Sitting of 30 June 1947

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  NEWHAVEN AND SEAFORD SEA DEFENCES BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS

    Offices (Disused Warships)
    Sir Wavell Wakefieldasked the Minister of Works if, in view of the shortage of office accommodation for civil servants in the London area, temporarily evacuated to the provinces, he will conside mooring disused warships in the River Thames, in order that they can be used as temporary office accommodation to enable many civil servants to return to their homes in London.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): This suggestion has been considered but it is not practicable.
    Sir. W. Wakefield: Will the Minister issue a statement saying why in is not practicable, bearing in mind the fact that warships were used during the war for offices in many ways?
    Captain Marsden: Is the Minister aware that there are already several ships moored in the Thames, and that a further one is due for the Master Mariners? So what is impracticable?
    Mr. Key: I am advised by the Port of London Authority that the mooring of vessels of any appreciable size above London Bridge would adversely affect the
    920
    current and cause the navigable channels to silt up. If they were moored below London Bridge, they would interfere with the navigation of merchant shipping and thus cause inconvenience.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Could not smaller vessels be used instead of larger ones? Surely, it is not necessary to have large vessels only.
    Mr. Key: When we get down to the question of smaller ships, the installation of the necessary sanitation, telephones and lighting, makes the thing impracticable.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: The Minister will be aware that there is a most alarming aggregation of civil servants at Cambridge. Will he consider putting some of them into houseboats on the Cam?

    Requisitioned Premises, Edinburgh
    Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Minister of Works whether he will now derequisition the premises owned by the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company at Nos. 10–11, Rutland Square, Edinburgh, in order that the railway company may proceed with its scheme for converting these premises into six separate dwelling houses for the use of employees of the company who are at present inadequately housed.
    Mr. Key: I regret that the retention of these premises by my Department is necessary owing to the shortage of office accommodation in Edinburgh.
    Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: In view of the recommendations contained in the recent Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, will the Minister do his best to expedite the release of these premises?
    Mr. Key: Most certainly.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Could not use be made of ships in the Firth of Forth?

    Accommodation, Blackpool
    Wing-Commander Roland Robinsonasked the Minister of Works whether he is aware that 32 Blackpool hotels are still held on Government requisition; that the continued maintenance of these requisitions makes it difficult for the town to cater adequately for either holidaymakers or national conferences; and whether he will consider providing permanent

    921
    accommodation within the county borough for the Government Departments concerned so as to release the hotels for their proper functions and at the same time maintain within the area the employment offered by the Civil Service.
    Mr. Key: Yes, Sir. I am aware that 32 Blackpool hotels or boarding houses are still held on Government requisition and of the difficulties experienced by the town as a result. My Department has for some time past been taking steps to provide other accommodation for the civil servants now in hotels, including the erection of new buildings in Newcastle for the Ministry of National Insurance. The question of locating some Government staffs permanently in the town is being considered but this would not enable requisitioned hotels to be released any sooner than under present arrangements.
    Wing-Commander Robinson: Can the Minister give an approximate date when these hotels will be derequisitioned? It is not good enough that they should still be held two years after the war.
    Mr. Key: No, Sir. I cannot give a date. There are certainly some cases where it will not be possible until the end of 1949.
    Mr. Edward Evans: Would the Minister
    consider first those resorts on the East and South coasts which bore the full brunt of the war rather than places like Blackpool?
    Mr. Key: I shall try in all cases to deal fairly with the claims of all seaside resorts.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: May I ask my right hon. Friend not to worry unduly about Blackpool, in view of the large number of people who prefer to sleep on the sands there—judging by its situation in the sun?

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    House of Commons Rebuilding
    Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Works if he has had prepared a complete time and progress schedule for the construction of the new House of Commons.
    Mr. Key: The rebuilding of the House of Commons involves a number of stages, each covered by a separate contract. Schedules were prepared for the earlier contracts, and that for the present and
    922
    final contract is now in the last stages of preparation.
    Mr. Bossom: Would the Minister be so good as to put a copy of that time and progress schedule in the Library so that other people can see that it is really a practicable proposition?
    Mr. Key: I will certainly give careful consideration to that suggestion.
    Sir Patrick Hannon: Will the Minister say how far he has been embarrassed in the reconstruction of the Chamber by lack of steel? Has all the steel he requires for the Chamber been supplied?
    Mr. Key: A brief look out of the window will show that the necessary steel has been made available.

    Building Repairs (Licences)
    Brigadier Raynerasked the Minister of Works whether he is aware of the increasing dilapidation of property, which is caused by the present ruling that total repairs authorised by any local authority must be strictly limited to the figure imposed by the present weekly ceiling; and when he anticipates it will be possible to raise this ceiling.
    Mr. Key: I regret that, with the present shortages of building labour and materials, it is necessary to limit the amount of maintenance and repair work which is licensed. The licensing ceilings are intended as a guide to the amount of building work which can be done with the available labour and materials including work under statutory notices and statutory directions. Restrictions can be relaxed as the pressure of demand for building work eases and labour and materials become more plentiful.
    Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of Works the number of licences and their value that have been granted for building repairs by his Department and, separately, by the local authorities in the London region for each month, January to May inclusive, in each case showing, respectively, the amounts for housing and non-housing repairs and the overall ratio of housing and non-housing licences in terms of value.
    Mr. Key: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the value of the licences that have been issued for building

    923
    repairs by my Department and by the local authorities in the London region. Information regarding the number of licences is not readily available.
    Following are the details:
    In money value licences for building repairs in the London Region have been granted by the Ministry of Works and by the local authorities as follows:

    HOUSING REPAIRS.

    1947

    Issued by Ministry 0f Works.

    Issued by Local Authorities.

    Ratio.

    £

    £

    Per cent.

    January

    …

    430,679

    1,160,934

    60

    February

    …

    331.827

    2,269,307

    57

    March

    …

    76,907

    2,171,194

    48

    April

    …

    24,281

    2,526.045

    50

    May

    …

    32,260

    2,927.653

    57

    895.954

    11,.055.133

    54

    NON-HOUSING REPAIRS.

    1947.

    Over £100 issued by Ministry of Works.

    Under £100 issued by Local Authorities.

    Ratio.

    £

    £

    Per cent.

    January

    …

    823,000

    226,728

    40

    February

    …

    1,688,702

    283,372

    43

    March

    …

    2.153.533

    244.946

    52

    April

    …

    2,343.730

    222,910

    50

    May

    …

    1,950.635

    305,610

    43

    8,959,600

    1,283,566

    46

    Note.—These figures relate only to building repairs for which building licences were granted. The approximate 60: 40 ratio between housing and other work relates to the building programme as a whole including new housing and other work to provide additional dwelling accommodation.

    New British Embassy, Rome (Competitive Design)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Works if he will consider instituting an open or limited competition for the design of the new British embassy in Rome on terms which will ensure fair consideration of entries by architects younger and more experimental than those usually commissioned to design public buildings.
    Mr. Key: I will certainly consider the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend, but I must bear in mind the
    924
    fact that in the case of an important building of this kind, experience and knowledge of the requirements may be of as great importance as ability to produce an experimental design.
    Mr. Driberg: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, admirable to some tastes as the work of Sir Giles Gilbert Scott may seem, he is not the only living architect?

    Corn Exchange, Braintree (Emergency Repairs)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Works if he is aware of the serious deterioration of the roof of the Corn Exchange, Braintree, during the period of its requisitioning; and if he will facilitate emergency repairs which will make this building safe to use for the weekly market.
    Mr. Key: I am aware that the roof is in bad condition. Any application for a building licence for emergency repairs will be treated sympathetically so far as the availability of materials permits.
    Mr. Driberg: When treating it sympathetically, would my right hon. Friend and his Department bear in mind that the condition of the roof was first brought to their notice some 16 months ago, when immediate repairs might have prevented it from getting a lot worse?
    Mr. Key: No such application was made to us at that time. If any application is made, I shall give it very careful consideration.
    Mr. Driberg: I think my right hon. Friend misheard me. I did not say "application." At that time it was in the charge of the Minister, and he did not do anything about it.

    Royal Parks (Litter)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Works what is the estimated cost of picking up and removing the litter left by the public in the Royal Parks; and what is the estimated cost of obtaining the evidence for more prosecutions, which might end the nuisance.
    Mr. Key: The average weekly cost of collecting fitter in the Royal Parks amounts to £236. The obtaining of evidence for prosecutions depends to a large extent on the willingness of the public to co-operate and is not a matter of cost.
    Mr. Keeling: Would the Minister consider again whether a few prosecutions, with publicity for convictions, would not stop this litter habit, which in the Royal Parks is the worst possible advertisement for English manners and customs?
    Mr. Key: I am not against considering that but, quite definitely, I regard prosecutions as being the worst type of social education. I think much more is to be done by encouraging people to co-operate in this matter, rather than taking the opportunity of trying to inflict punishment.
    Mr. Medlicott: Does not my right hon. Friend think that part of the difficulty is due to the fact that there seems to be an insufficient supply of litter baskets, and could he persuade the Metropolitan boroughs to increase the number in order to get people into the right habits?
    Mr. Key: I am not at all certain that I want to see a great number of litter baskets fixed on to trees in the Royal Parks.
    Mr. Piratin: Would my right hon. Friend consider placing in the parks more notices containing some explanatory statement rather than the present ones which are rather of a legal kind?
    Mr. Key: I will certainly give consideration to that suggestion.

    Roads, St. James's Park (Resurfacing)
    Mr. David Ecclesasked the Minister of Works when Constitution Hill, the Mall and other carriage roads in St. James's Park will be resurfaced.
    Mr. Key: Resurfacing of the road from The Mall to Storey's Gate and parts of Constitution Hill will begin in five or six weeks' time. The resurfacing of Marlborough Gate is due to begin a month later.
    Mr. Eccles: Can the Minister assure us that this will not be just patching but complete resurfacing?
    Mr. Key: As I understand it, I said "resurfacing" and by that I mean resurfacing and not patching.

  INDIA

    Anglo-Indians and Europeans
    Mr. Gammonsasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what reply he
    926
    has sent, or proposes to send, to the request made by the Anglo-Indian and domiciled European communities of India that they should be established in a homeland of their own and that, in particular, facilities should be provided for them to settle in the Andaman and Nicobar islands.
    The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Arthur Henderson): A representation has been received from a body called the Britasian League of Calcutta, but it is not considered that any such scheme is practical or desirable, particularly in view of the policy of the Anglo-Indian Association, which regards this scheme as impracticable.
    Mr. Gammans: Do the Government accept in principle the responsibility for finding a homeland for the Anglo-Indian community, for whom we have a special responsibility, if they do not desire to remain either in Hindustan or Pakistan?
    Mr. Henderson: That is a hypothetical question. The only information which we have is a statement made in February of this year on behalf of the Anglo-Indian Association, that while it is not against individuals emigrating if they choose, it will not officially sponsor any such idea.

    Indian Army (Future)
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is yet in a position to make a statement in regard to the future of the Indian Army.
    Mr. A. Henderson: This matter is under urgent consideration in India, and I have, therefore, nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 3rd June.
    Sir T. Moore: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware of the deep anxiety amongst all ranks and communities in this magnificent volunteer Army. Would the Government, therefore, take the earliest possible steps to allay that anxiety?
    Mr. Henderson: This matter is obviously a question which will have to be settled by the major interests in India itself, and not here.

  BURMA

    Rehabilitation (British Assistance)
    Mr. Gammansasked the Under-Secretary of State for Burma if, in view of the fact that the Constituent Assembly of Burma has adopted a resolution severing Burma's connection with the British Commonwealth, it is proposed to discontinue any further payments from British funds for the rehabilitation of Burma.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Burma (Mr. Arthur Henderson): No, Sir. It is not proposed to discontinue the financial assistance already promised in regard to the present Burma financial year, which ends on 30th September.
    Mr. Gammans: Is the Minister satisfied that the money which is being advanced from the British taxpayer is being used for the purpose of reconstruction in the country, and will he say what conceivable justification there is for asking the British taxpayer to pour out money into a country which has announced its intention of leaving the British Commonwealth?
    Mr. Henderson: In regard to the first part of the question, I think we may take it that the Government of Burma have not misappropriated or wrongly expended any advances which have been made by this country. In regard to the second part, I am quite sure that the House would not expect His Majesty's Government to initiate any policy in the nature of a sanction merely because the Constituent Assembly have passed a resolution which it is quite within their competence to do.
    Mr. Keeling: Would the Minister give an assurance that there will be no payment after 30th September to countries outside the British Commonwealth?
    Mr. Henderson: It is quite impossible for me at this stage to commit His Majesty's Government either one way or the other with regard to that matter.

    U.N.O. Membership
    Mr. Thomas Reidasked the Under-Secretary of State for Burma if the Government of Burma has officially notified him that it wishes to become a member of U.N.O.
    Mr. A. Henderson: Yes, Sir.

  GERMANY

    Property Transfers
    Mr. Bramallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in returning to the German trade unions the property stolen from them in 1933.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): A Control Council Directive of 29th April, 1947, provides that approved trade unions may request the transfer of real property belonging to similar unions before 1933. Instructions for implementing the directive are now being worked out; meanwhile, the trade unions have, in as many cases as possible, been granted the use of former trade union property.
    Mr. Bramallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any instructions have yet been given to the German legal authorities to ensure that transfers of property between Germans made under racial laws between 1933 and 1945 shall not be recognised as legal.
    Mr. Mayhew: No such instructions have been given, but property of which persons have been deprived under duress is protected in the British Zone by Military Government Law 52, which proscribes any transaction in such property without the sanction of Military Government.
    Mr. Bramall: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many forced sales-of property of this type were made under apparently legal cover?
    Mr. Mayhew: I have no doubt that that factor is being considered.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that in the considerations about the draft treaty with Germany consideration is being given to embodying Clauses with regard to this matter on the same lines as those contained in the treaties recently signed and ratified?
    Mr. Mayhew: I could not answer that without notice, I am afraid.

    U.S.A. Employee (Trial)
    Mr. Bramallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Kurt Berger, a stateless Jew of German origin, normally resident in the United Kingdom and employed by the

    929
    U.S. authorities in Germany, was tried by a German court in the British zone of Germany and imprisoned while wearing U.S. uniform; and whether these proceedings were in accordance with the policy of his Department.
    Mr. Mayhew: The papers which my hon. Friend left with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have been sent to Germany for investigation and report. I will let him have a reply as soon as the report is received.
    Mr. Bratmall: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the charge on which this man was arraigned before a German court was that of striking a Nazi who had been responsible for sending his parents to a concentration camp?
    Mr. Mayhew: I do not think I could comment on this case until we have had the report.

    Control Commission Officers (Charges)
    Mr. Beswickasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the five German Control Commission officials charged before the Control Commission High Court at Minden on 13th June for the illegal acquisition of cutlery and silver and for the illegal export of goods, including sapphires and brilliants, are still in the employ of the Control Commission.
    Mr. Mayhew: In all, seven British officers were charged before the Control Commission High Court at Minden on nth June with varying offences, only one being charged with illegal export of goods. All seven officers were suspended from duty before the trial. Two were acquitted on all charges and have been re-instated. Two were found guilty and fined 10s. They also have been reinstated. I understand that one of these officers has appealed against the fine. The remaining three officers are still before the court on other charges and continue under suspension.
    Mr. Beswick: Even though some of these men were found not guilty under the law in Germany, does not my hon. Friend believe that the conduct in respect of which these men were charged is precisely the kind of conduct which has brought discredit upon the Control Commission in Germany, and will he, there-
    930
    fore, not look again into the question of their continued employment?
    Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. The character of these officers was vindicated at the trial, and I do not think that that is called for.
    Mr. Bramall: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that one of the officers, who was himself acquitted, was the head of the section in which the other people who were found guilty were operating, and will he say whether he associates himself with the statement of the court concerned that the illegal acquisition of cutlery and silver in Germany is no more serious than exceeding the speed limit?
    Mr. Mayhew: On the second part, there is a further Question on the Order Paper, and I have nothing to say on that. On the first part, I am being invited to comment on the work of the court, and, obviously, I shall not do that.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does the hon. Gentleman think that officials who have been found guilty, although fined only 10s., should still be members of this Commission?
    Mr. Mayhew: I have already answered that point when I said that the fine of 10s. indicates that these offences were not sufficient, in view of the vindication of the character of these officials by the judge, to call for that action.
    Mr. Beswick: In view of the remark which the judge made at that trial, does my hon. Friend really think—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not anticipate a Question which he himself has put down on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Beswickasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the remark of the judge of the Control Commission, High Court, in fining the Deputy Controller of the Light Metal Production branch 10s. for the illegal acquisition of silver, to the effect that the offence was no worse than breaking the speed limit; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. Mayhew: I presume that my hon. Friend is referring to the fine imposed on the Director of the Non-Ferrous Section. This case is going to Appeal, and it would be undesirable to comment on any aspect of the case which is still sub judice.
    Mr. Beswick: Does my hon. Friend really consider that a remark of this kind is calculated to encourage those members of the Commission who are trying to do a job of work conscientiously? Does he not think it is absolutely fantastic that a person guilty of the behaviour—even though not illegal behaviour—outlined in the report should be permitted to remain in the employment of the Control Commission?
    Mr. Mayhew: I do not think I can go beyond what I have said, that I prefer not to comment on this matter while it is sub judice.
    Several Hon. Members
    Mr. Speaker: As the matter is sub judice we ought not to pursue it.

    Food Queues
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, as a result of the fact that inhabitants in the British zone of Germany do not have to register with specific shops for the supply of groceries and foods generally, Germans are suffering needlessly from the fruitless hours spent in queuing, and from the day-to-day uncertainly regarding the source and availability of the next day's food; and whether he will now take steps to remedy this state of affairs.
    Mr. Mayhew: This matter has been carefully considered on more than one occasion. The German administration recently studied the possibility of introducing consumer registration, and reached the conclusion, with which both the British and American authorities agree, that it is not practicable at present. Stocks of food are insufficient to provide each shop with an adequate stock; and this is essential if a registration scheme is to operate successfully.

    Interned German Officers
    Major Beamishasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many German army, navy and air force officers interned in military camps in Germany have not been brought to trial; how many have been moved to civilian internment centres and for what reason; and whether he is aware of the growing feeling of responsible British people in Germany that the retention of large numbers of
    932
    German servicemen as ardent militarists, nationalists and National Socialists more than two years after the end of the war requires immediate justification.
    Mr. Mayhew: Such officers are not normally brought to trial. Their cases are examined by Special Boards, who determine whether they should be released or retained in internment on security grounds. There are 213 officers in military camps, all but eight of whom have been, or are in the procees of being, examined. One hundred and sixty-two officers have already been moved to civil internment camps for continued detention on the ground that they are a potential danger to our occupation. The answer to the last part of the Question is, "No. Sir."

    Industry and Land (Policy)
    Major Beamishasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the decision of the British Government to nationalise industry and to conduct land reform in the British zone of Germany is meeting increasingly strenuous opposition from Germans; and if he will explain more fully the grounds on which these decisions have been taken by His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. There is no opposition in principle to either measure, both of which are in accordance with the programmes of all major political parties in the British zone. Any opposition is therefore concerned only with the details. My right hon. Friend has already explained the grounds on which the decision to transfer German heavy industries to public ownership and control has been taken, notably in his statement to this House on 22nd October last year. As to land reform, I would remind the hon. and gallant Member of the decision taken at the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers that the Control Council should ensure the carrying out and completion of land reform in all zones of Germany by the end of 1947.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what he could not tell us last week—what is the attitude of the United States on the question of industrial nationalisation and land reform?
    Mr. Mayhew: As I said last week, that is another question.

    School, Dusseldorf
    Mr. Edward Evansasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, how many adults and how many children of school age are housed at present in the Munster Strasse Bunher, Dusseldorf.
    Mr. Mayhew: One hundred and ninety adults and 90 children under 14 years of age are housed in this bunker.
    Mr. Evans: Can the Minister say at what rate these people are being rehoused, and for how long are they likely to remain without proper dwellings?
    Mr. Mayhew: I should require notice of that question.
    Mr. E. Evansasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many children attend the school situated in the Munster Strasse Bunher, Dusseldorf, each day; how many teachers are employed; and when the repairs to the school they would normally attend will be completed.
    Mr. Mayhew: Eight hundred and forty-two children attend this school; of these 164 receive the equivalent of full-time instruction, and 678 part-time. Sixteen teachers are employed. The German authorities are responsible for the allocation of the very limited materials available for the repair of buildings. They hope that repairs to the normal school building will be completed by November.
    Mr. Evans: Would the Minister say how many school sessions and how many groups of children are involved?
    Mr. Mayhew: I could not say without notice.

  RUSSIAN-BORN WIVES
  Mr. Hollisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further statement to make on the release of all Russian-born wives of British citizens.
  Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if a reply has yet been received from M. Kuznetsov with regard to the Russian wives of ex-Service men who are unable to join their husbands in this country.
  Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) on 23rd June.
  Mr. Hollis: Can the Under-Secretary tell us whether the Foreign Secretary has made any reply to the request made by the husbands of these ladies that the matter should be brought up at the present Conference?
  Mr. Mayhew: I will make sure that my right hon. Friend knows of that suggestion, but I can see that he might well think that an appropriate occasion would not arise.
  Mr. Eden: May I ask one question on No. 43? Am I right in thinking that M. Kuznetsov said he would look into this matter himself when he got back to Moscow, and has any communication been received from him?
  Mr. Mayhew: M. Kuznetsov gave his report on the visit of the Delegation on 10th June. We have still not received a reply from him to the letter sent to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.

  HUNGARY

    Presidency
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information from the British representative on the Allied Control Commission in regard to the present position of the President of the Hungarian State; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mayhew: I have no information which leads me to suppose that President Tildy is not exercising his powers as President of the Hungarian Republic.
    Sir T. Moore: Is the Foreign Secretary generally satisfied with the situation in Hungary?
    Mr. Tiffany: Is my hon. Friend aware that I myself had a discussion with President Tildy on 10th June, and that he expressed the view that he had full freedom to carry out his duties as President and was not impeded in any way?

    Electoral Law
    Professor Savoryasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that the present Hungarian Government proposes to carry out a purge of electors, which would mean that between 180,000 and 200,000 would be disfranchised; and

    935
    whether he will protest against this, in view of Article III of the treaty, as well as of the Yalta and Potsdam Agreements.
    Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend has received reports that the Hungarian Government are preparing a revised electoral law, the object of which would be the exclusion from their suffrage rights of elements said to be anti-democratic. His Majesty's Government cannot decide whether a protest will be called for until they can judge what the effect will be of any such law promulgated.
    Professor Savory: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the term "antidemocratic" is extremely elastic, and that under this term a very large number of citizens may be disfranchised?
    Mr. John E. Haire: Has my hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the fact that in a statement attributed to one of the Hungarian Vice-Premiers the other day, it was stated that no change in the franchise was contemplated?
    Mr Mayhew: I have not had my attention drawn to that report, but I have seen a newspaper report to the contrary recently.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: Can the Minister state what the Hungarian Government means by "undemocratic"? Have they defined that expression? Does it mean "anti-Communist," or what?

    Arrests
    Professor Savoryasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Monsieur Tibor Ham, a smallholder deputy, who is one of 43 Hungarians on trial for conspiracy against the State, stated in open court that he had been treated in such a manner that he was unconscious for nearly a week and because of his treatment in prison he did not know what he had signed in a deposition read to the court, accusing the ex-Premier, Mr. Nagy; and whether he will protest, through the British representative in Budapest, against this treatment of opposition deputies, in violation of Article III of the treaty with Hungary.
    Mr. Mayhew: According to my information, Mr. Ham stated in his evidence on 17th June that he had been treated in such a manner that he was reduced to a state in which he might have signed any-
    936
    thing. As the hon. Member is aware, the Peace Treaty with Hungary is not yet in force. Nevertheless, the publicity which this Question has given to the case will, I am sure, impress upon the Hungarian Government the attention with which such events are followed by Members of this House, and indeed by the whole outside world. It will also bring home to them the fact that when the Treaty comes into force His Majesty's Government for their part do not intend to acquiesce in the violation of Article 2.
    Professor Savory: Heartiest thanks.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does the hon. Gentleman think that pious hopes of this kind have the slightest effect on a Communist Government?
    Mr. Mayhew: Silence on this matter might be taken as tacit approval.
    Mr. Pritt: Has the hon. Gentleman any evidence whatever that Mr. Ham was telling the truth?
    Mr. Mayhew: I have nothing to add to the statement I have read.

    Soviet Government (British Note)
    Mr. Blackburnasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received any further reply from the Soviet Government to his last note, with respect to the recent Hungarian crisis-Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir.

  BRITISH INFORMATION SERVICES, U.S.A. (COST)
  Mr. Orbachasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the total annual cost of running the British Information Services in the U.S.A.
  Mr. Mayhew: The total estimated expenditure is £32,621 net for the Embassy Information Office and £327,440 net for the British Information Services.

  JAPANESE WHALING EXPEDITION, ANTARCTIC
  Mr. T. Reidasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Far Eastern Commission or the U.S. authorities in Japan control policy regarding Japanese whale fishing in the Antarctic;

  937
  and what steps he is taking to protest against the second Japanese whaling ex-pidition sanctioned by the U.S. authorities against the wishes of the Australian Government.
  Mr. Harrisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the protest made to the U.S. State Department, regarding permission being granted on two occasions for Japanese whaling expeditions to operate in the Antarctic by the U.S. authorities, have resulted in assurances that proper consultation with other Powers will take place before any further permits are issued.
  Dr. Haden Guestasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that a second whaling expedition to the Antarctic has been authorised by the General Officer Commanding the Occupation Forces in Japan without prior consultation with the Governments of Australia and New Zealand; and what conditions have been imposed on Japanese whalers to prevent a destructive inroad into an important source of world fat supplies by indiscriminate slaughter of whales.
  Mr. Mayhew: The U.S. Government did not consult with the other interested Governments, which include the Governments of the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, before authorising the second Japanese whaling expedition in the Antarctic. Our Ambassador in Washington is being instructed to re-open this question with the United States Government.

  FORMOSA (RIOTS)
  Mr. Wilson Harrisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information about the riots and massacres in Formosa in March; what is the present situation in the island; and whether the allocation of Formosa to China is definitive or provisional.
  Mr. Mayhew: As a result of local discontent over alleged misrule, serious rioting and bloodshed occurred in Formosa at the end of February and beginning of March. Order was restored following the despatch of Chinese Government troops to the island. A new Governor has been appointed and, a number of reforms effected. No further incidents have been reported since the end of March. As
  938
  regards the last part of the question, it was agreed in the Cairo Declaration of December, 1943, that Formosa should be returned to China. It is the view of His Majesty's Government that formal transfer of territories formerly owned or annexed by Japan must await the eventual Peace Conference with Japan.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: Will my hon. Friend say what was the estimated number of deaths in these massacres; does he not agree that a very unsatisfactory situation was revealed as taking place in Formosa; has he the matter under observation; and has he asked the Far Eastern Commission and the Inter-Allied Control Council to intervene to promote a balanced administration in the country?
  Mr. Mayhew: On the first part of the supplementary question, some 800 For-mosans and Chinese are reported to have been killed in the suppression of the rioting, and a reliable observer has said that at least 250 mainland Chinese were killed in the rioting of 28th February last. On the second part of the Question, the Far Eastern Commission and the Control Council would not have any responsibility here, as Formosa has been under Chinese administration and remains so.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: Do I understand from that reply that, whatever the responsibility for riots and massacres of this order, no steps should be taken by the Allies?
  Mr. Mayhew: The formal transfer of this territory must await the Peace Conference with Japan.

  BRITISH AUTHOR'S FLAT, FLORENCE (RESTORATION)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that a flat at 24, Lungarno delle Grazie, Florence, Italy, the property of Mr. Norman Douglas, has been occupied at a nominal rent since 1941 by Italian Fascists; that repeated notices to quit have been unavailing, despite an assurance given to Mr. Douglas on behalf of the property adviser to the British Embassy, Rome, that the flat would probably be restored to him last March; that considerable inconvenience and hardship are thus caused to a distinguished author who is, moreover, debarred from

  939
  access to his own library; and if he will take steps to secure the return of this property at once.
  Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir. It is the responsibility of the local authorities to evict tenants. Under the existing law, the legal process to effect this cannot be commenced until reconsignment of the property has been completed. In Mr. Douglas's case a request for reconsignment was made to the Italian authorities last January, but the formalities were not completed by the Italian authorities till 5th May. His Majesty's Ambassador at Rome has repeatedly drawn the attention of the Italian authorities to the difficulties and delays which British subjects are experiencing in recovering their properties, and in Mr. Douglas's case has pressed for his flat to be restored to him.
  Mr. Driberg: While thanking my hon. Friend very warmly for his reply, may I ask if he will bear in mind that this most distinguished writer will be 80 years old next birthday, and that this flat and its contents are the only modest piece of property which he has to leave to his sons, who are in various parts of the world, and will he, therefore, intensify his representations?
  Mr. Mayhew: I agree with the spirit of the supplementary question. I will do all I can.

  ECONOMIC SURVEY
  Mr. Frank Byersasked the Prime Minister if he will arrange to have produced, before the end of July, an economic survey, 1947–48, showing the estimated economic position of this country, together with the Government's proposals for achieving an import-export balance.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir. An economic survey for the calendar year has already been published, and I do not think it is desirable to issue a fresh survey for an overlapping period. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a statement about the import programme today.
  Mr. Byers: Is the prime Minister aware that this import-export deficit is increasing monthly, and is it not about time
  940
  that the Government produced plans for dealing with it? Has not the country the right to know what is happening?
  The Prime Minister: That does not involve the issue of a second economic survey.
  Mr. W. J. Brown: In view of the fact that many of the figures given in the economic survey are now palpably out of date, does the Prime Minister contemplate any action that will put the country into possession of a more up-to-date conspectus of the situation which we have to face?
  The Prime Minister: Statements will be made from time to time. The specific question I was asked was whether there should be another economic survey. The hon. Gentleman will know that Government publications necessarily get out of date after a certain time. We cannot have annual surveys published monthly.
  Dr. Guest: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that Question No. 44 was not called?
  Mr. Speaker: Questions Nos. 32, 36 and 44 were taken together. I looked at the hon. Gentleman, thinking that he would ask a supplementary question.
  Dr. Guest: I regret I did not hear my Question called. Question No. 44 is really quite a different and wider question.
  Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but I did look at the hon. Gentleman, thinking he might want to ask a supplementary question.

  BRITISH COMMONWEALTH AND EMPIRE (DEFENCE)
  Mr. T. Reidasked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that any country which leaves the Empire, thus becoming a foreign country, will not automatically have its defence shared by Great Britain, and that the Governments of the Commonwealth and Empire will be consulted before any decisions regarding the security of such foreign countries are made.
  The Prime Minister: Any proposal to share defence responsibilities in a case of this kind must obviously be a matter for negotiation and treaty with the Govern-

  941
  ment concerned. In the event of such a situation arising, the normal procedure as regards consultation with other countries of the Commonwealth would be followed.
  Sir Ronald Ross: Is there any Treaty as regards the defence of Eire, or is it regarded as part of the Empire?
  The Prime Minister: I would like notice of that question.
  Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Has the Prime Minister any reason to regard the original Question as other than purely hypothetical?

  EIRE AND NORTHERN IRELAND
  Mr. Delargyasked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the statement made in Dail Eireann on 24th June, 1947, by the Prime Minister of Eire, to the effect that a simple declaration from the British Government that it was their desire to see partition ended, and that, if an agreement were reached between the people of the two parts of Ireland, His Majesty's Government would not hesitate to give it effect, would help towards a solution of the problem; and whether he will consider making such a declaration.
  The Prime Minister: I have seen reports of the statement by Mr. de Valera to which my hon. Friend refers. It has been made clear on many occasions that it is the policy of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to maintain and develop by all practicable means the closest relations between Great Britain and both Northern Ireland and Eire, and to facilitate the solution of any outstanding questions. But I do not consider that this policy would be assisted by the making of a statement on the lines suggested in my hon. Friend's Question.
  Mr. Delargy: Is the Prime Minister aware that such a simple declaration, which would not involve the Government in any immediate policy, would give great satisfaction in both parts of Ireland, and would also help to strengthen our friendship with the United States of America, where this question is regarded with very great interest?
  The Prime Minister: I can only repeat that I do not think it would be helpful to make that statement.
  Professor Savory: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recollect that this question was definitely settled by the Tripartite Agreement of December, 1925— which was ratified by overwhelming majorities of both Houses of Parliament sitting in Dublin—by which the existing frontier was guaranteed?

  AGRICULTURE

    Hay Balers
    Mr. John Morrisonasked the Minister of Agriculture how many one-man pick-up hay balers are in use in this country; how many have been imported; and what steps are being taken to encourage their production in this country.
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): It is estimated that about 400 one-man pick-up balers are now in the country. Fifty-two were imported from Germany before the war, and 91 have been imported from the United States, mostly during this year. The remainder have been made in this country during the last few years, and both the existing manufacturers and others are being encouraged to arrange for further production.

    Fowl Pest
    Mr. Medlicottasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the in crease in the number of cases of fowl pest which have occurred during the pre sent month; and what steps are being taken to prevent the further spread of this disease and to remove its cause.
    Mr. T. Williams: Yes Sir. Poultry keepers are under an obligation to report to the police any suspicion of fowl pest. By early intimation of the existence of the disease, the spread of infection can be prevented, and I urge all poultry keepers, in their own interests, to report immediately all suspected cases. As regards removing the cause, as I have already said in answer to previous Questions, the importation of live poultry has been prohibited, and the importation of frozen poultry from Europe is being limited to headless and eviscerated carcases. Further, I have made an Order under the Diseases of Animals Acts requiring all poultry waste to be boiled before birds are allowed access to it. Where deemed necessary, special restrictions on the holding of markets have been, and will be, imposed.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these Orders which he has issued are applicable all over Great Britain, or only in England and Wales?
    Mr. Williams: I can only speak for England and Wales.

    Steel Traps
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he intends to accept the steel spring traps now adopted by the R.S.P.C.A. as suitable for general use in the countryside; and if he will inform A.E.Cs. to this effect.
    Mr. T. Williams: I assume the hon. and gallant Member refers to the trap designed by Mr. Sawyer, of Wiltshire, some handmade models of which were tested by my Department with promising results at a trial in Hertfordshire last March. I understand that this model has been further improved and that the R.S.P.C.A. are now arranging for its production in some quantity. As soon as the necessary supply is available, I shall be glad to arrange for a comprehensive test of its efficiency to be made in collaboration with the R.S.P.C.A.
    Sir T. Moore: Thank you very much.

    Access to Mountains Act
    Mr. Granville Sharpasked the Minister of Agriculture what is the approximate acreage of excepted land under the Access to Mountains Act, 1939; and how many orders have been made under the Act, and what is the approximate acreage involved, denying access to mountains, moor, heath, down or cliff.
    Mr. T. Williams: I am unable to give figures of the acreage of excepted land as defined in Section 2 (2) of the Access to Mountains Act, 1939. So far, no one has applied for an Order under the Act, and, therefore, no orders have been made.
    Mr. Sharp: Can my right hon. Friend say whether public rights of access have increased or diminished since the passing of the 1939 Act?
    Mr. Williams: I am afraid I could not answer that question without notice.
    Mr. Sharpasked the Minister of Agriculture why ramblers' associations and other organisations which desire access to land not excepted under the Access to Mountains Act, 1939, are put
    944
    to considerable expense in establishing rights of access which were given to them under the Act; and what action he proposes taking to prevent this contravention of the intention of the Act.
    Mr. T. Williams: I am not aware that the intention of the Act (which specially authorises the charging of fees) has been contravened. The means of providing access for the public to mountain, moor, heath, and other uncultivated land, with particular reference to the recreational use of the countryside by the public, is however, being considered by a special committee under the Chairmanship of Sir Arthur Hobhouse, appointed by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Town and Country Planning in July, 1946. It would be best for any reexamination of the provisions of the Access to Mountains Act, 1939, and the Regulations made thereunder (including those provisions dealing with fees and expenses to be paid by applicants for Orders under the Act), to await the committee's report.
    Mr. Sharp: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, in view of the fact that the intentions of the 1939 Act to give increased access to ramblers and others have not been carried out, it is proposed that fresh legislation should be introduced to give effect to those intentions?
    Mr. Williams: I am afraid it would be necessary to await the Report of the Hobhouse Committee before we contemplate further legislation.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many old-established rights of way are still closed in the countryside, and will he, in the interests of agriculture, use his influence with the Service Departments to have them opened up as soon as possible?
    Mr. Williams: That is a perpetual problem.

    Fruit-Tree Stocks
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is his policy to raise the quantity and quality of tree fruit grown in the United Kingdom; at what prices fruit growers can purchase representative grafted stocks for the purpose of establishing or extending orchards, in comparison with prewar prices; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. T. Williams: It is my policy to encourage the expansion of acreage under fruit of all kinds, as far as labour and materials permit. There are no fixed prices for young fruit trees, but I understand that prevailing prices, which inevitably reflect the rise in labour costs, are about double the prewar level. All restrictions on the acreage devoted to nursery stock have now been withdrawn, and nurserymen are being encouraged to revert to their prewar output. Licences are also being granted for the import of suitable fruit stock to assist in this revival.
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Agriculture at what prices grafted maiden apple trees are now being sold by nursery men; what were equivalent representative prices before the war; and if he will, in order to reduce the ring prices now being charged and to ensure an adequate supply of suitable stock, consider establishing Government nurseries for fruit-tree stocks on the analogy of the national stud.
    Mr. T. Williams: There are very few maiden apple trees available for sale by nurserymen at present, and I understand that prices are not quoted for this type of tree by the Horticultural Trades' Association. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a similar Question on 21st October last.
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has particulars of the scheme in operation in Switzerland for improving the quality of orchard tree fruits by subsidising the grafting of poor quality trees; and whether he will consider the adoption of a similar scheme in this country.
    Mr. T. Williams: I have no information about this scheme, but the practice of grafting is, of course, well known in this country and used extensively by growers of fruit trees. The Ministry's National Agricultural Advisory Service is available to give advice on this subject, and I do not consider that there is any need for a subsidy.

    Fenlands (Flood Protection)
    Mr. Dyeasked the Minister of Agriculture whether a scheme for flood protection of the Fenlands has now been prepared; when it can be commenced;
    946
    and what financial assistance will be given by His Majesty's Government.
    Mr. T. Williams: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the scheme for the prevention of flooding in the lowland section of the River Great Ouse Catchment Area. Such a scheme was prepared and received my Department's approval in principle in 1942, and a grant of 75 per cent. of the estimated cost of £2,200,000 was offered, but because of the war it was not possible for the Catchment Board to proceed. The scheme will shortly be re-submitted to my Department, but, from lessons learnt during the recent floods, certain revisions in the scheme have proved necessary. A preliminary discussion took place last week between my Department and representatives of the Catchment Board. The scheme will take at least seven years to complete. The offer of a 75 per cent. grant to the Board toward the cost of the earlier scheme which was made in 1942 holds good. The rate of grant on the cost of the revised scheme over and above the original amount needs further and fuller consideration. This will be given as soon as full particulars of the engineering involved have been received and examined.
    Mr. Berry: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the surplus water which it is sought to prevent going over the land, is used usefully for the purpose of water supplies and also for other industrial purposes.
    Mr. Williams: I think, perhaps, that is a dual problem to be dealt with by the National Water Committee as well as by the drainage authorities.

    Bare Fallowing
    Mr. Dyeasked the Minister of Agriculture, whether he will take the necessary steps to ensure the proper cleaning of all fields uncropped or bare through crop failures this year; and whether in 1948 he will prohibit bare fallowing of land without special permission of the A.E.C.s.
    Mr. T. Williams: Any farmer who has been unable to crop his land this year, or whose crops have failed owing to the disastrous weather of the past winter, is likely, in his own interest, to take all practicable steps to clean the land by fallowing this summer, so as to get maximum

    947
    yields next season as a partial recoupment of his losses. It is also part of the normal functions of county agricultural executive committees and of the National Agricultural Advisory Service to give guidance to farmers about the proper cleaning of their land. As regards the second part of the Question, I have already announced that farmers will have freedom of cropping in 1948, and it would be inconsistent with this announcement to prohibit the bare fallowing of land without the special permission of county committees.
    Mr. Dye: In view of the urgent need for more food, is it not very desirable that every acre of land should be cropped next year and that no land should be left lying fallow?
    Mr. Williams: I sincerely hope that the maximum acreage of land will be cropped next year. When Clause 11 of the new Agriculture Bill is brought into operation, the county executive committees will have power to insist that land available for food production shall be so used.
    Captain Crookshank: Will the farmer whose land has been completely flooded as a result of the disasters this year, be able to get any financial assistance, and if so, from where?
    Mr. Williams: I imagine that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring to the administration of the Agricultural Disaster Fund, over which I have no control.
    Captain Crookshank: I was referring to questions which I asked last week, to which I got no answer.
    Mr. Williams: The same answer is available today.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that farmers on the last Fen to be flooded have been told by the Agricultural Committee not to crop this year, and will he bear in mind that some of the smaller men will find it extremely difficult to carry on.
    Mr. Williams: I expect the county agricultural executive committees will exercise their authority in a wise sort of way.

    Home-grown Seeds
    Mr. Parkinasked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to
    948
    encourage the use of home-grown seeds, in order that experience gained during the war may be consolidated and strains of plants specially suited to this country may be still further developed.
    Mr. T. Williams: I would refer my hon Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Philips Price) on 20th May last.

    Grantham Productions, Ltd. (Tractors)
    Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will publish the report made by his technical officers on the tractors submitted for trial by Grantham Productions; how much steel has been allocated to this factory for the past six months; how many of these tractors have so far been supplied to farmers; and how many he has ordered for use by his A.E.Cs.
    Mr. T. Williams: In the absence of an official test by the National Institute of Agricultural Engineering, the report I have received on the working of this tractor is confidential, but, as indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) on 24th June, it was reported to be satisfactory. No steel has been allocated since July, 1946. A limited number of these tractors had been produced by the time the firm went into liquidation, but it is not the practice to disclose the production figures of individual firms without their express permission. I am not aware how many of these tractors have actually been supplied to farmers. None have been ordered for use by county agricultural executive committees.
    Mr. Hurd: Will the Minister say how these tractors are being manufactured if no steel has been allocated, and will he be quite frank with the House and admit that he and his Department are being used as a screen for a rather questionable financial transaction?
    Mr. Williams: I thoroughly disagree with the supplementary question. I do not think my Department or its officials are being used by anybody in the sense indicated. All that the Ministry of Agriculture is called upon to do, if a licence for production of any equipment or machine is requested, is to be present

    949
    when some test or tests are made of the particular machines. That, I understand, was done, and, on the basis of that demonstration, the licence was granted. Beyond that, my Department has not gone.

  FOREIGN SERVICE, BRANCH B (ALLOWANCES)
  Mr. Haireasked the Secretary of State for Foreign' Affairs whether officers of the new Branch B of the Foreign Service will receive allowances similar to those received by officers in Branch A.
  Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir. They will receive outfit allowances, rent allowances, foreign service allowances (which will take into account the local cost of living as well as that expenditure which an officer serving abroad necessarily incurs over and above that of an officer of corresponding grade serving at home), language allowances and full travelling expenses on leave.

  RUMANIA (ARRESTS)
  Professor Savoryasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has instructed the British representative in Bucharest to join with the U.S. Government in protesting against the wholesale arrest of opposition deputies in Rumania and their detention in prison under deplorable conditions.
  Viscount Hinchingbrookeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a reply has been received to the note of protest about the treatment of political prisoners, delivered to the Rumanian Government; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Mayhew: The British political representative in Bucharest protested to the Rumanian Government on 25th June. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the full text of the memorandum he presented. No reply has yet been received to this protest. His Majesty's Government's attitude to the Rumanian Government will naturally depend on whether they are satisfied that it is the Rumanian Government's intention to abide by the terms of the Peace Treaty, including Article III. It is not, however, His Majesty's Government's intention to withhold ratification of the Treaty.
  Major Beamish: Will the Minister bear in mind that the next logical step to these events in Rumania is the forcible incorporation of Rumania in the Soviet economy and the forcible stamping out of all opposition to the Communists?
  Following is the text:

  MEMORANDUM ADDRESSED TO ROUMANIAN GOVERNMENT BY THE BRITISH POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVE IN BUCHAREST ON 25TH JUNE
  His Majesty's Government have been following closely events and developments in Roumania in the hope that no opportunity might be lost of improving Anglo-Roumanian relations in political and economic spheres in the best interests of both countries. Public opinion, however, in the United Kingdom has been shocked at the way in which, during recent months, the Roumanian Government have proceeded arbitrarily with its indiscriminate arrests of those who are regarded as their political opponents. Those arrested include old men, priests, professors, students and others who in many cases have no political affiliations and are simply deprived of their freedom indefinitely by or with the acquiescence of the Roumanian authorities on suspicion of being involved in subversive activities.
  Both on humanitarian grounds and in view of their responsibility to ensure the fulfilment of the terms of the Peace Treaty, His Majesty's Government are quite unable to pass over in silence the fact that those arrested are neither charged with any precise crime or offence nor, in most cases, even interrogated. Some are released without ever knowing the reasons for their arrest. Further, it is common knowledge that conditions under which political prisoners are detained in such prisons as Pitesti, Aiud and elsewhere, are in themselves a denial of the human rights specifically guaranteed under Article 3 of the Treaty. Lack of food and proper medical and adequate hygenic facilities have resulted in sickness and in certain cases prisoners are reported to have died. This campaign of intimidation has caused untold suffering not only among those at present languishing in prison but also among the families of those over whose heads hangs the threat of arrest on account of their honest political convictions. Even though some of those detained may have been released, there is reason to believe that it is not long before their places are taken by other victims. On nth June the official figure of those under arrest given by the Minister of the Interior to the Prime Minister and communicated by the latter to Mr. Morgan Phillips and Mr. Watson at their interview with him was 1,303, and it is therefore reasonable to suppose the number of those who have passed through prison during the last three months is much higher.
  His Majesty's Government strongly reprobate the employment in a civilised country of methods which they had hoped to see extinguished for ever when the German Secret Police were dissolved. That the reputation of Roumania abroad must as a result suffer severely is primarily the concern of the

  951
  Roumanian Government. It is however of concern to His Majesty's Government that the Roumanian Government have, in their assurances of June, 1946, given full guarantees in regard to the liberties of the individual. Moreover, His Majesty's Government must reiterate that in Article 3 of the Peace Treaty which the Roumanian Government so recently signed, they have accepted an obligation to secure for all persons under Roumanian jurisdiction the enjoyment of human rights and of the fundamental freedoms. The present policy of the Roumanian Government is in direct conflict with their unequivocal assurances and obligations which assure to the Roumanian people rights that cannot be denied or modified by Roumanian legislation or judicial procedure.

  IRAQ (DEATH SENTENCES)
  Mr. Prittasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Josef Salman, Ibrahim Naji Shemil, and Saki Besim have been sentenced to death in Iraq for being members of the Communist Party and having published pamphlets opposing the policy of the Government; and whether he will make representations to the Iraqi Government to have their lives spared and to restore the freedom of political activity.
  Mr. Mayhew: I have seen Press reports to this effect. The matter appears to be one for the Iraqi courts, and His Majesty's Government have no grounds for intervention
  Mr. Pritt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that information that has come through since the Question was put down indicates that these gentlemen have, in fact, been sentenced to death for writing pamphlets in support of trade unionism? Will he, therefore, get our representatives in Iraq to have an unofficial word with that country? It is controlled by our Army.
  Mr. Mayhew: We have no ground for intervention in this matter.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how he reconciles that answer with the answer he gave to an earlier Question?
  Mr. Mayhew: Hungary is an ex-enemy country with which we have Treaty rights.
  Mr. Silverman: These treaty rights are limited to ex-enemy countries, then?
  Mr. Piratin: This is a very important matter respecting the life or death of certain people. Is the hon. Gentleman
  952
  aware that these Iraqi gentlemen are going to be executed on charges for which even Hitler would not have executed members of the Communist Party? Would he not intervene as, in the case of Spain, on a number of occasions he was able to do? As we have no responsibility in Spain, surely, he can do so again in this case?
  Mr. Mayhew: This seems to be a matter for Iraq. I cannot admit the comparison of Iraq with Spain.
  Mr. Keeling: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm or refute the statement of the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) that Iraq is controlled by our Army?
  Mr. Mayhew: I refute it.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Potatoes (Shortage)
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the serious shortage of potatoes in London; and what steps is he taking to meet this and the recurrent shortage of the same commodity at periodic intervals.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I am glad to say that the position has greatly improved, and the rain we have just had should add appreciably to the weight of new supplies. Six months ago a shortage of one month's duration was foreseen for the whole country. Energetic measures were taken to conserve the home crop and to import potatoes, with the result that, in spite of the weather, the shortage was reduced to about one week, and restricted chiefly to London and the South-East. Similar action will be taken, if necessary, in future.
    Mr. Sparks: Is the Minister aware that on several occasions there have been serious shortages of potatoes in London, and that, ultimately, the Ministry of Food have taken action to divert supplies? Is it not possible in future for such action to be taken fairly early, so that large numbers of families shall not have to go a whole weekend without potatoes?
    Dr. Summerskill: Since the introduction of bread rationing the consumption of

    953
    potatoes has increased by 20 per cent and, therefore, it has been found a little difficult to adjust supplies. But I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall try to guarantee that this will not happen again.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would the hon. Lady say why it was that the large stocks available in the north of Scotland were not tapped before this shortage took place in London?
    Dr. Summerskill: We are transporting potatoes from the north of Scotland as quickly as we can.

    Rationed Food (Home Production)
    Mr. Spenceasked the Minister of Food if he will show for each main item of rationed food the percentage which is home produced.
    Dr. Summerskill: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The percentage of the total supply of each main item of rationed food which was provided from home production in the year to the end of June, 1947, is as follows:

    Liquid milk

    100

    Eggs in shell

    76

    Carcase meat

    44

    Canned corned meat

    Nil

    Bacon and ham

    36

    Cheese

    12

    Butter

    7

    Margarine, lard and compound cooking fat, less than

    1

    Sugar

    27

    Tea

    Nil

    Flour

    23

    Brazilian Meat (Imports)
    Mr. Spenceasked the Minister of Food the reasons for the fall in the quantities of meats and canned meat, respectively, imported from Brazil in 1947 as against the same period in 1946.
    Dr. Summerskill: From our information on conditions in Brazil, it appears that the supplies of meat in that country have latterly declined while internal consumption has at the same time increased. We are constantly in touch with the Brazilian authorities, but we have not so far been able to get any firm indication as to when the shipments to this country will get back to normal.
    Mr. Spence: Could the hon. Lady give an assurance that the problem has not been aggravated by the desire of the Brazilian Government to be paid in dollars? Could she give an assurance on that point?
    Dr. Summerskill: I think I can give the assurance. I believe the reason is that consumption in Brazil has increased.

    Prices
    Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of Food what is the national increase in cost to consumers arising from the raising of the controlled prices of cocoa, chocolate, milk and tea, based on current consumption, stating separately the amounts for each item.
    Dr. Summerskill: On current consumption, the estimate for 12 months would be: Chocolate and chocolate confectionery, £4½ million; cocoa powder and drinking chocolate, £900,000; Milk, £19 million; tea, £6 million.
    Mr. Piratin: From what I have heard, it seems that the total is about £29 million that is to be the increase of the cost of living of the people of this country. Therefore, may I ask the Minister whether this is part of a policy deliberately to inflate prices, because that probably will not accord with the Government's policy of pegging wages? What is the policy on the matter? Are we inflating deliberately, or are we not?
    Dr. Summerskill: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are keeping prices within the cost-of-living index.
    Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of Food if he will make a statement showing the increases and decreases in the price of food that have taken place since 1st May in comparison with prices as at 1st January.
    Dr. Summerskill: The answer calls for a rather long list of figures, and, with permission, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Piratin: Can the Minister, however, say this? Are there any decreases in this period, and, roughly, what is the number of decreases and the number of increases?
    Dr. Summerskill: The decreases are for bananas and bacon. The rest are all increases.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the hon. Lady compare these increases or decreases with the increases that have just been announced in Russia?
    Following is the answer:

    LIST OF CONTROLLED FOODS, THE PRICES OF WHICH HAVE VARIED SINCE 1ST MAY, IN RELATION TO THE PRICE AT 1ST JANUARY, 1947.

    (Unit: 1 lb. except when otherwise stated.)

    —

    Price at 1st January, 1947.

    Price at 28th June, 1947.

    Increase + Decrease - over 1st January price.

    Bacon.

    Various cuts

    1s. 2d./2s. 5d.

    11d./2s. 1d.

    -3d./4d.

    Bananas.

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    d.

    (Price in United Kingdom excepting some Scottish Counties).

    1

    1

    11

    -2

    Canned Sweet Puddings.

    A1 tall or 1 lb. flat cans containing 14½ ozs. net or more of any variety.

    1

    0

    1

    4

    +4

    Cereal Breakfast Foods.

    Brown & Poison's Wheat Flakes 8 ozs.

    6

    7

    +1

    C.W.S. Breakfast Flakes 8 ozs.

    6½

    7½

    +1

    Dalton's Cereal Flakes 8 ozs.

    6

    7½

    +1½

    Farmer's Glory 12 ozs.

    8½

    10

    +1½

    Granose Biscuits 14 ozs.

    1

    3

    1

    4½

    +1½

    Kellogg's Corn Flakes 8 ozs

    5

    6½

    +1½

    Kellogg's Wheat Flakes 8 ozs.

    5½

    6¼

    +¾

    Quaker Malted Corn Flakes 8 ozs.

    5

    8

    +3

    Quaker Puffed Wheat 8 ozs

    6½

    7¼

    +¾

    Quaker Wheat Flakes 8 ozs.

    5½

    6¼

    +¾

    Sunny bisk (24 biscuits)

    1

    1

    1

    2½

    +1½

    Wafer Wheat Flakes 8 ozs.

    5½

    6½

    +1

    Weetabix (12 biscuits)

    7½

    8½

    +1

    Weetabix (24 biscuits)

    1

    1

    1

    3

    +2

    Wheat Puffs 8 ozs.

    8

    9

    +1

    Cheese.

    Imported Blue Vein cheese, other than Roquefort cheese imported from France

    3

    0

    3

    6

    +6

    Chocolate Confectionery.

    Plain Chocolate with or without fruit

    mainly 2

    0

    2

    6

    +6

    exceeding 3

    6

    3

    8

    +2

    Full Cream Milk Chocolate Blocks

    mainly 2

    6

    2

    10

    +4

    Blended Chocolate Blocks

    mainly 2

    2

    2

    10

    +8

    Moulded Plain and Milk Chocolate lines with hard or soft centres.

    not exceeding 2

    8 1b.

    —

    +4

    not exceeding 3

    6 1b.

    —

    +2

    Plain and Milk Chocolate Covered Count lines.

    not exceeding 2

    8 1b.

    —

    +4

    not exceeding 3

    6 1b.

    —

    +2

    Plain and Milk Chocolate Covered Assortments.

    not exceeding 3

    6 1b.

    —

    +2

    Chocolate Covered Toffees and Caramels.

    not exceeding 2

    8 lb.

    —

    +4

    not exceeding 3

    6 lb.

    —

    +2

    Dried Fruits.

    Dates, other than dates of African origin:—

    Stoned

    9

    10

    +1

    Unstoned

    6

    7

    +1

    Dried apples

    1

    0

    1

    6

    +6

    Dried plums or prunes

    10

    1

    0

    +2

    Sultanas

    10

    1

    0

    +2

    Dried apricots

    1

    6

    1

    9

    +3

    Dried nectarines

    Dried peaches

    Dried pears

    Honey.

    Imported (except specified brands)

    1

    9

    1

    9½

    +½

    Imported (specified brands)

    1

    10

    1

    10½

    +½

    Meat Products.

    Uncooked Beef Sausages

    11½

    1

    1

    +1½

    Uncooked Beef Sausage Meat

    10

    10½

    +½

    Potatoes per 7 lbs.

    5d./8d

    7d./10d.

    +2

    Soya Flour.

    Sale of less than 28 lbs

    8½lb.

    10½lb.

    +2

    Tea.

    All varieties of tea (other than China or Formosa) increased by 4d. per lb.

    —

    —

    +4

    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Food the retail price of main fruits and vegetables before price control was withdrawn last autumn; and the comparative retail prices for the same commodities as at the nearest convenient date.
    Dr. Summerskill: Of the main fruits and vegetables only cabbages, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts and leeks were decontrolled in price last autumn. To make a true comparison with the prices then ruling we should have to wait until next autumn as supplies and prices fluctuate with the seasons. I will, however, if he wishes, send my hon. Friend some detailed information about prices which will be of interest to him.
    Mr. Sparks: Is the Minister aware that, despite the assurances that have come from her Department that, with the increased supplies of fruit and vegetables, the prices would fall, those assurances have not yet materialised? Can she say whether they are likely to materialise in the near future?
    Dr. Summerskill: I would remind my hon. Friend that there have been other factors. For instance, we gave open general licences for leafy vegetables during the last month or two. But, unfortunately, on 1st May we had to stop those, because of infestation by Colorado beetle.

    Catering Establishment Meals (Calorie Values)
    Mr. Spenceasked the Minister of Food the average calorie value per meal of the 59,000,000 main meals and the 121,000,000 subsidiary meals, respectively, served by catering establishments weekly.
    Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. I regret that this information is not available.

    Fat Cattle (Killing-out Weight)
    Mr. Dyeasked the Minister of Food what was the total estimated killing-out weight of the 30 fat cattle when graded at Fakenham Market, Norfolk, on 8th May, 1947, and the actual weight of meat fit for human consumption when the cattle were slaughtered after arrival at Aldershot.
    Dr. Summerskill: One of the animals was found dead in the truck. The estimated killing-out weight of the other 29 cattle was 22,299 lb. My Department
    958
    bought these cattle on the basis of live weight and estimated killing-out percentage; it is the practice not to disclose the dead-weights in the case of such purchases. In this particular case, however, I can assure my hon. Friend that the difference between the estimated and actual weights was less than 2 per cent.
    Mr. Baldwin: Is not the reason for the loss of killing-out weight of these cattle the fact that they are sent such enormous distances from the slaughter-houses to the consumption centre; and could not that be avoided?
    Dr. Summerskill: I think the hon. Member knows that the capacity of some of the slaughter-houses is limited. That is why these cattle have to be sent rather long distances on occasions.

IMPORT PROGRAMME, 1947–48
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): As is usual at this time of year, His Majesty's Government have been giving careful consideration to the import programme for the 12 month beginning on 1st July. This programme must be related to the needs of our own people on the one hand and to our external balance of payments on the other Owing to a serious rise in world prices of food and raw materials and to the disappointingly slow rate of postwar recovery, both in Europe and Asia, a severe shortage of dollars is making itself felt in almost all parts of the world. In particular, our own line of credit under the Anglo-American Loan Agreement is being drawn upon much more rapidly than we expected. It is our clear duty to take further steps to close the gap between our necessary imports and our exports, especially to hard currency areas.
While the present discussions are proceeding upon the general economic situation of Europe it is not possible for His Majesty's Government to arrive at any final decision as to the import programme for the coming year, but they feel it necessary, nevertheless, to make certain adjustments to meet the existing situation. The guiding principle which they have adopted in framing this programme is to sustain the productive power of Britain, and, therefore, to safeguard, in the first place, those imports which are essential to the health and strength of our

959
people, to their full employment and to the efficient equipment of our industry. To do otherwise would not only weaken us, but would hold back recovery in Europe and elsewhere.
While, therefore, we shall not be able to afford all the imports of foodstuffs for which we had hoped, His Majesty's Government have decided to maintain, and, indeed, in some directions slightly to increase, the volume of these imports, as compared with the year which ends today. Owing to the unexpectedly large rise in prices this means that a substantially larger sum, in terms of foreign exchange, will have to be found for food imports in the next 12 months. But in some cases imports may be restricted by shortage of supplies, and the possibility of cuts in particular foods, including rationed goods, cannot be ruled out. We count, however, on increased imports of animal feedingstuffs and fertilisers, and on rebuilding some of our stocks which have run down very low.
Food, raw materials and machinery must have first place in our import programme. There must be some limit to the expenditure of hard currencies upon raw materials, but any necessary economies will be so designed as to cause the minimum of difficulties to our industry. We shall continue to find foreign exchange without restriction for machinery essential for our industrial re-equipment. On the other hand, we must achieve economies in less essential imports. There will be a substantial reduction in imports of tobacco. We shall reduce our imports of petrol, and there must be economies in the allocation to the Armed Forces, and in consumption for commercial purposes. Some restriction of supplies of newsprint is unavoidable, which will render it necessary to return temporarily to four-page newspapers. I am also asking the House to give me power to levy an import duty on films, so as to enable me, if necessary, to economise foreign exchange under this head. Some reductions will also be made in the comparatively small volume of imports of consumer goods other than food.
In order further to reduce our adverse balance of payments, we must make available for export an increasing proportion of our production, especially of those goods which can find a market in hard currency
960
areas. This applies, in particular, to our textile industries. The Government regret that this should be necessary in the existing circumstances, but they hope that, with the good will and co-operation of all those engaged in the textile industries, an exceptional effort will be made, so that our domestic consumers do not suffer in any way as a result of this special drive for hard currencies.
The situation, as regards prospective supplies and foreign exchange, is very serious, both for this country and for many others, and, as the House knows, discussions between Governments are now taking place. His Majesty's Government will keep a close and constant watch on the future course of events in this field, and it may be necessary to revise this import programme from time to time.
Mr. Eden: I am sure nobody, on this side of the House at any rate, disagrees with the gravity of the situation with which the right hon. Gentleman is dealing. If I have any criticism of his brief statement it is that I do not think it has yet sufficiently underlined the gravity. If I may say so, I find the implications of the right hon. Gentleman's statement a little difficult to follow, because in one part of his statement he talks about a reduced supply for our own people as a result of the need for increased exports, and in another passage he talks about there being no increased hardship. That seems to me inevitable. If we do increase our exports there must be increased hardship. Of course, if we increase the proportion of textiles, for instance, which are mentioned in this statement, the result must be less textiles for our own people. I do not wish to argue; unless, of course, we can so step up the output—[Interruption.]—If that is what the right hon. Gentleman is relying on we should like to be told, but I should like to forecast at once that it cannot be done on the basis of these figures.
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman this. The House must not just be given a general statement. It must be given figures. We were given a White Paper for 1947, which is now hopelessly out of date. What I would like to know from the Government is, will they be good enough to give us the figures? What change does this mean in our import programme in' relation to the figures of the economic survey? What change does it

961
mean in our export target in relation to the 1947 survey; and, therefore, what will be available for the British people in respect of products like textiles as compared with the forecast of the Government in their own White Paper?
Mr. Dalton: With regard to the first point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, the clear implication of my words —and if it was not clear I at once seek to make it so—is that we must increase our export of textile products, because that is an export which goes better than almost any other into the hard currency area; therefore, our exports must be stepped up. I have, however, on behalf of the Government, expressed the hope that this will not mean any further imposition of scarcity, coupon restriction, and the like, upon our own people. It is obvious—as I think the right hon. Gentleman himself recognised in the latter part of his remarks—that this does mean an increase of total production. It is our hope to step up production, and an appeal will be made, which I hope will be generally supported; anyway, we shall appeal to the textile industry to make, as I have indicated in another statement, an exceptional effort, if need be by working overtime during this period. That is on the point about textiles.
With regard to the figures, I am quite prepared—although I doubt whether a White Paper would be the appropriate medium—to issue a statement of the essential figures. It would, I think, have overburdened the statement I have made today to have interlarded a lot of statistics into it. We have no desire other than to make public to the House and the country—in order to make clear where we stand in the problems which face us— the essential figures in the matter. Of course, I will undertake to see that those are issued, by circulating them in the OFFICIAL REPORT or by some other means. I will undertake to see that the necessary and essential figures are placed before the House and the public.
Mr. Eden: There is one other point. If an appeal is made for increased production of textiles I have no doubt that would have the support of all sections of the House; certainly we would do what we could to use our influence to help. If the right hon. Gentleman contemplates a really serious increase of exports, par-
962
ticularly of textiles, which he must have if he is to get more dollars, there is bound to be hardship on our people, even if production increases. [Interruption.] Yes, there is bound to be. If there is, it is much better to say so. That is the only point I wish to make. In his statement the right hon. Gentleman takes powers at some future date, if he thinks fit, to deal with films. Does not he think films should have a higher priority for being dealt with than other things; that they should at least have the same priority of reduction as petrol for this country, and tobacco, and a higher priority than reduced textiles for our own people.
Mr. Dalton: It would be very natural that we should deal with that when the Resolution which I have put down on the Order Paper is considered at the next stage of the Finance Bill.
Miss Jennie Lee: The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that there must be a reduction of newsprint. We accept that, but, in dealing with weekly opinion-making newspapers and school textbooks, will he bear in mind that there are weekly journals requiring more paper than before the war and weekly journals with more paper than they require, and, instead of having an allocation based on out-of-date years, will he vary it in accordance with demand?
Mr. Dalton: That is a matter which might be looked into, but the principal point I desire to make is that we must cut imports of newsprint.
Mr. Edgar Granville: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the increase of exports of textiles to hard currency areas will depend to a great degree on an increase in the allocation of raw materials. Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the President of the Board of Trade to see that a proper adjustment is made in the allocation of raw materials as between soft currency and hard currency areas?
Mr. Dalton: That is a matter, as the hon. Member knows, primarily for the Board of Trade. It is an important detail, but none the less it is a detail. The total supply of raw materials is not among the factors that trouble us— neither cotton, wool, nor rayon.
Mr. Henry Strauss: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is no industry where so little raw material can produce so great a return in' hard currency as book production?
Mr. Dalton: That may be so, but there is also a home market for books.
Mr. Bowles: In view of the desire to close the gap between imports and exports, particularly in relation to hard currency areas, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer go into the question of whether we cannot get a great deal more from the export of Scotch whisky? I do not know whether he realises it, but the amount of Import Duty, State duties and everything else, with the exception of commission and marine insurance, is exactly the same, whether we export bottles from this country at 5s. or 25s.? 'Assuming that the same amount of whisky is exported as is expected at 25s. a bottle, my right hon. Friend will find that there would be an increase of 200 million dollars this year.
Mr. Dalton: It sounds to me to be almost too good to be true.
Mr. Bowles: Will the Chancellor see me afterwards?
Mr. Dalton: I shall be very delighted to consider any evidence which goes to show that we can attain more dollars from exports. I understand that my hon. Friend is in touch with the Minister of Food, and that certain discussions are going on.
Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that we shall have to go back to four-page newspapers.
Mr. Dalton: Yes, temporarily.
Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Will there be a corresponding run-down in Government White Papers and Orders in Council?
Mr. Dalton: I had that point in mind when I did not rise to the suggestion made by the acting Leader of the Opposition for a White Paper.
Mr. H. D. Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman review the allowance of foreign currency for travel abroad, and particularly the special business allowance at the rate of £10 a day, which seems somewhat excessive and open to abuse?
Mr. Dalton: We have reviewed that among the possibilities of making economies. I do not recommend it to the House at present, because the saving would be relatively small. It has been looked at, and we hope that some of the proceedings we have taken in the courts will provide a certain economy in that field without further action.
Mr. Darvid Eccles: In view of the fact that the Chancellor's statement means that unless we get a second American loan, or raise our production substantially, we are slipping down hill rapidly to widespread unemployment and grave food shortages, is if not time that the Government abandoned their present economic policy in favour of one which would unite the people to give us the production we want?
Mr. Dalton: In a democracy such as ours, in which differences of opinion are widely held and freely expressed, there is no one economic policy which would unite the country. We had an economic policy for which the electors voted, and hon. Members opposite had an economic policy for which the electors did not vote.
Mr. Douglas Jay: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer bear in mind that a very large number of people in the country will welcome the cutting down of all unnecessary imports?
Mr. Martin Lindsay: Is the Chancellor aware that his statement is the most depressing piece of news which has been given to the British public for several years? Is it the intention of the Government to give us an early opportunity to debate it?
Mr. Dalton: The hon. Member is very easily depressed this afternoon, if he thinks that it is the most depressing news he has had for some years past, including the war years. I think he had better cultivate his sense of proportion and memory. With regard to a debate in the House, my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council will, no doubt, consider representations made through the usual channels.
Dr. Barnett Stross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the best methods we have of obtaining hard currency is through the export of pottery, and that in that industry every man, woman and child is worth 500 dollars a

965
week in exports. Will he, therefore, sympathetically consider letting us have a little more coal so that we can increase our exports?
Mr. Dalton: My hon. Friend has a good point which I will pass on.
Sir John Barlow: In view of the necessity for increasing textile exports, how does the Chancellor account for the recent importation of 64 million yards of Japanese gray cloth for finishing in this country?
Mr. Dalton: That is a question which had better be addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Blackburn: While welcoming the Chancellor's statement today, for which most Members on this side of the House have been pressing for some time, may I ask whether he will adopt the principle of telling the people now the worst that can happen, and also indicate in detail just how much harder the workers have to work if we are to avert what appears to be an impending disaster?
Mr. Dalton: The whole question of publicity is one which will reecive constant attention.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the Chancellor really entitled to assume that he can get increased production on the basis of increasing austerity.
Mr. Chetwynd: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned economy in the Armed Forces. Will he indicate whether there is to be any specific reduction in the Armed Forces?
Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. I was talking about the supply of petrol. I have reason to suspect that we could perhaps make some economy in the total amount of petrol consumed in the Army.
Mr. Wilson Harris: As the right hon. Gentleman did not say anything definite about the reduction in the allocation of paper for books, will he, if he finds that it is necessary to reduce the allocation, arrange for an increased priority in respect of educational books professed to be necessary for schools and universities?
Mr. Dalton: We will, of course, look at all the details to secure the best allocation we can of the paper supplies available.
966
The point I made was simply that we must have a cut in the import of newsprint, and that there must be a cut in the daily papers, which are the major consumers to the four-page level.
Mr. Keeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to continue the expenditure of dollars on the so-called token imports of certain manufactured goods, including such things as women's frocks.
Mr. Dalton: Relatively speaking, that is an exceedingly small matter, which we do not seek to deal with It can be dealt with on another occasion.
Mr. Eden: I do not want to raise the issue of the White Paper again, but in view of the gravity of the situation, can the right hon. Gentleman let us have the figures this week, without which, quite frankly, the statement does not mean a great deal? We should like to have the figures this week, because we can then ask for a Debate on the situation for next week.
Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, that is a pertectly reasonable suggestion Although I do not think a White Paper is the right way, I will see if there is not a convenient method of making available to the House essential statistics lying behind this statement— perhaps about Thursday.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose— —
Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that there is to be a further statement. I hope we can now get on with the next Business.

STANDON FARM APPROVED SCHOOL (REPORT)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I thank you,. Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity of informing the House of the action which has been taken as a result of the Committee of Inquiry into the conduct of the Standon Farm Approved School. I am' sure that the House will join with me in-thanking the authors of the report, the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Maude) and my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Corlett), for the careful and helpful manner in which they have discharged the task which they undertook at my request. I have already communicated the report to the managers

967
and headmaster of the school. The managers have given notice of then-intention to surrender the school's certificate of approval, notice of termination of his appointment has been given to the headmaster, and the boys in the school are being dispersed. A copy of the report is being sent to the managers of every approved school; and the representative organisations of managers, headmasters and headmistresses of approved schools have been requested to consult with the Children's Department of the Home Office on those recommendations which affect the schools generally.
Mr. Fernyhough: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this report reveals that the boys at this school were subjected to harsh and depressing discipline, and in view of the provocation which they received, will he reconsider the sentences passed on four boys who were convicted at Staffordshire Assizes?
Mr. Ede: I think the condition of affairs at this school was well revealed by the report and the comments made by our two colleagues who conducted the inquiry. I do not think that, at this stage, it would be possible to review the sentences which were passed on a limited number of boys who were convicted of a murder which was premeditated, and which involved the loss of life of a completely innocent party.
Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to think that this was an isolated case?
Mr. Ede: I think the report of our colleagues who investigated other schools is reassuring on that point.
Mr. Hugh Eraser: Can the right hon. 'Gentleman say whether, in future, his officers' supervision of these schools will be improved? I think he will agree that to some extent there was laxity on the part of the central authority inspecting schools.
Mr. Ede: I have taken steps to increase the number of inspectors for this work, and I am considering what revised instructions should be given to them.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  ELECTRICITY BILL
  Order for Third Reading read.
  3.54 P.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson], at the beginning of the proceedings in Committee on this Bill, addressing the Chairman, said:
  "Quite clearly, we regard this as a bad Bill, but it is going to be passed into law in some shape or form and, therefore, we conceive it to be our duty, as the Opposition, to put forward Amendments which we think will improve it. I would assure you that we, on this side have no desire to be obstructive, and, even if we had, it would be useless."— [OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee E, 25th February, 1947; c. 8.]
  I think we can all agree that the right hon. Gentleman was as good as his word, that the Opposition, did not obstruct in Committee, and that the proceedings as a whole were businesslike and reasonably harmonious. From time to time strong disagreements were revealed, but that was in the nature of things. For our part, I think we can claim that we have done our best to help by being forthcoming when we felt that no serious damage was being done to the Bill, and by adopting a generally unprejudiced attitude and readiness to accept anything which we really thought would improve the Bill. Naturally, we had to scrutinise the Opposition Amendments with some care, because Opposition Amendments are like what classical writers have described as "gifts from the Greeks." With them one has to be particularly careful to see whether there is a bomb in the bouquet. If there is one lurking in the bouquet, one must be careful not to pick it up at all, or at any rate be careful to remove the bomb.
  In the course of 24 days' proceedings in Standing Committee, over 600 Amendments were put down, and most of them were discussed, although, of course, not all of them individually. Of these, 197 were accepted. Needless to say, most of these acceptances by the Committee were of Government Amendments; we did

  969
  however, accept 30 from the Opposition. On the Report and recommittal stages, 254 Amendments were put on the Order Paper, and 155 were accepted. Most of these, too, were Government Amendments, but many sprang from points which had been made earlier by the Opposition. So I think nobody will deny that this Bill has been thoroughly examined Clause by Clause and line by line. It is also a fact that more time has been spent on this Bill, and far more Amendments have been discussed, than on the Bill to nationalise the coal industry, which the House passed last year.
  Important changes have been made. For instance, there is the new procedure for payment of compensation, and for identifying authorised undertakers. There is the changed definition of a holding company; there is the new treatment of non-statutory and composite undertakings; there are changes in the precise functions of the consultative councils, in the position of directors as affected by those Clauses dealing with the control of dividends and the prevention of the dissipation of assets. But when all these are taken into account, together with the many drafting Amendments which have been made, the Bill remains substantially the same as it was when it was introduced into the House. This we do not view with surprise, because we have always considered that the Bill was a good one and that—more than the Opposition have sometimes admitted—it is fundamentally non-controversial. The Third Reading is not the occasion on which to argue the principle of the Bill, and certainly not the occasion to go into great detail; one has to try to steer a course between these two extremes, and what I would like to do briefly, as I know there are many others who want to join in the Debate, is to pick out a few central issues in the Bill and make some comments upon them.
  First, generation. We set up in this Bill a Central Authority, the British Electricity Authority, and part of its functions is to take over and run the generation of electricity in this country. This part of the Central Authority's functions is unquestionably the logical sequence to the 1926 Act. I think few would deny that the system of selected stations and dual control which has existed for the past 21 years is now out
  970
  of date, that it involves much waste of time on complex financial arguments, that it does not involve the use of labour and technicians to the best advantage for the country as a whole, and that it does not give rise to the best planning and construction of power stations. I do not say that this is a major change, but I think that it is a valuable one. I can confidently say that it has hardly been challenged by anyone in the course of all our rather long discussions of the Bill.
  It is the duty of the British Electricity Authority to promote the use of all. economical methods of generating, transmitting and distributing electricity. We all of us know the problem with which we are faced in the shortage of power station capacity today. We know, too, that this difficulty cannot be overcome in a matter of months. It will take two or three years before sufficient power station capacity is available to carry the load. Many people feel—I have knowledge of this from letters which I have received from Members of Parliament and others —that water power is the solution, and as the Bill refers to "all economical methods of generation," perhaps it will not be out of place if I say one word on that subject.
  It is quite clear that the British Electricity Authority would be very remiss if it did not take full advantage of any natural resources it may possess, but I ask the House not to exaggerate the prospects. At present, the total generating capacity operated by water power and in action is about 373,000 kilowatts. The generating capacity now being developed from water power is another 394,000 kilowatts, and, in addition, about 400,000 kilowatts have been surveyed, although the work has not been started. There is, also, the great project of the Severn Barrage which, if it were carried through, would add another 800,000 kilowatts capacity. When all this is added up, it amounts to only a small proportion of our need—some two million out of the present installed capacity of 12— million kilowatts, which will be rising in the course of the next few years to 15 million and even more.
  While we shall certainly press on with water power, there is no question but that it will help us only in a limited way and, moreover, although water power saves coal, it has much higher capital costs than

  971
  steam plant, and the time taken for building is very long. The Severn Barrage, by far the largest single scheme contemplated, will take at least eight years to complete, although, in the end, it will save close on one million tons of coal. Therefore, since these schemes necessarily take time and cannot bring results in a short period, I think that it will be agreed that they must be looked at on the usual basis of comparative cost of water power as compared with steam power. In the case of the Severn Barrage, had that project been carried into effect in the 'thirties, I think that no one could doubt that it would now, in the light of present prices and increased capital costs, have been a tremendous success, but that does not mean that it would be appropriate immediately to press on with it. What has been done is to authorise the construction of an elaborate model, which is the first step to ensure that no ill-consequences befall the Newport Docks, which would be a very serious matter.
  Apart from water power, there is over the horizon, or perhaps a little nearer, the question of atomic energy. No one can doubt that here we have something with immense possibilities, or that considerable strides have been made in its development; but, as far as we are advised, there are still many technical difficulties to be overcome before full advantage can be taken of atomic energy as a source of power. Research in this field is proceeding actively under the Minister of Supply, but I think it would be wise not to assume any very early application of atomic energy to power for industry. For some considerable time to come, therefore, we must continue to rely on coal and steam power.
  Now may I turn to the area boards? I think that here there is a fundamental basis of agreement. We all, surely, agree on the need for larger areas. One might say that there was general agreement on this nearly 30 years ago when the 1919 Act was passed, and more recently the case has been presented in full in the McGowan Report. The difficulty in the way of achieving the large areas, I think we must frankly say, has been largely political. There has been an unwillingness on the part of the companies to be absorbed by the municipalities, and unwillingness on the part of the municipalities to be absorbed by the companies; and
  972
  no one up to now has had the courage to say "A plague on both your houses," and to carry on and set up what we regard as the only possible form of organisation, namely, the area boards. The number of the boards and the size of the proposed areas as set out in the Bill have been generally accepted. I think that the Opposition will agree, although they have never committed themselves to this, that they have let it pass without severe criticism, and that is as it should be because, undoubtedly, in the industry itself there has been general acceptance. We have, of course, to provide for modifications when necessary, and, indeed, the actual details of the areas have yet to be finally settled, but that there should be a number of areas of this kind and with this sort of sphere of activity is, I think, not really in dispute.
  The next point is this—if we are to have areas of that size, then they cannot be elected bodies. The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), from time to time in the course of these Debates, has twitted the Government about their cavalier attitude to such an elected form of authority, but he knows perfectly well that this is inevitable once we agree that the existing areas are too small and that control must pass from the ordinary municipal undertaking. It that is the case, then I suggest that there are only two alternatives—the area boards must be appointed either by the Central Authority or by the Minister. It is the view of the Government, and I think that it was shared by practically all hon. Members of the Committee, that it would be a mistake for the Central Authority to appoint the area boards, as it would involve too much domination of the areas by the Central Authority, and, therefore. Ministerial appointment was desirable because it would provide a more autonomous form of organisation in the areas. The Opposition have not challenged that point. They have made suggestions as to how the appointments should or should not be made, but they have not, I think, challenged the essential point that the Minister must make the appointments.
  Nor have we provided in the Bill for anything in the form of statutory organisations to be set up below the area boards. Some form of decentralisation will obviously be necessary, but that we shall leave to the area boards. Proposals

  973
  to introduce at the lower level, below the area boards, some additional form of elected committees have had to be rejected by the Government for, as I think, the very good reason that they would prove unworkable in practice. We cannot have a divided loyalty with officials responsible, on the one hand, to a locally elected committee, and, on the other hand, to an area board. Our view, therefore, is that the right place for the local interest, though of course, some members of area boards may well be persons of local government experience, is on the consultative councils.
  I refer again to the fact that in the course of our proceedings we have made two changes here; we have, as it were, brought the consultative councils and the areas nearer the consumer by making it mandatory upon them to appoint district committees, and at the same time we have brought them into closer touch with the Minister by giving them the right of appeal to him against decisions by the area boards or by the Central Authority. One further word on this; do not let us start with the assumption that the consultative councils and the area boards are going to be at loggerheads. If one conceives of the consultative councils as being policemen, all the time waiting to catch out the area boards, then I am sure we shall get nowhere. At least we shall get friction and constant difficulties, whereas what we want is that they should work harmoniously together. One of the provisions which should assist is to the effect that the chairman of the consultative council should be a member of the area board. By that I mean that the chairman, as chairman, is a member of the area board, and not that one member of the area board becomes chairman of the consultative council.
  It may be asked why there should be any central control on distribution at all, even granted that generation should be nationalised. It may be asked, why should not distribution be left as a purely local function? I think the answer to that is fairly clear. There are certain functions connected with distribution which should, at any rate, be supervised centrally; for example, research, capital development, finance and labour relations—all these to a certain extent require central handling, and those are the reasons why we consider that it is necessary to have some central organisation over and above the area boards. I hasten to add that it
  974
  is neither our intention nor our desire that the Central Authority shall continually interfere with the area boards. We have arranged for the four chairmen of the regional boards to serve in rotation on the Central Authority, and I venture to believe that this is a most valuable provision in the Bill, because it will give a unity which would otherwise not exist in the new set-up. Again, it can be said that, granted that you have a Central Authority, granted that the Minister is to be the man who appoints the area boards, it is nevertheless desirable that the area boards should go through the Central Authority, rather than be directly responsible to the Minister. I apologise to the House that what may seem to some to be rather dreary and dull details of administration have been gone into so thoroughly, but these are really extremely important matters, and upon the tightness or otherwise of our judgment on these administrative questions may largely depend the success of the whole organisation.
  The next subject on which I want to say a word is consumers' protection. The Opposition have argued, not once but many times, that the consumers under this Bill are less well off than they were previously. They base this argument on the theory that certain statutory provisions, which we have repealed in this Bill, provided more protection for consumers than we have given in the Bill itself. I do not think that view is consistent with the facts. In the first place, it cannot be overlooked that we are now setting up an organisation which is entirely non-profit-making, whereas, over a part of the industry up to now, electricity has been supplied by profit-making bodies. I do not mean to say that in no circumstances can there possibly be a conflict of interest between the consumers and the public authority which we are setting up. That, of course, would be absurd. The public authority might get into the habit of having officials who were extremely rude to consumers about complaints so that there would be a conflict between them, and provision must be made for it. Nevertheless, there is surely this difference, and I do not think hon. Members opposite can really challenge it. The profit-making body is, ex hypothesi, in itself anxious to make profits;there is a clash of financial interest between it and the consumers on funda-

  975
  mental issues. I see the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) shaking his head, but there is, though it may be nullified in some cases by the fact that, in the main, it suits both consumers and managements to have an expanded demand and an expanded supply. I agree that this is an industry where, owing to the nature of the costs and the high overheads, such is the case, but the fact remains that there was the danger of that fundamental clash of interest, which has now gone. It has gone because one has removed the private profit element.
  In the second place, what we have repealed in the old legislation is simply what is out of date and has been out of date in many cases for years, or what is useless, or what is replaced by new provisions in the Bill. I will not, at this stage, start going into details, but that is our sole motive and that is all we have done. I have already referred to the consultative councils, and I am certain that they will be far more effective in looking after the interests of consumers in the more limited sense which will now be required, than the statutory provisions hitherto in operation, which were never effective and were seldom used.
  What is the position of the Minister under this Bill? Very similar, I think we may reply, to his position under the Coal Act. He will not intervene in matters of detail; he has the power to give general directions on matters affecting the national interest, and special emphasis is laid on capital development, training, education and research. He has the right to demand information, to supervise the presentation of accounts, and so on. Here again, once granted the principle, I do not think the Opposition disagree with us that, in this matter of the relation between the Minister and the public authority, this happy mean is the right thing to go for. I think we both now discard the idea of the Minister running an industry of this kind as he runs a Department. Equally, I should imagine, we both agree that he must have some powers of general control. I want to emphasise that, if that be accepted —and, if it is not, perhaps it would be interesting to know what the Opposition do think on this matter—the Opposition cannot have it both ways. If the Minister has powers only of a general character
  976
  and is not intended to intervene in detail, he cannot be held responsible for detailed matters, for happenings which go on inside the industry, and it will be no good pressing him continually to answer questions on matters of that kind. If they want answers on questions of that kind, then the Bill should have been different, and should have given him the power with the due responsibility.
  I only want to say one other word on this matter of the Minister's relationship with the nationalised undertakings. I do not know what attitude the Opposition will adopt towards this Bill once it becomes an Act. I do not know whether it will be on their list for chucking out, or revision, or acceptance; so far as I know, quite possibly they have not yet made up their minds. In their latest publication no reference is made to it. But I would put this to them, if they decide to accept the fact of the nationalisation of electricity, as I hope and believe they will do, they will then have to ask themselves this question; are they continually going to adopt an attitude of extreme hostility to the nationalised boards, the Central Authority and the area boards? It is natural enough, I know, that they should do so to start with, when those boards are the product of a piece of Socialist legislation to which they are opposed, but will it not get them into a very difficult position if, as may happen in the dim and distant future, they should by any chance return to power? What will be the position of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, for example, if he happens to be Minister of Fuel and Power? [An HON. MEMBER: "Wait and see."] We shall probably have to wait and see a long time, but, nevertheless, the subject is an interesting one. What will be. his position if there is this continual hostility on the part of the Conservative Party to the nationalised undertakings?
  I would suggest to hon. Members opposite that the time is coming—they cannot face it yet—when it will be wise to adopt a far more impartial and unbiased attitude to these new organisations. Naturally, we would not expect that attitude where the Minister is issuing directions and where it is clearly a matter of Government policy, to which they are entitled to object, and where he will be willing, because he has the power, to take the responsibility. I might say, too, that the same

  977
  thing applies to our side of the House. We have got to adopt a non-party attitude to these organisations. We shall want to scrutinise them from the point of efficiency, because in the last resort that is what we want them to be. If they continue to be the cockpit of party politics, for my part I think it will be regrettable.
  Apart from one or two gibes, there has not been a lot of opposition to the structure of the new organisation. Where feeling has run high on the Bill is on the subject of compensation. The arguments on both sides have been repeated several times, not only in the Debates on this Bill, but also in the Debates in the Transport Bill, and, therefore, I want to make only a few comments. The excuse for my remarks is that, personally, I have said very little up to now on the subject. One thing about which I am glad is that the Opposition arguments—that the compensation provisions for shareholders are unfair, because they involve the shareholders in a lowering of income—have, substantially, been dropped.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: No.
  Mr. Gaitskell: The hon. and gallant Member will no doubt have an opportunity later of returning to the subject, but I am sorry if what he says is correct, because one of the weakest arguments put by the other side was their claim that, as the shareholders were deprived of their equity dividends, they should be given the same dividends in perpetuity and have them guaranteed by law. Nobody could seriously argue that that would be anything other than a gross Overpayment to the shareholders. However, whether they adopt the lower income argument or not, they have introduced a new one. As far as I know it is a new one, or, at any rate, it was brought up only at a late stage in the discussions on this Bill. They have argued that it is all wrong for us to compensate the shareholders in the manner we are doing when we are taking the assets of the companies.
  The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre), certainly, put this forward and others supported him. 1 cannot myself see the point of that argument at all. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas) disposed of it very neatly the other night when he intervened
  978
  in a speech which was being made by the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss). After all, there would not be the slightest difficulty if the Government wanted to, in buying out the shareholders, compensating them, getting control of the companies, and then allowing the companies to go into liquidation. Under that scheme we would get the same result as we would get under the Bill, though it would take rather longer and it would be a little more clumsy way of doing it. Here we are short-circuiting an unnecessary stage in the proceedings, and, as far as the directors are concerned, under our proposals they retain their position rather longer than they would under the alternative method.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: The hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that under the procedure he has indicated, the Government would get the whole of the undertakings at the cost at which they are now going to get them?
  Mr. Gaitskell: What I was saying was that we could compensate the shareholders by simply obtaining their shares, and proceeding to liquidate the companies. There is no difficulty about that. That is quite a different issue from the issue of compensating the shareholders as we propose doing under the Bill.
  Mr. Hudson: The hon. Gentleman has inadvertently said two things which are entirely opposite. He suggested an alternative to buying the shares, and when challenged by me he said if the Government acquired the shares on the same basis, they would be doing two entirely different things. Is he going to suggest that if the Government went into the open market and attempted to buy up the shares, they would get them for the niggardly price which they are now proposing to pay?
  Mr. Gaitskell: I said buying the shares, but not at any price. Under either arrangement it is merely a difference in buying. However, I am about to deal with the point, because one hon. Member in the course of the Report stage, said he thought this very unfair inasmuch as it took a "willing buyer—willing seller" transaction to achieve such a result, and obviously that was impossible if the sellers were not willing. It is quite true the sellers are not always willing, but if the Opposition

  979
  recommend that the shareholders should be allowed to hold the Government to ransom in this matter and put any price they choose on their shares, there is no possible hope of agreement with them.
  The only remaining argument left to the Opposition has been the argument about the actual prices which were to be fixed by the Bill, an argument put forward by the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch). He argued that these prices were unfair because, between the first series of prices, on which there was an option, and the later prices, there were important changes taking place on the Stock Exchange. In the course of those changes there was a general rise in industrial prices in which these electricity shares did not participate. The facts are, however, that that is not so. If one compares the relative yield of these shares with the yield of Consols between the two dates of the Bill, one would find that very much the same change took place in the case of electricity shares as in the case of industrial shares.
  There is very little difference, but, even if it were greater, I would still argue that these electricity shares were naturally affected by uncertainty about the future. The electricity supply industry was unquestionably one on which any Government was bound to take some action, and, even had it not been nationalised, it is certain that some more effective measure of price control—and even hon. Members opposite would not deny their intention and desire to do this —would have been introduced. The fact is that, in our opinion—although I have very little hope of convincing the Opposition of this, I was genuinely surprised at the extreme agitation on this matter—the Stock Exchange values are the fairest form of settling the compensation. If the Opposition do not agree with that I would put to them the query: Is the method of settling Death Duties fair or unfair? The Stock Exchange values are accepted for Death Duty purposes as being a fair method of valuing an estate, and, if they are accepted for that purpose, then they are, in our opinion, fairly accepted for compensation.
  Mr. Pickthorn: The Stock Exchange prices are a fair indication of what a man's estate is worth
  980
  at that particular moment, but that is not a fair indication of what the whole estate is worth generally.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I have already explained our attitude to compensation for the ordinary shareholder. We could have bought the shares first and then proceeded to take over the companies, but we felt it to be more convenient to do it in the way we have laid down under the Bill.
  May I say one word also on local authority compensation? This is sometimes contrasted with compensation for the companies. It is said, for example, that in the one case—a point which, I believe was made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) last week —you receive market value, and, in the other case, nothing at all. This approach is completely fallacious. The fact is that in one case we are dealing with a number of private individuals who own shares and receive dividends and interest, whereas, in the other, we are dealing with public authorities providing services at cost. In the case of the company you convert the capital value of the shares into stock and you service the stock, both the interest and dividends becoming equivalent to the interest on the compensation. In the case of the local authorities, you take the concerns over as they are and continue to run them. You take their assets and their liabilities and you service their debts, but in this case no compensation is paid in respect of profits because we do not conceive these concerns as profit-making undertakings.
  That is the essential difference. It is true, of course, that some authorities who regularly subsidise rates are losing by this and no one has ever attempted to deny it, but it would be quite impossible to justify a perpetual subsidy to their rates at the expense of consumers in contrast with other authorities who have deliberately made no profit at all or have put their profits to reserve. These arguments are accepted by the local authorities. They have never claimed either more compensation in a general sense, or that compensation should be paid in respect of subsidies to the rates. The whole discussion with them has been on the basis of incidental losses. Some of those are taken care of under the Bill; superannuation, for example, is covered by Clause 55, and, with regard to debt

  981
  management, it has now been agreed that the Government shall pay. In fact, one is left with the two issues of severance and Income Tax. On severance we conceded their point and have given them what is undoubtedly a generous sum of money for pure severance. On Income Tax, however, we do not accept their argument, and, therefore no specific provision is made. I could argue the question on those lines at some length, but I wish to say only one other thing. All these matters of fairness or unfairness to the extent of a few thousands one way or the other between local authorities are completely dwarfed by the general arrangements which are to be made in the block grant system, and, in our view, it is idle to get really excited about them. The case for a Bill of this kind dealing with electricity supply is not disputed. On Second Reading my right hon. Friend and others argued —as I think absolutely convincingly— that nationalisation was the only sensible and expeditious solution of this problem. The structure of the Bill has not really been criticised. The dispute has been primarily on compensation, but let the Opposition remember, as I imagine they would wish us to remember, that the Government have a responsibility to see that fair play is done not merely to the shareholders, but also to the future consumers in this business. J need not emphasise the immense importance of electrical development both in the domestic and industrial spheres. With an industrial population becoming smaller, and the working population falling, it is essential that our horsepower per head should be rapidly increased. It is also necessary that we should have further applications of electrical processes in industry, and it is no less necessary that there should be additional electric power available in our homes.
  We have had no developments during the war, and inevitably there is an enormous leeway to make up. All this is bound to take some time so that this Bill will not produce speedy results. What it does, however, is to put the industry on a sound foundation and to provide the right statutory and legislative framework for the expansion which will undoubtedly come in the next 10 to 20 years. The Bill may not be very sensational, dramatic or even revolutionary; indeed, in some ways, it is typically Eng-
  982
  lish in being merely the latest stage in a series of developments. It may not produce very quick results because the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity require immense capital expenditure and time, but I do not doubt that when the economic and industrial history of these years comes to be written, this Measure will be recognised as being among the most far-seeing and valuable of all the Measures passed by this historic Parliament.
  4.36 p.m.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: I beg to move to leave out "now," and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day three months."
  The Parliamentary Secretary began his speech with a very fair description of the course which the discussions of this Bill had taken. As a reasonably old Parliamentary hand, I think that both sides of the House may take credit for having shown that a Bill of this nature, on which there is naturally a profound cleavage of opinion between them, can nevertheless be carried through its various stages under the old-established procedure of the House and without recourse to the modern methods of the Guillotine. In that respect I think that both sides of the House are to be congratulated. I think that we can claim, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, that we carried out our promise not to obstruct, and, equally, the Government side can claim that they attempted to meet our arguments with argument even though, necessarily, they did not always convince us, and even though they had at the back of their minds, the overwhelming argument of numbers which they also occasionally used.
  We have discussed this Bill in considerable detail, and I think that it is true to say that a number of minor Amendments have been made which have, in our view, improved it in those places where they were made, but, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, the Bill we are discussing today remains substantially the same Measure that was originally introduced and discussed in February, and very few if any concessions affecting its main structure have been agreed to by the Government. Before I go on, I should like to take advantage of the opportunity and the invitation offered to me so generously by the hon. Gentleman

  983
  to say what I should do if I were to become Minister of Fuel and Power in some succeeding Government. First of all, I hope that I shall not; I do not much like the prospect of cleaning up Augean stables, nor am I prepared to say in detail at this stage in what particulars we should alter the Bill as it finally passes into law. What I can say, however, is that I am perfectly certain that almost any one of my right hon. or hon. Friends on this side—when he becomes Minister of Fuel and Power at some comparatively not too remote date—will certainly administer the Department with a great deal more efficiency and less bungling than the right hon. Gentleman opposite has done, and we shall be prepared to make the best of the situation which he then hands on to us.
  Most of the objections which we raised on Second Reading remain. The Bill was defended by the right hon. Gentleman in his Second Reading speech on the ground that it was necessary to reduce the excessive number of separate undertakings, and that the existing areas of distribution were too small. We believe that these objects could be attained without the drawbacks of the present Bill. We believe that the main defect of the Bill is its over-centralisation. There may have been anomalies. No one would deny it. There are anomalies, due very largely to the way in which the industry has grown up. The Bill goes to the other extreme of over-centralisation.
  The Parliamentary Secretary made a very ingenious, new defence of the method of appointing area boards. Unfortunately, as in not a few other cases, his argument loses force when one looks at the Coal Act. If the method of adopting and appointing area boards under the Coal Act is sound it should be equally right for this Bill, and vice versa. We believe the real reason for the alteration of method adopted in the Bill is that it provides infinitely greater patronage. I gave figures the other day on the Second Reading, and I am not going to repeat them now. The effect was to show that the Bill will not only provide jobs for the boys, but will also provide cake for the boys in very great quantity indeed. When the Parliamentary Secretary looks at his remarks about area boards he will find that he came down to the pure milk of the totalitarian doctrine. [Laughter.]The right
  984
  hon. Gentleman laughs. He had better read those remarks in HANSARD, and he will see for himself.
  The existing system has been attacked, but the right hon. Gentleman will see that the existing system, both company and municipal, can claim that it presents an overall picture of enterprise and initiative. Surely the test of enterprise in respect of a great industry like this is the increase in the number of consumers and the amount of electricity sold. Equally, the test of efficiency is the relation of cost of production to prices of the raw materials and labour going into the manufacture. By either of those tests the industry, despite anomalies, comes out well. In regard to prices, there has been, as the House is aware, a steady fall over the years, and even during the last 10 years, despite a steady rise in the cost of raw materials especially in the cost of coal and labour.
  The Parliamentary Secretary said, in defending the new set-up, that there would be no conflict between the Central Authority, the area boards and the consumers, because the Central Authority was a non-profit-making body. He went on to say that the essence of a profit-making body was that the interests of the consumers and of the concern must necessarily be divergent because the concern wanted to make profit, while the interests of the consumer must fundamentally be to get an abundant supply of whatever commodity they required, to get the lowest possible price and to get a reasonably good service. In fact it is a matter of relative unconcern to the consumer, so long as he gets a steadily increasing supply and a steadily diminishing cost, whether, as a concomitant, the body providing the supply is making a profit or not. Indeed, his real interest is that the body should make a profit because otherwise the body will not be efficient. The drawback to the new set-up is that the Central Authority will have no incentive at all, in the ordinary usage of the word, to increase supplies or to cheapen the product. To the extent to which it falls short of those aims, the consumer will definitely suffer.
  The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have talked about the consultative councils and about the area boards. They suggested that the Bill itself provides in some way new and better safe-

  985
  guards for the consumer than exist under the present statutory conditions. They have advanced no proof of that. All they have asked of us and of the country is that we should accept their word that that will happen. There is no reason in logic or in human experience why it should happen. Let us see of what the consultative councils on which the right hon. Gentleman lays such stress are going to consist. The Parliamentary Secretary himself says that there are to be no elective elements in them. Broadly speaking, the consultative councils—
  Mr. Gaitskell: I must correct the right hon. Gentleman. I said that the area boards would not be elected. As he knows, at least half of the consultative councils have to be representative of local authorities.
  Mr. Hudson: Yes, but they are not going to be elected. Neither the area boards nor the consultative councils will be elected. They are all to be nominated. Nominated by whom? By the Minister, and the Minister will be entitled to, and no doubt will, take steps to nominate his "stooges." [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Why not? That is the sort of thing the right hon. Gentleman is doing. Who will be a better '' stooge '' than the man who, we hear, is to be the chairman of the Central Authority, the man who virtually failed as a member of the Coal Board and who has to be satisfied with this job?
  The Minister went out of his way to pour scorn on a very large body of men on whom the industry has depended, and as a result of whose efforts the efficiency of the private side of the industry has arisen. The Minister went out of his way to say that he would not appoint to these bodies a man who had been a director and who had expressed himself as violently opposed to nationalisation. That is in effect saying that the right hon. Gentleman is providing "stooges." The right hon. Gentleman is going to discriminate. He is going to make his appointments. He has announced openly that when he considers an appointment to the Central Authority he is going to take account of people's political opinions. He announced, in other words and by definition, that he is going to exclude from nomination to these boards individuals who have shown themselves to be among the most efficient producers and distributors of electricity, in steadily
  986
  increasing quantity and at steadily reduced prices. The result will be that he will appoint "stooges." Who on earth is going to stand up to the Minister effectively when he knows that his appointment on these boards is at the Minister's discretion and at the Minister's wish?
  The Parliamentary Secretary said that we on the Conservative side of the House had to make up our minds on which leg we stood on the question of responsibilities. He said that either one should say that the Minister should give directions only in the important matters, in which case one must not ask him questions about the unimportant matters, or else one might say that he should keep the power to intervene and then one could question him. That is not the real alternative. The actual method which has been adopted in the Bill—to a great extent its effect can be seen in the working of the Coal Act—is to prevent this House having any opportunity of a real check on the Minister's action, because whenever it suits the Minister he says that it is a matter for the National Coal Board, and whenever it does not, he disclaims the responsibility. The Minister cannot have it both ways. The Minister laughs—
  The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): What else can the right hon. Gentleman expect me to do?
  Mr. Hudson: The right hon. Gentleman can go on laughing, but the day will come fairly soon when the consumer will realise the truth of what we have been saying— that this set-up provides him with no security at all. He has no means of making his views known.
  Mr. Edward Porter: of course he has.
  Mr. Hudson: He has not under the setup of this Bill. If the hon. Member wants proof, he had better read some of the speeches made by the more independent of his own leaders of local authorities. There was Alderman Herdman of Barrow who got the sack as a result of speaking his mind.
  Mr. Porter: He asked for it.
  Mr. Hudson: So much for the question of consumer control. I have said that, taking it by and large, the existing machinery which has not done too badly

  987
  is being destroyed. Everyone will agree that 95 per cent. of the houses of this country would have had electricity available by now but for the war. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman can give any assurance that a similar state of affairs will occur in any measurable period of time. He has been at pains upstairs, and his Parliamentary Secretary has been at pains down here, to damp down the high expectations which he and his friends raised in the minds of people at the General Election. The Lord President of the Council on more than one occasion said that any scheme of nationalization must be defended on its merits. The history of this scheme is that, what everits merits are, they have certainly not been exposed to this House.
  Take the cheapening of electricity— one of the most important matters from the point of view of the ordinary consumer. The right hon. Gentleman has been at pains to protect himself against any future charge by saying that he does not guarantee under this Bill that electricity will be any cheaper than it is today. I would go much further. I predict that under this Bill we shall see a steady rise in the cost of electricity and that the days of efficiency shown in steadily reduced costs of electricity will be over, as soon as this Bill becomes law and the vesting date has passed. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer) shakes his head. Let us compare, merely for analogy, what happened with coal. We have had two years now of the right hon. Gentleman's administration of coal. We have had six months, all but a day or two, of nationalisation. I had a look at the figures, and I compared the figures for the first 24 weeks—
  Mr. Shin well: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Frightened?
  Mr. Shinwell: As hon. Members know, I am not in the least afraid of them at any time. My point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is that if the right hon. Gentleman is to be permitted to raise the coal issue and the administration of my Department relating to coal and the National Coal Board, shall I be permitted to reply?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman is merely, in passing, making a comparison.
  Mr. Shinwell: But shall I be able to reply to that comparison?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must remind both sides of the House that we are on the Third Reading of this Bill, and it is only permissible to deal with points arising on the Bill.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: I am aware of that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but this Bill has been and is being defended as being in the interests of the consumers, as one of the nationalisation Measures. All I want to suggest—I am not going into any detail but merely wish very briefly to quote some figures—is that on the analogy of coal, the expectation of the consumer of getting cheaper electricity will not be carried out. These are the figures I will quote. Take the first 24 weeks of coal under nationalisation—
  Mr. Scollan: On a point of Order. Is it in Order either to quote or discuss relative figures with regard to promises made and what has actually been supplied in relation to another industry. We are discussing the Electricity Bill and not the Coal Act.
  Mr. W. J. Brown: Further to that point of Order. If it is claimed in respect of a given Measure that the method to be applied will produce a certain result, is it not perfectly in Order to argue by analogy—
  Mr. Scollan: There is no analogy.
  Mr. Brown: I submit that it ought to be in Order to discuss experience in another industry, and I submit that that is. all that the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) has done up to now.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is a question of how far one goes. The right hon. Gentleman may be entitled to draw that analogy but he is not entitled to go into details.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: I do not propose to go into detail but only to give the figures—
  Mr. Shinwell: On a point of Order. With great respect, I submit that if the right hon. Gentleman furnishes figures

  989
  about coal production for the first six months of this year, I am entitled to deal with those figures. I further submit that that is an appropriate matter for a Supply Debate and not for this occasion.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman must not go into any further details than he has done. He has made his point.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: No, Sir I have not.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to launch into details about another industry. He has made his point in general terms, and that is all he can do on the Third Reading of this Bill, which is concerned with another matter.
  Mr. Hudson: I do not take any objection to those points of Order, which merely indicate how sensitive hon. and right hon. Members opposite are at being shown up. I would remind you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the Parliamentary Secretary talked about atomic energy without being called to Order, and I was on the point of suggesting that it was out of Order. At any rate, as far as coal is concerned, as the right hon. Gentleman seems so worried about the actual figures, I will make my point this way. The result of our experience of the nationalisation of coal—perhaps this is sufficiently vague for the right hon. Gentleman—is that, compared with the last year of private enterprise, the consumer is paying 'a great deal more for a smaller quantity of coal although at the same time the numbers of men employed are much greater. That is the fact.
  The final point on which the consumer will not be any better off is not a question of price. Up till now the consumer has had statutory protection, although some hon. Members may argue that that did not go very far, but under the Bill he will have no protection at all. The person who will have the final say on the question of tariffs is the Minister, and no independent tribunal will be set up to which the consumer can appeal. Therefore, definitely, the consumer of electricity will be worse off even than the consumer under the transport monopoly which is also under consideration, to which, I suppose, even the right hon. Gentleman will not object to reference being made.
  990
  I turn for a moment to compensation. Nothing which has been said in the Debate on the Government side has disproved our contention that compensation, both for the companies and for municipalities, is, in effect, a measure of confiscation. The Parliamentary Secretary tried to justify it again today when he said, "If you object to taking Stock Exchange prices for this, why not also object to taking them for Death Duties? "What I would like to ask him is, does he suggest that the Chancellor would take for Death Duty payment today the Stock Exchange prices of two years ago? Of course, the answer is, "No." The fact of the matter is that on the much smaller point of composite undertakings and so forth, the Minister has given way and taken the assessment of the value of assets as the basis of compensation, which we believe ought to have been done over the whole field. Hon. Members opposite may perhaps think that local authorities' compensation is fair—
  Mr. Hobson Mr. Hobson (Wembley, North) indicated assent.
  Mr. Hudson: I am glad the hon. Member for North Wembley (Mr. Hobson) thinks that the compensation given to local authorities for the taking over of their undertakings is fair. All I venture to say is that, before many local elections are over, hon. Members may have cause to realise that the consumers in those local authorities do not think so. Anyway I am quite sure, speaking for my own constituency, that the chances of the Labour candidate, which have never been rosy, will be less rosy than ever they have been in the past.
  Finally, our objection to this Bill is that its timing is as inappropriate as could possibly be devised. It is engaged in sweeping away a machine which, as I said, whatever are its drawbacks, has on the whole done well. The large electricity undertakings have continually reduced the price—
  Mr. E. Porter Mr. E. Porter indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hudson: It is idle for the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. E. Porter) to shake his head because the Parliamentary Secretary himself has paid tribute to these undertakings. Taken as a whole, the machine has worked quite well, but the result of this Bill is bound to be some

  991
  measure of dislocation. It is bound to break up the machinery in municipalities. Their staffs will be redistributed. New men will be doing new jobs in parts of the country where hitherto there has been no interference and, above all, by the Minister's own self-denying ordinance he will deprive himself of some of the men who have shown themselves to be the ablest in the industry. New machinery, we believe of doubtful value, is to be substituted and there can be no question in our view of the disadvantages to the country as a whole. During these next critical months and years the dislocation which must ensue is bound far to outweigh any possible advantages that may accrue in the future, more especially as those advantages are bound to be theoretical at best.
  Abundant and cheap supplies of electricity and power are fundamental, not only to our prosperity but to our continued existence as a great Power, not only at home but also abroad. The Foreign Secretary bore testimony the other day to the disastrous results abroad of the right hon. Gentleman's failure to produce coal for export. We had an example last winter in the dislocation of the electricity supply industry of the results of his disastrous failure to produce coal at home, and electricity—
  Mr. Hobson: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt? Is he aware that the Central Electricity Board on three occasions during the war, as early as 1942, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) was Minister of Production, drew attention to the shortage which would undoubtedly occur if new power stations were not built?
  Mr. Hudson: Yes, I am aware of that. I am also quite aware that both the companies and the Central Electricity Board continually warned the right hon. Gentleman of what would happen if he did not take certain steps—[An HON. MEMBER: "The then Minister of Production."] — No, the present Minister of Fuel and Power and there is great fear today that what happened last winter will be repeated this winter. It is because we believe that to his failure in coal this Bill will add failure in electricity; it is because we believe that under it the nation will not secure that fair play for consumers which the Parliamentary Secre-
  992
  tary said was to essential, and that they will procure neither the cheapest nor the most abundant supplies of electricity which it is humanly possible to get; it is because we believe the nation will not get those things that I have moved that this Bill be read a Third time three months today.
  5.8 p.m.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: I listened very carefully to the speech of the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), waiting for him to explain to us the alternative to this Bill which hon. Gentlemen opposite would put forward. Also I waited patiently for him to answer the questions put to him by the Parliamentary Secretary requesting him to state what he would do were he in the shoes of the Minister of Fuel and Power today.
  Mr. Hudson: It would have been grossly out of Order to have gone beyond what I said.
  Mr. Davies: And it would be grossly unusual if the right hon. Gentleman conscientiously stayed within the Rules of Order. All the right hon. Gentleman did was, first, to prophesy dislocation and disorder as a result of the passing of this Bill and, secondly, to continue that sneering campaign against the Minister and his proposals which has been characteristic of the Opposition to this Bill in Committee and during the Report stage on the Floor of the House. The tactics of the Opposition appear to me to have been to put up improbable propositions to the Minister during the Committee stage suggesting that certain abuses would be carried out and then, because those propositions were rejected by the Minister, to intimate that the Minister condoned those abuses. They did it in suggesting that directors should not be paid tax-free. They did it in suggesting that there should not be victimisation, and so on.
  The right hon. Gentleman suggested, and repeated in the Debate this afternoon, that there would be patronage. It hardly becomes hon. Members opposite to suggest that there will be patronage from this side of the House. If they were to look at the records of the public boards appointed by them during their time of office, it would be very difficult— in fact, impossible—to find anybody on those boards who was a known Socialist. We would also find that they preferred,

  993
  in the legislation they passed in those days, to set up forms of public companies to which Government directors were appointed, free of responsibility to this House, rather than to set up public corporations responsible to this House.
  I think that this Bill is the most satisfactory of the nationalisation Measures which have so far come before the House. I say that because, in the first place, it is a more comprehensive Measure for a single industry than any yet laid before this Chamber. No section of the industry is excluded. In the case of transport, for instance, certain sections are left to private enterprise, whereas in this Bill the whole process of the generation of electricity to its actual distribution comes under public ownership and control. The second reason is that in this Bill there is provision for the full co-ordinaton of the industry. Not only does the first Clause impose that as a duty upon the Central Authority and the boards, but it provides full liaison and co-ordination between the Central Authorty and the area boards by instituting what I consider to be a very useful precedent, the serving on the Central Authority of the chairmen of the area boards in rotation. Now that the Transport Commission is to be enlarged, if an Amendment carried in another place is accepted by this House, I think the Minister of Transport ought to consider following that precedent in the case of the Transport Executives. That is by way of comparison.
  A third reason why this is the most satisfactory of the nationalising Measures, is because the consultative councils are not appointed solely to receive representations from disgruntled consumers—they are consultative councils, and not merely consumers' councils. In other words, they are appointed to bring the community as a whole into close relationship with the executive body, and to participate in formulating policy and planning. That is a distinct advance in the policy of administration of nationalised industries. The fourth good point about this Bill is the greater provision that is made for the consideration of the workers in the industry. In Clause 2 (2), there is introduced for the first time in a nationalising Measure, provision for the training and education of the workers in the industry, which is a considerable advance. Then, in Clause 53 (16), there is provision, as
  994
  in some other nationalisation Measures, for full consultation with the staff on all matters concerning the welfare, safety and efficiency of the industry. This Bill makes possible what should be one of the aims of nationalised industry—a partnership between the administration and the consumer, that is, the community, and the workers of the industry. If we bring those three sections together in the operating of a publicly-owned enterprise, we are likely to have a realization amongst the workers of the industry that they are participating in ownership and are sharing responsibility for the administration of the industry. That is essential to the success of a nationalised industry.
  Much has been said, during the progress of this Bill through its various stages, on the question of compensation. It was raised this afternoon by the right hon. Member for Southport. It seems to me that his argument that there is an element of confiscation in the proposals put forward to purchase the undertakings on the basis of prices of Stock Exchange values, does not hold any substance in truth. Arguments which have been put forward from the other side cannot be substantiated. The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) put forward the suggestion the other night, on the Report stage, that the prices of Stock Exchange shares are governed largely by the dividend which those shares are paying and by the dividend yield of those shares.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre indicated assent.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. and gallant Member assents. Surely, as a financial pundit who fires questions vigorously at the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he is aware that the institutional investor, who makes up the mass of the investors in the City, judges shares not by the current yield—by the dividend paid at that particular time—but upon earnings which are being received, and by potential earnings, and the extent to which they are retained and the extent to which they are distributed. He then compares them with the earnings yields of other companies. On the basis of the hon. and gallant Member's argument, if shares were judged entirely by dividend yield, all comparable shares would yield approximately the same income. But, if we compare Woolworths with Marks and Spencers, we find

  995
  a difference in dividend yield. It is largely a question of whether a larger amount of earnings is distributed or not. The argument that Stock Exchange values means that the prudent are handicapped at the expense of those not so prudent—those who distribute up to the hilt—is not sound, because share prices are based on the intrinsic value of the company as judged by its earnings, and not by the amount it distributes.
  This afternoon, the Parliamentary Secretary referred to acceptance of Stock Exchange values for Death Duties, and the right hon. Member for Southport said in reply that no one would take the valuation of Death Duties on the basis of share prices two years old. The hon. Member the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) used precisely the same argument the other night when he asked -if anyone would sell electricity shares today at prices prevailing in November, 1946, which is the date when valuation of the shares for compensation takes place. The fallacy of that argument is that the shares of the electricity companies which are being taken over at prices then prevailing are still quoted on the Stock Exchange. There is still a free market—
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre rose—
  Mr. Davies: Will the hon. and gallant Member wait a minute?—because it is known what these shares are to receive in substitution as compensation, namely, Government stock. Therefore, electricity shares have risen in proportion to Government stocks. The rise in value of those shares is in exact proportion to the rise in Government stock, and it is not a question of the price in November, 1946, but the price of Government stocks now. The hon. Member for Cambridge University suggested, during the Report stage, as also did the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) that shareholders should receive Consols or Government stock at the prices as at the same date November, 1946. That is precisely the position, because the value of the shares today is equivalent to the value of Consols today, which includes, of course, their rise in value since November, 1946.
  Finally, on this question of valuation, when a person buys an equity share or any other share, it is bought on the basis
  996
  of Stock Exchange values. If that person sells that share, he obtains the Stock Exchange price. If it is acquired by the Government, he is paid on precisely the same basis; he is compensated at the Stock Exchange price, which is an exactly comparable basis. If we departed from that principle and decided to buy the assets— and the only argument put forward from the other side of the House in favour of an asset value price was that the shareholders would receive more—and it resulted in more being paid, the people who received that compensation would be especially favourably treated. They would be having favourable treatment as against those people who hold other Stock Exchange, shares, in concerns not subject to nationalisation. The taking of Stock Exchange values offers a simple basis. To depart from it, and to suggest that because the undertakings are to be nationalised the shareholders should receive special treatment, is not justice, so far as we on this side of the House are concerned.
  What has to be considered in relation to compensation is whether the State is taking over the industry at a price which is fair both to the person being bought out, and to the State itself. In this case compensation is fair, because the burden imposed on the industry, which will now be publicly owned, is no greater burden than that industry can bear. The interest reduction of roughly £4,750,000 will enable the nationalised industry to start off at a financial advantage as compared with the industry at the present time. The reduction in the interest is fully justified, firstly, because of the excessive profits which have been distributed in the past in the industry, through high dividends and bonus shares, and secondly, in the case of the Central Electricity Board, because of the financial policy which was followed by that board in being too proud to take advantage of the Treasury guarantee. It could have issued stocks at a far lower rate of interest than it did had it had a Treasury guarantee. If one looks back over the history of the Central Electricity Board one finds that in 1934, and earlier, stocks were issued just before War Loan conversions took place, when at that time the chairman of the Central Electricity Board, a very able one, who now sits for the Scottish Universities, was a director of the Bank of England, as was

  997
  another member of the Board. It was pointed out in the "Economist" at the time that the Central Electricity Board was paying in interest a sum of £750,000 a year more than it need have done had it borrowed more prudently.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: To whom exactly is the hon. Member referring? I think he has certainly made a mistake in the name he has just mentioned.
  Mr. Davies: I beg the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's pardon. I am referring to the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan).
  This Bill gives an opportunity to the Minister of Fuel and Power, through the more extensive Clauses covering his responsibility, to redeem to a certain extent the mistake he has made, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, in refusing to take this House into his confidence as regards the operation of these public corporations. One of the main advantages of nationalisation is that it provides public accountability; that the Minister is responsible for the success of the public corporations; that he has certain duties and responsibilities imposed upon him, mainly in the sphere of the direction of general policy and on the question of planning; and that having the responsibility he should be prepared to answer in this House for the success or failure of these boards. The Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon referred to the fact that the Minister could not answer on matters of detail, and no one wants him to do so, but but I would put it to him that it is a grave mistake to refuse to give information on matters except in a matter of high policy where to give that information might be undesirable. It is highly important that if questions are put to him in this House on matters regarding which there is suspicion that things are going wrong, he shall answer those questions so that those suspicions shall be laid at rest. The Parliamentary Secretary suggested that we do not want these boards to become the cockpit of party politics. We certainly do not, but I warn the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister that there is a danger, if the Minister refuses to give information, and suspicions do arise that things are wrong in any respect, that those boards will become a matter for party politics.
  998
  These are public boards. The Central Authority and the area boards are public corporations. They are to be owned by the State. We, as Members of this House, are the watchdogs for the community, and the Minister is responsible to us. He should answer to us on question which we put to him regarding these boards—and in the case of the Coal Board he has failed to do that on many occasions. I suggest to him that in the case of the electricity boards he should start off on a different foot and set a new precedent. There is full provision in the Bill for the Minister to obtain information from the boards. The Parliamentary Secretary suggested that because the Minister had not the power, therefore he had not the responsibility, and he should not answer questions. But as the Minister has, in the Bill, the right to go to the boards and ask for information, he can come to this House and give an answer to the hon. Member who has put a question, and if he prefers he can say that the answer has been received from the board. That does not imply acceptance of that great power and that great responsibility. It is not right that the Minister should, as it were, stand with sealed lips before this iron curtain, which is dropped down in front of the Coal Board. Some Ministers do not know when to seal their lips or when to unseal them. In this case I urge the Minister to unseal his lips as regards the Coal Board, and, in the future, as regards these electricity boards.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: i wonder it the Minister, had he been present, would have claimed a right to reply to the powerful argument which is being produced from his own side of the House?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: 1 was listening to the hon. Member and hoping that he was going no further in that direction.
  Mr. Davies: I had made my point, and I did not intend to pursue it any further. This Bill is a good one. I congratulate the Minister on the blueprint he has drawn. The success of the carrying out of this Bill, after it has received the Royal Assent, depends upon the possibility of establishing a partnership between the three sections concerned— the administration, the workers, and the community; and equally 'upon the extent to which the Minister himself

  999
  takes responsibility for watching over the Central Authority and the area boards and directing their policy. I hope he will then come here willingly to answer to this House for the success of this Socialist Measure.
  5.29 p.m
  Sir Arnold Gridley: In rising to address the House for the last time on this nationalisation Bill, I think it will be understood in all quarters that I have anything but a cheerful song in my heart. As a member of a democratically elected institution, I realise that this Government have the power to nationalise this industry, but I am convinced, and I think the great majority of those who, like myself, have been engaged in the industry for very many years will be equally convinced, that if the industry had to be nationalised a far better, simpler and sounder Bill than this could have been devised. In Committee, as the Parliamentary Secretary has generously recognised, my colleagues and I in a spirit of hopefulness did what we could to remedy some of the defects in the Bill. I am bound to give expression, however, to my opinion that, nevertheless, it remains a gravely defective structure. I will endeavour in a short speech to deal with some of the major defects that still exist.
  I affirm, and I think my affirmation cannot be contradicted, that there is nothing whatever in this Measure which gives any hope to consumers, either domestic or industrial, and that, when all the assets of existing undertakings have been handed over to the Central Authority, there is no prospect whatever of electricity supplies being made cheaper in the near or, so far as I can see, the distant future. The coal industry has been nationalised. Coal is one of the essential raw materials for the production of cheap electricity. We are today paying more than twice the prewar price for coal, and if what we have heard is correct high as the prices are today, we are to be told that in the next few days the price of coal is again to be raised. What price do we expect to have to pay for coal in the future? Who can answer that question other than by saying that they fear it is going to be very much higher in the future than we have known in the past. That itself will be a tremendous drag against the cheapening of the generation of electric power.
  1000
  It is true that the Central Authority will start off with a nest egg, but until we know what interest is to be paid on the British Electricity Stock when the time comes to issue it we cannot estimate accurately. If we assume that it is to be what is now looked upon as the standard 2½ per cent., then, so far as can be estimated, the present holders of stocks and shares will find their income reduced in the aggregate by a sum of somewhere between £4 million and £5 million a year. That, of course, will be a credit to costs of the new Authority and the area boards. But why should the stock and share holders in these undertakings suffer this grave injustice? When all is said and done, and I am sure the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary could not and would not deny that if there is an industry in the country today enjoying an assured and ever-growing annual income and a long-established number of years of safe dividend, it is this industry. That has been the case for many years. If one may make a comparison, there is no argument here, as conceivably there might be in the case of the transport undertakings and their stockholders that their revenues are subject to violent fluctuations depending upon whether trade is good or bad.
  Here there is an absolutely assured income, and every stockholder and shareholder had every reason to look forward to receiving a certain definite annual income for years. Many of these concerns have been paying a steady 6 per cent. A few have paid 7 or 8 per cent. That was an income which the holders of the scrip might look forward to for many years to come. Now they are to receive in exchange for one piece of paper bringing them in somewhere around 3¾ per cent. to 4 per cent. at Stock Exchange prices, another piece of paper which will bring in 2½per cent. I do not know how any reasonably minded man can say that that is other than a gross and grave injustice to the holders of these stocks and shares.
  I pass to one or two other defects which I ask the House to consider. The British Electricity Authority, as I understand it, is to take over complete financial responsibility for its own Board and for the 14 area boards. The area boards, important organisations as they are, with responsible members—I will not call them directors, because obviously so much seems to attach to that word in

  1001
  some quarters—are to be appointed by the Minister. Yet they are not to be of sufficient calibre to be entrusted with any capital or cash except working capital. The ownership of all the assets throughout the country is to be vested in the British Electricity Authority. What is the Authority going to acquire? It will acquire the power stations, the extra high tension mains. the sub-stations and transformers, and the distributing mains, the meters in millions of household premises, and all the hired or hire purchase apparatus. In what manner will that be divided up? Presumably the Central Authority will be allocated the power stations, the high tension transmission mains, and all the other equipment and apparatus I have mentioned will be allocated to the area boards.
  As I see it, we reach this dilemma. First, how are these assets to be subdivided? Second, how are they to be valued? We had considerable discussion on the question of valuation on Report stage. I said then that the matter would have to come up again because the amount of British Electricity Stock issued in payment on the Stock Exchange basis for these assets that are to be taken over will vary very widely from the present day-book values of those assets. In some cases, the new stock issued will be in excess of the written-down value of these assets; in other cases, it may be considerably below that value. I think we ought to have been told, before we part with this Bill, if we are to judge how these areas compare in efficiency one with another, how those assets are to be subdivided and how they are to be valued. It would have been far simpler if all the area boards had taken over all the assets inside their own very large areas, but we do not know, and the Bill is quite silent, as to how this sub-division and valuation is to be carried out.
  My next point is that the Central Authority are to have the power to run all the power stations, and put up new ones as rapidly as circumstances will permit, and to decide the bulk supply terms for each of these 14 areas. The area boards have no say in the matter. It is true that they can sit down and argue across the table about the terms suggested by the Central Authority, but what we would like to know is, if there is any difference of view, how it is going to be adjusted. There is nothing in the Bill,
  1002
  which provides for that. There is one Clause in the Bill, Clause 1 (4, a)in which the area boards are given powers to give bulk supplies to one another and exchange current, but it seems to me that this provision conflicts with the other part of the scheme. 1 can see advantages if the area boards interchange supplies, but there is nothing in the Bill to suggest how that arrangement is going to be effected and upon what terms. If a dispute arises between one area board and another, I suppose the Central Board at the top would decide what the terms of exchange of current should be.
  Now I come to what I consider to be one of the most fundamental defects in the Bill. I am not looking at it from the financial point of view, but purely from the technical and administrative point of view. I think it is a profound mistake to divorce the power stations from the ownership of the area boards, and I will tell the House why. The Parliamentary' Secretary, in his speech, stated that, when the Central Electricity Board was set up, it followed logically from that arrangement that they ought to have been given the ownership of the stations. If it had been thought right, when the Act of 1926 was passed, that the Central Electricity Board ought to be the owners of the power stations. Parliament in its wisdom would have said so then, but that was not so.
  The House must realise that two-thirds of the supply of electricity throughout the country is used by productive industry. It will be a very different matter getting industrial firms to take current in the future, because there is to be competition between them and these area boards. It will not exist between the area boards and domestic consumers, but the industrial user could put down his own plant if he was not satisfied with the area board's terms, and could use either oil, coal or gas. How is this competition going to be met? How is the board going to compete for this business, if some areas have to pay a higher price for their bulk supply, or charge a higher price to their consumers in order that cheaper current may be given to thinner or more rural areas. The Minister looks a little puzzled about that, but it is a very real point, which the area boards will have to

  1003
  meet. There are many specialised industries, more, perhaps, than some hon. Members think, who require current on very special and finely cut terms. Take the case of a great business in iron and steel, with blast furnaces, gas plant, coke ovens and all the rest of it. I have found from experience how difficult it is to weigh up all the pros and cons in a case of that kind where, in future, the area boards may be asked to put down a local generating plant to supply such works from their stations at certain times of the day, supplemented by current from the area board at other times. It becomes a very complicated proposition, and special cases of this kind, where load arid power factors are so important, may have a most profound effect on this system of power stations—
  Mr. Scollan: Would the hon. Gentleman explain the point? Would he tell us exactly how nationalisation would alter that?
  Sir A. Gridley: A proposition of that kind has to be settled promptly. It is complicated enough in itself, but, before reaching a final conclusion on a proposition of that kind, it will have to go from the area board to the—[Interruption.]It is all very well for hon. Members to pooh-pooh that suggestion, but they do not know any more about 'it than I do until the machine is at work.
  My last point on this particular problem is this. How many Parliamentary committees have there been which have reported on the need for the re-organisation of this industry? Five or six in the last few years, and not one of them has ever advocated the separation of generation and transmission from distribution. It is only this Government that is ignoring all the experience of the past and has decided, in its wisdom or unwisdom, to do so. I say that, in this respect, this Bill will perpetrate a most serious technical and administrative blunder.
  I want to say one word about the Clause which gives power to the Central Authority to manufacture plant and fittings. The Minister may say that the power companies have had such powers in their private Acts of Parliament. That is true, but they have never found it necessary to use them. Why was that? Because the manufacturers in this country have always given the purchasers
  1004
  a fair deal. If proof of that were needed, it lies in the fact that power is produced as efficiently and cheaply in Great Britain as in any other country in the world where circumstances are similar. While it might be conceded to the Government and their supporters that they may have had a mandate for nationalising the electricity supply industry, I doubt very much whether anybody could claim that they had a mandate for embarking on the manufacture of electrical plant and fittings.
  With regard to the consultative committees, I think, perhaps, that I am sometimes in disagreement with some of my hon. Friends on this point. I have taken up a line which I feel bound to take up. I recognise, of course, that one of the designs of this provision is to satisfy the local authorities—so far as that is possible—who are being dispossessed of their undertakings. I hold the view that this will be a most cumbersome piece of delaying machinery. It will delay progress and will inevitably add unnecessarily to the cost of current. What are these consultative committees to do? They are to consider distribution tariffs, they are to be informed of area board plans, and they are to have the right to make representations upon them. They can refer matters passed to area boards to the Central Board, who can vary area board plans. Each and every council is to submit a scheme for the establishment of committees in the 14 areas. These committees are to consider local requirements, and each of these 14 councils to be set up may appoint officers to enable them to perform their functions Those officers will have to be paid salaries, and office accommodation will have to be provided.
  Does not everyone appreciate that this piece of cumbersome machinery must inevitably delay progress? Surely, it would have been far simpler to have relied, so far as domestic consumers are concerned, upon the protection they already enjoy under existing Statutes. As far as the local authorities are concerned, does anybody suppose that important local authorities like, say, Manchester and Sheffield, if they were dissatisfied with what the area boards were proposing to do in their own particular cities and towns, could not raise that dissatisfaction either directly with the area board or directly with this

  1005
  House through their own Members of Parliament? I consider that these consultative committees will be a drag upon the progress of these nationalised undertakings. I hope that before the Bill is finally placed upon the Statute Book it may be possible for the Minister and his advisers to think again and see whether they cannot cut out some of this delaying procedure. Why is it that the General Post Office, in respect of its postal, telegraph, telephone and parcel services which, after all, are in some respects analogous to this, has never found it necessary to set up consultative councils?
  I have been anxious today to avoid inflicting on the House a speech of the length of that which I am sorry to say I inflicted on it in the Second Reading Debate. Therefore, may I conclude by saying this. For exactly 50 years I have had some part in building up this great, efficient and successful industry. During the first world war, I was the controller of the industry at the Ministry of Munitions. My part in it must now come to an end. It hurts me, after so long, and, I hope, not dishonourable a service, that under Clause 54 of this Bill a director is assumed to be guilty of offences unless he can prove his innocence. My friends and colleagues in this industry—and they are many—have all been honourable men. It is to be profoundly regretted that a Clause should be put into a Bill by any British Government which casts unmerited aspersions on a body of honourable men.
  This is my "swan song." I now see, with Kipling, the things that I have given my life to, broken, and it is too late now for me to stoop and build them up again with worn-out tools. While I think that nationalisation is a mistake, and that, if it had to be, it could have been carried through under a far sounder and more wisely constructed Bill than this, I do not wish to see this great industry, which has rendered such magnificent service to British industry in the past, failing to repeat or enhance those services in the future. I can only hope—as I profoundly do—that in the years that remain to me I shall not see it fail.
  5.58 p.m.
  Mr. Palmer: I am sure that we all agree with the hon. Gentleman the Senior Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) when he speaks of his
  1006
  very long association with the British electricity supply industry. I had the pleasure some little time ago of Debating this question of the nationalisation of the industry with the hon. Gentleman, and I know that he will understand me when I say that though we disagree with him, many of us understand and respect his views. Incidentally, I should like to say from my own experience of his work in Committee how we appreciate some of the constructive ideas he has put forward for improving this Bill. I hope he is not going to be too serious about his pessimism over the future of this industry. I thought the hon. Gentleman raised a number of technical bogies, if I may call them such, which arc likely, in my view, to vanish before the natural ingenuity of the engineers and administrators in the electricity supply industry. I do not think that they should be taken too seriously by the House.
  The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) paid a tribute to the efficiency of the industry I do not think it has ever been suggested—by either side —in our Debates on this Bill, either on Second Reading or in Committee upstairs, that the industry was in any way inefficient. If it is good public policy to take over an industry, and it happens to be an efficient industry, that is all to the good. I do not see why it should be left to public enterprise to confine its activities always to broken down industries. Like my hon Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, I have been struck by the fact that the Opposition have done very little indeed to demolish by their arguments the main structure of the organisation to be set up. They have said very little, for instance, about the proposal in the Bill to complete the work of the 1926 Act by a closer unification of generation and bulk transmission. They grumbled a little about the size of the distribution areas, but they certainly produced no evidence to suggest that those distribution areas are- the wrong areas. In any case, they can be varied under the terms of the Bill. Their size is not fixed for all time.
  Hon. Members opposite have certainly not quarrelled with the principle of the regionalisation of distribution. When it has suited hon. Members opposite, they have pleaded the cause of the publicly owned undertaking. On other occasions they have spoken as if the success of this

  1007
  industry, two-thirds of which is already under public ownership, was a tribute to private enterprise. I have noticed—and some of us, perhaps, have felt—the strength of the lobbying of the Incorporated Municipal Electrical Association which, in the last few months, has brought out proposals for district executives as an alternative to the system of area boards and consultative councils. It is interesting to note, however, that hon. Members opposite have not thought fit to give any support to the idea of district executives controlled by the local authorities alone, and I think that is some tribute to the essential soundness of the technical organisation proposed in this Bill.
  Before the war there was a great deal of controversy and discussion in the electricity supply industry and, for that matter, outside it, about the future organisation of the industry. There were quite a number of reports including the famous McGowan Committee Report of 1936, and there were a number of White Papers. But if one considers all the various proposals for the organisation of the supply industry and boils them down to a few essentials, I suggest there were about three essentials which had the support of the majority of disinterested people with a knowledge of the electricity supply industry. They were, first, a reduction in the number of distribution undertakings. That was the main proposal of the McGowan Committee's report. Secondly, I submit—and this is where I join issue with the hon. Member for Stockport— that progressive technical opinion in the industry is in favour of centralised ownership and operation of major power stations.
  Sir A. Gridley: No.
  Mr. Palmer: Oh, yes. I would not wish to embarrass the engineers of, at least, one important semi-public authority by quoting their names in this House, but I might refer the hon. Member for Stockport to the memorandum of the I.M.E.A. published in 1943, which was in favour of power stations being under the direct control of the Central Electricity Board. I think the quite famous paper read by the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, Mr. Beard, in 1940 or 1941, before the Institution, was also in favour of the idea of centralised control
  1008
  and operation of major power stations. I have little doubt that the Central Electricity Board would be very much in favour of it, if they were free to express their opinions, but that is purely a personal view of mine.
  The third essential was the creation of an effective national planning authority. If these are the essentials, as I believe them to be, for electrical progress, measured in terms of improved service, greater availability and lower prices, how far does this Bill satisfy them? Area grouping is accomplished by the setting up of the 14 area boards to replace the great number of separate undertakings which exist at the moment. It is proposed also to transfer the organisation of the Central Electricity Board to the new Central Authority, where it will become the national generation and bulk transmission department of this new Central Authority. To satisfy the third essential, the new Central Authority is to have those wide planning powers which the sponsors of the 1919 Act intended to give the Electricity Commissioners but which were never given to them in fact. That was a great defect in that 1919 Act. Therefore, in those main essentials, agreed by disinterested opinion in the industry itself, this Bill satisfied requirements.
  What are the practical advantages likely to spring from the application of these essentials to the electricity supply industry when the Bill becomes law? I do not think anyone will suggest that the Bill as such, or its operation as an Act, will have much effect on load shedding in the coming winter or for several winters to come. These cuts are inevitable, nationalisation or no nationalisation. It is true, as the Parliamentary Secretary-said, that the benefits which will spring from this legislation are relatively long-term benefits. But because these benefits are long-term, it would be wrong for the House to suppose that they are in any kind of doubt. They will lead, first, to a progressive reduction of varying voltages, eccentric tariffs and uneven prices; second, the placing for the first time of the urban and rural dwellers on approximately an equal footing in regard to the availability of electricity; and third, I believe that in the long run we shall get cheaper electricity from the operation of this Measure as the result of the more efficient working of the larger distribution units.

  1009
  Hon. Members opposite have spoken a great deal on this Bill, both here and in Committee upstairs,' but they have not in any way upset the main argument on which the Bill rests. Indeed, hon. Members opposite have preferred to concentrate their heaviest fire—as usual, of course—on the compensation Clauses.
  Mr. Sidney Marshall: Why not?
  Mr. Palmer: In that matter the Conservatives, as usual, ran true to form. They then turned their attention to the alleged lack of protection for the consumer—a most worthy object, of course. We are all anxious to protect the consumer. Then, in more recent days, particularly on the Report stage, they have concerned themselves with purely political issues such as the dangers of ministerial patronage—I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Minister is quite familiar with those arguments—and also the advantages of appointing anti-nationalisers to the boards of nationalised industries. They are keen to stress those advantages. I want quite shortly to deal with those points in order.
  As to the companies' compensation, I do not propose to go into details. I am not a financial expert. I am an amateur reader of the "Financial Times," but I should not like to go into the details of the financial side of the electricity supply industry; and I am certainly not going to enter into the controversy about taking the Stock Exchange value, as against the other ways of valuing assets. But the main complaint of the Opposition, as I understand it—and I have listened with great care to the contributions made to our Debates by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the New Forest and Christ-church (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) and the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Birch), who is not here—the main complaint of the Opposition is that the electricity supply investor will have a smaller income in the future. That is the main complaint, as I understand it; and if it the case—and let us assume it is—I do not think it is a particularly unhealthy matter. I do not think it is socially undesirable to transfer income from the investor to the producer, or, by reducing prices, to the consumer, if. at the same time, we are able in a satisfactory manner to capitalise the industry. I want to turn to the question of the protection of the consumer. In the past
  1010
  that has been achieved by local authority ownership where there has been local authority ownership. Protection has also been secured by a series of complicated and obscure provisions in various electricity supply Acts. The protection afforded when the consumer was also a ratepayer and able to appeal to his local councillor was a most real and valuable protection. But did that protection exist in company areas? Of course, it did not. And those company areas extended over many thousands of square miles. Then, as to the protection afforded by the provisions of existing legislation, how many small consumers having a grievance against an electricity supply company could take the grievance to the processes of law? How many, in fact, did so? How many could afford to do so? I think that that protection, in fact, was most unreal. But the present Bill does propose to establish a real and living link between the consumer and his electricity supply authority. It will establish everywhere, locally and regionally, consultative councils, and to these bodies the consumers—organised or otherwise—can bring their complaints.
  On the matter of appointments to the various boards to be set up by the Bill, I hope that my right hon. Friend is not going to be deflected from his intentions by the propaganda of the Opposition. We had an extra instalment today from the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), who has now gone out. They are making fantastic charges of patronage and worse, which, in my view, make slight reading, against the realities of the everyday commercial world. I hope that my right hon. Friend is going to appoint to the boards men whose sole qualification will be expert knowledge of electricity supply and its real problem, and then the question of their opinions on the political principle of ownership as such need not and will not arise: their sole desire will be to serve the industry in the years ahead as well and effectively as they served it in the past. As for those who work in the industry, the technical, administrative and manual workers, they, through all stages of this Bill, have studied it and made suggestions for improving it, and I do want to pay a tribute to my right hon. Friend for the way he has received the representatives of employees who have been to see him from time to time. Of course, they are going to scrutinise with great care the various regu-

  1011
  lations to be made under the superannuation and other Clauses, but they are, at the same time, I understand, appreciative of the way in which their representations have been received so far.
  Hon. Gentlemen on the other side will not object very much if, in conclusion, I quote to them some words of Joseph Chamberlain, who was an electricity supply administrator in his day. He said:
  "The State is justified in passing any law or doing any single act which, in its ultimate consequence, adds to the sum of human happiness."
  I believe that this present legislation which concerns electricity will add in its practical effect a great deal to the sum of human happiness by abolishing dirt and darkness and needless physical toil during our lives. I believe that this legislation will add a little to the possibilities, at least, of human happiness. Therefore I have great pleasure and enthusiasm in recommending the Third Reading of this Bill to the House.
  6.18 p.m.
  Mr. Sidney Marshall: I am very glad to follow the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer) because I know that he is an expert in electricity. But it was not so pleasant to hear him spend a quarter of an hour trying to prove that the Bill showers benefits upon the community, without pointing out in any way a single benefit which the Bill will bring to the people of this country.
  Mr. Palmer: It will bring cheaper electricity.
  Mr. Marshall: That has yet to be proved. One can say already, from the relationship between this industry which we are discussing today and the coal industry, that it is very probable that we shall see no benefits from this nationalisation Bill for many years to come. I think that the probability is that we shall see, not cheaper supplies of electricity but, on the contrary, great increases in cost to the consumer.
  I have risen principally to deal with two points which are in the Bill. One is the appointment of the consultative councils, and the other the compensation to be paid—or, rather, which is not to be paid—to the local authorities. The ap-
  1012
  pointment of consultative councils in this class of legislation is becoming quite common. I have had considerable experience of them in many ways, and I have come to the conclusion that these consultative councils and advisory councils are, very frequently, nothing less—or nothing more—than a blind and pretence. These councils very often appear in legislation today in order to make the legislation seem more democratic, and for making it seem to the man in the street that he is going to have a finger in the pie of the management of these things.
  It is plain from the composition of these consultative councils that they will have no executive powers whatever. These bodies — committees, advisory councils, call them what you will.—are very attractive when first set up. but then there is the problem of getting the large number of people required to serve on them. In this instance, the local councils will nominate half the members, and the Minister will nominate the remaining half. From my experience, these councils begin their job with a great deal of enthusiasm, but after a short period of service, when they find they have no executive powers, although it may appear on paper, as it does here, that they have very vast powers indeed—they have a very different outlook on the whole position and are not very anxious to serve. I am quite sure that the Minister, in appointing these councils, knows very well that he is not doing so because he is desirous that these people shall really share in the administration of this Bill, but rather so that it might appear that he is giving them some opportunity of sharing in it In actual practice, they will have nothing to do except make recommendations, which they can do to the area boards.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) said, the consultative councils can by-pass the area boards and make representations on behalf of the consumers, and such people, as laid down in the Bill, direct to the Central Authority. But the Bill does not say that the Central Authority or the area boards are to take any notice of the recommendations made by the councils if they do not agree with them. From that it would appear that a consultative council may go on for years making certain recommendations and suggestions about

  1013
  these things to the area boards or the Central Authority without the slightest notice being taken of them. Therefore, I am sure that the appointing of the consultative councils in this fashion, without any executive powers whatsoever, is purely a blind, and will certainly achieve nothing for consumers in the administration of electricity.
  Much stress has been laid upon the receipt of complaints, and so on. I am quite sure the consumer who has a complaint to make today can nearly always make his complaint direct to the authority about whom he wishes to complain. But under this Bill that consumer apparently has to lay his complaint before the consultative council, who will then consider whether it is a justifiable complaint which is worth dealing with and passing on to the area board. If the consultative council do not think it comes within that category, the poor consumer is left with no means of redress. He may go on making complaints year after year without getting any satisfaction, and certainly no redress. That is another reason why I say that these consultaive councils, as set up, are purely a blind.
  The very method of setting up these councils points to the fact that they are a blind. If I thought they were to be composed wholly of elected representatives of the people of the areas in which they will operate and function—I know half of them are to be—if they all were to be subject to the democratic system of election, then I could understand the reason for setting them up, because then they would be responsible bodies, and in that case I imagine the Minister would be bound to give them some executive functions. But that is not so. Moreover, in Clause 7 of the Bill there is the extraordinary provision that these people are to have
  "the ability to exercise a wide and impartial judgment on the matters to be dealt with by the Council generally."
  I think that covers the second half of the consultative councils, those appointed by the Minister. But it does not say in whose eyes these qualities are to be judged. From what we have already heard during the discussions on this Bill it appears to us that the Minister has it in mind to appoint to these consultative councils, so far as his half is concerned, only such people as are recommended to
  1014
  him as having great sympathy with the nationalisation of electricity, and not perhaps so much interest in serving the nation by obtaining cheap and plentiful supplies of electricity.
  These consultative councils are certainly not the sort of bodies which should be set up in connection with this type of legislation. We are suffering too much from ministerial appointments in many fields of legislation at the present time. In this fashion we are fast becoming totalitarian. I suggest it is the very antithesis of democracy to have all these appointments made directly by the Minister. Of course, I can well understand hon. Members opposite viewing that with some degree of pleasure when they themselves might possibly fill the bill in some of these nominations. From what has been said, there will be very few nominations from among those people who share the views of hon. Members on this side of the House. In this way we see democracy disappearing, and what remains of democratic government in this country being represented entirely by hon. Members of the party to which I belong. I almost included the present remnants of the Liberal Party. It will become very clear, in a very few years now, that the only true democratic people are those—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Member has got very wide of the Bill.
  Mr. Marshall: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was pointing out that the Minister's method of selecting the members of these consultative councils will undoubtedly lead to the situation I have already indicated. I am sorry if I have transgressed the rules of Order in that regard. I am quite sure that the method of appointing the members of these consultative councils will be open to very serious question in many ways.
  The other point I wish to make is in regard to the compensation of local authorities for their undertakings. The hon. Member for Wimbledon said that it was very natural for hon. Members on this side of the House to be interested only, or mainly, in the question of compensation, referring to the compensation to be paid to public utility companies whose stocks are held by the public. The reason we are interested in that is because

  1015
  we still believe in the commandment: "Thou shalt not steal." The borough in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wimbledon has a very fine electricity undertaking, which no one knows better than the hon. Member himself. There is a case in point, which I dare say he brought to the attention of the Standing Committee. Under the compensation or severance terms provided for local authorities, that authority will be a very big loser indeed. In past years they have built up a very successful and profitable electricity undertaking, by means of which they have not only supplied the residents of the borough with very cheap electricity, and paid something towards the rates, but have at the same time reduced the loan on their undertaking to such a small figure that the amount they are presumably receiving is infinitesimal compared with the value of the undertaking had it been commercially owned.
  That applies also to many undertakings in this country where, through the skill, care and assiduity of the members of local authorities, they have been able to create and build up very fine electricity undertakings, supplying electricity at very low costs indeed. They are to lose their undertakings. The ratepayers of those districts have, with their own money, created these undertakings, and it is right and proper that they should continue to receive—as they would have done had it not been for this Bill—recompense in the alleviation of rates and in the provision of cheaper electric current. That all goes by the board, and they are to receive practically nothing in exchange.
  The Minister, when talking about the amount to be devoted for compensating the local authorities, mentioned the sum of £5 million. He knows very well that this sum was not brought into the picture until very late. When he was asked whether the local authorities had been consulted at any time in regard to the selection of this sum of £5 million, he said that the local authorities had been consulted, and he produced a letter showing that they had been consulted. I quite agree that they had been consulted, and that he possessed such a letter. He said that the local authorities had more or less agreed that the sum of £5 million would be entirely satisfactory to them, but he added that if it were not, he was not going to bargain with them. I cannot
  1016
  conceive any more clear case of dictatorship than that. The Minister, with little ideas about the valuation of the undertakings to be compensated in this way, assumed a round figure of £5 million, and he laughed when it was suggested that £10 million might be nearer the mark. I suggest that those who put forward the figure of £10 million have just as much information on the valuation as the Minister, and that they may be just as right with their figure.
  The Bill is a deplorable attempt- to filch property from the people under the guise of nationalisation. It is the most simple thing in the world to relieve people of their property with the means the Government are employing at the present time. It is obvious that people have no means whereby they can resist the predatory hands of the Government, and apparently they are obliged at the moment to accept the position. Whether or not this is one of the items on the list for denationalisation, I suggest that we shall see the Minister hoist by his own petard. He will achieve nothing he sets out to do, nor shall we see the garden of Eden which the Parliamentary Secretary said was bound to follow, when this Bill becomes an Act.
  6.34 p.m.
  Mr. Hobson: We were all impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley), and particularly by his final remarks. One appreciates that the hon. Member has given a lifetime of service to the industry, and that he has always been particularly concerned with the efficiency of the company with which he is connected, and incidentally, Kearsley, one of his stations, has the highest thermal efficiency in Britain. As one who is also engaged in the industry, I would point out that there is another side to the picture. I hope to show that undoubted advantages will accrue to the workpeople, whether they are manual, administrative, or technical, as a result of this Measure.
  The main thing I like about this Bill is its commendable simplicity. For instance, a Central Authority is put in charge of generation. That is no great departure from the situation existing at present. Hon. Members opposite produced the 1926 Act, which brought about national control and production of electricity. The only thing we objected to

  1017
  in that Act, so far as generation was concerned, was that many workers, particularly technicians, had to serve two masters. On the one hand, they had to serve the local authority and the company, and, on the other hand, the Central Electricity Board. That was an impossible and invidious situation, and it gave rise to all sorts of difficulties in the operation of power stations. I have known boilers banked when the load had been shed, due to various breakdowns in the messages sent, or due to difference of opinion on whether certain plant was available.
  Then there are to be 14 areas. How far does that depart from the recommendations of the 1926 Act and the White Paper? It has always been recommended that there should be a considerable amount of rationalisation in the number of undertakings. They are to be responsible for distribution and sale, and it seems to me to be a very sound policy, which has the support of the McGowan Report and the White Paper. Then there are the consumers' councils. Many people talk about them as if they were a sort of barrage to be put up against the consumers' legitimate complaints. As has been pointed out, the consumers have had no redress at all so far as companies are concerned. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall) is entirely wrong when he says that we can do nothing to make representations. Clause 8 (5) says that representations must be made to the Central Authority, and then, if there is no satisfaction, the consumers' council can make representations direct to the Minister, which is a great advantage compared with the position which obtains at the moment. If the local authority electricity committee have any difficulties with the Central Electricity Board, or the Commissioners, it is very difficult indeed to get an interview in regard to them.
  The consumers' councils are the answer to those people who say that nationalisation means red tape and bureaucracy. These councils have been set up to answer that charge, and to make the machine work. In these days of hire-purchase and rental wiring, and with the tremendous amount of domestic apparatus on the market, it is only natural that the consumers' councils will want to make representations to the area boards with regard to tariffs and other matters. It
  1018
  seems to me to be a highly desirable feature. I am surprised and pained that hon. Members opposite are continually attacking this Bill. I admired their pertinacity, both on Second Reading and during the Committee and Report stages. This Bill is really no new departure at all. The 1882 Act, which was the first lighting Act, presupposed public ownership of electricity. Local authorities had the right to purchase a company within 21 years. The 1888 Act amended the previous Act, and made the period 42 years instead of 21. That has been a welcome feature, because it has enabled local authorities to force down the prices charged by companies. I remember particularly the case of Littlehampton, where the mere threat of the use of that provision resulted in a substantial reduction in prices.
  The 1926 Act, which arose from the Report of the Weir Committee, has been of great help to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, especially during the war, when we had as many as four power stations bombed in one night in London. The McGowan Report, which came from the Committee which was set up by hon. Members opposite, was opposed by us. We did not oppose rationalisation, but we criticised the fact that there were to be two forms of organisation, two forms of monopoly, local authority and company. We criticised the method of compensation. Local authorities were to be compensated as they are now, on the basis of their standing debt, and companies were to be compensated on the basis of future profit. We had some of that kind of compensation in the - London Passenger Transport Bill, which is one of the reasons the L.P.T.B. is over-capitalised and has not been able to meet its interest commitments.
  The compensation provisions of this Bill are fair. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam questioned the compensation to be paid to local authorities. I criticise the Minister for his Right Wing deviation, for giving £5 million to the local authorities. The local authorities did not enter into the electricity supply industry for the purpose of making a profit. They entered it to give service to the community. If we pay compensation we merely increase the capital charges of the undertaking and the interest com-

  1019
  mitments, so that the consumer has to pay twice. There is this further point, which I would like to drive home with all the sincerity I command: ratepayers are not, of necessity, electricity consumers. There is no borough where there are 100 per cent. ratepayers and 100 per cent. electricity consumers.
  With regard to payment for severance, the electricity accounts of local authorities have long been the milch cow. I had to fight this matter as chairman of an electricity committee for many years. The amount paid for the electrical energy in lighting is often infinitesimal, and there are high maintenance charges low charges to hospitals for maintenance, and some borough officials have had part of their salaries charged to electricity undertakings. I know one borough, not far from here, where the charges from their electricity fund this year have been increased from £4,000 to £11,000. It is true that in places there has been relief of rates, but that has come about through overcharging, which cannot occur under this Bill. At the risk of wearying the House, I would cite this instance. In Liverpool, the cost per unit, of generating and distributing electrical energy in 1943—this is the last available figure—was 46d., and it was sold to consumers at 1.38d As a result of that over-charging, which is nearly three times the initial price, Liverpool was able to contribute to the rates some £15,000. In other words, the electricity consumers of Liverpool were fleeced to that extent.
  I welcome particularly Clause 53, which deals with conditions of employment. It has been generally said that employers in electricity undertakings and conditions are good. But that needs qualifying considerably. It may be true of local authorities, but it is not so of private companies. There is only one company in the whole of the Metropolitan area which was willing to abide by the conciliation machinery in 1938. When war became imminent others came scurrying for the protection of the Joint Industrial Council, and still remain under its protection, doubtless because of the political complexion of the present Government. One large electricity supply group refused to recognise trade unions and shop stewards until two years ago. That is no longer possible, as a result of this Bill There
  1020
  is great need for improvement of safety conditions in power stations. Regulations have been too lax, and in some of these stations it has been dangerous to work. This has been brought about by putting new plant into old buildings, so that fumes were emitted which caused considerable illness among workers. It would be interesting to investigate the incidence of cancer among power station employees due to irritation from these fumes. I am, however, not satisfied with Clause 55. On the Report stage, my right hon. Friend said that there would be a wide interpretation of the provisions with regard to people who lost their employment as a result of his rationalisation. I appreciate that the financial position and conditions of officers in the undertakings should not be worsened, but I am concerned whether their loss of status is to be taken into consideration as a basis for compensation. Surely, we are not going to have a large number of chief engineers, many from small undertakings, claiming compensation, solely for loss of status.
  The hon. Member for Stockport criticised the Bill because it made provision for manufacturing electrical plant. I welcome that provision. As a member of the A.E.U., I know of no other industry where the making of generating plant has been in the hands of a monopoly. It is just as well that there should be healthy competition. There are only six firms in Britain making turbine generators, and only two which can cast the large turbine cases. That is one of the reasons for the shortage of plant at the present time, and seeing that the Ruhr has been smashed, there is not much chance of importing them from there—
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: As the hon. Gentleman is so violently opposed to monopoly, why does he vote for the nationalisation of electricity undertakings?
  Mr. Hobson: Because they will be publicly owned and controlled. I am surprised at the hon. Member, with his long experience of the political game, asking that question. I welcome this smashing of monopoly. We shall have the competition which will accrue from the alteration made by this provision in the Bill. I also welcome the Clause, inserted on the Report stage, by which non-statutory undertakings—I believe as a result of their representations—come within the

  1021
  scope of the Bill. I hope that one of the first people to make representation to come in will be the Ministry of Transport, who are to control the railway generating stations. It seems wrong that there should be two forms of control of generating stations by two different Ministers, particularly in view of the fact that the Electricity Commissioners have made a grant for new turbines for the railway generating stations in the London area. There is standardisation of frequency, and it seems to me that there should be a considerable inter-locking of supplies which would help us when it is necessary to shed loads. I am sure that for off-peak loads there is plenty of plant available.
  Sections 12 and 13 of the 1926 Act have been repealed. These Sections have been one of the most important factors in keeping the price of electrical energy dear. The selective station generating costs would have been lower had it not been for the grid which is enabled to buy electrical energy at a hypothetical cost. It is interesting to note that in 1942 and 1943, the Central Electricity Board got 504 pence per unit from local authorities and 545 pence per unit from companies, whereas local authorities with their own generating plant had to buy back from the grid at 7 pence per unit, and there were considerable profits for the owners of selective stations. This is one of the reasons there has been a considerable amount of rebate given by municipalities with selective stations. It seems unfair that, apart from the selective stations, it should be necessary for non-selected stations and distributors to bear the whole of the transmission costs and establishment charges of the Central Electricity Board.
  I welcome the Bill, and I think that it will be for the benefit of the industry. I am sure that no one in this House would attempt to defend an industry in which there are 635 separate undertakings, including 65 in London, working under 225 different Acts of Parliament or Statutory Orders. No one could defend such a situation. Therefore, something had to be done, and hon. Members opposite had anticipated doing something. If there is to be rationalisation, as there is to be, there is no better means of doing it than by this Bill— namely by the nationalisation of electri-
  1022
  city, thereby putting it under public control.
  6.54 p.m.
  Sir Peter Bennett (Birmingham, Edg-baston): I was not on the Standing Committee which dealt with this Bill and, therefore, I have no experience of what took place at those gatherings, but I cannot allow the Third Reading to pass without putting on record the grave misgiving which is felt by the industry generally at what is now being done. I approach this matter from an entirely different point of view from that of the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley), to whom hon. Gentlemen opposite paid a deserved compliment. He has put his life into producing electricity; I have spent my life in consuming it. Electricity is the life-blood of a great part of the industrial world. If an example is required, we have only to think of what happened in February, when we had the current cut off on a Friday night, and we were at a complete standstill for two, and, in some cases, three weeks. That meant unemployment, and where men had not a guaranteed wage, it meant a smaller pay packet. It meant also losses to business firms, and a great loss of exports in the consequences of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to share. Therefore, it can be understood how gravely we are concerned at the present action.
  I will not follow the arugments of the hon. Member for North Wembley (Mr. Hobson) and compare what he said with what was said by hon. Members on this side—the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall) and the hon. Member for Stockport. I am not at the moment concerned with whether nationalisation is right or wrong; I have my own ideas on that subject, and there are no prizes for guessing what they are. I suggest that the timing of this Bill is absolutely wrong. I have come back from conferences on the Continent at which we have discussed international business problems with American and continental people, and I have attended conferences at Geneva and discussed these matters with people there. I find that there is in their minds an absolute state of mystery as to why, confronted as we are with the problems and difficulties that surround us, we have chosen this particular moment to indulge in what they call "experi-

  1023
  ments." I have had to say to them, "Do not ask me."
  Let us look at the position today. We have been warned by Ministers, by economists and others, that we are approaching the gravest crisis in our industrial history. The present Government have agreed that what we need is maximum effort. That merits, in my view, the minimum interference until we are on an even keel. It seems to me that we are suffering today from the craze for uniformity. I am a heretic myself, and I never worry about uniformity, although I am a great believer in unity. In an effort to gain uniformity, unity is often lost. Here we have an organisation which has been laboriously built up over the years, and the Minister now proposes to break it up and redistribute it. The hon. Member for North Wembley has given reasons why something has to be done, but a complete upheaval, as now suggested, runs entirely contrary to any experience which I have had in such matters.
  It has been my lot to be concerned with quite a number of rationalisation schemes. I never believe in scrapping what we have, before we know where we are. People say that there have been anomalies. Of course, there have been anomalies. There always have been and there always will be anomalies in the business world and in life generally. I say, leave them, and let them straighten themselves out; direct them, but do not have anything in the nature of an earthquake because we are bound to suffer, and at present we cannot afford to suffer. Why are these industries being tackled? There are not derelict industries, or decayed industries. There has been no quarrel between the parties concerned in the industries. It has not been necessary for the Board of Trade or the Minister of Fuel and Power to appoint working parties to see what is wrong with them. Their record, as I have said before, is an excellent one. In spite of the rise in the cost of coal and the increased cost of plant, there has been a steady drop in their prices, which is not exactly what we were given to understand happened in monopolistic organisation.
  Mr. Hobson: Is the hon. Member aware that under the 1926 Act the profit
  1024
  in generating companies was limited to 12½ per cent?
  Sir P. Bennett: Yes, but I have seen organisations in which that happened where people eased up and did not worry, and let the costs take care of themselves. This industry has a record, in spite of that, of steadily reducing the costs to the consumer. I am certain that the hon. Member, who is engaged in the industry, will acknowledge that. I have heard complaints in this House about rural electricity supplies as compared with city supplies. I think that is very unfair, because, after all, the cities got off the mark first. The municipalities have done a splendid job, but they had, as is generally admitted, the easier job to do.
  I have had a friendly argument at a public meeting with one of my colleagues who sits on the Front Bench and represents a Birmingham Division, and he tried to suggest how much better Birmingham had done than another body outside. I had to remind him that in Birmingham there is a nice compact population of a million people, and as I have argued on other production questions, it is quantity which counts. Cheaper electricity in the cities as compared with rural areas is due, of course, to the density of the population, but I have considered, as I have gone round the country and talked with farmers and seen what is happening, that up to the outbreak of war the record of rural development was an excellent one, and I believe it would have been very much better today but for the fact that the war set back all the problems.
  The municipalities and the companies have filled their different roles and have filled them well. There was a crisis in February, but I am certain that nobody would blame the companies or the municipalities for that, because we all know that the advice they gave four years ago was over-ruled. It was over-ruled in the national interest; we had tanks, guns and other things made in the factories instead of generating plant. The position was known all along, and as the hon. Member for Wembley knows, we are not out of trouble by a long way. During the next two or three years we shall have to pay for that decision made during the war to make sacrifices on behalf of the war effort, and I look forward with a good deal of disquiet to what will happen next winter and the winter after that.

  1025
  The country's development is bound to be delayed by this operation. I do not believe that the patient will be stronger in the long run; what I am quite certain of is that during the period of recovery from the shock of this operation he will be weaker, and at this moment we cannot afford any weakening whatever of the national effort. We are up against it. The present difficulties in industry—in this industry as well as others—will remain in spite of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power, I read in one of the reports of a meeting of the Standing Committee, has hinted that physical factors cannot be ignored. They remain and will remain under any system, whether private or State-owned. We have an old saying in our organisation that we all work under the same set of natural lows; we all work also under the same economic laws.
  Here there is a clash between politics and practical affairs. I was discussing this with one of the Labour Members for Birmingham and he said to me, "You must not blame our people; they promised this at the Election, so they have to keep their promise." I have made a good many promises in my life to shareholders and others, and I have sometimes found it wise afterwards to break those promises. If I told them why, I never got into trouble; and I believe that if the country were honestly told at the present moment that we ought not to go ahead with these experiments until we are again on an even keel, that our economy was more important than dogmas and theories, the country would say, "Here we have strong men who have seen the right course and have taken it, even if it is unpopular and even if some people will throw stones at them." All I am concerned with is results. If the Minister succeeds, I will take off my hat to him, but I think the age of miracles is past and so, speaking with a sense of responsibility as representing a good many industries, I must say that I entirely disapprove of this Measure being introduced at the present time, and I shall feel in duty bound to vote against it.
  7.6 p.m.
  Mr. Goodrich: I am glad to have an opportunity of saying a few words on this matter, because, like
  1026
  many of those who have spoken before me, I have a certain amount of knowledge and experience of electricity undertakings. I was very interested in what was said by the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) about his anxiety over the introduction of this Bill at the present moment in view of the probable shortage of fuel this winter. He rather gave me the impression that he anticipated that this Bill would become an Act, and would be operative, before the winter sets in. That strange attitude of mind rather confuses the issue before us and one wonders what sincerity there is in it. I also listened with great interest to the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson). One of the things he said was that neither the Minister nor anybody else on this side of the House had given him any tangible reason for the introduction of this Measure. He went on to say that he was very pleased that he had introduced the question of consumer needs and that his advice had since been followed. We have heard so much about the stockholders; right through the Committee and Report stages it has been the prime job of the Opposition to look after those peculiar interests, and now at the very last moment the consumers are getting a deal from the Opposition.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but as he quoted me I would much prefer that he should quote me correctly, because his last remark is completely and absolutely devoid of truth.
  Mr. Goodrich: That is my opinion. If I am wrong, I am entitled to be wrong, and others are entitled to be right. The right hon. Gentleman said he could not understand why we should introduce this Measure and give no reason for it. I am sorry he has not understood that this Measure will provide something which the consumers have never had under the present system.
  I join with my hon. Friends on this side who, have expressed a deal of feeling about the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley). He impressed me, as he impresses a good many more, with his sincerity in this matter, and I agree with all the things which have been said about him. I am sure that he must feel it very badly indeed. One of the things he said in his remarks was, that the

  1027
  Government in their wisdom did protect the interest of the undertakers under the 1926 Act. I should also like to point out that that Act gave further protection to the private enterprise undertakers in so far as it gave them a further 40 years' lease against the purchase rights by the local authority. That applies in the county of London, but what is interesting to note is that the purchase rights of the smaller companies were still vested in the local authorities.
  I venture to suggest that if there had not been a Labour Government or the introduction of a nationalised Bill for electricity, those purchase rights would have been exercised. I was actually engaged in that matter before the last General Election. It is right to say that the company undertakers would, in the course of a comparatively few years have been taken over by the local authorities without a general nationalised scheme. It is obvious in the face of everything, that the Opposition would oppose a scheme such as this, but I would point out again that it. had to come, unless, of course, the Opposition secure power again and prolong the system for another 40-odd years. These purchase rights under this Bill will become an accomplished fact and we welcome it. I have had to do with local authorities and their powers under the Acts of 1882 and 1888, but this Bill deals with them in a much broader and quicker way.
  In conclusion, I want to say a word or two in favour of the Clauses dealing with the manufacture of plant and fittings. Local authorities have experienced many difficulties in relation to the supply of plant, particularly large plant, and this Bill does give the Minister power to manufacture that plant which is so essential, and for which local authorities have been held to ransom whilst it was in the hands of six or eight firms. Not only the local authorities, but any other interest in electricity, have had to pay prices which we felt all along were not genuine prices for the particular article. Thus, I welcome the provision in this Measure, which gives the Minister that power.
  I welcome this Bill for I believe that it is the best Bill which has been passed so far in this House. It opens up the prospect of cheap and abundant electricity and, despite all the pessimism of hon.
  1028
  Members opposite, I believe that electricity will be cheaper and in more abundant supply. Further, I see the possibility of electricity getting into those corners of this country where they still burn dirty filthy lamps. If we in the immediate future in the built-up areas have to wait a little while for that cheaper and more aboundant electricity, it will be worth it, if these supplies are transferred to those distant districts of the realm to which I have referred. I believe that the Bill will do the country good.
  7.14 p.m.
  Colonel Crostbwaite-Eyre: The hon. Member for North Hackney (Mr. Goodrich) made two points if I understood him aright. The first was that the Opposition had only at this last stage realised the importance of the consumer and that they had spent much of their time in previous stages of this Bill talking about compensation for the shareholders. I do not think that that bears the slightest investigation. If he will look at the records of the Standing Committee, of which he was a Member, he will see that the first two main Amendments to Clause 1 of the Bill were designed to afford to the consumer protection in the supply of electricity. The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Gentleman friends refused to accept either of the Amendments, so that the Government, so far from lack of interest in the consumer being blamed on the Opposition, refused from the beginning to realise the valuableness of the consumer. It was hon. Members opposite who refused to agree at the very beginning to that amelioration which alone in this respect justified the Bill.
  He also said that the private companies were afraid that their franchises might not be extended, and that municipal undertakings would take over from private enterprise to a large extent. There again this argument does not bear investigation. The hon. Gentleman has only to look at the last 20 years and see case after case where the municipal authorities have asked the private undertakings to continue their franchise. The best case in point is that of the London Power Company.
  Mr. Goodrich: I admit that there is a certain amount in what the hon. and gallant Member says, but it is only a question of deferring the date until we get

  1029
  equalisation of dates between one consumer and another.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I do not wish to deal further with that. For I think that the question made by the hon. Gentleman has been met. The Parliamentary Secretary and other Members behind him, including the Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer) have quoted me when they talked about compensation, and the prime charge, as I understood it was, we were concerned with the dividends the existing shareholders would receive. Whatever the hon. Member for Enfield and the hon. Member for Wimbledon may say in that regard, it was a hard charge from the Parliamentary Secretary, because he must be aware of the Debate where we made it very clear that dividends were not the prime consideration. The consideration is that contractual obligations should be carried out. The Parliamentary Secretary must be well aware of that.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I do not recollect having said the things which I am alleged to have said.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman I am the first to acknowledge it. I understood he made reference in a considerable part of his speech to the shareholders receiving less dividends than before the introduction of this Bill. I think I am right, but if I am wrong I will be the first to apologise. Other hon. Members behind him did, but I have made it clear we have never defended dividends as such, but rather the fulfilment of the statutory undertakings to undertakers. Hon. Members opposite are apt to talk about dividends as being something bad in themselves. Time and time again I have heard of the iniquities of paying ½ per cent. dividend. Hon. Members think it is practically going to hell when 10 per cent. is paid. If that is true and if hon. Members opposite are going to stand by that, I would ask them one single question, and that is why, in the last few weeks in one of the companies they control, the Anglo-Iranian Petroleum Company, they have increased the dividend from 20 to 30 per cent.
  Mr. Ernest Davies Mr. Ernest Davies rose—
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: May I be allowed to finish my argument?
  Mr. Davies: The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked a question.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If that is correct it seems to me that much of what they have said this afternoon is completely inapplicable.
  Mr. Davies: Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware that the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company is not controlled by the Government and that there are only two Government-appointed directors on the Board? The Government do not hold the majority of the stock.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Actually the Government hold 11,000 out of the 20,000 shares, and therefore controls the company, so that I am afraid that the hon. Member is misinformed. They have complete control over the dividend policy of that company, and for hon. Members opposite to have said what they have today about increased dividends and then to have a 50 per cent. increase in the one of the companies they control shows the complete fallacy of their argument. What we are standing for and will always stand for on this side of the House is that a contractual obligation, whether debentures or otherwise, entered into in all honesty by the investor and the company must be honoured whatever Government is in power.
  Regarding compensation, we are told by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the Government:
  "lay down one basis and one only; that is, that compensation should be paid, and that compensation should be fair."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th June, 1947; Vol. 439, c. 335.]
  The compensation under this Bill is not fair by any standard. In the first place, if compensation is to be fair it must be in respect of what is bought. The Parliamentary Secretary advanced certain arguments this afternoon and he said that if he desired he could buy the shares and then liquidate the companies and arrive at the same answer. When he was challenged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) he admitted that for the verb "buy" he had to substitute the verb "acquire." Once he has done that he has destroyed his whole case, because he knows full well that he could not buy

  1031
  and would be forced to acquire on an arbitrary basis. Once he decided to do that he could no longer say that he was buying shares because he would be taking to himself the power to acquire shares at an arbitrary certain price.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to cite the question of Death Duties. Hon Members on this side have already demolished that argument, and if the hon. Gentleman was sincere on that point it can only lead to one thing—that is the price of the shares he wishes to acquire must be based not on the price the time when nationalisation is adumbrated but at the vesting date when the industry passes to Government ownership. It has been made quite clear in the Bill in various Clauses controlling dividends, assets and so on that a free market cannot exist between these two dates, and therefore the hon. Gentleman's whole case falls to the ground. The aged capitalist, for example, who realises that in the future he has to face his account—I do not mean face his account in the Treasury sense—is perfectly entitled if he wishes to shift his money in one form or another of investment, but that is not so at the moment. Having acquired the shares the Government now include in their Bill various Clauses which prevent any alteration in price, and therefore there is no parallel whatsoever between death duties as paid by the individual and the acquisition of shares as it takes place under this Bill.
  Many hon. Members on this side have made the point that as the Government propose to acquire this undertaking the thrifty are penalised while those who disregard the national interest benefit. The hon. Member for Enfield quoted me in this connection, and I thank him for the compliment. He said that if two companies earned 10 per cent. and one distributed the whole lot while the other distributed only 5 per cent., the one that distributed 10 per cent. would undoubtedly stand higher. But he went on to say that the dividend was not the only factor taken into consideration. With that I entirely agree. What is taken into account is the policy of the company concerned. If that policy is one of continual expansion and ploughing back dividends and, in fact, making certain that the shareholders will receive only the lowest possible dividend commensurate with the expansion of the company, then
  1032
  the shares will stand far lower than, say, those of the company which distributes every penny The case we are putting to the Parliamentary Secretary is that if that be true—and I do not think that any hon. Member could deny it—which company is to receive more, that which is striving to fulfil the requirements of national interest or that which is distributing every penny it earns?
  Mr. Ernest Davies: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman not admit that where it is known that a company is ploughing back its profits in the way he has just described there is a strong possibility that that company would ultimately issue more capital at a lower market price or have a capital bonus, that that is taken account of in Stock Exchange values, and that in fact people purchase the shares knowing that this may happen?
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I hate to hear hon. Members behind the Government Front Bench condoning what their right hon. Friends have described as a mortal sin, but we think that that is not so. Without entering into a long argument, our point is that the immediate value of any share on the Stock Exchange is determined by its immediate position vis-d-vis its dividend value. We say that if the Government doubt us, or if the hon. Member for Enfield doubts us, why have they consistently refused to submit their case to arbitration? That is all we desire. We have said that we do not believe that this is fair, and if they grant that we have made a case we ask them to submit it to arbitration and to let an independent judge decide. The Government opposite have persistently refused this, and we can only conclude that they are not prepared to put their case to the test.
  Let us look for a moment at the actual possibilities of the problem. Only last week the Parliamentary Secretary was forced to admit that the Government did not know the value of the assets they were taking over and, further, that it would take them three years to make such a valuation. What is even more extraordinary, the Parliamentary Secretary asked what good such a valuation would be if it were made. I cannot understand any Government coming before this House with a Bill of this kind which involves the spending of over £700 million of public money and saying that they do not know what it is they are buying and,

  1033
  further, that they do not see what use it would be to know. This seems to me an absolute travesty of what this House is supposed to exist for, and to demonstrate the futility of trying to buy the assets of a company by taking over the shares. The Parliamentary Secretary, aided by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, made case after case concerning the fact that the Stock Exchange values were a fair quotation and so on, 'but from the point of view of the Government and of hon. Members how can they justify the fact that they do not know what in fact they are taking over?
  I would make only one other point. As their last line or refuge the Government say that they would provide two alternative dates. One can choose compensation based either on the pre-election figures—when no one would have thought that a Labour Government would be returned to power—or, alternatively, on a date before the issue. In the first place let us not forget that this country was still at war then, and that no one could foresee the future of any industry. No one was in a position to consider peacetime investment policy, and the prices did not reflect in any sense the peacetime value. It has been said by the Parliamentary Secretary that the indices of the industrial market and the gilt-edged market moved in sympathy between the first and second series of dates. What he has not said, and what I venture to suggest he cannot say is that the indices of these markets have moved in the same relation since November, 1946. Up till then the gilt-edged market was the Government and the gilt-edged market was rigged. It was entirely controlled by the Treasury and by the plunging of public money into it. If one wants present proof of that statement one has only to look at the Rhodesian issue which has destroyed the Chancellor's cheap money policy.
  We are asked to approve a Measure which will destroy contractual obligations for the individual, provides no return for the capital of the investor such as he has every right under company law to expect, provides nothing to safeguard the consumer and nothing to benefit the individual. The Parliamentary Secretary said that this was an historic Bill. It is, because it shows more clearly than any Measure this House has yet
  1034
  debated, the absolute chasm between Socialism and justice, between Socialism and the protection of the consumer, and between Socialism and the national interest.
  7.33 p.m.
  Mr. J. L. Williams (Glasgow, Kelvin-grove): I desire to intervene in the Debate for the purpose of dealing with one aspect only of the Bill—the compensation to local authorities in respect of severance. This aspect was dealt with in Committee and on the Report stage, but many municipalities in this country are still concerned about their position in the matter. I speak chiefly for the municipality of Glasgow, of which my constituency forms a part. The discontent felt in some quarters concerning the main provisions for compensation, as we have them in Clause 22, has been stressed by hon. Members on the other side of the House, but I can say that that discontent is not shared nearly to the same extent by the municipality to which I have referred. On the other hand, I do not find that they consider the £5 million provided in that Clause to be too much compensation, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wembley (Mr. Hobson) suggested. They will want to know a great deal more about that £5 million before they will believe that it is sufficient. They are concerned about the method by which that figure was decided upon, and they want to know why it was considered adequate to compensate municipal undertakings. They want to know how it will be distributed and the basis upon which it will be distributed.
  We understand that an output unit basis has been considered and has been turned down. Is the next basis to be that of revenue, or is it to be some other basis? But the municipality are not nearly so much concerned about the method by which the sum was arrived at as they are with adequate compensation for losses to be incurred. They want to know what losses are covered. In some cases electricity has never made a contribution to the rates as such, and these municipalities in their plea are not altogether in harmony with the 70-odd undertakings which have made that contribution. But they have other things about which they are very much concerned. There are other losses, and they alone are equivalent to a rate of 2½d. in the pound.

  1035
  I can well understand some of the small municipalities having to suffer an even bigger loss than that.
  Another matter about which they are concerned, is that the Minister should consult local authorities adequately, before a regulation to deal with this matter is introduced. It is understood that the Minister has consulted the Incorporated Municipal Electrical Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations. The former body covers the whole of Great Britain, but the latter, I understand, applies only to England and Wales. There is rather a strong feeling that the Minister should consult with the corresponding body in Scotland before such a regulation is made. I hope the Minister will bear these points in mind and will be able to reassure the local authorities who are concerned.
  7.37 p.m.
  Colonel Lancaster: As one of those who have taken part not only in all the proceedings on this Bill, but in proceedings on the other Bill which the Minister of Fuel and Power introduced, I should like to say a final word or two. It is a melancholy fact that when, five months ago, we first considered the Bill, the occasion should have coincided with the beginning of the fuel crisis, and that today's proceedings should coincide with that very austere statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have hot attempted to apply any one yardstick to this Measure. Most of us have been amateurs, so far as the Bill is concerned. Two Members on the Government side showed considerable technical knowledge, while on our side my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) has had long administrative experience The majority of us could only hope to apply to the Bill such common sense as we might have.
  I find myself, not for the first time, in agreement with my* hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) in thinking that the Government have not made out their case for the Bill. I was concerned to see whether, on the score of administration or of costs, they would lay before us a case which justified the Bill coming before the House at this moment. Try as I could, I could not see anything on the score of administration which was likely to set up a better, more workmanlike and more practical control than that which
  1036
  had been introduced upon the previous occasion.
  So far as costs are Concerned, once again we find ourselves without any facts to go on. We have pressed time after time for some expression, other than generalisations and platitudes, as to what the effect of this Measure might be. Even at this late stage of the Bill I cannot see any tangible facts which would convince me that the consumer is likely to obtain the benefits he has every right to look for. On the Second Reading I said that, as a very large consumer of electricity for a great many years, by and large I had been satisfied with the service given by the electricity industry. I had had the additional safeguard, which will in future be denied to industrialists, that had I not received good service, it would have been open to me to provide my own power by one means or another. I cannot see the Minister of Supply making that possible in the future.
  I have, therefore, to fall back on a determination as to whether or not, by the introduction of this Measure, I am likely, as an industrialist, to get better service than I have had in the past, and I say in all sincerity that nothing that has been advanced by Ministers on the Front Bench or their supporters during the various stages of this Bill has convinced me on that point. Therefore, I propose to vote in favour of my right hon. Friend's Amendment.
  7.42 p.m.
  Mr. Henry Nicholls: I want to join the rather long queue of those who wish to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on his very able deputising for the Minister throughout this Bill. I also want to compliment the Minister on having achieved this Bill in its present form at this moment. I have sat quietly throughout the deliberations and I would not rise at all except that the Bill will leave us at ten o'clock to run the gauntlet of the legal-minded in another place. Before it goes I want to add at least my meed of appreciation for the Minister. It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster). I never quarrel with his facts, but only with his inferences. I take a different point of view when it comes to assessing the value of the Bill in its present form. The Bill

  1037
  means to me that we are taking the day by day administration of this vast industry out of the hands of both profit-mongers and politicians.
  Viscount Hinchingbrookc: Question.
  Mr. Nicholls: That is what it means to me. In future neither the politicians nor the profit-mongers will be able to interfere in the day to day administration. For me this is a streamlined Bill and it has been made possible by giving certain assurances, mainly to the Opposition. The Minister has given a large number of assurances at different stages and I would not say that I am wholly in favour of them all. I think he has been exceedingly generous to the Opposition. The £5million, which, after all, is a concession to the local authorities, is, however, hardly generous enough, and I think it could be improved without difficulty. It is a burden which the industry can well carry since it will shed a good many of-the burdens which it previously carried. The £5million could be improved upon without great loss to the industry.
  I am not concerned about the speeches from the Opposition benches because in the main they seen) only to have two objections. One is that appointments are not being made from the Opposition benches, and the other is the fear that the costs of electricity will be greater. On the matter of appointments, the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) spoke about "stooges," referring to various appointees by that term. It is rather unfortunate that he should say that of any one who has been appointed and has not the opportunity to answer back. So far as I am concerned, if it were a choice between "stooges" appointed by the Minister and "stooges" appointed by members of the Opposition, I should most certainly prefer the "stooges" appointed by the Minister. I am not likely to be one of the appointees or "stooges" and so am not one of the disappointed people, and I therefore speak quite frankly on that point.
  If the Bill is streamlined at the moment it is largely due to the concessions that have been made. I hesitate to use the word, except that I want to refer to the fact that the administration proposed by the Minister is also streamlined. If this streamlined administration is to do any good, I suggest it might
  1038
  be jet-propelled as well as streamlined. To do that there must be the ability to take decisions at all levels. I am opposed to over-centralisation. The Minister has given too many assurances so far, but I think I might ask him for one further assurance. I should like an assurance that he will spread the power to make decisions over the widest possible area and to the lowest possible level. If a decision cannot be made without reference to higher authorities, all the way up a long hierarchy, obviously there will be delay. I am concerned about getting the best possible service for the consumer. That,. and not the cost, should be the criterion.
  Hon. Members opposite have made attempts, rather wasteful of time, to quote the Coal Board and costs in other industries. The Opposition do not view costs in quite the same light as I do. They are always concerned with financial costs. When I think of costs in an industry, I am more likely to think of the human wastage, which surely is the real cost of an industry to the nation. If we can produce by slightly increased costs in the unit, happiness and safety among the work people, safer methods of transmission and distribution and an abundant supply at a fraction of the cost, the cost in terms of money per unit is rather beside the point. I would prefer to pay the present price of coal than know that human wreckage is continually being thrown on one side as happened for many years. Viewed in that light, the right hon. Gentleman opposite had no case in talking about costs. Now that the Minister is here I would suggest that he can safely give an assurance that he will decentralise to the utmost extent When the Bill comes back from another place, it may be better law, but so far as I am concerned, it cannot be better in principle.
  7.50 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: I have seldom listened to a Bill being damned with such faint praise by its own supporters. The hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. H. Nicholls) has made a complaint about the Bill which is to be added to the other things we have heard said about it from that side of the House today. Far more important is the fact that this afternoon we have had one of the gravest statements made by one of His Majesty's Ministers

  1039
  that we have yet listened to in this House. People like myself who are merely consumers and not technicians, question when the benefits from this very large piece of legislation—which, as far as I can see, will be negligible—are likely to be felt. By the admission of the Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for North Wembley (Mr. Hobson) and the hon. Member for Wimbledon -(Mr. Palmer), those benefits are nothing except long-term. In those circumstances the question poses itself whether this country would not be better occupied in getting on with the main job of maximum production, rather than dispersing its interests and wasting its manpower in carrying through this Measure. That is the main consideration this afternoon— whether this Bill and the changes that it necessitates are worth while.
  The hon. Member for North Wembley spoke at some length of the advantages that would accrue to the workpeople engaged in this industry. He spoke about the difficulties of stoking and banking boilers. He spoke of trivialities in this moment of crisis, and I wondered whether in his declamation against hon. Members on this side, boiling bankers was not more popular than banking boilers. The points raised by hon. Members opposite have hot been a really serious defence of this Bill so far as the public are concerned. The public will undoubtedly read the Minister's speech with great interest tonight. The Minister has been accused by hon. Members opposite of deviationism, a Marxist term which means to deviate from the main line of the party approach, and I would accuse, him in Marxist phraseology of "tailism."
  Mr. Shinwell: What is that?
  Mr. Fraser: "Tailism" means the pursuit of an unnecessary objective in times of crisis, when other objectives should be more readily and more purposefully pursued. I accuse the Minister, in Marxist phraseology, of the crime of "tailism" in putting forward this Bill— the pursuit of a principle and method which I seriously believe to be out-of-date. No one can suggest that the electricity supply industry has failed. There are two troubles with the industry. I think the Minister will agree with this. First of all, there is not enough power,
  1040
  and, secondly, there are 543 undertakings, which is too large a number. From the practical man's point of view those are the two outstanding thing a deficiency of generating plant and the fact that there are too large a number of undertakings in the distribution of electricity.
  I would remind the Minister when I talk of "tailism," that the past failure, or so-called failure, of electrical legislation has been due to technical methods. If he will look back into the history of the thing he will find that technical trouble has been one of the chief reasons why an ideal basis of legislation has not been produced in the past. Surely, the Minister will realise that the chief thing which upset 19th century legislation was the fact that there was a change from direct current to alternating current. At the moment all that is needed to carry through the necessary changes is a small Bill to see that more generating plant is provided, that greater administrative action is put into practice and that administrative action in the case of some of those 543 companies is concentrated.
  The point at issue today in relation to the future of this country's electrical power supply is the future of atomic energy development. If we read the Baruch Report, we find that in the next 10 years it is almost certain that the 10 per cent. rise in the cost of coal will make the use of atomic energy practically certain. Just as in the past the change from direct to alternating current meant the scrapping of many tons of plant, so in the next 10 or 15 years we will see atomic energy being applied. This Bill is unnecessary, and leads, among other things, to great unfairness. Even if hon. Members opposite have not understood the full economic meanings of Marxism they have realised to the full the bitterness of gross egalitarianism, and to no economic purpose whatever. I believe the disadvantages of this Bill enormously outweigh whatever possible advantages it has. I believe it is a dangerous Bill to bring forward when it is going to upset the whole process of electrical distribution and generation at the cost of an enormous compensation when these firms and municipal enterprises may in the next few years become antediluvian. I sugest this is no time to carry -through this change which will mean an immense confusion of personnel and mean that all-important

  1041
  liaison contact between industrial firms and electrical undertakings will be broken and disrupted. The Bill will mean that there is no guarantee of cheaper power. On that I merely quote the Minister himself when he said in Committee, on 25th February:
  "There can be no guarantee that every potential consumer in the country will be supplied with either a cheap or an abundant supply until the physical resources to enable that to be done are available."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E,25th February, 1947, c. 19]
  He then went on to speak of the cost in the price of coal and generating plant. In this Bill, as presented to the public, there is no guarantee that there will be cheap electricity, yet this is done at a cost of £700 million in face of the fact that probably in under 20 years' time there will be introduced much more revolutionary methods of development of electricity than those at the present time when the direct current stations had to be scrapped in order to instal alternating current stations the cost of which was borne by the companies. Had they been allowed to carry on, I believe the municipalities and power companies would have carried out those changes, and borne the cost as in the past. As it is, the country is to be faced with bearing the immediate cost of £700 million compensation, and in addition the enormous price of the immediate installation of power plant to carry us over the next two or three years until the industry is fully developed to meet demands of generation. That is why I suggest that this Bill in this day of crisis is unimportant.
  There are political disadvantages. The Bill means that a great many of the things which we have fought for for so long are in danger. The hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Nicholls) said, "If I were in office, I would appoint none of you chaps to my board." That is my point; nor would we appoint Members opposite. This type of legislation leads direct to the American "place" system at its worst. I am not saying this against the Government, but against this type of legislation. When a Government changes this kind of legislation means that there are huge administrative changes made which are detrimental to the country. I believe that for the future development of democracy in this country it is essential that the powers of local government should be
  1042
  maintained as far as possible. We are seeing today an attack on the powers of local government. In our health services powers, and powers dealing with electricity, and now there is a definite and dangerous attack on the powers of local government.
  If this Government really mean business for the business communities of workers and employers, and believes in the future prosperity of this country and wants it to succeed—if it really believes in the future of democracy in this country built up on a diversity making a national unity—it would have the sense to withdraw this Bill. This Bill will go out to the country, and will be received with the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer this afternoon, as a Bill which guarantees to achieve nothing over the next two or three years. It will go out to the country, staggering under the blow of the announcement made this afternoon about cuts and further austerity, as a piece of doctrinaire legislation pushed through Parliament by right hon. and hon. Members opposite, with no advantage to the country. I believe the right hon. Gentleman has already blackened his political copybook with many people throughout the country, but I seriously ask him—although I am afraid it is a request to 'which he cannot accede, pressed as he is by this old-fashioned out-of-date Socialism—to withdraw this Bill.
  8.1 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Porter: Alderman Sir William Walker, chairman of the Manchester electricity undertaking, in his presidential speech at the I.M.E.A. last year, stated that if the municipalities of this country had carried out their obligations to establish municipal electrical undertakings, there would have been no private electricity companies in this country and no need for this nationalisation Bill. I happen to have been connected with a local electricity department for over 30 years. I ask hon Members opposite to try to appreciate how a municipality attempts to carry out its duties in establishing huge trading concerns when composed of Liberals and Tories with, up to two years ago, a sprinkling of Labour members. The electrical engineer brings forward a scheme to do a job by direct labour, but though he can prove that he could do it cheaper than by private enterprise, on principle the Liberals and Tories

  1043
  strongly object, saying that this is an interference with private enterprise.
  In my own town, during the war we had the experience of Government Departments coming into the area where private firms had submitted schemes to our department and we were given alternative schemes. In the main we have accepted our own schemes, and carried them out by direct labour. But many local authorities have not taken advantage of that, and have not had a showroom in which to display electrical appliances. Nor have they engaged professional men and women to give exhibitions and lessons on how electrical cookers and appliances can be used, which is a great benefit to the consumer. They have said, "Leave that to the private contractor; let him get all the benefit, and never mind your ratepayers." That has gone on ever since local authorities had the right to generate electricity and deal directly with the people. Local authorities controlled by Labour majorities have had their own electrical departments. By dealing directly with the consumer and selling appliances even at trade prices, they have saved the ratepayers' money and have proved beyond doubt that the municipality is every time a far better servant of the consumer than the private contractor ever could be The municipality has also always been ahead in wage agreements and working conditions.
  Hon. Members opposite, including the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), have complained that when the Bill becomes an Act the consumer will have very little chance of complaining if he has complaints to make. From my own practical experience, I say very definitely that this will be almost an impossibility. The explanation is very simple. In some towns domestic consumers homes are visited at least once in every three months in order to see that all the electrical appliances in the home are in working order and to render any assistance necessary. The result is that we do not know what particular complaint the housewife may have. The large power consumer is visited at least once a fortnight for the purpose of giving service.
  In many towns also there is an assisted-wiring scheme. Some undertakings have provided this by direct labour, but some
  1044
  have been prevented from doing so, and the local authority has had to give the work out to private contractors to wire the houses. The local authority has had to send its inspectors to see that the work was done in accordance with estimates given. Assisted wiring schemes were introduced by municipalities. If the municipalities had not introduced such schemes thousands of working class homes in this country would never have received the benefit of electricity. In several towns arrangements have had to be made with a private contractor, who has pleaded that he had not the money, to find the money so that he could carry out his contract; that is being done today. I am expecting further developments in that particular line to take place under this Measure.
  Reference has been made about compensation to local authorities. Let me described what is taking place in my own town. We have the services of the town clerk and the borough treasurer in financial matters connected with such things as the scheme we are now carrying out to the value of £5 million; but where we used to pay only about £1,000 per annum for their services we have to pay over £11,000 per annum out of the income of the electricity department. This sort of thing is taking place in a number of towns throughout the country. In other words, electricity departments all over the country are being bled white to pay their supposed portion of the upkeep of town clerks, borough treasurers, and their staffs.
  I would like to put this point of view to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. H. Fraser) in relation to what he said about the number of local authorities in this country: The kind of thing he still believes in is illustrated by the fact that within 14 miles of Manchester town hall there are no fewer than 30 separate electricity undertakings. If one assumes that there are 11 members on each committee, there is a scandalous waste of manpower of 330 people trying to look after those 30 undertakings. Experts believe that not more than two qualified electrical engineers are needed to do the whole of that work, without the aid of any committee. It is said, "How will the consumer be able to complain effectively?" Since I came into this House, I have found that one of the simplest and most effective methods I know of, when deal-

  1045
  ing with any particular complaint, is to get in touch with the head of the Government Department concerned and that complaint, so far as my experience goes, is soon rectified. Therefore, I sincerely believe that to be the best and most effective method that will be available.
  I wish to show another side of this picture. Hon. Members know that in various parts of the country housing schemes are in progress. I am not here to claim that the local authority is responsible for these huge housing schemes, nor am I here to plead that the Government are directing firms into areas that are in need of development because of our aim to abolish poverty and distressed areas in the future. This is how it is working out, and I am sorry that one of the directors of the Clyde Valley Company is not present, but the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) can give him this information: the last annual report issued by the company, which was sent to me by the secretary, shows this position, so far as new industries and housing schemes are concerned:
  "We are at present unable to forecast the demands of our existing consumers, both power and domestic. On the other hand, demands are extensive. There are at present under construction in our area seven new industrial estates and approximately 100 housing sites of varying magnitude ranging from 10 to 100 houses on each site."
  Who connected with the Clyde Valley Electricity Company is responsible for these seven industrial estates or for these houses? Both sides of the House must admit that here is public money being invested in private houses and in taking industries to those derelict districts. Because a company happens to be situated there it is to reap the rich reward for all the electricity used for domestic or industrial purposes. I will put it in another way. A town near to my own, the town of Accrington, has permission to erect a new generating station. This is the way in which the system operates. It is estimated that the station will cost £5 million. Consultations will take no less than £200,000 in fees, whilst at the same time carrying out other schemes in various parts of the country. This Bill will mark the end of the system of milking the electricity industry by charging exorbitant fees.
  Hon. Members opposite try to make out a case that electricity is not a nationalised industry in other countries and
  1046
  that the industry is not a success. I believe that if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Scottish Universities desired to rebut that, he could recall the statement he made after a visit abroad— I think it was to Nigeria—when he told a Parliamentary Committee of the benefits of nationalisation in various industries and said how surprised he was at the result. I think he could put an end to any bogy raised by the Opposition—
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Does the hon. Member know what the wages of a miner were at that time in Nigeria?
  Mr. Porter: I have not the slightest idea what they were then or now. That does not affect my point. Just as local authorities who have had the care of electricity undertakings have always been able to generate electricity, and sell it to the consumer at a rate cheaper than that of the cheapest private company, I am confident that a nationalised industry will do the same. Just as the nationalisation of the electricity industry in South Africa, which is not controlled by a Socialist Government, is a huge financial success, as is the transport industry there, I feel confident that this Measure will be a blessing to the working people of the country and the mainstay of industry. I would remind hon. Members that in 1932 a Bill of this description was presented to the annual conference of the Labour Party. The structure proposed in 1932 is contained in the present Bill. I hope that this Measure will soon be on the Statute Book to bring comfort to the masses of the people.
  8.18 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Roberts: We on this bench welcome this Measure. On the whole, we think it is a good Bill which will make for cheaper and more widespread use of electricity. One thing about which I am sorry is that it has not been found possible to make the consultative councils elective bodies. As the Parliamentary Secretary rightly said, it would be wrong to think that these councils would always be in friction with the area boards. At the same time, it is important that they should be independent bodies and not dependent on ministerial appointment. Their position would be stronger. I appreciate the difficulty of making them elective because they represent a rather artificial kind of area. Although one recognises the Minister's difficulties—the areas cut across so many

  1047
  county boundaries—nevertheless, it would be far better if they were independent bodies. I am also sorry that it was not found possible to make Wales one entity for the purpose of the area boards. In spite of all that, on the whole, I think that public ownership of electricity in this country is an essential condition of bringing electricity at a cheap rate into the rural areas., We have heard quite a lot today about the great municipalities, and not so much about the extension of electricity into the rural areas, but it is because of the possibilities of its extension into the rural areas that we on this bench welcome this Bill.
  I would like the Minister to say something about the price policy which will be pursued by the Central Electricity Authority. I have always believed that there is really no reason in the world why a man living in a remote valley in Wales, Scotland or England should pay more for his electricity than a man living, say, in the middle of Birmingham or one of our larger cities. We think that electricity should be brought into every home in the land, and that no house or housewife should be without it. Now that we are bringing all the resources for making electricity —both coal and hydro-electric resources —under one ownership, I ask the Government to regard it as a national obligation to supply the homes of the people at the same rate wherever they live. There is no other thing, except perhaps water, which is required so much in the country districts as electricity. It is the means of reviving those areas which are at present being denuded of their populations.
  That is the goal and aim of public ownership, as we see it, and I should like the Minister, when he replies to the Debate to give us an assurance that it will be regarded as a national obligation under national ownership to bring electricity to every home in the country on the same terms and conditions, and without those conditions concerning the cost of carrying the lines and so forth which limited the extension of electricity under private ownership. Unless that fresh approach is made, and unless electricity is regarded as essential in every home, the real benefits of public ownership will not be achieved.
  8.23 p.m.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I have promised to speak by the clock, otherwise, I would have liked to trample upon some of the red herrings which the Parliamentary Secretary let fall in his otherwise competent and able speech this afternoon. The hop. Gentleman spoke, in particular both at the beginning and the end of his speech, about expansion of electricity, and he said that we should, somehow, find expansion provided for in this Measure. I cannot find any promise of expansion in this Bill at all, or rather I should say I cannot find any concrete proposals for expansion. There are promises enough contained both in the Bill and in the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary, promises like those which his party gave to the country at the time of the General Election and which have never been fulfilled.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to a little homily on profit seeking and community service, and he said that the Bill was, in some way, replacing the profit motive by community service in giving the benefits of electricity to all. All I can point out in that respect is that if, as a result of the great transposition that has taken place in coal, the mining industry has become really impressed with the idea of community service. I do not think we are seeing it in the production of coal at the present time. Finally, the hon. Gentleman went on to talk about compensation, and sought to justify the Stock Exchange price system by the analogy of Death Duties. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever experienced or suffered from Death Duties. All I know is that I have. I can assure him that if he wants an analogy, Death Duties are much nearer to net maintainable revenue and a proper valuation based upon an investigation of the business such as we on this side have demanded than is the Stock Exchange system of prices.
  In my view, this Bill effectively deprives the community of the power of change and improvement in the field of electricity. I believe the trend to have been already established. Nationalisa-of coal is producing less, coal; nationalisation of transport will produce less transport, and nationalisation of electricity the same. Why is that? I cannot go into the reasons in detail because I should

  1049
  be out of Order, but I should like to say that it is a question of the, size of the organisation. We all know that every industrial organisation, however small, has its defects. These defects are partly administrative and partly sociological. It is my belief that when the organisation gets to a certain size, the cumulative effect of these defects frustrates any attempt to improve the efficiency of the administration.
  Mr. Edward Evans: What about the I.C.I.?
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: There are grave signs of it in the I.C.I. When that point is reached, decay sets in. I hope that one day we in this House will be able to debate dispassionately upon the mechanics and ethics of large-scale organisation. All I can say now is that, in my view, the British Electricity Authority and its attendant boards is a piece of organisation far beyond the optimum size. I believe it will be proved to be quite impossible to handle it efficiently, and that from this day forward public dissatisfaction with it will grow. The hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary talked about denationalisation and what our party would do if the electricity authority proved to be a failure. If it proved to be a failure, we should denationalise it.
  Mr. Frank Byers: If that is so, who is going to buy it?
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: If the public can sell to the State, then the public can buy from the State. I would like further to say—
  Mr. Mitchison: Are we to understand—
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am afraid that I cannot give way again. I think that this Bill will kill competition and emulation, which are the royal and only known roads to progress. It substitutes nothing for competition except feeble grievance-voicing devices called the consultative councils. Those councils will, to my way of thinking, be quite ineffective. Indeed, I think that the Minister means them to be ineffective. They are sops to Cerberus. I have always thought that in his heart the right hon. Gentleman was a syndicalist. If he has any political aim at all, it is to create the syndicalist State. We
  1050
  know that the prime duty of the ardent syndicalist is to see that the mouths of the consumers are gagged and stifled as far as possible. That is effectively done by appointing the consultative councils, and not allowing them to be elected. We will see if they will function. I believe they will not.
  The generation of all electric power is centred in the Electricity Authority. By what standards is its work to be judged? Are they to be American, French or Scandinavian standards? This is not like civil aviation where the machines of one nationality are flying against those of another. There one has competition and standards set up on each side. This is a monopoly of an internal product which is not in competition with the world outside. Who will ensure that the Central Authority keeps up to date and modernises and improves its plant? Is the Minister or Parliament going to ensure that it does? How are we, knowing nothing about the technicalities of this great industry to be able to ginger them up and to criticise them effectively?
  They are the competent authorities. They are the people with all the knowledge. They are the one great Central Authority with all the power and with no competition from anywhere to stimulate them. In those circumstances, the technicians will have the laugh over Parliament and the people. Hon. Members opposite seem to like the idea of centralisation and co-ordination, and to detest competition. Co-ordination, co-operation, partnership are precious and affectionate' words to them. But can we not look at them in this sense: can you not co-ordinate to maintain the status quo? Can you not co-operate to resist all change and improvement? Can you not become co-partners in an undertaking where a vast inertia prevails? I believe this Central Authority, uncompetitive, not stimulated effectively from technical sources, will embrace a vast field of inertia in its operation.
  Second only to the Transport Bill, this Bill, in my view, is the worst of the nationalisation Measures. Hon. Members come along and, in one act of burning, destroy a history book of 80 years of growth in the electrical world. Look at the Schedule to this Bill—page after page of details of companies and local authorities which are to be taken over—454 of them, each

  1051
  a separate chapter of pride and achievement, of struggle and of reward, all of them to be transmuted, controlled and dispossessed. Is it any wonder that disillusionment and cynicism grow as practical men and women in this country day by day are faced with this kind of thing? The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Palmer) thought there was enshrined in this Bill the sum of human happiness. I say, on the other hand, let the Government beware. They are heaping coals of fire upon their heads, and destroying the faith of thousands of people in this country in the Christian and social foundations of their own cause.
  8.32 p.m.
  Colonel Clarke: I wish to preface my remarks by saying, as I said in the Second Reading Debate, that I have a certain interest in this industry. Tonight we enter on the last stage of the proceedings on this Bill, one on which for many months the minds of a number of us have been concentrated. On Second Reading, I and others expressed a reasoned dislike in no uncertain terms. During the Report and Committee stages, we did our best, though we disliked its principles, to make the Bill more workable, conscious that we would have to live with it in the future. I think we have combed it thoroughly, and substantially improved its machinery. I think we have modified its incidence on those people who will be compulsorily transferred to State service. I believe we have also tidied up a considerable amount of clumsy drafting. The Government met us on a number of points, and I believe they were wise to do so. By doing so, they may postpone the introduction of that amending Bill which I think will follow this and other nationalisation Bills very shortly.
  Parts of the Bill are still not really satisfactory, and no work on the Report and Committee stages can make them satisfactory because some of then principles are unsound. In particular the principles laid down in Clause 17 with regard to compensation are thoroughly unsound, and because of that unsoundness the very debatable Clauses 22 to 26 are rendered necessary. If those principles could have been avoided, the Bill would have been shorter and very much simpler.
  1052
  After all, the Stock Exchange valuation is just a valuation of financial prospects, and nothing else. The proper valuation would have been that of a going concern, the valuation that has been used in the past on nearly every occasion when industries were taken over by the State or by municipalities or when one industry absorbed another. If this method, well known to accountants, and long recognised as an effective method, had been used, we should not have had this difficulty. There is at present available no certain knowledge of the real value of the assets being taken over. It is, as someone said earlier in the Debate, ridiculous that, in a great transaction of this kind, the State should have no idea—and that it refuses to obtain any idea in the first two years—of what the value is of the concern it is taking over. That will lead to immense complication in accounting, and in arranging for amortisation, and so on, and is most unsatisfactory for those who want to know how the country stands in this matter. But though we gained some points in Committee and on Report, in real matters of principle no change was really conceded.
  Before I say a word or two about some of these principles I should once more briefly like to voice my objection to the Bill as a whole—my main objection. I want to know whether this Bill is going to pass the test that the Government, or the party that put them in power, demands for any other industry. I take this from a book well known to them on the other side, "Let Us Face The Future." On page 6 it says:
  "Each industry must have applied to it the test of national service. If it serves the nation, well and good. If it is inefficient and falls down on its job the nation must see things are put right.'
  I presume that this applies not only to an industry before it is nationalised, but to it when it is nationalised, too. I do not believe that taking either the long view or the short view the nationalised industry will pass that test.
  We must consider the short view first, because the present position is such that, with the vital economic crisis which faces us, we must get through the short period. If we cannot get through that, the long view is really academic. The root cause of all our present industrial crisis today is the shortage of power and fuel; and electricity supply is in the forefront of the

  1053
  battle. It is already hampered by a number of factors—the shortage of fuel, indifferent fuel, shortage of plant, and, above all—the gravest shortage of all— the shortage of generating plant. Yet the demand continues to increase. In the first five months of this year it was up 6.2 per cent. on the corresponding period for 1946; and that was in a period when it was rationed and often unobtainable. The trouble of the shortage of generating plant is that there is no alternative source of power. We replace coal with oil. We cannot replace generating plant with anything else. The only way is to make the fullest use of what we have got, taking advantage of the experience and the correct policy developed over a period of years by the present organisation, and that is being done at present by boards and by municipal committees who look after electricity undertakings. In that crisis quick decisions have to be made; the technical staff must have someone to whom they can refer for an immediate decision, somebody who will take the responsibility.
  Mr. Hobson: Is not the hon. and gallant Member aware that the decision to unstal new generating plant at the present moment, as things are, can only be taken with the permission of the Central Electricity Board or the Commissioners, and that the Bill simplifies the procedure?
  Colonel Clarke: I did not make it clear. I was really speaking of much smaller decisions than that; the decisions that have to be taken with regard to day to day matters of supplying power, and so on. At the present the administration works as a team, and can obtain quick decisions. I ask: After the vesting date, when the present boards and committees have to give way to a completely new organisation, will that same situation exist? I cannot believe the Minister can shatter that organisation to bits on one night, and the following day build it up anew nearer to his heart's desires. There will be infinite complications in the interim period, when managers and technicians must struggle on as best they can in new teams, and with the new boards hardly knowing each other by sight. I view that time with great alarm. In those circumstances, I do not believe that the nationalised industry will serve the nation. I believe it will fall down on its job in that interim period.
  1054
  I promised not to speak for long, and I will not now touch on a number of other points to which I wished to refer. By and large, in the interests of the industry and those other industries which are dependent upon it, I deplore this Bill. Apart from the immediate danger, I feel that it has a great many weak points, and, above all, it gives no adequate protection to the consumer, no guarantee of cheapness, and no real fairness of compensation. For these reasons, I shall resist this Bill, for the last time, in the Lobby tonight.
  8.43 p.m.
  Mr. Blyton: I have interested myself in this Bill in the House ever since the Second Reading. I welcome the Third Reading tonight, because this Bill fulfils the intentions of the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, which laid down that municipalities could set up their electrical undertakings, and would have the right to purchase within 25 years. The intentions of that Act were that the whole of the electrical supply industry should be owned by the local people in any given area of supply. It was the Tories themselves who in the 'twenties, put the generating of electricity under national control under the Central Electricity Board. They did that in the face of terrific fights against the interested parties —the private companies in the electrical supply industry.
  Having left distribution alone at that time, there followed the McGowan Report. If ever there was a condemnatory report in relation to the chaotic distribution of electricity in this country, it will be found in the McGowan Report. What did Lord McGowan report? He reported that there ought to be an amalgamation of the distribution of electrical supplies in this country; and he recommended that private companies should swallow the great municipal enterprises. A Bill was already prepared by the Opposition, who were then in office, to give effect to the recommendations of the McGowan Report, but because of the hostility of the municipalities against being swallowed up by the private companies, the Tories had to shelve it. Since that day, it has been impossible to reconcile the varying interests as between the municipalities and the private companies, and because of that dispute, which cannot be denied, we have had the chaotic position of different standards of voltages,

  1055
  and so on. I am pleased that this Bill will put an end to all that.
  I still ask, even at this late hour, whether under Clause 7, when the scheme for districts is settled, the Minister will not allow the district councils to select their own representatives. In the districts there is a relationship between the consumer and the councils, the councils ought to be able to select their own representatives. I was a little disturbed about the compensation figure which was being offered, but when the statement was made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that next year there will be a revision of the block grants to local authorities, I became content to accept it although my area—and I am speaking for my area— is a highly-rated area. The financial loss from our electricity undertaking will be more than offset by the new block grants to distressed areas. With these words, I welcome the Third Reading of the Bill as bringing into operation the intentions of the 1882 Act.
  8.49 p.m.
  Sir Stanley Reed: I will not touch tonight on the general features of this Bill, but on the two points referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary. He warned the House and the country not to expect quick results from this Measure. I think he was very wise in doing that. Everyone knows that the passing of this Bill will not quicken our productive power by one day, because every company is pledged for years with plant and orders. It may result in a certain amalgamation of companies which are now too scattered, but all that could have been done by a simple amendment of the Electricity Act, and without this vast and cumbersome Bill. There will not be a quickening by one day of the extension of electricity supply to rural areas, for that is a question of material and labour, and the supply of current. For those municipalities and local bodies which have been so proud of their public-spirited work in the development of electricity supply there will be a substantial loss, for which even the £5 million provided for in the Bill will give no effective return. The Parliamentary Secretary should realise that his admission that we cannot expect quick returns from this Bill is the most devastating condemnation of this Measure which has ever been made
  1056
  in these Debates. We all listened today, with feelings of profound anxiety, to the words which fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Everybody who knows the history knows that these events were bound to occur—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I must remind the hon. Member that what he is saying now does not arise on the Third Reading of this Bill.
  Sir S. Reed: I was merely following a point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett), and trying to reinforce it. However, I will pass from that, and ask the Parliamentary Secretary to refresh his memory about the tremendous delays which have occurred in connection with one of the most beneficial projects for the supply of electricity—the Severn barrage. For years this question' was. examined by the Brabazon Committee, which produced an admirable report. The matter was allowed to lapse, and then we had another committee, which stated that the Severn barrage would provide one of the cheapest sources of electricity supply in the world. It has taken two years to prod the Government into getting a tidal model set up at Teddington. I do not want to look that gift too much in the mouth, but it has been a rather weary job to persuade the Government to that end.
  I ask the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary not to be too indifferent to the growth of tidal power. It is true that the capital cost is high, and that the period of construction may be long, but once the works are going the contract rate for power can be fixed for years and years ahead, in the knowledge that it will not vary. Although we have not got a great deal of water power in the ordinary sense of the term, we have a vast potential of tidal power, of which the Severn barrage is only one example. I ask the Minister not to be led astray by the harbour and dock authorities, who are fearful of the silting up of their channel. I ask him to realise that we may have here a source of power which would be of incalculable benefit in the face of our declining coal output and the enormous cost we are paying for fuel.
  8.54 p.m.
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: In the few moments I have to address the House I would like to remind the Govern-

  1057
  ment that within the last few days they have been highly praised in the newspapers of this country, not only by Lord Beaverbrook but by Lord Rothermere and even Lord Kemsley. Why? That is a natural question to ask. Because of their constructive proposal to spend £100 million on the Colonies—
  Mr. Hobson: What has this got to do with the Third Reading of the Bill?
  Mr. Baxter: Mr. Deputy-Speaker is in charge of the Debate, not the hon. Gentleman opposite. Why was this action of the Government praised? Because it was something constructive to meet the prevailing situation. If I am asked what this has to do with the Third Reading of this Bill, I say that this Bill is one more of the 39 steps which the Government are taking to perdition, accompanied every fourth step, by the Liberal Party, whose representatives have now gone out like a fused electric light. This is a doomed and damned Government. It came into power to deal with urgent problems. [An HON. MEMBER: "This is one."] This has nothing to do with that at all. What is going to happen under this Bill? Still more centralisation, still more bureaucrats -and the bureaucrat by his very training cannot decentralise; more and more patronage.
  Mr. Hobson Mr. Hobson rose—
  Mr. Baxter: I will not give way. Look at the Minister of Fuel and Power. I am going to tell the truth about him in a minute. Surely the job of getting coal out of the mines of this country—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon Member cannot go into that question.
  Mr. Baxter: I was pointing out, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the Minister now becomes a dual personality. Not only will he be Minister of Coal but Minister of Electricity. What is going to happen? This dual personality—these two Ministers in one will get into trouble. There may be a demand for shorter hours and more pay in the coal industry, and the Minister of Coal will have to go to the Minister of Electricity and say, "You will have to pay more for your coal." This is an endless chain. Then the Minister of Electricity will have to charge the Minister of Coal more for electricity. Hon. Members have talked in this House
  1058
  today as if the price might come down. There has never been a nationalised industry in our history that has brought a price down. I will tell the House where it does come down, and that is in America, where everything is privately owned. The Americans bring a price down because they want to make profits, and the only way to make profits is to give service. Now there will be none of that.
  There is one question which I would put to the right hon. Gentleman before I sit down. The other day, in the course of the Debate, he said that he would not put on any of his boards a man who had taken a stand against nationalisation. There was a time in this country when a statement like that would have aroused such an outcry that he would have been driven from office This country, which as Shakespeare says in "Richard II":
  "was wont to conquer others"
  has not conquered herself. This country has lost the power to be angry. When the electrical industry is nationalised, there will have to be contracts to private industry, and if the head of a private firm has had the courage to stand up on a public platform and denounce nationalisation, will there be a boycott' in giving Government contracts? If this threat is carried out logically, this process of blackmail and boycott must be carried on throughout the country. I am gravely disturbed by the building up of this Tammany patronage.
  Mr. Hobson: Substantiate those charges.
  Mr. Baxter: I was referring to Tammany patronage. It was a democratic party in New York in the old days and Tammany Hall was the party headquarters. No man could be appointed a judge or to any such position unless he was in the party.
  Colonel Wigg: Private enterprise.
  Mr. Baxter: It was all done through the party caucus and that is what is happening here today. The element of corruption is not far off. There cannot be such patronage without corruption setting in. Even today the standard of morality and honesty in this country is definitely and tragically worse than it was 10 years ago, because we have all this pressure for

  1059
  jobs. I want to repeat the statement that the Government are introducing another Bill, which will not do one thing to assist the economic position of the country. It is the most irrelevant Government which unfortunately has ever been brought into power. First it was the nationalisation of the Bank of England then Cable and Wireless, then one thing after another, and now this. Nero has been out-fiddled completely. The right hon. Gentleman will be Minister of Coal and Minister of Electricity This has been a tragic day in this House, starting with the announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealing with a situation that could have been foreseen long ago. This is another of the 39 steps to perdition on which hon. Members opposite can take the Liberal Party.
  9.2 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: As we now approach the end of the stages of the Bill in this House, those who have lived with it so long feel, in a way, a certain sense of sadness. The Debates, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, have been long, and I think creditable to both sides, for we have done our best to argue out a case on which we were deeply divided. It is true that one or two of the familiar faces seem to be absent. The Minister, in his long supervision of the Bill, played at times the part of an emollient and at times the part of a hand grenade. The Parliamentary Secretary always played the part of an emollient. We miss the Solicitor-General, who shared with us the heat and burden of the day, and I do not see with us tonight the Lord Advocate, who might be described in our Committee as "the cup that cheered," although it certainly did not inebriate.
  At the end of so long a Debate it' is impossible to suppose that we are about to change any opinions by our speeches. However, what we can and should do at this stage is to do our best to set out clearly the differences between the two sides. The difference between the two sides is not, as hon. Members opposite seem to think, that we believe simply that the compensation is unjust in the nationalisation of the private companies, nor even that this great industry is passing under public control, because this is an industry of which more than two-thirds
  1060
  is under control at the present time. It is that we cannot see the advantage to the country of this gigantic new machine, and these gigantic new administrative units which are to be set up. We feel that the Government have failed completely to make out their case that these vast increases in the size of the administrative units are going to bring about the advantages which are claimed for them by hon. Members opposite.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Wood. Green (Mr. Baxter) said, all that it will achieve is that the Minister will be Minister of Electricity as well as Minister of Coal. He will be able to say, with a great deal more assurance than Louis XIV said, "L'Etat, c'est moi" —"electricity, that is me." In the numerous proper names which cover units of electricity, like ohm, watt, ampere and volt, there will be added Shinwell, which I think will go down as a negative unit of electricity rather than a positive one. This centralisation is being defended largely because of complaints that there are too many undertakings in the industry today. A great many of those figures which have been given are illusory The great bulk of electricity distribution is controlled by a relatively small number of units. The fact that these are at present autonomous units seems to us to be an advantage and not a disadvantage.
  The destruction of these seems to be a bad thing and not a good thing. We cannot understand why hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite stress with such vehemence the necessity for the extermination of this reasonable number of autonomous units. This is not going to be an advantage either to present efficiency or to the future development of this industry. Roughly speaking, about 75 local authorities and 30 companies handle 90 per cent. of the distribution of electricity. There are a large number of smaller units, but these smaller units could be handled in a less drastic way than is proposed under the Bill. What we see here is a picture of an industry in which there are not more than 100 or so large autonomous units.
  Mr. Scollan: How many directors are there?
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I will come to the hon. Member's remark in a minute. He may be sorry if he continues to provoke me, because there are one or two things

  1061
  about which I will remind him. I am speaking of the 100 odd units which make and handle 90 per cent. of the electricity industry. Their achievement has been considerable. In 20 years the price has fallen from ¾d. per unit to Id. a unit; consumers were increased prewar at the rate of 800,000 a year; and there has been a tenfold increase in consumption since 1920. In these circumstances, the onus of proof is on those who desire to make a change. The suggestion that all this is to be greatly improved by the substitution of 14' authorities—or 15 counting the North of Scotland Board—for the 100 or so now existing is, I suggest, one for which a case has not been made out either on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report stage, or on Third Reading. It has been said for instance that there are a great number of electricity undertakings— 20 or 30 I believe—within 14 miles of the town hall of Manchester, and the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. E. Porter) said that there were some 300 people sitting on electricity committees within that range. But I have been told again and again that within 14 miles of the town hall at Manchester there is a population greater than the whole population of Egypt.
  The hon. Member said, "We shall sweep away all these committees, and we believe that they could be replaced by two engineers." I do not believe that two engineers will give to that community that sense of being in touch with their industry or of being able to remedy grievances that is provided by the democratically-elected authorities under which the industry are working now. The record of the industry is one which can compare favourably with that of the most highly-electrified nation in the world, the United States. Roughly speaking, 80 per cent. of the houses in the United States have electricity. Even with the disadvantages of the war, 70 per cent. of the houses in the United Kingdom have it, and nearly 90 per cent. are within range of an available supply, so that it is only a matter of equipment and labour to connect them to it.
  These are not facts upon which the Minister can reasonably assume that to halt this advance which has been made on a broad front—and to bottleneck new progress through 14 authorities—will solve the problem which the country has before it. The existing autonomous units have raised and expended over £340 million in
  1062
  capital for the local authorities and £275 million in the companies. The 14 new authorities are supposed to be going to raise and expend more than £700 million. I certainly ask the Minister whether he is not here creating units too unwieldy for this purpose. Each of these boards is to handle something like 2,000 million units as compared with some 200 million average for the local authorities and 400 million average for the companies. Each of them will have to employ some 7,000 men as against an. average of well under 1,000 in the present enterprises. All this is to be supervised by 14 or—if we take in the North of Scotland Board—15 consultative councils appointed by the Minister. These are to replace not merely the 30 companies but the 75 elected local authorities.
  This is the set-up advocated by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and described by the hon Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) as fulfilling the hopes of the 1880's of municipalising the electricity industry. If anything could be called the de-municipalising of the industry, I should have thought it would be this ejection of the municipalities, the sweeping away of all the publicly-elected authorities and their replacement by 15 consultative councils. I was surprised when I heard the hon. Member for North Wembley (Mr. Hob-son), the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Nicholls), and the hon. Member for Warrington, all of whom won their spurs on electricity committees of various kinds, saying, "These advantages we have enjoyed, but they are to be denied to our successors." The popular election under which the local people in this country fought their way up and learned the handling of great enterprises is to be removed, and in its place is to come appointment by the Minister.
  Mr. E. Porter: Hear, hear.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The hon. Member for Warrington says "Hear, hear" because he hopes it will always be his Minister who will appoint. But suppose the two sides of the House change, as has often happened, and the Minister of Fuel and Power is drawn from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side, and he begins to apply the sort of principle which has been pressed upon our attention by the present Minister of Fuel and Power? 1 doubt whether the hon. Mem-

  1063
  ber for Warrington would be so enthusiastic about the prospect which would then open in front of him. The Minister of Fuel and Power applies very rigid tests; he seemed to show some signs of restiveness when my right hon. Friend, in most mild and gentle language, described those who were to be appointed to the boards as people who thoroughly agreed with the Minister's political opinions—"stooges"was, I think, the actual phrase used. The Minister even took some exception to references which my right hon. Friend made to the chairman-designate of the Central Electricity Board. But my. right hon. Friend referred to him with the utmost mildness compared with the references which were made to him by some of his colleagues on the Front Bench. Perhaps the Minister has not consulted the views of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health on the subject of the chairman-designate of the Central Electricity Board? The Minister of Health has in the past said things about him compared to which the references of my right hon. Friend were the mere beginnings of love talk. May I remind the Minister of one such reference which was published, I believe, in a paper for which an appeal was made this afternoon by an hon. Lady describing it as one of the opinion-making journals of this country. Referring to the chairman-elect of the Electricity Board, the Minister of Health said:
  "Divested of authority his opinions are those of a political illiterate. He should confine himself to his filing system. I am told"—
  said he—
  "that he is good at that."
  The Minister of Fuel and Power said that there was the danger of politics being drawn into this business, that hard language might be used, and that the high standard which the Minister considers he has set himself and has consistently maintained—with an occasional falling away as may happen to any of us—might be impinged upon. If this system of appointments conducted under the Minister's patronage is to spread and be applied to all the great enterprises of this country, as is suggested, the bringing of these things into politics—the introduction of the spoils system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green said—is absolutely inevitable.
  1064
  The local authorities were elected. It was possible to refer these appointments to a higher arbiter, a higher court. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has said, "I would not put anybody on that side of the House on a committee for compensating electricity companies any more than they would put me on a committee for compensating landlords. That is true, but the nation put him on a committee which has to do with compensating landlords and the nation put us on a committee which has to do with compensating electricity companies. Only the nation, and not any single Minister can, at the end of the day, select those persons.
  On the question of compensation, the Minister does not seem to grasp the point which we have repeatedly been trying to make. Let me try again. It is that if there is one class of persons against whom the other side has consistently inveighed, it is the rentier, the man who draws dividends without hazarding his capital, without taking his risk in the world's affairs. The Bill will produce a great addition to the rentier class. It will expropriate from the active conduct of business, wherein risks are taken, over £100 million of capital, ordinary share capital, risk-taking capital, to which the usual accusation of rente cannot be applied. It will turn those shareholders deliberately and specifically into rentiers. This the Minister brings forward as a great social advance. A Bill to take all these enterprises away from the municipalities and to produce £100 million of new rentiers is not bad business for one night. It is what the Minister is asking us to do tonight in regard to electricity.
  The Minister buttresses his argument in regard to compensation in a way which can scarcely appeal to the nation. He claims that Stock Exchange values are not only a, but the only, fair test. Those arguments did not appeal to his colleagues when they were handling the problem of the purchase of the Argentine railways. As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) has pointed out, they did not take the Stock Exchange valuation. They said that the Stock Exchange valuation was not a fair one to take and they demanded and insisted that Senor Peron and the Argentine Government should agree to more than the Stock Exchange valuation. The Government

  1065
  will find it very difficult indeed to bring forward that argument again when any future representative from another country tries to obtain British investments in his country. He can well point to the Stock Exchange prices, which he may very easily have hammered down for that purpose, and say, "These are the values which I will pay, and it will be on your own showing unjust to ask us to pay more."
  The arguments which have been brought forward are admittedly those which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to feel keenly. They seem to feel that this evening a great advance is being made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, I acknowledge their views. I consider they are deeply mistaken. If it is an advance anywhere, it is towards the totalitarian state. The hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) interrupted me a moment ago. On another occasion, let me remind him, he said something about nominated councils, in connection with another Bill which was before this House.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. and gallant Member must not develop his argument along those lines, but must confine himself to what is relevant upon the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I hope that I was sticking very closely to that point. I have only said—and I am perfectly willing to leave it at that—that the hon. Member for West Renfrew has commended to other hon. Members upon another occasion the great advantage of having nominated people who were not subject to the whims of the electorate every two or three years. That is the language which Ministers are using tonight. That is the language of totalitarian States.
  Finally, whatever else we can bring forward in favour of this Bill, nobody can bring forward the suggestion that it will be of any immediate advantage in remedying our present difficulties. The Parliamentary Secretary and the hon. Gentleman who followed him on that side of the House said it will be a matter of many winters before any advantage to the people of this country can result. Again, we say that to produce the dislocation which this Bill must inevitably produce; to re-organise the industry in 14 gigantic units each from five to 10 times
  1066
  as large as units already in existence, in employees and in capital, with the task before them of spending in a few years a sum greater than the whole sum put into the electrical industry from the day it was brought into existence until the present; to put this new machine in charge of that gigantic job is the road to ruin and chaos, and not the road to the proper organisation of the industry. For these reasons, we shall without any hesitation vote against the Third Reading of the Bill, and we say that it will be a bad day for this country and this House if the Bill tonight advances one more stage towards the statute book.
  9.22 p.m.
  The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): The Debate on the Third Reading of this Bill has disclosed the amazing weakness of the Opposition. After the criticism of the past few weeks in the House and in the newspapers associated with the Tory Party—
  Wing-Commander Millington: Dissociated.
  Mr. Shinwell: —I expected a devastating attack. We have witnessed a feeble, malicious exhibition characteristic of the Opposition. It is obvious that the Opposition have not got their hearts into this so-called attack. No fundamental opposition has been expressed against the principle embodied in the Bill. There have been minor objections about detail on the matter of administration, but that is all, and, indeed, I am not surprised. The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) asked where were the old familiar faces on the Government bench. He referred to my colleagues the Solicitor-General, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Lord Advocate. Those colleagues, with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, have rendered me and, I think, the House and the country, material service in the passage of this Bill. But where are the old familiar faces on the other side?
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), true to character, made his almost weekly attack on me. I am now familiar with the language. Let me quote him just to show I am unafraid. He regards me— wait for the applause—as an inefficient Minister of Fuel and Power. [HON.

  1067
  MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] There was never any question about the efficiency of the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, so efficient was he regarded by his leaders and colleagues that, when an agricultural Bill is before the House, although he was Minister of Agriculture for several years, the task of dealing with it is transferred to the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank)
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I should be loth, from a personal point of view, to deprive the House of further examples of the right hon. Gentleman's tact, but may I respect-, fully ask, in view of what he said during my speech, whether this is in Order?
  Mr. Speaker: I have only just come into the Chair and, therefore, have not heard the previous speeches. I must confess that I thought we were getting a little far from the Third Reading.
  Mr. Shinwell: Sir, with the highest respect, may I say we listened to some observations from the other side that were far from complimentary and indeed irrelevant and I was just responding. If they were not irrelevant, then I am in Order. I look for the old familiar faces on the other side. The right hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George) who was Minister of Fuel and Power during the reign of the Coalition Government is absent. I wonder what his views are on the subject of electricity nationalisation? It would be interesting to know. He has not yet disclosed himself in the House. We can arrive at our own conclusions. Where is the right hon. Gentleman the Senior Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson)? He said in Glasgow some time ago:
  "I would support, too, the nationalisation of the distribution of electricity."
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Voluntary absentees.
  Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says, "Voluntary absentees"—because their presence here would have exposed the incompetence and ineptitude of the Opposition.
  What is the case of the other side insofar as there is a case? They complain to begin with about the amount of compensation. We would hardly expect it to be otherwise. Their primary in-
  1068
  terest is, How much can our friends get out of it? "To which I venture to say that compensation in respect of the transfer of electricity assets from private owners to the British electricity authorities is more than generous. We have had it out before in the House, and it is about time that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite realised that in the transfer of assets to the State we must ensure that the ultimate consumer is not overburdened. Their second line of attack is the alleged treatment of directors of privately-owned electricity undertakings. Here I would pause for a moment to say what I think ought to be said in the circumstances. I regret the disappearance of the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) from a scene where he has resided for many a long year and where he has undoubtedly rendered valuable service according to his lights and inclinations. At any rate, he is much more honest than some hon. Members on the other side, and certainly much more knowledgeable on this subject than ever they can pretend to be. There is no offensive treatment of directors contemplated in the Bill. So far as managing directors are concerned, so far as executive directors are concerned, so far as working directors are concerned or directors who are substantially employed by the undertaking, they come within the ambit of compensation, but your namby-pamby come-day, go-day director who is here today and gone to-morrow—
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Soapbox.
  Mr. Shinwell: —these persons render little or no service to the community. The third line of attack is that we contemplate over-centralisation. The structure of the Bill is intended to avoid over-centralisation. I shall say a word about that before I sit down.
  I come to the gravamen of the charge against us. We have just listened to part of it. We heard a great deal about it from the right hon. Member for South-port. What is it? It is a repetition of the malicious—I speak deliberately and the language may be strong but I am not apologising for it—and lying propaganda indulged in by the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) the other day when he attacked us with charges of

  1069
  corruption levelled against the Government. Not a single one of those charges can be substantiated by the other side. The right hon. Gentleman attacked me on the grounds that I was about to appoint or had appointed—I use his elegant language—"stooges."I am not quite familiar with the term, but I should imagine it is rather more associated with the Tory Party than with this side of the House. I gather that it means a person who is ready and willing to subordinate himself for payment to some other person. When I appointed Lord Hyndley as Chairman of the National Coal Board, was he regarded as a "stooge"?
  Commander Noble: On a point of Order. May I ask what Lord Hyndley has to do with the Electricity Bill?
  Mr. Speaker: I assumed that the Minister was giving an example of appointments under the Electricity Bill.
  Mr. Shinwell: Reference was made by the right hon. and hon. Members opposite more than once in the course of Debate to this matter of "stooges" being appointed by the Government. I am responding. I repeat that when I appointed Lord Hyndley as Chairman of the National Coal Board, was he regarded as a "stooge"? Do hon. Members regard the author of the Reid Report, Sir Charles Reid as a "stooge," or that eminent scientist, Sir Charles Ellis?
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: Or Sir Ben Smith?
  Mr. Shinwell: Unfortunately for the right hon. Gentleman's argument, I did not appoint Sir Ben Smith. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who did"?] Reference has been made to the selection of Lord Citrine as the Chairman-Designate of the British Electricity Authority. Only a moment or two ago the right hon. Gentleman accused the Minister of Health of having criticised Lord Citrine some years ago. During 'the war Lord. Citrine was made a member of His Majesty's Privy Council by the Coalition Government. A person who has been made a member of His Majesty's Privy Council, while not a Member of Parliament and not actively engaged in politics, who is honoured in that way by His Majesty, is hardly the sort of person one would regard as a "stooge." This Government at which I
  1070
  am a member, appointed a certain person to a high position—
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Sir Ben Smith.
  Mr. Shinwell: —to the position of Chairman of the Port of London Authority. We appointed the right hon. Gentleman the Senior Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson). Is that the kind of "stooge" we appoint? [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Let hon. Gentlemen answer that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who appointed Sir Ben Smith?"]
  I shall tell hon. Members in all quarters of the House about the characteristic procedure of the other side of the House. They prefer the system of the electricity supply undertakings being under private ownership so that whenever anybody is wanted for a particular post they can look round their circle of acquaintances or school friends and relations—for a son-in-law, a father-in-law or a brother-in-law—without regard to qualifications. That is the method of private ownership. If it had not been so there are hon. Members on the other side and their friends who would never have been able to earn a living. Some hon. Members opposite do, of course, think it is sound because they know the history of this business. They can recall the McGowan Report, which advocated centralisation in the sphere of generation, and ultimately national ownership. Presumably all hon. Members opposite are not familiar with the McGowan Report.
  But they say that even if the Bill is sound the timing is wrong. That was the tenor of the speech of the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett), and, I think, of the hon. Member for Aylesbury Sir S. Reed) for whom I have a very high regard, and to whom I always listen with respect. But let us consider this question of timing. Do hon. Members ealise that this question of the time factor was not one for the Government? It was in the hands of the local authorities. Under the old electricity statutes, the local authorities could, under what is known as the franchise, exercise their right to have privately owned electricity undertakings transferred to the local authorities, and in many cases they did.
  One of my problems in the past two years has been to restrain many of those

  1071
  local authorities, including some Tory local authorities, from exercising the rights of franchise. Therefore, it is not a matter that rests entirely in the hands of the Government. It was a matter of timing the introduction of the Bill in order to avoid more chaos and further complications which would only have endangered the position of electricity supply in this country. There is another point in this connection. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite are always saying that we ought not to nationalise because the country is in a bad way. The fact is that we have to nationalise because they have put it in a bad way.
  I am well aware that we are not entitled to discuss the coal industry, although right hon. and hon. Members opposite did raise the matter and I was very much tempted to reply. I do not want to transgress the rules of Order, but what a story to tell about the mining industry. What horrible disclosures about the ineptitude and inefficiency of some hon. Members opposite. Incidentally, there are some people around who may not be regarded as stooges but who have succeeded automatically to patronage arising out of contractual obligations imposed on the National Coal Board and who are doing very well out of it. They were not appointed by me. They were appointed by the coalowners of the past and, until their contracts expire, they are doing very well indeed. Perhaps the less said by hon. Members opposite the better, although one of these days there may have to be full disclosures on this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: Get back to the Bill."] All in good time.
  Then to my surprise hon. Members opposite raised the question of the unfairness of our treatment of the local authorities [An HON. MEMBER:"Why surprise?"] Because we never expect these gifts from hon. Members opposite. They are consumed with anxiety about the financial position of the local authorities. I have never known that they were troubled with these matters before. However, we are very glad to note their interest in the local authorities. Let us consider this question of local authority compensation for a moment, because the matter has been well discussed. First, the local authorities knew very well when this Government were returned to power
  1072
  that, under a decision we took in 1932 when we declared our policy, local authority electricity undertakings when transferred to the State would be transferred on the basis of the acceptance of old liabilities, and no more than that. They were well aware of it. I suggest that in the payment of £5 million for severance and the provision for the payment of debt management costs, the Government have treated the local authorities with exceptional fairness.
  It has been suggested that there is no need for the nationalisation of electricity supply in this country because the privately-owned undertakings and the municipal undertakings have done very well by the country. Of course, they have done very well. This is a young industry. This industry was not in the position of the older gas industry, and, therefore, with all the natural and inevitable expansion which has developed in the past 20 or 25 years, this industry was bound to have done well; but it can do better still, and it is because we believe it must do better in the interests of the general body of consumers and of potential consumers that we have brought about this integration.
  There is a great body of support for this Bill in the country. There can be no doubt about that. Let me deal, first, with a matter which was raised by the hon. Member who spoke for the Liberal Party —the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts). He was very rightly concerned about the position of rural consumers. If there is any body of consumers who are likely to benefit at all by this Bill, it is bound to be those in the rural areas. Great strides have been made in the direction of providing electricity supplies for rural consumers, and by whom? By the county councils and the local authorities, who have developed distribution schemes for the past few years and have provided electricity at very cheap cost.
  The noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) was troubled because he did not detect in the Bill any particular reference to expansion The noble Lord is quite wrong, and he ought to know better, because he was on the Standing Committee when we discussed this question of expansion, particularly in the rural areas, and the cheapening of supplies,

  1073
  over and over again, and it is contained in the first part of the Bill. Indeed, the primary objective of the Bill is to promote expansion, and that is one of the reasons we are providing £700 million, partly for the purposes of generation and partly for the purpose of efficient distribution.
  As regards further support, I would like to mention the technicians in the industry. I tell the House—and I speak with the utmost confidence in this regard—that the great body of technicians in the electricity supply industry, even those employed by the private undertakings, are enthusiastically supporting this Bill. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), who wound up the Debate from the other side was troubled—and this seems to be the only argument he raised that was not irrelevant—because he thought the kind of units that we were envisaging were much too large. We sought to embrace in the area boards—[Interruption.]
  Mr. W. R. Williams: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, May I draw your attention to what I regard as organised noisiness on the other side, and may I ask if it is in accordance with the Rules of the House?
  Mr. Speaker: I confess I had some difficulty in hearing what the Minister was saying, but I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was managing to carry on without my intervention.
  Mr. Shinwell: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. I was, in fact, managing to carry on, in spite of—
  Brigadier Mackeson: Further to that point of Order. May I say, quite impartially, that there is a noise, but that it appears to me, sitting here, to be coming from behind the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Shinwell: I am an old Member of this House, and when hon. Members opposite indulge in this sort of thing, I regard it as a high compliment. It means that they cannot take it. I was endeavouring to deal with a point which I regarded as of some substance, and which was put by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities. He said that the units were too large. But what are the
  1074
  facts? Let us take the case of the North-Eastern Electric Supply Company, a privately - owned undertaking. That undertaking covers the whole of Durham, the northern part of Yorkshire, and the whole of—
  Mr. Walter Fletcher: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. It was said just now that it was hard to hear what the Minister was saying, but if the right hon. Gentleman deliberately turns his back on us, how can we be expected to hear what he is saying?
  Mr. Shinwell: The last think I should ever do would be to turn my back to the other side. I will, for the third time, endeavour to make my point. As it happens to be the only point of substance, I think it ought to be dealt with. I was saying that the North Eastern Electric Supply Company, under private ownership, covers a territory larger than that contemplated in the Bill. That, I think, is a complete answer to the criticism that we are envisaging units that will be unwieldy from the administrative point of view.
  I will say why I think the Bill should be accepted by the House. I see opposite the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan) who, I think, would be inclined to support this Bill on many grounds. Incidentally, he was appointed many years ago—he knows that I have the greatest respect for his capacity and for him personally, and what I am about to say is certainly not intended to be offensive to him—as the first chairman of the Central Electricity Board by a Conservative Government, and a very good appointment it was. But it was a nationalised concern to deal with generation. We are merely extending the principle. This is amplification of the principle accepted by a Conservative Government which the right hon. Member for the City of London sought to execute. I venture to say in his presence that this Bill was, in all the circumstances, inevitable. Because of the complexities arising out of the franchise, because of the need for expansion, and, more particularly, because integration is of the highest importance, it is desirable that this Bill should be proceeded with.
  There is another factor to which I must direct attention. It will not be denied

  1075
  that, for the most part, this industry is publicly owned. There are, in fact, 370 local authorities with electricity undertakings. Therefore, this is only an extension of the principle. In our integration —and integration is essential—we must conduct it with a minimum of centralisation. Any unbiased person who looks at the structure of the Bill, as presented in the scheme that was before the Standing Committee and is now before the House, must agree that this structure is sound, three-tiered and eminently workable. Let us consider what it means. We set up an authority, and that authority has the determining voice as regards finance—which is quite proper in the circumstances—and as regards policy. Then we set up area boards. In order to maintain an effective liaison between the area boards and the Central Authority, we provide that four of the chairmen of the area boards shall sit on the Central Authority. That is a complete reply to the right hon. Member for Southport who declared that the Central Authority would be able completely to subordinate the area boards, and that the area boards would have no say in the matter of tariffs or expansion, and the like. By providing that four chairmen of the area boards, sitting in rotation, shall be members of the Central Authority, we ensure not only integration but an effective understanding between the Central Authority and all the area boards in respect of the financial activities and the general policy.
  Something has been said about prices, and I have been challenged. I have been told that there is nothing in the Bill which indicates whether the price levels will be reduced as a result of the provisions in this Bill. It is quite impossible to tell, and I will tell hon. Members why. Costs may rise—[An HON. MEMBER: "Coal?"] No, I will come to that in a moment. Costs of electric plant may rise, because, in the circumstances, there is a great shortage in the supply of these essential materials, and it is not surprising that costs tend to rise. Indeed they began to rise during the war, and the trend has continued in that direction
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: The price of electricity has gone down.
  Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman has a habit of answering his own questions. It is true that costs will rise and, therefore, no guarantee can be given in respect of prices, but surely, as a result of the integration that is invisaged in the provisions of this Bill, and by the cutting out of the dead wood—by which I mean the cutting out of a lot of these privately-owned undertakings—in spite of the increased costs of electric equipment and plant, we can assist in cheapening the supply of electricity throughout the field. Moreover, one of the advantages provided in this Bill is based on the desirability of promoting the utmost research into electricity expansion, and, since the right hon. Member for Southport complained that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary had referred to atomic energy, I would add, into the relations between atomic energy and the provision of electricity supply.
  In all the circumstances, I ask the House to accept this Bill. From the very beginning of our proceedings, during the many weeks from the Second Reading to the Committee and Report stages no substantial argument has been adduced against the Bill. I imagine that the Opposition will not regard the passing of this Bill with high disfavour. Indeed, we are doing a job which, if they had been in power, they would have had to do, perhaps with some modifications. They could not have avoided it. No doubt, they would have provided more compensation. No doubt, they would have provided employment for some of the discarded directors. We have been unable to satisfy the Opposition as regards compensation, although we believe that we have been exceptionally generous We have not attempted to satisfy them in respect of certain members of boards of directors, but we believe in this Bill, and we are satisfied that it will benefit the consumers.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes 321; Noes, 173.

  Division NO.289]

  AYES.

  10.0p.m

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Lewis, A W J (Upton)

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Lindgren, G. S

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Durbin, E. F. M

  Lipton, Lt.-Col M

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Dye, S.

  Langden, F

  Allighan, Garry

  Ede Rt. Hon. J. C

  Lyne, A W.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Edelman, M.

  McAdam, W.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

  Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

  McGhee. H G

  Attewell, H. C.

  Evans, E. (.Lowestoft)

  Mack, J D.

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  McKay, J (Wallsend)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

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

  Ayles, W. H

  Ewart, R.

  McLeavy, F

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

  Fairhurst, F

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Bacon, Miss A

  Farthing, W. J

  Mainwaring, W. H

  Baird, J.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mallalieu, J P W

  Balfour, A.

  Field, Capt. W. J.

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

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

  Manning, C (Camberwell, N.)

  Barstow, P. G

  Follick, M.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Battley, J. R.

  Foot, M. M.

  Marshall, F (Brightside)

  Bechervaise, A. E

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Mayhew, C. P

  Belcher, J. W

  Freeman, Peter (Newport)

  Mellish, R. J

  Bellenger, Rt Hon. F. J

  Gaitskell, H. T. N.

  Messer, F.

  Benson G

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S

  Middleton, Mrs. L

  Berry, H.

  Gibbins, J.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Beswick. F.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Millingten, Wing-Comdr. E. R

  Bing, G. H C

  Gilzean, A.

  Mitchison, G. R

  Binns, J.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Monslow, W

  Blackburn, A. R

  Goodrich, H. E.

  Moody, A S

  Blenkinsop, A

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Morgan, Dr. H B.

  Blyton, W. R

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Morley, R.

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W

  Grenfell, D. R.

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

  Bowen, R.

  Grey, C. F

  Morris, P (Swansea, W.)

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Grierson, E

  Morrison, Rt Hon H (Lewisham, E.)

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

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Moyle, A.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J (Llanelly)

  Murray, J. D

  Bramall, E. A.

  Griffiths, W D. (Moss Side)

  Nally, W.

  Brook, D (Halifax)

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Naylor, T. E

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Gunter, R. J

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Guy, W. H

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

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Bruce, Maj. D. W. T

  Hale, Leslie

  Noel-Baker, Capt. E (Bren ford)

  Burden T W

  Hall, W G.

  O'Brien, T.

  Burke, W A.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Oldfield, W. H

  Butler, H. W. (Hackney, s)

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Oliver, G. H

  Byers, Frank

  Hardman, D R.

  Orbach, M.

  Caliaghan, James

  Harrison, J

  Paling. Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

  Castle, Mrs. B. A

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Chamberlain, R. A

  Henderson, A (Kingswinford)

  Pargiter, G A

  Champion, A J

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Parkin, B T

  Chater, D.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Chetwynd, G. J

  Hewitson, Capt. M

  Pearson, A.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Hicks G.

  Peart, Thomas F.

  Cobb, F. A.

  Hobson, C. R

  Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

  Cocks, F. S

  Holman, P

  Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)

  Coldrick, W.

  Holmes, H. E (Hemsworth)

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Collindridge, F

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

  Portet, E. (Warrington)

  Collins, V. J.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Price, M. Philips

  Colman, Miss G. M

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

  Proctor, W. T

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Randall, H E

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

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Ranger, J.

  Corvedale, Viscount

  Irving, W. J.

  Rankin, J.

  Cove, W. G.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon G A

  Rees-Williams, D. R

  Crawley, A.

  Janner, B.

  Reid T (Swindon)

  Crossman, R. H. S

  Jay, D P. T.

  Rhodes, H.

  Daggar, G.

  Jeger, G (Winchester)

  Richards, R.

  Daines, P.

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

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Robens, A.

  Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Keenan, W

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Kenyon, C

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Key, C. W.

  Rogers, G. H. R.

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

  King, E. M.

  Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

  Davies, R. J (Westhoughton)

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E

  Royle, C.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Kinley, J.

  Sargood, R

  Deer, G.

  Kirby, B. V

  Scollan, T.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  Lang, G.

  Scott-Elliot, W

  Delargy, H. J.

  Layers, S.

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Diamond, J

  Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J

  Shackleton, E. A. A

  Dobbie, W.

  Lee, F. (Hulme)

  Sharp, Granville

  Dodds, N. N

  Lee, Miss J (Cannock)

  Shawcross, C. N (Widnes)

  Donovan, T.

  Leslie, J R.

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

  Driberg, T. E. H.

  Lever, N H

  Shinwell Rt. Hon E

  1078

  1079

  Shurmer, P

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Westwood, Rt. Hon J

  Silverman, J. (Erdington)

  Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

  White, H. (Derbyshire N.E.)

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Thomas, I. O (Wrekin)

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Wigg, Col. G. E.

  Skeffington, A. M

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

  Wilcock, Group-Capt. C A. B

  Skeffington-Lodge, T C

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Wilkes, L

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Tiffany, S.

  Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

  Solley, L. J.

  Timmons, J.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Sorenson, R. W.

  Titterington, M

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Soskice, Maj. Sir F

  Turner-Samuels, M.

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

  Sparks, J. A.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L

  Williams, W. R. (Heston)

  Stamford, W.

  Usborne, Henry

  Williamson, T

  Steele, T.

  Vernon, Maj W. F

  Willis, E.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Viant, S. P.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A

  Strachey, J.

  Walkden, E.

  Wilmot, Rt. Hon.

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

  Walker, G. H

  Wise, Major F. J

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Woods, G. S.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Wallace, H W. (Walthamstow, E.)

  Wyatt, W.

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Warbey, W. N.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Swingler, S.

  Watkins, T. E.

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Symonds, A. L.

  Weitzman, D.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Wells P. L. (Faversham)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

  Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  West, D. G

  NOES.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Hare, Hon. J H (Woodbridge)

  Nicholson G.

  Amory, D. Heathcoat

  Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V.

  Nield, B. (Chester)

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R

  Head, Brig. A. H.

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

  Astor, Hon. M.

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

  Nutting, Anthony

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon Sir H

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Crr-Ew'mg, I L

  Baxter, A. B.

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Osborne, C

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

  Hollis, M. C.

  Peake, Rt Hon. O

  Bennett, Sir P.

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

  Peto, Brig. C. H. M

  Birch, Nigel

  Hope, Lord J.

  Pickthorn, K

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

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Pitman, I J

  Bossom, A. C.

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

  Ponsonby, Col. C E

  Bower, N.

  Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

  Prescott, Stanley

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

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

  Price-White, Lt.-Col. D

  Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

  Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W

  Raikes, H. V.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W

  Keeling, E. H.

  Ramsay, Maj. S

  Bullock, Capt. M

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Challen, C.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

  Channon, H.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G

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

  Clarke, Col, R S.

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Law, Rt. Hon. R. K

  Roberts, Maj. P G. (Ecclesall)

  Cole, T. L.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H

  Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Robinson, Wing-Comdr Roland

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

  Ropner, Col L.

  Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C

  Linstead, H. N

  Ross Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E

  Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Sanderson, Sir F.

  Crowder, Capt. John E

  Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

  Savory, Prof D. L

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Low, Brig A, R. W

  Shephard, S (Newark)

  De la Bère, R

  Lucas, Major Sir J

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Digby, S. W

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H

  Smith, E. P (Ashford)

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O

  Smithers Sir W.

  Donner, Sqn.-Ldr. P. W

  McCallum, Maj. D.

  Spearman, A. C M

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

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R

  Spence, H. R.

  Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

  McKie, J. H (Galloway)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. O

  Drayson, G. B.

  Maclay, Hon J. S

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  MacLeod, J.

  Strauss, H G. (English Universities)

  Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A (City of Lond)

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Studholme H. G.

  Eccles, D. M.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Eden, Rt. Hon A.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Taylor C. S (Eastbourne)

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Marples, A E

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E A (P'dd'tn, S.)

  Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E L

  Marsden, Capt. A

  Teeling, William

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Foster, J. G (Northwich)

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Thorneyeroft, G. E. P (Monmouth).

  Fox, Sir G.

  Maude, J. C.

  Thornton-Kemsley, C N

  Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

  Melior, Sir J.

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

  Fraser, Sir . (Lonsdale)

  Touche, G. C.

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D P M

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Vane, W M. F.

  Gage, C.

  Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

  Wakefield, Sir W. W.

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T D

  Morris-Jones, Sir H.

  Walker-Smith, D

  Gammans, L. D.

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

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

  Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

  Grant, Lady

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E

  Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

  Gridley, Sir A.

  Mullan, Lt. C. H.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J

  Grimston, R. V.

  Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.)

  White, Sir D. (Fareham)

  Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

  Neven-Spence, Sir B

  White, J. B. (Canterbury)

  1080

  1081

  Williams, C. (Torquay)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Ear

  Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and

  Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.

  York, C.

  Mr. Drewe.

  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  WESTERN HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (TRANSPORT AGREEMENT)
  10.10 p.m.
  The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I beg to move,
  "That the Agreement, dated 3rd June, 1947, between His Majesty's Government and David MacBrayne, Limited, for the maintenance of certain transport services in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and for the conveyance of mails in connection with the said services, be approved."
  I ask the House to approve an agreement made between the Ministry of Transport and the Postmaster-General, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and Messrs. David MacBrayne, Ltd., for certain transport and mail services in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland. This agreement is for a rather short period, namely, from 2nd March, 1946, to 31st December, 1947. It will provide an opportunity for Members of the House to express their views, if they so desire, on the terms and conditions of this agreement. As I have indicated, it is an interim Measure, following the interruption of the agreement as a result of the war. It will probably lead to a long-term contract in the near future. David MacBrayne's steamship services have to deal with a very difficult economic pro-blem in relation to the population of the Western Isles.
  This affords an opportunity for me to pay a tribute to the value of the work done by the officers and men of our short-sea coastal services, which is not always appreciated. It is at times such as Dunkirk, and more recently during the fuel crisis in the early part of this war, that we are able to appreciate the courage and devotion to duty of services of this kind in our Island's economy. David MacBrayne's ships made their contribution during the war. I have already referred to the Dunkirk incident; they were also used for minelaying, and for conveying troops in and around the Western Isles. This appears to be a suitable opportunity to acknowledge the services of the masters and crews in the past and for the future.
  Whenever these contracts appear before the House, they usually arouse a certain
  1082
  amount of criticism, and that will possibly be the case tonight. In view of the fact that this is a short-term agreement, I shall listen to any criticisms that are made with greater attention than would probably have been the case if I were already committed to a long-term contract. I wish later to indicate some of the difficulties and new circumstances arising, which influenced me to look with considerable care before any long-term arrangement was made in this direction. This is the only company carrying out services of this description which has enjoyed a permanent subsidy from the State. That, as I have said, is because of the peculiar circumstances of the area which they serve. The subsidy dates back to 1891—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame"]—and in 1928 a long-term contract, of 10 years, was inaugurated at a round figure of £50,000 a year, which rose to £60,000 towards the end of that period. That contract was subjected to rather severe criticism in the House. Before it was completed Messrs. David MacBrayne ceased to exist, and their liabilities were taken over, as a result of the deliberations of a Select Committee of this House, by Coast Lines Ltd., and the L.M.S. Dividing the capital liabilities between them, 50 per cent. on either side, they took over the old company's services. That joint body represents the ownership of the lines today.
  The war brought that arrangement to an end. In 1941, the Ministry of Transport requisitioned their ships and other coastal vessels under the liner requisitioning scheme and the subsidy disappeared, because, during the war, the Ministry paid the gross rate of hire for all the vessels that were requisitioned. In March, 1946, I was responsible for releasing MacBrayne's services, and at once the old problem of the necessity for a subsidy re-emerged. In view of the fact that at that time the nationalisation of road transport was in preparation, the difficulties arising from increased expenses and changed character of the traffic, the knowledge that I possessed that the L.M.S. held a 50 per cent. shareholding in this company, and that provided the Transport Bill become law, that shareholding would pass into the

  1083
  ownership of the Transport Commission, hon. Members will realise that new factors emerged which caused me to think carefully before entering into a further long-term contract. Those Members who served on the Standing Committee on the Transport Bill will be aware that Scottish Members on all sides expressed a very direct interest in these services, and that I gave an undertaking that I would examine thoroughly the problem of transport in these wide and scattered areas. That examination has influenced me to agree to a memorandum of agreement on a short-term basis before being committed to a long-term obligation.
  Under this agreement, MacBrayne's would undertake certain general services —steamer, road, ferry and harbour services. I regret that it has not been possible for the company to restore their full steamer services at once, but I am satisfied that every effort is being made by the company to improve them as rapidly as circumstances permit. I would remind the House that they came out of the war with five fewer ships, owing to war losses, and, like every other transport service, their ships had been subjected to very heavy wear and tear during the war. While they are anxious and willing to re-engine, replace and reconvert ships, they are handicapped by the general difficulties that prevail in the shipbuilding industry. Nevertheless, they have under construction at the moment, and it is near completion, the "Loch Seaforth," a 16-knot ship, and when this is in operation, which I hope will not be very long now, it will cut off one hour from the run to Stornoway. The ex-hospital launch "Galen" commenced today a new twice daily service between the island of Lismore and Oban. Negotiations are going on between the company and the Admiralty, and if a suitable craft can be obtained a ferry service will start shortly between Tobermory and Mingary.
  As to the terms of the agreement, I think that hon. Members will appreciate that wherever a subsidy is involved—and this is a very substantial subsidy—for the services that are performed, it behoves the Government to keep the balance between the needs of an area of this character and the needs of the Treasury. That brings me to the problem of increasing the rates and freights. If one takes the advance of the
  1084
  coastal shipping freights as a whole, throughout the industry, there has been an, advance of at least 75 per cent. above prewar rates, but although these services were operating on a lower rate than generally prevailed before the war owing to the advantage of the subsidy, nevertheless, the Ministry of Transport and the Scottish Office have agreed in consultation only to advance the average increase of rates and fares of this service by 33⅓ per cent. from the 1st of November, 1946. Hon. Members will be aware that the rates and freights of this particular service are substantially below those prevailing generally in similar services. I must make it clear that the adjustment from war conditions does not represent a permanent adjustment of rates and freights any more than in other transport services. With regard to the financial conditions of the agreement, before the war the contracts that determined the subsidies were in round figures, as I have indicated, £50,000 rising' to £60,000.
  After very full examination of all the special and abnormal difficulties which surround these services, it was felt that we could not proceed under conditions as they prevail today on the old basis upon which the subsidy was framed. Therefore, in this contract, I must bring to the notice of the House the difference in the basis of the subsidy. This subsidy is based on the difference between expenditure and income plus a sum of £33,000 providing 3½ per cent. interest on the capital employed. Some hon Members may feel that that is rather a generous basis, but I ask them to keep in mind the practical difficulties that prevail in the shipping world today. The shortage of shipping, and the abnormal expenses that any one operating shipping services has to meet are well known, and if any shipping service were diverted from these particular routes, there would be no difficulty at all in earning figures such as I have given here in the subsidy figures. I want to assure the House that this has been thoroughly considered and we feel, taking the whole of the circumstances into consideration, that the House would be justified in approving this agreement.
  I come to the safeguards which we consider to be necessary. The Government have always had the right of appointing a director on the board of MacBrayne's. That will be continued. Further, the com-

  1085
  pany must submit its ordinary accounts to my Department and to those of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. We will have full access whenever it is required to the company's books. Under Article 15 (2), the company will be required to keep the surplus funds which they have received from insurance in respect of war losses invested at reasonable rates of interest, and these investments will have to be brought into their revenue account. New capital expenditure will be excluded, and the Minister's consent for expenditure on repairs other than normal repairs will have to be obtained Under Article 15 (3, b) no expenditure will be included in the accounts unless the Minister is satisfied that it is reasonably and properly incurred.
  The cost of the subsidy for this year, 1947, is estimated to be £163,000 made up as follows: Direct subsidy, £145,000; interest on capital at 3½ per cent. £18,000, making a total, as I indicated, of £163,000. The company has to undertake certain services for the Postmaster-General, and that, of course, is a normal trading operation. The Post Office will contribute £35,000 for their services, which brings the net subsidy down to £128,000. I think the House will appreciate, as I have indicated, that this is a very substantial sum to be paid from the Treasury for services of this character. It is reasons and factors of the sort which I have indicated that have influenced me to give this matter more serious consideration before adopting any long-term policy on this matter While matters of that description are being examined, the life and trade and economy of the Western Islands must be maintained. Hence the interim arrangement. The Fair Wages Resolution which the House of Commons passed on 14th October, 1946, is inserted in Article 12.
  There is only one other point which I need to make and that is with regard to the Government director. Colonel McLeod has been the Government director since 1928. He has given very valuable service on the board of directors. His period of office ended on 31st March this year. I want to take this opportunity of thanking him for his interest and valuable services. If the contract is approved by the House, as I sincerely hope it will be, I propose, in agreement with the Secretary of State for Scotland, to appoint as Government director on this board Sir
  1086
  Hector McNeil, the Lord Provost of Glasgow. He has served the Ministry of Transport in very many important ways; he has a very wide and extensive knowledge of this type of undertaking, and I am satisfied that he will look after the full interests of the Government in this direction. I close by asking the House to approve this agreement, and I assure Scottish Members that the undertaking which I gave them in the Standing Committee is still having my close attention, and I am hoping that I may be able to discharge it in a somewhat different way.
  10.32 p.m.
  Major McCallum: As one of the Members of this House who more frequently uses the MacBrayne services than other hon. Members, I welcome the opportunity which the Minister has provided this evening to discuss this agreement which he has laid before the House. I feel that it is rather late in the day. because twelve months of the period over which the agreement holds force have passed, and, as the Minister himself said, the agreement comes to an end at the end of the year. But in view of the nationalisation of the transport industry, and the fact that the appointed day for that nationalisation is 1st January, 1948, one can realise the difficulties in which the Minister finds himself. He will not, therefore, find fault with us if those of us who have questions to raise confine ourselves to what I might call rather parochial items of interest; but, of course, it is a matter which concerns the Western Islands, and the Western Islands only. I would like to join with the Minister in what he said about the grand service rendered to the country, as well as to the company, by all the masters and men of MacBrayne's ships which sail the West Coast of Scotland. They have gone through wild weather and fair weather, war and peace, and have given, grand service. There is not a soul who criticises the courage and courtesy and hard work of the masters and men, even if they criticise some of the services.
  There is one point which the Minister mentioned that does raise very serious misgivings and that is the question of the raising of the freight rates. I am sure his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland knows full well the feelings of the islanders and highlanders of Scotland on this point of the excessive

  1087
  freight rates for shipping produce to the mainland markets. For many years that has been one of the greatest difficulties with which the agricultural population of these islands and the mainland have had to contend, and I was hoping that even when this Government came into power they might follow the advice of one of their own one-time Ministers, the Right Hon. Thomas Johnston, who, I know, has enthusiastically for many years past, proposed a system of flat-rate freight charges to all parts of the Islands and Highlands of Scotland. We know that that time cannot come in the period covered by this agreement, but I beg the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider very carefully, seriously and sympathetically the question of the raising of these freight rates to a community who have not got the wherewithal to pay high rates.
  I would like to come to one or two details of the services which this agreement requires Messrs. MacBrayne to furnish. I take one point, which is in connection with the management of one of the services—Service No. 4 in the schedule to the agreement—to the Inner Islands. There is a boat called the "Loch Earn" which sails out of Oban every Monday, Wednesday and Friday and returns on succeeding days. There is some very bad weather to contend with very often during the year and so, inevitably, she is not able to keep to her timetable. No one can legislate for gales, and we have just had an excessively bad winter. But the difficulty that is arising is this In the agreement stress is laid on connections with railways. Now, the Minister did us the honour last summer, or the summer before, of paying a visit to Oban, so he will know what I am speaking about. Oban is the terminus of the railway for Stirling, Glasgow, London and the South, and on that boat coming in from the Inner Islands to Oban are generally a number of passengers who want to proceed by train. The boat is due in at 2.45 or 3 o'clock, and the train is due to leave normally at 5 p.m. Very often the railway authorities delay the departure of the train owing to the boat being delayed by bad weather, so that the passengers will be able to catch the connection and go South. The boat is furnished with wireless and wireless operators. Therefore, may I ask the
  1088
  Minister if he could instruct them that they really must try to study the interests of other people who are trying to work with them.
  I have known of cases of this boat arriving at 5.30 or 5.45 and only five passengers wanting to go on to the train for the South. It is out of all proportion to hold up a crowded train for only three or four passengers. There have been cases where she arrived at 8 or 9 at night and when the train has gone, the railway company have put on a special train for half a dozen people. It is crazy and short-sighted. Surely, when it is known what time a ship is going to arrive, a wireless message can be sent, as from any other ocean-going vessel, stating the number of passengers who are due to catch the train. If it is found that there are four or five passengers, instead of holding up the train, or having a special train, could not a car be hired for these people to be sent to Stirling for the southbound train? If there were ten or twelve people, a 'bus could be hired. This matter has been spoken of by the railway companies, and I ask that it should be attended to.
  The Minister has stated that one new boat is under construction, and that one or two of the present vessels are being re-engined. One situation is that there is a motor vessel on the Sound of Mull mail service called the "Lochinvar," which has a speed of eight or nine knots, but she can only do three or four if there is any contrary weather. It is time that another boat was put on that service. When complaints are made to the company, we are told that no other boats are available; and Questions I have asked in this House have indicated that. But during the summer months some quite fast, one might almost say, luxury, MacBrayne boats, sail with trippers and tourists from Oban daily round the Islands. Why should these boats only serve trippers during the summer months? Why could they not serve the Island inhabitants all the year round? Perhaps they can only sail in summer weather; but could they not be re-equipped, or made fit by having wireless and other equipment to make them serviceable for deep sea sailing? The company itself, and everybody else, knows that these old boats cannot last very much longer. The Minister mentioned that a service was starting today—I think he said today—

  1089
  between Oban and the Island of Lismore. Has that service started? I ask that because I understood that the wrong type of boat had been delivered—a vessel which was found to be unsuitable. I thought the Minister stated that the service had actually started, and if it has, could he tell the House whether the vessel is suitable for all weathers, or only for summer sailing? Is it covered? Can it carry livestock? We want something to carry passengers, mails and livestock from the Islands to the mainland.
  A boat sailing from Tobermory to Mingary has been promised for months past. I was in the Mingary area the other day. I then understood that we are as far off as ever we were from seeing that boat. What is required is an all-the-year-round service—a service operating in all weathers to maintain communications— [Interruption.]—Hon. Members may think all this very amusing—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—but I know of the conditions for the people in the Western Islands and the Highlands. I have frequently to travel on these boats, and I know that, while these may be small communities, they are agricultural communities, doing a good job in producing agricultural products and livestock for their country. I suggest that they are matters which might be studied with a great deal more interest by the Government and by hon. Members.
  There is another company which runs in competition with MacBrayne's and from whom MacBrayne's occasionally, on the Ministry of Transport's instructions, charter their boats. I am referring to the "Dunera Castle" and the "Hebrides." I hope and pray they will never again be chartered for passengers. They are really quite unfit for those services, and it is a scandal and a disgrace that such boats are used for passenger services round the coasts of Britain in the year 1947. I hope that if it is necessary to do so the Minister will instruct his Department to issue an order that when pa certain mail-boat has to be laid up, it should be replaced by one of the excellent boats which carry tourists round the coasts during the summer. That might very well prove to be a solution of many of the difficulties of these communications —if we were able to have a regular service all the year round.
  10.46 p.m.
  Mr. Alex. Anderson: I should like to emphasise the points made by the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum). Few people except those familiar with the terrain realise the importance to the Western Isles of a proper steamer service. The steamer line is the only continuous thing that connects these little islands with the South, and the only thing that brings the islanders into contact with the civilisation that is passing by. We who have served on the Highlands Advisory Panel have been given an opportunity of trying to do something to retain the highlanders in the Highlands and to rehabilitate the devastated areas of the Highlands. We have come, from contact with the problem, more and more to realise that the key to the Highlands problem lies in a proper system of transport.
  It is equally true to say, quite definitely, that the present system is completely unsatisfactory. It is completely primitive; but the fault does not lie with MacBrayne's —it lies with this system of private enterprise inside which MacBrayne's work. The private railway companies pushed their rails further and further till they came to a head. They built steamers and ran steamer services reasonably well—as with the lines to France and the steamers on the Clyde, which serve the summer tourist traffic; but when we look around we find that when MacBrayne's ventured into the Western Islands, it was completely impossible to run services adequate to the needs of the isolated communities. The position was, therefore, that subsidies were sought and were given, but now they are becoming necessary in greater amounts as the demands of people for modern services develop. It is true to say that, in spite of the improvements that have been made, MacBrayne's service is still unsatisfactory. The cockroach-infested, flea-traps that I knew in my youth have given place to more modern ships, but the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll has drawn attention to the "Loch Earn" on which, when the whistle blows twice to turn to starboard, the propeller stops. We have many more boats of that kind.
  It seems to me that the only solution of the problem of proper transport to the Western Highlands and Islands lies in the integration of the steamer system there with the national transport. I have never

  1091
  been able to understand fully why a person should travel speedily and comfortably and cheaply over the greater part of his journey, and then travel expensively and uncomfortably over a small piece of sea. Why cannot this service be taken over by the national road transport system? I am very glad tonight to see here the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, who must be thanking his stars that he has only a watching brief, I suggest to him that if there is no quick move in the coastal steamer service with regard to the national transport service, this would provide an excellent department in which he might exercise his Scottish originality by drawing up a Scottish ferry and passenger transport system for coastal purposes.
  It is impossible to talk about a steamer service to the Western Isles and ignore the question of the piers, and the situation that arises when one travels from Portree to Raasay, from Raasay to Broadford, and from Broadford back to Kyle. We find that when the MacBrayne steamer leaves the railway pier, the first port of call will be at a privately-owned pier. I was charged twopence for getting on and twopence for getting off a privately-owned pier in the Western Isles the other day. The next call is at a county council pier; and the next pier after that is managed by local people. Then there is a pier that is neither managed nor maintained by anyone. What we ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to do is to set up a proper co-ordinating authority to see that there are piers provided for the steamers if the Ministry of Transport will give MacBrayne's a subsidy. I should very much regret it if the House did not pass this subsidy. In that event, the inhabitants of the Western Isles, especially, would have to become amphibious. In many cases it is literally a matter of life and death for the persons involved. On the success of their transport system depends their economic condition. If they cannot get their fresh lobsters away to market quickly and cheaply, they suffer in that way. If we are to achieve our aim of stopping the drift from the Highlands and Islands, we shall have to remove that feeling of remoteness of distance, which has been at the root of depopulation in the Islands and Highlands. That can be done only by the
  1092
  provision of a very much improved service compared with the service we have at present.
  10.55 p.m.
  Mr. MacLeod: It gives me very great pleasure to follow the hon Member for Motherwell (Mr. A. Anderson) who has recently experienced conditions on the West Coast of Scotland. I rather welcome the opportunity of speaking on this agreement which affects communications in my own constitutency, although not so greatly as it does that of the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Maj. McCallum), who on many occasions, I am sure, has been the only passenger in a MacBrayne ship. I am certainly not going to defend MacBrayne's for the services they provide, and I was glad to hear the Minister say that the service is shortly to be improved. But I most certainly say that any company which runs these services is bound to receive sharp criticism, if only by reason of the difficulties with which they have to contend.
  For instance, at the Kyle of Lochalsh heavy cargo, passengers, livestock, fish and everything else are landed at one pier. Here it is essential to have a new pier. But perhaps they are fortunate, because, as the hon. Member for Motherwell reminded us, in other areas the piers are in such a bad state of repair that one wonders how they stand. Perhaps many of them of which I am thinking now will not be there this time next year. There are districts which have no piers at all, and high praise must be given not only to the personnel who man the ships, but to those warriors such as one finds at Apple Cross where the steamer is met off the coast by a 50 year old boat, rowed by two men.
  This brings me to the very vital question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll, the question of freight charges. It is unpleasant to hear from the Minister of Transport that they are to be raised 75 per cent., but as the hon and gallant Member, for Argyll hopes I also hope, these prices will no prevail, and that they will come down. It has been argued that these costs are unduly high owing to the unsuitable conditions and bad management of the company. It has been argued that it is due to lack of competition, but there must be

  1093
  a virtual monopoly in these services for the reason that the traffic is not sufficiently heavy at the moment to warrant cut-throat competition. But let me add that I do not agree with the hon. Member for Motherwell. When one considers the mass of undigested legislation the Government have accumulated in the Transport Bill, one must agree that remote control of services like these would be certainly disastrous.
  The Government at the present time have a large responsibility in the activities of these services. This agreement provides that the rates charged by the company in respect of general services shall not be changed without the consent of the Minister of Transport. Provision is also made for the nomination of a Government representative to serve on the board of directors. I am glad to see that the Government representative is to be Sir Hector McNeill who knows the conditions in these areas. But to revert to freight charges, which are a virtual taxation upon the people in these isolated districts of the West Coast, where the cost of the very necessities of life is so greatly increased, I would ask the Government whether they have looked into the question of these charges? I understand that a report on transport will shortly be issued by the Scottish Council of Development and Industry, and I wonder whether they have dealt with this question.
  I should like to see greater facilities provided by the MacBrayne services for agricultural requirements such as lime and fertilisers, which have to be transported by private cars in most areas of Western Ross. Take Dundonald, in Ross-shire, as an example. Farmers have to carry their goods from Dingwall, nearly 50 miles away, and the nearest lorry is 18 miles away in the opposite direction, so they have to pay a sum of 30s. for an empty lorry before their charges begin. It is quite possible for more of these goods to go by boat. With the further reduction of road grants, the roads in the West will not be developed as they ought to be, so that sea communications to isolated districts will be even more essential. One place in Western Ross had a better mail service at the end of the nineteenth century, since when, of course, the steamer has not called there. On page nine of the schedule it is stated—
  1094
  "6. Stornoway Service.
  Daily except Sunday between Kyle and Stornoway, calling inward and outward at Apple Cross—except from November to April when calls inward only to be made in cases of emergency."
  I should be grateful for some further information on this point. As it stands here Apple Cross will be placed in a very bad position. To take only one example, a person thinking of leaving for the South between 1st November and 30th April has to hire a car across to Strathcarron—if it is not snowed up—at a cost of £3, or else take a fishing boat for the same price. I will not attempt to explain what happens if he is trying to get to Stornoway. This is a hopeless position, and I hope the Minister will see that a service is provided both ways during the winter. One cannot isolate communities in this ghastly manner. Unfortunately, emergencies do not always coincide with the passing of the steamer.
  The recent White Paper on the development of industry in Scotland says that steamer services between the mainland and the Western Isles have long provided a problem which is almost without parallel elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and without regular shipping services the standard of living of the islanders cannot be maintained. Like most of the questions arising in the Islands today, it is not a question of economies but a moral obligation on our country to keep alive this race of people on the West Coast of Scotland. Unless these communications are improved, and unless people in this country realise the desperate position some of these people are placed in, that race will cease to exist.
  11.5 p.m.
  Mrs. Jean Mann: It would appear that in this case private enterprise has never been able to carry the load. We now recognise that, and so do hon. Members opposite. One does not blame private enterprise in this respect, and I hope that Members opposite would take the same generous view of, and make generous gesture to, a failure in a balance sheet if Government services were in this position. But I do think that the amount of 3½ per cent. is too large at this time and, further, I notice that the Minister will pay the company a sum equal to the excess of the company's expenditure over revenue, but only if "appropriate"will the company pay the Minister the excess

  1095
  of the company's revenue over their expenditure. That seems rather like a onesided agreement.
  What has been most perturbing tonight has been the Minister's remarks on the raising of freights, and particularly his view—because obviously he defends this —of comparing the rates to those prevailing generally. I wish I could persuade Ministers to look at the economy of the Western Isles as something entirely apart from anything prevailing generally. There is a very rich potential in the Western Isles. I am not speaking from the Scots' standpoint at all. Out of the very greatest interest for my English friends, I would like to say to them how much better fed they could be if they lent their assistance in fully developing the economy of the Western Isles, richly potential in sheep farming and hill farming— —
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Lady is getting right away from the agreement under discussion.
  Mrs. Mann: I just wanted to illustrate the difficulty of transport in getting sheep to market. It has prevented the whole development of the Western Isles. We have known in prewar days sheep to be brought to market and the freight charged was so high that they were sold time and again at auctions at ridiculous prices because the farmers could not afford to take them back again. So the whole development of the Western Isles was stultified and what might have been a great potential, a great contribution in fishing and agriculture—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Lady is wandering again from the agreement.
  Mrs. Mann: —has been nullified because of transport charges, and therefore, I ask the Minister not to increase transport charges and to view this from the same point of view that Norway takes over Finnmark, which is absolutely uneconomic so far as transport is concerned, but highly desirable taking the view of the whole economy of the country. I hope the Minister will take that larger view and reconsider his decision. I hope he will not decide to make any increase in freight charges.
  11.9 p.m.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I would like to associate
  1096
  myself with the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) on the necessity of supporting the development of the economy of the Western Highlands. The hon. Member' for Motherwell (Mr. A. Anderson) who, in spite of the constituency he represents, is a Highlander, I think in an unguarded moment once told me the Scots were a second-rate nation, a point with Which I entirely disagree.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member should not reveal unguarded moments.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In a guarded moment I should say he is the best contradiction of that statement in the House today. I do feel that this question of transport in the Western Islands is one which has not been properly gone into for generations. I am not blaming this Government for this omission; I am blaming successive Governments, as I do in all Scottish matters. But I do say to the Minister that I cannot understand why an area like this, where it is perfectly obvious that private enterprise cannot maintain the economic service which should be maintained, is not included in the transport Measure, for it is, in my opinion, one of the places which should be covered by that Bill. The right hon. Gentleman may say that to do so would mean taking over coastwise shipping, and that he does not wish to do that. But he can take over an area of coastwise shipping quite well. Here is a case where he should be taking it over, to my mind; I say that 'without hesitation. Yet this is the one case which he excludes.
  I see that the Secretary of State for Scotland is here tonight, and I am delighted to see him. I hope that he is going to speak, because there is a good deal which he might say. I hope he is going to support our pleas on behalf of the Western Islands of Scotland. Next to him is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, which admittedly—I am not speaking personally— is one of the most depressing things which the Secretary of State could have next to him. He knows that already civil aviation has been taken out of his hands, but I hope he is going to be certain that in this matter—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There is nothing about civil aviation in the agreement under discussion. The hon. and gallant Member must keep to the terms of the agreement.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: With the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, earlier today we had a little trouble about analogy, between much more distinguished hon. Members on both sides of the House than I am; I merely draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to the fact that civil aviation has not been very happy for Scotland, and I hope air transport—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If I allow the hon. and gallant Member to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to that, I shall not be able to allow the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland to reply to it.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In that case I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, because I would not attempt to suggest anything to which he cannot reply. I hope he is going to speak tonight. I do suggest that if there is a real case for nationalisation, or part-nationalisation, it is the transport services of the Western Islands of Scotland. I hope that it will be given consideration after this particular contract is finished, because it is only to take us to the end of this year, after all. My point might well be considered then. There is one other point I would like to mention to the Secretary of State. I hope he will realise that hon. Members on this side are not trying to be in any way partisan in asking him to take up this question of transport in the Western Islands very seriously indeed. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. MacLeod) has put the case very well, as also did the hon. Member for Motherwell and the hon. Member for Coatbridge. I hope it may have consideration when this contract is finished, and while I am happy to support this as far as it goes, I hope this will be considered as the one definite case where there should be nationalisation of transport.
  11.14 p.m.
  Mr. Maclay: I must confess that I am not in complete agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend. I feel very strongly that the whole of these Western Island services need the closest investigation, but I am not completely convinced that State ownership is the necessary solution.
  Mr. Tiffany: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker,
  1098
  where does nationalisation arise in this agreement?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have not yet heard anything that would justify calling the hon. Member to Order.
  Mr. Maclay: I realise what is in the hon. Member's mind, but I suggest that what I am trying to say is very essential to this particular service we are discussing. No matter who runs this service— be it a private company or the State— they are going to be faced with this inescapable problem of how one is to run ships for this traffic Somebody has to pay money into this, and if the State has to bear all the cost, then the State must own the thing. The State subsidises, or makes grants, or whatever one likes to call it, to see that the job is done, and only by some development of that kind will one get an efficient service. Put in a State director—and in the selection of Sir Hector McNeill the Government has made an admirable choice—where the State is paying money into the venture. One must have a State representative on the Board in such circumstances, but I hope that this representative of the Government will not confine himself to financial problems and matters simply concerned with book-keeping. I hope he will take an active part in the management of the system. I hope that the House of Commons, as distinct from the shareholders, will have its say in this matter. I think that if these points are noted, it will be found to be a very sensible way of tackling the problem.
  Hon. Members who have never travelled on the Clyde on a crowded weekend may think that I am being frivolous when I say this, but I assure them that I am not. There is this quite deplorable business of paying twopence on the pier. It is a subject which has already been mentioned, and I do not know what is going to happen to the piers in the Western Islands. This is not the place to refer to them, and I should be out of Order if I did so, but in boarding the Mac-Brayne steamers—and the Minister of Transport will have an interest in this if the Transport Bill goes through—one has to stand perhaps with two suitcases and a wife and nephews and nieces trailing behind while one finds twopence. It very often happens that one stands in the pouring rain, trying to hold an umbrella over one's

  1099
  head, feeling in one's pocket for two-pence; and I would much rather pay another fourpence on my ticket than try to find two-pence on the pier while" struggling to keep my wife out of the rain, and looking after suitcases and nephews and nieces.
  11.18 p.m.
  Mr. Rankin: This appears to me to be a rather lopsided business. We are discussing the payment of a very large subsidy to a particular company in order that they may carry passengers, cargo, and mails for the service of the people of the Western Islands in vessels which are sometimes unsuitable, sometimes of doubtful seaworthiness, and which are slow and uncertain in their frequency. At the same time as we are discussing this service in the interests of the islanders, absolutely no regard is being paid to the fact—and this is the reason the discussion appears to me to be lopsided—that we have already in existence a supplementary service which, to some extent could carry out that work. It may not be able to do it in very large measure at the moment, but that service, I believe, will expand and could carry some of this traffic very efficiently and more quickly than is at present being done by the MacBrayne steamers. I am referring, of course, to the air service between the mainland and the islands and I know that in doing so, I' am getting on to the circumference of this discussion.
  Mr. Speaker: This agreement, I understand, ends on 31st December, 1947. Therefore the air service cannot very well come into operation before that date.
  Mr. Rankin: Yes, I have the termination of the agreement in view and I was perhaps, taking a somewhat long-term view of the situation. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will keep that in mind because for the moment, while we are condemning the type of vessel which is carrying on the surface service, at the same time we maintain on the air service to the Islands a type of vessel which is equally worthy of condemnation at the present moment. I do not want to go any further into that point, because I know that if I do I may be ruled out of Order, but I wanted to get that in, because it is important from the point of
  1100
  view of the passengers and mail transport to the Islands.
  I want to make this suggestion—and I do hope that it is within the terms of the agreement. There is £35,000 subsidy which my right hon. Friend is devoting to the mail service. That subsidy, according to the agreement, is to be devoted to the transport of mails, by sea and land. In view of the need of the frequent service of mails to the Islands, and in view of the fact that the mail service is constantly interrupted through the inefficiency of the surface service, I suggest that my right hon. Friend take that £35,000 subsidy from the surface service and devote it to the air transport of mails. Finally, I would like to put this point. We have been told in the agreement that we shall have to share the loses in the service. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us, when he replies, whether we shall also share the profits when they are made.
  11.23 pm.
  Commander Galbraith: I am certain that the whole House will agree that this short Debate has served a very useful purpose. In the first place, it has enabled my right hon. Friend to pay a very well-deserved tribute to those who are employed in the coastal shipping service, which this House endorses and appreciates very much indeed. I am not quite sure that all the hon. Members know exactly what the conditions are. I did hear, while the Minister was speaking, and was saying that the subsidy dates back to 1891, one hon. Gentleman say "Shame." If he actually understood the problem, he would never have used that word. The existing services cannot be carried on economically and, therefore, must on all occasions be subsidised in one way or another.
  It seems that this subsidy or £128,000 is a very heavy sum to pay but it is a price which, as the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. MacLeod) said we have to pay if we are to keep the scattered communities in the Western Islands in being. When we remember what a fine breed of men and women come from these parts, and what they have done for our country in the last two wars, I think the price is worth while; but the subsidy is nothing like sufficient, from what I have heard to-

  1101
  night, to give the kind of service that is really called for. We have heard of the state of the ships employed in the service; we have heard of the state of the piers, and that in winter there is practically no service at all. I do not know, but I cannot see that we are going to be able to provide what is needed for anything like the price of £128,000 in the future. It is true that this has enabled freights to be reduced—or to be some 33⅓ per cent. below average. But even now the Islands are having great difficulty in paying those charges, and I hope the Minister will think very hard indeed before he raises the charges.
  The Minister said that he proposes to examine the problem. I hope that he examines it quickly, because the people operating those services must know as soon as possible or else we shall never get any improvement; but if he proposes to do something else, the sooner the better. I hope, in the interests of those people in the Islands, he will give this matter his most urgent consideration.
  11.26 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): The submission of this contract for the approval of the House has provided a most valuable opportunity, particularly to those who are themselves affected and who are interested in the transport services to the Highlands and Islands. It has provided an opportunity for Members who themselves know what the problem is, to place before the House what is one of the most serious problems of an economic nature that faces the Highlands and Islands at the present time.
  I also want to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) and the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) about the splendid work done by both officers and men connected with the Highlands and Islands steamer service. They have done magnificent work under all kinds of conditions—stormy weather and good weather—and have splendidly carried through their job. If the ships had been as reliable as the men, there would have been very few problems so far as the Highlands and Islands are concerned. But the ships have not been as reliable. That is certainly not the fault of this company; it is the fault of the system, and that,
  1102
  I think, has been admitted by all sides of the House.
  One of the points I want to make clear is that the Minister, in asking for support for the contract, has to take account of costs which have risen approximately 75 per cent. In any, plea that the Highlands and Islands be treated differently from other services, that is a factor without which we cannot assess this particular problem. I do not say that this contract makes sense so far as this problem is concerned; it is a matter which we must look at in connection with new conditions.
  Major McCallum: Can we have an opportunity of discussing the new arrangement before it is embodied in the form of a contract?
  Mr. Westwood: I sincerely hope that opportunity will be provided: it is not for me to determine. The rates were increased in accordance with the statement of the Minister by 33⅓ per cent. as compared with a 75 per cent. rise in costs. That was a reasonable method of meeting the problem with which we were faced. Another question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll was whether it would be possible, either in this contract or in some new contract, to have a system of flat rates in connection with particular classes of goods. All I want to say is that nothing will be ruled out when we come to give further consideration to this problem. I have always maintained that steamer services to the Highlands and the Islands ought to be as much a part of the road services as any of the roads on the mainland. After all. it is the method of transport. Apart from these services there was no communication until air service came in, but that cannot solve our problem, and only by efficient steamer services can we ultimately solve the economic problems of the Islands. At least, that is one of the steps towards solving the economic problems associated with the Islands.
  The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. A. Anderson) made what appeared to be regarded by some hon. Members as a very humorous speech, though the substance of it was not humorous, and he did not intend it to be so regarded. After all, we can all laugh at our difficulties, but it was meant, I am sure, to draw very seriously the attention of the House to the problems facing us in this matter. Members not accustomed to personal ex-

  1103
  perience of these problems, Members who have not had to suffer what the Highlands and Islands have had to suffer, can afford to laugh at jokes; and we can all laugh at jokes against ourselves; yet we appreciate that it is a problem which has to be solved, and this Government, I am sure, will make a valuable contribution towards solving this problem. It is agreed that nationalisation should not be ruled out. I make this challenge. While the Opposition are always critical of nationalisation, I say that if we do come forward with a proposal for the nationalisation of transport services to the Highlands and Islands, there is not a Member on that side of the House, other than the small, limited, National Liberal Party, which, for once, spoke with a united voice tonight, who will oppose a scheme for bringing transport under national ownership and control with a view to an effective service for the Highlands and Islands.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The right hon. Gentleman realises that we must see what the scheme is, before we can give our unqualified approval.
  Mr. West wood: Certainly. No Scotsman ever tried to buy a pig in a poke. I will certainly try to see that full discussion takes place if there is to be any new scheme on the lines suggested. Nothing will be ruled out of further consideration so far as these problems are concerned. There were one or two other points raised. Both the Minister of Transport and myself will look at them tomorrow, and though I have not an answer in detail to the points raised, I shall see to it that a reasoned answer is given to the instances that have been put by Members on both sides of the House. With this further explanation, I hope that we shall now get the approval of the contract.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  "That the Agreement, dated 3rd June, 1947, between His Majesty's Government and David MacBrayne, Limited, for the maintenance of certain transport services in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and for the conveyance of mails in connection with the said services, be approved."

  WHISKY EXPORTS
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Popplewell.]
  11.34 P.m.
  Mr. Bowles: The House heard this afternoon a serious statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about our dollar situation. He was indicating that certain economies will have to be made by this country and also, possibly, an extra spurt in exports, mainly in textile goods, in order to close the gap. I have been for some time advocating that we can get more dollars so far as the price of Scotch whisky exports is concerned. On the 14th of this month, I think it was, "The Times" was good enough to print a letter from me, perhaps, I may read it quickly:
  "In 1946 we exported nearly 4,000,000 proof gallons of whisky to dollar countries at a ruling wholesale export price of 5s. a bottle. The expected increase of U.K. whisky exports to the U.S. and other hard currency areas during the next 12 months, as compared with 1946, is 2,400,000 proof gallons. [HANSARD, 4th June]. The total is nearly 6,400,000 gallons, or, at six bottles to the proof gallon, 38,400,000 bottles. If we charged 25s., which is less than the price in this country, instead of the present 5s. a bottle, we should get five times as many dollars— that is, 192,000,000 dollars. In discussion with friends I am asked whether the Americans would buy it at this price. I do not know; but I do know that seven to nine dollars is the common price consumers pay in the U.S., and if we sell only half we would get two and a half times as many dollars and have twice as much whisky for home consumption."
  A few days later I had a letter from a firm who described themselves as licensed valuers and gaugers in the City of London, one part of which I may read:
  "I thought it might assist you with your arguments if you knew that six bottles of whisky are equivalent to 7 proof gallons in this country at 30 u.p. and 75 proof gallons in the U.S., where whisky is marketed at 25 u.p. Your calculations, therefore, will be 51,200,000 bottles instead of 38,400,000."
  And that, of course, does improve my argument and increases the dollar yield from 192,000,000 to 256,000,000. The "Glasgow Herald," in commenting on this position said this:
  "The magazine 'Time' reported last week that the Anchor Line ship "Egidia" had arrived with 2,500,000 bottles of "Scotch," and that there was now so much of it in cellars over there that prices had dropped to 30s. a bottle and a price-war is in prospect. 'The prospect of more shipments,' they said, 'brought no cheers from the retailers.' Against this, 'Harper's Wine and Spirit Gazette,'

  1105
  which sounds more authoritative, says that doubling of Scotch whisky exports during the next year 'will not satisfy the demand.' And they say that further price falls are unlikely."
  I had a conversation with the Minister of Food about it the Monday after this letter was published, and he very kindly invited me to come along with him to meet the Scottish Distillers' Association, and they agreed with a great number of questions I put. They agreed it was true that the ruling price was 8 to 10 dollars a bottle. I asked if it were true that when anybody asked for a bottle of Scotch he had to buy two bottles of bourbon at the same time. They said it was true. They agreed something had happened in the last two months. This campaign started on this side of the Atlantic.
  A notice in "The Times" of 20th June said that the Central Bank at Buenos Aires had ordered the closing of the market to Scotch imports, and it went on to say that Scotch was the drink that was drunk by the well-to-do classes, who would not think of drinking bourbon or rye. There might be something political in this campaign, as it might be possible for them to open the market again but in the meantime to try to impress on my right hon. Friend that the market was completely gone, on 23rd June, the "Daily Express," in a leading article, said that Argentina and France had stopped the import of whisky. The fact was that France had not started to import. There seemed to be a great desire on the part of the Press to prove my argument was wrong. Maybe it had nothing to do with the fact that Scotch traders advertised in this part of the Press. The Distillers' Association handed me some recent advertisements in the New York Press. I have looked at these advertisements very carefully. I will read the extraordinary heading of one of these advertisements. A firm called Nussbaum published an advertisement headed, "Who says Scotch prices are too high?" The assumption is that they are not too high. It is quite clear that this is an "anti" campaign which has been got up on the other side by the people who sell in the market for the Scotch Distillers' Association.
  The next thing was that I was handed a memorandum by the Scotch Distillers' Association. Perhaps I may mention that only five per cent. of the spirit drunk in the U.S. last year was Scotch. I
  1106
  suggest here—my right hon. Friend may correct me—that the demand is probably an inelastic one. The memorandum is rather long, and I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. [Interruption.] Surely, there is no objection to that. Ministers surely have not an exclusive prerogative in this matter. The House should know about it and I have no time to read it now.
  I have here a comparison of price structures, one list at 60s. a case f.o.b., and one at 300s. a case f.o.b., which is the price I suggest. The interesting thing is that all the charges seem to show that freight, consulate certificates, Customs clearance, and so on, are all the same whether the price is 5s. or 25s. Marine insurance is only a little bit heavier; instead of being 18 it is 96 dollars per case, which is really quite negligible. Import duties, bottles 18 lb. at cents, countervailing duty, internal revenue tax, strip stamps, overprinting and freight charges, dock charges, cartage and warehouse charges are all the same in both cases. The State tax is the same for both prices also, and so is the import duty at 6 dollars per case. In regard to import duties it has been suggested that these and the state tax have been ad valorem. This is not so. They are charged on the commodity and not on value. Therefore, the position is this: you start off with 5s. or 25s. and you add all these figures, and you find that the cost per bottle before any profit is taken is 17s. 11d. in the case of the 5s. bottle and 37s. 8d. in the case of the 25s. bottle; that is, they are very nearly half instead of a fifth. I hope I am making myself clear.
  Now the rackets commence. The boys handling it on the other side take their cut. The importer gets 10 per cent.; the wholesaler gets 15 per cent.; the retailer gets 33 per cent. In other words, the people who are advising the Scotch Distillers' Association, who in, turn, are advising my right hon. Friend the Minister, are the people who are raising the price of the 5s. bottle from 17s. 11d. to 31s., which is a profit, I think, of 13s. 1d. When you came to percentage increases, you find that a great difference between the two prices arises. The price of that 25s. bottle is raised from 37s. 8d. to 63s. 9d., which is just over twice as much as the 31s. which, they admit, is the price at which it is usually sold in the States.

  1107
  I think it is very important indeed that the people who are mainly concerned about this matter are the people who are selling it, and not the people who are making it in this country. It is rather like the motor-car industry in this country before the war. Hon. Members will know that it was Great Portland Street which really had a great deal of control over the car manufacturers so far as the manufacture of motor-cars in this country was concerned. I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House will not disagree with that. I would point out to the House, and to the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in particular, that this is our main monopoly export. Nobody else in the world makes Scotch whisky. It is a thing we ought to use now as a real bargaining weapon So many people run away from the thing, because they say that if you double the price, you will halve the sales. But if you double the price you are going to get two-and-a-half times as many dollars, even if you do halve the sales. Therefore, I beg the Government to take this seriously, and to realise that it is a bargaining weapon.
  There is another point, on which I am going to put down a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is there not some commercial tie-up between the distillers here and the sellers in the United States? Is it certain that the distillers have no shares in the distributing concerns over there? Is it not possible that they are building up a large number of dollars in the States? It may be that these figures have been disclosed to the Bank of England or the Treasury under the currency regulations passed at the beginning of the war, but I do not know whether hon. Members have any idea how much the value is in pounds sterling, of what we sell to the States. I should think that if I were to put the question to them, most hon. Members would be millions of pounds out. The total figure we got in 1946 for Scotch whisky sold to the United States was just over £7,000,000. Not very much. With the increased allocation of barley just granted to the distillers by the right hon. Gentleman, it is expected that the sales will bring in £11,000,000.
  I beg my right hon. Friend to take this matter seriously, as I am sure he does. I am not always impressed by some of the
  1108
  information given by the trade. My right hon. Friend, in answer to a Question in the House, said he found himself in a rather curious position as a Socialist, in telling private enterprise how to do its job. He may have been facetious, or he may have been serious, but before the war, people who sold coal on the Continent nearly always almost threw it away at ridiculous prices. I hope he was facetious. Not many Socialists would think that private enterprise was the last word in selling commodities abroad. It has been proved that there has been a great misuse of marketing by private enterprise.
  Having regard to the amount of profit made by the people in the United States who handle and sell the stuff, they are in a powerful position. I suggest that if ever there was a case in which bulk selling could be argued for, it is this. The increase in price from 17s. 11d. to 31s. seems to indicate a quite fantastic profit Nobody in this country gets 33⅓ per cent. just for retailing. The right hon. Gentleman may talk about restaurants and the selling of wines, but he will have a very bad case if he does. The trade, I understand, is very angry with me for pressing this. Why should they be? Are they taking a long-term or a short-term view? Are they the proper instrument to use in deciding whether dollars should be brought into this country? I beg the Government to look into this. They are threatening all kinds of further hardships to the people of this country owing to the failure to close the gap.
  I am only talking now of dollars and the hard currency areas. About two-thirds of the amount we export goes to dollar countries. The other third goes to the soft currency areas, like Egypt and India, where we have great sterling balances. We sell it at 5s. a bottle and they immediately clamp £1 on it on the doorstep and sell it at quite exorbitant prices, as hon. Members know who have been there. We are throwing this commodity away and I beg my right hon. Friend to reconsider the matter. Here is a commodity which is popular and may have a snob value in certain circles—I believe it is so in the Argentine and the States. My right hon. Friend may know from his visits to the United States how pleased his hosts are when they offer him Scotch. People are not going to be talked out of it, or lose their

  1109
  taste for it by bourbon selling at a lower price, say, of half a dollar. I beg my right hon. Friend not to be quite so readily impressed by the Distillers' Association.
  11.51 p.m.
  The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) for raising this question, because it should be ventilated in the House, and it is a case which, at first hearing, impressed me, and still does impress me. It is important because anything which can earn us extra dollars is of importance to every one of us, especially to me, the biggest spender of dollars on foodstuffs in the country. Therefore, I regard it of great importance to look into it and satisfy myself whether there is anything in it and if so how much, and, not content with my generalised statement on the matter which I gave my hon. Friend earlier, we discussed the matter with the distillers at an earlier date, and I had a thorough discussion with my hon. Friend later.
  What I said in my answer to him was that it seemed strange to me to urge capitalist sellers to raise their prices. I entirely agree with him that we can very often make suggestions which are valuable to private enterprise as to how they should conduct their affairs, and make suggestions in the national interest, which they are not usually l0th to follow, particularly in raising their prices, when they see it is in their interests to do so. But there was a prima facie argument that they would not benefit by raising prices at this time. I agree that we should not be content with that, and we have looked into it.
  Their price—export wholesale price— the kind of foreign currency which we get in the United States, is 5s., and the hon. Member for Nuneaton says that this compares with a price in this country of 25s. 1 do not think that is quite right. It really compares with a price of 4s. 3½d., which is rather a different thing. It is the distiller's price to the wholesaler in each case, and that is a fair and relative comparison.
  Mr. Bowles: The difference between 4s. 3½d. and 25s. 9d. is obviously the Excise Duty. The one thing I cannot advocate in Parliament is some sort of export duty or something of that kind.
  Mr. Strachey: The selling price in this country is 25s. 9d. of which the Excise Duty is 18s. 4½d. How is the selling price in the United States made up? The selling price at the moment in the United States varies between 5 and 6 dollars, composed of 5s. to us—the distillers and the manufacturers, Over and above that, 4s. 8d. is paid on insurance, freight and charges of that sort. There has to be paid the sum of 12s. 10½d. in duty—that is, American duty—and the distributors' margin is 18s. 2d. and 12s. 6d. That comes to a price of about 30s., though it varies with different brands. Hon. Members may say that the distributors' margin is too wide. That may be true, and many distributors' margins in many countries are too wide; but I doubt whether there is anything we can do to start reforming the distributive system of the United States of America. [An HON. MEMBER: "We might start on our own."] As the hon. Member says, we might start on our own, and that would be a big enough task. But that is what the American Government consider a fair practice margin, and it is laid down as a fair practice margin in the United States. Therefore, when one accepts a final selling price of 30s. in America, one finds there is nothing we can do about the difference between that and the 5s. price which we get.
  Mr. Bowles: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman does not remember a statement made at the conference we attended suggesting that there was a need to frighten the American public, and also that it was thought by many that a lot of the American public did not realise the profit being made by the middlemen?
  Mr. Strachey: I could not agree with that. I would say that the only thing we could do would be to raise the price of 30s. to the final American consumer if we thought we could sell the whisky and still do that. But I do not believe that we could raise the 5s. price we receive without the final price to the American consumer going up. If the final price to the American consumer went up to more than 30s. there would still be the same margin. It is true, as the hon. Member pointed out, that five or six months ago, as soon as control was taken off in America, the price shot up to 9 or 10 dollars. It was at that time that I first heard this suggestion, and I first spoke to the representatives of the Dis-

  1111
  tillers' Association and suggested to them that they might raise their prices Their prices were raised a little—very little— and it seemed to me at that time that there was a strong case for raising them further, because it looked as if the traffic would bear a higher price. I thought at that time that they might be wrong in refusing to raise the price. I think that if the hon. Member had raised this matter six months ago, I might have been inclined to agree with him and to have considered putting pressure on the distillers to raise the price; but frankly, looking back on it now, I think that if I had done that I would have been wrong and they would have been right, as things have turned out, because the sharp rise to 10 dollars in American prices proved to be shortlived and prices have now come back in many cases to less than 6 dollars.
  There are advertisements—and it would be difficult to say that they are fakes and do not mean anything—in which a New York seller of whisky advertises in a large and expensive New York paper that he is willing to sell whisky at these prices. I see whisky advertised at 4.98 dollars. That price is mentioned in two advertisements, and there is a more expensive brand at 6.98 dollars. That is a fairly wide variation, but in many cases it is freely advertised at a price well under 5 dollars. Therefore, when I see the price, on the basis of 5s. 0d. charged, raised normally to 6 dollars, I am afraid there is little to get out of that. The extreme price boom in the United States in whisky, as in other things, is over. Personally, I am very glad it is over, and I think that, on balance, it will benefit this country.
  We think this fall in price is very important indeed to this country. The prices which we maintain for most of our exports are limited by a very sharp fall in many prices in the United States so that although there was a strong prima facie case for doing the thing 12 months ago, and I might well have urged the whisky distillers then, they proved longsighted in their own interests, which coincided with ours, in not pushing the price up to the maximum the traffic would bear during that period. They had only a period of a few months and they proved wise in leaving the price what it was, which is probably the right price for retail prices as they have settled down in
  1112
  New York today. No one would be keener than I if I could see a way out of getting more dollars out of any of our exports. But I should have thought the distillers had made a case to show that if they put up their prices today, they might very easily destroy this very important market and, far from making more dollars, we should get fewer. Therefore, I say with great respect to my hon. Friend and with gratitude to him for raising this issue, because it is important that it should be aired, I am confident that the distillers put up an unanswerable case for maintaining the present price.
  Mr. Molson: It is a happy coincidence that, having passed from Scottish problems, we now come to whisky problems, and I think we are all indebted to the Minister of Food for the frank confession he has made. As one of those who accept most fully the Socialist planning thesis, he admits that at an earlier stage he would have told the distillers they ought to have charged a higher price, and had the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) brought this matter up six months ago, the tone of his reply would have been different. [An HON. MEMBER: "Eighteen months ago."] It does not matter how long ago. His reply today has been that the distillers, whom he regards as actuated by the motive of additional profit, have, on the whole, turned out to be right. I do think the hon. Member for Nuneaton was public-spirited in raising this matter, because we are all most anxious to earn the maximum number of dollars from this very important export. In the two or three minutes that remain to ask questions, it is a little discouraging to know that there is no opportunity to reply, but I ask them because they are important. There are two countries to which we have had great and important whisky exports in the past which have, as I understand, in the recent past announced that they are not going to make exchange available for imports. One is India—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock'on Monday evening and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order made upon 13th November.
  Adjourned at Four Minutes after Twelve o'clock.

MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Building Materials, Isle of Wight
  Building Materials, Isle of Wight
  Temporary Houses, Ryde
  Temporary Houses, Ryde
  Government Receptions (Fair Wages Clause)
  Government Receptions (Fair Wages Clause)
  Building Industry (Committee of Review)
  Building Industry (Committee of Review)
  Firewatchers' Equipment (Disposal)
  Firewatchers' Equipment (Disposal)
  Brick Production
  Brick Production
  Electrical Equipment, Aberdeen
  Electrical Equipment, Aberdeen
  Cement Shortage, Herne Bay
  Cement Shortage, Herne Bay
  Building Licence (Clapham)
  Building Licence (Clapham)
  "INDIA AND BURMA NEWS SUMMARY"
  "INDIA AND BURMA NEWS SUMMARY"
  INDIAN ARMED FORCES (BRITISH PERSONNEL)
  INDIAN ARMED FORCES (BRITISH PERSONNEL)
GERMANY
  Control Commission Staff (Communications to M.Ps.)
  Control Commission Staff (Communications to M.Ps.)
  Prominent Nazis' Wives
  Prominent Nazis' Wives
  Postal Services
  Postal Services
  Unmarried Mothers' Children (Welfare)
  Unmarried Mothers' Children (Welfare)
  Police Staff Officers
  Police Staff Officers
  GREECE (BRITISH FORCES)
  GREECE (BRITISH FORCES)
  EUROPEAN RECONSTRUCTION
  EUROPEAN RECONSTRUCTION
  PRISONERS OF WAR (POLITICAL SCREENING)
  PRISONERS OF WAR (POLITICAL SCREENING)
  SPAIN (PROTESTANT RELIGION)
  SPAIN (PROTESTANT RELIGION)
RUMANIA
  Arrests
  Arrests
  British Oil Companies (Operations)
  British Oil Companies (Operations)
AGRICULTURE
  Production Programme (Announcement)
  Production Programme (Announcement)
  Dredging and Draining Equipment
  Dredging and Draining Equipment
  Gang Work (Recruitment)
  Gang Work (Recruitment)
  Executive Committee, Bucks (Vehicles)
  Executive Committee, Bucks (Vehicles)
  Polish Workers
  Polish Workers
  Sherrington Nurseries, Newport Pagnell
  Sherrington Nurseries, Newport Pagnell
  Orders and Regulations
  Orders and Regulations
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Distribution
  Distribution
  Women's Organisations (Advice)
  Women's Organisations (Advice)
  Eggs (Children's Priority)
  Eggs (Children's Priority)
  Offals (Distribution)
  Offals (Distribution)
  Imported Cherries
  Imported Cherries
  Gooseberries
  Gooseberries
  Fruit (Storage and Preserving)
  Fruit (Storage and Preserving)
  Meat Ration (Reduction)
  Meat Ration (Reduction)
RAILWAYS
  Passenger Services
  Passenger Services
  Signalmen, Birmingham (Promotions)
  Signalmen, Birmingham (Promotions)
  Season Tickets (Young Persons, London)
  Season Tickets (Young Persons, London)
ROADS
  Unclassified Road, Salcombe (Repair)
  Unclassified Road, Salcombe (Repair)
  Reconditioned Cars (Ex-Service Men)
  Reconditioned Cars (Ex-Service Men)
  Railway Crossings and Bridges
  Railway Crossings and Bridges
  Shard Bridge
  Shard Bridge
  Speed Limit
  Speed Limit
  Motor Vehicles (First Registrations)
  Motor Vehicles (First Registrations)
SHIPPING
  West Indies Route (Priority)
  West Indies Route (Priority)
  Canada (Polish Families)
  Canada (Polish Families)
  Export Cars (Shipment Suspension)
  Export Cars (Shipment Suspension)
  U.K.—Northern Ireland (School Children)
  U.K.—Northern Ireland (School Children)
  LONDON TRANSPORT (44-HOUR WEEK)
  LONDON TRANSPORT (44-HOUR WEEK)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Surplus Paint
  Surplus Paint
  Metals and Ores
  Metals and Ores
  Gun-Metal Fittings (Leicester)
  Gun-Metal Fittings (Leicester)
  Margam Project (Iron and Steel Board) Report
  Margam Project (Iron and Steel Board) Report
  Motor Fishing Vessels (Spare Parts)
  Motor Fishing Vessels (Spare Parts)
  Government Vehicles
  Government Vehicles
  Reconditioned Motor Cars (Timing Chains)
  Reconditioned Motor Cars (Timing Chains)
  Aluminium Scrap
  Aluminium Scrap
  Small Arms Factory, Enfield
  Small Arms Factory, Enfield
  Electrical Sheet (Distribution)
  Electrical Sheet (Distribution)
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, BRECON AND RADNOR
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, BRECON AND RADNOR
POST OFFICE
  Collections and Deliveries
  Collections and Deliveries
COAL INDUSTRY
  Ex-Gratia Payments
  Ex-Gratia Payments
  Manshift Output
  Manshift Output
  Industrial Supplies
  Industrial Supplies
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Esparto Grass (Imports)
  Esparto Grass (Imports)
  Men's Rubber Boots
  Men's Rubber Boots
  AUSTRIAN DISPLACED PERSONS' CAMPS
  AUSTRIAN DISPLACED PERSONS' CAMPS
  B.A.O.R. LEAVE CENTRE, DUSSELDORF
  B.A.O.R. LEAVE CENTRE, DUSSELDORF
  FORESTRY CONSERVATION, EAST AFRICA
  FORESTRY CONSERVATION, EAST AFRICA
  GERMAN FIANCEE (EXIT PERMIT)
  GERMAN FIANCEE (EXIT PERMIT)
  SCHOOL MILK AND MEALS
  SCHOOL MILK AND MEALS
  DIPHTHERIA (IMMUNISATION)
  DIPHTHERIA (IMMUNISATION)

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

TRIBUTES TO THE LATE VISCOUNT BENNETT.
4.5 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I think it will be in accordance with your Lordships' wishes if at the opening of our sitting to-day we make reference to the loss sustained by the death of the noble Viscount, Lord Bennett, which occurred suddenly at the end of last week. A particular reason why we should do so is that the noble Viscount was a Prime Minister of the Dominion of Canada, and he was, I believe, the first of our Dominion Prime Ministers whom we had the honour to receive in this House. It is a sad coincidence that he should have died when he did, as to-morrow is the eightieth anniversary of the founding of the Dominion of Canada, and is known as "Dominion Day." The noble Viscount himself would have achieved his seventy-seventh birthday on Wednesday of this week.
In this country we always knew the noble Viscount, even before he came amongst us, as a champion of Commonwealth interests, not only the interests of Canada but those of all the nations which we now describe collectively as the British Commonwealth of Nations. He was particularly distinguished, as we know, during his term of office as the leader and champion of movements which, in his view, were destined to consolidate and improve the mutual trading interests of the different parts of our Empire. Indeed, he devoted his life to those causes. Since the noble Viscount came here, we in this House on a number of occasions have had the opportunity of listening to him. I remember well a speech—I think it was one of his first in this House—which greatly impressed me with its inspiration
504
and breadth of view regarding the possibilities for the future contained in the development of the British Commonwealth of Nations. First and last that was his political allegiance, and it was the subject of which he thought the most.
I had heard many accounts of his personal generosity and private helpfulness to all manner of deserving causes. One only discovered these by accident, as he never mentioned them himself; in fact, he rather deliberately concealed them. But I happen to know, as many of your Lordships will know, that they formed a very prominent interest in his life. We remember the noble Viscount to-day, and we respect the enthusiasm and earnestness with which he helped to consolidate and improve that great ideal of which our Commonwealth is the manifestation to all the world.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to associate myself on behalf of those who sit on these Benches with what has been so well said by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House about the noble Viscount, Lord Bennett, of whose death we were sorry to hear over the week-end. Viscount Bennett, whom we mourn to-day, occupied, I think, a very special position in your Lordships' House. He was, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has said, in the fullest sense of the word, an Empire statesman. After a career of high renown in his own country of Canada, where he won fame as a most distinguished Prime Minister, he came here and gave us the benefit of his wisdom and experience. No one, I think, who heard him speak will forget the contributions which he made to our discussions. To an unrivalled knowledge of the constitutional structure of the Commonwealth, and to a passionate belief in its mission to mankind, he added a robust common sense which was as stimulating as it was moving.
Like the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce, whom we are lately so glad to welcome to our councils, Viscount Bennett brought a wider vision to our discussions. I think it is fitting that these great Empire figures should come to mellow and mould our judgment; it is, indeed, one of the most notable and one of the most fruitful developments of recent years. We mourn the noble Viscount, Lord Bennett, as a great statesman, and as a great man who won our affection and esteem. We all

505
have happy recollections of his personal kindliness, and of his shrewd advice. To the very end of his life the noble Viscount remained a loyal and devoted son of Canada, and to Canada, who lent him to us to our so great advantage, we offer our heartfelt sympathy.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches, and on my own behalf, I desire to join in the tributes that have been paid to the noble Viscount, Lord Bennett. He was a man in politics of strong convictions, as we all know, of keen public spirit, and of abounding energy. As a speaker, he had a natural gift of eloquence, informed by common sense and seasoned with humour. As a man he was kind-hearted, generous and affectionate. He quickly won the esteem of your Lordships' House, and its good will. Visiting Canada during one of the years of the noble Viscount, Lord Bennett's Premiership, I heard much of his forceful personality and confident leadership. He was never averse from controversy. It might be said of him that "the battle was his pastime." That visit was a few months after the Ottawa Conference and Agreements, of which he had been one of the principal sponsors on that side of the Atlantic, and I had been one of the active critics on this side; and he left me in no doubt that I had earned his complete disapproval. That, however, did not prevent the circumstance, in later years when he had retired and settled in this country, that I received from him always the kindliest personal friendship. Sitting under his Presidency in the Council of the Royal Society of Arts in recent months and years, one realized the untiring devotion and meticulous interest which he gave to the affairs of that long-established and valuable institution.
This country is fortunate in having an unwritten Constitution which adapts itself easily to the changing circumstances of the successive centuries and it has made possible, through no formal decision but as a matter of practice and wisdom, the expansion of the membership of your Lordships' House to include representatives of the Commonwealth. So far they are few in number but fully qualified in their representative capacities, and we hear from them the standpoint and the opinions of the whole of the British Commonwealth. Lord Bennett's family, having lived in North America for nine generations, at last in his person came
506
home again, and from his lips Westminster could hear the authentic voice of Canada. We welcomed his coming here, and we grieve that he has gone.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, for the five years that Lord Bennett was Prime Minister of Canada I had the honour of serving there as Governor-General. With the permission of your Lordships, therefore, I would like to add a few words to the eloquent tributes which have already been paid to a very remarkable man. During the months when the Federal Parliament was in session, when we were both always in Ottowa, I naturally saw a very great deal of him, sometimes even daily. No Governor-General could possibly have had an adviser more considerate and more helpful, and I very soon learnt not only to admire his qualities as a public man but to have a very real affection for him as a. man and a friend.
The early 'thirties, at the beginning of his Premiership, were years of great depression in Canada, a very harrassing time for whoever occupied the position of Premier. I do not think indeed that any Prime Minister of Canada ever had to deal with such a difficult period. But Lord Bennett always preserved the utmost equanimity combined with great political courage. He took his decisions fearlessly, however difficult the problems, and he always stuck to his guns in taking whatever action he deemed necessary to the situation. While very strongly Canadian, as has been said, the United Empire loyalist blood in him was very strong too. He was, as the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, has said, a profound believer in the British Empire but also in the qualities and the destiny of the British people. He was a tremendous worker and was fortunate to be gifted with a truly remarkable memory. After a few years as Prime Minister his health suffered under the strain but he continued in the same indefatigable way in the conduct of public business.
I have seen it suggested in some quarters that he was not a great popular figure in Canada. Can that be so, seeing that he was known affectionately by thousands and thousands as "R.B."? But even during the busy years of office he constantly spoke to me of his intention to spend his declining years in retirement in England. He visualized a quiet time.

507
How different in reality were the years that he spent here. His work during the war is well known to all your Lordships. In addition, as the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, has said, he was extremely liberal in all good causes and gave them the support both of his voice and his great generosity. Another thing I soon learnt to know about him was his great admiration for the standard of the conduct of public life in this country and of its public men. It is, therefore, fitting that he should, at the end of his career, have sat as a member of your Lordships' House here at Westminster. The death of this great Canadian is a loss, not only to many friends, both in Canada and here, who will always remember a kindly generous and courageous man, but Canada, Great Britain and the Empire have lost a very able and devoted public servant.
VISCOUNT BRUCE OF MELBOURNE: My Lords, I would desire to associate myself with the tributes which have been paid by all noble Lords who have preceded me to the memory of the late Lord Bennett. As an ex-Prime Minister of one of the Dominions I would like, if I may, to add a word. I was never privileged to attend an Imperial Conference with Lord Bennett, as I had gone out of office before he came into office, but I was at the Ottawa Conference in 1932, and there I got to know and learnt to respect Lord Bennett, both as a man and as a statesman. I also learnt from him at that time a fact which has been referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, that his period of office coincided with the economic and financial crisis of 1929–1932. He told me of some of his problems and some of his difficulties and they were, of course, transcending in character. I was filled with admiration for the courage and the determination with which Lord Bennett had faced, and was continuing to face, the almost insoluble problems of that period. In the Ottawa Conference, over which he presided, he played a very great part which impressed all of us who were associated with him. He gave leadership and he showed great devotion. He realized that the Ottawa Conference was a Conference called of the countries of the British Empire to see whether, in the storm and stress of those days, we could not do something to help the Empire as a whole in the position in which its members found themselves, until such
508
time as the world came back to sanity again. I think the success of the Ottawa Conference is a tribute to Lord Bennett's work there. Lord Bennett was also a man with a very receptive mind, and I am sure the noble Earl will endorse the statement if I say that he proposed, in those years succeeding the economic crisis, certain measures in Canada which were regarded as unorthodox and novel, and which created a great deal of criticism and dissent in the ranks of those who subscribed to his own political faith. I wonder whether to-day the views he then expressed would be regarded as quite so unorthodox and quite so novel.
Lord Bennett was a man of a very forceful personality, and he had great characteristics of leadership; but he was also a very kindly man with a streak of sentiment—and a very marked streak of sentiment—which I think few, save those who knew him well, realized. I am certain that we shall in the future miss his wise counsel in your Lordships' House; and many of us to-day are mourning the passing of a very dear friend.
LORD DARYNGTON: My Lords, as I do not often trouble your Lordships' House with any words of mine, I hope I may be forgiven if I say a few words on this occasion, as I had the privilege of knowing the noble Viscount, Lord Bennett, extremely well and have been connected with him in a particular way. When His Majesty the King made his appeal for prayer about two or three years ago, a picture was produced with the words underneath, and Viscount Bennett thereupon gave a copy of this to every public school in England. Last Thursday he was to have attended a meeting of the Public Morality Council in London, as honorary secretary, a position which he had just taken. I would like to say one word in reference to what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has said to-day in regard to Viscount Bennett's private helpfulness. I do not suppose there ever was a man with a more sympathetic soul. He wanted to help everybody he possibly could, not only in Canada but in the world generally. As the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce, has just said, he also had almost extraordinary courage. When he was taken ill I think I was one of the first to know of his illness. Since that time he not only did not retire, but he worked much harder and went all over the country

509
taking positions which he need not have occupied. I could of course speak about his work as a statesman, but I do not think this is my province. I would only add that when we look round the world to-day we can hardly find any son of Empire who has done more service for that Empire.

AGRICULTURE (EMERGENCY PAYMENTS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
NORTHERN IRELAND BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
PROBATION OFFICERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (GLOUCESTER) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TUNBRIDGE WELLS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
BRIGHTON CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRACTION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LEEDS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TORQUAY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
FELIXSTOWE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

ACQUISITION OF LAND (AUTHORISATION PROCEDURE) (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
4.24 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee on recommitment of the Bill read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
LORD MORRISON: Your Lordships will recall that this Bill, which has been introduced in order to re-enact in the form in which it applies to Scotland the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act of 1946, was referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. That Committee has now reported, and their Report is in your Lordships' hands. It will be noted that the Committee have made certain Amendments in the Bill to bring it into conformity with the existing law; and have called attention, in the Appendix to their Report, to the alterations in, and additions to, the Act of 1946 required to give effect to legislation passed between the coming into force of that Act and the present time. I beg to move that the Amendments proposed by the Committee should now be made en bloc. I will also move other Amendments standing in my name on the paper.
Moved, That the Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee be agreed to.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 1 [Procedure for compulsory purchase of land by local authorities, and by the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Civil Aviation and the Secretary of State for certain purposes]:
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 23, leave out from ("under") to end of line 35, and insert ("Section fifty-seven of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Temporary powers for speedy acquistion of land in urgent cases]:
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 45, at end insert ("or under Section fifty-seven of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First four Schedules agreed to.
Fifth Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 21, at end insert—

("10 & 11 Geo. 6, c. 27.

The National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947.

Subsection (4) of Section fifty-seven.")

(Lord Morrison.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
4.30 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee on recommitment of the Bill read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
LORD MORRISON: Your Lordships will recall that this Bill, which is based upon a draft prepared by a strong and representative Committee presided over by Sir John Jeffrey—of whose recent death you will have heard with considerable regret—was referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses. It was
512
fortunately possible to arrange for the Committee to be presided over by the right honourable gentleman who represents the Scottish Universities, who is, as your Lordships know, a former Secretary of State for Scotland, who had in fact been responsible for the setting up of the Jeffrey Committee, and who was well acquainted with the way in which that Committee had set about their task. The Joint Committee, of which I had the honour to be a member, included members of both Houses, with experience of local government in Scotland and England, and they took pains to examine the Bill in considerable detail.
The Report of the Committee is now before your Lordships, and it will be seen that a number of Amendments have been made in the Bill. Some of these Amendments were made at the instance of the Secretary of State to meet criticisms of the Bill put forward by the associations of local authorities and others concerned with local government, or in order to bring the Bill into line with legislation passed since the Bill was introduced, or as drafting Amendments which will clarify the provisions of the Bill. Others were made by the Committee because they felt that in the case of some of the provisions of the Bill slight modification of form or content was desirable. In amending the Bill the Committee have, however, followed the guiding principle that they should make no Amendment unless they were satisfied either that it brought the provisions of the Bill into closer conformity with the existing law or that, although involving some modification of the existing law, it was uncontroversial.
There are between sixty and seventy of these Amendments. I should be reluctant to ask your Lordships to go through them in detail, since that would be a rather laborious task, and many of them are of a drafting or trivial character. I propose, therefore, to ask your Lordships to pass en bloc the Amendments made by the Select Committee. These are set out in the Report and have been incorporated in the print of the Bill which is now in your Lordships' hands. If we adopt this procedure any modification which may be desired in the Bill as amended by the Joint Committee can be considered on the Report stage.
LORD SALTOUN: I am entirely in agreement with my noble friend opposite

513
on this point. As a matter of fact, I sat on the Committee. But there is no list of these Amendments at the service of any member of the House, and the House is therefore being asked to pass a whole series of Amendments of which the ordinary members have no knowledge unless they read the new print of the Bill and compare it with the old. I cannot help feeling that that is not quite right. I suggest that these Amendments should be made available to noble Lords if they want to see them, so that any change they may wish to make can occur at a later stage. I think that would probably be the most convenient thing at the moment.
LORD MORRISON: The noble Earl is slightly mistaken. The list of Amendments is printed in the Report which is available at the entrance to the Chamber, or was when I entered—
LORD SALTOUN: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I had not begun to look early enough.
On Question, Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee agreed to.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.
4.36 p.m.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 5:
Surveys of planning areas and preparation of development plans.
(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
514
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;

THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words after "plan," where that word occurs a second time. The noble Earl said: In Clause 5, subsection (3) the words are somewhat wide in that they say:
"… 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."
Those are what you might call somewhat general terms. I believe there is an explanation, and if the noble and learned Viscount could give us it I should be most grateful.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 37, leave out from ("plan") to end of line 42.—(Earl of Radnor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): These words were put in to make certain that the decision which was given by the Court of Appeal in a recent case is the law. The matter arose in this way. There is an area, as you Lordships know, in Plymouth which was very badly damaged in the war, and it was intended by the local authority to develop that area as a whole, but there was one building sticking up like an isolated rock in this area which had not been damaged. The learned trial Judge, Mr. Justice Henn-Collins, thought that that being so the order could not be attached to that building. On that decision an appeal was taken to the Court of Appeal, and the law as laid down by the Court of Appeal is what is given effect to in this Bill. So far as I know—indeed I am confident about this—there is no appeal on the matter pending to your Lordships' House, but unless, as sometimes does happen, an appeal was lodged with a view to taking a different view from that of the Court of Appeal, we have put in these words to make it plain that the existing state of the law is the state of the law which we desire to have accepted. I hope

515
with that explanation the noble Earl will not press this Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. I must say the words do seem a little wide to cover such small cases, but in view of what he has said I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved in paragraph (a) of subsection (4), to add "or, in the case of land being agricultural land within the meaning of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, within seven years from that date." The noble and learned Viscount said: This manuscript Amendment which I am proposing to move arises on Clause 5, and I would like to tell your Lordships what I have been able to do in the interval between the discussion we had on Thursday and the present time. Your Lordships were quite properly, if I may say so, pressing me in regard to the position of agricultural land, and pointing out that agricultural land might be prejudiced by reason of a designation order or compulsory purchase—designated as subject to compulsory purchase. I expressed the view then, and I still hold to it, that on balance and on the whole this designation is desirable in the interests of the landowner.
After all, you may have a town surrounded perhaps by a green belt, and after the green belt you contemplate that there is going to be some further extension, and the extension is quite manifestly going to settle on some neighbouring land. There are three farms, the black acre, white acre and green acre, and unless you have this system of designation none of the owners of these farms would know whether his land is more likely to be acquired than the other fellow's land, or what his position is. If you say in the plan, for instance, that white acre is the land which is going to be compulsorily acquired within the next ten years, though it may be small satisfaction to the owner of white acre, it at any rate will be, or may be, very considerable satisfaction to the owners of green acre and black acre. That is the position. That is why I took the view that it was, on the whole, desirable, even in the interests of the landowners, that there should be this system; the more so, of course—though I do not
516
want to spend time on this—when all you are contemplating is to take part of a farm, because then the owner knows that you are not contemplating taking the rest of that farm, at any rate for the next ten years.
On the other hand, I quite concede that there is, of course, a threat that agricultural land will be taken. Indeed that is inevitable if we are going to do what the Barlow Report said that we must do—that is loosen out our towns and move out some of our people who are living together much too closely, indeed in really huddled conditions. The whole point of this Bill is to try to preserve the happy mean—on the one hand not having people huddled together closely in towns, and on the other hand, not disregarding agricultural interests, which, I agree, would be equally disastrous, since it is certain that we must grow every bit of food that we possibly can in this country in the years to come. In short we must so to deal with our very limited amount of land as to ensure that we are using every piece of it to the best possible advantage. I have tried to see how far I could go to meet the natural desire of your Lordships that there should be some special concession made in respect of agricultural land. It was suggested in the debate that instead of ten years, which is the time specified for ordinary land, there should be five years for agricultural land. If your Lordships will look at Clause 5 (4) of the Bill which begins at the bottom of page 5, you will read this:
"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";

I was asked to substitute five years for ten years. I have not been able to go to that length, but I have done my best to satisfy your Lordships. I hope you will realize that I have, indeed, done so, and that I am proposing what is, I think, a real concession by this manuscript Amendment. I am proposing to insert after the word "approve" on page 6, line 3, these words:

517
("or, in the case or land being agricultural land within the meaning of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, within seven years from that date;").
So, in the case of agricultural land, I am cutting down the ten years which was in the Bill for ordinary land to seven years. There are certain other Amendments which bear on this, and we shall get to them in due course. I hope your Lordships will feel that in making this concession I have gone, at any rate, a very substantial way to meet your Lordships' wishes. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 3 at end insert ("or, in the case of land being agricultural land within the meaning of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, within seven years from that date;").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: As I think the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has said, we were discussing this matter when the Committee were last dealing with this Bill, and I was one of those who pressed him strongly to reduce the period of ten years to five years in the case of agricultural land. I am not one of those who think that this designation is a great advantage to the landlord or to the farmer. But there, at any rate, opinions differ. It clearly does them less harm if the period is seven years than if it is ten years. Really, all that we have come to is this, even if you take it on exact mathematical proportions. We were trying to cut down the period of designation of agricultural land from ten years to five years. It has now been cut down from ten years to seven years. I am truly grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for meeting us to that extent. For my part, I believe that the last three years, with development going on at the pace at which it does at the present moment, will be fuller than the first five, so probably this reduction from ten to seven may well have cut down the earlier designation of agricultural land to the half for which we were pressing for. I repeat that I am greatly obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for bringing forward this Amendment in response to the appeal which we made last week.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I add just a few words with special reference to a point made on the last occasion by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, which was based, I think, on a misunderstanding of
518
the Bill as it now stands. What I was going to suggest that the Government should consider is this. In the case of agricultural land as to which a notice is given by the proper notice of designation, the land may be acquired within a certain period by the person who gives the notice. I think that most members of this Committee know very well that the value of agricultural land greatly depends on the constant care which the occupying owner gives to that land to preserve its fertility, and that in the case of many areas good agricultural land may be rendered practically worthless in a few years. I have had cases of that sort to deal with as a Judge. What I am afraid of, and what I think the Government might see if they can avert, is this. During the seven years some farmers, at any rate, will think: "According to the designation this property may be purchased. What we desire to be sure of is that we shall not be wasting our money on fertilizers and things of that sort if the land is, in fact, purchased within the period mentioned in the designation."
Although the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, did not, I think, quite understand the effect of the Bill—something that is very exceptional for him—at the same time, it is true to say that on the valuation of the land to be purchased, if the designation has fruition and purchase takes place, the farmer will not get lack anything like the whole of the money that he spent on fertilizing the land. The question to be determined as between willing buyer and willing seller is how much he should have. The buyer in all likelihood will not want well-fertilized land because he is probably going to erect a row of houses or a factory, and I cannot help thinking that if you give a notice to farmers whose land is going to be the subject of designation there ought to be, and the Government will be well advised to put in, some provision which will prevent the farmer thinking: "I had just as well not spend any money on this land because the probability is that it is going to be taken from me." I may be right, or I may be wrong about this, but I am sure that the point is worth considering, and I would ask the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, to give it some consideration before this matter comes before us further.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: As the mover of the original Amendment suggesting that the period should be altered

519
from ten years to five years, I must rise to thank the noble and learned Viscount for the way in which he has met me. Your Lordships will appreciate that the case extends farther than may appear on the surface, because the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, was addressed to ensuring that the owner of designated land could compel a local authority to acquire it. My Amendment went further in limiting the period of designation. It was intended to protect the man who wanted to remain in possession, whose grievance was not met by being able to tell the local authority to come and buy him out. Therefore although the effect of the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount is limited to agricultural land, and although the period is seven instead of five years, I feel bound to thank him for the very constructive way in which he has met me.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I still feel that this designation should, for agricultural areas, be limited to the absolute minimum. We still feel a great disadvantage and an element of confusion as well. I hope that if designation is included in the English Bill the position will not be prejudiced in the Scottish Bill. The need for designation for agricultural areas in Scotland is much less than in England as opportunities for the public acquisition of land for housing and public purposes in Scotland have been secured without difficulty by the Government and local authorities, who have more than they require for a considerable time ahead. Therefore, I feel there the need will be less.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I was brought up in the tradition that one must be thankful for small mercies, and I am therefore grateful for the small point. Like Lord Llewellin, I thought designation of agricultural land was unnecessary. We want to get this question of designation in proper perspective. If there was no such thing as designation in the Bill the powers of planning authorities would not be imperilled in the least. It merely means it would be in the plan and those who looked into the plan would see with some little certainty the destiny of their land. The noble and learned Viscount stressed that he thought designation was in the interests of the landowner. It was strongly pressed from this side that
520
shortening the period of designation was, if anything, in the interests of the land rather than of the landowner, and the landowner would benefit only consequentially. If the noble Duke obtains greater success for Scotland than we have been able to obtain for England, we shall have to rise up and talk about injustices to England.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have always been wondering when a noble Lord would raise that point. "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof": I know nothing about the Scottish Bill yet, so I can make no promises to the noble Duke. I can hold out no hopes, but there are no threats. In regard to the remarks of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, I will certainly look into the point. My desire is that in such a case as he put, the farmer who is bought out should be paid for what he has properly done in keeping land in proper heart. He should not be met by the plea, "We do not want it for agricultural land; we merely want it for a building site, and for our purposes it does not matter in the least whether it is in good heart or not." I hope that point is in the Bill, but if it is not I will see that it is.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am much obliged.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: Will the noble and learned Viscount tell us whether the defination of agricultural land given in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, includes land dedicated to forestry? I think it does. It is very important. What would be the effect of designation on land dedicated to forestry under the Forestry Act?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid I do not know, but I will look it up and communicate with the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I suggest that this should be thought over before the Bill is finished.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE had given notice to move, in subsection (4) (a), at the end to insert:
"(d) if any person shows to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that he would be able and willing to carry out development on land if it were not designated as subject to compulsory acquisition, and the

521
local authority on an application made to them for the purpose. or the Minister on an appeal under Part III of this Act, grants permission for that development either unconditionally or subject to conditions with which the applicant is willing to comply, such land Shall cease to be designated as subject to compulsory acquisition conditionally on such person carrying out that development."
The noble Viscount said: Hitherto, we have been discussing the blighting effect of designation. The point I want to raise is rather different, and to some extent it has been met by subsection (4) of the proposed new clause after Clause 8, put down by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. Unfortunately for me, the Lord Chancellor's Amendment contains words which greatly limit the value of that concession—namely the words in brackets "(not being land comprised in an area defined by the plan as an area of comprehensive development)." If those words were omitted, the Lord Chancellor's Amendment would entirely cover my point, and it may therefore be more convenient if I moved to leave out those words rather than move my Amendment. Your Lordships may prefer to have a general discussion before any particular Amendment is submitted, in which case I would make my remarks now. But I am entirely in the hands of the Government.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I suggest, if it is convenient to the noble Lord, that he should move his Amendment. I do not want a general discussion but I want one on his Amendment.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The principle with which I am concerned here is a simple one: to ensure that if some area has to be redeveloped nothing shall prevent private enterprise from playing its part in that work, if it is prepared to follow the plan laid down by the local authority and comply with any other condition the local authority may lay down. It is obvious that certain types of redevelopment—the re-housing of slum-population, or the re-erection of public buildings—could be undertaken only with great difficulty by private enterprise, but in other cases I think private enterprise could well play a part. For example, up and down the country there are areas covered by unsightly and insanitary developments in the form of shacks dating from pre-planning days. Here there is no question of rehousing slum
522
population because many of these shacks are untenanted or at least used as a very primitive form of week-end accommodation. If times were normal, private enterprise might come along and at least help to redevelop these places as properly designed seaside village s or possibly holiday camps. Unfortunately, times are not normal and what with licences and priorities there seems to be little chance of that happening.
The only thing local authorities can do is to designate such areas for comprehensive redevelopment and then, if conditions do not change, acquire that land compulsorily and do it themselves. But times may change, and if at any time before these areas are actually purchased the local authority can find somebody who is prepared to carry out the local authority's plan in a bona-fide manner, there would seem to be very strong arguments for allowing them to do so. This kind of work seems to me to demand drive and energy and to be somewhat speculative; it really is a professional job. Local authorities have an enormous amount of work to do nowadays, and you cannot always find members of those bodies who are prepared to undertake such work, particularly in rural areas. Even if they acquired the land and then leased it, which I know is part of the Government's theory under this Bill there would still be a great deal of work to do in administering. I hope the Government will not underrate the difficulties in which local authorities are in rural areas.
I come to the technical question of procedure. The Minister in another place seemed to have no ideological objection to an owner carrying out part of a plan, but he seemed most reluctant to allow any land once designated to become de-designated—or, perhaps I should say, to allow the designation to be removed from that land. He quite admits that the owner should take part in the redevelopment provided he can do so before designation. I have already said that it is very unlikely that the owner would guarantee to do such a thing in present circumstances. In the Amendment in the name of the noble and learned Viscount, the Government, as I understand it, seem to have gone a little further. They say that designation may be removed if the owner is prepared to do his part, but only if the local planning authority

523
designate under subsection (2) (c) (ii) of Clause 5; that is to say, "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." Then apparently it is all right, but, if a local authority proceed under the previous sub-paragraph, that is to say, if they designate an area for comprehensive development, then, apparently, it is not all right. I frankly confess that I do not see the logic of this distinction. Surely the reasons why a local authority proceed under one sub-paragraph rather than under another are purely technical reasons; they have nothing to do with the owner. If the principle is a right one, I do not see really why it should be restricted in that way. I cannot imagine a private developer agreeing to spend a lot of money on re-developing an area if it has to remain under this compulsory purchase threat for the whole of the ten years, whatever he may have done in the meantime. If an owner is really to carry out a redevelopment, and if the local planning authority agrees that he should, I really do not see why he should not get an absolute guarantee that, as soon as he actually does do the work, the compulsory threat shall be removed. I beg to move accordingly.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 24, at end, insert the said paragraph.—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD HYLTON: I should like to support the remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage. This is an important point, and those of your Lordships who were in this House on Thursday last will recollect that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, when referring to the reconstruction of London, mentioned a term of some twenty years, during which time he thought that development, or the major part of development, would have to be devoted to the reconstruction of large areas. Now, unless some such suggestion of the kind put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, is adopted, it will be impossible for a private developer to carry out any works in these large designated areas. It is clear that, unless you enlist the sympathy and also the active aid of private developers, this reconstruction will be at such a tremendously
524
slow rate that none of your Lordships to-day could possibly see the conclusion of it. Ministers are continually saying that everybody must help in rebuilding and carrying out redevelopment, but here we get a clause that is specifically designed to prevent that happening. I do not wish to detain your Lordships at any length on this point, but, if the Government are in earnest and are anxious that redevelopment shall take place, then it is of the first importance that private developers should be allowed to develop within the designated areas without the threat of compulsory purchase hanging over their heads.
LORD HENDERSON: I am afraid that I am not in a position to accept this Amendment. As the noble Viscount himself stated, the point is largely met by subsection (4) of the new clause to be moved by the Government after Clause 8. The main point of difference is that the Government Amendment limits the provision to cases where land is designated under Clause 5 (2) (c) (ii) as subject to compulsory acquisition for purposes other than statutory functions or comprehensive development. The provision is clearly unsuitable where the land is designated for purposes of statutory functions, since only the Minister or the local authority or the statutory undertaker concerned can carry out the specific development that is involved. It is not suitable, either, for comprehensive development areas, which is the point to which the noble Viscount and the noble Lord have directed the strength of their arguments. The essence of the solution to the problem is that the local authority should acquire the whole of the area and lay it out afresh. It is not normally practicable to grant permissions for individuals to develop isolated plots in these areas because it prejudices the chances of planning for a completely new layout. As the noble Lord will remember, Section 19 (6) of the 1944 Act is attracted by Clause 43, and this provides that, where land is to be leased to private developers, persons living or carrying on business in the area before it was acquired will have preferential treatment. I say that the case refers to land which is leased by the local authority and not land to be sold.
As regards the special point to which the noble Viscount referred, of shack de-

525
velopment at coastal areas, it seems to me that in a special case of that sort it should be possible for the local authority to designate under Clause 5 (2) (c) (i), the amount of land they can cope with as the real area of development—that is to say, the area of development in order to deal with the shack area—and the remainder could be designated under (c) (ii), which would then be available for development by a private developer. In those circumstances, I hope the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I thank the noble Lord for his very courteous reply, but I must confess that I am disappointed. I think the noble Lord said it is not normal to allow small islands of private development to occur in an area acquired by local authorities. My point is that it is quite within the power of the local authority to prevent that happening, if it does not suit their purpose. I am talking from the point of view of the local authority. If the local authority want to do it, I do not see why they should be tied up by what seems to me to be largely a red tape point. If the owner is prepared to develop land in the way required, at the time required, and complies with every other condition, I cannot see what difference it makes to anybody as to who should own the land.
The noble Lord has suggested one course of procedure. I think what he has suggested would entail a remarkable amount of foresight on the part of the local authority. They have got to guess what part might be developed by private enterprise, and what might not. I think this Bill is extending a procedure which has hitherto been confined to particular areas. I suggest that the operation of this clause may have a very different effect over the wide areas to which it is now being applied than it has had hitherto. There is very little between us, in one way. It seems to me to be very much a question of legal phraseology. I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, would agree to look into this matter again. I am quite willing to agree to modification, such as the Minister's consent being included, or that the operation of this clause should be confined, say, to county councils areas, or anything like that, but I do hope the noble Lord will not entirely turn down the suggestion simply because it has not worked that way hitherto.
LORD HENDERSON: Naturally I am always prepared to have any suggestion of the noble Viscount considered, but I must make it clear that one of the vital principles of a comprehensive development is to ensure that the local authority can carry through its scheme on its own lines. It is merely an extension of what was done under the 1944 Act, and in the discussion on Thursday there were points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, in favour of the local authorities having greater powers for dealing with comprehensive development. As I say, where it is possible within the comprehensive development scheme to issue leases for private development, those leases will be issued. I am afraid I cannot give any undertaking to the noble Viscount. I am willing to have the point considered, but it is not within my province to go further than that, and I hope that he will withdraw the Amendment.
VISOOUNT GAGE: On that understanding, I will certainly withdraw the Amendment. I hope we shall be able to arrange some discussion on this matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, at the end of the clause to insert:
"(6) where the Minister is satisfied that there are competent local independent organizations engaged on research the location of industry and similar problems in any area, he may require a local planning authority to consult such organizations during the preparation of a development plan."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is perhaps a little lonely amongst all the designation and other matters which we have just been discussing, because it is on quite a different subject. It deals with the method of making the development plan. I am not sure that I have put this Amendment in the right place in the Bill. I hope I have, because it is intended to have reference to one of the things which the local authority ought to do when they are preparing a development plan. It also has a good deal of connexion with a later clause—Clause 13—concerning the powers of the Board of Trade. I think I must discuss these two Amendments separately, although they do react upon each other very considerably. The Amendment explains quite simply what it means. I should say that

527
this is the result of experience of planning work in development areas, and also the result of seeing something of what is being done now under the Distribution of Industry Act. In this Bill it is not only development areas, or the Distribution of Industry Act; it concerns the whole country. That is why I think it is important that it should be mentioned. In various parts of the country there are organizations connected with research activities, working often through university personnel and experts, and having with them people who have an interest in the industry and the prosperity of their area, industrial employers and trade unionists, and many others who are prepared to take a lot of trouble to go into these research matters so as to help to lay a sound foundation for the industrial development suggested.
This Bill now brings the conception of positive planning. It seems clearly necessary to plan not only the activities of people, but also the places where they work, and to think how the right conditions can be created for that. It is in order to bring that about that I am suggesting this Amendment. It does not mean that research activities of this kind are to be compulsory; indeed, as the Bill now stands, it would be possible for any local planning authority to consult any such organization. But I feel that under present conditions it is a matter of such importance that it should be mentioned in the Bill. There are, of course, in Part III of the First Schedule, joint advisory committees composed of members of local authorities, but that is not what I am proposing in this Amendment. Part III of the First Schedule says:
"… and any such committee shall be constituted in such manner as may be determined by the authority…."
provided that they shall have a majority of members of one or other of the local authorities. That is a very useful thing—or one hopes it will be—but it is not what I am referring to here. There are research bodies of the kind of which I am thinking in many parts of the country. In the West Midlands there is an organization known as The West Midlands Group. The group have done some very good work, and published an extremely interesting paper on their own area. In the North-East there is an organization of the same kind, with which I myself
528
have been connected. In Cumberland there is a similar organization; there is a Scottish Organization; there is a small unit which looks into the question of Bristol; there is a Lancashire organization; and there are various independent activities carried on by university research departments, so that it is not at all impossible to imagine that work of this kind might be done in a large number of different areas of this country.
As to the alternative, that the local planning authorities might themselves do this work with the aid of expert staff, I feel that there is going to be a very great deal of difficulty, because there are not enough men who are conversant with the rather intricate details of this kind of subject to be able to provide all the local planning authorities with the staff which they would need. Furthermore, there is the point that on matters such as this it is absolutely essential to have not only the more academically trained and technical man to do the investigation, but also that he should have access to all the people who are engaged in industry itself and who are thoroughly familiar with the practical problems. In many cases I think that is difficult to provide in a local authority staff. I am thinking also of the kind of town planning which was done before the war, where in many areas there were very considerable industrial areas zoned without any relation to the employment capacity in relation to the number of people who lived there or who were ever likely to live there. That is a pointer, I think, showing that the proper enthusiasm of the local authorities would not always be confined to the practical possibilities.
To show the need for something of this sort I will quote from the Second Report from the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Estimates, which in paragraphs 56 and 57 deals with a particular problem concerned with the work of the Board of Trade in development areas. The Report says:
"Your Committee were assured that regional co-operation with the universities is now being sought and that it is intended to form a joint committee of departmental and university representatives. They consider that this important development should not be confined to the universities, but should include other research organizations whose assistance may be useful."
That, of course, is a recommendation which is nothing to do with the planning

529
as here stated, but has to do with the parallel work which has been done by the Board of Trade. Here, of course, the Board of Trade are in fact doing the planning in so far as they are putting up factories where they think proper. The Report, however, says that it is necessary and wise that Government departments should consult research organizations upon work such as this. Similarly, so should the local planning authorities when it becomes their responsibility.
Further, I would quote briefly a reference which appeared in the Press to a Committee being appointed by the Board of Trade and other Government Departments under the Chairmanship of Sir Henry Clay, which says:
"Art informal committee … has been set up to examine the scope and needs of research, both long and short term, into industrial location, with a view to determining the types of industries which fit most naturally into the economies of the development areas."
There again, it is only the development areas, but I think I am right in saying that the principle applies equally to the whole country. It is important, as I have said, that some reference should be made to this in the part of the Bill which deals with the preparation of the development plan. I may not have suggested perhaps quite the right place or the right form of words, and it may truly be said that what I want can be done without anything being put in, but I very much hope that something can be done to point to the fact that things of this kind need to be carefully thought out in relation to the facts of the case in each area. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 33, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Ridley.)
LORD HYLTON: I should like to support the Amendment of the noble Viscount, and very briefly refer to the work now being done by the University of Bristol with regard to exactly the problems referred to by the noble Viscount. It is most important if the three-years survey shall be carried out within the specified time that any university body or research group that is in existence should be utilized, because there is a tremendous shortage of trained technical staff. It will be impossible to carry out these surveys unless every group or body which has technical staff attached to it is employed on this task. At the present time there is a tremendous amount of overlapping between
530
the various planning committees, their technical staff and bodies such as those to which the noble Viscount has referred. I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept the noble Viscount's Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: May I very briefly support this Amendment? I saw something of the work of these research bodies when I was a member of the Scott Committee and I was very much impressed by the scope of their work and the extremely valuable experience which they gained. I would draw attention to the fact that the Amendment only makes it permissive, and one hopes that the Minister will be agreeable to inserting in the Bill an Amendment of this sort which prays in aid of his plan people who have studied it in certain parts of the country in great detail.
LORD HENDERSON: I am sure there is general agreement and sympathy with the case which has been made out by the noble Viscount and supported by other noble Lords. It is obviously desirable, where there is this specialized knowledge in the hands of local groups, that the fullest use should be made of it by local planning authorities. The noble Viscount referred to groups dealing with the location of industry, but there are also groups dealing with amenities, preservation of historic buildings and so forth. Full advantage should be taken of all that information by all the local planning authorities in the interests of good planning. But the power to do this is already resident in the Bill under Clause 9 (4) and the Minister could, if he so desired, give a direction to this end.
But my right honourable friend regards it as undesirable to single out this particular point for special mention in the Bill, because he would be most reluctant to give such a direction. The Minister can be relied upon to use his good offices to give every encouragement to local planning authorities to make the utmost use of competent local research bodies. He recognizes that it should be done and he will give, as I say, every encouragement for it to be done. But he would prefer that such consultation should not have to be undertaken under compulsion. I think it will be recognized that if this sort of consultation is to be effective, it pre-supposes a willingness on both sides

531
to get together and co-operate in the interests of local planning. Therefore, having indicated that the Minister is in general sympathy with the object the noble Viscount has in mind, and will do everything in his power to enable local authorities to take advantage of the knowledge, I hope he will not press his Amendment but will leave it to the Minister to bring about this desirable co-operation by virtue of his own encouragement and persuasion.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I am glad to have the Minister's assurance in this matter, and I do very much agree that compulsion to consult would not perhaps be the best way. My object in moving this Amendment was to find a way in which some reference could be made in the Bill, but as we have the assurance that the Minister is disposed to help these two types of organization to get together, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 5, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill:
LORD LLEWELLIN: Before we pass from Clause 5, which lays down how development plans are to be prepared and who is to be consulted, there is one particular point which I should like to raise, and that is in regard to the verderers of the New Forest. They carry out their functions, and have done so for a very large number of years. They claim now to represent 100 per cent. of the commoners who exercise rights of common pasture over the New Forest. They are very much concerned whether steps will be taken under this measure which will alter the character of the New Forest, and they feel they would like—to be quite frank about it—to have been excepted from the provisions of the Bill. If that is not to be, they would like at any rate to make quite certain that they are going to be consulted or have other opportunities of objecting to development plans in regard to their area. I think all of us who have from time to time driven through the New Forest—and I happen to be a near neighbour—value the way that it has been kept as a vast, pleasant open space. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, can give me some assurance to abate the fears that these verderers have in regard to what is going to happen to them.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very happy to give the noble Lord the assurance he wants. I, too, know the New Forest very well because my interest in forestry has led me to go there on many occasions. We must at all costs preserve the New Forest. Let us see how ample is the provision in the Bill to ensure that the verderers have a right to be consulted at every stage. First of all, when you come to the development plan, which is the first stage, they are able to express their views at the inquiry held before the plan or the amendment to a plan is approved. In addition to that the Minister can direct the local planning authority under Clause 9 (4) to consult the commoners in the preparation of a plan. When the plan is made you then come to the application for permission to develop, and the Minister can direct local planning authorities to consult the commoners in dealing with applications, and to notify the commoners of their decision on an application. That is in paragraphs (d) and (f) of Clause 13 (3). Then you come to compulsory purchase. Here also the commoners will be able to express their views at the inquiry held before the approval of the plan designating the land subject to compulsory purchase, or at the inquiry before the compulsory purchase order is made.
But there is this further point. Much of the land, I think nearly all of it, is the subject of Crown rights. The Bill does not operate against Crown interests, and the powers of the Bill can be exercised only with the consent of the Crown. That would be, as regards the New Forest, the Ministry of Agriculture; so that there is, I think, very ample protection. But I can assure the noble Lord that the Minister is closely concerned in anything done here. I think his views and those of the verderers will be exactly the same, and they will have every opportunity of being consulted and of expressing their views.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am much obliged.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
5.35 p.m.
Clause 6 [Amendment of development plans]:
LORD HENDERSON: I beg to move the first Amendment to this clause stand-

533
ing in the name of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. It is a drafting Amendment to subsection (2) of Clause 6, which gives the local authority power to amend a development plan, and is framed in terms of "the development plan relating to their area." This might be held to preclude a local planning authority from making alterations or additions to a plan for part of an area made under Clause 5 (5). The Amendment, therefore, provides in terms that a local planning authority may, at any time, amend a plan relating to part of their area. This provision is necessary because the effect of subsection (4) of Clause 6 is to provide that the development plan is not complete until it covers the whole of a local planning authority's area. If the Minister uses his power under Clause 5 (1) to extend the time within which development plans must be prepared, as he may have to do quite freely in the early years, it may, in some areas, be a considerable time before the development plan is complete. It is, therefore, important that there should be a power to make amendments during this period. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 45. after ("area") insert ("or any part thereof").—(Lord Henderson.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: This seems, if I may say so, to be a wise Amendment, which makes for greater flexibility and therefore improves the clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: The next Amendment is consequential on an Amendment which was made in another place on Report stage to paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of Clause 5. It is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 15, leave out ("references") and insert ("reference"). —(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: The third Amendment meets a purely grammatical point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 21 leave ("reference") and insert ("references").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: And the last Amendment is consequential to the first of the Amendments I moved. It is self-explanatory. I beg to, move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 29, at end add ("but without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Additional powers of the Minister with respect to development plans]:
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved, at the end of the clause to insert:
"(4) Any expenses incurred by the Minister under this section in connection with the making or amendment of a plan with respect to the area, or any part of the area, of a local planning authority, shall be paid in the first instance out of moneys provided by Parliament, but so much of those expenses as may be certified by the Minister to have been incurred in the performance of functions of that authority shall on demand be repaid by that authority to the Minister.
(5) Where, under this section, a plan, or proposals for the amendment of a plan, are authorised to be submitted to the Minister by the local planning authority for any area other than the area in which the land is situated, any expenses reasonably incurred in that behalf by the said authority, as certified by the Minister, shall be repaid to that authority by the local planning authority for the area in which the land is situated."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is purely a drafting rearrangement. It brings subsections (6) and (7) of Clause 9 into Clause 7. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 21, at end insert the said subsections. —(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
5.38 p.m.
Clause 8:
Incorporation in development plans of orders relating to trunk roads and new towns.
8.—(1) Where an order is made by the Minister of Transport in accordance with the Second Schedule to the Trunk Roads Act, 1946, directing that any road proposed to be constructed by him shall become a trunk road; or authorising him to construct or improve any road under Section four of that Act, any development plan approved or made under this Act which relates to land on which a road is to be constructed or improved in accordance with that order shall have effect as if the provisions of that order were included in the plan.
(2) Where an order is made by the Minister under section one of the New Towns Act 1946, designating any area as the site of a new town under that Act, any development plan approved or made under this Act which relates to land in that area shall have effect as if the provisions of that order were included in the plan.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (2), at the end to insert:
"provided that nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to require that the local planning authority shall make any alterations or additions to the plan excepting in so far as the same shall be required by the Minister after consultation with the local planning authority under Section three of the New Towns Act, 1946."
The noble Viscount said: What I am trying to avoid by this Amendment is the possibility that perhaps at rather an advanced stage in the planning of a local authority, that authority may be confronted with a development plan for a new town and be told to fit in their plan to suit the development plan of the new town. Under Section 3 of the New Towns Act the local planning authority is given protection against this sort of thing happening. It requires the Minister to consult the local planning authority. Subsection (2) of this clause specifically quotes Section 1 of the New Towns Act. But there is nothing about Section 3, and I want to make sure that we do not lose under this Town Planning Bill any of the protection we enjoy under the previous measure.
Having said that, I must candidly admit that I do not really quite understand what the clause in this Bill implies, and as the procedure in regard to new towns, or some parts of it, is now being contested in the Courts, I wonder if the noble Lord could explain what the relation between the new towns corporation and the local planning authority is to be under this Bill. As your Lordships know, the first thing the Minister has to do under the New Towns Act is to draw a circle on the map. That constitutes the outline of the new town's area, and automatically takes it out of the jurisdiction of the local planning authority. I am assuming that this clause of the Bill means that when a local authority submit their development plan they shall not go outside that circle; but I am assuming that anything further that the Minister may decide to put into the circle—if he decides that a part of the circle should be developed in a particular
536
way—will have to appear in the local authority's development plan. Hence my Amendment, which is designed to cover us, and to ensure that we should be given a reasonable chance of objecting at the planning stage, if, for instance, the roads or water supply of the surrounding local authorities are likely to be prejudiced by the plan. The clause does not actually say that, and if I am wrong in my assumption perhaps the noble Lord will explain what it means. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 36, at end Insert the said proviso.—(Lord Gage.)
LORD HENDERSON: The subsection to which the noble Viscount refers is really quite simple. It lays down that when an area has been designated for a new town the order designating that area is incorporated in the order of the development plan. I think I can remove any apprehension that the noble Lord has about the future. I think I am right in saying that in Section 3 of the New Towns Act it was laid down that, before the plan of a new town was approved by the Minister, there must be consultation with the local planning authority; so there is a safeguard there. I can assure the noble Lord that there will be no alterations to a development plan, which is the point that he is concerned with, except after consultation with the local authority. The Minister would not issue a direction such as the noble Lord is concerned with without first consulting the local authority and considering their views on any alterations that he thought may be necessary. In view of the fact that there is consultation with the local planning authority before a new towns scheme is approved, and that any alteration that might be required in the local planning authorities' scheme would also lead to prior consultation, I think the apprehensions which the noble Viscount has in mind are ill-founded.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I am very much obliged to my noble friend. It seems to me that we shall have to submit plans and leave a complete blank for where the new town is to be. That seems a little queer. However, it is irrelevant to my Amendment and, as the noble Lord has given me the assurance for which I asked, I would be pleased to withdraw it.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: Before this Amendment is withdrawn might I just

537
ask this question of the Minister who has been speaking? If the Minister under the Bill uses the very extensive powers he has under the last few lines of subsection (1) of Clause 7, will he be able to carry those out without framing an order to be laid on the Table of the two Houses? Will he do it by his absolute powers? Presumably he might be putting the local authority to a very great amount of expense, so I suggest that there should be some check on him.
LORD HENDERSON: I think I am right in saying that the development order has to be approved.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: Even under these words at the bottom of the page?
LORD HENDERSON: I think any development plan, or any amendment to the development plan has to be approved.
LORD LLEWELLIN: By Parliament?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, it does not come before Parliament. It comes under Clause 10 of the Bill. Immediately after the Minister has made, or amended, a plan or approved it, it has to be published, and then it has got to be available to be looked at at all reasonable hours. Then in subsection (2) of Clause 10, there is a right of appeal if any of the stipulated requirements have been neglected. That is how it stands.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
5.44 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 8, to insert the following new clause:
Modification of development plans in relation to land designated as subject to compulsory acquisition.
—(1) Where any land is designated by a development plan as subject to compulsory acquisition, then if at the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the plan, or the amendment of the plan, by virtue of which the land was first so designated came into operation, any of that land has not been acquired by a Minister, local authority or statutory undertakers who could be authorised to acquire it compulsorily under the provisions of this Act, any owner of the land may, within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations under this Act, serve on the local planning authority a notice requiring his interest in the land to be so acquired.
(2) Where any such notice is served as aforesaid, then unless within six months after the service of the notice either—

(a) notice to treat in respect of the interest to which the notice relates has been served by any such Minister, authority or undertakers as aforesaid; or

(b) an offer has been made to the owner of the said interest by any such Minister local authority or undertakers to acquire it on terms that the price payable therefore shall be equal to (and shall be determined, in default of agreement, in like manner as) the compensation which would be payable in respect of that interest if it were acquired compulsorily,

the development plan shall have effect, after the expiration of the said six months, as if the land were not designated as subject to compulsory acquisition.
(3) The power conferred by subsection (2) of Section five of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, to withdraw a notice to treat shall not be exercisable in the case of a notice to treat which is served as mentioned in paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection.
(4) Where any land is designated by a development plan as subject to compulsory acquisition by the appropriate local authority (not being land comprised in an area defined by the plan as an area of comprehensive development) then if permission is granted under Part III of this Act for any development of the land so designated, or any part thereof, and that development is carried out in accordance with the permission so granted, the development plan shall have effect as if the land to which the permission relates were not designated as subject to compulsory acquisition:
Provided that where any such permission as aforesaid is granted for a limited period only, the provisions of this subsection shall cease to have effect in relation to the land at the expiration of that period."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a new clause I am proposing to put in, to meet the point which has been discussed before, with regard to land designated by a development plan as subject to compulsory acquisition. The Amendment which I have put forward says:
"Where any land is designated by a development plan as subject to compulsory acquisition, then if at the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the plan, or the amendment of the plan, by virtue of which the land was first so designated.…"
I call the attention of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, to that word "first" I was anxious to put in that word "first" to avoid the proposition that you could not have ten years and then, by designating again at the end of ten years, have another run for your money. I put in twelve years for this reason, that it is

539
very difficult, of course, to say with precision, what you can do.
Although the ten years is constant and the Minister has not to approve any plan which designates land unless he thinks it will be taken over within the ten years, yet there must be a little latitude, and therefore I give two years extra. Then if, at the end of that time, the land has not been acquired, under this scheme the man has the right to say: "Either buy me out or, if you do not buy me out, remove the designation which has affected my land." It may be that in the case of agricultural land some shorter term is necessary, and I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, is going to move some Amendment to my Amendment, but that I will deal with when he has moved it. In the meantime I offer this to your Lordships as being a really serious attempt to meet the point made by your Lordships when we were discussing this matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 8, insert the said new clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved to amend the proposed new clause by inserting at the end:
"(5) In relation to land being agricultural land within the meaning of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, subsection (1) of this Section shall have effect as if for the words 'twelve years' there were substituted the words 'five years'."
The noble Lord said: Perhaps it would be convenient if I said just a word or two on the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Viscount before I move my own Amendment. I am very grateful to the Lord Chancellor for putting down this Amendment and, therefore, meeting the point that my noble friend Lord Radnor and I had in our Amendment. I am quite certain it is right to put some limit on what a local authority may do. It is true that we thought ten years would be the correct time, but this Amendment says twelve. I do not need to go over the discussion we had last time.
In regard to agricultural land, which we were then discussing, we set a limit of five years. Before I come to my Amendment perhaps I might just say one word about subsection (4). I was rather doubtful as to whether, in the Bill as it originally stood, Lord Gage's Amendment
540
was entirely necessary, because there did not seem anything in the Bill to prevent a local authority letting a man develop his own land in accordance with their plan. It seems under subsection (4) that by putting in that they may do this, and we perhaps now preclude—it was not precluded before—a local authority from letting a developer develop land in an area defined by the plan as an area of comprehensive development. However, be that as it may, that is not the point to which I would chiefly address myself.
I have already thanked the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, for the first part of his new clause, which very largely meets what the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and I had put down. But, as the Lord Chancellor himself has intimated, we are not satisfied with twelve years in regard to agricultural land. My Amendment refers to the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, as did the earlier Amendment which the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, himself moved. Since the asking of a question by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, I have provided myself with a copy of that Act, and I find that, according to it, "Agricultural land" means "any land used as arable meadow or pasture ground only, land used for a plantation or a wood…." which is, I suppose, the point which the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, wanted to have covered. I am only sorry that he is not here to hear the answer, because I should think that that quite satisfactorily covers the forestry point which he raised. With regard to my Amendment, I say once again that I think twelve years is too long in respect of agricultural land. I would like the term to be five years. Therefore, I move the Amendment that stands in my name, and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, if he cannot accept the term "five" will at any rate accept some period less than the full twelve. I beg to move.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
At end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD CARRINGTON: I should like to support Lord Llewellin in this Amendment and also to ask the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, to bear in mind that under the Agriculture Bill, the

541
county agricultural committees, if they are going to do their job properly, are going to serve orders on farmers to keep hedges in good order, dig out ditches, paint buildings, and so on. In many cases, the farmer may find it difficult to comply, he may refuse and may have his tenancy terminated. I hope that the twelve years will be reduced to five because the farmer or landowner might well find difficulty in selling his land with the twelve years condition.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid that I cannot go quite so far as the noble Lords who have spoken would like me to do, but their eloquence has melted my heart to some extent, and I am willing to make a substantial concession. I cannot do the necessary arithmetic to work out the half-way point between five and twelve, but I will take a round figure and make it eight. That I am afraid is as far as I can go. It does give a very considerable concession and I hope that Lord Llewellin will be content with that figure.
LORD LLEWELLIN: If it is a question of arithmetic, I seem to have got the right half on my side of the compromise. Therefore, I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. Perhaps the most convenient course to take now would be for me to withdraw my Amendment and move it in an altered form substituting the word "eight" for "five" I, therefore, beg leave to withdraw the Amendment as it is on the Paper.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I now beg to move the Amendment in its new form.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
At end insert:
("(5) In relation to land being agricultural land within the meaning of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, subsection (1) of this section shall have effect as if for the words 'twelve years' there were substituted the words ('eight years')").(Lord Llewellin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: So moved, I am prepared to accept Lord Llewellin's Amendment.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I just say a word here? I hope that I am not wrong, but I admit that I have not heard everything that was said, as I came in while the
542
discussion was taking place. I think that I heard Lord Llewellin explain what forestry meant, and include it in agriculture. I was just entering the Chamber as he was speaking and I did not hear very clearly what he said. As a matter of fact, agriculture is defined in Clause 114 of the Bill, and it does not include forestry as a whole at all. It does include "the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes." I hope that I am not correcting something that has never been said.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The phrase we were discussing here was "agricultural land," within the meaning of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928. Lord Llewellin was kind enough to read out a relevant section of that Act in answer to a question which the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, had asked me. As a matter of fact, I had already got the correct answer and had handed it to Lord Ridley and no doubt he is quite happy about it.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: Thank you, I am much obliged.
On Question, Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: Having heard the discussion on the noble Viscount, Lord Gage's Amendment, I am still at a loss as to why the words "area of comprehensive development" should be taken to bar an agreed arrangement between the owner and the local authority. A "comprehensive development" is probably a slow one. But if the owner and the local authority agree upon all that is necessary to fit in with their plan, if the owner agrees to the nature of the houses, the density of the houses, the preservation of amenities, the reservation of sites for public purposes, surely if that all fits in together with the local authority's plan it will hasten the proper use of the land, whereas if these words stay in it may delay proper use of it for a considerable time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The reason is simply this. It is because we are following a practice which was established in 1944, which was the policy of the Coalition Government and of this Government, and, so far as I know, the policy of everybody who has considered this matter. Where you are going to have an area of comprehensive development,

543
you must have that land owned by the local authority. They must lay the land out as a whole. In practice there has never been a case in which such land has been within the ownership of one person. Complications arise from the fact that there are almost invariably multitudes of owners and each house, it may be, has a mass of people interested in it. That being so, we have always felt that there is only one way of doing this, and that is for the local authority to take the whole thing over and plan the whole thing afresh. That is the existing procedure and the existing position, and it is to that that we want to adhere.
On Question, original Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
5.57 p.m.
Clause 9:
Supplementary provisions as to development plans.
(2) Provision may be made by regulations under this Act with respect to the form and content of development plans, and with respect to the procedure to be followed in connection with the preparation, submission, approval, making and amendment of such plans, and such regulations shall in particular make provision for securing—

(a) that notice shall be given by advertisement of the submission to the Minister of any such plan or of proposals for the amendment of any such plan, and of any proposal by the Minister to make or amend such a plan and of the place or places where copies of the plan or proposals as so submitted, or of any such proposal of the Minister, may be inspected.

(4) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this section, the Minister may give directions to any local planning authority, or to local planning authorities generally—

(a) for regulating the performance of their functions under the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act;

(b) for requiring them to furnish to him such information as he may require for the purpose of the exercise of any of his functions under those provisions.

(6) Where, under Section seven of this Act, a plan, or proposals for the amendment of a plan, are authorised to be submitted to the Minister by the local planning authority for any area other than the area in which the land is situated, any expenses reasonably incurred in that behalf by the said authority, as certified by the Minister, shall be repaid to that authority by the local planning authority for the area in which the land is situated.
(7) Any expenses incurred by the Minister under Section seven of this Act in connection
544
with the making or amendment of a plan with respect to the area, or any part of the area, of a local planning authority, shall be paid in the first instance out of moneys provided by Parliament, but so much of those expenses as may be certified by the Minister to have been incurred in the performance of functions of that authority shall on demand be repaid by that authority to the Minister.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR had an Amendment on the Paper to subsection (2) (a)—namely, after "advertisement" to insert "in the London Gazette and in at least one local newspaper circulating in each part of their area." The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with the way in which advertisement should be carried out so that in the best possible way it should get to those who are interested. But I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to move it in rather a different form. The Amendment as it now stands reads:
"after 'advertisement' insert 'in the London Gazette and in at least one London newspaper circulating in each part of their area.'"
The word "their" means planning authorities. The words I should like to substitute are these "in the London Gazette and in at least one newspaper circulating in the area concerned."
My attention was drawn to the fact that if the Amendment was left as drafted it might mean that a multiplicity of local newspapers would be concerned, in, for example, a county like Lancashire, which is densely populated, and has a lot of local newspapers, the majority of which, very likely, would be completely uninterested in a particular development. If your Lordships will accept that, I do not think I need say more about the Amendment because it speaks for itself. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9. line 21, after ("advertisement") insert ("in the London Gazette and in at least one newspaper circulating in the area concerned.")—(The Earl of Radnor.)
LORD HENDERSON: I am glad to accept the Amendment with the new wording.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (4) (a) to leave out "regulating the performance" and insert "formulating the procedure for the carrying out." The noble Viscount said: The real object of this Amendment is to elucidate what is

545
meant by paragraph (a) of subsection (4) on page 10. Your Lordships will see that earlier in this clause the Minister takes power to prescribe in every kind of detail the procedure whereby the development plan is to be submitted to him. In another clause he gives himself power to tell local authorities what to do before the development plan is made: also power to decide appeals against the authority, to amend the development plan itself and to deal firmly with authorities if they misbehave themselves. I wonder in what other conceivable way he can wish to regulate the performance of the authority's functions. If, in addition to these powers of supervision, the Minister wants to guide the authority in individual cases then I think it is too much of an intrusion into the small amount of independence left to local authorities. My Amendment is designed to give this paragraph more precision and I hope a less objectionable meaning. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 10, leave out from ("for") to ("of") and insert the said new words.— (Viscount Gage.)
LORD HENDERSON: I am glad to have an opportunity of accepting an Amendment from the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT GAGE: Thank you very much.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved to leave out subsections (6) and (7). The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential on an Amendment already accepted by your Lordships.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10:
Validity and date of operation of development plans.
(4) Except by leave of the Court of Appeal, no appeal shall lie to the House of Lords from a decision of the Court of Appeal under this section.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment proposes to leave out subsection (4), the provision with regard to the Court of Appeal. The position under the Act of 1934 is that one appeals to the House of
546
Lords from the Court of Appeal either in pursuance of leave granted by the Court of Appeal or in pursuance of leave granted by a Committee of your Lordships. That is the position we are in at the moment, but we have not been quite consistent about this some recent Acts and I propose to insist on this matter and to adhere to my old practice. Subsection (4), which I am moving to leave out, had the effect of limiting the matter simply and solely to leave by the Court of Appeal. The effect of the Amendment is to restore the old position. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 38, leave out subsection (4).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of the clause to insert:
"(4.) Where, under paragraph (c) of the proviso to subsection (4) of Section five of this Act, any land to which a development plan relates is designated as subject to compulsory acquisition in pursuance of an order to which the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, applies, then—

(a) if that order it confirmed by Act of Parliament under Section six of that Act, subsections (2) and (3) of this section shall not apply to the plan so far as it so designates that land; and

(b) in any other case, this section shall have effect in relation to the plan, so far as it so designates that land, as if in subsection (2) for the reference to the date on which the notice required by subsection (1) is first published there were substituted a reference to the date on which the order becomes operative under the said Section six, and as if in subsection (3) the words from "and shall become operative" to the end of the subsection were omitted."

The noble and learned Viscount said: This is an exceedingly complicated matter but the Amendment comes to little more than drafting. If anybody desires an explanation I will give a full account, but it will be enough to say that the Amendment, though technical, is quite innocent. Its effect is merely to bring. Clause 10 of this Bill into line with Section 16 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, as amended by the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 40, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
6.5 p.m.
Clause 11:
Obligation to obtain permission for development.
11.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and to the following provisions of this Act, permission shall be required under this Part of this Act in respect of any development of land which is carried out after the appointed day.
(2) In this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, the expression "development" means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of buildings or other land:
Provided that the following operations or uses of land shall not be deemed for the purposes of this Act to involve development of the land, that is to say:—

(a) the carrying out of works for the improvement or maintenance of any building not being works which materially affect the design or external appearance of the building;

(c) the carrying out by any local authority or statutory undertakers of any works for the purpose of inspecting, repairing or renewing any sewers, mains, pipes, cables or other apparatus, including the breaking open of any street or other land for that purpose;

(d) the use of any buildings or other land within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such;

(f) in the case of buildings or other land which are used for a purpose of any class specified in an order made by the Minister under this section, the use thereof for any other purpose of the same class.

(3) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this section—

(a) the use as two or more separate dwellinghouses of any building previously used as a single dwellinghouse involves a material change in the use of the building and of each part thereof which is so used;

(b) the deposit of refuse or waste materials on land involves a material change in the use thereof, notwithstanding that the land is comprised in a site already used for that purpose, if the superficial area of the deposit is thereby extended.

(4) Subject to the provisions of any regulations made under, the provisions of this Act relating to the control of advertisements, the use for the display of advertisements of any external part of a building which is not normally used for that purpose shall be treated for the purposes of this section as involving a material change in the use of that part of the building.
(5) Notwithstanding anything in this section, permission shall not be required under this Part of this Act—

(a) in the case of land which, on the appointed day, is being used temporarily
548
for a purpose other than the purpose for which it is normally used, in respect of the resumption of the use of the land for the last-mentioned purpose;

(b) in the case of land which, on the appointed day, is normally used for one purpose and is also used on occasions, whether at regular intervals or not, for any other purpose, in respect of the use of the land for that other purpose on similar occasions after the appointed day;

(c) in the case of land which on the appointed day is unoccupied, in respect of the use of the land for the purpose for which it was last used:

Provided that—

(i) in determining for the purposes of paragraph (a) of this subsection the purposes for which land was normally used, no account shall be taken of any use of the land begun in contravention of previous planning control within the meaning of Section seventy-three of this Act;

LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON had given notice of his intention to move, in subsection (1), after "land," to insert "including Crown land as defined in Section 85 of this Act and land of statutory undertakers." The noble Lord said: This Amendment raises, at the first possible place in the Bill, the question of Crown lands and statutory undertakings. There are alternative words down for Clause 85 and I wonder whether it is more convenient to the noble and learned Viscount that this question should be argued now or if he would prefer to wait until we got to Clause 85.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would suggest it would be more convenient to leave it to Clause 85.
LORD ADDINGTON: Then I will not move the Amendment, I will wait until Clause 85.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2) (a) after "maintenance" to insert "improvement or other alteration." The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment, like so many I am moving, owes itself to the ingenuity of noble Lords opposite. I hope they do not mind me being guilty of plagiarism but so long as I accept their Amendments I think they do not. They had an Amendment to insert "improvement" and as I have added "or other alteration" I may fairly say that I have made another improvement. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 9, after ("maintenance") insert ("improvement or other alteration"). —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the next Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 10, leave out from ("building") to ("external") in line 11, and insert ("being works which affect only the interior of the building or which do not materially affect the").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I want to say only that this Amendment is one which is not merely consequential. I have carefully considered this, and I think it is a great improvement on the original words. I hope your Lordships will agree to it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, in subsection (2) (c), after "the purpose of" to insert "laying down." The noble Viscount said: I have been asked to move this Amendment for my noble friend Viscount Falmouth as he is unable to be here. The Amendment seeks to exempt the installation of new cables or mains underground, in addition to arrangements either for repairing or renewing them. In a sense it is planning, something which affects the exterior appearance and layout of any place. I understand that there was some discussion about this and I was told the Minister had suggested putting down an Amendment to cover it. As the Amendment which he put down included only maintaining and repair it is thought that it would be as well to include the putting in of new cables. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 17, after ("the purpose of") insert ("laying down"). —(Viscount Ridley.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is no question of preventing a statutory undertaker from laying mains. The only question which has to be considered is what route the mains will take and that is obviously a matter on which the planning authority should have the last word. In the great majority of areas, no planning control over the laying of mains would be required, and I can give your Lordships an undertaking that, in the development order to be made under the Bill, the
550
laying of mains will be permitted development. It is necessary, however, to reserve the right to withdraw this permission by directions under Clause 12 (3) in particular cases or particular areas where, for some exceptional reason, control is necessary. For instance, it is frequently necessary to have the power to control the laying of new mains where the whole of an area is about to be replanned, and where that replanning involves a completely new layout of the streets. Obviously, in those circumstances, it would be stupid to lay new mains in old streets and, therefore, there must be a right to withdraw permission in the case I have given. For that reason, although I may, as I think, give the undertaking to put this permission into the development order, this is one of the cases where I would prefer not to put it in the Bill. If it is in the Bill, it is in it and, like the law of the Modes and the Persians, I cannot alter it; but, if I do not put it in the Bill, I can. Therefore, I am not able to accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: Does that mean it will not be put in a development order except where it should be?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is right.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: That will be the policy of the planning Minister?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Before the next passage in this clause comes under review, would your Lordships kindly allow me to mention a point which arises on paragraph (d) in subsection (2), which says that amongst the things which are not deemed to involve development of the land is
"the use of any buildings or other land within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse for any purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such."
That I take to be one of the most important of the operations to an ordinary holder of a house, because it leaves him free to do anything within the curtilage of his dwellinghouse. The trouble which I have is that I find the greatest difference of opinion as to what the word "curti-

551
lage" means. I have inquired of a number of noble Lords in this House and other people outside the House and I can find nobody who is prepared to say that he knows what "curtilage" means. I have consulted various dictionaries, and I find that in the Oxford Dictionary "curtilage" is described in two different ways: the first is, "A small court, yard, garth or piece of ground attached to a dwellinghouse and forming one enclosure with it, or so regarded by the law"; the second is, "The area attached to and containing a dwellinghouse and its outbuildings." The trouble in my mind is this, that I cannot quite be sure whether "curtilage" includes the field adjoining an ordinary dwellinghouse in which one keeps a donkey or a pony, and which is separated from the house only by a wire fence. Is that part of your "curtilage"?
In cases of this sort—and one can mention a dozen others—this point arises because "curtilage" originally meant a court. It comes from the word "court" and from the French "courtillage," and it was taken into our English Dictionary; it might be deemed to have the notion that it has to be enclosed in the same way as the rest of the surrounding property of the house. I have found a definition which, I think, would probably suit the Government as being the meaning that was to be ascribed to the word in Funk and Wagnall's Dictionary which, I think is an American Dictionary, but it seems to me exactly what is needed here. It is there described as "local ground," and the words are "the ground adjacent to a dwellinghouse and used in connexion with it." That seems to me to be exactly what is needed. I think with regard to that ground it will not include, of course, the agricultural ground of farm places that are ploughed up and sown and so forth, but it includes the land used in connexion with the house. That will probably be exactly what is necessary, because of that land attached to the house the proprietor of the land or the occupier of the land is, I think, intended to make any use which he thinks fit; it is for the enjoyment of the house. I apologize for not having put down an Amendment on this, but I thought that somebody else would.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Viscount had put down an Amendment on this point, I might have been
552
more prepared with my answer. This is one of those cases in which, broadly speaking, we all know what we mean, but none of us can quite define it. For instance, we cannot all define a pretty girl, but we all know her when we see her, and nobody, apparently, can define "curtilage" although we know it when we see it. It covers the garden but not the paddock, but there may be cases of a small paddock where it would be included. Vague though the word is, I cannot think of anything better. If we were to use the words "used in connexion with a house," is not a home farm used in connexion with a house? But no one would say the home farm was part of the house. We must leave it to the Judges to provide us with a set of rules as to what is and what is not a curtilage.
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON moved, in proviso (f) in subsection (2), to leave out "specified in an order made by the Minister under this section." The noble Lord said: We are still dealing with these exemptions from control of development and hence from development charge. When your Lordships arrive at paragraph (f) you find that the Minister has complete control in making these lists of classes of buildings or other lands, and the wording of this paragraph is so vague that I have put down my Amendment to try to clarify it. Paragraph (f) refers to "an order made by the Minister under this section" and finishes up with the words "the use thereof for any other purpose of the same class." That, in my opinion, does not really clarify the sense of the paragraph unless we know what the classes are going to be. This places an enormous power in the hands of the Minister. He can put any building or land into one of these classes and then exempt it not only from development control, but also from development charge. It is clear that he might exempt various activities of Government Departments which should not be, of course, subject to development charge. It would be unreasonable for one Government Department to pay to the Treasury a sum for development. But these classes may consist of buildings used for religious purposes, educational purposes, or charitable purposes. I think that your Lordships should know what is in the mind of the Minister before this clause becomes part of the Bill as it stands. Therefore I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 29, leave out from ("class") to the second ("the") in line 30.—(Lord Hylton.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord does not, of course, clarify the matter by leaving out these words. He makes out that the only chance of getting this thing clarified is to get an order and the Minister would, in due course, I hope, clarify the matter. I am quite frankly not able at the present time to give him a list or category of what the classes would be. I will give him some indication of the sort of things that are being considered. The noble Lord will realize that they are only being considered, and may or may not materialize. I am told that those under consideration include light industrial buildings—that is to say, buildings in which no solid fuel is used in connexion with any industrial process, and in which the only power-driven machinery used is driven by electricity, no single motor being rated at more than ten horse-power; industrial buildings other than light or special; boarding houses, residential clubs, hostels, hotels, churches, chapels, meeting houses, Sunday schools, oratories, synagogues, and so on. Those are the sort of categories which are being considered. I have not yet got to the stage of being able to say how the categories will work out. That will probably give the noble Lord some idea of the sort of thing we have in mind.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do hope the Government will consider this matter a little further, and see if they cannot define it more closely, because I think this is the widest drawn provision I have ever seen. Your Lordships were reminded the other day of the company that was formed in the days of the South Sea Bubble "for a purpose which will hereafter be revealed." It seems to me to be a little bit like this subsection. Even what was said by the noble and learned Viscount did not make it very much clearer. For instance, he mentioned a synagogue. For what "other purpose of the same class" could a synagogue be used? It seems to me that there is a great deal of confusion about this subsection. We must expect that the Minister will use his judgment wisely in a matter of this kind, but does it mean that Parliament is giving
554
to the Minister immense powers to exempt any class he likes from the provisions of this Bill? Personally, I would rather have seen the subsection left out altogether. I think it is altogether too wide for the purposes of legislation to be passed through Parliament. But I recognize that paragraphs (a) (b) (c) (d) and (e) may be regarded as not entirely comprehensive. I have no doubt it is for that reason that this sort of omnibus paragraph has been put in at the end. There may be no remedy for it, but I am sure the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, will agree that to give the Minister—not this Minister especially, but any Minister—powers as wide as that in regard to planning does open the door rather more extensively than is usual.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would, of course, agree with that. I do not like this subsection at all. On the other hand, the noble Marquess will remember that this is a clause giving the Minister power to exempt and not to bring in. Therefore, those who are frightened of this development, and ordinary restrictions on it, the charges that flow from it, and that sort of thing, ought rather to welcome the fact that the Minister has a very wide power. So far as the Treasury are concerned, they would certainly be delighted to see the subsection out altogether, because then everybody would have to pay development charges on all these things. So far as the Minister is concerned, if it were taken out it would make his hold stronger. I would suggest to noble Lords that they would be wise, even in their own interests, to give us considerable latitude here, bearing in mind that we are not bringing things in by this subsection but taking them out. I will gladly have the matter looked into to see if anything can be done, because, on general principle I do not like a very wide subsection of this sort. However, I cannot make any definite promise.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I rise only to say that I was rather appalled at the list of exemptions the noble and learned Viscount was proposing. Speaking from the point of view of a planning authority, I hope that what are usually known as "tin tabernacles" are not going to be entirely exempted, because I think some of the things he has mentioned are those which have created the greatest blots on amenities in my recollection.
THE EARL OF CRAVEN: I would like to support what has been said by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. The noble and learned Viscount mentioned synagogues, but at the same time he left out the buildings of another denomination—the Roman Catholic monasteries and convents. I believe they also exist in the Anglican community.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I wish only to say that I think the subsection is much better in than out, though it may very well be that some suggestion can be made at a later stage to limit the meaning of the last line somewhat.
LORD HYLTON: I thank the noble and learned Viscount for the explanation which he so kindly gave me. I should like to say that I am not one of those who are afraid of planning powers; in fact, I represent a planning authority. Therefore, I do not think I can agree with his remarks that noble Lords on this side of the House would be glad to see these exemptions made. Speaking for a planning authority, I would say that this is a planning Bill. We do not want this immense amount of legislation to result in a non-planning Bill, or a de-planning Bill. As the noble and learned Viscount knows, the country is littered with de-planning Bills, and planning Bills that do not work. Our object, surely, must be to turn this into a planning Bill that will work, and not just some sheets of paper.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting. He will, of course, have observed—perhaps I ought to have pointed it out—that this clause is dealing with the question of user. It is not a question of "tin tabernacles," or anything of that sort, but of how you use the thing. If there is a building, it remains exactly the same, but you put it to a new use. This is saying that there may be uses in the same class, so that if you use your synagogue for a monastery, or your monastery for a synagogue, that will not matter, assuming that they are in the same class.
LORD HYLTON: That, I am sure, is a very clear explanation. I would, however, point out that this Bill, if it is to be any use, must be a Planning Bill. We do not want this Bill to be full of exceptions. If the Minister is to have this vast power, I hope that it will not be
556
used too widely. With the assurance and the list that the noble and learned Viscount has kindly given me in a very rapid manner, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) to leave out "involves" and insert "does not involve." The noble Viscount said: I feel there is some difficulty about a discussion on this Clause 11, in that it relates purely to planning. Under the Interpretation Clause, Clause 114, your Lordships will appreciate that "land" in the Bill includes buildings, and all land in regard to which planning permission is necessary automatically carries a development charge. The purpose of my Amendment is to remove, both from the necessity of obtaining planning permission and from the onus of a development charge, the alteration of one house into two, or, for that matter, the alteration of a house into flats. It may be argued—and I think it may be argued with some force—that alteration of this kind should be subject to planning permission.
But I am most anxious that there should be no restriction in any way on the production of homes. The mere fact that permission has to be sought, plans have to be drawn up, and extra time and trouble have to be taken, may be a cogent deterrent to any one who is planning, or proposing to alter a large house into two, or to provide several homes by making it into a number of flats. I do not think your Lordships will require me to say anything about the gravity of the housing position. There is no need for me to produce any figures to tell your Lordships how short we are of houses, and even the Minister himself in another place has admitted that the ever-receding target seems ever less and less likely to be reached. Anything in this Bill which tends to restrict the provision of homes, in a sense tends to stultify the Bill itself. I do not know whether I can in any way appeal to the noble and learned Viscount to make a concession in this regard. I know that my noble friend, Lord Llewellin, has an Amendment to Clause 66 in which he seeks to provide that the alteration of a house in the manner I described shall not attract a development charge, but your Lordships would appreciate that even if I withdrew my Amendment the alteration

557
would still be subject to planning control. If I did withdraw my Amendment, I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount would be able to give me an indication that he is favourably inclined to the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Llewellin which is very much the same thing. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 36, leave out ("involves") and insert ("does not involve").—(Viscount Buckmaster.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My noble friend who has moved this Amendment has referred to one which I have later on the Paper—namely, the Amendment to Clause 66 (page 75, line 5). There are three things which one might do. One is to make all these conversions subject to planning control and subject to development charge. That is what the Bill as at present drafted does. The second thing that one could do is to take them right out of attracting either planning control or development charge. Thirdly, one could take the intermediary course of making them still subject to planning control, and yet not subject to a development charge. The Bill as it stands takes the first course; my noble friend's Amendment takes the second course, and my Amendment seeks to take the third course.
For myself, I think there is quite a lot to be said for keeping conversions subject to planning control, but I believe that at a time like this, when we want more and more houses and want to encourage people to divide larger houses into two or more separate dwellings so that more people may live in them, you should put nothing in the way of such conversions. If you add to the cost of the actual conversion, liability to an unknown amount for development charge, in my view you are hampering people at the very start from taking steps which would, if taken, provide more housing accommodation in this country. I hope the Government will be able to see their way either to accept the Amendment just proposed or to accept the Amendment which is down in my name to Clause 66—and I think mine is rather the better. It would help us very much if some indication of the Government's line on Clause 66 could be given.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If your Lordships have to-day's Marshalled List of Amendments and will turn to page 51
558
you will see that I am proposing an Amendment to the Third Schedule on page 131, line 15, to insert these words:

PART I.
Development included in existing use for purposes other than compensation under S. 19."
That is to say, inter alia development, for which you do not have to pay a development charge. Then your Lordships will see the Amendment at the bottom of page 51 of the Marshalled List where I am putting in a list of things for which a development charge does not have to be paid. It reads:
"The use as two or more separate dwellinghouses of any building which on the appointed day was used as a single dwellinghouse."
My intention is that when we come to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, either in this form or in his form—we can look at it then—to accept the course he suggested—namely, to say that this matter must be and shall remain subject to planning control but that it is not a case in which we need exact a development charge. I hope that will meet the noble Viscount's intention and that he will be able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: Before the noble Viscount withdraws his Amendment, I would like to say a few words in the hope of persuading the noble and learned Viscount to consider this Amendment a little more fully. I want to remind your Lordships of what takes place, and what your Lordships as well as myself must have seen very often—namely, the gradual change in the character of a district.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: With great respect to the noble Lord, if I want to withdraw my Amendment why do we have to consider it more fully?
LORD SALTOUN: Because I do not want the noble Viscount to withdraw his Amendment. I have a reason, and it is this. When a district changes its character a series of things happen. First of all, people take in lodgers and then they let a floor in a. house. Both those things are very uncomfortable, and much the more efficient and much the better way is to have some steps at the back and a

559
passage through, with a separate door at the front, thereby making two flats. It would be a great discomfort for the people of the district if any effort was made to maintain a district at a higher level than that at which it could be economically maintained. It is much more comfortable for families to live in dwellings which are separated into flats than in the uncomfortable way in which lodgers live. For that reason I should be glad if the Government would consider this matter again and perhaps accept the noble Viscount's Amendment, or put something in at a later stage.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I am sorry to go back upon my noble friend but I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment. I fully accept that there is a strong and powerful case to be made out for making alterations of houses subject to planning control. The appearance of an area can be spoilt and destroyed by a reckless alteration of houses. Therefore, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his concession.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved, in subsection (3) (b), after "area" to insert "or the height." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is an attempt to ensure that the height of tips will be controlled. I think this is particularly important where low lying land is being built up, and it should be clear that the height is included. While I am on that point, might I just get it perfectly clear from the noble and learned Viscount that an additional load of refuse deposited by a local authority in a recognized tip will not be regarded as requiring planning control and as extending the area. That would obviously make the control of tipping impossible. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 41, after ("area") insert ("or the height".)—(Lord Addington.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I start off by accepting this Amendment, and secondly, by saying that I am quite sure that every heap of refuse which you deposit will not in itself be a subject matter requiring planning control.
LORD ADDINGTON: That is adequately covered by the Bill as at present worded, but it could be taken as extending the area.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: What would be the effect of that? It would say that the height must not be exceeded, and it would mean that tipping must not be carried on. Would there not have to be a specific height for each particular tip over a certain area? Otherwise it would be very difficult for any tipping to be carried on.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think height makes any more difference than length and breadth. I will see that the words are in the Bill. It would be ridiculous if you had to get consent for each alteration of the height.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved at the end of subsection (3) to insert:
"(c) where permission in respect of the development of land has been granted subject to a condition limiting the occupation of a dwelling house to persons employed or engaged locally in all or any of the following pursuits, namely, agriculture, horticulture, pisciculture and forestry, the use of such dwelling house (whether or not there has been a change in the occupation thereof) as the dwelling house of a person not normally employed or engaged as aforesaid involves a material change in the use of such dwelling house."
The noble Lord said: I have some reason to think that I shall be told that the Bill already covers the object I have in view. Therefore it will not be necessary to inflict on your Lordships the somewhat lengthly remarks I was proposing to make.
Under the 1932 Act it was quite a common thing for an applicant to ask for planning consent for some agricultural purpose. Under the model clauses of the 1932 Act local planning authorities frequently gave such consent subject to the condition that the land would really be used for agricultural purposes; so that if a man, having received permission to build a house for agricultural purposes, sold it to a gentleman in the City, or, if he sold the land himself, and himself occupied the house as a City gentleman, we had residuary powers of proceeding against him for contravening the scheme. I have been advised that under this Bill as drafted the local authority would lose that power. If that were so the results would be serious, because if there were no power to prevent a man evading the conditions to which he had agreed, it would be extremely difficult to prevent ribbon development occurring without, at the

561
same time, unduly restricting the legitimate interests of agriculture. If the noble and learned Viscount can assure me that local planning authorities can continue legally to attach such a condition to the consent, and to enforce it, I shall be perfectly satisfied. A good deal of importance attaches to this matter, and some doubt has been expressed as to the intention of the Bill. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will give me a full reply.
LORD HYLTON: When the noble and learned Viscount replies, I hope he will be able to tell us whether the condition made by the local planning officer on the use or proposed use of the land will run with the land, and not with the individual who makes the application. It is an important point. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, will agree, that if the condition only runs with the individual, then on sale the condition lapses. That is what local planning authorities are so anxious to avoid: that they make a condition with a prospective builder for the use of land for a specific purpose and then the owner, having built his house, sells, and the condition ceases because it does not run with the land. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount when he answers Lord Gage will tell us quite specifically that the powers in the Bill will run with the land and not with the individual. Unless they do we shall be in no better position than we are at the present time.
LORD HENDERSON: I think I can give a satisfactory assurance to both noble Lords. The Amendment deals only with the case of an agricultural dwelling erected after the appointed day, in accordance with planning permission, in cases where the planning permission is given subject to conditions governing its occupation. These conditions may properly be imposed by virtue of Clause 17 (3), under which a planning permission may specify the purposes for which a building may be used, and any breach of the conditions is a contravention of planning control, and enforcement action may be taken under Clause 22. I think the noble Lord will realize that I have been talking of the conditions affecting buildings. Permission runs with the land as also do the conditions.
LORD HYLTON: It is not affected by a sale?
LORD HENDERSON: I think I made it perfectly clear that the conditions attach to the cottage, and a breach of the conditions constitutes a contravention of the permission, involving enforcement action, to which I have referred.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is under Clause 17 (4).
VISCOUNT GAGE: I am very satisfied with the noble Lord's reply. I am sure it will be read with interest by local authorities generally and that on that assurance they will continue to give consents as they have done in the past. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment consequential on an Amendment made to Clause 30 (1) in another place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 43, leave out ("Subject") and insert: ("Without prejudice").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.49. p.m.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved, after subsection (4), to insert:
"(5) The use of land as a site for movable dwellings, where such use is for more than 14 consecutive days or more than 21 days in any 12 consecutive months, shall be treated for the purposes of this section as involving a material change in the use of that land."
The noble Lord said: This raises rather a wide question regarding sites for camps and movable dwellings. It is one which gave very considerable difficulty to local authorities over a very long period. It was the subject of a special paper moved at the annual conference of the Sanitary Inspectors' Association held at Bournemouth last month. They urged very strongly that the use of sites for movable dwellings should be brought forthwith under planning control, and that in the schemes that planning authorities are going to make there should be shown models suitable for the permitting of camping sites.
Again, there has been a special inquiry by the clerks of a very large area of joint planning associations in South Lancashire and North Cheshire. I think that covered no fewer than 104 local authorities. It further points to the difficulty of the matter, and suggests

563
that in future years camping, and therefore the regulation of camping sites or movable dwellings, will become an increasing problem. It is suggested, first of all, that it will be necessary to prohibit completely camping on sites of special interest and beauty, which I think is a very necessary feature; and then that all the land that is available should have proper facilities. Therefore, the planning sub-committee of the County Councils' Association confirmed that the selection of sites for camping is pre-eminently a subject for determination by the planning authority, and that the present Bill does provide immediate opportunity for securing the greater control that is desired. It is a matter that I think is still very widely under discussion with the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. More conferences are going to be held, regarding caravan clubs and other organized bodies. to deal with camping. Therefore, again, I would submit that this is a planning matter.
It is a matter that, of course, did come up under the Public Health Act of 1936, and it is largely because those regulations drawn up at that time have not been adequate that a great deal of further attention has been drawn to the matter, and I think it is a question of consideration whether anything possible could be done with the extension of powers under that Act. I happen to have been concerned with the Committee who drew up that Act, and I would point out that that Act was entirely a consolidation, so that we were unable at that time to introduce such regulations regarding both camping sites and removable dwellings as we felt were necessary and advisable in the best interests of the country as a whole.
Amendments to measures like the Public Health Act would probably take a very long time in coming, even if adequate and suitable Amendments could be drafted. We feel—and certainly I have tried to show that a very wide body of local authorities feel—that we should take the opportunity in this Planning Bill for making both camping sites and removable dwellings as such under planning control. To plan the country properly the planning authority must be able to say where the camps are to be, and in what places removable dwellings are allowed, and in what places they are not allowed. I do
564
not think there is any risk that a planning authority would not give adequate facilities for camping and for putting up removable dwellings where they should be. It is a matter which should be subject to planning control. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 48, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Addington.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I look rather with apprehension at my noble friend's Amendment. If one comes to work it out, it means that one cannot put up a tent on one's land for children staying in the house to play in without getting planning permission, and having some material change in the situation, at any rate, if one does it for more than fourteen days. At my home there are certainly two of our fields which are continuously used throughout the summer months. I saw some Girl Guide campers on one yesterday. The fields will be practically continuously used for camping purposes—we do not make any charge, incidentally—but if we are really going to have to get permission from the planning authority and to be liable for a material change, for a development charge, on lending a bit of land for Scouts or Cadets, or Girl Guides, or whatever else it may be, I think that is carrying the planning too far. If there are cases where a field is kept permanently for a whole succession of caravans that are there all the year round, and are let out like a kind of holiday camp, I believe the local authority can well deal with them under its ordinary public health powers without these wide powers, which I am sure would prevent you putting up a tent on your own land, if you kept it up for more than fourteen days, for your children to play with. Therefore I do hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment, and will leave it to the ordinary public health provisions to deal with cases where there are camps with caravans and things continuously on them. These are the camp sites out of which a profit is made, and which might well have to be planned and to have proper drainage put in. This Amendment is far too wide.
LORD STRABOLGI: There is also the case, not to be overlooked, of the travelling showmen who have to live in caravans so as to be near their fair ground and its valuable equipment. They may be much hampered by this proposed Amendment.

565
And there is the case of the caravanners, as well. I tremble to think what will be the reaction of the people who have such holidays as that if such a clause is added to the Bill. I hope it will be resisted.
LORD HAMPTON: I do hope that the Government will look with great care upon this Amendment. I agree with my noble friend Lord Addington that there is, and always has been, a very strong case for a measure of control, and fairly strict control, where you have large areas of land, or comparatively large areas of land, near centres of population let out very often at a very high charge for caravans and such like, with very little in the way of drainage, washing facilities, and so forth, and which do. or can, cause a great deal of nuisance and upset the amenities of the district. At the same time, as Lord Llewellin pointed out, there are these Scout and Guide Camps, in which I am particularly interested, and now this Bill has become public property there is some concern among many people, and especially farmers, who in the past have been used to allowing these young people to come and camp on their land, at no charge, although very often there is a fair exchange in the way of work during the harvest time, which is all to be encouraged. They have even in some cases not only allowed them to pitch a tent, but they have put up perhaps a small hut in which they can keep their gear, so as to be able to come there at week-ends without having to carry it. I have an Amendment down on Clause 83, but this comes rather more into Lord Addington's Amendment. I do hope that more care will be taken to divide up these two categories of people, those where strict control is badly wanted and those where I think there should be the minimum of control, if any control at all.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Surely, this problem is purely a sanitary problem. We who live in the country know perfectly well that in certain cases a good crop of caravans means a good preparation for a very good wheat crop, if that is the crop you want. Surely, this is a sanitary problem, not a planning problem.
LORD HENDERSON: I am bound to resist the Amendment, and I think that 90 per cent, of the case that I might have had to make has been made for me by the noble Lords who have followed the
566
noble Lord, Lord Addington. I will not go over the ground again; I will just deal with the matter in a brief sentence on its planning side. If a new site is used for regular intensive camping the Minister is advised that this will involve a material change of use, and will therefore constitute developments under the Bill as drawn, without any express provision. It follows that the permission of the local planning authority would be required, and that if a new site is used in this way without permission the authority can serve an enforcement notice under Clause 32 requiring the use to stop. The continued use can be restricted or prohibited under Clause 24, which enables the local planning authority to make an order stopping the use, or imposing conditions on its continuance. It is felt that these provisions give as much control over camping as is necessary. I hope that, in the light of the facts to which I have referred and of the comments made by noble Lords who have previously spoken, the noble Lord. Lord Addington, will not press his Amendment but will feel able to withdraw it.
LORD ADDINGTON: I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer at this stage, but I was much interested in what the noble Lord said about the possibility of planning control of new sites. It has struck me that perhaps I might be able to look up the reference again. It is a matter on which, perhaps, authorities concerned might look for a little more guidance. I will not say more now as I know your Lordships wish to adjourn, but perhaps I may be able to refer to this at some later stage in a modified form. At the moment I will not press the Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[The sitting was suspended at seven o'clock and resumed at half past eight.]
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved at the end of paragraph (c), subsection (5) to insert "if that purpose had been permitted by the local planning auhority." The noble Lord said: Paragraph (c) of subsection (5) of Clause 11 provides that development will not be required "in the case of land which on the appointed day is unoccupied, in respect of the use of the land for the purpose for which it was last used." There can be no objection to that, if the last use was one which

567
had the approval of the planning authority; but it is quite possible, particularly where land has been out of regular use for some time, that there might be occasions when it was not so approved, and even to restore it to its former use would conflict with good planning. The Amendment is designed to prevent the resumption of the use of land under this paragraph for purposes for which the local authorty have not given approval. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 16, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Addington.)
LORD HENDERSON: The Amendment gives quite an appropriate test where planning control was in operation, but, as the noble Lord will realize, the clause recognizes past use back to 1937, and over much of the country there was no planning control until 1943. In such cases past use was one which the owner was entitled to make of his land and it is not thought right to deprive him of it now without compensation. The point of principle is now covered, however, by the Government Amendment which is next on the List, and in these circumstances the noble Lord might not wish to press his Amendment.
LORD ADDINGTON: As this point seems to be covered, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved in subparagraph (i) of the proviso, after "used" to insert "and in determining for the purposes of paragraph (c) of this subsection the purposes for which land was last used." The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment which corrects a drafting flaw in Clause 11 and is designed to avoid giving an owner a statutory right to resume without permission a past use that was started in contravention of planning control.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 20, after ("used") insert the said words.—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
Development orders.
12.—(1) The Minister shall by order provide for the grant of permission for the development
568
of land under this Part of this Act, and such permission may be granted—

(a) in the case of any development specified in any such order, or in the case of development of any class so specified, by that order itself;

(5) Every development order shall be laid before Parliament immediately after it is made, and if either House within the period of forty 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:
Provided that, without prejudice to the foregoing provision, where any such order makes provision for excluding or modifying any enactment contained in a public general Act (other than any of the excepted enactments specified in the Second Schedule to this Act) the order shall be of no effect until that provision is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved at the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) to insert:
"(b) in any county or part of a county in respect of which a development plan has for the time being not been made and approved under the foregoing provisions of this Act by the authority who if this Act had not been passed would have been the Interim Development Authority."
The noble Lord said: The next two Amendments hang together and are the first I have which deal with administration. They are intended to deal with the position which would arise immediately after the passing of this Bill. It is sometimes difficult to follow which parts of the Bill come into force at which time, but I understand that in regard to these interim development controls the principal authority—that is to say, each individual district council—will be in complete control of applications to develop, certainly between now and the appointed day, and even perhaps a little later, until arrangements for delegation and the new administration have been actually made. The point about which I was a little anxious was this. If the appointed day is likely to be some months ahead, the local authority wanting to develop its own area in its own way may do some development which would conflict with the wider aspects of planning now being taken out of their hands and into those of a wider authority. The last words in my second Amendment are put in to provide some overriding control and consultation immediately the Bill is passed, or as soon as can be arranged, by local authorities. The

569
Amendment is put down partly to elicit information and to see whether the Government think that this is a point which should be provided for in any way in this clause. If so we may consult about the verdict a little later. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 33, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Addington.)
LORD HENDERSON: I am unable to accept this Amendment, but I think the explanation I shall give will be acceptable to the noble Lord. The control of development in the pre-plan period must be related to the proposals being formulated by the county council and cannot reasonably be left to another authority. Consultation is not enough unless the further step is taken of binding the district council to take instructions from the county council, which may prove to be a very different thing from merely abiding by general direction. It is, however, the intention that the day-to-day control of private development should be, as far as is possible and desirable, in the hands of the district councils, and it is proposed to effect this by regulations to be made under Clause 32, which provides for the delegation of functions to the councils of county districts. The degree of devolution may further vary in different areas and in different stages of the planning process, and it will be possible to provide for this in the regulations, whereas the Amendment allows of no such provision. Furthermore, the related Amendment would place upon the district council an obligation to consult the local planning authority in the case of every application for permission to develop, and there may be many cases where it would be unnecessary. It is considered that the matter could be more suitably dealt with in regulations under Clause 32, under which there will be full consultation with the Local Authority Associations.
LORD ADDINGTON: I am much obliged for the noble Lord's reply, but I would point out that I included general directions, and therefore did not particularly provide for individual consultation. But there should be a general scheme under which certain acts could be reserved and certain matters left to day-to-day control. I understand, however, that these regulations are likely to be made at some early date; I am not certain
570
how long it would be before a regulation could be drawn up, but if we may take it that the regulations will be drawn up at an early stage, that covers the point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved in the proviso to subsection (5) to leave out "(other than any of the excepted enactments specified in the Second Schedule to this Act)." The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will see from the subsection that a development order may be made provided that—and I will now read the words of the proviso
"without prejudice to the foregoing provision, where any such order makes provision for excluding or modifying any enactment contained in a public general Act"—
then I seek to leave out the words
"(other than any of the excepted enactments specified in the Second Schedule to this Act)''—
Then it continues—
"the order shall be of no effect until that provision is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
This practice of modifying Acts of Parliament by ministerial order is, in my view, a wrong one. What the clause does, except for the exceptions, is to say that any modification of an Act of Parliament which has been solemnly passed by both Houses shall be approved by the resolution of each House of Parliament. But then, for some reason best known to the Government, a certain number of Statutes are excluded from that extremely good principle.
Those that are excluded are set out in the Second Schedule. They are, first, The Public Health (Buildings in Streets) Act, 1888. That Act provides that buildings must not project beyond the line of the adjoining buildings of any urban district. I should have thought that that was quite a sound provision. The second excepted enactment is Sections 30 to 34 of the Public Health Act, which contained various provisions including one as to declaring a street to be a new street, the prescription of the width of the street for main thoroughfares, and matters of that sort. The next excepted enactment is Section 5 of the Roads Improvement Act, 1925, which provides for the prescription of building lines, which is also something for which there is very properly power to prescribe. When we come to

571
Section 107 of the Public Health Act, 1936, that contains restrictions on the establishment of offensive trades in urban areas. What Parliament will be doing, if it passes this Second Schedule and these words, will be giving a Minister power, without any reference to Parliament, to get rid of some very beneficial provisions in earlier Acts of Parliament. For myself, I am against the modifying of Acts by ministerial order without any reference to either House of Parliament. I should like, at the least, some very convincing explanation of this proposal from some noble Lord on the Government Front Bench.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 35, leave out from ("Act") to the second ("the") in line 36.—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD HENDERSON: I hope to be able to give the noble Lord, if not a very convincing explanation, at least a convincing explanation. As the Bill stands, a development order which excludes the enactments set out in the Second Schedule is subject to negative Resolution only. The schedule specifies four enactments in Public General Acts, all of which deal with matters fully covered by planning control under the Bill. As the noble Lord has said, these are principally building lines, and what are termed "offensive trades," which I believe have some connexion with smells, and that sort of thing—
LORD LLEWELLIN: Fried fish and chip shops.
LORD HENDERSON: —all of which it is the practice to suspend in planning schemes under existing law. It also provides for excluding without affirmative Resolution any enactment which could have taken the form of a by-law, and so on, and any enactment which has been suspended before: that is, by an affirmative Resolution. Both the 1932 Act and the 1944 Act provide for suspending these enactments without affirmative Resolution, so that the Bill merely follows existing law. But a development order which excludes any other enactment in a Public General Act requires an affirmative Resolution. I hope the noble Lord regards that as a convincing explanation.
LORD LLEWELLIN: The only substantial part of it, I must say, with great
572
respect to the noble Lord, is that he has sheltered behind something that was done in previous Acts. No doubt, by implication, I was part author of one or two of those previous Acts, but I must say I never knew that this kind of provision was in them. Thinking so highly of the noble Lord who has answered for the Government, I should have thought that he could make a new start and get rid of this obnoxious principle. But as he has not, and as he is standing on good precedent, from which the present Government too often depart, I think it would be only a pleasant recognition of his standing on ancient precedent that I should withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Applications to local planning authorities for permission.
(3) Provision may be made by a development order for prescribing the classes of persons by whom, and the procedure by which, applications may be made to the local planning authority for permission to develop land, and for regulating the manner in which such applications are to be dealt with by that authority; and in particular provision may be made by any such order—

(a) for dispensing with separate applications for permission in the case of development of which plans and specifications are submitted under building byelaws, and in other similar cases;

(b) for enabling the Minister (or, in the case of development affecting trunk roads, the Minister of Transport) to give directions restricting the grant of permission by the local planning authority, during such period as may be specified in the directions, in respect of any such development, or in respect of development of any such class, as may be so specified;

(c) for authorising the local planning authority, in such cases and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the order, or by directions given by the Minister thereunder, to grant permission for development which does not accord with the provisions of the development plan;

(f) for requiring the local planning authority to furnish to the Minister, and to such other persons as may be prescribed by or under the order, such information as may be so prescribed with respect to applications for permission made to them, including information as to the manner in which any such application has been dealt with.

(4) Without prejudice to any provisions included in the development order by virtue of

573
the last foregoing subsection for restricting the grant of permission by local planning authorities, an application to the local planning authority for permission to develop land by the erection thereon of an industrial building of any class prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this subsection by the Board of Trade shall be of no effect unless it is certified by the Board that the development in question can be carried out consistently with the proper distribution of industry, and a copy of the certificate is furnished to the local planning authority together with the application.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (3), to leave out from "for," where that word first occurs, to the end of paragraph (a) and insert:
"regulating the manner in which applications for permission to develop land are to be dealt with by local planning authorities, and in particular."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is preparatory to the new clause I am moving later on, dealing with Applications for planning permission, determination of development charges, etc., which I am seeking to have inserted at page 111, after Clause 99. The object is to try to simplify the position of the man who is asking for planning permission, by-law permission and determination of development charge, to have his applications combined into a single document and thus avoid a multiplicity of applications. I think that is a case which your Lordships have very much at heart, and this is a mere preliminary to that. When we come to that proposal, which arises at page 111 of the Bill, no doubt the matter will be debated. This is, as I say, merely preliminary to that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 36 and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I quite appreciate the purport of the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment, which is, so to speak, consequential on a much later Amendment, but in the process of moving this short Amendment he slaughters my little innocent on the next page. I should therefore like an assurance from him on one point, because the Amendment which stands in my name has a certain importance. The intention of that Amendment is to ensure that nobody who has no proper right to do so can approach a planning authority and get permission to
574
develop a particular area of land. At the time he asks for that permission he may have no proper rights in that land and may be acting without the knowledge of the proper owner of the land. If this were to happen the real owner might be confronted subsequently by a fait accompli when somebody else, under Clause 42, had been given permission to develop land in a particular way. The effect of this Amendment is to try and make one more certainty that there shall be no underhand business in this. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount can assure me that that particular eventuality will be covered by his Amendment which comes later on, with which I am not fully conversant.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think it will be. May I say that in 99 cases out of 100 the noble Earl's Amendment would be quite satisfactory but there would be the rare case in which his Amendment would not be satisfactory? There may be cases in which the Central Land Board want to acquire land in order to dispose of it to a developer who desires to develop it in accordance with the plan but who cannot persuade the owner to sell it. In those cases it is right that the Central Land Board should be able to acquire the land, although neither the man who desires to develop it nor the Board will at that particular moment have any interest in the land. The second reason why it is unsatisfactory is this. There will be cases in which the Central Land Board desire to purchase land and having applied for and obtained planning permission, the Central Land Board could then sell it free of development charge. They desire to do this, using that as a kind of prototype, in order that they can test the market from time to time, to see how the market is going. They think it is essential that they should have that power. Except in those rather bizarre and exceptional cases, the desire which the noble Lord has at heart will, I think, be properly safeguarded, and the last thing we wish to do is to give any encouragement to the land speculator, for whom we have no affection at all. Therefore, I think the noble Earl can rest fairly happily about this position.
VISCOUNT GAGE: In regard to the first case the noble and learned Viscount mentioned, where the Central Land Board are to buy in order to redispose to some other person, he will no doubt recollect that

575
under Clause 67 the local planning authority have to give advice to the Central Land Board as to whether the applicant is able and willing to carry out a proposal for development. I cannot quite see how they can give that advice until they are in a position to find out for themselves. I hope that in this case the point might be looked into in any further Amendment which the noble Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, moves.
LORD LLEWELLIN: The second class of case to which the noble and learned Viscount referred deals with the Central Land Board. The Board must themselves be in possession of land before they set out to test the market in regard to it. That surely visualizes a case where they have already purchased the land and to test the market want to sell it again—which is surely not applicable to the Amendment which my noble friend moved. I should have thought, whether these are the exact words or not, that even if the man has no interest in the land, it would be necessary to give some kind of notice to the owner of the land that application had been made, so that he would have an opportunity of knowing and that things would not be done behind his back, which is the last thing any of us want to see. After all, in the clause which the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, moved, where the land is designated and the owner himself is ready to develop, he is to be given the opportunity of doing it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have great sympathy with that and I will gladly look into the point. I do not want any of these things to be done behind the man's back. They should all be done in the full light of day. But manifestly the inducement to a landowner to sell his land has largely gone, and that being so we must have this power in case the landowner, on the hypothesis that he has had his share of the £300,000,000, should simply demand an exorbitant price for his land. We must therefore reserve the right of the Central Land Board to purchase, in order that they may get over the problem of the recalcitrant landowner. I will gladly see if there is anything I can do to ensure that this particular light is not hidden under a bushel, and so that the landowner knows what is to be done.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am inclined to think that the Central Land Board, with all their vast compulsory powers, may be themselves an interested party in any piece of land that they may wish to acquire. What I am afraid of is that the Board, without the knowledge of the owner, might get hold of a piece of land and obtain permission to develop it, and consequently acquire it and do the thing the wrong way round. They obtain permission to develop and then the unfortunate owner is put in the position of having to dispose of it to be developed by somebody else, without his knowing anything about it. That is all I wanted to avoid by my Amendment. If the noble and learned Viscount will look at it between now and Report I will make no further objection to his Amendment, and I will not move mine.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (3) (a), at the end to insert:
"Provided that the Minister shall not require a local planning authority to undertake any duties for or on behalf of the Central Land Board in connection with any determination as to the liability for or the amount of, a development charge under Part VII Of this Act in respect of any development."
The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that the Minister shall not require a local planning authority to undertake the obligation of the Central Land Board for asessment of the development charge, or to measure up the licences of buildings that will have to be measured up in assessing development charges, or to keep registers for the Central Land Board. I very much hope it is the intention of the Government to keep the administration of the Central Land Board entirely separate from that of the local authorities. If that is so, I think there is some advantage in putting words to that effect into the Bill, because I think the public might be misled, by the wording of this subsection, into thinking that the local planning authorities can help them with the Central Land Board in regard to the assessment of their development charges. I should regard that prospect with a good deal of alarm, and I hope the Government will be able to make it quite clear that the local planning authority have no responsibility in this matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 36, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Gage.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Minister has not the slightest intention of making the local authorities undertake any duties of the Central Land Board. It would be most unfortunate if they did, but the difficulty is to put it into words. The noble Viscount has selected words saying that the planning authority shall not be asked to undertake any duties for or on behalf of the Central Land Board. I have some difficulty in accepting that for this reason. Whilst I agree with him entirely that they should not be asked to undertake the assessment of the development charge, yet they should be asked to furnish to the Central Land Board all the relevant information which they have. That might affect the assessment which the Central Land Board would make.
Amongst other things, for instance, it might be necessary for the local planning authorities to notify the Board of grants or refusals for development permission. The Board, of course, cannot make development charges until planning permission has been granted and a conditional planning permission may affect the amount of a development charge. Those might be said to be duties "in connexion with." I can, however, give the noble Viscount the assurance for which he asks: that it is not the intention that the local authority shall have any part in the fixation of the development charge, although it is the intention that they should give all factual information in their possession to the Central Land Board, in order that the Central Land Board may, in the light of that information, be able to fix the development charge. The only reason I am not accepting the Amendment is because the wording is so wide that it might be read to mean that the local authority may not give factual information to the Central Land Board. I hope, with that assurance, that the noble Viscount will not think it necessary to press the Amendment.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I should be perfectly satisfied and grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his assurance, if he meant that the local planning authorities were only to be asked to furnish information which is in their possession already. I am hoping that they
578
will not have to go out and secure information. It may create expense to themselves.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I agree.
VISCOUNT GAGE: With that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.0 p.m.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved, in subsection (3) (b) after "Minister of Transport," to insert "after consultation with the local planning authority." The noble Lord said: This affects the Minister of Transport. In order that local authorities should be able to exercise their duties adequately, I suggest that they should be consulted before the Minister of Transport gives his directions, otherwise the whole development plan of an authority might be held up. They should be treated as responsible persons whose views should be taken into account, and not merely as the recipients from the Minister of directions which might affect their work as planning authorities. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 38, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Addington.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is very important, of course, that a local planning authority should not be regarded merely as a kind of body which has to receive orders, to receive the ukase of the Minister and see that it is carried out. That is not our intention at all. On the other hand, so far as the Minister of Transport is concerned the powers of this subsection are intended to give the Minister a degree of control over ribbon development and access to trunk roads broadly corresponding to what he at present possesses and exercises under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Acts, which, as noble Lords know, are to be repealed in this Bill. He will be able to require certain classes of application to be referred to him (in practice, it will be to the divisional road engineer) and, when they are so referred, to direct that certain of them are subject to conditions. Prior consultation as regards. general directions, would not, I think, be practicable, and as regards individual directions would not be appropriate. I can, however, give the noble Lord an assurance which I think will satisfy him, and

579
to obtain which he has probably brought forward this Amendment. There will be consultation with the local authorities before a new general order including provisions on this point is made. I can further give him this undertaking. Where any ministerial action affecting a particular local planning authority is contemplated—for instance if a direction were under consideration restricting the grant of permission in an area likely to be developed as a new town—it will be the general practice to consult the authorities affected beforehand, Wherever that may be possible. On that assurance, I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied and will withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: There is a point about this which I think gives rather more importance to the Amendment than may appear on the surface. There is no doubt at all, I think, that communications constitute the skeleton upon which development and planning must be built up. Unless there is an absolute assurance and a mandatory assurance that there is to be the closest connexion between the Ministry of Transport and the planning authority, you will be separating the skeleton from the flesh, which is not likely to produce satisfactory life in any plan.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I find this a little difficult to understand. One of our difficulties has been due to inconsistencies between orders made, in many cases with regard to ribbon restriction on trunk roads, and decisions made by county councils on other very similar roads. It has always seemed to me that there have been remarkable inconsistencies in that connexion and it was a great relief to me to learn that the Restriction of Ribbon Development Acts are to go. We had an inconsistency with regard to planning regulations. It was very confusing. As I understand it, the Trunk Roads Act gives the Minister power to define the lines of trunk roads. There can be an inquiry, and that will still operate. That being so, one would think that under a planning Bill the planning authority would know, by the decision already made by the Minister of Transport, where the trunk roads were to go, and would exercise their ordinary discretion in making the plan in relation to a new road, as they do in relation to roads that exist. I should think that existing regulations
580
would have regard to the general use of roads, whereas the ordinary day-to-day work of decisions or permission to develop should be left entirely to the local planning authority, who have the knowledge.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think you are right: that is just about what it is. There are some things not appropriate to be dealt with by local authorities and others which should be largely covered by local authorities. I do not think we want the words in the Bill and I consider the assurances given to the noble Lord will be sufficient.
LORD ADDINGTON: This is one of the matters which will be dealt with when local planning authorities and highway authorities are taken into full con-consultation and have their full share of all these planning applications. Therefore the point of view regarding ribbon development and access to roads will be considered. In view of the assurance given by the noble and learned Viscount, I will not press for the insertion of these particular words. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SAVILE LORD SAVILE moved in paragraph (c) of subsection (3), after "thereunder" to insert "including the payment of compensation in respect of any depreciation in land thereby occasioned." The noble Lord said: I think this Amendment is a very reasonable one. We know that one of the advantages of planning under this Bill is that it is possible to find out all about the type of development in any particular area and to maintain it. Take the case where the development plan has provided that a certain district should be residential, and a person comes along, acquires a piece of land, pays a development charge, and spends a good deal of money building a house on it. Under paragraph (c) power is given to the local authority through a development order to go and put down anything like a horrible sewage works or gas works right on the doorstep of this man's house, which may be a convalescent home. Not only is it extremely objectionable for him, but the considerable sum of money which he has invested on the inducement of the development plan is lost and the value of his property has gone down. The Government have been very sympathetic to

581
certain aspects of compensation in other places, and I hope the noble and learned Viscount will feel inclined to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 1, after ("thereunder") insert the said words.—(Lord Savile.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry to be difficult about this Amendment, but I do not feel I ought to assent to it. The landowner has no such right to-day. I am leaving out altogether the question of a right in regard to nuisance: that will survive after this Bill is passed. If someone starts an offensive works near a man's house, that man can to-day bring and will to-morrow be able to bring an action. Apart from that, however, if someone obstructs his view, he has no right to-day, and equally he should have no right after this Bill is passed, to take action. A man might have a beautiful vista from his house and by bad luck someone may come along to shut out his view. That has never allowed the right of action, and a man cannot be allowed compensation for it. We cannot give him that for the first time in this Bill. The Minister has authorized me to say that permission to depart from the development plan is obviously a permission which should be used very sparingly, because it is apt to upset things, and people who have entered into an arrangement, naturally enough, on the basis of the plan may be aggrieved if the plan is departed from.
Therefore, I can tell your Lordships that the Minister's proposal is that in such cases we ought to provide either for a local inquiry or for formal amendment of the plan under Clause 9 before a decision is taken; and then, of course, the man has the right to raise his objection. But it is conceivable that a local authority may refuse permission to develop in circumstances that might give rise to compensation under Clause 19 or the service of a purchase order under Clause 18. In such cases, the authorization to depart from the plan would not take away either the right to compensation or the right to have the land purchased at existing value.
That is the position and I am bound to point out that one of the principal objects of the Bill is to enable positive plans for development to take place without any local authority being hampered or obstructed by claims for compensation.
582
It is for this reason that we and the last Government propose to take development values out of private ownership and to compensate for them. Otherwise, as we all know, the local authorities are handicapped by reason of this matter of compensation. We must make our development plans flexible, and we must make them adaptable; and no human being can possibly see how things are going to develop. With the best will in the world, although you prepare a plan showing what you well believe to be the way the thing will develop, circumstances may completely falsify your beliefs and you may have to alter the plan. It would be lamentable if the local authority were prevented from such alteration by reason of the fact that if they did so they would have to pay large sums in compensation. We all want to get away from that but, as I have said, I feel there is the other side to be looked at, and the Minister authorizes me to say that the machinery for the alteration of a plan should be very sparingly used; and where it is used it should, in the normal event, be subject to some sort of formal proceedings such as I have indicated, so that all objections may be heard and dealt with. I hope the noble Lord will not now think it necessary to press his Amendment.
LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: I have listened with great interest to the remarks which have flowed from the noble Lord, Lord Savile, and from the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. There seems to me, as in all planning, naturally a certain conflict of interest, but I have noticed creeping into these debates from the Government Benches what I call the ominous words "flexibility" and "fluidity" It really comes down to the fact that the Minister can alter his plan as often as he likes in his detailed planning but the individual always has to conform. I should have thought that the object of planning—in fact I have always been led to understand it—is that it presupposes on the part of the planning authority a certain power of foreseeing the future, because the merits of planning must be that the planning authority, the Government or the local authority, say: "This is what shall be done" and then individuals can conform to it and make their own private plans.
Of course, there must be some flexibility but if we keep on talking about

583
flexibility it really means that we can take assurances from the Government instead of writing it into the Bill; it means that individuals cannot plan. With respect, I disagree with the noble and learned Viscount. He says that in the past the local authorities and the planning authorities have had to compensate individuals in order to make a development plan, but now that requirement is wiped out. We are now told that we are to have a new era, and comprehensive planning. If that is so, surely it must be fair that the individual, if he acts on that comprehensive plan, should have a reasonable assurance that the plan will be carried out. Let me go back, if I may, to subsection (2) of Clause 6—I hope I shall be in order in doing so—where it lays down that the planning authority can alter their plans within the quinquennial period, if required to do so by direction of the Minister. That really means that the local authority can make a pro forma plan—I do not say they will, but they can—and alter it at will; they have no sanction applied against them if they alter it, and the individual suffers as a result.
I think we ought to make this Bill in such a form that the onus is on the planning authority to make a good plan straight away, and not to rely on the flexibility and the fluidity about which we are always hearing. If the plan is soundly constructed, if it is the fruit of research and is made by wise people, then the alterations which have to be made will be small, and the compensation which would be payable under this Amendment moved by my noble friend would also be small. It is only if the planning authority is unwise and has to alter its plan that it becomes fluid and flexible—which, if I may say so, is a Ministerial way of saying: "We have changed our minds, and we have not taken into account all the factors"—and then I think some sort of sanction ought to be applied. In our view, on this side of the Committee, there must be some sort of accord between the planners and the plan. The planners cannot have it all their own way, and if they make mistakes they must pay for them, in the same way as individuals do. I hope the Government will not seek refuge in those two magic words—which, if I may say so, with "co-operation," form a sort of trilogy of theirs—and will give to the private citizen a certain status
584
in this planning, which they can give by allowing reasonable compensation if the plan is altered.
LORD LLEWELLIN: The noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, in replying said that there was no right at the present day; he said that there was no right to any compensation if somebody destroyed your view, or anything of that sort. But what we have to realize now is that we are embarking on something rather new; that is to say, the State, through the Central Land Board, is going to take from the developer, whether he be a large-scale developer or a man building his own house, a development charge. That development charge will be assessed by the Central Land Board. The development, whether it be the building of the man's own house or of an estate, will be carried out with the remaining development which is to be carried out around this plot in mind. He has the plan before him and, seeing that plan, he says: "Well, it may be that the Central Land Board have put the charge rather high, but, on the basis that it is going to be quite marketable land for houses of a certain type, I am prepared to pay that charge." He pays the development charge, whether he is the private individual or whether he is the estate developer, and builds his house or his houses. In the midst of that, although he has paid his development charge on the basis of the plan, permission is given to alter the plan and to erect—I will not call it a power station, or anything like that, but some obvious building, or to commence some development which obviously upsets the amenities of the place where the man has built his house, or where the developer already intends to build his houses.
That is the assumption that we are embarking upon here. Ought he not to be given something back? Ought he not, at any rate, to be refunded his development charge if he is a developer and has built three houses where he was going to build ten, and then has no sale for the other seven houses? In this case the money has been paid to the Central Land Board, who are getting more and more like the Chancellor of the Exchequer in disguise, and the Minister, who is in the same Government, gives this permission to alter it. Is the man to have no redress and still have to pay his full de-

585
velopment charge? If it is right that this Bill should be flexible, it is equally right that it should be fair, and that is not fair. Therefore, I ask the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, to look at this matter again.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I want to make only one point which arises more acutely on this Amendment than almost anywhere else in the Bill. Planning, as now envisaged, is good estate management: nothing more, nothing less. If an owner of an estate does something in an area where his tenants, or those to whom he has sold the land, were expecting that they would be left in quiet enjoyment, he must expect trouble, probably financial trouble. He may even be taken to law over his having let down—to put it in that way—those with whom he has had financial transactions over land in the neighbourhood. The noble and learned Viscount, in his reply to this argument, said that you cannot expect the Central Land Board to suffer financial loss if, owing to the flexibility of their plans, they have to alter them. But that is just what the ordinary landowner must expect if he changes his plans, and so causes those to whom he has either leased or sold land to suffer. That is just what we expect His Majesty's Government to accept. I do not expect His Majesty's Government to pay much attention to the minority reports of various important Commissions which have been set up, but there was a very important Minority Report of the Uthwatt Committee, signed by a very eminent man, in which he talked a great deal about "worsenment." He talked a great deal of sense about worsenment and he envisaged just this particular point. I hope that His Majesty's Government will, at the very least, give further consideration to this, because it is a very important point of justice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am perfectly prepared, if your Lordships ask me to, to look at the matter. I will certainly look at it, but on the other hand I am not prepared to hold out any hope that I shall be able to do anything, because I do not think I shall. I must never again say that a plan must be flexible, but I do hope the noble Lord will realize that however much care you take, unless you are gifted with the vision of Old Moore you cannot possibly see how
586
things will develop in half a dozen years' time. There must be an element—I dare not call it of flexibility—of movement of the ideal which you thought of six years ago. That is obvious; and it is also obvious that you must not treat this thing as completely liquid. That is why I said that the Minister does feel that these exceptions, these departures from the plan, ought to be few, ought to be very carefully looked at, and ought normally to be subject to formal Procedure, so that all objections may be heard. But I will gladly look into it between now and the Report stage, so long as it is plainly understood that I am not in any way committed to making any alteration but merely to consulting the Minister to see what his view is.
LORD SAVILE: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his assurance that he will look into the matter. I quite appreciate that power would be sparingly used in these cases. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved, after subsection (3) to insert:
"Provided that it shall not be necessary to furnish plans and drawings other than a site plan in any case where the proposed development is sufficiently described by the particulars delivered with the site plan."
The noble Lord said: This is one of a series of Amendments I have put down with regard to the making of a plan. The wording of this is taken from the General Interim Development Order, and is therefore not particularly new. But in view of the contents of the Bill, and in order not to hinder legitimate development in housing. it is important that a provision of this kind should be put in, so as to avoid a lot of undue expense by someone who wants to develop and to lay his proposition before the authorities.
In the case of large buildings, the preparation of detailed plans might run into £2,000 or £3,000. That is an expense which the owner should not be called upon to find, when the planning permission may not be given, or when, even after the permission has been given, he may find himself called upon to continue to contribute to an extent which will be unprofitable. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: By his Amendment the noble Lord is seeking to

587
ensure that an applicant should not be put to the expense of having detailed plans and drawings prepared in cases where those are unnecessary. That is already the normal practice under the present system and it has been so for many years past. It is made possible by a proviso to Article 10 of the General Interim Development Order made under the 1932 Act which reads as follows:
"Provided that it shall not be necessary to furnish plans and drawings, other than a site plan, in any case where the proposed development is sufficiently described by the particulars together with the site plan, or where the application is expressed to be an application for general permission conditional on the subsequent approval by the authority, or by the Minister on appeal, of the particulars of the proposed development."
We intend that a provision to secure the same result in regulations be made under the present Bill, and I can give the noble Lord an assurance to that effect. But the precise details need rather careful working out. I propose to produce the substance of what the noble Lord wants to follow very closely the Order made under the 1932 Act. We ought to have a similar Order made under the 1947 Act, and I want to lock very carefully at the words of the Order.
LORD ADDINGTON: I am very grateful for the noble and learned Viscount's assurance, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved to leave out subsection (4) and insert:
"(4) Before giving permission to develop land by the erection thereon of any industrial building covering over 3,000 square feet of ground, or if an extension above the same limits to any existing industrial building, the local planning authority shall consult the Board of Trade."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment proposes to remove the absolute power of decision from the Board of Trade in the case of industrial buildings and extensions. It does, however, leave an obligation on the local authority to consult them. In addition it imposes a lower limit both for new buildings and extensions below which it will not be necessary to consult the Board of Trade. I see that there are a number of other Amendments on the Order Paper on the same subject, but possibly I should move mine now.
This Amendment results from the fact that at the present time the Board of Trade are in a position to exercise such a veto, and are doing so. That, of course, is done through the control of building licences, and in many cases it is done without proper consultation with the planning authorities. It has often been argued, and as a member of a local authority I myself think, that there is far too much power in the hands of the different Government Departments to proceed with their own plans without consultation or agreement with planning authorities. That, of course, is a little different from the case here, because in many instances it is a question not of the Board of Trade building their own factories, but of the plans of people in industry who want to build factories themselves. At the present time the Board of Trade are building a large number of factories, and in this they have the powers which other Government Departments have of building in their own way, without planning permission, on their own land. So that at the present time on the question of control as between the Board of Trade and other Government Departments and the local planning authorities, it is very clear that the local authority has practically no say in the matter.
That being so, I think one should consider what are the results of this procedure which has been operating, effectively since the end of the war. I have a good deal of experience of the way in which it works, and my firm impression, from what I have seen of it, is that it is not at all satisfactory. Again I would refer to the work which has been done under the Distribution of Industry Act. I quote that because it is the operative part of the Board of Trade policy, but of course it will apply to the whole country when conditions are appropriate. There is a very right policy—to which I subscribe as much as anyone—of trying to bring industry into the development areas. That is a subject which is familiar to your Lordships, and I do not require to go into it now. It shows the way that the control of the Board of Trade is being used.
As to the knowledge and experience that the Board of Trade have, as against that of the local planning authority, in deciding such matters, I think it is quite right to say that the actual decision as

589
to where any industry should go, and where building should be permitted for industrial purposes, is based almost entirely on a forecast of the working population so many years ahead, the number of people who are likely to be available for employment, and the amount of employment likely to be available for them. Those matters come entirely within the function of the Ministry of Labour, but it is said that the Board of Trade should have the deciding voice in the matter on account of their overriding knowledge of, and interest in, the industry of the country as a whole. I can assure your Lordships, however, that that is not in fact applied At all generally to decisions of this sort—at least, it is not in our experience.
As I have said, the criterion is the probable labour position a short time ahead, which is one of the important things. There seems to be no justification for saying that the Board of Trade should have the overriding decision in the matter. I would have liked to put down that it should be the Minister of Labour who should be consulted. I think that would be a quicker and more direct way of getting an answer. But I did not want to confuse the issue and, knowing the machinery whereby Government Departments consult regionally on these matters, it seemed to me that that side would take care of itself, because they are generally in consultation by means of various regional Government Committees. So a request for consultation with one would be very much the same as a request for consultation with another.
But I do not think it is fair to put decisions of this sort in the hands of people working in official positions in different Government Departments. It is extremely difficult to decide where a factory is likely to be of the greatest advantage in the future, and it is very important that the decision to embark on the trouble and effort of building and equipping the factory, of starting it in production and keeping production going, should be so far as possible taken by those who are to have the responsibility for running it. I quite appreciate the importance of the policy of full employment and the importance of trying to ensure that that employment is given in the right places. But I would urge strongly that it must be done with a great deal more detailed knowledge than is at present available
590
in the regional offices of the different Government Departments, and it also must be done much more by inducement than by compulsion.
This condition of permission by the. Board of Trade for factory building of more than 3,000 square feet was incorporated in the original Distribution of Industry Bill. Distribution was dealt with in Clause 9, I believe, but it was taken out before the passing of the Bill. I think I am right in saying that it was taken out, not on account of any divergence of views as to whether or not industry should be persuaded to one place or another, but on account of objections made by people of all kinds in various parts of England who feared that they would have no more factory building and no further employment. This kind of provision belongs, at any rate, to the question of controlling the industrial structure of the country more than to a planning Bill. I believe that control should be by means of inducement, by persuasion, and should be based on the knowledge that the success of any particular enterprise is dependent on such things as the ease and cost of transport of the particular goods concerned, the accessibility of raw materials, and so on. It should be the policy of the Government to make clearly worth while the building or the extending of a factory. That has been the policy, and I think it still is. That is how all Government factories are now being built. They are being built not on a basis of telling people that they must go here or go there, but on the basis of providing a factory for rent at something like a reasonable cost.
If this clause is left in the Bill it will mean that there is far too much centralized control. It has often been said that efforts made before the war to revitalize special areas failed through lack of organization and the result has been a policy of central control. From what I have seen events are working out quite differently. I could quote quite a series of mistakes of policy which have made planning for some areas more difficult than should have been the case and have resulted, strictly speaking, in a very bad use of important and valuable industrial and other land. I do not want that to happen again. I want to see conditions made so that industry can of itself grow in the place where we want it to grow.

591
I am convinced that that is the right policy in these matters. The Board of Trade, if subsection (4) is left in, will to some extent have control over other Government activities because of their connexion through the industrial work. I think that is a great mistake. The planning authority, with their local knowledge and access to all the local conditions which have to do with factory building, are a far better authority to decide. It is entirely cutting across local authority planning if refusal to permit the building of such a factory comes from the Board of Trade. It means that the plan has to be recast. It is not possible to decide certain arrangements for factories if the Board of Trade are in a position to contradict the proposals made.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 21, leave out subsection (4) and insert the said new subsection.— (Viscount Ridley.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: As I also have an Amendment down on this clause, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word. I do not propose to leave out the whole of subsection (4) and my Amendment differs from that just proposed in applying only to existing factories. It seems to be a far stronger case that the owner of an existing factory should be allowed to extend it without a great deal of difficulty or obstruction from the Board of Trade. First of all, on planning grounds, it cannot be wrong to do it because it is merely an extention to an industrial arrangement already in existence; and in a large number of cases firms have bought land next to their factories with a view to this very extension. But whether it is an extension to an existing factory or a new factory, it seems to me that one need not give the Board of Trade powers to object to any factory, for the simple reason that in regard to distribution of industry, they want to see, perhaps rightly, that any big factory employing a large number of people is not put down in an area where there are practically no employable people who are not already in employment.
This does not apply to a small factory. My noble friend who has just sat down thinks that a factory of 3,000 square feet is right. I put down 10,000 square feet, as has my noble friend Lord Addington, to any building, whether existing or not.
592
Something on these lines really ought to be included because, first, it is unnecessary from the point of view of why the Board of Trade want this power and, secondly, the less permission required before people start expanding industry the better. It is for these reasons I speak in support of something at any rate on the lines of the Amendment proposed by my noble friend and myself.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I may save time if I tell your Lordships what I am proposing to do about this matter. I am opposed to the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. I do not think it is fair to entrust to local authorities this particular duty. After all, local authorities are human, or, at any rate, they are an aggregate of humans, and it is natural enough that every local authority who are doing their job want to attract into their own area all the industry they can. It was always said to be the case about London. Of course, manufacturers liked to come to London because they had their market so near at hand; and then London began to get bigger and bigger. I do not think it is fair to expect any local authority to take the attitude of "No, we do not think we ought to have any more factories here because there are other areas in the country which need them more." It is being unrealistic.
That is an attitude which must be taken by some central authority who can survey the needs of the country as a whole. Having said that, I may add that I am opposed to leaving out subsection (4) altogether, but I think there is a case, on the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, just mentioned, for saying that there ought to be some small size with which the Board of Trade need not concern itself. What I am prepared to do—I have not an Amendment drafted, but I will have it drafted and put it down on the Report stage if your Lordships think this is a satisfactory compromise—is this. I will say that in the case of an existing factory there shall be power, without getting the consent of the Board of Trade—your Lordships follow that this does not mean that you must not get planning permission—to extend that factory so long as the extension is not more than 5,000 square feet, or 25 per cent. of the size of the existing factory, whichever is the less. In the case of a new factory, the 25 per cent, obviously

593
is inapplicable, because you have no existing factory with which to compare it, and so, in the case of a new factory, it is up to 5,000 square feet. In those cases I think it right to say that that should be done always assuming that the necessary planning permission is obtained. I do not think it is necessary to trouble the Board of Trade about these comparatively small things because I think it is just as well that they should not get cluttered up with a lot of comparatively small requests. If that proposal is, broadly speaking, acceptable to your Lordships, then I propose to put that down on the Report stage and see if we can get rid of this difficulty on those lines. I suggest to your Lordships that this is a fair compromise, and, if it commends itself to your Lordships, I shall be happy to see that the necessary words are put down at a later stage.
LORD ADDINGTON: I thank the noble and learned Viscount for what he said. It is not quite so much as we hoped for, but it is perhaps as much as we expected. I am probably speaking for most people on this side of the House when I say that we accept this as a compromise. It certainly does go some way in that direction and it will lead to a certain simplification for a great many people who are hoping to extend factories in their own areas.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I am not feeling happy about it. I appreciate that the Lord Chancellor has made a suggestion which he thinks will meet the Amendment. I still think that the principle of the Board of Trade versus the authorities is going to nullify what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved at the end of subsection (4) to insert:
"Provided that the Board of Trade may, upon application being made to them for the purpose, certify that development of a defined area of land by the erection thereon of industrial buildings of a defined class or classes can be carried out consistently with the proper distribution of industry and where such a certificate has been given no further certificate under this subsection shall be required in respect of development of that class or classes within that area."
The noble Viscount said: This is a slightly different point; its object is to
594
ensure that, where a local authority or indeed anybody else establishes a trading estate and obtains the necessary consents from all the different Ministries concerned, they shall not be prevented by the Board of Trade from filling up that estate.
It seems to me quite possible, under the Bill as drafted, that the local authority might spend a great deal of money on draining an area, and then be told by the Board of Trade that until the industrial quarter of a new town in the neighbourhood was filled up they could not have any more industries. I quite agree that this is affected by the concession just made by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor; nevertheless it does seem to me that if any conditions such as those are to be made, they should be imposed before the trading estate is established and not afterwards. I think it would help local authorities a good deal, and would enable them to know where they stood. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 32, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Gage.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As this Amendment is merely permissive, and really gives power to the Board of Trade, my first reaction was to accept it; and I am prepared to accept the substance of it, if the noble Viscount will put it in rather a different form. I will tell him the difficulty I feel at the present time. I feel, and the Board of Trade feel very strongly, that if the words were in this form they might certify the development of a defined area of land on which, development can be carried on consistently, and that sort of thing, every local authority in the country would at once bombard the Board of Trade and say: "Please certify that our land is land of this description." That would lead to a great deal of delay, and would add to the already extremely large number of letters which the Board of Trade get. Cannot we do it in this way, and would not this meet the noble Viscount's point? I think he has a useful point here. The Amendment I would suggest is:
Page 16, line 32, at end insert—
"Provided that the regulations made by the Board for the purposes of this subsection may direct that no such certificate as aforesaid shall be required in respect of the erection, in any area prescribed by or under

595
the regulations, of industrial buildings of any such class as may be so prescribed."
I think that gives the noble Viscount, in substance, what he wants, and at the same time it avoids the difficulty which I pointed out, that if we do it in the other form every local authority will be troubling the Board of Trade to try to get their area declared an exceptional area. If the noble Viscount would be willing to move his Amendment in that form, I would be very ready to accept it.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I really do not understand all the subtleties of this distinction. It seems to me that the Board of Trade might equally be bombarded for the issue of these regulations in much the same way as for the issue of a particular certificate. I have not really had time to consider the effect of this proposal, but I shall be pleased to move the Amendment in this form, without prejudice to further consideration at a different stage. I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved at the end of subsection (4) to insert:
"Provided that the extension of an existing industrial building upon land which is in the same ownership as such existing industrial building on the 7th day of January, 1947, or the erection upon such land of any additional building for use by the same owner, shall not require to be the subject of such certification by the Board of Trade."
The noble Earl said: I do not know whether I really need go over all the ground which we have been previously discussing on Clause 13 with regard to the certification by the Board of Trade of any new factory. I put this Amendment down before I was aware of the proposals which the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, intends to produce at the next stage of the Bill. I would ask him whether he would see his way to accept my Amendment which deals entirely with those industries which own their own land in the neighbourhood or adjoining the present industrial building, and upon which they should be allowed to build without having to get the certification of the Board of Trade. I agree that the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment with regard to existing factories goes
596
some considerable way to meet me, but whether on second thoughts he will agree to this Amendment I wait with hope to see. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 32, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Munster.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I made my suggestion by way of compromise, having gone as far as and perhaps rather farther than I should have done, and I am sorry to tell the noble Earl that I cannot possibly go as far as he wants me to go. Indeed, as I said, my suggestion was a compromise suggestion and represents the ultimate limits to which I am able to go. I am afraid I cannot say anything further.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. Perhaps after he has slept on my Amendment to-night, he will come to the conclusion that it is better than his own. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON had given notice to move at the end of subsection (4) to insert:
"Provided that this subsection shall not apply to the erection of a building which will have an aggregate floor space not exceeding ten thousand square feet."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is partly covered by the Lord Chancellor's Amendment. I believe the limit of 10,000 square feet is the one which at present exists under Section 9 of the Distribution of Industry Act, so that at the present moment the Board of Trade allow new buildings up to 10,000 square feet. I would be very happy to accept half that limit, and therefore I do not propose to move my Amendment.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Appeals to Minister.
15.—(1) Where application is made under this Part of this Act to a local planning authority for permission to develop land, or for any approval of that authority required under a development order, and that permission or approval is refused by that authority, or is granted by them subject to conditions, then if the applicant is aggrieved by their decision he may by notice served within the

597
time, and in the manner prescribed by the development order, appeal to the Minister:
(3) Unless within such period as may be prescribed by the development order, or within such extended period as may at any time be agreed upon in writing between the applicant and the local planning authority, the local planning authority either—

(a) give notice to the applicant of their decision on any application for permission to develop land, or for any approval required under a development order, made to them under this Part of this Act, or

(b) give notice to him that the application has been referred to the Minister in accordance with directions given by him under the last foregoing section,

the provisions of subsection (1) of this section shall apply in relation to the application as if the permission or approval to which it relates had been refused by the local planning authority.
(4) Provision may be made by a development order for securing that in the case of decisions by a local planning authority of such classes as may be prescribed by the order (being decisions relating to the design or external appearance of buildings or other similar matters) any appeal under this section shall lie to an independent tribunal established in accordance with the provisions of that order instead of to the Minister; and in relation to any such appeal the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply, subject to such adaptations and modifications as may be specified in the order, as they apply in relation to appeals to the Minister thereunder.
LORD HAMPTON LORD HAMPTON moved in subsection (1) after "time," to insert "not being less than twenty-eight days." The noble Lord said: "This Amendment leaves the time within which appeals must be made to be set out in the development order. In appeals which involve very closely the rights of the subject the applicant should be enabled to ascertain his rights through the comparatively simple process of reading an Act of Parliament and not by going through a multiplicity of orders which may have been repealed, or are about to be repealed. A period of twenty-eight days was inserted in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, in Section 10, and I am told it has worked quite satisfactorily. I see no reason why it should not be included in this Bill also. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 21, after ("time") insert ("not being less than twenty-eight days").—(Lord Hampton.)
LORD HENDERSON: I am very happy to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON moved at the beginning of subsection (3) to leave out "Unless." The noble Lord said: All the three Amendments which stand in my name are really one, and with your Lordships' permission I shall discuss them as. a whole. As the Bill stands at the moment there is no obligation upon the local planning authority either to consider the application for permission to develop or to inform the applicant of their decision. Most of your Lordships have had experience in delays caused by local and other authorities, and I think it would be desirable to have some words in the Bill which would make it necessary for the local planning authority to make some decision within a reasonable time. It would moreover prevent many unnecessary appeals to the Minister which would also put the applicant to a certain expense. In the Town and Country Planning Act of 1932 there was a stipulation that if no answer was received to an application for development within two months, permission was deemed to have been granted. Although this was reversed in the interim Act of 1943 there still remains a provision whereby an applicant could apply to a court of summary jurisdiction for his application to be considered. The reason why it is proposed to leave out the words on Page 18 from line 10 to line 14 is that if the application to develop is refused, appeal can still be made under subsection 1 of this clause. This is a modest Amendment and I hope that the Government will look upon it with favour. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 44, leave out ("Unless").—(Lord Carrington.)
LORD HENDERSON: I have a great deal of sympathy with the object which the noble Lord has in mind, but I think I can assure him that: the Amendment is unnecessary. The Amendment seeks to place upon the local planning authority a specific obligation to notify an applicant, either of their decision or of the fact that the application has been referred to the Minister, and to do so within such period. as may be prescribed by the development order or within such extended period as may be agreed. It does not, however, say that any consequence will follow if a local planning authority fail to fulfil this obligation. The effect of the Amendment would be to deprive the ap-

599
plicant of the automatic right of appeal at the end of the prescribed period which he has under the clause as it is at present, and to saddle him with the obligation of taking the necessary action, possibly by way of mandamus, to get a decision from the local planning authority.
I appreciate that the noble Lord's Amendment is prompted by the view that it is unsatisfactory that an applicant should get no reply but merely a "deemed refusal," particularly as I understand that some applicants have apparently been unaware of their right to appeal at the end of the prescribed period. I can give the noble Lord an assurance that everything possible will be done, either by a printed statement on the application form or by whatever other means are available, to make it clear to applicants that if they get no reply within the prescribed period they can appeal. I can also assure the noble Lord that the Minister will draw the attention of all local authorities to the strong desirability of letting all applicants have a decision within the prescribed period. In view of that, I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: The noble Lord said that nothing much would happen if there was no reply, but of course something does happen. If you do not receive a reply you are refused the permission for which you have applied. That is happening, and there seems to be no indication that in the process, so to speak, of not getting a reply, you are entitled to appeal. You do not know how long you have to wait before you get a reply. I have tried this with Government Departments in other directions. I have written and written and demanded a reply. I have even sent telegrams, but sometimes even a telegram does not disturb them into action. At what stage in this process of silence are you, in fact, to be able to appeal against the refusal which has not been given you, because you do not know whether it is or is not a refusal?
LORD HENDERSON: It is within such period as may be prescribed.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: In the order?
LORD HENDERSON: And if the reply does not come within that period then
600
the applicant has a right to make his appeal. I think if the noble Earl will look at the original clause he will see that there is a right of appeal given there, if there is a negative reply, within the prescribed period; and, at the second stage, where there is no reply given, or no indication at all that the matter has been referred to the Minister within the prescribed period, the applicant again has a right of appeal. That is taken away by the Amendment. If the clause is left as it is he retains the right, and I have given two assurances which I think will obviate a good deal of the trouble which has led the noble Lord to put down this Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I regret I did overlook the "period as may be prescribed."
LORD CARRINGTON: I am very grateful to the noble Lord and, in view of his assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL OF RADNOR EARL OF RADNOR moved in subsection (4) after "matters" to insert:
"other than agricultural buildings as defined in section two of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, in respect of which any appeal under this section shall lie to the Minister of Agriculture."
The noble Earl said: Page 18, line 18, is in the middle of subsection (4) of this clause, and it provides for decisions relating to the design or external appearance of buildings, or other similar matters; that is to say, matters of taste. My Amendment proposes to leave questions of that nature, not to the impartial tribunal which it is proposed to set up under the Bill, but, so far as agricultural buildings are concerned, to the Minister of Agriculture. This might well be a very important point for the individual farmer. One has, I regret to say, not a very high opinion of impartial tribunals of this nature when it comes to functional buildings such as agricultural buildings. To the eye of the artistic they very often are not beautiful buildings, to the eye of the artistic they are very often not where they are best concealed, or fit in with the landscape; but they are functional buildings, and for that reason they have a place, and no other place, on the farm concerned where they are most useful to that farm.
Their function dictates their design. It may be that it is a Dutch barn, which is not a very beautiful thing from the artistic point of view. Or again it may be a grain dryer or a grass dryer. Their shape is dictated by their function. The material of which they are constructed is dictated partly by their function and partly by the pocket of the man who has to put them up. It is, therefore, very right and proper, I suggest, that in an important matter such as farm buildings the Minister of Agriculture should be the arbitrator rather than some impartial tribunal whose consideration of the matter will not be from the point of view of the farm or the farmer or the productivity of the land, but obviously, from the whole tenor of this subsection, from artistic and amenity aspects. It would be a considerable reassurance to those who are concerned in agriculture if this Amendment were agreed to, and I am quite certain that it would save a deal of trouble in the future. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 18, after ("matters") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have considerable sympathy with the noble Earl. This Amendment furnishes an illustration of the problem—which underlies this Bill so frequently—of reconciling two conflicting interests. I confess that the arguments nearly balance. I put it to the Committee quite frankly in this way. Suppose you have one of the most beautiful villages in England, and at a spot which is in the midst of a very beautiful view a farmer wants to put up—not down in the valley, mark you, but on the very spot itself—a Dutch barn or some concrete and iron building which is clearly an eyesore. Ought he to be allowed to do so? Would it be fair that such a matter should be decided from the point of view of agricultural considerations? On the other hand, I think it is clearly quite wrong that the agricultural question should be eliminated. Obviously, whoever is going to decide a question of this kind should be in a position in which he is able to say that he understands the agricultural argument in favour of the building, but equally, I think, he must have some regard to the argument respecting amenities and appearance.
I think that here we all want to achieve the same sort of objective. I understand
602
what it is that the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, wants. You should not have—I hope this is not an unseemly way of referring to them—long-haired æsthetes dealing with agricultural matters about which they know absolutely nothing. Now this subsection makes provision for the establishment of an independent tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the development order. There is thus already power, where necessary, to appoint to the tribunal an agricultural expert. I would suggest that the independent tribunal to be appointed should at least have as one member an agriculturist who will know what he is talking about and who will see that the agricultural claim is properly weighed. On the other hand, I do not think it would be right that it should be left entirely to the agriculturist if there are æsthetic considerations. Where there are such considerations they ought to be weighed in the balance as against the others.
I suggest, therefore, that it is desirable to deal with the matter in this way. I can give the noble Earl an assurance that provision will be made in the development order that in this sort of case there shall be someone representing the agricultural interest. Further, I may tell the noble Earl that it is proposed to make provision in the general development order requiring the authority to whom application is made to consult with the agricultural executive committee in any cases involving questions of agricultural development. I think that that is important because it means that before you get to the independent tribunal stage at all the authorities will have to consult the agricultural executive committee before they pronounce upon this question in the first instance. With these two assurances I hope the noble Earl will rest satisfied with what I have said.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am very grateful. That second assurance is one I was going to suggest myself. It is one which is far more important than having a single agricultural expert amongst those people. I do not quite remember his description of what the individual tribunal would be, but it was a more courageous description than I dare to make, and the agricultural expert would be only one lone voice among many Consultation with the agricultural executive committee at an early stage of the

603
proceedings will make all the difference in the world. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Applications to determine whether compensation required]:
LORD HENDERSON: These four Government Amendments are drafting Amendments, consequential on the Government Amendment on page 15, line 27. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 18, line 25, leave out from ("person") to ("land") in line 27 and insert ("who proposes to carry out any operations on land or make any change in the use of");
Page 18, line 28, leave out from ("of") to ("would") in line 29 and insert ("those operations or the making of that change in the use of the land");
Page 18, line 31, leave out from ("whether") to ("having") and insert ("an application for permission in respect thereof is required under this Part of this Act");
Page 18, line 33, leave out from ("for") to the second ("or") in line 34 and insert ("such permission").—(Lord Henderson.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: They are consequential, and we have no objections.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Supplementary provisions as to grant of permission]:
LORD HENDERSON: This is a drafting Amendment, consequential on a preceding Amendment on page 15, line 27.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 27, leave out from ("Act") to ("then") in line 28.—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
10.18 p.m.
Clause 18:
Obligation to purchase land on refusal of permission in certain cases.
18.—(1) Where permission to develop any land is refused, whether by the local planning authority or by the Minister, or an application in that behalf made under this Part of this Act, or is granted by that authority or by the Minister subject to conditions, then if any owner of the land claims—
604

(a) that the land has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state of development, whether by reason of the deterioration or obsolescence of buildings or the occurrence of war damage or otherwise;

(b) in a case where permission to develop the land was granted as aforesaid subject to conditions, that the land cannot be rendered capable of reasonably beneficial use by the carrying out of the permitted development in accordance with those conditions; and

he may, within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations made under this Act, serve on the council of the county borough or county district in which the land is situated a notice (hereinafter referred to as a "purchase notice") requiring that council to purchase his interest in the land in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(2) Where a purchase notice is served on any council under this section, that council shall forthwith transmit a copy of the notice to the Minister, and subject to the following provisions of this section the Minister shall, if he is satisfied that the conditions specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of the foregoing subsection are fulfilled, confirm the notice, and thereupon the council shall be deemed to be authorised to acquire the interest of the owner compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of Part IV of this Act, and to have served a notice to treat in respect thereof on such date as the Minister may direct:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment was really suggested to me by Lord Llewellin's Amendment, and again I am guilty of plagiarism. His Amendment is to insert "howsoever," because he wanted to bring in the application of what is known as the ejusdem generis rule, which can be destroyed by the use of the word "howsoever." I suggest that a better way is to leave out those words altogether and stop at the word "state." Paragraph (a) would then read: "that the land has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use in its existing state." There is then no need for the ejusdem generic rule, and accordingly there is no need for the word "howsoever." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 7, leave out from ("State") to end of line 10, and insert ("and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: That does have the same effect as my Amendment. However, I do not object to plagiarism by the Lord Chancellor in accepting some Amendments of mine!
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 16, leave out ("and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) Where a purchase notice is served on the council of a county borough or county district under the preceding subsection and the land the subject thereof has been the subject of an application in regard to which the Minister of Transport, under paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of section thirteen of this Act has issued directions restricting the grant of permission by the local planning authority, then the Minister shall, if he confirms the purchase notice, provide that the interest of the owner of the land shall be purchased by him and not by the council."
The noble Lord said: Under Clause 13 (3) (b) of the Bill, the Ministry of Transport may, in the case of development affecting trunk roads, give directions "restricting the grant of permission by the local planning authority" and now under this Clause 18 where the owner of the land affected makes the claims therein referred to, he may serve on the council of a county borough or county district concerned a purchase notice requiring the council to purchase his interest in the land.
On the face of it, that would seem reasonable and it is what this Amendment sets out to do. If the Minister of Transport has imposed the conditions which have led to the claim by the owner, he should be responsible for meeting the claim. Therefore, we want an assurance from the Minister that local authorities will not be involved in any expense by reason of restrictions which they are compelled to impose at the instance of the Minister of Transport. I believe again, when this matter was brought up in the Committee stage in another place, that the Minister of Transport undertook to have another look at the clause to see if he could make any provision with the limited classes of case to which I have made reference. As far as we can see, there has not been any result of the Minister's investigations. I think the results he aimed at would be met by this Amendment, which I therefore beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment as drafted is, I think, too
606
wide. May I indicate the sort of cases in which it would operate? The Minister of Transport often has plans for a trunk road, or it may even be the moulding of a corner to make it rather safer for the pedestrian; and that is a case where he might restrict the grant of permission by the local planning authority to some extent or other. He may, for instance, want twelve feet of a field and so restrict it. It would be quite wrong, I think, to impose upon him the obligation to buy the whole field and I do not think the noble Lord would want such a thing at all. I think the right way to deal with this problem (and that is why we put in Clause 95 at a late stage in the proceedings in another place) is to say this: Where the matter is affected by the requirements of the Minister of Transport, he may pay an appropriate contribution—in the event of disagreement to be settled by the Treasury—to the local authority. The noble Lord will see that that is what we have got.
Clause 95 says:
"Where compensation is payable by a local authority under this Act in consequence of any decision or order given or made under Part III of this Act … then if that decision or order was given or made wholly or partly in the interest of any service which is provided by a Government Department and the cost of which is defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament or out of the Road Fund, the Minister responsible for the administration of that service may pay to that authority, out of moneys so provided a contribution of such amount as he may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine."
That, I think, is the right way to do it. As the noble Lord will see, to make him buy the whole interest, if he is concerned only with a narrow strip, is obviously wrong. I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied that that clause (which was put in at a comparatively late stage for that purpose) meets the very real point he has in mind.
LORD ADDINGTON: I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. As long as we can be assured that the Minister will make reasonable payments, and that the "may" means that we shall get them, I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved, in subsection (2), after "fulfilled" to insert "within four months of the receipt by him of the said copy." The noble Lord said: The

607
purpose of my Amendment is a very clear one: it is to avoid unreasonable hardship on an owner because it is quite indefinite as to when he will receive an answer confirming his notice. It will be appreciated by the Committee that before the owner can invoke the powers under this clause the land must become incapable of reasonably beneficial ownership. Therefore, when the landlord does make his application, he will already be suffering loss. I venture to suggest that it is not reasonable that he should have to wait indefinitely before he can recover his capital and possibly go elsewhere. The point here is that there should be some indication in the Bill—which I hope His Majesty's Government will consider desirable—so as to avoid any unreasonable delay. In the Standing Committee in another place, the Minister expressed his recognition
"that the owner should not be kept in suspense when he is told he cannot use the land for the purpose for which he wants to use it, and that there is no alternative use, and he wants his land acquired. It is right that a decision shall be taken as quickly as possible."
Although the Amendment on which that was said is not strictly on all fours with that which I am suggesting here, at the same time I think the same argument applies to the case which I venture to put before your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 35, after ("fulfilled") insert ("within four months of the receipt by him of the said copy.")—(Lord O'Hagan.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I should like to support my noble friend on this Amendment. A Ministry are usually represented as a paragon of virtue and promptitude. Those who have been in them know that there is, whatever may be said outwardly, quite a considerable amount of delay, and it is just as well in cases of this sort to have some deadline beyond which the Ministry cannot go before some kind of action is taken. The best way of getting anything done at the Admiralty was to use what they call the yellow jacket. The noble Lord, Lord Ammon, will remember the yellow jacket, which could be authorized only by a member of the Board, and to which the answer had to come back within seven days. That was a very good way of getting a prompt decision from the Department on some matter which had to be dealt with urgently. It is urgent for these people that they
608
should not be kept waiting too long. As my noble friend has pointed out, the Minister in another place said that two months was too short, but showed himself in general sympathy with the idea that there should be some limit of time. If it was seven days for these yellow jackets at the Admiralty, surely it is reasonable to allow four months in the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. I beg to support the noble Lord's Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Like the Minister in another place I have sympathy with this, because I like Government Departments to act with reasonable promptitude. I cannot help feeling that the trouble is this. If you impose a time limit like this, although it is intended to be a maximum it often becomes a sort of standard. In simple cases I do not think anything like four months will be required—it ought to be very much more prompt than that. But in really difficult cases I am frankly doubtful whether four months will be sufficient. May I just ask noble Lords to consider for a moment what might happen? The Minister has to do a number of things. First, he has to review the planning decision and, of course, he may have to consult, and frequently will have to consult, local authorities and other Ministries. He may have to come to the Cabinet. He did recently, and that took two meetings. Then he may have to consider whether some other permission ought to be given, and that again is a process which may involve consultation with local authorities and Departments.
Again, assuming that the Minister agrees with the local planning decision and does not decide to grant an alternative permission, he still has to consider whether the land has become incapable of reasonable beneficial use. For this purpose he will very likely have to inspect the property and get further information from the applicants. After he has reached a tentative conclusion he has to give twenty-eight days' notice of his proposal and at the end of the twenty-eight days—this is all part of the four months—he may have to arrange for a local inquiry. He has to allot an inspector, find a place to hold the inquiry, serve further notices, and then reconsider the case in the light of the inspector's report when he has received it. In determining the question whether the property is capable of reasonable beneficial use he would probably re-

609
quire further particulars and information from the owner. It would be obviously intolerable and unfair if the owner, by the simple process of not answering a letter very promptly or by a failure to supply the necessary details for a few weeks because he was ill, abroad, or hunting, should then say, "Well the time has expired; you are finished and you cannot do anything." Therefore it does, seem to me that it is very difficult to accept a time limit which, in the extreme and exceptional case, would be insufficient. In the ordinary case it seems to me that four months is far too adequate a time. That does seem to me the difficulty in accepting a time limit which is to apply in all these cases, and consequently I hope the noble Lord will not think it necessary to press his Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I do not know where the noble and learned Viscount finds all these things which have to be done. The idea here is to get some action out of the Ministry. If they are going to set up a local inquiry, of course that is quite a different matter, but it seems to us that in the sequence of events which the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has adumbrated happening in a difficult case, this would be going on for months and months and months. I see little point in his remarks that the person himself is delaying the proceedings, because it is on his behalf that we are asking that he should not be put in doubt for too long. We know that every Ministry are reluctant to have any time limit put on them, but in this case we should have some limit to the time that may be taken because even though four months is the maximum, a maximum sometimes tends to become a minimum. There is no reason to suppose that this Ministry are worse than others, but it is not unlikely that they are going to say in each case "We have four months, so we will not deal with the case until the four months have elapsed." If that suggestion should come from the Ministry, it would surely be the business of the Permanent Secretary to see that that atmosphere does not exist in that Ministry. I think that that argument falls through the ground. I think we want some limit, and I hope the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will take another look at this.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I also should like to make an appeal, and to
610
emphasize what the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has just said. There seems to be a certain lack of, I will not say coherence, but of logic in the noble and learned Viscount's argument. He began by saying that a maximum often ends by being a minimum—and then went on to say that the maximum was not long enough. He painted a terrifying picture of the machinery which has to be set in motion; and many noble Lords must have felt that the Bill was in danger of becoming seriously overweighted against the applicant. For these reasons I hope the matter may be reconsidered. The portion of the Lord Chancellor's argument about the landlord or owner holding up the proceedings seemed to me to have no bearing upon the Amendment, because it says clearly in Subsection (2) that a copy of the notice shall be forthwith transmitted by the council to the Minister, and it is only after this has been received by the Minister that the four months to which the Amendment applies comes into the picture at all. It is four months in the Minister's hands, and surely that ought to be long enough. If the Lord Chancellor likes to make it five or six months it would be better than nothing.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will gladly put it to the Minster and see if I can do anything on the Report stage. But perhaps I may be allowed to point out that in the vast majority of cases, four months is far more than adequate. I should be very sorry to let anybody think that they could take four months; but in wholly exceptional cases four months would be quite inadequate. I gave an exceptional case as an illustration, and noble Lords will see that this is one of the things the Minister has to decide. If he is to apply his mind to that it would be quite frequently that he would want to obtain further information from the owner of the land after he had the notice. What I was pointing out was this: If by any chance the owner of the land ever refused to give, or delayed in giving, that further information which the Minister thought he wanted to give that as a reason for saying that his time had run out is something which no fair-minded man would wish to do. That is the exceptional case, but I will gladly ask the Minister if he can do anything about it. I will gladly ask him, and I will be able to tell your Lordships on the Report stage whether or not he says,

611
having regard to the arguments which have been adduced, that this is a matter in which he ought to make some concession. I am entirely in sympathy with this course being taken, and I will bring it to the attention of the Minister.
LORD O'HAGAN: I thank the noble and learned Viscount for the way in which he has dealt with this. So far as the last part of his remarks is concerned there is, I think, undoubtedly a very strong case for some period being put into this Bill. I think it is patent to everybody, even on the showing of the noble and learned Viscount himself; and if a further time than the four months is thought desirable I, for my part, shall not stand against it. In view of the fact that there has been an assurance to look further into this matter—the suggestion I think probably in most quarters of the House seems to be that it is a reasonable suggestion—I trust that some way will be found to meet the case that has been put, and with your Lordships' permission I will withdraw my Amendment at the present stage, although reserving the right to put it down at a subsequent stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved in paragraph (c) of the proviso to subsection (2) to leave out "to be" and insert "having regard to the probable ultimate use of the land, that it is." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 14, leave out ("to be"), and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This too is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 15, after ("it") insert ("either in relation to the whole or in relation to any part of the land to which it relates").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19:
Compensation for refusal of permission in certain cases.
19.—(1) Where, on application made under this Part of this Act for permission to carry out development of any class specified in the
612
Third Schedule to this Act (other than development of the class specified in paragraph 1 of that Schedule), permission for that development is refused by the Minister, either on appeal or on the reference of the application to him for determination, or is so granted by the Minister subject to conditions, then if, on a claim made to the local planning authority within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations under this Act, it is shown that the value of the interest of any person in the land is less than it would have been if the permission had been granted, or had been granted unconditionally, as the case may be, the local planning authority shall pay to that person compensation (to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Fourth Schedule to this Act) equal to the difference.
(3) Where a purchase notice served under the last foregoing section in respect of any interest in land does not take effect by reason of any such direction as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of the proviso to subsection (2) of that section, then if it is shown, on a claim made to the local planning authority, that the value of that interest, calculated with regard to the direction, but on the assumption that no permission would be granted under this Part of this Act otherwise than in accordance with the direction, is less than the value of that interest calculated without regard to the grant of that permission, but on the assumptions which would be required to be made under the following provisions of this Act for the purposes of assessing the compensation payable on a purchase of that interest in pursuance of the purchase notice, the local planning authority shall pay to that person compensation (to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Fourth Schedule to this Act) equal to the difference.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 45, after ("in") insert ("Part II of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
10.44 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "(other than development of the class specified in paragraph 1 of that Schedule)." The noble Lord said: As a Government Amendment, which this has now become by the addition of the Lord Chancellor's name, it is a purely drafting Amendment. It is consequential on the last Government Amendment to the same line, which in turn prepares the way for Amendments to the Third Schedule. I must, however, in justice to my noble friend, point out that the object of the Amendment as it originally stood was something quite

613
different—namely, to secure payment of compensation under Clause 19 on the refusal of permission to rebuild a place which was in existence on the appointed day. This object is not secured by the Amendment in its present form. Clause 19, as amended by this and the last Amendment, will still exclude from compensation the refusal of permission to rebuild. I think the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, in submitting the same Amendment, had in mind in particular the case of a house that had been demolished and for which there was refusal of permission to rebuild. To put it in a sentence, the reason for this is that a provision for compensation under Clause 19 is unnecessary, because in the case supposed (namely, where the old building has been destroyed by fire, or otherwise, and permission to rebuild is refused) the owner will be entitled, under Clause 18, to call on the local authority to buy his land at "existing use value," unless he receives permission for some other development which would enable the land to be put to a reasonably beneficial use.
As regards the matter of rebuilding generally, if rebuilding were included in Clause 19 every owner of any standing property that had been up for some years (and particularly property in areas scheduled by a plan for comprehensive redevelopment in the future) would be able to apply for permission to rebuild knowing in many cases that it would be refused. He would then be able to claim compensation for the reversionary site value—that is to say, he would be able to claim for capital loss amounting to the reversionary value which the site would have at some future date when the existing building became incapable of beneficial use, even though his existing annual income was unaffected, and often likely to remain unaffected for some years. The local authority, in effect, would have to pay for the reversion without in fact getting a conveyance of any interest in the land at all. Having given an answer to the noble Earl on his Amendment, as it originally was, I hope that he will be content now to let the matter go forward. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 45, leave out from ("Act") to the end of line 46.—(Lord Henderson.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I put this Amendment down thinking that it was
614
one of some considerable importance and I was deeply flattered that it should have been adopted by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. This confirmed me in my opinion that it must be of some importance. I was very glad to find it accepted by the Government. Now Lord Henderson punctures my balloon by saying that from the point of view of the Government it is merely a drafting Amendment. He has given a long explanation, and I am grateful to him, but as it is now nearly ten minutes to eleven, and the Amendment has been adopted by His Majesty's Government, I will not say more upon it. I would like, however, to look into what Lord Henderson has said, and if I find any flaws in it I will try to put them right.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: The next Amendment is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 27, at end insert (", or does not take effect in relation to any part of the land").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: I hope your Lordships will not be surprised when I say that this Amendment, the consequential Amendment at page 22, line 40 and the new subsection proposed to be inserted at page 22, line 42, are drafting Amendments designed to clarify the effect of Clause 19 (3) which has been criticized as being somewhat difficult to understand. It is hoped that by the use of the two "labels" namely "permitted development value" an a "compulsory purchase value," and the division of subsection (3) into two subsections, the purpose of the provision will be easier to follow. I can assure the Committee that there is no change in the meaning of the clause as now proposed. I have a considerable explanation to offer the Committee if it is pressed for, but I think you may accept my word that this is in fact a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 31, leave out from the beginning to the second "the'') in line 39 and insert ("within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations under this Act that the permitted development value of that interest or, as the case may be, of that interest so far as it relates to that part of the land, is less than its compulsory purchase value,").—(Lord Henderson.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I do not agree that it is altogether drafting, but I have been told by someone who understands that it is all right.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: This is also a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 40, leave out ("that person") and insert ("the person entitled to that interest").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved, after subsection (3) to insert:
("(4) For the purposes of the last foregoing subsection the expression 'permitted development value,' in relation to an interest in land in respect of which any such direction as is mentioned in that subsection has been given, means the value of that interest calculated with regard to the direction and to any determination of the Central Land Board under subsection (4) of section sixty-seven of this Act, but on the assumption that no permission would be granted under this Part of this Act otherwise than in accordance with the direction; and the expression compulsory purchase value,' in relation to any such interest, means the value of that interest as it would be assessed in accordance with the provisions of section forty-nine of this Act for the purpose of ascertaining the compensation payable on a purchase thereof in pursuance of the purchase notice.")
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. My explanation covered this position too.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 42, at end insert said subsection."—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
10.57 p.m.
Clause 20 [Revocation and modification of permission to develop]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved at the end of the clause to insert the following new subsection:
"(4) For the purposes of this and the next succeeding section, where permission to develop land has been granted on an application made in that behalf under this Part of this Act and the land, or any part thereof, in respect of which such permission has been granted is compulsorily acquired by a Government Depart or a local or public authority within the meaning of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, such permission shall be deemed to have been revoked in respect, of the land so acquired."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment in the name of the Earl of Radnor and myself deals with a further important point. Under Clause 20, a development plan can be revoked or modified by order, and that order has to be approved by the Minister. Under Clause 21, where a development plan has been revoked or modified by an order approved by the Minister the owner can get back a repayment for expenditure incurred. My Amendment deals with the case where the owner had permission to develop and it was not revoked or modified by order but the land was compulsorily purchased by a Government Department or a local or public authority within the meaning of the Bill. It is quite true that under Clause 70 the owner can claim repayment of the development charge, but that is all. He cannot get any return for abortive expenditure which he must have incurred in carrying out a development plan up to the time the whole plan was revoked by the compulsory purchase. What I am seeking to secure is that the owner should not only get, as he does get, the repayment of the development charge but he should also get a return of the expenditure which he incurred in carrying out the development plan at the original time. I feel it is a fair and reasonable Amendment, and I trust the noble and learned Viscount will see his way to accept it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Earl's law was right, I would certainly accept his Amendment, but, with great respect, I think it is a complete fallacy. He obviously thinks that any expenditure incurred which proves abortive by reason of compulsory acquisition of land would not be taken into account in assessing compensation for purchase. That is a fallacy. It is taken into account. If the owner has started on the basis of his permission, in so far as the works have been done their value would be included in the purchase price, and in so far as the development charge has been paid the payment would have increased the current value of the land and would be accordingly reflected in the purchase price. That is in Clause 49. And in so far as he incurred abortive expenditure of the kind covered by Clause 21 in preparation of plans, liability under the contract, and so on, he is entitled to claim for such loss under the head of

617
disturbance, as part of the compensation due to him from the acquiring authority. That is secured by an ordinary operation of the existing law governing compulsory acquisition, and requires no special provision in this Bill.
Let me read from the standard work, Cripps on Compensation, Eighth Edition, on page 183. It says:
"The less to an owner, whose lands are acquired or have been taken, omitting all questions of injury to adjoining lands, includes not only the value of such lands but all damage directly consequent on the taking thereof under statutory powers."
This rule is recognized by Rule (6) in Section 2 of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, which provides that Rule (2) of that section—that is to say, the value of the land to be market value by a willing seller—shall not affect the assessment of compensation for disturbance or any other matter not directly based on the value of land. I have gone into this matter with the valuation office and it is quite clear that the abortive expenditure would not be reflected in the value of the land: that is to say, such expenditure as, for instance, Clause 21 expenditure, preparation of plans and the like, is in practice eligible for compensation under the heading of "disturbance." Therefore, without this Amendment, we have already got it.
This Amendment could not possibly be accepted because it would have the effect of duplicating part of the compensation payable on the compulsory acquisition and it would make the local authority pay some part of the compensation for the compulsory acquisition although they are not the acquiring authority. For those reasons, therefore, I cannot accept this Amendment which goes a. good deal further than I think the noble Earl realizes. I can assure him—if he wants to go into the matter further I shall be very pleased to go into it with him—that the point in his mind is already covered and that this Amendment is quite unnecessary.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Could the noble and learned Viscount assure us that, in the event of compulsory acquisition or, say, part of a house which has been built and which in itself is not wanted by the acquirer and is therefore a detriment to the site from their point
618
of view, expenditure on that building would, so far as it has gone, be included?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, because it is a complete fallacy to look at it from the point of view of the purchaser. You have to look at it from a very different point of view altogether and, assuming that the house as partly put up would be of value for some services, then, amongst the potential buyers for that piece of land, there would be somebody who would give more for the land; therefore, the building is included in the value of the land.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I was under the impression that Clause 20, which was the one, I think, on which the noble and learned Viscount relied in regard to anything of that kind, only came into operation if the plan were revoked or modified or permission to develop is revoked or modified. All we are seeking to do in this Amendment is to say that here, for the purposes of these two succeeding sections,
"where permission to develop land has been granted on an application made in that behalf … in respect of which such permission has been granted is compulsorily acquired by a Government Department or a local public authority within the meaning of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, such permission shall be deemed to have been revoked in respect of the land so acquired."
That is in order to bring it within the ambit of Clause 20, which I do not believe it comes under unless it is considered that at the same time as you compulsorily acquire the land the permission is revoked. It certainly seems to me that where it is compulsorily acquired the man from whom the land is compulsorily acquired ought to get exactly the same compensation as a man gets if the permission is revoked or modified. After all, compulsory acquisition is a larger thing than revocation or modification of permission. We are only seeking to put the man whose land is compulsorily acquired into the same position as the man in whose case permission has been revoked or modified. It is bringing it within the ambit of Clause 20, and these words are really included in this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not rely on Clause 20; I rely on the ordinary application of the ordinary law for the compulsory acquisition of land. The compensation which the man gets would

619
embrace these matters. What I would suggest to the noble Lord is this. If he will take the opportunity between now and the Report stage of consulting my experts, and if after consulting them he has any doubt on the point, by all means let him raise the matter again on the Report stage. I resist the Amendment on the basis that this matter is already covered by the existing law. If the noble Earl is satisfied that that is so, I feel sure he will not press the Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: May I say one word on that point? Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount and I could discuss it, if I am not satisfied. What we are seeking to do is eminently fair. I think the noble and learned Viscount is with me in that desire. If it is already covered by the Bill, naturally we shall not want to make any Amendment. If it is not covered, and the noble and learned Viscount is convinced it is not covered, and there is no issue between us that it is fair to put the two men in the same position, perhaps we could discuss it on the Report stage.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I fully agree with what my noble friend has said. It is clear that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has been fully advised by his advisers. Between now and the Report stage I will also get briefed from another department. Meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
House resumed.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition
620
for the following Bill ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill:

BOROUGH OF CROYDON (RATING).
Read, and agreed to.
BOROUGH OF CROYDON (RATING) BILL.
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day) and read I2.
FELIXSTOWE PIER BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
NORTH CUMBERLAND WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section one of the Act to the

County Borough of Wallasey;

Borough of Altrincham;

Borough of Kidderminster;

Borough of Stretford;

Borough of Wallsend;

Rural District of East Dean;

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at three minutes past eleven o'clock.