that our agricultural production should be kept as nearly as possible to its absolute maximum. I should like to see agricultural land taken out of designation altogether. But if that is impossible, then we must fall back on the second best, which is the much shorter period. I hope that when that comes up for decision your Lordships will insist on the shorter period being inserted in the Bill. Before I conclude, I would once again emphasize the fact that the real point that matters is that agricultural production should not suffer as a result of designation.
9.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, who initiated the general discussion, did not wish to deprive anyone of the opportunity of argument on his own individual Amendments. I find it difficult to be persuasive to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, when he is so extremely persuasive and so willing to meet any argument which is put up. It is not my purpose to weary your Lordships with a long dissertation on designation, or its evils, particularly when applied to agricultural land. The position is quite clear and could not be more ably described than it has been. There are, however, one or two aspects of the matter to which I would like to call your Lordships' attention. In the first place, if the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will allow me, I would like to correct what I believe to be a lapse on his part on the Second Reading of the Bill. He said, speaking of farms:

483
"If any cases do arise—and they will be few and far between—where an owner can show that because of designation his land is no longer capable of reasonably beneficial use as a farm, then Clause 18 of the Bill enables him to require the local authority to buy the land."
If I understand the Bill aright. Clause 18 does not deal with that point at all. It deals with land where the development permission is refused. The noble Lord will forgive me if I call attention to what I think is a slip that any one of us might make.
May I now address myself to the two Amendments I have in mind—it does not matter about their sequence? One was to reduce the term of designation from ten years to five. With respect, even if the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, were accepted, it would not meet my point. If you have a man owning a farm, wanting to remain in possession of that farm, to keep it in hand and farm it himself, he does not want it to be designated. The fact that you tell him—assuming that the noble Lord's Amendment is accepted—that at the end of five years he can compel the local authority to acquire it does not meet the case; he may not want to be bought out and would much rather not be designated at all. Therefore, if he is going to be designated I do urge that the period of designation in the case of agricultural land should be five years and not ten years. I hope I have made myself clear to the noble and learned Viscount, even if he does not accept the point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: The other Amendment deals with the words "any other land." I do suggest that if the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Savile, be rejected, you have in paragraph (b)—which the noble Lord is asking to have removed—ample powers for the local authority. There is no need to say, as you do in subsection (2), that they can designate "any other land." That, I suggest, is a direct incentive to them to designate more land than they need at the moment, and I do not think it is necessary to the Bill. I feel that paragraph (b) gives the Government all the power that they need.
I might point out also that I have the greatest respect, if I may say so, for the
484
present Minister of Town and Country Planning, but he may not be there in perpetuity. Another Minister may not be so reasonable, and I do not think it wise to extend these powers any further than we need. We have to consider the position of the local authorities who are making their planning schemes. If we take a town like Oxford, they have to consider the future. They say to themselves: "This is a great and a growing town. We have to plan for a large and expanding population." If you give them a long term, and at the same time the incentive given in this clause, I suggest that they may very well designate a great deal more land than they need.
I would like, if I may, to borrow a point made by my noble friend Lord Radnor on the Second Reading and amplify it slightly. He pointed out that year by year at the present time 45,00o acres of agricultural land are actually taken and used. If you multiply that by ten you get 450,000 acres, but if you accept my argument that the local authority, dealing with potential demands based on a possible increase of population, may designate more land than it needs, you may very easily—and I am not prone to exaggeration—find that something not less than 1,000,000 acres of agricultural land is going to be designated and depreciated in its value, and suffer so far as production of food is concerned. On the understanding that the noble and learned Viscount is very kindly looking into the matter again, I shall not move the two Amendments which stand in my name.
10.4 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: I would like to make a few observations on the question of designation from the point of view of a planning authority. The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has said—and I have heard it to-day not for the first time—that under planning schemes before the war provision was made for the building of houses and dwellings for a population of ten times the present size of the population of this country.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I think those figures were taken from the Minister himself.
LORD LATHAM: That is so, and I was just going to explain one of the

485
reasons which led to that situation. It was not the insatiable desire of the local authorities to plan and designate the maximum areas of land, but it arose from the defects in the then existing town planning law. Town planning at that time was largely regulatory. If a town planning authority sought, within the very limited powers which existed at that time, to prevent land from being built on, then they had to zone it for residential user and they did it in this way. They zoned large areas of land for development residentially for not more than five or six houses to the acre, and by that means they made it unprofitable to develop that particular land for residential or any other purpose. That was one of the reasons why we have the state of affairs which has, not for the first time, been prayed in aid of the suggestion that local authorities are insatiable in their desire to acquire other people's land. I think I have given the main reason for that condition of affairs.
As the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, pointed out, this paragraph (b) does not give the local authorities, nor is it intended to give the local authorities, any powers they do not at present possess. What it does propose to do, however, is to enable local authorities to fit in, as it were, and co-ordinate the land that they may require for other purposes, such as education, housing, libraries and baths, into the general pattern and composition of their plan, and to designate not only the land that is needed for the plan but also the land which will be needed for those other particular specialized services. Paragraph (b) says quite plainly that designation can apply to any land allocated by the plan for the purposes of any of their functions—that is, any function of the local authority. Later it goes on to say that it includes "any land which that Minister or authority or those undertakers are or could be authorized to acquire compulsorily under any enactment other than this Act." I submit, therefore, that in fact this clause can be of substantial benefit to the landowners and is not intended to give, nor does it give, any additional power to the local authorities.
One of the serious defects of the present law is that it requires the planning authority to deal separately with blitzed
486
land, blighted land, and overspill land. Overspill land need not, and for most areas will not, be near to either the blitzed or the blighted land. It cannot normally be so. It is needed outside the urban area. The proposals in this clause enable the local authority to acquire by the same method of designation, not only land that is blitzed and land that is blighted, but also other land which is necessary, either for the purposes of the plan or for the authorized powers and functions of the local authorities. For the first time, therefore, local authorities can plan and provide for services as one co-ordinated composition. I suggest that that marks a step forward. The landowner is not thereby in any worse position; he is, in point of fact, in a better position, because he is to be on notice, whereas if you acquire land compulsorily for housing you need not put a landlord on notice years before. You have only to come to a decision when a housing estate is needed that it should take a certain form, that certain land is required, and then you can decide to make a compulsory purchase order in that particular case. You do the same for a school, and for any other laud that you may need, without any long prior notice; whereas under this paragraph the landlord will have prior notice, which I submit is an advantage to him.
I wish to offer no comments at this stage upon the proposal that agricultural land should be treated differently as regards designation, although if it were treated differently it might not be without its repercussions on the activities of the London County Council, not perhaps as a planning authority, but as a housing authority compelled to go outside its area into Greater London to find land upon which to build housing accommodation. But I do wish to make this point, particularly for the London County Council and for the other urban areas, cities and towns: that if the period of ten years now proposed in the Bill is reduced to five years, it will make it substantially impossible for any real planning to be done. I am not saying that is the case in the rural areas, or in areas which are not heavily built up, but it certainly will be the case as regards the towns and cities and the congested areas, and notably London.

487
A local authority, if it is to do planning in any real sense, must not only have a long-term plan which may take thirty, thirty-five, forty or fifty years, but it must have within that plan, or within the schemes of that plan, a number of projects which may take ten years, or indeed longer, to work out and to come to a decision upon. I ask your Lordships to contemplate the present circumstances—and they are not likely to improve very substantially for a number of years, I fear. Those circumstances are the almost universal shortage of technical staff. We in London have declared, under the 1944 Act, an area of 2,000 acres in Stepney and Poplar—three times the size of the Borough of Shoreditch—for substantial reconstruction. Not every building will be demolished, but a large proportion will be when the plan is finally completed. It is estimated that the property comprised in this plan will cost about £45,000,000 to acquire. We have to proceed, under the legislation now contemplated, to designate the various areas for compulsory acquisition, and if at the end of ten years—and this will be much more so if it is five years—our right of designation ceases, the owner can give us notice and require us there and then to buy or to release the property from designation. It will very seriously hamper, if indeed not defeat, planning on a large scale, such as is essential if London is to be rebuilt and reconstructed as I believe everyone in your Lordships' House would desire to see. If the period is reduced to five years it is certain to make real planning almost impossible.
When you are dealing with planning and the acquisition of land you are dealing very largely with human beings. You are dealing with the people in their little cottages, dilapidated, grim and drab as they may be. You are dealing with the man who has a little shop, with the man who has a little workshop, with the man who has a larger factory and so on, and you have to provide alternative accommodation, not only for the people who are resident in the area, but also, under the new schemes, for the little shops, for the workshops, for the factories and for the many other things which go to make up a community in modern days. And you cannot shift people about as you can machine tools. It takes a long time for instance—as the noble Earl, Lord
488
Munster, well knows—to provide alternative accommodation for the people who are removed from slum dwellings. You cannot just say to a family: "We have got accommodation for you here and here you must go." Accommodation must be related to where the children go to school, where the husband works, where the children who work are employed. All those factors have to be taken into account, and they are factors which go to make it impossible for a local authority to be always in a position at the end of five years to say: "Well, we designated this land; we are now ready to acquire and go on."
I hope that, at all events as regards urban areas, the minimum period of ten years will remain in the Bill. I took part with others representing local authorities in the country in making representations to the Minister, at the time when this Bill was under consideration, that this period of ten years was the minimum period which would enable local authorities in the built-up areas to do their job. It is, as the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has said that although there will be development in rural areas and there will be certain agricultural land designated, I venture to say that in the next twenty years most of the reconstruction and planning in this country must be in the congested over-built areas of our cities and towns and the areas which adjoin them, if we are to remove the existing blot.
If we are to have well-planned instead of disordered communities, local authorities must be given adequate powers. I assure you, as one who is acquainted with no mean local authority, a local authority which carries the largest burden of re-planning in this country, and, which has inherited one of the worst legacies of disordered planning, that we are not anxious to buy more land than we need. In point of fact, I have at times resisted the blandishments of landowners who have come along and shown anxiety that the London County Council should acquire their land. I have noticed, sometimes, that they have worked out a good planning scheme which is not always unrelated to the ownership of their own particular plot of land. So I ask your Lordships not to be influenced in reducing this period by the view that local authorities are insatiable.

489
The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, rather criticized the fact that local authorities take a long view in planning. I am glad that they do. There can be no thoroughly satisfactory planning in this connexion unless it is based on a long view. The trouble in the past has been that when there was planning—and there was precious little—it was very short-term planning. I believe that local authorities should have an incentive towards planning, and the best incentive is imagination. Imaginative planning is what is needed. I hope that we shall not seek to remove that incentive, and, in conclusion, I beg the Committee not to reduce the period of ten years, at least so far as urban areas are concerned.
10.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: No doubt the considerations which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, has urged are very germane to the problem and cannot be lost sight of and I am sure your Lordships are happy in having him among us to help us in regard to this Bill, on a matter of which he has so much knowledge and experience. At the same time, I must ask him, from the agricultural point of view, to look at the other side of the problem. Our duty will be to reconcile the claims of town and country in this respect. As the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has pointed out, the Bill as it now stands may affect a very big agricultural acreage indeed, which my noble friend estimates as something in the neighbourhood of 1,000,000 acres. Consider the position of a farmer and landlord, living and working near a big city. His land is designated. I was speaking the other day to the owner-occupier of a farm of some 300 to 400 acres in the neighbourhood of one of our towns, which had designated his farm. He said to me: "What is my position? I cannot make a single improvement to this farm from this day onwards and get compensation for the money I spend when the land is taken over."
The noble and learned Viscount will correct me if I am wrong, but, so far as I can make out, the position of a farmer or landlord farming agricultural land which has been designated, is that if during these ten to twelve years he makes any improvements to capital equipment, he will get no compensation for that improvement when he gives up the land. If the land is designated to-day and to-morrow
490
he puts up a new cow shed or Dutch barn, he will get no compensation for that when the time comes to take the land over, because he has made that expenditure in face of his notice to quit. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, seemed to think it was an advantage to the agricultural landlord to have notice. I suggest it was not of much advantage to Damocles to have the sword hanging over his head. I personally would have preferred it to fall quickly. It is this paralysing effect which is so unfair to the landlord and so prejudicial to agriculture. From the point of view of the landowner it would be far better that the London County Council should acquire that land compulsorily and farm it themselves if they like—
LORD LATHAM: We do a little farming.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: —for ten years before the time comes to develop it, than to be asked to farm property without any security of tenure and to be denied any compensation for any improvements made after the designation notice has been served. This makes the position of the farmer impossible, and I hope the Government and especially the Lord Chancellor, will give attention to this point. I would remind your Lordships that it is now practically impossible to make any capital improvement on one's property without the permission of half a dozen authorities. You have to get the consent of some planning authority- and the county agricultural committee; accordingly we can assume that the improvement has been sanctioned by all the required authorities, and is therefore a reasonably legitimate improvement. I would remind His Majesty's Government that their Minister of Agriculture is beseeching landowners to improve the capital equipment of their farms; and nobody is more eloquent or stronger on that point than the noble Viscount who leads this House. In order to increase the food production of this country, a large amount of capital equipment and capital expenditure is undoubtedly necessary. Do not in this Bill make it impossible in the designation areas—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I might interrupt, several times the noble Earl has said that where a man has made authorised improvement to his land, he receives nothing for it. As I apprehend

491
the Bill—I may be wrong—I do not understand that to be the case at all. After a notice to treat, which is a different thing altogether, you take over the land in the condition in which it is at the time of the notice to treat. If the land is designated, and thereafter improvements are made and a Dutch barn is put up, when the local authority buy the land they have to pay a fair price for it; and in that price would be included the price of the Dutch barn. I am not going to assert anything about this Bill, but I believe I am right in saying that when a man comes to sell he receives that price for it.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am very glad to hear what the noble and learned Viscount says; I did say that I was speaking subject to his correction. I was relying on the testimony of an owner-occupier who found himself in this predicament and he was firmly under the impression that this was his position. It is a most important point and I hope that, when the noble and learned Viscount has been able to look into the point, if he thinks there is any doubt about it, he will make it abundantly clear in this Bill. Apart from that, there is this question of the five or ten years. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, in his eloquent speech, was talking about the human aspect of town planning, but he must not forget the human aspect in agriculture. Those landlords who do not farm their own farms are afraid of tenants walking out directly a designation notice is served. The question is how they are to farm the land in those circumstances.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Perhaps I might say a word also about this clause. Quite clearly under this Bill we are considerably extending the scope of designation, and it is said in justification for that that it is largely to the advantage of the owner. It is of advantage to the owner, as I gather, in that having had that notice he does not go on spending money on his property or on his ground—as he might do on a long-term basis. That is, I suppose, the advantage that he receives. He knows that he is under this kind of notice. I myself—and I certainly am not an authority on this Bill—take the same view as the Lord Chancellor, that if he does go on improving things up to the notice to treat, that is the time when the clamping down for valuation purposes
492
comes. But be that as it may, he is not likely to take all the trouble to obtain the various permits and to have things built if he is under notice to quit.
I can see there is quite a considerable advantage in giving this notice to landowners in built-up areas. I am quite at one with the noble Lord, Lord Latham, on that, and I am quite at one in thinking that the right way to deal with those areas is to designate wide parts of them. It may be that he is right, too, in saying that a period of five years would not be adequate for the purposes of a body like the London County Council. But, as I say, I think the whole of this discussion is boiling down rather to the fact which the noble Lord himself recognized, that there are different conditions in rural areas from those obtaining in built-up areas; I am quite certain of that. It is extraordinary how quickly land can go back if nothing is done. In a year, or less than a year, arable land can go completely back.
What many of us greatly fear is this. An owner-occupier, who is farming his own land, may be under notice to quit and he may be looking round all the time for another farm, because he wants to go on farming. If he gets one, he will probably abandon the farm which he has and do his work elsewhere; and he will leave this land rather derelict. It is even worse for the landowner who has a tenant farmer who, as the noble Lord has said, can give one year's notice. He will not want to go on farming under an insecure tenure, and would much rather settle in a new place. It will be very difficult then to get anybody else to come in and farm that land for the remaining period of two or three years.
To make this a practical proposition, and in order not to hamper local authorities in the work they have to do in rebuilding many of our blitzed cities, I should like the Minister to have this point in consideration from the start: "Will you want this within a period of five years if it is agricultural land?" If it is other land, let him have a different test. After all, what harm is done, from the point of view of the local authority if the agricultural land is not designated? It cannot be built over without the permission of the planning authority, even if it is not designated. All that is happening is that they are giving advance notice, with, as I

493
say, this really detrimental effect on the food production of this country, and without, in the case of agricultural land, any corresponding gain to anyone.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, not only for putting down the Amendment that he has about removing designation, but also for his words regarding the five years in relation to rural land. I would like the period of ten years mentioned in subsection (4) (a) considered. It should be a question for the Minister as to whether agricultural land will be used within five years, leaving the period of ten years in the case of non-agricultural land. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, desires that period for planning in the main part of the planning area—as he says, the rehousing will be in the urban districts—but let it be five years in the case of agricultural land.
I am certain that if these two Amendments can be met—and I do not see that any harm will be done to anybody by meeting them—we shall have done a good service for the future supplies of this country, and we shall not in the least have hampered anybody in the proper planning which we all wish to see take place. I would like both those points to be considered, and when we come to the Amendment in the name of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, perhaps he will be able to say something more definite about my Amendment. At any rate, I hope that by the Report stage we shall be able to do something in complete harmony in regard to the five years for agricultural land, both in subsection (4) (a) and also in my Amendment to the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment lower down on the Paper. I hope that a course of that kind will at any rate be considered by the Government, and that eventually we shall be able to agree upon it and feel far happier in regard to the whole of Clause 5.
10.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I should like to address a few observations to your Lordships, and I will be very brief. I would like to make two points. In the first place, I wish to support as strongly as I can the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Latham, that it is essential that the local authorities should be granted very wide powers. Reference was made in the early part of
494
this discussion to the Act of 1944, and it was pointed out that although that Act was limited to the blitzed and blighted areas, this Bill has no such restriction. Many of us, when that Act was introduced, expressed our great disappointment that it was not a general Statute, but was so limited. We recognized that perhaps the most urgent cases had to be dealt with first, and in war-time it was difficult to give sufficient time and attention to enable a really comprehensive measure to be brought forward.
At the same time that was a very great disappointment, and we rejoice that those powers may now be made general. Indeed, it is obviously essential that they should be, because otherwise you would have two different classes of towns all over the country in another twenty or thirty years: those which had had the misfortune—or good fortune—to be destroyed or injured in the course of the war and whose authorities had been given extraordinarily wide and extensive powers which had enabled them to rejuvenate themselves and to present themselves as models of construction and proper planning, and those which had had the privilege—or the disadvantage—of being uninjured or slightly injured—which is the case with the great majority of our towns —who would still be restricted to the old laws and hampered in every turn in their efforts to secure better conditions for their future residents in future generations.
The second point deals with this question of agricultural land, which is unquestionably one of great and immediate importance. Several noble Lords have spoken on it, noble Lords who are closely acquainted with it, and who have themselves the ownership or administration of large estates. But this is not only a matter of personal or financial interest; it is unquestionably a great social and national problem. Only two days ago, this House passed with unanimous approval an Agriculture Bill, designed to do all that the State can do to promote the success and prosperity of agriculture. It would, indeed, be very inconsistent if, in the same week, we were to introduce another Bill which inflicted grave injury upon the same industry. The point I would like to raise is this—and it has not previously been referred to in this discussion. It is of great importance that there should be no conflict between

495
the movement for planning, which is supported in the main by public opinion throughout this country, and the movement in defence of the legitimate interests of agriculture. The two must be reconciled.
The planning movement has proposed as part of its aims the creation of a system of green belts round our cities. They are either green belts, or sometimes green wedges which run into the cities, and they are an essential part of the aims of the modern town planner in this and other countries. It is sometimes thought that these green belts are to be merely areas for recreation, open spaces, parks, camping grounds, playing fields; perhaps some woodlands, and the like. But that, of course, is impossible, because these areas would be far too large, taken in the total, to make it conceivable that this country could afford to use for such purposes such large expanses of land, both from the economic point of view that it would be taking too much land from productive purposes, and from the point of view of amenities generally. It would be too costly an enterprise. Hundreds of square miles are concerned, perhaps thousands. It has always been contemplated that the greater part of these green belts should be used as farm land, smallholdings, market gardens, and other productive areas of that kind.
The question I want to address to the Government is this—and perhaps the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, would like time to consider it. At some stage of this Bill, will the Government not tell us how this general question of green belts and the reservation of agricultural land relates to this clause and to other clauses? The Lord Chancellor may say that this is limited only to compulsory acquisition, where land is compulsorily acquired for green belt purposes. What would be the position of the agriculturist? Probably be would be much better protected than ever before. But where it is not compulsorily acquired but placed under restriction and zoned, what would be his position then, his degree of security, and his financial position? That is the question I want to address to the Lord Chancellor. Without going into legal or technical questions, what is the general policy of this Bill with regard to green belts round our great towns in
496
relation to agriculture; what are its economic and financial policies?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think we are all in sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Latham, said about the difficulties of local authorities. The real point about this Amendment, I suggest, is to ensure that agricultural land which has been designated shall be in a position to be farmed, without hurt to the tenant or owner during the period from designation until it is taken over. As the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, said, land can go back very quickly; in a year or two years it will get back into good heart again and should not be designated. I would ask the Government to address themselves to that point. Perhaps later they could give us some indication as to how there may be a safeguard to keep in heart agricultural land under designation or threat of designation and with no harm to the owner and occupier. That is very important, because in a small way it is already happening. Land which has been found not economical for the farmer to farm has been asked for by authorities all over the country to build on. For some reason the land has not been built on and you have got bits here and there. There is a large area near Kingston, which is now a sea of weeds. I am sure His Majesty's Government would not like that sort of thing to happen.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I would willingly defer my remarks to the discussion of the Scottish Bill, but it is hardly to be expected that any improvement would be allowed in that Bill unless it is first conceded on this occasion; and this is a matter of great and justifiable concern. I still feel that the designation proposals go further than is necessary. However good a case has been made out for the blitzed and blighted areas and for the larger cities, I still maintain that a case has not been made out for the landward and rural areas. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, has strengthened the case for the City of London and the cities generally and the surrounding areas. From the exactly opposite position, as chairman of a typical landward rural county council and planning authority, I feel there is little need to have designation on our side, as it is well realized that in that sort of country land can be acquired by local authorities

497
for housing and for public purposes without difficulty and at the valuation arranged by the valuer.
I am sure it would be an advantage to confine this designation to as small an area of the country as is possible. I quite see that there is difficulty about that, but why should the country district always be made to suffer because people have concentrated their ideas on the large towns and populated areas? This is another case of what is happening so often in our legislation. Reference has been made to the removal of incentive to landowners and farmers to improve their agricultural equipment, their farms, and their production; and I was very glad to hear the remarks of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, on that point. I still feel, however, that there will be a difficulty in valuing the land and the farms, and in assuring the additional value for any fresh equipment. I would like that to be looked into further, and, if possible, some greater assurance given as, to whether the farmer and the landowner would recover expenditure for improvements.
I would like the Government also to bear in mind in this designation the fact that there will be quite a number of financial penalties on the people in these landward areas; and also, if I am right in saying so, that these are the very people who will be eliminated from any claim to compensation because of the elimination of small claims. They will not come in for any payment under the compensation clause. I think this is the only occasion, when one can refer to it. We country people find it very difficult to keep up with all the legislation which comes from Parliament, and I hope you will bear that in mind in this Bill and the Agriculture Bill, because however many and however great certain blessings may be—or at any rate one hopes they will be—it is becoming extremely difficult for us ordinary people in the country to attend to our jobs without spending far too much time on trying to keep up with the laws which we have to understand—not only the laws but all the directions and White Papers, and forms with which we have to know how to deal. I hope you will bear these matters in mind; hope that this designation can be confined to the smallest possible area, and that that matter will be considered further.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: There are one or two points which I would like to refer to which have arisen out of this debate. I was struck by what the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said—namely that it would be inconsistent one day to pass unanimously an Agriculture Bill on Second Reading and then to put obstacles in the way of the development of agriculture. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will be impressed by the views of people with some knowledge, that designation is not regarded favourably by owners of land. I hope he will listen to them, although probably he will not be impressed by them. What it really comes to is that, although most of us believe that good planning is in the interests of the country, it must be within the knowledge of everybody that there is necessarily a conflict of interest in this matter, and it is the duty of Parliament to resolve that conflict in the fairest manner possible, having regard to the interests concerned. It seems to me, with respect to this question of designation, that in both urban and rural areas the burden of planning is being carried by those people who own or occupy land or houses.
The local authority, quite properly, wishes to make a comprehensive plan of development, but land which comes under the shadow of that comprehensive designation is really, in effect, doomed in its present user; and it is impossible that people who live on that land, whether in the city or in the country, can take a very long view about the use of it. Even though the planning authority is not greedy—and we must take the noble Lord, Lord Latham's assurance, that these authorities do not want to designate more than they wish to develop—it means that for the period during which designation hangs over that part of the city or country, no one can use that land or those houses to the full. And I think that in urban areas you will get undesirable occurrences. I think you will find owners of small shops being badgered by speculative gentlemen to give up for a song what they have, so that speculators can claim the ultimate compensation. I think that that is a very real risk which does exist.
Noble Lords may say that it has occurred already, but we are trying to improve conditions; we are trying to learn from experience and to put into practice

499
the lessons we have learned. If a man knows that the shop he has now in law has virtually a maximum twelve-years' lease, it may be that someone may come along and say: "Much better take a nominal figure now and put up a shop somewhere else, and we will claim the compensation when the time comes." I may be wrong but I think that that is possible under the Bill, and I do not think that it should be possible. I think that the Government should consider how far owners and occupiers of land should be compelled to carry the financial burden of planning. Remember that on the whole—we must not now look ahead in the Bill to matters relating to compensation and betterment—the Government are making a jolly good thing out of this Bill. And in recognition of that they should not try to put on people in what I like to call the "blighted areas" the burden of planning, which we all agree is a proper development in our social life.
10.50 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I intend to say only two or three words upon this, as it is now approaching eleven o'clock. I think we have had an extremely interesting and—as I hope and believe the Government will think—an extremely valuable debate upon this point. I do not suppose there is anyone in this House, on whatever side he may sit, who does not agree with the objects which designation seeks to achieve. We are equally in agreement, I think, with the principle of town and country planning, and that does mean not only short-term planning, but long-term planning. It is the long-term planning that designation is aimed at furthering. At the same time I thought, listening to the debate, that what has been brought out is that designation is not so easy as the planners seem to think, or would like to think. I believe the reason is that planners are nearly always urban people. I am sorry that Lord Latham has left the Chamber. I am sure we all enjoyed and admired the delightful, and in many ways moving, plea that he made for housing. But that is perhaps natural on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Latham. I was going to say that he was the pundit of urban planners. He is much more than that. He is a sort of Cham, the head of the greatest local authority in the world. He
500
has responsibility for millions of people in the L.C.C. area.
I was struck by the fact, however, that there was no mention in the noble Lord's speech of agriculture, except in so far as it might conceivably affect the plan of the L.C.C. I had the impression from him that his conception of agricultural England was a potential overspill area; when he looked at a cornfield or pasture his only thought was how many houses an acre would that carry. It is very natural to him and I do not blame him for putting forward that point of view in your Lordships' House. Designation is undoubtedly open to considerable dangers. They have been stressed this evening, and I do not want to go over the ground again. But in the case of tenant farmers and owner occupiers there will be great discouragement. In the case of tenant farmers, who are nearly all on yearly tenancies, there will be a tendency not towards a flight but certainly towards a drift from designated land. The land will have either to be farmed by the landlord or to lie fallow and grow weedy and rough, like the wastes in England in the past.
I do not know if your Lordships are as familiar with the Barnet By-Pass as I am—I go along it on my way home—but up to the beginning of the war there was an area of miles on either side of the road which had gone back to complete jungle. It was potential building sites; it was in nobody's interest to farm it, and it was not farmed. That danger may threaten hundreds of thousands of acres. The position of the owner occupier will be identical or worse. He will not be able to hand it over to a landlord but will have to stay on the land and will starve it. If he puts up buildings he might be compensated for that, but that is not the aim of farming, to put up a few buildings. A farmer becomes passionately attached to his land and seeks to improve it year after year. Under designation he will tend to lose interest in the farm which he owns.
I do not know if the Government know how much agricultural land is likely to be designated. I think they ought to try and make some sort of calculation to see how big this problem is. I think this is an important problem. We in this House are always regarded as looking at these

501
problems as landlords; of course we are landlords, and it is natural we should look at it from that point of view. But we are not discussing this from the point of view of the landlord. I do not know what the Government think about the immediate future of this problem. They seem to be happy about it, but there are many people who are not happy about it, and anything which may tend to decrease food production in this country might do much more harm in this emergency than planning will do good. I hope the Government will look at this
502
equally from the agricultural as from the planning point of view. I hope they will not be proud but will consider the necessary Amendment.
LORD SAVILE: I take it that some more Amendments are to be moved individually after this. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eleven o'clock.