Sitting of 12 May 1947

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  U.S. OCCUPIED ISLANDS (BRITISH INTERESTS)
  Sir John Mellorasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what preferential conditions were asked for by the U.S.A. and granted by U.N.O., to Americans in the islands which have been added to the U.S. empire as a result of the war; and in what way these conditions affect the commercial relationship between these islands and the rest of the world, particularly the countries of the British Empire.
  The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the Strategic Area Trusteeship Agreement for the former Japanese mandated islands, that is the Marshall, Caroline and the Mariana Islands, naming the United States of America as administering authority, which was approved by the Security Council on 2nd April, 1947, and that he has Article 8 (1) of that Agreement in mind. His Majesty's Government do not consider that the conditions of that Article will have any appreciable effect on commercial relationships between the former Japanese mandated islands and other countries, in particular the United Kingdom.
  Sir J. Mellor: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there will be equal opportunities for British subjects in these islands?
  Mr. McNeil: I am satisfied that any apparent discrimination is due exclusively to security considerations, and that there will be no commercial discrimination of any kind.
  Mr. Walter Fletcher: Are British subjects allowed to visit these islands now?
  Mr. McNeil: I prefer to say that no facilities will be denied to British merchants which are accorded to other nationalities.

  POLAND

    Port Facilities
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct the United Kingdom delegation to the Economic Commission for Europe to press for immediate concerted action to assist the Polish Government in improving the unloading facilities at the harbours of Gdynia and Gdansk, so that more Polish coal can be made available to Britain and other European countries.
    Mr. McNeil: On the general question of instructions to the United Kingdom delegation to the Economic Commission for Europe I would refer my hon. Friend to the written answer given to him on 7th May. The Polish Government, however, has been informed that His Majesty's Government would be prepared to examine possibilities of help in providing additional facilities in Polish ports.
    Mr. Warbey: Bearing in mind the fact that the limiting factor to the export of Polish coal this year is likely to be, not production, but transport, will my right hon. Friend try to get the concerted action of Those European countries, including ourselves, which are anxious to import coal from Poland?
    Mr. McNeil: As regards transport, I am not clear whether my hon. Friend is referring to internal or external transport. We have made a concerted effort to see that in general internal European transport is most efficiently and economically provided. In the matter of external transport, His Majesty's Government are considering what mechanical help they might make available to the Polish Government.

    Polish Nationals, U.K. (Repatriation)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that, of two Polish newspapers circulating widely among Polish soldiers in Britain, one contained no reference whatever in its issue of 6th May to his statement of

    1061
    the previous day with its emphatic endorsement of the genuineness of the encouragement offered by the Polish Government to expatriate Poles to return home and the other published the statement in garbled and incomplete form; and what steps he is taking to convey his views to the ordinary Polish troops still in this country.
    Mr. McNeil: Yes, Sir; but I should add that one newspaper carried the full text on 7th May and the other on 8th May.

  GERMANY

    Control Commission
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the number of the British personnel in Germany at the latest available date, giving services and civilians separately.
    Mr. McNeil: On 19th April the British Element of the Control Commission employed 19,050 civilians and 3,410 Service personnel in Germany.
    Sir W. Smithers: Why is it that the civilian personnel get better pay and treatment than the Service personnel? Further, is it not a fact that our work of reconstruction is being seriously hampered by Soviet activities?
    Mr. McNeil: I cannot see how the second point arises from this Question. As to the first part of the supplementary question, there are many grades within distinct categories; if the hon. Member has any detailed inquiries to make, perhaps he will put them down.
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has considered the report which has been sent to him about the unsatisfactory conditions of control in Germany and consequent waste of British taxpayers' money; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. McNeil: I presume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the letter he sent to my right hon. Friend on 3rd May. My right hon. Friend will naturally reply to the letter in the normal way as soon as inquiries have been made.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have first-hand information that some of the personnel are quite unfit for the job, and that some mem-
    1062
    bers of the Control Commission are only there to have a good time, and, owing to their behaviour, are lowering the prestige of Britain in Germany as well as losing the respect of the Germans?
    Mr. McNeil: I am naturally most anxious at all times to offer all the information which is appropriate and possible in these matters, but I should think it singularly unfortunate if I singled out one letter from the hon. Gentleman opposite and made it the subject of a detailed reply to a Question.

    Frau Elisabeth Rolfes
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how soon the hon. Member for Maldon may expect a final reply to his letter of 18th December, 1946, regarding a claim arising from the death of Frau Elisabeth Rolfes, in reply to which the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster advised him on 30th January that the authorities were very much concerned that no time be lost in making the necessary arrangements for such claims to be investigated; and whether such arrangements have now been made.
    Mr. McNeil: I regret the delay in dealing with this case, but His Majesty's Government have been anxious to produce an equitable and workable scheme to cover not only this case but all similar ones. I hope, in about a fortnight's time, to be able to announce the details of a panel for dealing with such claims, the subjects which can be brought before it, and the procedure to be followed in making and in settling such claims.

    Fish Imports
    Mr. Edward Evansasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements are being, made by the British Control Commission for the exporting of herring by the English fishing fleet to Germany during the ensuing fishing season.
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any decisions have been reached by the joint Anglo-U.S. authority regarding the importation of fish to Germany during the remainder of this year.
    Mr. McNeil: The British and American authorities in Berlin who are responsible for the procurement of food for the com-

    1063
    pined British and American zones have not yet reached any final decisions on the importation of fish into Germany.
    Mr. Evans: In view of the importance of fish, both to the dietary of the very hard pressed German population and to the industry in this country, cannot the Minister assure the House that there will be, as there was last year, an open market for the herring, particularly in the English herring season? Will he assure the House that the arrangements to be made will be more satisfactory in order to have a better result than last year?
    Mr. McNeil: I completely agree about the importance of this source of proteins for the German population and I also think we ought to make better arrangements than last year, if possible. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will not press me, because it is completely a matter of costing, and that subject we are examining most closely.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: In view of the amount of money British taxpayers are having to put into Germany, and also because the Americans are considering placing this business in Norway, will the right hon. Gentleman see that we get preferential treatment in this matter to make up for the money we are spending?
    Mr. McNeil: The amount it is costing the taxpayer is a prominent feature for consideration.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not forget that very superior fish, the Cornish pilchard.
    Mr. McNeil: Nor will I forget the herring.

    Newsprint Supplies
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the proposed cut in newsprint supplies in the British zone will make it impossible for publishers to present an adequate picture of home and foreign news; and, in the light of this fact, if he will make a statement.
    Mr. McNeil: I am aware of the difficulties experienced by the Press in the British zone of Germany. Shortages of coal and pulp with the transport difficulties caused by the exceptionally severe winter have adversely affected newsprint
    1064
    production and stocks have fallen to a low level. Production should, however, now improve and supplies are expected shortly from the American zone in accordance with the fusion agreement. In view of this improvement I am hopeful that the proposed cut of 25 per cent. will not now be of long duration.

    Coal Production
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement in respect of the coal production position in the British zone of Germany.
    Mr. McNeil: The upward trend in the production of hard coal was arrested towards the end of March, and since then output has fallen from 237,000 to 221,000 tons a day. The average manshift output has dropped from 0.96 to 0.91 tons, and there has been a noticeable increase in absenteeism.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he considers that this is due to inadequate rations for the miners in Germany?
    Mr. McNeil: No one can be certain about such a complex subject, but I should imagine that the drop in available food has been a feature. I should point out to my hon. Friend, of course, that the drop, whilst most deplorable, has not been as great as the comparable drop last year.
    Mr. Bramall: Will the Minister bear in mind that the important matter here is not only the question of rations for the miners themselves but that of the rations available to their families?
    Mr. William Shepherd: Can the Minister reconcile this drop in production with the agreement to export more coal, thus putting a greater burden still upon the British taxpayer?
    Mr. Lipson: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what steps are being taken to try to bring about an increase in production once again?
    Mr. McNeil: The primary steps, of course, are related to food. There is a Question upon that subject on the Order Paper.

    Food Situation
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

    1065
    whether he is aware of the increasingly serious food situation in the Anglo-United States area of Germany; and if he will make a statement indicating the steps contemplated to prevent its further deterioration.
    Mr. McNeil: The food situation in the American and British zone of Germany is admittedly most unsatisfactory. The present shortages are due in part to difficulties of collection and distribution within Germany and in part to imports of grain falling short of our expectations. The bizonal authorities in Germany are considering what steps can be taken to improve indigenous collections. As for imports, on which the maintenance of the ration largely depends at this time of the year, everything possible is being done to speed up existing programmes and to maintain a sufficient flow of supplies.
    Mrs. Leah Manning: Would my right hon. Friend tell me what kind of controls there are on the farms and rural areas of Germany which export to the more industrial areas?
    Mr. McNeil: I should not think that was a very suitable question for me to deal with summarily. I should say that in our zone the system of collection has not been bad. For a variety of reasons, which would take some explaining, the system of collection in the American zone has not been quite so successful.
    Mr. Eden: In view of the importance of this question, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman recognises, will the Foreign Secretary be giving us some fuller information upon it in the Debate on Thursday, because it is utterly fundamental to European recovery?
    Mr. McNeil: I hope I did not give any impression that I thought that it was other than of the greatest importance. I will ask my right hon. Friend to consider that point on Thursday.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my right hon. Friend take into fullest consideration the necessity for letting the German people know the whys and wherefores in regard to the shortage of food, because in many cases the people seem to be ignorant of the real facts behind the present shortages?
    Mr. McNeil: That is one of the reasons why we have been so anxious to avoid the concentrated cuts in newsprint.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: Will the Minister realise, taking this Question and Question 14 together, that the Germans would prefer a daily meal to a "Daily Mail"?
    Mr. McNeil: I do not blame them.

    ANGLO-CHINESE COMMERCIAL TREATY (NEGOTIATIONS)
    Mr. John Patonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if the negotiations for a commercial treaty between the British and Chinese Governments have now been completed and if he will make a statement on the subject.
    Mr. McNeil: I regret that the negotiations are not yet completed, partly because of the necessity for reconciling the British and Chinese draft treaties, and partly because many Departments of His Majesty's Government are concerned with the proposed treaty and all of them have had to be afforded an opportunity for studying and commenting upon the Chinese draft.
    Mr. Paton: Is the Minister aware that these negotiations have been going on since December and we are now in the middle of May? In view of the urgency, will he see that there is no avoidable delay on our side?
    Mr. McNeil: I can assure my hon. Friend that I am aware of the comparative urgency of this matter, but I hope that he will appreciate that almost every Government Department has been affected by the proposals.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Workers' Sugar Allowances
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Minister of Food what is the allocation of sugar for tea for factory workers and for those working in offices, respectively.
    The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): Heavy workers' category A canteens receive one-fifth of an ounce of sugar for each hot drink served and other works and office canteens one-eighth of an ounce. Where there is no canteen, industrial workers can get one ounce per head

    1067
    per week for communal tea making but none is allowed for office workers.
    Mr. Shepherd: Can the Minister explain why there is this difference between the allocation to office workers and that to industrial workers where canteens are not provided?
    Mr. Strachey: On the whole, industrial workers are favoured in all food matters because it is considered that it is more important to give them increased nourishment.
    Mr. Shepherd: Does the Minister seriously suggest that office workers ought not to be allowed a ration of tea and sugar and that industrial workers should be given a ration?
    Mr. Strachey: We should like to allow the ration to both, but I think it is reasonable to give the industrial worker prority.

    Imported Onions
    Mr. Douglas Marshallasked the Minister of Food how many onions have been imported into this country during 1947; how many have rotted owing to lack of facilities to discharge the vessels; and what has been the loss expressed in foreign exchange.
    Mr. Strachey: Up to 31st March, 55,736 tons of onions have been imported this year. I have had no complaints of loss through lack of discharging facilities, but if the hon. Member will let me know of any reports which have reached him, I will gladly have them looked into.

    Siamese Rice
    Mr. Walter Fletcherasked the Minister of Food what shipments of rice have been made from Siam in February, March and April, 1947, respectively.
    Dr. Haden Guestasked the Minister of Food what price the International Rice Commission is now paying for rice in Siam; and whether expected supplies are now available.
    Mr. Strachey: About 20,500 tons of rice were exported from Siam in February, 31,800 tons in March, and 45,000 tons between 1st and 25th April. The Combined Siam Rice Commission do not buy rice; the present export price is about £26 per ton f.o.b.
    Mr. Fletcher: Would the Minister agree that this total for very nearly three months is well below the contracts signed last year, and what steps is he taking to see that supplies of this vital food from Malaya and other parts of the East are very largely increased? Has he managed to see that the owner and producer of rice gets the benefit of the foreign exchange and not the Government?
    Mr. Strachey: I would agree that these totals are not fully satisfactory but they are rising. I would not like to utter any complacent words about the situation. My Director of Rice has very recently been in Siam and we are putting very strong pressure on the Siamese Government in view of the immense importance of this foodstuff and we shall certainly continue to do so.
    Sir W. Smithers: May I protest against, "My Director of Rice?" The Director of Rice is a servant of the taxpayer and of the country.
    Mr. Strachey: If the phrase does not please the hon. Member, I shall be delighted to withdraw it.

    Subsidies
    Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of Food the food items on which there is going to be a withdrawal or reduction of subsidy.
    Mr. Strachey: I must ask the hon. Member to wait for the announcements which are made whenever controlled food prices change in either direction.
    Mr. Piratin: Can the Minister give an indication as to the date of the announcement?
    Mr. Strachey: I do not know what announcement the hon. Member has in mind.
    Mr. Piratin: In that case would the Minister recall what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said a few weeks ago when he intimated to the House that we could expect such changes in the near future and that the Minister of Food would be the one to acquaint us?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, I know of no such announcement. Various changes of food prices have been made over the past three months of which I gave the hon. Member a list. There may be others.
    Mr. W. J. Brown: Will the Minister bear in mind, and also impress it on his colleagues, that this policy of food subsidies has been of tremendous importance both in securing a just distribution of food and in restraining the wages-prices spiral? Will he give this his closest consideration?
    Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, we regard this as of the utmost importance, and a most substantial figure has already been announced to be expended on food subsidies in the coming financial year.
    Mr. Keeling: Does not the Minister agree that it is a great extravagance that the Treasury should have to bear no less than two-thirds of the cost of home-made cheese, the demand for which is far in excess of the supply?
    Mr. Strachey: If the hon. Member thinks it would be a good thing to allow the price of cheese to rise to an unsubsidised level, I cannot agree.
    Mr. Keeling: Home-made cheese only.

    Flour (Bakers)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Minister of Food the amount of flour allocation to bakers for each month of the last six months, to the latest available date.
    Mr. Strachey: There are no such allocations. As already announced, there is a limitation during the six weeks from 27th April to 95 per cent. of what bakers bought from the millers in February and March last.
    Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that this new, limitation is only camouflaged and has the effect of deceiving the public? Is it not simply robbing Peter to pay Paul?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, I am aware of nothing of the kind.

    Bread Rationing
    Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Minister of Food if he will make a statement in regard to the continuance or otherwise of bread rationing.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the improvement in the wheat supplies in this country and the potential improvement throughout the coming months of the year, the Government can give an undertaking to abandon bread rationing on or before 30th June, 1947
    Mr. Strachey: As I have already said publicly and repeatedly, it would clearly be wrong to make any decision on bread rationing before we see what this year's harvests are going to be like.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: When the Minister has reached a decision on this important matter, will be make his first announcement to this House?
    Mr. Strachey: Certainly, Sir.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that bread rationing is really very largely a bureaucratic farce and is wasteful of bread and manpower, and would it not be better to do away with it?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir; it will be very much better to do away with it when the supply situation permits.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is not the American position stronger than it has even been?

    Departmental Staffs
    Wing-Commander Hulbertasked the Minister of Food the total number of persons employed by his Department at the last convenient date; what proportion of these are established civil servants; and how many are employed as enforcement officers.
    Mr. Strachey: Counting two part-timers as one full time worker, in the usual way, the number of industrial and non-industrial staff employed in my Department on 1st April, 1947, was 44,242, of whom 1,258, or 2.84 per cent., are established civil servants and 754 are employed throughout the country as enforcement officers
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: Is the Minister aware that the figure he has just given is only about 10 per cent. less than it was at the height of the war, and may we now anticipate an increase or a decrease?
    Mr. Strachey: It is entirely a question of rationing. If we can abolish, for example, bread rationing and the rationing of other staple foods, of course, we can make a most substantial decrease. The vast majority of this staff is employed in the local offices on rationing.
    Wing-Commander Hulbert: As the Minister has said that a reduction can only be made if we abolish rationing, will he now abolish rationing?
    Mr. Strachey: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will abolish the necessity for rationing.

    London Dock Strike (Fish Wastage)
    Brigadier Raynerasked the Minister of Food how much food has gone rotten at the London docks because of the latest strike of dock workers.
    Mr. Strachey: 12 cwt. of fish.
    Brigadier Rayner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these successive unofficial strikes affecting food supplies are adding to the prevalent malnutrition, and is he able as the Minister of Food to do anything about it?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir; in this particular case I am clad to say there was no loss of foodstuffs because of the strike.
    Mr. D. Marshall: What about fish?
    Mr. Strachey: There was 12 cwt. of fish lost, but that might very easily be lost in the ordinary course of distribution.
    Mr. Marshall: May I ask the Minister what was the loss of the carrying capacity in food for importation of those vessels through the delay in their turn-round?
    Mr. Speaker: The Question deals with how much food has gone rotten and not with carrying capacity.

    Cocoa Stocks
    Mr. W. Fletcherasked the Minister of Food what stocks of cocoa were held in this country on 1st January, 1945, 1946 and 1947, respectively.
    Mr. Strachey: It would not be in the public interest to disclose this information.
    Mr. Fletcher: How is it that it would not be in the public interest to reveal these figures for cocoa when the Minister gave exactly the figures for tea the other day?
    Mr. Strachey: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman means. Does he suggest that I gave the figures for tea?
    Mr. Fletcher: The Parliamentary Secretary gave them.
    Mr. Strachey: Tea stocks in this country? No, Sir, she said that we were concerned at the level of tea stocks.
    Mr. Fletcher: A figure was given showing a very large drop.

    Dog Biscuits
    Mr. Gerald Williamsasked the Minister of Food if he will improve the supply of dog biscuits in the South Eastern area.
    Mr. Strachey: Supplies of dog biscuits are not large because of the shortage of flour. I know of no special difficulties in the South Eastern area.
    Mr. Williams: Is the Minister aware that the British people are determined to keep their dogs alive at all costs, and the only way to do it at the moment is by using their own rations and endangering their own lives?

    Farm Workers
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Minister of Food whether the special food allowance extended to farm workers for seasonal tasks will be continued throughout the summer, having regard to the impossibility of foreseeing any slackening in work between now and the harvest.
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, except for the seasonal occupations for which they are ordinarily available. We have already extended these allowances till the end of May and they will be restored for the harvest.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Having regard to the fact that agriculture is as important as the mining industry, and bearing in mind that the miner gets three or four times as much coal as the British housewife, would the right hon. Gentleman consider allocating three or four times more food to farmers and agricultural workers?
    Mr. Strachey: The hon. and gallant Gentleman should not forget that, in the case of cheese, the agricultural worker already gets six times more.
    Colonel Ponsonbyasked the Minister of Food for what reason food executive officers are refusing to issue for the month of May special rations for farm-workers intensively engaged in overtaking arrears of seasonal work.
    Mr. Strachey: I know of no instance of their doing so, but if the hon. and gallant Member will let me have details of any case, I will look into the matter.

    World Situation (Review)
    Sir Arthur Salterasked the Minister of Food when the next review of the general world food situation may be expected.
    Mr. Strachey: We shall not know the 1947–48 position until this year's Northern Hemisphere harvests are gathered. When these can be assessed, I shall issue a further review of the world food position and more particularly of prospects for 1947–48.
    Sir A. Salter: Does not the Minister remember that this review was promised as a regular quarterly publication, and it is row something like 10 months since the last edition? Would it not be a good thing to resume quarterly publication?
    Mr. Strachey: I must admit that the review is in arrear and should be issued, but I would not like to issue it now until we can see what the harvest situation will be. I quite agree, however, that we ought to produce one in the near future.

    Potato Subsidy Claims
    Colonel Ropnerasked the Minister of Food what steps are taken by his finance department at Oxford to check the accuracy of claims submitted by potato merchants in respect of subsidy; and, in particular, whether he is satisfied that there is any satisfactory check on claims with regard to variety, grade, class and weight.
    Mr. Strachey: Merchants' subsidy claims are scrutinised at Oxford before payment; and afterwards a proportion of them is closely checked in all material particulars, comparison being made with growers' records in selected cases. There have been prosecutions in several cases where wrongful claims have been discovered on subsequent checking.
    Colonel Ropner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is commonly believed by honest merchants that there are others who receive large sums of public money to which they are not entitled? Is he also aware that in cases where a bona fide mistake is made, merchants are paid without question?
    Mr. Strachey: I cannot say what the common belief amongst merchants is but I must point out that the potato merchants are a carefully controlled body
    1074
    and licences are only issued to merchants whom the Ministry believe are reputable. On the other hand, I agree that it is of the greatest importance that a sufficiently large number of these returns should be checked, and I am looking into the matter.

    Glucose (Retail Chemists)
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Minister of Food whether a greater proportion of the available supplies of glucose will be allocated to retail chemists, in view of the difficulty they have at present in honouring prescriptions.
    Mr. Strachey: I will see whether an increased proportion of the available supply can be diverted to retail chemists, although this can only take place at the expense of some other medical use. It would be helpful if all retailers of powdered glucose would take care to sell this scarce article only against medical certificates.
    Mr. Skinnard: In view of the fact that a great number of retail chemists, especially, for instance, in North West Kent, are able to honour only one in ten of National Health prescriptions, will my right hon. Friend consider enlisting the assistance of the Pharmaceutical Society. to prevent the diversion of supplies for medical use to manufacturers?
    Mr. Strachey: It is of great importance that these supplies should he reserved for those who need them and I will consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

  WINES AND SPIRITS (QUALITY AND PRICES)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Food if he has now received reports from the appropriate authorities and trade associations on the quality and prices of drinks offered for sale by the wine company, to which his attention was drawn by the hon. Member for Maldon; arid what action has been taken.
  Mr. Strachey: I have received reports from the appropriate trade associations, who say that the wine company is not buying from any of their members. I have not found any grounds for drawing the attention of the local authorities to this particular case, but my Department has issued a circular to all local authorities about the enforcement of the Labelling of Food Order, 1946. Beyond

  1075
  bringing the case to the notice of the Excise authorities I do not propose to take further action.
  Mr. W. Shepherd: Has the Minister considered the effect on foreign visitors to this country of seeing shops full of wines and spirits at utterly exorbitant prices?
  Mr. Strachey: That is an aspect of the situation which I do not like.

  STERLING BALANCES
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Prime Minister whether the speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 6th May, with regard to sterling balances, represents the policy of His Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir; there is nothing new in this policy which, so far as sterling area countries are concerned, was explicitly set out in Article 10 of the Anglo-American Financial Agreement, approved by this House on 13th December, 1945.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: But in view of the fact that only two months now remain before the Anglo-American Agreement will be brought into force, can the Prime Minister say, first, whether he is satisfied that His Majesty's Government will have concluded all negotiations by that time, and, secondly, when we may expect a statement from His Majesty's Government in concrete terms on this matter?
  The Prime Minister: That is a question which ought to be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  INDIANS, SOUTH AFRICA
  Mr. Skinnardasked the Prime Minister whether when the treatment of non-European communities by the Government of the Union of South Africa is discussed at the next meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations, the representatives of His Majesty's Government will be instructed to give no support to policies at variance with the Charter of the United Nations and the declared policy of His Majesty's Government themselves.
  The Prime Minister: I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the Resolution adopted at the last meeting of the Assembly of the United Nations in connection with the application made by the Government of India regarding the treatment of Indians in the Union of South Africa. The instructions to be given to the United Kingdom Government's representatives at the next Assembly, the precise nature of which will naturally depend upon the form in which the matter will come up, will continue to be based on the declared policy of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom which is founded on the Charter itself.

  SUPERSONIC SOUND (EFFECT ON WORKERS)
  Mr. Dumpletonasked the Lord President of the Council whether the Medical Research Council has yet completed its preliminary inquiries into the possible effects of supersonic sound upon the health of workers in the manufacture of turbo-jet aero-engines; and whether a programme of further research has been arranged.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am informed that the matter is under investigation by the Air Ministry. In view of this the Medical Research Council have not proceeded, with any investigations of their own.
  Mr. Dumpleton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is already in my constituency a case of illness from this cause, and grave disquiet amongst the workers in this industry, and will he, therefore, do everything possible to expedite these inquiries?
  Mr. Morrison: I will keep that in mind, and it will no doubt be noted by the Air Ministry who are concerned with this matter.

  AGRICULTURE

    Advisory Service
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make a statement about the progress which is being made with the development of the Agricultural Advisory Service; and to what extent it will be in effective operation during 1947.
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): The National Agricultural Advisory Service was set up seven months ago and is now in effective operation though not yet at full strength. The eight provincial centres are in being, and the county staffs have been integrated with the county war agricultural executive committee organisation. In association with the provincial directors of the service the committees are playing an invaluable part in guiding the work of the county staffs and stimulating the interest of farmers and growers in the facilities the Service can provide. The work of the Service is under the general direction of a small staff of senior officers at Headquarters, who are closely associated with my Agricultural Improvement Council and through that body with the Agricultural Research Council. Owing to the severe and general shortage of suitably qualified men and women, the Service is at present one-third below strength; while building difficulties and shortages of scientific and other material are proving obstacles above all to the full equipment of the provincial centres and sub-centres. Everything possible is being done to resolve these difficulties and to bring the Service up to full strength and efficiency at the earliest practicable date.

    Fowl Pest
    Lord Willoughby de Eresbyasked the Minister of Agriculture how many cases of fowl pest have been notified; how many birds have been slaughtered during the past week; and what are the results of the discussions between officers of his Department and of the Ministry of Food as to the possibilities of lessening the risk of spreading this disease through the importation of dead poultry.
    Mr. T. Williams: The number of outbreaks of fowl pest confirmed up to 8th May is 166. During the past week about 1,500 domestic fowls, 180 ducks and 20 geese have been slaughtered because of fowl pest. As to the last part of the Question, arrangements are being made for trial shipments of eviscerated poultry to be brought from central Europe. Pending the results of these trial shipments, none but eviscerated poultry will be imported from any country in Europe where fowl pest is prevalent.
    Lord Willoughby de Eresby: In view of the fact that these figures are still
    1078
    going up, will the right hon. Gentleman try to arrange with the Press and the B.B.C. that full publicity is given to fresh outbreaks, so that the country may be aware of the situation?
    Mr. Williams: I can assure the noble Lord that we are using both the Press and the B.B.C. to notify both commercial and domestic poultry keepers of the danger of this fowl pest.
    Lord Willoughby de Eresby: Could this not be treated as foot-and-mouth disease is treated, so that far greater publicity is given as regards outbreaks in various parts of the country?
    Mr. Williams: I can only repeat that we have invited the B.B.C. to give us all the assistance they can, and they have very readily agreed to do it.

    Dairy Cows (Rations)
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that many farmers are dissatisfied with the allocation of rations for dairy cows during the present month; that in many areas, where pasture is not of first rate quality, the ration is insufficient to keep up milk production; and whether he will take steps to increase the ration during this and coming months.
    Mr. T. Williams: I am not aware of any general dissatisfaction with the present scale of rations for dairy cows or that it is normally insufficient to keep up milk production. The reserves of feedingstuffs placed at the disposal of W.A.E.Cs. for issue at their discretion are primarily intended to provide supplementary rations for individual farmers whose milk output is affected by poor growth of grass, and applications by such farmers for supplementary rations for this purpose are accorded a high degree of priority.
    Mr. Collins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an increasing number of farmers are having milk returned to them because of alleged deficiency in butter-fat content? To avoid wastage in this matter, which is largely attributable to shortage and deficiency of feedingstuffs for milking cows, can he make some temporary adjustment of the regulations governing the broad question of the quality of milk?
    Mr. Williams: I can assure my hon. Friend that no complaints of the kind

    1079
    have been brought to my notice. Should any such complaints be brought to our notice, and we have supplies of feedingstuffs available, we shall readily do our best to meet the needs.
    Mr. M. Philips Price: May I ask the Minister what steps are being taken to increase rations for dairy cows by purchases of feedingstuffs from abroad?
    Mr. Williams: I think my hon. Friend is aware that we are buying as much feedingstuffs from abroad as is possible, and that on 1st May rations for all kinds of animals were increased.

    Poultry (Hard Corn)
    Mrs. Middletonasked the Minister of Agriculture when the additional supplies of hard corn for poultry breeding purposes are to be made available this season.
    Mr. T. Williams: The increased rations for poultry, including poultry breeding stock, came into operation on 1st May. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the announcement. A proportion of hard corn may be obtained, if desired, against the monthly cereal coupons and the chick food coupons issued to poultry keepers eligible for rations.
    Mrs. Middleton: While I thank the Minister for that reply, can he say when this will be available in the South Western district?
    Mr. Williams: The increased rations were made available on 1st May

    Derelict Land, Kingsbridge
    Mrs. Middletonasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that there is land lying derelict within the area of the Kingsbridge Rural District Council on which formerly crops of early potatoes were produced; and when he proposes to take steps to bring back this land into cultivation.
    Mr. T. Williams: I understand that all arable land in the Kingsbridge Rural District Council's area has been scheduled for cropping this year, but if my hon. Friend will send me particulars of the land she has in mind, I will make further inquiries.

    RIVER SEVERN (NAVIGATION PLANS)
    Mr. Parkinasked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made, since the conference at Gloucester last summer called by the county N.F.U., in the examination by his Department of plans to improve the navigation of the Severn between Gloucestershire and Worcestershire prepared by the Severn Commission.
    Mr. T. Williams: My Department is in close touch with the Ministry of Transport, the River Severn Catchment Board and the Severn Commission to ensure that agricultural interests are safeguarded in any scheme which may be adopted to provide improved navigation on the river.
    Mr. Parkin: Will the Minister recollect that he gave an approximately similar reply to representations made 12 months ago, and will he answer the part of the Question which asks what progress has been made?
    Mr. Williams: I am afraid I can only say that the representatives of my Department have been in consultation with both the Catchment Board and the Ministry of Transport to see what scheme or schemes can be undertaken to relieve that particular area. As to progress, I am afraid I can report very little at present.
    Mr. Philips Price: Is it not a fact that a decision on the matter of the Severn navigation is not likely to be taken for a considerable time and, meanwhile, the Severn bank erosion is going on pretty rapidly? Cannot some urgent measures be taken in the meantime?
    Mr. Williams: A decision by the Ministry of Transport or the proposed British Transport Commission on the proposals made by the Severn Commission, must be taken before the River Severn Catchment Board can determine finally what step should be taken to improve certain stretches of the river.

  RAILWAYS

    Charges (Increases)
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Minister of Transport if he will give an assurance that passenger and freight rail rates will not be further increased this year.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I can give no such assurance. I stated in February that the Charges Consultative Committee had recommended certain increases in railway charges, and that the Government had decided to review the position at the end of March in the light of further experience of the trends of receipts and expenditure. It now appears that, apart from the effects of the severe weather and the fuel crisis in the first quarter of this year, other factors are affecting net revenue adversely. To the end of March, the pooled net revenue of the railway companies fell short of the appropriate proportion of the fixed annual sums payable to them by about £18 million. It is estimated that this deficiency will increase to about £23 million by 30th June, and possibly to about £32 million by the end of the year. These estimates justify increases substantially in excess of those recommended by the Committee, and the Government are giving close consideration to the steps necessary to meet the position.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has just given an account of what is a most depressing future for the industry? Is he aware that under nationalisation the charges will be further increased, and, in view of the present condition of the country economically, will he give an assurance to the public and to traders that the charges will not be increased?
    Mr. Barnes: I have already stated that I can give no assurance. This has nothing to do with the form of control of the railways. The railways would have been in a worse position if they were not under control.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: What becomes of the promise of cheap and efficient transport under nationalisation?
    Hon. Members: Wait and see.
    Mr. Barnes: That is a question which, later on, the noble Lord might be in a better position to judge
    Mr. Douglas Jay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that paying subsidies to private enterprise on this scale is not justified?
    Mr. Barnes: I do not think the question arises. The control agreement is in order at the present moment, and the State must meet its obligations, like everyone else.
    Mr. Keeling: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's estimate takes account of the claim for about £70 million per annum extra pay from the railway staffs?
    Mr. Barnes: I do not quite see the connection, and, in any case, these are not my estimates, but the railway companies' estimates.

    Employees' Savings Banks
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Transport what will be the effect of the Transport Bill upon railway employees' savings banks, especially regarding trusteeships, powers to invest deposits, persons entitled to make deposits, the rate of interest payable on deposits and the presentation of accounts.
    Mr. Barnes: The Commission will inherit precisely the same rights and liabilities as the railway companies now possess. While the Commission would have no power to abrogate any rights of depositors, they will no doubt wish to consider whether as a matter of long-term policy the facilities for saving by their staff should not be assimilated to those provided by the National Savings movement.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Did the right hon. Gentleman consult the National Union of Railwaymen and other unions on this matter before the Transport Bill was presented?
    Mr. Barnes: Not before the Transport Bill was presented, but later, yes.

    Children's Tickets
    Mr. Symondsasked the Minister of Transport if he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the adjustment of the age-limit for children's tickets on the railways to correspond with the school-leaving age.
    Mr. Barnes: Not yet, Sir. It is necessary to consider this matter in relation to the general financial position of the railways about which I have answered another Question.
    Mr. Symonds: Can the Minister say how soon we may expect an answer on this matter, as it affects the summer holidays and is causing muddle and anxiety to people who are trying to spread over their summer holidays?
    Mr. Barnes: My hon. Friend knows that this is for general casual travel and not for travel for education purposes, and in view of the figures I have given previously, I am afraid that I must consider this in relation to other financial problems of the railways.

    Mid-week Travel
    Mr. Symondsasked the Minister of Transport if railway fares will be reduced for mid-week travel during the holiday season, in order to prevent congestion at week-ends.
    Mr. Barnes: No, Sir.

  SHIPPING

    Cross-Channel Services, Northern Ireland
    Sir Ronald Rossasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that sailing tickets for journeys to Northern Ireland are being brought into use early next month; and whether it is possible to avoid this serious inconvenience to the travelling public by putting more cross-channel steamers into use.
    Mr. Barnes: Yes, Sir. Reintroduction for the summer period is necessary to avoid the inconvenience to the travelling public which would otherwise be experienced during a period of heavy travel. All

    The following statement, based on information supplied by the Board of Trade, shows the number of vessels that arrived and departed with cargo at the port of London during each month from January, 1946, to March, 1947, inclusive:

    —

    Arrived.

    Departed.

    Foreign Trade.

    Coasting Trade.

    Total.

    Foreign Trade.

    Coasting Trade.

    Total.

    1946.

    January

    …

    191

    674

    865

    256

    218

    474

    February

    …

    190

    621

    811

    217

    225

    442

    March

    …

    226

    770

    996

    225

    338

    563

    April

    …

    269

    620

    889

    301

    277

    578

    May

    …

    271

    711

    982

    322

    290

    612

    June

    …

    307

    643

    950

    293

    287

    580

    July

    …

    355

    672

    1,027

    347

    246

    593

    August

    …

    388

    611

    999

    326

    276

    602

    September

    …

    423

    687

    1,110

    330

    253

    583

    October

    …

    455

    761

    1,216

    399

    267

    666

    November

    …

    393

    725

    1,118

    364

    247

    611

    December

    …

    417

    702

    1,119

    338

    256

    594

    1947

    January

    …

    371

    736

    1,107

    312

    247

    559

    February

    …

    308

    682

    990

    259

    221

    480

    March

    …

    399

    801

    1,200

    296

    293

    589

    available vessels will be in use at the peak periods.
    Sir R. Ross: Does that mean that all the vessels normally employed and built for those services will be used, and would the right hon. Gentleman say what he considers to be the peak period?
    Mr. Barnes: I do not wish to convey the impression that it will make their maximum number of sailings possible. We must have regard to the overall coal savings which the railways and similar services must obtain during this period, but undoubtedly they will be augmented.
    Sir R. Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if other services besides those carrying people to Ireland will make a similar saving? So far it is entirely confined to services to Ireland.

    Cargo Tonnage, London and Glasgow
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Transport the number of cargo-carrying ships entering and leaving the Port of London; and the tonnage weight of cargo carried for each month in 1946–47 to the nearest convenient date.
    Mr. Barnes: As the reply includes a large number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:

    The following information has been supplied to me by the Port Of London
    Authority and shows the tonnage of imports and exports and transhipments for the quarters ending
    30th September and 31st December, 1946:

    —

    Quarter ended 30th September.

    Quarter ended 31st December

    Total for six months.

    tons.

    tons.

    tons.

    Overseas Imports

    2,842,093

    2,360,171

    5,202,264

    Overseas Exports

    655,873

    817,202

    1,473,075

    Total, Overseas Trade

    3,497,966

    3,177,373

    6,675,339

    Coasting Imports

    3,453,486

    3,616,538

    7,070,024

    Coasting Exports

    294,074

    352,693

    646,767

    Total, Coasting Trade

    3,747,560

    3,969,231

    7,716,791

    Transhipments Inwards

    202,602

    265,221

    467,823

    Transhipments Outwards

    202,602

    265,221

    467,823

    Total, Transhipments

    405,204

    530,442

    935,646

    Grand Total of Imports, Exports and Transhipments

    7,650,730

    7,677,046

    15,327,776

    The analysis of imports and exports was discontinued by the Port of London Authority during the war. It was only re-started on the 1st July, 1946, and figures are available for these two quarters only.
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Transport the number of cargo-carrying ships entering and leaving the Port of Glasgow; and the tonnage weight of cargo carried in each month for a year ended at the nearest convenient date.
    Mr. Barnes: As the reply includes a large number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Commander Maitland: Would the right hon. Gentleman say if his answer includes the size of the ships involved in each

    The following statement based on information supplied by the Board of Trade
    shows the number of vessels that arrived and departed with cargo at the port of Glasgow during
    each month from April, 1946, to March, 1947, inclusive:

    Arrived.

    Departed.

    —

    Foreign trade.

    Coasting trade.

    Total.

    Foreign trade.

    Coasting trade.

    Total

    1946.

    April

    …

    52

    249

    301

    55

    220

    275

    May

    …

    58

    239

    297

    50

    225

    275

    June

    …

    47

    281

    328

    48

    261

    309

    July

    …

    37

    311

    348

    43

    268

    311

    August

    …

    54

    307

    361

    55

    260

    315

    September

    …

    77

    252

    329

    64

    227

    291

    October

    …

    95

    235

    330

    83

    244

    327

    November

    …

    81

    234

    315

    73

    231

    304

    December

    …

    64

    232

    296

    76

    208

    284

    1947.

    January

    …

    72

    208

    280

    53

    218

    271

    February

    …

    56

    165

    221

    52

    195

    247

    March

    …

    53

    219

    272

    37

    211

    248

    case—that is not specifically asked, but it is important?
    Mr. Rankin: Would it be possible in circulating the reply, for my right hon. Friend also to give the total labour force in the Port of London, and in the Port of Glasgow?
    Mr. Barnes: Both those supplementary questions raise points that were not in the Question. I shall be happy to furnish that information in reply to Questions put down to me.
    Following is the reply:

    The following information has been supplied to me by the Clyde Navigation Trust and shows the tonnage of imports and exports for each month from April, 1946, to March, 1947, inclusive:

    —

    Foreign.

    Coastwise.

    Imports.

    Exports

    Imports.

    Exports.

    tons.

    tons.

    tons.

    tons.

    1946

    April

    …

    236,901

    61,909

    71,536

    82,438

    May

    …

    262,339

    64,547

    78,203

    81,336

    June

    …

    242,912

    60,555

    75,139

    79,302

    July

    …

    223,691

    47,979

    64,479

    73,873

    August

    …

    187,169

    41,952

    60,128

    70,061

    September

    …

    272,358

    52,243

    70,533

    80,698

    October

    …

    241,797

    53,320

    74,260

    87,378

    November

    …

    249,509

    48,690

    76,109

    90,117

    December

    …

    348,190

    54,293

    68,703

    87,025

    1947

    January

    …

    223,853

    59,167

    57,317

    73,071

    February

    …

    181,567

    22,755

    58,535

    60,976

    March

    …

    209,225

    60,034

    59,548

    65,678

    2,879,511

    627,444

    814,490

    931,953

  L.P.T.B.

    Staggered Hours, London Offices
    Mr. Sparksasked the Minister of Transport what progress has now been made in the staggering of hours of work in London offices to reduce the pressure upon transport services during the peak periods; and, in particular, what contribution Government offices are making in this direction.
    Mr. Barnes: Negotiations are proceeding, and agreement has already been reached with many firms, which are making the necessary adjustments. Government offices have had staggered working hours for some years past and certain adjustments are now being considered to fit in with the general plan.
    Mr. Sparks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the population of Greater London is increasing on an average by 45,000 each month, and that by the end of this year it will be greater than the 1938 population, and that that in turn will greatly affect this peak traffic problem? Is he satisfied that arrangements are being made to meet that?
    Mr. Barnes: I am aware of the increase of population, but I am not satisfied that
    1088
    we can make an entirely satisfactory arrangement. However, the process of encouraging the staggering of hours does help to lessen the problem

    Children's Tickets
    Mr. Parkerasked the Minister of Transport when the L.P.T.B. propose to introduce the two-thirds fare season tickets for juveniles aged 16 and 17 years.
    Mr. Barnes: The necessary Statutory Order is now being prepared, but I regret that I am not yet in a position to give the date on which the new arrangement will come into force.
    Sir W. Smithers: May I ask the Minister of Transport, in regard to this and a lot of other questions, whether he has ever heard of a vicious spiral? If not, will he see that this is a disastrous process?
    Mr. Barnes: I have heard of more than one vicious spiral.

    Tramways Services, South London
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the inconvenience suffered by travellers in South London through the increasingly

    1089
    frequent breakdown of tramcars; and what steps are being taken to improve the service.
    Mr. Barnes: Difficulties have been caused by a shortage of spare parts. This is being overcome, with progressive improvement in maintenance.

  INLAND TRANSPORT

    Increased Fares (Revenue)
    Major Bruceasked the Minister of Transport the approximate sum of extra revenue accruing to date to the transport undertakings concerned as a result of the passenger fare increases approved by him during the past fiscal year.
    Mr. Barnes: The amount of additional receipts resulting from the increases in passenger fares introduced on the main line railways and the Green Line Coaches on 1st July, 1946, and on the road and rail services on the London Passenger Transport Board on 9th February, 1947, was approximately £14 millions up to 27th April last.
    Major Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that no part of this increase is going towards the advertising campaign of the railway companies and road hauliers on the subject of nationalisation, and if so, can he give any idea where the quarter of a million pounds is coming from for that purpose?
    Mr. Barnes: I cannot determine how railways distribute their dividends. Later on, of course, that will not arise.

    European Organisation (Governments' Subscriptions)
    Mr. Douglas Jayasked the Minister of Transport whether he anticipates that the European Central Inland Transport Organisation may have to shut down shortly owing to the failure of certain Member Governments to pay their agreed contributions towards its expenditure; what Governments are involved; what are the amounts outstanding; and up to what date have full subscriptions been paid.
    Mr. Barnes: The total amount of unpaid subscription at the present time is £129,500. Of this sum £95,000 is represented by half of the U.S.S.R. subscription for the last financial year and the whole of their subscription for the current financial year. The delay in paying the
    1090
    balance of the other subscriptions arises, I understand, mainly from currency difficulties. The attention of the Soviet Authorities has been drawn to the critical financial position in which the Organisation will shortly find itself if their outstanding subscriptions are not paid forthwith.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does this organisation serve any important British interests, and if not why are we being asked as one of two Governments to raise our contribution?
    Mr. Barnes: We are not one of two Governments. I have replied to a specific Question.

  ROADS

    Safety Barriers, Clevedon
    Mr. Orr-Ewingasked the Minister of Transport whether he will inquire into the need for safety barriers outsides those schools in Clevedon which are on the main through road, as this matter has now been under consideration for some months by the Somerset County Council, without result.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. G. R. Strauss): The local education authority are considering the need for the provision of safety barriers outside schools on the Class II road B.3130 in Clevedon, and as far as I am aware, the negotiations are proceeding satisfactorily.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is the Minister also aware that if matters are proceeding satisfactorily they are proceeding in such a leisurely way that neither the inhabitants nor the headmaster nor the headmistress of the school can possibly be satisfied? Could he not do something to speed up matters? This has been going on for a year.
    Mr. Strauss: This is primarily the responsibility of the Somerset County Council. Inquiries have been made quite recently by the Ministry of Education, and maybe this Question, which the hon. Member has asked, may hasten the matter in some respects.

    Tour, Blackpool-Scarborough
    Mr. Spearmanasked the Minister of Transport why the Traffic Commissioner for the North-west Area refused an appli-

    1091
    cation from the Batty-Holt Touring Service, Limited, Blackpool, to operate a five days' tour to Scarborough.
    Mr. Barnes: According to my information, this application was withdrawn on 30th April before it could be heard at a public sitting.
    Mr. Spearman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it rather hard that these people who live in Blackpool should not have the same chance of getting to Scarborough as people from other areas?
    Mr. Barnes: I do not think that question arises. I am dealing with a specific allegation which, as far as I can see, has no substance.
    Mr. Spearman: If I send the right hon. Gentleman full particulars will he have an inquiry made?
    Mr. Barnes: I will certainly look into any information which the hon. Gentleman cares to submit to me.

    Selby Toll Bridge
    Colonel Ropnerasked the Minister of Transport whether his Department or the county councils of the West Riding and East Riding of Yorkshire are primarily responsible for negotiating with the owners of Selby Toll Bridge; and whether, and on what date, negotiations for the purchase of the toll rights were initiated.
    Mr. Barnes: On 20th January, 1947, my Department, which, in agreement with the county councils, is taking the initiative in this matter, requested the chief valuer to undertake negotiations for a provisional settlement.
    Colonel Ropner: How is it that the Minister has been able to tell me by successive answers in the last few months that negotiations are proceeding while I have information from the owners of the bridge that the first approach made to them by the Ministry was about a fortnight ago?
    Mr. Barnes: What course the valuer is taking in the matter is one for him, but in view of the inquiries which I have made into this I should like to inform the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I am calling for a special report, as my Department is very anxious to facilitate the removal of these toll bridges.

    Traffic Congestion, London (New Order)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received any recommendations from the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee on the relief of traffic congestion in London; and whether he will make a statement on this matter.
    Mr. Barnes: Yes, Sir. On the advice of the Committee, I have made an Order, to come into force on 27th of this month, prohibiting the waiting of vehicles between 11.30 a.m. and 6.30 p.m. on Mondays to Fridays inclusive, on about 10 miles of the principal thoroughfares in Central London. Passenger vehicles will be permitted to stop only long enough to set down and pick up passengers, and goods vehicles to wait only while loading and unloading, and, even then, for not longer than 20 minutes. In addition, the Order will prohibit street trading in these streets on ail weekdays, except under licence. The restrictions on slow moving traffic which were in force in the West End before the war will be re-imposed on the same date, and I also propose shortly to make Regulations imposing similar restrictions in certain of the main streets in the City.

    Maintenance (Reduced Grants)
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Transport why the table relating to the reduction in road grants does not include the Isle of Ely, the county council for which has been informed of cuts of 27 per cent. on class one road, 24 per cent. on class two roads and 78 per cent. on class three roads in the councils estimates; and what steps he proposes to take in view of the fact that flood damage to roads in the Isle of Ely is estimated at £11,000 and frost damage at £9,000.
    Mr. Barnes: The figures relating to road maintenance in the Isle of Ely were not received from my regional office in time, for inclusion in the table which was printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In deciding the proportion of the County Council's estimates towards which grants will be available, account has been taken of local conditions, including frost and flood damage. According to my information, the figures of frost and flood damage quoted by the hon. and gallant Member

    1093
    include some £8,500 for damage to trunk roads, which will be borne entirely by the Road Fund.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this problem is by no means confined to the Isle of Ely and that all his policy amounts to is the erection of "Road up" signs instead of "Road works ahead"?
    Sir J. Mellorasked the Minister of Transport if he will specify the areas in which road maintenance is covered by the block grant.
    Mr. Barnes: The Local Government Acts of 1929 which instituted the block grant, provided for the discontinuance of classification grants in respect of Class I and Class II roads and bridges in London, in county boroughs in England and Wales and in large burghs in Scotland, and of grants for the maintenance of unclassified roads in counties.
    Sir J. Mellorasked the Minister of Transport what steps he took to ascertain conditions in Warwickshire, including damage done to classified roads by frosts, snow and floods, before deciding what amount of the county council's estimated expenditure on road maintenance should rank for grant in 1947–48; and why he failed to consult the Warwickshire County Council before reaching a decision.
    Mr. Barnes: My divisional road engineers are in constant touch with the officials of the county councils in their areas and are fully conversant with local conditions.
    Sir J. Mellor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the Warwickshire County Council are unable to carry out the repairs for which they have estimated and for which they are entitled to grants they will have to discharge labourers; and that if further repairs are not made it will lead to a general aggravation of the position?
    Mr. Barnes: The hon. Gentleman must recollect that this is a universal problem. and I cannot treat one county differently from another.
    Sir J. Mellor: Is not the right hon. Gentleman discriminating between different counties? Has he not already said so?
    Major Legge-Bourke: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the decision he has made in regard to road grants is
    1094
    going to throw the country into complete confusion, and that unless some steps are taken to rectify these enormous cuts a great many roads will have to be closed down throughout the country?
    Mr. Barnes: I greatly appreciate the difficulties involved, but, after all, in spreading the available funds we have to take into consideration the complete range and responsibility of all the highways in this country.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the county councils were encouraged to put in pretty high estimates as the result of the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman in January, 1946, and that this latest announcement has come as a complete surprise to them and has thrown their plans and budgets for the year completely out of gear?
    Mr. Lipson: What steps are being taken to meet the shortage of labour and materials?
    Mr. Barnes: I do not think it is primarily a question of shortage of material and labour, but a question of the allocation.
    Major Legge-Bourke: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer to this Question and Question No. 78, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    BOMBING EXERCISES, WILTSHIRE
    Mr. Hollis(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that considerable damage to property in Urchfont, Market Lavington and Easterton was caused by the use of 4,000 lb. bombs in the vicinity of R.A.F. exercises on Friday afternoon; that widespread anxiety in the neighbourhood has been caused by an announcement that there will be an even heavier exercise tomorrow, Tuesday, and whether he can give an assurance that that exercise will take place under conditions that can cause no damage to civilian property.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): I am much indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for this opportunity to express my great regret

    1095
    that damage and alarm should have been caused in Market Lavington, Easterton and Urchfont by the dropping of 4,000 lb. bombs on the artillery range of Larkhill on Friday last. In the past 4,000 lb. bombs have, in fact, been safely used on this range, and on Friday the bombs fell nearly 2¾ miles from the nearest village. But, in view of what happened on Friday, the Air Council have now given orders that no bomb heavier than 500 lb. shall be used in the demonstration which is to take place to-morrow. I am satisfied that no danger can result from the use of these much smaller bombs.
    Mr. Hollis: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement, which will give very great satisfaction to the people of Wiltshire?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House if he has a statement to make about any rearrangement of Business this week in respect of the National Service Bill?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Government hope to conclude the Committee stage later this week after other Business on either Wednesday or Thursday.

DIVISION No. 189 (CORRECTED FIGURES)
MR. SNOW (LORD OF THE TREASURY) and Mr. EMRYS ROBERTS, the Tellers in the Aye Division Lobby in Division No. 189 on Wednesday, 7th May, came to the Table.
Mr. Snow: We have to report that in the 10 o'clock Division on 7th May on the National Service Bill on the Question "That the word 'twelve' be there inserted," we erroneously reported the number of the "Ayes" as 368 instead of 358. which was the correct number.
Mr. Speaker: In view of that correction, I will see that the necessary entry is made in the Journal.

NEW MEMBER SWORN
Ernest Fernyhough, Esquire, for the County of Durham (Jarrow Division).
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on the Town and Country Planning Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) for Two hours after Ten o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

HIS MAJESTY'S RETURN FROM SOUTH AFRICA
3.35 p.m.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I beg to move,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, assuring His Majesty, on the occasion of his return from the Union of South Africa, of the loyal and affectionate welcome of this House to His Majesty, to Her Majesty the Queen and to Their Royal Highnesses the Princess Elizabeth and the Princess Margaret."
On 27th January I moved that an Address should be presented to His Majesty the King on the occasion of His Majesty's departure with Her Majesty the Queen and Their Royal Highnesses the Princess Elizabeth and the Princess Margaret for South Africa. The whole country is today greeting their safe return home after a most successful visit. This House will wish to express to Their Majesties and Their Royal Highnesses their loyal and affectionate welcome. It is, I think, a happy coincidence that this day is also the tenth anniversary of Their Majesties' Coronation. This occasion, therefore, gives us the opportunity of paying a tribute to the devoted work which they have done throughout these years, both in peace and war—work which has strengthened the bonds which unite people and Throne.
Throughout these years, Their Majesties have shared in the joys and sorrows of their people and have set us all a fine example. I know that during these weeks of absence Their Majesties have followed with anxious sympathy the hardships which the unforeseen rigours of prolonged and severe winter inflicted on the nation. I know how willingly they would have returned to share them, had it been deemed necessary, but to have done so, would have been to give deep disappointment to our fellow-subjects in South Africa who, for the first time in their history, have been enabled to welcome in person their King and Queen.

1097
We have all learned from the admirable reports in the Press and on the radio, and from the pictures in the newsreels, the enthusiastic welcome with which Their Majesties have been greeted in every part of South Africa, in the Union, in Northern and Southern Rhodesia and in the three Protectorates. We had not expected anything else, but every account has shown that the warmth of this welcome has exceeded all expectations. South Africa is a country of divers races and varying histories and traditions, but all alike were united in their desire to show their affection and respect for their Sovereign. I think that the people in South Africa were impressed not only by the zeal with which Their Majesties and Their Royal Highnesses carried through their very heavy programme of official functions, but by their actions on less formal occasions which displayed what we have already known so well—their broad human sympathy for all sorts and conditions of men.
We are grateful to all those who, throughout the tour, have devoted themselves to ensuring the comfort and wellbeing of Their Majesties. We are all glad to have Their Majesties home again, and to know that they have, through this visit, strengthened the ties of friendship between Great Britain and South Africa.
3.40 p.m.
Mr. Churchill: I wish to associate myself and the Conservative Opposition with the Motion which the Prime Minister has moved. We are all cordially ranged with the right hon. Gentleman on this question and his happily-worded speech leaves little need for addition. We all sympathise with the feelings of the King and Queen when they were in South African sunshine, while the rigours of the winter descended upon us here. It must have been, we know, a great worry and preoccupation to them not to be with us, as the King and Queen always have been with us in all the dark, unpleasant moments through which we have passed. It appears to me, and, I believe, to my friends on this side, that the constitutional advice, tendered by the Prime Minister and by the Government to the Crown, that the tour should continue, was entirely in the national, Commonwealth and Imperial interest, and was in every respect wise and correct. We have read in the papers of the festivities which have taken place, of the many
1098
picturesque receptions held, of the welcome given by varied races, of the journeys that have been made and of the survey made by their Majesties of the wide panorama of South Africa. One must not forget, although each of these ceremonies in itself is a matter of great pleasure to the principal personages concerned, nevertheless, taken in a long unending routine, they become a very serious strain upon physical, mental and moral strength. To be continually presented with these demonstrations of affection and loyalty, and to receive them with such unfailing graciousness and untiring good will is, indeed, a great achievement, but it must not be supposed that it does not involve heavy toil, nor must it be supposed that it has not brought with it great advantages, as the Prime Minister has said, both to South Africa, and to the larger organism of which South Africa forms so romantic and interesting a part.
The Prime Minister reminds us also that the homecoming of Their Majesties and the Princesses corresponds with the anniversary of the tenth year of the King's reign. What a period of peril and torment we have had to live through. Yet all the strains and stresses which we have all undergone, and in which the King and Queen and the Royal Family have shared to the utmost of their power, never failing in their duty—all these stresses have only resulted in making more secure and solid the foundations of our institutions in this country, and increasing the loyalty and love formed by all parties to the King and Queen, in the discharge of the great constitutional office entrusted to them.
3.44 P.m.
Mr. Clement Davies: May I, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, be permitted to support the Motion moved by the Prime Minister, and to express the heartfelt gratitude of everyone in this country to Their Majesties who have undertaken this memorable tour? We extend to them our humble and sincere congratulations on the outstanding success they have achieved. It has re-emphasised the bond of friendship and good will which binds all the people of South Africa with this country.
3.45 P.m.
Sir Stanley Holmes: On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I beg to support the Motion. The words so

1099
appropriately used by my right hon. Friends have obviously met with the approval of every Member in the House. The Royal House, for many generations, has increasingly gained the loyalty and affection of the people of this country and of the Empire, by reason of the high characters of our Kings and Queens, and their deep devotion to the public service. Within the memory of some of us Queen Victoria, King Edward and Queen Alexandra, King George and Queen Mary have all displayed these supreme qualities of sovereignty. Today, we can acclaim that our present King and Queen and the Princesses are tried and worthy followers in the same tradition. It is therefore right and fitting that at the conclusion of their long and arduous visit to South Africa, we as a House, on behalf of the people of this country, should humbly declare our homage, our regard and our gratitude.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved, nemine contradicente:
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, assuring His Majesty, on the occasion of his return from the Union of South Africa, of the loyal and affectionate welcome of this House to His Majesty, to Her Majesty the Queen and to Their Royal Highnesses the Princess Elizabeth and the Princess Margaret."
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  Order for Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
  3.49 P.m.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to raise a point of Order affecting today's Business, which is of importance to Members in every part of the House. The Amendment Paper, containing the proposed Amendments to the Town and Country Planning Bill, is 75 pages long. It contains about 400 Amendments, more than half of which are Government Amendments. This formidable document was not in the hands of hon. Members in its marshalled form until today, when we have to proceed at
  1100
  once with consideration of the Bill. As far as the Opposition Amendments are concerned, we had to wait until the Government Amendments were all put down before we could judge how far the Minister had been able to give effective consideration to the points raised in Standing Committee. By a very hard effort we managed to get our Amendments down by Wednesday, and we sent a copy to the right hon. Gentleman. The fact remains that hon. Members generally had no chance of seeing the Amendments in their marshalled form until today. Those who have had experience of the House know the zeal and efficiency of those who serve us in these matters—the Clerks and printers—too well to believe for a moment that these lamentable happenings are due to any default on their part. It is quite evident that this zealous and efficient machine is breaking down under the strain being placed upon it by the Government, and I ask that the Government will either take steps to reinforce that machine, without whose workings we in this House cannot perform our duty efficiently, or will consider and modify their time-table so as to have some regard to those Clerks and printers without whose loyal work we could not do our duty in this House.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not know that there is much for which I can answer. I suffer from the same disability as all other hon. Members inasmuch as it was only this morning that I saw the complete Amendments. I had great difficulty on Friday, with Amendments all over the place, trying to go through them for selection. I am perfectly certain that it is not the fault of the compositors. The House must remember that after we have finished our business, they have to set up for six or seven hours. When we have an all-night Sitting—and we are sitting late every night—it puts an intolerable strain upon them. However, we are going to look into the whole matter to see if it can be altered. I, personally, intend to see what I can do; I will do what falls within my power to see whether, in future, we can get Amendments in a reasonable time. I say that for my own convenience, as well as that of hon. Members.
  Sir Peter Macdonald: As a Member of a Standing Committee which has met once a week, upstairs, taking evidence from witnesses, we have

  1101
  been in some difficulty, Mr. Speaker. We have not been able to get reports of our meetings in time for the following week. That is a situation which has never happened before in my experience and I have served on the Estimates Committee for 20 years. I hope that steps will be taken to get the report of a meeting made available before we hold the following meeting. It is impossible to follow everything unless we have a report of the previous meeting.
  Mr. Eden: Can the Leader of the House give us an assurance that we are not going to be put into this sort of position again? We are, here, dealing with a Measure which has been handled under an imposed Government time-table in the form of the Guillotine, and it is not reasonable to say to the House, "Your time for discussion will be severely limited by this process," and, "You will not have an opportunity of examining the Amendments you are asked to discuss until the morning of the day on which you are asked to discuss them."
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I can assure the right lion. Gentleman and the House that we shall do everything we can to meet the convenience of the House. But I think his judgment is a little harsh. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because I am advised that up to, and including, 1st May—and it is now 12th May—172 Government Amendments had been put down, as against the present total of 219. Moreover, I am further advised that the majority of the Amendments put down since 1st May are either drafting points, or are consequential on earlier Amendments, or deal with minor points; in particular, they fulfil promises given in Committee. I am told that the only points of substance are two Amendments put down on 7th May—and I repeat that this is 12th May—to extend the compulsory purchasing powers of the Central Land Board, and to extend the 'powers for stopping up highways. Since 7th May it is true that 30 Amendments have been put down, but in relation to 200, that is not too bad. The only major points which are covered in those 30 Amendments are the application of the Bill to charity lands, and provisions to enable the metropolitan boroughs to acquire open spaces. That being so, the prima
  1102
  facie case of criticism of my right hon. Friend in this matter is not as big as it would appear first sight.
  Mr. Churchill: Is it not really time that the right hon. Gentleman abandoned the farce of pretending that Measures which are being passed into law are receiving the careful study and discussion of the House of Commons? First, these Measures are sent upstairs, and nine-tenths of the Members are not allowed to take part in shaping matters which greatly affect their constituents or the country generally. Next, there is a vast mass of Amendments cast upon us, some of a beneficial character, some of a mitigating character, but none the less all requiring to be discussed. Under a fixed time table, this business is thrust through. To call that Parliamentary Government, and the making of laws by Parliament, is an abuse of those terms, and the right hon. Gentleman should be aware that there will undoubtedly be a feeling that the Parliamentary freedoms we have hitherto enjoyed have been definitely abrogated, and brought into diminishing effect.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: I should like to point out that the Government Amendments came on to the Order Paper as lately as 8th May—last Thursday. During the long Committee stage, the Minister gave undertakings to consider many of the points we raised. We had to wait until all his Amendments were on the Paper before we knew what effect, if any, the Minister's subsequent consideration had had. It is not right for the Leader of the House to say that we should proceed on the assumption that the Amendments which came out as late as Thursday last, are of no importance.
  Mr. H. Morrison: These Amendments were put down on 7th May and published in the Order Paper on 8th May. For this limited number I do not think that that is too bad. My right hon. Friend has done everything he could to consider favourably and fully the representations which he received from the Opposition. That must take a little time. He could have brushed all these things aside in Committee, and said he would not consider them, but he has wished to consider them. The point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was in the nature of an oration rather than a supplementary question. He should not be

  1103
  shocked about Bills going to Committee upstairs. He always scorns Committees of the House as if they are incapable of examining Bills in Committee. This business of Bills going upstairs was invented by himself and his colleagues in the Liberal Government of 1906, and we are following that admirable example.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: I should like to make it clear that we are making no complaint against the Minister of Town and Country Planning. I do not think he has taken an undue time in putting down his Amendments. My complaint is against the Leader of the House and the Government for rushing the business of the House so as not to allow a decent interval between the publishing of Amendments, and their consideration on Report.
  Mr. Clement Davies: It is not merely a question which concerns this Bill. We are making no complaint against the Minister of Town and Country Planning who, undoubtedly, with his Department, has been tremendously overworked. This is only one of a great number of Measures in regard to which the House is not being given a fair chance. Taking this Bill as a whole, it is one of which most of us are in favour, but it affects not only national rights but local government and individuals' rights. We are anxious that the whole matter should be carefully considered, and wish to make our contributions as best we can. But the time is very very short. The House and its officials are being overworked.
  Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Without wishing to enter into the wider ramifications of this matter, I should like to make a brief comment on the statement of the Leader of the House about the time table for this Bill. The Committee stage finished on 2nd April. The Amendments of the Minister of Town and Country Planning did not start to be tabled until 1st May. Therefore, there was one month taken up by the Minister of Town and Country Planning in the preparation of his Amendments. The Opposition Amendments had to wait on consideration of the Amendments tabled by the right hon. Gentleman. We would have got them on the Paper by Wednesday last, but for the delay caused by the overtaxing of the Parliamentary machine, and the consequent failure to print. I submit, therefore, that even on the facts put forward by the Lord
  1104
  President of the Council, it is clear that Parliament has been prevented by the time-table, from doing its proper duty of scrutinising all these Amendments before their consideration on Report.
  4.0 p.m.
  Captain Crookshank: May I ask whether it would be in Order, Mr. Speaker, for the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, if he felt it possible to do so, to apologise to the House for the way in which he has treated it?
  Mr. H. Morrison: With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith), he is quite wrong. The Minister did not start putting his Amendments down on 1st May. He started on 24th April.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: How many?
  Mr. H. Morrison: As a matter of fact, by 1st May there was either this number of Amendments or more than this number. It looks as if there were 153 Amendments down. They started on 24th April; there were more on the 28th, and more on the 30th. The Opposition really are rather reckless in the way they throw facts about.
  Mr. W. J. Brown: May I ask consideration from the Government Front Bench for this point? Fifty or 60 hon. Members served on the Committee on this Bill. They have been in continuous contact with the subject-matter of the Bill, and are aware of undertakings given by the Minister. If the undertakings are implemented by Amendments, they will be able rapidly to assess how far the Amendments meet the pledges given. But if there were 50 hon. Members serving on the Committee upstairs, there are 570 hon. Members who have not served on that Committee. These Amendments reached me this morning at nine o'clock. How a Member who has not served on the Committee upstairs is to be expected to relate this massive wad of Amendments to a Bill already massive in itself, and do so by 3.20 in the afternoon, passes my comprehension. May I respectfully urge the Government to do one of two things: either accommodate their programme to the machine, or make the machine adequate to meet the programme?
  Mr. H. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman is trying to keep up with the Conserva-

  1105
  tives, as he so often does, in exaggerating the situation. He should, know that the great bulk of the Amendments, and the "great wad," which he has quoted, have been in his hands, or ought to have been, for quite a long time.
  Mr. Churchill: I do not know why the Leader of the House should be trying so hard to keep up with the levelling doctrines destructive of Parliamentary government, which hitherto have been the perquisites of the Communists.
  Mr. Beswick: Since the question of sending this Bill upstairs to a Standing Committee of 50 Members has been raised, might I mention that at the Second Reading, when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning introduced this Bill, there were 14 Members of the Conservative Party in this House as a maximum at any given time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I was there, and I say that there were only 14 Members—
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is getting on to quite a different question.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Conservative exaggeration. May I invite him to consult his colleague the Minister of Town and Country Planning, and to ask him whether I am exaggerating in saying this: The Amendments put down for this Report stage by the Government alone cannot be discussed adequately in the two and a half days given for the discussion?
  Mr. H. Morrison: As there is a Guillotine operating, I think that the sooner we start Business on the Bill the better.
  Mr. Frank Byers: I submit that there is a very important matter of principle involved here. It is that adequate time is not being allowed for Parliamentary discussion of this and other Measures, and I would like to ask the Leader of the House—[Interruption].
  Mr. W. J. Brown: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. It is bad enough to have one's motives publicly impugned by the Leader of the House, but is it in Order for him to make offensive remarks when an hon. Member is speaking?
  Mr. Byers: I do not suppose that it will be the last time that. I shall be offended by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Medland: I sincerely hope not.
  Mr. Byers: How is it that the Government have changed their views now that they are a Government, from those which they held when they were in Opposition some time ago?
  Mr. Speaker: We are not discussing the Guillotine. That has been decided by the House, and I cannot go back on a decision of the House. The point of Order is concerned merely with the late printing of Amendments.
  The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): I beg to move,
  "That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 24, page 27, line 43; Clause 26, page 32, line 29; Clause 42, page 46, line 17 and line 42; Clause 42, page 53, line 36; Clause 50, page 56, line 9; Clause 59, page 63, line 34; Clause 62, page 66, line 15. line 25 and line 42; Clause 73, page 79, line 15 and line 31; Clause 73, page 80, line 5; Clause 84, page 91, line 18, line 24 and line 26; Clause 86, page 93, line 3; Clause 87, page 93, line 28; Clause 90, page 95. line 40, line 42 and line 44; Clause 90, page 96, line 2; Clause 93, page 98, line 18, line 23, line 25, line 28, line 33 and line 34; Clause 93, page 99, line 5 and line 11; Clause 104, page 105, line 33, line 34 and line 37; Clause 105. page 106, line 35; Clause 105, page 107, line 16; Clause 105, page 108, line 19; in respect of the new Clauses (Abolition of the 1939 standard for compensation on compulsory acquisition); (Compensation for compulsory acquisition after the appointed day); (Temporary provisions for eliminating special value attributable to vacant possession); (Compensation for compulsory acquisition of land attracting converted value payments); (Compensation for compulsory acquisition of requisitioned land); (Compensation for compulsory acquisition after passing of this Act and before the appointed day); and (Power of Ministers to contribute towards compensation paid by local authorities); in respect of the amendments to Schedule 3, page 116, line 41; Schedule 4, page 117, line 33; Schedule 4, page 118, line 18; Schedule 7, page 125, line 21 and line 30; Schedule 8, page 132, line 24; and in respect of the new Schedule (Modifications of Part II of Town and Country Planning Act, 1944) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Silkin."
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the recommittal Motion, at the end, to add:
  "and of the Amendments to Clause 5, page 5, line 44; Clause 20, page 21, line 42; Clause 46, page 52, line 31; Clause 51, page 57, line 20; Clause 69, page 74, line 20; Clause 86, page 93, line and of the new Clause (Agreement under previous Acts) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. William Morrison."

  1107
  We are not objecting to the recommittal of the Bill, but we think that, on the advice which we have received, these further Clauses should also be reconsidered.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  CLAUSE 5.—(Surveys of planning areas and preparation of development plans.)
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 5, line 44, at the end, to insert:
  "(d) An owner of any land designated as subject to compulsory acquisition as aforesaid may at any time after approval of such designation by the Minister give notice in writing to the council of the county borough or county district in which the land is situated requiring that council to purchase his interest in the land within the period specified in the notice, not being less than three months from the date of such 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 upon the date of the service of the said notice, and 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 deemed to have been served by virtue of this subsection."
  With the departure from the Chamber of the Lord President of the Council, whose intervention in these proceedings has been as unprofitable as it has been casual, we may perhaps return to consideration of the more important matters with which the Committee is concerned. In moving this Amendment, I am bound to say it is in some degree illustrative of the difficulties in which the arbitrary procedure applied to this Bill has placed Parliament in its consideration of it. This Amendment was, in fact, tabled during the Committee stage. It was not moved on account of the application of the guillotine procedure. Although it was not moved—and this illustrates the complexities in which we are involved on account of this peculiar procedure—some discussion took place in regard to its merits on the subject of cognate Amendments which were moved and discussed in respect of Clause 5. In my submission, the dis-
  1108
  cussion which took place in regard to the substantial merits of this Amendment showed too limited, too restricted, and too narrow a Ministerial approach to the merits of this Amendment. That is why it is my duty to move it again this afternoon.
  The purpose of the Amendment—as the right hon. Gentleman and Members of the Committee will be aware—is to provide for counter-notice to purchase in certain defined situations. The effect of the designation of land compulsory purchase, as prescribed by this Clause, is to put the owner or tenant in respect of whose land the designation is made under a suspended sentence of execution. The Minister has rather paradoxically argued on occasion that the designation of land as subject to compulsory acquisition is in some mysterious way positively beneficial to the owner. I do not know whether he will repeat that view to the Committee this afternoon, but if he does, I can tell him this; That it is a view which is certainly not widely shared by the owners and tenants of land to whom this procedure of designation is likely to be applied. I can only think that the Minister puts forward that point of view on the Johnsonian principle—if a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.
  There is not even this specialised advantage in the suspended sentence of execution which is imposed by the designation of land as subject to compulsory purchase within a 15-year period. That sentence is a suspended sentence and an indefinite sentence; and I think it right that the Committee should try to put itself into the mind of a person placed in such a position by having his land included in a designation order of that sort. I think that the normal reaction of such a person might well be to wish to "cut the painter," and to get rid of obligations which, after all, were not within his contemplation when he acquired the land of which he is now either owner or tenant as the case may be. I think that the onus must be on the Minister to say why, in such circumstances, the owner or tenant of the land, subject in this way to a designation to compulsory purchase, should not be allowed to do this. I think that is more evident since there is express Statutory provision in two other Statutes empowering the owner or tenant to do this very thing. I refer to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, of which the archi-

  1109
  tect was my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison), and the New Towns Act, 1946, which has a place on the Statute Book as a result primarily of the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman himself. We have had some sort of pre-view of the way in which the Minister addresses himself to the task of discharging this onus. We have heard something of his views on this matter in Standing Committee, although as I have said, the Motion was not formally moved in Standing Committee. The Minister's method of discharging the onus which lies upon him in this matter appears to be to pray in aid the provisions of Clause 17 of the Bill. In my submission, Clause 17 does not govern the situation for which we desire to legislate by this Amendment.
  4.15 p.m.
  The rights of a property-owner or tenant under Clause 17 are governed by the refusal of permission to develop land, or if not actual refusal, the grant of permission only under unduly onerous conditions. Those are the only circumstances in which the provisions of Clause 17 operate to the benefit of a landowner or tenant, and thus far I think I carry the Minister with me. But—and this is why we on this side of the Committee attach such importance to this Amendment—there will, of course, be a vast number of cases in which the principle of development is not affected at all. What about the owner of existing buildings? There is no question of development there, but he is placed under a suspended sentence of compulsory acquisition by the designation of his land under Clause 5. What about the small tradesman with the shop, or the man of modest means who has acquired his house and hopes to retain it, as a domestic haven from all the various trials and stresses to which one is subject in life today? Both these classes of persons, well meriting consideration, will not receive it under Clause 17, and indeed will not receive consideration at all unless the Committee accepts this Amendment.
  The small tradesman to whom I have referred wants good will—that is the essence of his continuing in business. The man of modest means owning a house in the circumstances mentioned is chiefly concerned to retain a measure of undisturbed proprietorship. Both these people require security of tenure, but neither can have it under the threat of designation for compulsory purchase under Clause 5 of this
  1110
  Bill. Our submission to the Committee is that people who are placed in the position of the small tradesman or the owner-occupier, whose cases I have quoted by way of typical illustration, should be entitled to say to the local planning authority, "You have willed this thing; you must accept the responsibility and the obligation to purchase; you, as the local planning authority, can let this property with some knowledge of what you have in mind, but I as property owner, subject to your undefined threat of compulsory acquisition, am not in that advantageous position; I cannot possibly know, and I cannot indicate to a prospective tenant or purchaser, what intentions the local planning authority may be expected to have in mind."
  I have said that we are only really seeking to incorporate in this Bill the principles which already exist in two Acts of Parliament, the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, and the New Towns Act, of which the Minister himself is the architect. The Minister has sought to distinguish—I recognise his intellectual grasp of argument sufficiently to know that he realises that if he is to resist this Amendment he must try to distinguish—between the position we take up today and that which he conceded in the New Towns Act last year. He sought, in the Committee stage, to distinguish the principle of the New Towns Act from the principle which we put forward today. On the sixth day of our proceedings in Committee on 5th March, the right hon. Gentleman sought to distinguish the position under the New Towns Act by suggesting that designation in respect of the New Towns Act involved a degree of certainty which was not to be found, or would not be found, under the designation for compulsory purchase proposed in Clause 5 of this Bill. He used these words:
  "Under this provision there is no such certainty. The local authority must be of opinion, if my Amendment is accepted, that they will require the land, and they must have a bona fide opinion, and the Minister must be satisfied that they are of that opinion. But their programme may change. They may decide it is more urgent to develop some other area first, and in that case it may well turn out that the area will not be acquired within that period. There is not the same certainty as is the case under the New Towns Act.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 5th March, 1947; C. 244.]
  That speech belongs, I suppose, to what in the history of town and country

  1111
  planning will figure as the pre-Stevenage era, because it now appears that there may be the possibility of uncertainty even in the case of the designation of new towns, which weakens to that extent the distinction which the Minister seeks to draw between the two positions taken up. [Laughter.] The Minister laughs; I am surprised that that should be his reaction, because we have come to respect at any rate his motives, even if we cannot always respect his reasoning. I am sorry he should see something humorous in the subject matter of this Amendment, which I can assure him is a matter of great moment to a great many honourable and useful citizens of this country.
  Mr. Silkin: Perhaps I had better not Jet the hon. Gentleman go any further in misinterpreting my laugh. It was because of the curious nature of his argument, that is all.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: Of course, these things depend upon the point of view, and I am in the hands of a wider audience than the right hon. Gentleman, who has got, shall we say, a somewhat specialised and blinkered approach to a great many of these problems. I suggest to the Committee that the Minister's statement about the lack of certainty about designation under this Clause might well be construed as a ministerial invitation to the local planning authorities to designate far more land than they are likely to acquire by compulsory purchase. I believe that that is a very dangerous aspect of the possibilities inherent in this Clause. This tendency to over-insure in the matter of the designation of land for compulsory acquisition is a tendency which we have unhesitatingly condemned throughout the proceedings of this Committee; and it is one of the things which this Amendment would stop, because this Amendment would make it unprofitable for a local planning authority to designate too much land for compulsory purchase. The effect of this Amendment would be to impose certain sanctions on the practice of over-insurance. If this Amendment is carried, as I hope and expect it will be, the local or planning authority which designates land too widely and too arbitrarily as being subject to compulsory acquisition within the next 15 years will do so in the full knowledge that they are liable to have a counter-notice to purchase served upon them, in which
  1112
  case they must assume the obligations of purchasing the land themselves.
  There is one further point. I have dealt with the Minister's effort to distinguish the new Towns Act, but the Minister also seeks to differentiate the Act of 1944. The powers given under that Act are not quite identical with the powers we seek for this Bill, but that is a point which I hope my right hon. and learned Friend, who is so familiar with that Act, will elaborate a little later on in the consideration of this Clause. I hope I have made out to the Committee a case for incorporating this provision in the Clause. I believe that every reason of precedent—because it is a provision already figuring in Acts placed upon the Statute Book by two successive Governments every reason of justice to the individual; every consideration of good administration combine to counsel the incorporation of this Amendment in the Bill. In that confident conviction I commend the Amendment to the Committee.
  Brigadier Rayner: I wish very briefly to support this Amendment. Once land has become designated, the black hand will be suspended over it, and an owner will not be able to sell, no one will want to move in, so no one will be able to move out. This threat will go on for 15 long years. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) referred to a suspended sentence of execution There is a most recent parallel which we might draw, that of the Nigerian ritual murders, where the criminals were trooped up half a dozen times to the scaffold before they were finally bumped off. The only point on which that parallel breaks down is that most land owners have committed no crime except that of being landowners. I suggest that this is an extremely fair Amendment in that it allows the landowner, if his land is designated, to get rid of it and go somewhere else, to emigrate or do anything he likes. If the Minister does not accept this Amendment, our landowners will be put in the same position as those landowners in ancient Russia who, being suspect, were ordered to remain on their estates during the Tsar's pleasure, and I am quite certain that this Government will not wish to emulate Tsarist Russia. I very strongly support the Amendment.
  Mr. Silkin: This Amendment arises out of a misconception of the purpose of designation. Designation follows the

  1113
  making of a plan. The local authority makes its plan, which has to be approved by the Minister, usually after a public inquiry. Now the plan itself will, generally speaking, provide for certain areas being developed by the local authority itself. It was thought to be a convenience to the landowner that he should know which parts of the plan it was proposed to carry out within the next ten years, and the method of informing the landowner is the method of designation. If it be true that the landowner is under this awful threat, it does not arise primarily out of designation, but out of the making of the plan. The plan will in most cases be carried out, whether the land is designated or not, but it is thought that it would be better that the landowner should know which parts of the plan were to be carried out at the earliest stage and which were not, and that is the real purpose of designation. It is also a convenience to the local authorities that they should clarify their own minds and come to a decision themselves as to the priorities in the carryout of the plan.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: Does the Minister mean to suggest, when he talks about the earliest stages, that the process of planned development as envisaged by this Government makes a period of 15 years the earliest stages?
  4. p.m.
  Mr. Silkin: The 15 years' period is being reduced to ten, as the hon. Gentleman will have seen from our Amendments, but I am not making debating points; I am merely saying that most plans involving redevelopment are long-term plans. Many of our cities require drastic redevelopment to make them good places to live in, and obviously that redevelopment cannot be carried out in a short time. Although the plan may set out what is the local authority's conception of the future of its area, obviously the redevelopment cannot be done all at once or within a short time. From the local authority's point of view, the purpose of designation is to indicate which parts of the redevelopment it is proposed to carry out at the earliest stage. That is the case for designation. In the vast majority of instances, there will be no inconvenience to the owner, who will be left to carry on his business, or to reside where he is residing, or to collect his rents if he is an owner and not an occupier. It need not affect him in the slightest degree.
  Brigadier Rayner: Except that he will not be able to sell in the open market with that threat of designation hanging over him.
  Mr. Silkin: I do not see why not. I. have already explained that if the threat of designation were not hanging over him, he would still be liable to compulsory purchase. I would like the Committee to understand this point, because it is important. Suppose the local authority made its plans, but the designation procedure were entirely dropped from the Bill; that would not prevent the local authority from implementing its plan in exactly the same way as if there had been designation. The only effect of designation is that it puts the owner on notice that his area is to be dealt with first, and it compels the local authority to make up its mind as to which area it is going to use first. It there were no designation, there would still be the threat; owners would still examine the plan and ask, "Will my land be dealt with before any other?" They would still have this so-called threat. But is it a threat? With the revised provisions for the payment of compensation—which I do not want to go into at any length—if the local authority is to pay market price in respect of the acquisition, what is the threat? The owner knows that when the time comes for acquisition he will be paid the ordinary market price. There is no reason why he should not sell on that basis or people should not buy. Therefore, this talk about threats is not really applicable. I agree quite freely that, as long as the local authority could have acquired at 1939 values, there was some basis for the fear, but if they are to acquire at present-day values, there is no justification for the fear.
  I want now to refer to the false analogies that were drawn by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) as regards the New Towns Act and the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944. I call them false analogies for the reasons I gave in Committee. The hon. Gentleman quoted a part of my speech, but there was another part which drove my point still further home. If the hon. Gentleman wanted to rely on those Measures, why did he not so frame his Amendment that the notice could be given only after. a number of years? The notice requiring the local authority to buy, under this

  1115
  Amendment, can be given at any time after designation, whereas in the other two Acts the notice can be given only, in the one case, after seven years and, in the other, after five years, but even then the Minister can revoke the notice unless the land has no beneficial use. Even though the notice is given requiring the local authority to purchase, it need not be operated on if the land can still continue to be used. If the hon. Gentleman wanted to rely upon analogies, he should have framed the Amendment so as to make them fit exactly those two Measures.
  I rely upon the fact that the cases are not analogous, and that in the New Towns Act and the Town and Country Planning Act the purpose of designation is ultimately to acquire the land—there is no doubt about it—whereas, in the case of designation under Clause 5 of this Bill, the local authority merely has to be satisfied that the land is likely to be purchased within 10 years. Finally, there is no danger that local authorities will over-designate, because the designation as well as the plan is subject to approval by the Minister after a public inquiry. The last word does not rest with the local authority but with the Minister, who is bound to act judicially and in the light of the evidence that he gets at the local public inquiry. If it be true that the local authority has over-estimated the amount of land it is likely to want to purchase in 10 years, that will soon be corrected when the order is made.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: May I explain the point arising out of the Town and Country Planning Act to which both the Minister and I have referred? The Section in question is, of course, Section 2 (4), and the Minister's argument on that is that if I pray in aid the analogy of that Section, I ought in the Amendment to reproduce the proviso relating to the five-year expiration. Of course, the two things are not entirely analogous, because our Amendment would enable the owner in such circumstances to serve a counter notice to purchase, but that is not the effect of Section 2 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act, of which the operative words are that his interest shall be treated as excepted from the operation of any order under that Section; in other words, the remedy of Section 2 (4) of the New Towns Act goes further in the
  1116
  interest of the owner of the land than our Amendment. It is because the remedy goes further and is more radical in that case that no doubt the time limit was imposed. The lesser remedy involved in the counter notice to purchase embodied in our Amendment does not, therefore, require a five-year period of waiting such as was prescribed in the 1944 Act.
  Mr. Silkin: I shall not try to follow the hon. Member in that somewhat involved argument. All that I claim is that the two cases are not analogous, and the hon. Gentleman has indicated that he agrees with me. Therefore, it is no use praying in aid those other Measures. For these reasons, I ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am always filled with admiration at the way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Town and Country Planning, with a multitude of words, skates on somewhat thin ice. The reasons he has put forward for resisting the Amendment will not stand close examination. He has sought to draw a subtle distinction between the purpose of designation under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, and the New Towns Act, 1946, and the designation under this Bill. He says that, under the first two Measures, the purpose was to acquire the land; here, he says that under Clause 5 it is only designation to show that the land is likely to be acquired. All I can say is that I do not think people who are informed that their land is designated as likely to be compulsorily acquired will gain any confidence from the subtle distinction drawn by the Minister.
  What is the point of designation under this Bill? The right hon. Gentleman said, accurately, that the fact that a person's land is not included within the area designated as liable to compulsory purchase gives no security of tenure. As I understand the Bill, the farmer outside the circle marked on the plan is just as likely to lose his land as the individual whose land is inside the circle. Therefore, from the point of view of giving security of tenure and of letting people know how they stand, designation under this Bill does not really serve much in the way of a useful purpose. I quite agree that the man who is to lose his property, his business, his livelihood, or his land, is entitled to have some notice of what

  1117
  is to be done, but when the Minister goes beyond that and gives long advance notice, notice which was to be 15 years in duration, I suggest that that sort of notice is doing no more and no less than cast a blight over the land within the circle.
  What is the purpose of these plans? It is to plan for the best use of the country. That does not mean sterilising vast areas for long periods as being liable to compulsory purchase. My hon. Friend, in moving this Amendment, referred specifically to houses and buildings. I would like to refer to agricultural land, because I am sure the Minister will agree that the great majority of the land which will be affected by designation will be land which is not built upon and which is agricultural in character, and although it may be that if the farmer holds on to the very end of the time when his property is seized from him he will' get, after much negotiation, compensation according to the market values at that time, it still seems to me that the effect of designation of his farm over such a long period might do him very grave injury. He might find that directions were served upon him by the Ministry of Agriculture to do certain things even though there were only five years to go before his land would be taken from him and the period expire. I suggest to the Minister that a farmer, in such a position, might well say: "I would like to get out of this, I would like to free myself of this liability. I want to improve my farm, and I want my son to carry on the farm after me. It is obvious that as I am within the area designated, I cannot do that here." It might not be easy for that farmer to find someone willing to come into the circle designated as liable to compulsory purchase.
  Therefore, I suggest that, just as in the New Towns Act, there is also a case here for saying that, after a certain time has elapsed, the farmer should be entitled and should have the right to say to the planners, "You have planned my land, you have said you were going to take it over for redevelopment; it is only fair that you should relieve me and allow me to go and settle elsewhere so that I can get a farm, improve it, develop it, where my son can follow on after me." I ask the Minister to think over this matter again. I remember pressing him on this very point in the Debates on the New Towns Bill, and he seemed
  1118
  to be far more sympathetic to the point at issue then than he is now. The points are the same. Although on the Minister's interpretation designation may not be so much of a threat as it is under the previous Acts, I still believe that in the minds of the public it will be considered so much a threat, just as dangerous to the individual, and just as blighting in its effect. I ask him to consider whether it is not right to say that if, within the period in the Amendment, the land has not been acquired, the owner should, if he wishes, have an opportunity of getting out before the sword falls upon his head.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. Medland: I hope that the Minister will not listen to the siren voice of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). This point was discussed at considerable length upstairs, though on another Amendment. Although it has been very cleverly switched round by hon. Gentlemen, this point was the subject of discussion for at least an hour and a half or two hours in Committee. I ask my right hon. Friend to stand fast on this point, because of the effect which this Amendment would have upon cities which have to develop areas of land as a whole. This Clause limits the designation to 15 years. In those 15 years, the planning authority will decide what it is to do with this, that or the other piece of land inside the area as a whole. If the proposal, which we are now discussing, to give the owner of the land the right to demand that it be purchased from him at current prices—not at 1939 value—within three months, were put into effect, we should cast away all hope of replanning any of the devastated cities in this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because the planning authority has to take into consideration how it is to rebuild and redevelop its area from year to year, and because it has to meet its financial responsibilities. It would be impossible to do that with this threat hanging over it. On those grounds, I hope that there will be no response on the part of the Minister to the persuasive voice of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Just imagine what that threat would mean in an area where something like 600 or 700 acres of land had to be acquired in one city alone. The city authority makes its plan. Having done so and having designated the use to

  1119
  which that land is to be put, imagine the city having to take over 600 or 700 acres within six months, or three months, in accordance with the terms of this Amendment. It is bad enough having to do it in 15 years. On those grounds, I ask the Minister to stand fast.
  Mr. Digby: I had not the advantage of hearing the arguments put forward in Committee, but I should like to put forward my views on this matter now. I do not propose to deal with the city aspect of this matter, with which I am not so familiar. I desire to say a word or two on this subject in relation to agricultural land. It may seem a strange thing to the Minister of Town and Country Planning, but farmers and estate owners require to plan as much as he and other people do. In his remarks, which greatly disappointed me, he said that it was a convenience to a landowner to know that his land was to be taken within ten years. It may be more convenient to know that, than to have no idea at all, but it is extremely inconvenient to have no idea at what time within those 10 years that land will be taken. That puts a farmer, or an occupier, and the estate owner in an extremely difficult position.
  If one knows that at some time in the next 10 years, a farm is to be cut in half by a huge road being driven through it, and a large number of buildings erected on it, what is one to do when the roof of the cowshed falls in? Is one to have it repaired or not? What about the position of the tenant of that farm, who knows that sometime within that 10 years he is to lose his farm, and that he will have to look for another one? Farms are not easy to come by these days, and if he has any sense he will start looking for another

  Division No. 200]

  AYES.

  [4.53 p.m.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

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

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Armagh)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

  Amory, D. Heathoote

  Crowder, Capt. John E '

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Assheton, Rt. Hon. R

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Digby, S. W.

  Linstead, H. N.

  Baxter, A. B

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A

  Low, Brig. A. R. W

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

  Erroll, F. J.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Birch, Nigel

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Gammans, L. D.

  Maclay, Hon. J. S

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Grimston, R. V.

  MacLeod, J.

  Butcher, H. W.

  Herbert, Sir A. P.

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Challen, C.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Channon, H.

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

  Manningham-Buller, R. E

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Howard, Hon. A.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Marsden, Capt. A.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Keeling, E. H

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  farm at once, and will get out. Such a position creates a great degree of uncertainty, and I ask the Minister to look at this question again. It is true that it may be of some convenience to farmers and others to have some indication, but I think that they should have some safeguard. If they are to be put in an impossible position, in which they really cannot carry on, and are quite unable to plan for the future, they should have some remedy, so that they can hand over the land to others, who can take it over and use it forthwith.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: Earlier I said a word about the contention of the Minister in seeking to distinguish the provisions of Section 2 (4) of the 1944 Act from those in this Amendment. I now wish to address myself to his observations about the New Towns Act. He sought to distinguish the procedure in the New Towns Act by saying that the owner could only serve a counter notice to purchase if he could show that the land was no longer capable of beneficial use.
  Mr. Silkin indicated dissent.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: That was our understanding on this side of the Committee.
  Mr. Silkin: I made that point on the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: In that case our point is doubly reinforced, because the Minister has not succeeded in distinguishing at all the principle he put in the New Towns Act from the principle that we are asking the Committee to put in this Measure.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 82; Noes, 226.

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Roberts, Maj P. G. (Ecclesall)

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Studholme, H. G.

  Morrison, Rt Hon. W. S. (C'ne'ster)

  Ross, Sir R. D (Londonderry)

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Smithers, Sir W

  Ward, Hon. G. R

  Pickthorn, K.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Prescott, Stanley

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Mr. Drewe and Major Ramsay.

  NOES.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

  George,, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

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

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Noel-Buxton, Ladv

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Goodrich, H. E.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Alpass, J. H.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

  Palmer, A. M. F

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Parker, J.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Parkin, B. T.

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Grey, C. F.

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Ayles, W. H.

  Guy, W. H.

  Peart, Capt. T. F

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  Piratin, P.

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Hale, Leslie

  Popplewell, E.

  Barstow, P. G

  Hall, W. G.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Barton, C.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Battley, J. R.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Price, M. Philips

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Berry, H.

  Hewitson, Captain M.

  Pursey, Cmdr. H

  Beswick, F.

  Hobson, C. R.

  Ranger, J.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Holman, P.

  Rankin, J

  Blackburn, A. R

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Blyton, W. R.

  House, G

  Reeves, J.

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

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

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M

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

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

  Robens, A.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Roberts, Emrys (Merieneth)

  Bramall, E. A.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney. C.)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Irving, W. J.

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Brown, George (Belper)

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Rogers, C. H. R

  Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

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

  Scott-Elliot, W.

  Bruce, Major D. W. T

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Sharp, Granville

  Buchanan, G.

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

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

  Byers, Frank

  Keenan, W.

  Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

  Callaghan, James

  Kendall, W. D

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Kenyon, C.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Chamberlain, R. A

  King, E. M

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Champion, A. J.

  Kinley, J.

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

  Chater, D.

  Kirby, B. V

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Lavers, S.

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Clitherow, Dr. R.

  Lee, Miss J (Cannock)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Cocks, F. S.

  Levy, B. W.

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

  Collindridge, F

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Collins, V. J.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Solley, L. J.

  Colman, Miss G. M

  Lyne, A. W.

  Sorensen, R. W

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  McAdam, W.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G

  McAllister, G.

  Stamford, W

  Cove, W. G.

  McEntee, V. La T

  Stephen, C.

  Crawley, A

  McGhee, H. G.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Daggar, G

  Mack, J. D.

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

  Daines, P

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  McLeavy, F.

  Stubbs, A. E

  Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Swingler, S.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Sylvester, G. O

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Symonds, A. L.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

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

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Deer, G.

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Diamond, J.

  Medland, H. M

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Dodds, N. N.

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Tiffany, S

  Driberg, T. E. N

  Millington, Wing-Comdr E R

  Titterington, M. F.

  Dumpleton, C. W

  Mitchison, G. R

  Tolley, L.

  Dye, S.

  Monslow, W.

  Turner-Samuels, M

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Montague, F

  Vernon, Maj. W F

  Edelman, M.

  Moody, A S.

  Viant, S. P.

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Walkden, E.

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Morrison, Rt Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Moyle, A.

  Warbey, W N

  Farthing, W. J.

  Nally, W.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Field, Captain W. J.

  Naylor, T. E

  Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

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

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

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

  Foot, M. M

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

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Wigg, Col. G. E.

  Wilkes, L.

  Wilson, J. H.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Wise, Major F. J

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Woods, G. S.

  Mr. Joseph Henderson

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Wyatt, W.

  Mr. Pearson.

  Williams, RI Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 20.—(Supplementary provisions as to revocation and modification.)
  5.0 p.m.
  Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 21, line 42, at the end, to insert:
  "and any consequential loss or damage sustained by him by reason of the revocation or modification of the permission."
  The Chairman: I think it might be convenient to discuss at the same time the Amendment in page 21, line 42, at the end, to insert:
  "together with interest thereon, at such rate as may be prescribed."
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I intended to propose that course for your approval, Major Milner. This Clause deals with compensation payable to an owner of property on the revocation of permission to develop. It provides that compensation shall be paid equal either to expenditure incurred by the owner in carrying out work, or to the expenditure in connection with his entering into a contract for work. The two Amendments seek to carry the amount of compensation a little further than is provided at present. In regard to the first Amendment, the Clause contemplates only a contract made by an owner for work to be done. It only permits compensation for such work though it may well be that the owner of property has entered into other contracts. For example, by virtue of having obtained permission to develop one piece of land, he may have entered into a much larger and more expensive contract in connection with another piece of property in the neighbourhood, the two contracts hinging together and one being dependent on the other. If compensation is only to be payable in respect of the contract for work done on the property which is to be abandoned, then clearly the owner of that property may suffer grave loss in respect of the other contract for which he would not be entitled to any compensation at all. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman intends that result. I hope he will say either that I am wrong in the view
  1124
  that I take of this Clause, or that he will consider making a suitable Amendment.
  The other Amendment seeks to add interest to the amount of compensation which is payable. At present the amount payable is to be precisely equal to the expenditure incurred. I take it that that means the net expenditure incurred, and that it would have no regard at all to the time when such an expenditure was incurred, so as to permit of interest being added. It may be there are many people who have started to develop their property under a permission, obtained possibly before the beginning of the recent war. There may be people who, in order to carry out that development, have borrowed money from the bank and have had to pay interest to the bank for a number of years. This Clause would enable such a person to obtain compensation for the capital cost if he had to abandon the work. That is to say he would be able to obtain compensation in respect of the actual sum of money which he had borrowed from the bank, but no account would be taken of any interest which he had paid. Therefore, he would be seriously out of pocket by reason of the abandonment of his work on the revocation of permission. I do not believe that it can be the intention of the Government to do that. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to make some suitable alteration.
  Mr. Silkin: We are discussing two Amendments which, in many ways, are quite dissimilar although they both have, for their object, an increase in the amount of compensation payable to an owner. In regard to the first, I am in sympathy with the purpose of the Amendment. I think it goes too far. I think that to give carte blanche for
  "any consequential loss or damage sustained by him."
  would be going very far indeed and would open the door to the widest possible interpretation. I am in agreement with the principle that there should be compensation in respect of loss directly incurred, directly flowing from the revocation, and I am prepared to give an undertaking that at a later stage an Amendment will be introduced in some such form as that,

  1125
  broadly carrying out the principle of the first Amendment but not accepting the language. I am afraid that I can give no assurance whatever in regard to the second Amendment. To provide for the payment of interest on compensation would be to introduce a novel but very dangerous principle. Compensation on interest has never been provided in any Act of Parliament. It was not provided in the 1943 Act, or the 1932 Act, and I do not think that it should be provided here. If, however, the compensation is provided in respect of loss incurred, then I think it will cover the point which has been made because, in fact, the loss will be based upon present-day values.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that where consequential loss was not incurred by reason of interest having had to be paid in the past, he is prepared to accept that?
  Mr. Silkin indicated dissent.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I think there are two classes of interest on which compensation might be paid. We might compensate for interest which had been paid in the past by the person who had carried out the development, by reason of his having had to borrow in order to carry out the development; or there is interest which he might claim after the revocation of the permission. I think the right hon. Gentleman is saying that the first class of interest should be covered and that the second class should not.
  Mr. Silkin: No. What I was trying to say was that no interest can be provided at all. We cannot provide for interest as such. It may well turn out that any compensation in respect of loss directly incurred by the revocation of permission would be sufficient to meet any interest. The answer is that I am prepared to give an undertaking in regard to the first Amendment that, at a later stage, an Amendment will be introduced providing for loss sustained by an owner by reason of revocation, but not in the wide terms of this Amendment. I am not able to accept the second Amendment.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: We are always grateful for small mercies and, therefore, I do not wish to appear ungrateful for the undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the wider question of additional compensation. It was
  1126
  for the convenience of the Committee that the two Amendments were taken together, though the course followed by the discussion shows that the word "interest" has led to a certain amount of confusion which I will try to clear up. I was greatly impressed by the instance which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) put before the Minister as a case of consequential damage which ought to be covered. I remember a case of a young man, a builder, who had bought a piece of building land before the war. The land probably fell into the category to be defined as "near ripe" land. The man intended to carry out building operations immediately, but the war intervened. He joined up and so he was prevented from carrying out the operation for which he had purchased the land. He had, perfectly properly, purchased it with a loan from the bank which, on a reasonable prospect of development, he was quite easily able to repay. But throughout the war, while serving in the Forces, he had to maintain the interest on this bank charge or lose what he had already invested. He had planning permission in respect of the land and, therefore, what he had done was in the public interest as measured by the judgment of the competent planning authority.
  In such a case, should there be a revocation of the planning permission, that man is not merely prevented from going on with his building operations and recouping himself in respect of the finance which he expended, but he is in the position of having paid out a substantial sum of interest to the bank. I ask that in a case like that, when a planning permission is revoked, or conditions are imposed upon it which alter its character, these elements of consequential loss shall be taken into consideration. If they are not, great injustice will result. That is a case where interest is really a factor in consequential damage. The fact that that example is one of interest, does not alter the validity of the first proposition.
  On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, he says that he does not wish to let himself in for paying interest on compensation which is adjudicated to be correct. The merit of paying interest is to encourage a prompt settlement of claims. I am sure that on reconsideration, the right hon. Gentleman will see that if he makes a moderate allowance

  1127
  for interest on payments of compensation it will encourage the prompt settlement of these claims, thus facilitating in his activities the man who is compensated.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: In view of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 24.—(Provisions supplementary to s. 23.)
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 27, line 43, to leave out from "that," to the end of line 3, in page 28, and to insert:
  "any, person has suffered damage in consequence of the order by the depreciation of any interest in the land to which he is entitled or by being disturbed in his enjoyment of the land, that authority shall pay to that person compensation in respect of that damage; and any compensation payable under this Subsection in respect of the depreciation in the value of an interest in the land shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Fourth Schedule to this Act."
  This Amendment is put down as a result of an undertaking which I gave in Committee. As the Clause stood, if a person suffered trade disturbance without actually suffering loss of land value, he was not able to get compensation in respect of trade disturbance. This Amendment will enable such a person to get compensation in respect of trade disturbance without necessarily suffering loss of land value.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: As the right hon. Gentleman said, this arose out of our proceedings in Committee. I. agree with him that the present drafting which he has suggested carries out the undertaking he gave, and I am grateful for his consideration.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 26.—(Orders for preservation of buildings of special architectural or historic interest.)
  Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 32, line 29, at the end, to add:
  "(7) The powers conferred on a local planning authority by this section to make a building preservation order may be exercised also by the council of the county district
  1128
  in which the building to which the order relates is situated; and references in this Act to local planning authorities shall, in relation to the said powers, be construed as including references to the council of a county district."
  The purpose of this Amendment is to enable district councils to make building preservation orders in addition to the new planning authorities.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 42.—(Incorporation of certain provisions of Act of 1944.)
  Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 46, line 17, to leave out Subsection (3).
  This Amendment and the succeeding Amendment—to leave out Subsection (6)—arise in consequence of the proposed abolition of the 1939 standard. On the assumption that later Amendments will be carried abolishing that standard, these Subsections become both unnecessary and inapplicable.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am glad to see the disappearance of Subsection (3) because it is indeed seldom, even in Acts of Parliament, that one meets words of such utterly and completely baffling obscurity. It is worth while reading to the Committee the words with which hon. Members are so reluctantly parting:
  "So much of Subsection (2) of Section twenty-four of the Act of 1944 as provides for the application of Section fifty-seven of that Act in relation to compensation for loss sustained by the extinction of any right or the vesting of any apparatus under the said Section twenty-four shall not apply arid shall be deemed never to have applied to compensation for loss so sustained otherwise than by the diminution in value of an interest in land."
  I hope the Committee understands what that means, but I have never been able to understand it, and for that reason I am very glad to see the last of words which do not contribute to the clarity of our legislation.
  Mr. Silkin: I can understand the right hon. Gentleman's pleasure at parting with this Subsection because it was put in to correct an error in his own Act.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 46, line 42, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. Silkin.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 47.—(Assumptions to be made in assessing compensation on compulsory acquisition.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. Silkin: The omission of this Clause and of the two succeeding Clauses is necessary in order to insert new Clauses dealing with the proposed new basis of compensation for compulsory purchase.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: I do not rise to urge that Clause 47 should stand part of the Bill. I shall be glad to see this obnoxious Clause pass from this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman indicated in Committee, in response to representations on the inequity of 1939 prices, that he proposed to introduce at a later stage other provisions modifying and altering them. He was not then in a position to indicate the nature of them, but he has since put them on the Order Paper. When we come to consider what it is proposed to substitute, we may have something to say about it, but both sides of the Committee are agreed about making the necessary aperture or gap, subsequently to be filled up by what the Minister suggests at a later stage.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" put, and negatived.

  CLAUSE 48.—(Amendment of s. 57 and Seventh Schedule to Act of 1944.)
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" put, and negatived.
  CLAUSE 49.—(Amendments of Eighth Schedule to Act of 1944.)
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" put, and negatived.

  CLAUSE 50.—(Application of 9 and 10 Geo. 5. C. 57 to purchases by statutory undertakers.)
  Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 56, line 9, at the end, to insert:
  "(2) The rate of interest for any period after the passing of this Act on compensation which fell or falls, in default of agreement, to be ascertained in accordance with the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919 (whether as originally enacted or as amended by any subsequent enactment including this Act), in respect of land compulsorily purchased on which entry has been made before the payment of the compensation shall, in lieu of being the rate of five per cent. specified under Section eighty-five of the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845. be such other rate as may from time to time be
  1130
  prescribed by regulations made by the Treasury under this Act.
  (3) Any regulations made by the Treasury under Section sixty-two of the Act of 1944 which are in force at the date of the passing of this Act shall continue in force and have effect as ii they had been made under this Act and shall accordingly apply to any compensation which falls, in default of agreement, to be ascertained in accordance with the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, as amended by this Act."
  This is very largely a drafting Amendment. It involves a rearrangement of Section 62 of the 1944 Act, which is repealed by this Bill. The relevant portions of Section 62 are reinstated in Clause 50.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: This Clause deals in the main with acquisitions by statutory undertakers. I gather that the Minister's object in moving this Amendment is to make certain that the specification of rates of interest may be varied from time to time instead of being held down to the 5 per cent. instituted in the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845. At the same time, I should like to make this observation on what is proposed. The Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845, instituted 5 per cent. and that was intended as a spur to those who were due to pay compensation to be speedy and prompt in paying, otherwise there was this bill of interest running against them. Though I do not object to what the Minister is proposing, there is a point of substance involved, because it is entirely in the public interest that these transactions shall be liquidated as rapidly as possible so that the person who is dispossessed of a piece of property gets his working capital returned as quickly as possible and there is no lag in starting work of production or whatever it may be. I hope that when the Government use the power the Minister now seeks, they will bear that aspect of the matter in mind and make sure that the rate of interest proposed is such as to be a substantial incentive to prompt settlement.
  Mr. Silkin: It is only right to point out that it was the right hon. Gentleman who reduced the rate of interest from 5 to 4 per cent. in Section 62 of the 1944 Act and also provided machinery for modifying the rate of interest from time to time.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: It is because of that, that I have made those observations.

  1131
  Although it was right to substitute 4 per cent. for 5 per cent. in 1944, I should not like the Government to go to the other extreme, and imagine that there is no value in the exaction of interest of a substantial character for deferred payments. For that reason I ask the Government to keep that aspect of the matter in mind in administration.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 51.—(Payments for depreciation of land values.)
  Mr. Gammans: I beg to move, in page 57, line 20, at the end, to insert:
  "(d) for including in claims made under this part of this Act the costs reasonably incurred by the claimant in relation to the preparation and making of such claims, provided that no payment shall be made in respect of costs in a case in which it is ultimately decided that the development rights are of no value."
  I think I can explain this Amendment in a very few words. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the preparation of claims under this Clause is a highly technical matter and that very few property owners will be able to submit their claims without obtaining some technical assistance. The Amendment proposes to allow the cost of the preparation of such claims to be included. There is an additional reason for this proposal. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is very unlikely that more than a very small part of those claims will be paid, in the vast majority of cases, and therefore it is only equitable that people who are suffering under this Bill should be allowed to charge the cost of the preparation of the claim. But for the Bill, they would be left in undisturbed possession of their property. It seems just as reasonable to make an allowance or as unreasonable not to make an allowance as it would be to make a conscripted man pay for his own medical examination. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to grant this concession.
  Mr. Silkin: Whatever may be the intention of this Amendment, I doubt whether it really achieves the purpose the hon. Gentleman has in mind. He is asking that the payment of costs should be made five years after this claim and should be paid in stock. I am sure he does not
  1132
  intend that. I realise that the Amendment merely asks that the costs should follow the event and that if it was ultimately decided that the development rights were of no value, there should be no compensation. That might only be decided after a very long time. Some cases will go to arbitration, and in respect of those the arbitrator can award costs. That is in his absolute discretion. In so far as he does, they will be paid by the Central Land Board out of their ordinary funds. That will be in a limited number of cases. This Amendment is intended to cover the general case where people put in claims and have to get professional assistance. I should be the last person in the world to say that they ought not to have professional assistance. Probably most people, owing to the complexity of the Bill, will need such assistance.
  5.30 p.m.
  The question is, What is the best way of dealing with the costs? Is it better that they should come out of the £300 million which would mean a general reduction in the amount available to payments; or is it better that people should pay their own costs? I suggest that this is a matter which can be dealt with by the regulations; for obviously the regulations will have to take the question of costs into consideration. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that the question of professional costs will be considered seriously. I can give him a further assurance, that the regulations can deal with this question. Of course, I cannot give him an assurance as to what the regulations will contain, but I can promise him that consideration will be given to this question of costs and as to the proper method of dealing with them. If he chooses in his wisdom to withdraw this Amendment, the question will in no way be prejudiced.
  Mr. Gammans: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he really accepts the principle that there is a just claim for costs being asked for in these circumstances?
  Mr. Silkin: No, I accept the principle that there is good reason for people seeking professional assistance—
  Mr. Gammans: For which they have to pay.
  Mr. Silkin: The question is whether it should be paid for out of the £300 million,

  1133
  or whether they should pay for it themselves. I would like to give it further consideration and, moreover, it will be considered in relation to the regulations which will be made by the Treasury. I am suggesting that the question of costs should stand over pending consideration as to what goes into the regulations.
  Mr. W. J. Brown: I am alarmed that the Minister should say that the question is whether the costs should come out of the £300 million or whether the individual should pay for them out of his own pocket. I suggest that the issue is not whether they should come from one source or another, but whether the Government ought to meet them. I should have said without hesitation that if a man is the owner of a piece of property which the State, doubtless for good reasons, desires to acquire, and the individual is put to various costs in the shape of surveyors' fees, legal fees and what not, solely as a result of the decision taken, not by himself but by the acquiring authority, there ought to be no question whatever but that those costs should be met by the acquiring authority. There is abundant and ample precedent for this. In the Defence (Compensation) Act, 1939—a Coalition Measure—under which the State took power to acquire all sorts of things in the form of land, buildings and chattels, provision was made in that Act under which any costs to which the person whose property was taken was subjected, either by way of legal fees or surveying costs, was entitled to be refunded without any question.
  Mr. Silkin: I am sure the hon. Gentleman wants to get at the truth about this Amendment, which is an Amendment to the suggestion that there should be a further provision in the regulations to be made by the Treasury. These are regulations only for the purpose of laying down how the £300 million should be distributed. There is no question of requiring the State to pay—that is not in the Amendment at all; it is merely as to how the £300 million should be distributed so that in any case the claimant's claim will either come out of the £300 million—and therefore the claimant will get, proportionately less—
  Mr. Brown indicated dissent.
  Mr. Silkin: That is what the Amendment is—or he will pay directly out of
  1134
  his own pocket and get a bigger share in the £300 million.
  Mr. Brown: With great respect, this Bill is not yet through. The £300 million is not through. The giving of power to the Treasury to spend £300 million is not through. We may yet reject this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have not made up my mind on this issue, and I am suggesting that it is perfectly within the competence of the House of Commons, if it so decides, to provide that there should be expenditure from public funds, or from some other fund quite apart from the £300 million, to meet a claim for expenses incurred by virtue of a decision by the acquiring authority.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): Not by this Amendment.
  Mr. Brown: Maybe not. I am not asking for the Attorney-General's opinion. If I require the assistance of the Attorney-General in this matter I shall be the first to seek it, and I hope that I shall get completely unprejudiced advice on the matter. I put it to the Minister with great respect that he ought to agree in principle that the individual should not be damnified in one way or another. He ought neither to pay these costs out of his own pocket nor to be subjected to a limitation of what he can claim in respect of development values out of the £300 million. I would suggest to the Minister, as a clear way of meeting this, that he should agree at once in principle to meet the point, whether he accepts the Amendment or not, and should undertake to bring before us at a later stage proposals for giving effect to the principle that the individual ought to be able to recover his costs.
  Mr. Hopkin Morris: The right hon. Gentleman's argument is not clear to me. He professes sympathy with the object of the Amendment, that a person should have proper legal advice, or whatever advice is necessary to deal with this complicated Measure, and that his costs should somehow be met, but objects to this Amendment on the ground that, if it is put into the Statute, the sum will come out of the £300 million. But at the same time he contemplates it being put into the regulations. Does that mean, if it is put into the regulation, that it comes out of some other sum, or does it still come out of the £300 million? If it still

  1135
  comes out of the £300 million, I cannot see any objection to it being put into the Statute, because it still comes out of the global sum whether it is in the Statute or the regulations.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I rise to reinforce what has been said by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown). Despite the intervention of the Attorney-General, I consider that the argument put forward by the hon. Member has a direct bearing on this Amendment, particularly having regard to what the Minister has said. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting to those responsible for putting this Amendment on the Paper, that it might be prudent, having regard to certain considerations which he put forward, to withdraw the Amendment. The argument which he put forward was at first sight reasonable. He said that these costs were perfectly proper costs to incur, but that it might be argued reasonably that they ought not to come out of the global sum of compensation payable to other persons who might be entitled to compensation under this Bill. So far I follow the right hon. Gentleman. I see that is an objection to the Amendment. It was at the stage immediately following that that I became confused as to what the right hon. Gentleman was asking us to accept as an alternative. I can see the argument that there is a valid objection to paying costs out of a global sum of compensation, because that would reduce the amount of compensation payable to other owners who might not have incurred like costs and whose case might be of a similar kind or who might have foregone the advantage of professional assistance.
  That is sound, but then the right hon. Gentleman goes on to say that the alternative is that owners should pay their own costs. That is what I cannot see—if I may use an ungrammatical phrase—the justice of. I can understand the right hon. Gentleman advancing to the Committee an argument which says, "We do not want people to incur a lot of unnecessary professional costs. We do not want them to secure the very best legal assistance, or the most expensive and most fashionable silk of the moment, whoever it may be, to advise them." That may be a reasonable
  1136
  argument, but the right hon. Gentleman is not putting that forward. He is frankly conceding what I think he will have to concede, that the matters in this Bill are of so intensely complex and technical a character that nobody, probably even those who might be themselves professionally qualified, would want to advise themselves about it. They would want to seek outside advice.
  I concede at once that there are arguments in favour of the acquisition or extinction of proprietary rights in the interests of the public, but if that is done, and if the result of that is to involve persons in such a complex series of regulations and enactments that they are driven thereby to seek professional advice to guide them through the labyrinths that Parliament has itself created, then it does not seem to be arguable that those costs ought to be borne by the people who incur them. They ought to be paid by those who put them in that position. If there is a reason of public policy, as there may well be, for extinguishing private rights, then the public ought to pay for the extinction a proper sum, and that proper sum ought to include professional costs, because, if it is wrong—as hon. Gentlemen opposite never tire of reminding us—for the individual to exploit the public for the sake of profit, it must be equally wrong for the public to exploit the individual. Surely it must be obvious that the alternative which the Minister is trying to put before us is Hobson's choice. Then why cannot he be a little more forthcoming and do what I think, apart from party differences, all of us in this Committee would think to be the honourable thing if the matter were put to us—
  The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): Order.
  Mr. Hogg: I am sorry, Mr. Beaumont, if I am misbehaving myself—
  The Deputy-Chairman: No, I was trying to quieten hon. Members at the back of the Chair.
  Mr. Hogg: I am glad you think I was not responsible, Mr. Beaumont. I was drawing my speech peacefully to a close. It seems to me an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he is taking an objective and just view of these things. I do not believe there is a Member of this Committee, who, left to himself

  1137
  and apart from party pre-conceptions on one side or the other, would say that these costs were not reasonably incurred. Will not the right hon. Gentleman make, as he often does make, an objective and a just approach to this matter?
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: Surely the issue is not whether costs are reasonably incurred or not, but whether they should come out of the £300 million. It has been decided—not without some reluctance on the part of some hon. Members who supported this Bill on Second Reading—that the sum of £300 million be paid out as compensation, but the amount payable is limited to that figure. The issue before the Committee on this Amendment is whether individual claimants should be able to add to the amount of their claim a sum in respect of professional costs. If they are allowed to do so the global amount available for distribution will be diminished. I should have thought that, in view of the fact that there will be a large number of claims, some more serious than others, and that some will require more professional assistance than others, considerable difficulty will arise if professional costs are included, and that both in the interests of the State and of the claimants themselves considered collectively, it would be best if individual claimants were not allowed to add professional costs to their claims. I hope therefore that the Minister will resist the Amendment.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am sure the Committee as a whole are of the opinion that as this Measure imposes on the citizen the cost of obtaining this sort of professional advice, some provision should be made to defray the cost being put upon him. As the Minister points out, the costs themselves will be extracted from the already exiguous £300 million, and will have the effect of diminishing that inadequate sum for compensation. The Bill says in Subsection (4), when speaking about the scheme the Treasury is to make, that the scheme
  "may contain such incidental and consequential provisions as appear to the Treasury to be necessary or expedient, including provision—"
  Then there are three cases set forth, and we seek to add this fourth. The Minister said that he thought he could give further consideration to the question of costs. I say there should be some provision,
  1138
  "incidental and consequential" to this scheme. for defraying costs properly incurred by the applicant, and I do not think it should come out of the global sum. Some provision should be made in the expenses of the Central Land Board so that justice is done. If in all cases the costs were in direct proportion to the size of the actual claim for loss of development rights, the matter might, to some extent, be left to look after itself. But that will not always be the case. There will be cases where a relatively small amount is claimed, small in relation to others, but big from the point of view of the claimant, where the particulars will be so complicated as to involve the claimant in higher costs than a simpler though larger claim would necessarily incur. I think there are ample grounds for the Minister's promise of consideration of how this shall be met I am prepared on that assurance to allow the matter to go just now, but we shall expect him to do something about it in the future.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 59.—(General provisions as to stock.)
  Amendment made: In page 63, line 34, leave out "management," and insert "repayment."—[Mr. Silkin.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 62.—(Levy of development charge in respect of certain development.)
  Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 66, line 15, to leave out from "where," to the end of line 23, and to insert:
  "planning permission is granted under Part II of this Act for the carrying out of operations of any class specified in the Third Schedule to this Act, or for the institution of any use so specified, then if—

  (a) compensation has been paid under section eighteen of this Act in consequence of a previous refusal of permission fix those operations or that use or of the grant of such permission subject to conditions, or in consequence of the revocation or modification of permission so granted; or

  (b) compensation has been paid under section twenty-four of this Act in consequence of am order requiring the removal of any building or the discontinuance of any use of land, and the planning permission authorises the rebuilding of that building or the resumption of that use."

  1139
  The purpose of this Amendment is that when compensation has been paid by the local authority in respect of a refusal to permit development, and subsequently that development is permitted, the person carrying out the development shall become liable to pay development charge.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am desirous of a little further explanation of this from the Minister. In the draft of the Bill as it left the Committee, Subsection (3) of Clause 62 made provision whereby if compensation had been paid in the circumstances described by the Minister there would be a development charge. As far as I can understand from a cursory examination, this is a redraft of the provisions previously contained in Subsection (3). The new draft has the merit of additional clarity, but I would like an assurance from the Minister that nothing of principle is changed, and that it is a drafting Amendment. If it is not, I hope he will tell us what is the change of principle.
  Mr. Silkin: I can give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that this is not a question of principle; it is very largely a matter of drafting.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 66, line 25, at the end, to insert:
  "and where the amount of the development charge to be paid in respect of those operations or that use has been determined by the Central Land Board in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act, the Board may pay to any local authority by whom any such compensation as aforesaid has been paid a contribution towards that compensation not exceeding the said amount."
  This Amendment is designed to carry out an undertaking I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham (Mr. Irving). It provides that where the Central Land Board gets the benefit of compensation which has been paid by a local authority on refusal of permission to develop and permission is subsequently granted, if the Central Land Board levies a development charge it shall have the power to refund to the local authority a part or the whole of the development charge it receives.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I wish to put a question arising from the right hon. Gentleman's last sentence about repayment in whole or in part. I rather antici-
  1140
  pated from his earlier remarks that the development charge levied would not exceed the amount of compensation paid by the local authority. If that be the case, of course, there would be no question of more than a payment from the Central Land Board to the local authority and no balance would remain for the Central Land Board. That should be the case, and the development charge should not exceed the amount of compensation.
  Mr. Silkin: It need not be so. This Amendment is not designed to collect the amount of the development charge. That has already been settled. This merely provides that the Central Land Board may in certain circumstances make a payment to the local authority. In answer to the specific question, it would, of course, depend very much on when the original compensation is paid. If it were paid a considerable time back, or if a long period separated the payment of Compensation and the issue of the development charge, the circumstances might be very different, and the two need not necessarily have any relationship.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 66, line 42, at the end, to add:
  "(6) Any sums required by the Central Land Board for the making of contributions under this section shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament."
  This Amendment secures that any contribution made by the Board to a local authority, in accordance with the provision made in the last Amendment, should be paid out of monies provided by Parliament.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 69.—(Existing development contravening previous planning control.)
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 74, line 20, at the end, to insert:
  "(c) where the works were carried out or the use begun either by or on behalf of the Crown or of a local authority, or by the direction of the Crown or of a local authority, any person who carries out any works in compliance with an enforcement notice in respect thereto shall be entitled, on a claim made to the local planning authority within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations under this Act, to recover from the local plan-

  1141
  ning authority compensation in respect of any expenses reasonably incurred by him in that behalf."
  This Amendment is a good deal less controversial than the Amendment I moved earlier this afternoon and, in the absence of the Lord President of the Council from the Chamber, I think it unlikely to provoke any heat on the other side of the Committee. It is in fact largely an exploratory Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that a similar Amendment was moved in the Standing Committee. The intention is to protect owners of land from financial loss incurred in removing non-conforming structures erected on their land at the behest of the Crown or local authorities. I think I am not misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman when I say that he acquiesced in the principle behind this Amendment, but gave it as his view that the principle we seek to establish is already based in the existing law in the Compensation Defence Act, 1939, and in Section 10 of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act of 1945.
  The question arose as to whether the provisions of those two Acts were perhaps too narrowly restricted to the circumstances of the war to meet the larger purposes which we have in mind. When the Amendment was moved in Standing Committee, it was not pressed because we were anxious to give the Minister time to consider whether the point we have in mind, and which is expressed in the language of the Amendment, is wholly covered by the provisions of those two Statutes. By now, the Minister will have had time to take such counsel as he deemed proper, and we shall be glad to hear his views on the points to which I have given expression.
  Mr. Silkin: The hon. Member is quite right. This matter was discussed in Committee, and an Amendment on similar lines was withdrawn on my promise to examine the matter. I have examined it, and, in this case, I remain of the opinion that I held when the Amendment was moved in Standing Committee. I think that in all proper cases there is statutory provision for payment of compensation, particularly under the two Acts to which reference has been made.
  6.0 p.m.
  There is a residuum of cases where no statutory provision is made for compensation, and I see no particular reason why
  1142
  provision should be made in this Bill. The law does not provide in every case that where a nonconforming user is removed compensation shall be paid, and the cases contemplated in the Amendment, other than those already provided for, generally seem to me to be appropriate for the payment of compensation. There is one other point, and that is that compensation under the Amendment would be paid by the local authority. It seems to me quite wrong that the local authority should have to bear this cost. I suppose a common case would be that in respect of an order for the removal of air-raid shelters. The question is whether the owner should bear the cost of the removal or whether the local authority should bear that cost. It seems to me quite equitable to call upon the owner to bear the cost of the removal of the shelter. So, as a result of further consideration I think there is no particular reason why the cost of removal should be met out of public funds. Therefore, I regret that I am unable to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: Would the Minister say if, in the case of air-raid shelter cases which he quoted, he would be of the same opinion if the owner in question had preferred to retain the air raid shelter had he not been directed to remove it? Would he not think it equitable for the local authority to pay the cost in that case rather than the owner of the land?
  M. Silkin: Yes, I should be of the same view. The air raid shelter was put up for a specific purpose and if on planning grounds the local authority requires it to be removed, it should be removed.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: I hope that the Minister will give this further consideration. I remember the discussion upstairs which the Minister has correctly summarised, but I am by no means certain that all the points are covered by existing Statutes. I would ask the Committee to look at the background. Clause 69 deals with existing development which contravenes the provisions of planning control, and, in effect, gives a sanction to the planning authority by means of an enforcement notice served upon the owner to remove an offending structure. Such a structure might be of several sorts or of different kinds while different expense might be involved in destroying it. During the war it was

  1143
  necessary, for a number of defence purposes, for owners in the interests of the country to carry out the wishes of some Government Department, and erect upon their land structures which were in defiance of planning control. Parliament has made some attempt to remedy this matter by a special Act of Parliament which is referred to in this Bill—namely, the Building Restrictions (War-Time Contraventions) Act, 1946, under which it is possible for the sin to be condoned—for the offending structure to be legalised by a later ceremony. But the position still remains, in my judgment, that under this Bill, which does give power to serve an enforcement notice, a man might be given an enforcement notice telling him, maybe, to dig up a mile of runway, which is a very common disfigurement of some of our land at the present time. I feel that we should not part with the power we are

  Division No. 201].

  AYES.

  [6.7 p.m.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L

  Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W (Armagh)

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Peake, Rt. Hon. O

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Pickthorn, K.

  Baxter, A. B.

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

  Howard, Hon, A

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Birch, Nigel

  Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Jeffreys, General Sir G.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

  Kendall, W. D.

  Renton, D.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Roberts, Mai. P. G. (Ecclesall)

  Bullock, Capt. M.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

  Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

  Butcher, H. W.

  Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

  Ross Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

  Byers, Frank

  Linstead, H. N.

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Challen, C.

  Lipson, D. L.

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

  Channon, H.

  Low, Brig. A. R. W.

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  Clarke Col. R. S.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

  Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

  Crowder, Capt. John E

  Mackeson, Brig. H. R

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Davidson, Viscountess

  MacLeod, J.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

  Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Studholme, H. G.

  De la Bère, R.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. 'W.

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E.

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

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

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Marsden, Capt. A.

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Erroll, F. J.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Ward, Hon, G. R.

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Gage, C.

  Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Gammans, L. D

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  Mr. Drewe and Major Conant

  George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  NOES.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A V

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Barstow, P. G.

  Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)

  Allighan, Garry

  Barton, C.

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

  Alpass, J. H.

  Battley, J. R.

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Bramall, E. A.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Berry, H.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Beswick, F.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Bruce, Major D. W. T

  Ayles, W. H.

  Blackburn, A. R.

  Buchanan, G.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Burden, T. W.

  giving without ensuring in such a case, where the infringement of good planning was not due to wantonness or lack of care for the amenities of the countryside but due to direct obedience to a defence requirement, that there is adequate provision for protecting a man from the consequences of his patriotic act. I feel that purely as a matter of drafting the Amendment we propose would have been happier if it had been in the form of a proviso, "Provided that where work has been done at the behest of the authorities there shall be no charge on the man for restoring it." I am bound to say that, because of the state in which the Minister has left the matter, we should press it to a Division in the hope that it will induce him to look at it again.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 98; Noes, 257.

  Burke, W. A.

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

  Robens, A.

  Callaghan, James

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

  Rogers, G. H. R.

  Champion, A. J.

  Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

  Royle, C.

  Chater, D.

  Keenan, W.

  Sargood, R.

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Kenyon, C.

  Scott-Elliot, W

  Clitherow, Dr. R.

  King, E. M

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Cobb, F. A.

  Kinky, J.

  Shackleton, E. A. A

  Cocks, F. S.

  Lang, G.

  Sharp, Granville

  Collindridge, F.

  Lavers, S.

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

  Collins, V. J.

  Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Colman, Miss G. M

  Leslie, J. R.

  Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

  Comyns, Dr. L

  Levy, B. W.

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Simmons, C. J.

  Corvedale, Viscount

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Cove, W. G.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Lyne, A. W.

  Skinnard, F. W.

  Daggar, G.

  McAdam, W.

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Daines, P.

  McAllister, G.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  McEntee, V. La T

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

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Mack, J. D.

  Solley, L. J.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Sorensen, R. W

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

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

  Sparks, J. A.

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  McLeavy, F.

  Stamford, W.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Stephen, C.

  Deer, G.

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Diamond, J.

  Mainwaring, W. H.

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Stubbs, A. E.

  Donovan, T

  Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

  Summerskill, Dr. Edith

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

  Swingle, S.

  Dumpleton, C. W.

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Sylvester, G. O

  Dye, S.

  Medland, H. M.

  Symonds, A. L.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Mellish, R. J.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Edelman, M.

  Messer, F.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

  Farthing, W. J.

  Mitchison, G. R

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Field, Capt. W. J

  Montague, F.

  Tiffany, S.

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

  Moody, A. S.

  Titterington, M. F

  Foot, M. M

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

  Tolley, L.

  Gaitskell, H. T. N.

  Moyle, A.

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  Nally, W.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Naylor, T. E

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Goodrich, H. E.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Vernon, Maj. W. F

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

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

  Viant, S. P.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Walker, G. H.

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

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

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Grenfell, D. R.

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

  Warbey, W. N.

  Grey, C. F.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Weitzman, D.

  Grierson, E

  Oliver, G. H.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Paget, R. T.

  West, D. G.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

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

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  Palmer, A. M. F

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

  Hale, Leslie

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Wigg, Col. G. E.

  Hall, W. G.

  Parker, J.

  Wilkes, L.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Parkin, B. T.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Pearson, A.

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Hewitson, Captain M.

  Peart, Capt. T. F

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

  Hobson, C. R.

  Piratin, P.

  Williamson, T.

  Holman, P.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Wills, Mrs. E A

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Porter, C. (Leeds)

  Wilson, J. H.

  House, G

  Price, M. Philips

  Wise, Major F. J

  Hoy, J.

  Pritt, D. N.

  Woodburn, A.

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

  Proctor, W. T.

  Woods, G. S.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pursey, Cmdr. H

  Yates, V. F.

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

  Ranger, J.

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Rankin, J

  Younger, Hon. Kenneth

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Rees-Williams, D. R.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Irving, W. J.

  Reeves, J.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Janner, B.

  Rhodes, H.

  Mr. Joseph Henderson and

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Ridealgh, Mrs. M

  Mr. Hannan.

  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 73.—(Compensation for abortive expenditure on refusal of permission for other development authorised before appointed day.)
  6.15 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Fred Marshall): I beg to move, in page 79, line 15, after "order," to insert:
  "or
  (b) that the buildings or works in question. were begun or contracted for at a time when no resolution to prepare or adopt such a scheme had taken effect."
  This Amendment is the result of an undertaking which my right hon. Friend gave in the Standing Committee. Clause 73, as drafted, provides for compensation for abortive expenditure where permission is refused for development contracted for on the strength of a scheme or interim development permission under existing law. The Amendment really extends the Clause to cover development begun or contracted for at a time when no planning control was in operation. The practical effect will be confined to development begun or contracted for before the Act of 1943 was in operation, in areas where no scheme or resolution was in operation. The Amendment is proposed in response to a request from the Opposition.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 79, line 31, leave out "any work carried out," and insert:
  "anything done for the purposes of any such buildings or works as are mentioned in paragraph (a) of Subsection (1) of this Section if it was done."—[Mr. F. Marshall.]
  Mr. F. Marshall: I beg to move, in page 80, line 5, at the end, to insert:
  "(4) The reference in Subsection (3) of Section thirty-one of this Act to compensation under Part III of this Act shall be construed as including a reference to compensation payable under this Section."
  This is a drafting Amendment. Clause 31 (3) (b), provides that the regulations dealing with the delegation of functions to district councils may also transfer to those councils the liability for payment of compensation under Part III of the Bill. The Amendment provides that the regulations may similarly transfer liability for payment of compensation under Clause 73 for abortive expenditure. Under Clause 73 compensation for abortive expenditure is
  1148
  payable by the local planning authority where permission is refused under the Bill for development authorised by an interim development permission granted before 22nd July, 1943, which lapses as a result of the Bill or by an operative scheme.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 84.—(Land subject to notice to treat on appointed day.)
  Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 91, line 18, to leave out from "land," to "the," in line 23, and to insert:
  "is compulsorily acquired after the appointed day by any authority or person in pursuance of a notice to treat served before the passing of this Act."
  The purpose of this Amendment is to provide that in cases where notice is served before the passing of the Act and completion takes place afterwards the basis of compensation is the existing basis—that is, the 1939 value—and that the owner is paid on the full value of his land without any reduction in respect of development value, but that he is not in a position to make any claim out of the £300 million. That is to say that even though completion takes place after the coming into operation of the Measure he is deemed to be completing and carrying out the transaction as if it were carried out before the passing of the Act.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: We have had a very short explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to the purpose of this Amendment, but on my reading of the Clause, and having regard to later Amendments and new Clauses which are on the Order Paper, I should have thought that it had precisely the contrary effect to that stated by the hon. Gentleman. I am in a little difficulty in discussing this because it comes before the discussion on the new Clauses, but as I understood the right hon. Gentleman he said that the purpose of this Amendment was that where a notice to treat was served before the passing of this Measure, and completion takes place afterwards, the purchase should still be on the basis provided in the 1944 Measure. As I read the Clause with the Amendment it provides that where an interest in land is compulsorily acquired after the appointed day in pursuance of a notice to treat served before the passing

  1149
  of this Measure then, in the words of the last four lines of the Clause itself,
  "… the provisions of this Act and of any scheme made under … Part V shall apply in relation to that interest as if the purchase had been completed immediately before the appointed day."
  I hope I shall be allowed to put this point because we really should have an answer on this before we go any further. As I understand it, where the completion takes place after the passing of the Bill and before the appointed day the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to bring in a different scale of compensation to that provided by the 1944 Act. And that is how I read something which stands in the Minister's name later on the Order Paper. If my interpretation is right then what the hon. Gentleman has said in moving this Amendment would appear to me to be completely wrong. I do not know what is behind this Amendment. In some cases the object which the Minister has stated would be to the serious disadvantage of persons who are likely to lose their land, because where the values which the right hon. Gentleman is going to provide for payment under the other Clauses are higher than the 1939 values I assume that the local authorities will rush in with their notices to treat before this Bill becomes an Act. Where the present prices are lower they will, of course, hold their fire. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to be a little more specific about this because as I understand it this Amendment, read with one of the new Clauses on the Order Paper, will mean that the effect will be precisely the contrary to that which he stated in moving the Amendment.
  Mr. David Renton: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is right about this, I think the Government may find certain difficulties in regard to compulsory purchase under the Transport Bill. It may be within the recollection of the learned Attorney-General that when the Transport Bill was before the House, on the Report stage, last week, the Solicitor-General allayed certain fears which we expressed about compulsory purchase under that Measure by telling us that all would be well, because the 1939 value was to be swept away under this Town and Country Planning Bill. If the appointed day under the Town and Country Planning Bill is to be a long time after 1st January, 1948, on which
  1150
  day the Transport Bill comes into operation, the fears which we expressed and which the Solicitor-General allayed with regard to compulsory purchase under the Transport Bill will remain. I feel, therefore, that before we part with this matter we should have some assurance from the Minister that the intention expressed by the learned Solicitor-General last week will not be defeated by the Amendment now under consideration.
  Mr. Silkin: I have enough troubles of my own without having to deal with the Transport Bill, but the intention is that the operative date of determining the basis of compensation should be the date of the notice to treat, regardless of when completion takes place. Otherwise, it would be possible for a person to put himself on a different basis of compensation to his own advantage by delaying completion. He could almost decide what suited him best and endeavour to manoeuvre the date of completion accordingly. As I understand the Amendment, the provision is that where a notice to treat has been given before the passing of the Bill the basis of compensation shall be the 1939 value, regardless of whether completion takes place afterwards or not. That is the intention of the Amendment.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I do not think we can leave it like that, with the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman. I appreciate his difficulties, but I am myself in a difficulty in dealing with this since there is later on the Order Paper a Clause headed "Compensation for compulsory acquisition after passing of this Act and before the appointed day." I cannot enter into a discussion of that new Clause in any detail, but perhaps I may be allowed to say that it sets quite a different standard from the 1939 prices. This Clause says—concerning the interest in land in respect of which notice to treat is given before the passing of the Act—the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to that interest as if the purchase had been completed immediately before the appointed day. The point I am putting to the right hon. Gentleman is this. Will that not have the effect of bringing into operation the new Clause to which I have referred—if it is inserted in the Bill—and so of abolishing the 1939 prices as the basis in relation to any land acquired under a notice to treat served before the

  1151
  passing of the Act and in respect of which the compulsory acquisition has not been completed before the passing of the Act?
  The right hon. Gentleman put a point of some force with regard to the necessity or desirability of using the service of the notice to treat as a determining factor, but that cuts both ways, because just as you may have a delay in completion taking place to suit the pockets of the individual acquiring or selling, you may equally have local authorities taking advantage of the difference so as to benefit themselves by the service of the notice to treat. I assume from what the right hon. Gentleman says that he contemplates that local authorities shall have power to serve their notices before this Bill becomes an Act so as to claim the advantage when they can of being able to acquire at lower prices than they would have to pay for that particular interest directly after this Bill becomes an Act.
  Mr. Silkin: It is not at all clear whether they will obtain any advantage because after the passing of the Act they will be able to buy at the restricted values with the development value taken out. It is not at all certain, therefore, that it would be to their advantage to serve notices to treat in anticipation. In that way they make themselves liable to pay the full 1939 value. It is a question for consideration whether the 1939 value is higher than the restricted value. I do not believe that the local authorities are going to act irresponsibly and rush in, even if they were in a position to do so, merely to get some advantage over the owner. As a matter of fact, a good deal of the pressure to change the basis of compensation has come from the local authorities themselves. They would be the last to seek to take advantage and act so as to deprive an owner of compensation to which, in their opinion, he was entitled.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Renton: In regard to the Minister's reply to me just now, I quite appreciate that he has enough trouble with this one Bill, but I must ask him to tell us how this Bill will dovetail in with Clause 8 of the Transport Bill, as read with Clause 46 (2) of that Bill. It is not until that dovetailing has been done, that we can be assured there will be no injustice when the
  1152
  Transport Commission are purchasing compulsorily, as is envisaged.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 91, line 24, leave out "the said Part V," and insert "Part V of this Act."—[Mr. Silkin.]
  Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 91, line 26, at the end, to insert:
  "(2) Where any interest in land is compulsorily acquired before the appointed day by any government department or local or public authority within the meaning of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, in pursuance of a notice to treat served after the passing of this Act. Then—

  (a) the provisions of Part V of this Act and of any scheme made thereunder shall have effect in relation to the land as if that interest had been subsisting on the appointed day with all incidents to which it was subject immediately before the date of the notice to treat, as if the land had been on the appointed day in the same state as it was immediately before the date of the notice to treat, and as if the person who was entitled thereto immediately before the date of the notice to treat had been entitled thereto on the appointed day; and

  (b) except as aforesaid, no payment shall be made under the said Part V in respect of the interest so acquired, or in respect of any interest derived therefrom.

  (3) Nothing in Part VII of this Act shall be construed as exempting from the payment of a development charge under Part VI of this Act any operations carried out on land acquired as is mentioned in the foregoing Subsection, or any use of such land.
  (4) Subject as hereinafter provided, the foregoing provisions of this Section shall apply in relation to land, or an interest in land, which is acquired by agreement by any authority or person who had power or could have been authorised to acquire the land or that interest compulsorily under any enactment as if the land had been compulsorily acquired, and as if notice to treat in respect thereof had been served on the date on which the contract was made:
  Provided that where the land is so acquired as aforesaid before the appointed day in pursuance of a contract made after the passing of this Act, the contract may provide that Subsections (2) and (3) of this Section shall not apply to the land or any interest therein."
  We are dealing here with the basis of compensation where a notice to treat has been given after the passing of the Bill and completion takes place before the appointed day. Here the basis of compensation is that the owner will get the restricted value, and will be entitled to claim compensation in respect of development value out of his share of the £300 million.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I find that the right hon. Gentleman's short statements are wonderfully clear and easy to follow, and I congratulate him upon it, but he has said nothing in regard to the new Subsection (3) which he proposes to incorporate in this Clause. Will he say what is its purpose, and what it is meant to do? The Subsection reads:
  "Nothing in Part VII of this Act shall be construed as exempting from the payment of a development charge under Part VI of this Act any operations carried out on land acquired as is mentioned in the foregoing subsection, or any use of such land."
  Presumably, it is meant to deal with land which is acquired under the notice to treat served before the passing of the Act and the compulsory acquisition taking place after the appointed day. How, under these circumstances, will there be a liability to pay a development charge? If the effect of what the right hon. Gentleman has said is to remove that particular burden, what is the point of Subsection (3) which appears to contemplate in certain circumstances the levelling of a development charge.
  Mr. Silkin: Subsection (3) contemplates that in those circumstances there will not be exemption.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I wish to revert to my point on the previous Amendment, as I did not catch the Minister's last observation. Does he say that the effect of Subsection (3) is to exempt from liability to pay development charge, or is it to keep the liability alive? As I read it, it is drafted so as to keep liability for payment of development charges alive, and if that is so, my question still requires an answer. What is the point in keeping it alive, in view of the earlier Amendment the Minister has moved?
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: It is very difficult to understand the application of Part VII to the problem under discussion. Part VII, referred to in Subsection (3) of the Minister's Amendment, deals with applications to special cases. It is a collection of the odd cases, in respect of which the general rules of the Bill do not make automatic provision, and which require special enactment to fit them in. There are, for example, unfinished buildings,
  1154
  compensation for abortive expenditure, land ripe for development, mineral workings, land held by local authorities for general statutory purposes, land held for charitable purposes, Crown land, and so on. It is very difficult to follow how it is conceivable that anything in Part VII can be construed
  "as exempting from the payment of a development charge under Part VI of this Act any operations carried out on land acquired as is mentioned in the foregoing Subsections, or any use of such lands."
  I am wondering if there is not some drafting mistake, or whether there is not a misprint. I hope the Minister will clear up this point in regard to Part VII, which puzzles me considerably.
  Mr. Silkin: The relevant Clauses in Part VII are Clauses 76 and 78. These Clauses provide that in respect of certain land held by local authorities and statutory undertakers, on the appointed day, no payment can be made in respect of compensation, and no development charge will be levied. Where land is acquired after the passing of the Act, then it is right development charges should' be levied, and Subsection (3) provides that nothing in Part VII—that is anything in Clauses 76 or 78—is to be construed as exempting these cases from development charges. I hope that I have made it clear.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: Clause 76 (2) definitely says that no payment shall be made under Part V of this Act
  "in respect of any interest in land which, on the appointed day, is land to which this Section applies."
  It goes on to say that there shall be no liability for development charges under Part VI. We now have this curious Subsection which says that nothing in Part VII shall be construed as exempting payment of a development charge under Part VI.
  Mr. Silkin: That is after the passing of the Act.
  Mr. E. Fletcher: It seems to me that the Minister's explanation is perfectly clear, but I suggest that at some later stage, there should be substituted for the words "nothing in Part VII" the words "nothing in Clauses 76 and 78 of this Act."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 86.—(Exchequer grants to local authorities in respect of acquisition and clearance of land in re-development areas.)
  Amendment made: In page 93, line 3, after "acquired", insert "or appropriated."—[Mr. Silkin.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 87.—(Other Exchequer grants to local authorities.)
  Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 93. line 28, at the end, to insert:
  "or in taking any action under Section twenty-three of this Act."
  An Order made under Clause 23 may require an alteration or removal in respect of an existing building or works, and the expenditure in so doing is recovered by compensation and is liable for grant under Clause 87. In the event of failure to comply, the local authority may carry out the alteration or removal, and the expenditure incurred should receive the same treatment, so far as the grant is concerned, as if it were compensation. In other words, this Amendment is intended to give local authorities the same treatment in respect of action which they take in carrying out works as if they were paying compensation.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 90.—(Power of local authorities and statutory undertakers to contribute towards expenses of local planning authorities, etc.)
  Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 95, line 40, to leave out "planning."
  This Amendment is to be taken in conjunction with the three following Amendments on the Paper. It is to make it possible for a local authority to make a contribution towards the cost of compensation incurred by another authority.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. Gentleman said that the object of this Amendment was to make it possible for one authority to contribute towards the compensation paid by another local authority. That is putting it in a rather mild fashion. As I read the Clause, the effect of the Amendments would be to entitle the Minister to order another
  1156
  authority to make a contribution. I would like to know whether there is any machinery whereby any intention on his part to make an order can be reviewed, whether there is any possibility, apart from putting down a Question, of checking the exercise, by the right hon. Gentleman, of the wide power he is taking? Why is it now necessary that the right hon. Gentleman should take power to order a local authority to contribute to the expenses incurred by another authority? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give us a little more explanation of the need for this Amendment.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: I would like to add my request to the right hon. Gentleman for more information. When we find, in a list of Amendments to a Town and Country Planning Bill, an Amendment to leave out planning, we naturally view the context which it is supposed to affect with some misgiving. It does not appear, from the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, why he is asking for this Amendment. Line 40 takes us to Subsection (2) of the Clause, which says:
  "Where any expenses are incurred by a local planning authority in the payment of compensation payable in consequence of anything done under Part III of this Act …"
  certain consequences follow. The Minister wants to say
  "… a local authority …"
  instead of
  "… a local planning authority …"
  Part III of this Bill is headed, "Control of Development, etc." It includes Clause 12, whereby one has to apply to a local planning authority for permission. Anything done under Part III must be an activity of the local planning authority. It is the local planning authority which is put, by that part of the Bill, in control of development, etc. It therefore follows that the original words in Subsection (2) of this Clause are right, and should not be amended in this way. Where any expenses are incurred by a local planning authority in operating the planning part of this Bill there is to be power to recoup them. Unless the words "local planning authority" have no meaning at all, as different from a local authority, it seems that the definition in the original draft is the right one. Here is a local planning authority which, under Part III of the

  1157
  Bill, is to receive and consider applications for permission to develop, and is to operate the machinery of control of development, etc., which is set out in Part III. In doing so, it incurs liabilities for compensation. It is only right and proper that some other local authority, which is a beneficiary by the action of that authority, should be asked to recoup, but I cannot see what is the Minister's objection to the word "planning."
  Mr. Walker-Smith: It appears from the insertion of the words in the third of the proposed Amendments that the Subsection would read:
  "… require any other local authority to contribute towards those expenses such sum as appears to him to be reasonable having regard to any benefit accruing to that authority by reason of the proceeding giving rise to the compensation."
  In the penultimate line of Subsection (2) we have a reference to "that authority." Perhaps the Minister will explain this point.
  Mr. H. Strauss: If the Amendment is accepted, the right hon. Gentleman can order a local authority to make payment to another local authority if it appears to him expedient so to do. If a different view were held by the authority ordered to pay, would there be any sort of right to be heard, or to make representations, or anything of that kind? I am sure the Minister would not have put these powers into the Bill unless he needed something of the kind in a proper case. It is rather a tall order that one local authority should be ordered to pay another on the ground that the Minister thinks it is expedient that that should be done, without having any power to make effective representations.
  Mr. Silkin: There may be an acquiring authority which is not a planning authority. In certain circumstances, a district council may be acquiring land, instead of paying compensation, and it would be proper, in that case, for the planning authority to make a contribution towards the cost of the acquisition. The Amendment does not alter the general principle which was passed in the Standing Committee. It merely provides for the case where it is necessary to make a contribution towards the expenses incurred by a local authority other than the new planning authority. The principle remains the
  1158
  same: that it is possible for the Minister, if he thinks it is expedient so to do, to require one authority to make a contribution towards the costs incurred by another. That was in the Clause as it stood, regardless of the Amendment, which merely takes note of the fact that a district council which will no longer be a planning authority may be involved. In that sense, I agree that the Amendment widens the provision. It takes account of that fact. and provides for the possibility of a contribution towards the costs incurred by a district council,
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I have some difficulty in following entirely the Minister's explanation. He explained the reference to expenses incurred by a local authority in payment of compensation. He then appeared to explain circumstances which would arise when a local authority, not a planning authority, acquired land in lieu of payment of compensation, by which I understood him to refer to the provisions of Clause 17. Thus far I am with him, but how does he relate the expenses incurred in payment of compensation to the circumstances arising when compulsory acquisition under Clause 17 is initiated in lieu of compensation?
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: I fail to understand this matter correctly and I have a feeling that there may be some mistake. The explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman was that there may be a local authority, such as a district council, which was riot a planning authority, and that it might be appropriate in that case to arrange for a contribution to another local authority. But that cannot be right, because the Subsection says:
  "Where any expenses are incurred by a local planning authority in the payment of compensation payable in consequence of anything done under Part III of this Act. ."
  If the authority is not a planning authority it does nothing under Part III. If the transaction which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind is the acquisition of land, that has nothing to do with Part III of the Bill, but Part IV. Compensation for the purchase of land comes under Part IV. There is something mysterious about this, and if the right hon. Gentleman cannot explain it now perhaps he can put the matter right later.
  The Attorney-General: We have become involved in a very difficult and technical point, but I do not think there is any real

  1159
  difference between us, namely that there should be power to direct, in proper cases, one local authority to make a contribution to the other. However, in view of the great authority with which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) speaks, I will certainly look into this drafting again. Fortunately for me, the matter can be dealt with in another place.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: I would not like it to go on my authority. I am just a Member of the Committee, trying to point out a possible obscurity. If we let this pass now it might give rise to unpleasant consequences in the future. I have no desire to frustrate the purpose of the Bill, but I raise this point merely in an endeavour to get it clear.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In page 95, line 42, after "Act," insert:
  "(including any compensation payable in respect of land compulsorily acquired by virtue of section seventeen of this Act)."
  In line 44, after "any," insert "other."
  In page 96, line 2, leave out "planning."—[Mr. Silkin.]
  Motion Made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. E. Fletcher: With regard to the question of whether the word "planning" should be omitted, I would draw attention to Clause 31. This is included in Part III and gives powers to Ministers to delegate certain powers from local planning authorities to other local authorities. I should imagine that in pursuance of that power of designation under Clause 31 it was thought necessary that the ambit of Clause 90 should be extended from local planning authorities to cover all local authorities.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: That is a most valiant attempt of the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) to come to the Government's assistance. While no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will welcome any assistance in solving problems raised by Clause 90, I do not think that that is in any way a solution to this problem, or that it alters the necessity of redrafting Clause 90 to carry out the right hon. Gentleman's intention.
  Mr. H. Strauss: I think that the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) is mistaken. I do not think that the explanation he has given can apply, because the powers under Clause 31 are limited powers of delegation which would scarcely explain the words which we have just been considering.
  The Attorney-General: I am indebted to hon. Members for calling attention to what, I think, is a defect in the drafting of this Clause. The Clause is intended to refer to Clause 17 of the Bill, which is in Part III. To that extent the reference to Part III is correct. In Clause 17. acquisition is an alternative to the payment of compensation. for instance, under Clause 18 by the local planning authority in the case of a refusal, revocation, or modification of permission. The acquisition which is there contemplated happens to be not by the local planning authority but by the local authority. What I think is required is that after the words "payment of compensation" in line 41, we should include "or inclusion of land in lieu thereof," or words to that effect. We will look at that and make the Clause clear.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think that must be the explanation. I have no desire to delay the Committee because I think that the matter can be put right by the redrafting which the Attorney-General considers appropriate We have allowed to pass in silence a number of consequential Amendments which hang on this matter. I mention that because I am confident that in the re-examination these Amendments will also have to be looked at.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 93.—(Transfer of property and officers to local planning authorities under this Act.)
  Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 98, line 18, to leave out "and joint planning committees."
  This, and the next four Amendments on the Paper, as well as the Amendment to be made in page 99, line 5, go together. The purpose of the Clause is to provide for the transfer of property and liabilities to local planning authorities in accordance with regulations which will be made under the Clause. On consideration, it appears that it would not be appropriate to trans-

  1161
  fer all property and liabilities to the new planning authorities. In certain circumstances, it may be more appropriate to leave the liabilities where they are. For instance, in the case of superannuation, the assets and liabilities of a fund established under the 1922 Act may have been transferred to a fund under the 1937 Act, and to the extent that the liabilities exceeded the assets, the local authority may have agreed to make that deficiency good by annual payments. In those circumstances, it may be better not to transfer the fund at all to the new planning authority. Similarly, it may be more appropriate that in certain other cases, particularly where we are dealing with a joint planning committee, the assets and liabilities should be transferred to the constituent members of the joint planning committee rather than to the new planning authority. These Amendments are designed to provide the necessary elasticity so that the assets and liabilities of existing local planning authorities may be transferred to such authority as may be appropriate in the particular circumstances.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 98, line 23, at the end, insert:
  "(b) for the transfer to local planning authorities, or to the constituent authorities of joint planning committees, of property and liabilities of such committees."—[Mr. Silkin.]
  Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 98, line 25, to leave out "any such councils or committees," and to insert "councils of county districts."
  Mr. Medland: Does that include a parish council? Is there anything in the Clause which defines "a council of a county district"?
  Mr. Silkin: It refers to rural district councils and urban district councils.
  Mr. Medland: It may not be a parish council. I think that ought to be defined.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In page 98, line 28, at the end, insert:
  "and of officers employed by joint planning committees."
  In line 33, at the end, insert:
  "or the constituent authorities of joint planning committees, as the case may be."
  Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 98, line 34, to leave out paragraph (d).
  This Amendment, and the two following Amendments, both in page 99, line 11, go together. The purpose is to secure a more logical arrangement of Clause 93. There are certain regulations which "may" be provided and certain regulations which "shall" be provided, and this Amendment sorts out the two types of regulations.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In page 99, line 5, leave out from "authorities," to "in," in line 6, and insert:
  "or the constituent authorities of joint planning committees, on the one hand, and the councils of county districts or joint planning committees on the other hand."
  In line leave out "aforesaid" and insert "to which the regulations relate."
  In page 99, line 11, at the end, insert:
  "(2) Regulations made for the purposes of this section shall provide for the payment of compensation, subject to such exceptions and conditions as may be prescribed by the regulations by such authorities as may be so prescribed—

  (a) to officers who, immediately before the appointed day, were employed by local planning authorities, by the councils of county districts, and by joint planning committees, and who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments which is attributable to provisions of this Act or of the regulations; and

  (b) to officers who, having before the appointed day been employed in any such employment as aforesaid, would have been in that employment immediately before that day but for any war service in which they have been engaged."—[Mr. Sillein.]

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: Before we part with this Clause, I feel we ought to express the hope that the Minister will make use of these very wide powers of making regulations to overcome what I anticipate will be one of the stiffest obstacles in the administration of this Bill. We have not objected to the, long list of drafting Amendments which he has put before us, as they appear, on the whole, to be giving a little more elasticity in regard to the method of transferring the rights, liabilities, functions and powers from the present planning authorities to the new ones. I have no objection to that, because I

  1163
  anticipate that one of the greatest difficulties with which those who will administer this Bill will be faced will be the fact that they are altering the planning law and at the same time changing the people who, locally, will administer it. The county councils now for the first time will take their place as the local planning authorities. Those who have hitherto discharged that function, namely, the district councils—which, I will tell the hon. Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Mr. Medland), are defined in the Local Government Act of 1933, "district councils" being a well known expression meaning what the Minister said it means—will, so far as this Bill is concerned, be obliterated from the hierarchy of planning authorities, except for certain small delegated functions. It is in starting the new authorities that the trouble will come; that is to say, it is not easy to pick up planning officers to fill these extended spheres of supervision and control which the counties will now administer. My hint to the-Minister on the subject would be that he should use as many as he can of the experienced officers, who have hitherto laboured in the county districts, to start his new county council authorities. It would be a tragedy if the experience of these men were to be wasted, if he were to spend time and trouble in trying to get the new authorities to start from the very beginning with new men. I gather, however, that that is not his intention, and I hope he will succeed in what he does intend.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I rise to inquire about one phrase in the new Subsection (2, a) which it is proposed to insert. In line 6 occur the words:
  "and who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments which is attributable to provisions of this Act or of the regulations."
  I wonder in what sort of circumstances the Minister envisages this loss or diminution of emoluments? Is the sort of case he has in mind that of the local authority which, will not be a local planning authority under this Bill, that is to say, a country district, which has a planning officer who does not devote the whole of his time to planning functions and who remains in the service of that authority? Is the case the Minister has in mind the possibility that such officers who carry on their previous functions, less the planning
  1164
  part of those functions, are likely to receive less in emoluments from the local authority whose officers they are, and that that diminution will be made up under the provisions I have just referred to in the Amendment it is now proposed to incorporate in the Bill?
  Mr. Silkin: The case that the hon. Gentleman quotes is a possible case. Another case might well be where such a person is taken over by the new planning authority, but not necessarily at the same rank or with the same remuneration. I think it is right that the new authorities should have elasticity in dealing with the personnel employed by existing planning authorities, although I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that they will take the fullest possible advantage of the now existing staffs, and use them in the most effective way. We shall in the beginning be very short of personnel in carrying out our functions under this Bill, and we cannot afford to waste any experienced staff who may be available. I am quite certain that the proposed new planning authorities are very conscious of this, and will take the fullest possible advantage of the experience that already exists.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: On that too, I share the view of the Minister that there will be a shortage of planning staffs, rather than any embarras de richesses, at any rate in the earlier stages. At the same time, I would like to say how much I for one appreciate the care which the Minister has evidently given to the question of seeing that local government officers do not suffer by reason of the provisions he introduces in this Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 104.—(Amendments and repeals.)
  Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 105, line 33, after "repealed," to insert:
  "in the case of enactments specified in Part I of that Schedule, as from the passing of this Act, and in the case of the enactments specified in Part II of that Schedule."
  This insertion, together with the new Part I of the Eighth Schedule, which we shall reach later, becomes necessary because the new basis of compensation for compulsory acquisition contained in that Part is being brought into force on the Royal Assent, unlike the bulk of the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In page 105, line 34, at the end, insert:
  "Provided that the repeal by virtue of the subsection of any enactment specified in Part I of the said Eighth Schedule shall not affect the operation of that enactment in its application to compensation in respect of land compulsorily acquired in pursuance of a notice to treat served before the date of the passing of this Act or compensation in respect of any order or direction made or given before that date."
  In line 37, leave out from "not," to the end of the line.—[Mr. Silkin.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 105.—(Special provisions as to London.)
  Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 106, line 35, at the end, to insert:
  "(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred by Section thirty-five of this Act, or by Section thirty-six of this Act as modified by the last foregoing subsection, if the Minister of Health is satisfied that it is expedient in the public interest that any land within a metropolitan borough (whether designated by a development plan as subject to compulsory acquisition or not) should be acquired by the council of that borough for the purpose of providing a public open space, he may authorise that council to acquire that land compulsorily; and the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, except Section two of that Act, shall apply to the compulsory acquisition of land under this subsection as if this subsection had been in force immediately before the commencement of that Act:
  Provided that the council of a metropolitan borough shall not, except with the consent of the London County Council be authorised to acquire land compulsorily under this subsection."
  This Amendment confers powers on the metropolitan boroughs to purchase land compulsorily for the purpose of providing open spaces. This is a matter in which the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) was interested. At present the metropolitan boroughs have no such power; this is a new power which is being conferred upon them, on condition that they only exercise it with the consent of the London County Council. It is intended, and indeed all that was asked for by the metropolitan boroughs was, that the powers should apply to relatively small areas of two acres, or less, but no limit is provided for in the Amendment because it was felt that the matter could be dealt with by arrangement between the London County Council and the metropolitan boroughs.
  Mr. E. Fletcher: I am sure the Committee will turn to this Amendment with a sense of relief, because apart from anything else it is refreshingly free from all ambiguity, and must be welcomed in all parts of the Committee. It confers for the first time on metropolitan borough councils the power to acquire land compulsorily for the purpose of providing small open spaces. All those hon. Members who represent London constituencies, as does the Minister himself, will be conscious of the acute need in this congested urban area for small open spaces, and I am sure the metropolitan boroughs will be encouraged by this addition in the Bill to seek out small open spaces, even though it may be only an acre here and an acre there, which can be turned into oases for recreation and safety for the London children who are at present so frequently condemned to play in the streets. It is appropriate that these powers should be exercised only with the consent of the London County Council and of the Minister, but I hope that all metropolitan borough councils will avail themselves to the full of the powers now conferred.
  Mr. Piratin: I also welcome the Amendment, but I should like to ask the Minister why it was not possible to include the metropolitan borough councils together with the City of London in Subsection (2, a). If they had the powers under Clauses 36 and 37, this Amendment would not be necessary.
  Mr. Silkin: Clauses 36 and 37 deal with acquisition generally by local planning authorities, and the metropolitan boroughs are not planning authorities.
  Mr. Piratin: My question still applies; Why did not the Minister include the metropolitan boroughs and give them the same powers as the City of London, which are contained in Subsection (2, a)? The Minister would then have been saved the bother of having this Amendment.
  Mr. Silkin: I am not very worried about the Amendment. That method of saving the Amendment would have been much more embarrassing than the embarrassment caused by the Amendment. It would have meant making the metropolitan boroughs planning authorities and so creating 28 planning authorities for the county of London instead of one.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: The purpose of the Amendment is admirable, and I have only one query. In lines 2 and 3, it is stated:
  "If the Minister of Health is satisfied that it is expedient in the public interest that any land … should be acquired …."
  It seems to me that this is a slight invasion by the Minister of Health of the functions of the Minister of Town and Country Planning. It is true that parks and open spaces are healthy and wholesome things, but one of the chief objects of good planning is to provide for the health and convenience of the people, and I should have thought that in a case of this sort, where one might easily get the London plan as such interfered with by the action of the Minister of Health, at the behest of the metropolitan boroughs and the London County Council, it would be as well to provide that the Minister of Town and Country Planning should be the Minister prescribed. There have recently been attempts by other Ministers to invade the province of the Minister of Town and Country Planning. Not long ago the Postmaster-General attempted to erect on White Horse Hill a structure which offended the sensibilities of those who feel about these things, and we were all greatly relieved when that project was abandoned. I should have thought that a matter which so vitally concerned the structure of the plan for London as does the provision of open spaces would have been a matter for the Minister of Town and Country Planning and not for the Minister of Health.
  Mr. Silkin: The right hon. Gentleman is now going back on Clause 35 which has been disposed of, and under Clause 35 it is the appropriate Minister—the Minister responsible for the exercise of the powers under which the acquisition takes places—who has the duty of approval, and whose approval is also deemed to be a planning approval. As I explained in Committee, that approval will be given after consultation with the Minister of Town and Country Planning. I can give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that there will be the closest co-operation between the two Ministers and that no consent will be given by the sanctioning Minister except after consultation with the Minister of Town and Country Planning. The acquisition of open spaces is a function of the Minister of Health, and, therefore, it is right that he should give the sanction for the acquisition, but he will not give
  1168
  it without first consulting the Minister of Town and Country Planning and getting his agreement.
  Mr. Molson: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the sanction being given by the appropriate Minister. It is our submission that the Minister of Health is the inappropriate Minister. Surely, the matter should go rather further than a mere question of public health. There might very well be cases in which acquisition was not necessary for public health, but nevertheless would add to the amenities of the district, and in those cases would not the appropriate Minister be the Minister of Town and Country Planning?
  Mr. Silkin: It is under the Public Health Acts, the Physical Training Act, and various other Acts of Parliament for which the Minister of Health is responsible, that these acquisitions will take place.
  Mr. Medland: Surely, the Minister who gives the sanction to the local authority to raise the money to acquire the park or open space is the Minister who should function in this respect. In this case, it is the Minister of Health.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: On the question of liaison between Ministers and Government Departments in regard to the acquisition of land for various purposes, of course the Minister will be aware there is considerable concern in the public mind about the exercise of these powers by all sorts of different Ministeries. While I do not wish to trespass beyond the bounds of Order in referring to proposals that are made from time to time that these powers should be canalised and centralised, there is one point to which I wish to refer. The Minister said there would be the closest consultation between himself and the Minister of Health and other appropriate Ministers in these cases. I would like to put a question which is not only proper but most important and practical—can the Minister give some indication as to what arrangements and machinery there arc for liaison and consultation rather lower down the departmental ladder where these matters tend to be initiated, and sometimes to be disposed of, subject perhaps to the retrospective veto of the Minister if his attention is called to what otherwise, in the press of his duties, he might not see, by some agitation in the Press or by a

  1169
  Parliamentary question? I quite appreciate that in this case the powers are given to the Minister of Health, and given in the wisdom of Parliament, so that no doubt they are given rightly, but I think the Minister would allay a good deal of reasonable anxiety which is felt in many parts of the country irrespective of political feeling if he would address himself to the question I have put to him.
  Mr. H. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister is quite right in calling attention to the Statutes under which the Minister of Health is the appropriate Minister, and that is the reason no doubt why we have the words in this Subsection. The Committee would, however, be making a great error if they were to assume from that fact that the present position was in the least satisfactory. Many of the Acts under which the Minister of Health has these powers are Acts passed before the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry was ever created. It is quite an unsatisfactory position that the Minister of Health should have statutory powers under which he can decide without restriction what land may be acquired for housing purposes, for that vitally affects the whole town and country planning of the country for which the right hon. Gentleman is generally believed to be responsible. I have considerable sympathy with him on account of the number of things for which he may be blamed when he is not really the culprit. That will go on until these matters are cleared up. No one with experience of these matters, and no one who observes who conducts inquiries which vitally affect London and other cities as a whole, at which the right hon. Gentleman's representative does not appear at all, can be satisfied with the present position. It is not true that planning, as between Government Departments, is in any way satisfactory, and it is not true that the right hon. Gentleman will be Minister of Town and Country Planning in anything but name so long as the Minister of Health has so many unrestricted powers as he has at present.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Silkin: I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman who, of course, has experience of administration in local government, that there has been a great improvement in the methods of co-ordination between various Ministers. Although I will not pretend for a moment that we can
  1170
  never trip up, and that a case may not go through which has not been properly examined by my Ministry, I would say that we are improving, and that by and large I hope that to an increasing extent the Ministry of Town and Country Planning will have their say on every single case of development. We are here concerned with open spaces, and it is not likely that the Minister of Town and Country Planning would fear the acquisition of land for an open space.
  Mr. H. Strauss: I did not intend anything I said to be taken as a reflection on the present occupant of either of those two offices, or a reflection on the degree of consultation between them. My criticism was of the statutory provisions. I say that a Minister of Health who took an entirely different view of town planning from the Minister of Town and Country Planning could, under present Statutes, wreck the town planning of the Minister of Town and Country Planning.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 107, line i6, at the end, to insert:
  "(5) References in section ninety-three of this Act to the council of a county district shall be construed as including references to the Common Council of the City of London."
  This Amendment brings the Common Council of the City of London into the category of those in respect of which regulations can be made for the transfer of functions.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 108, line 19, at the end, to insert:
  "(9) The Common Council of the City of London may borrow money for the purposes of this Act under the City of London Sewers Acts 1848 to 1897, and any expenses incurred by that Council under this Act shall be defrayed as part of their general expenses."
  This Amendment reproduces the substance of one which was moved in Committee by the right hon. Gentleman. Its purpose is to give the Common Council of the City the power to borrow money for the purposes of the Bill, and to prescribe how their expenses under the Bill are to be charged.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. H. Strauss: I only rise at this point because it might cause misapprehension if we were to pass in silence the addition of this Clause to the Bill, though I think the main subject I wish to raise can be more properly discussed when we reach the Report stage proper. I seek your guidance on that point, Mr. Touche. I do not wish to delay the addition of this Clause to the Bill if acceptance of the Motion will not in any way prejudice discussion of this Clause on the Report stage. But if it could be suggested that by adding this Clause at this point we were approving the first Subsection, I should have a good deal to say. I do not know whether you can give any indication on that matter.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Touche): What is the nature of the hon. and learned Member's proposal?
  Mr. Strauss: There are on the Order Paper, for consideration on the Report stage, some Amendments dealing with this Clause. On those Amendments everything I wish to say can properly be discussed. I do not want it to be thought that by allowing this Clause to stand part of the Bill now we are in any way prejudicing that opportunity.
  Mr. Touche: No, it will not in any way prejudice the hon. and learned Member.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Abolition of the 1939 standard for compensation on compulsory acquisition.)
  (1) Section fifty-seven of the Act of 1944 (which provides for the assessment by reference to the prices current in 1939 of the value of interests in land which are compulsorily acquired) shall not apply to compensation in respect of a compulsory acquisition of land in pursuance of a notice to treat served after the passing of this Act.
  (2) The provisions of the Schedule to this Act (Modifications of Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944) shall have effect and shall be deemed always to have had effect in relation to land compulsorily acquired in pursuance of a notice to treat served after the commencement of the Act of 1944 and before the passing of this Act, and in relation to land acquired by agreement during that period by an authority authorised to acquire it compulsorily.—[Mr. Dalton.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  I gather that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if something were said on this and the following new Clauses at large, treated as a group. We are assuming that the right hon. Gentleman would be agreeable to that course.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison indicated assent.
  Mr. Dalton: The new Clauses hang together. We are here proposing some very substantial changes, which would probably be most conveniently considered as a whole. We are proposing to repeal the 1939 standard of compensation for compulsory acquisition. This standard was first enacted by the right hon. Gentleman's Bill of 1944. Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act, and the corresponding Scottish Act of the next year, were originally to endure for five years, that is to 17th November, 1949. There was a supplement on the 1939 value payable to owner-occupiers within a maximum of 30 per cent. of the value of the building. There was much debate about the equity or otherwise of this provision. Last summer a Treasury Order was made increasing the maximum supplement from 30 to 60 per cent. On that occasion I made it clear, when defending that here, that this was a purely interim arrangement, that the whole matter was subject to further consideration in the autumn, in conjunction with the further problem of an increase in value payments.
  This was done, but in order to deal with the value payments we were required by Statute to invoke the War Damage Commission. They had to make a preliminary report, which I asked them to do as a matter of urgency. They did so, and following from that there was debate and a decision, and the value payments have been duly augmented. This present Bill had, of course, had to be prepared it an earlier stage and it had to be drafted on the law as it then stood. It is very complicated in structure, and it had to be put into print in good time. The arrangements about the value payments to which I have just referred were only made when the Bill was already in draft, but on the Second Reading of the Bill, when I recommended it to the House, I gave a pretty clear hint that there would be a modification of the 1939 standard proposed at a

  1173
  later date, if value payments were increased. The increase of value payments was made by the War Damage (Increase of Value Payments) Order which was approved by the House on 21st March last. That has cleared the way for the Government to complete their examination of the question, and to bring forward the proposals embodied in the new Clauses.
  The scope of the problem is very wide indeed. It extends far beyond the field of town and country planning. The 1939 standard, and the modifications which we now propose in place of it, appear in town and country planning legislation, but that is a mere incidental legislative convenience. These provisions govern the price paid on all compulsory acquisitions under any Act of Parliament by any Government Department, or local authority, or other public body. It is as wide as that. It includes acquisitions, for instance, under the Defence Acts and under the Housing Acts, by the Ministry of Works under the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act and by the Ministry of Transport under the Trunk Roads Act; the acquisition of land by local authorities, not merely for housing but for schools and roads; and local authority acquisitions under the 1944 Act and the present Bill for blitz and blight redevelopment. All that, and a number of other instances which need not he enumerated, are governed now by the provisions that we are proposing to change. They will be governed in future by the provisions of these new Clauses. Therefore, the standard set for compulsory acquisition—and this is why I propose to spend a little while, though I hope not too long, in explaining the matter—covers a very large area indeed of public expenditure, including purchases by the Ministry of Works and the Post Office for the public service generally.
  The general effect of our proposals is completely to abandon the 1939 standard. It passes into history. We propose that it should be abandoned as from the passing of this Bill and that, instead, thereafter compulsory acquisition should be based upon the current market value of property restricted to its existing use; that is to say, excluding the development values which it is one of the principal purposes of this Bill to remove from owners, under provisions which I need not go into. That then is the short purpose
  1174
  —to substitute for the 1939 standard this other standard. As to the date at which this should happen, the Government propose that the new basis should come into force from the passing of the Bill. This is debatable. More than one view might be taken. It might be thought that the matter should date not from the passing of the Bill but from the appointed day. We have considered that. That, of course, is the day from which development values are removed from the owners of land in general. There was something to be said for that. On the whole, we commend to the Committee the passing of the Bill as the suitable date rather than the appointed day. The appointed day cannot yet be named. We hope it will come reasonably soon after the Act is passed, but that must depend on a number of factors which cannot be determined exactly.
  If there were an interim period of any length between the passing of the Bill and the arrival of the appointed day, it would be very awkward. People would not know where they were. Therefore, we feel that once the decision is taken to abandon the 1939 standard, that should be brought into effect as quickly as possible. In cases which arise between the passing of the Bill and the appointed day, the owner, who will get the current existing use value only, will have preserved him the right to claim against the £300 million for the loss of his development value. That is provided in these Clauses. It is very specifically safeguarded. There are suggestions made by Amendments that have been put forward from some parts of the Committee that the new basis should be effective not as from the passing of this Bill into law but as from the original introduction of the Bill. I will not argue the case against that. I only want to assure the Committee that we have very carefully considered all these alternatives and, at the right moment my right hon. Friend, or another Minister, will explain why we have deliberately chosen the date of the passing of the Bill rather than a number of alternative dates several of which I have mentioned.
  7.45 P.m.
  There is one important though temporary qualification which the Government propose to apply here to the principle of the current restricted value, and that is the notional lease which is a term

  1175
  which I hope is intelligible to hon. Members. I will give a brief explanation why we have introduced the notional lease here. It is because at present there is a special scarcity value attaching to the right of immediate or early vacant possession. In our present conditions of housing shortage, it is very natural that a special scarcity value should attach to early possession, or even more to immediate possession, and the market prices of land have been modified. When I say modified, perhaps that is a moderate way of putting it. In fact they have been driven up, in some cases beyond all reason, because of the present scarcity. It did not seem to us to be fair that where property is required by the community in the public interest the taxpayer or the ratepayer should have to pay these very inflated prices due to a transitory and quite exceptional condition of affairs. Those prices are due merely to the fact that the right of vacant possession is of special value to a private individual on a private sale. We hope that before long this very inflated level of vacant possession of properties will pass.
  What we propose, therefore, in order to deal with the matter fairly, as we think, between the two parties, or between all the parties concerned—including the local authorities who have a right to be treated in these matters as representing the ratepayers—
  Mr. Medland: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Dalton: I am sure that my hon Friend will agree with me and will approve of what is to be done.
  Mr. Medland: I do.
  Mr. Dalton: Except in the case of agricultural property and rent restricted property—leaving those out—if there is an interest which carries with it the right to immediate or early vacant possession. it shall be dealt with as if there were a lease terminating on 1st January, 1954, interposed between the owner and the right of vacant possession. In other words we notionally deny the right of vacant possession. We insert a lease terminating on 1st January, 1954. There is nothing more to it than that. It does not imply that we think that on that particular date, or round about that date, the scarcities
  1176
  may have disappeared. They may disappear earlier or they may disappear later. We are not prophesying anything in that field. This date is merely a piece of valuation technique and we are advised that it gives us the best balance of fair play as between the various parties concerned. There may be argument on that and, of course, we will be quite prepared to meet it, but we have put it in as protecting the public while not unfairly reflecting upon the private owner concerned
  There may be much Debate on the question of owner-occupiers in particular. Perhaps I might draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the securing of property for reconstruction, which is what we are concerned with here, involves two quite separate stages. First, the legal interests of all the owners in the property have to be terminated so that the property may pass to the public department. Secondly, physical possession of the property must be obtained by the removal of the present occupier. These are distinct processes. It is at the second stage that we might get some special difficulties arising from this state of scarcity of accommodation of which I have been speaking. This is a very real difficulty which cannot be met effectively by monetary compensation at all. Parliament have hitherto met it partly by requiring that as far as possible people living or carrying on business in an area which is acquired should be given an opportunity to get accommodation in the redevelopment area on terms settled with regard to the compensation that they have received, and partly by imposing on the acquiring authority the obligation to find alternative accommodation on reasonable terms. In the Act of 1944 there is a provision to this effect. Clause 42 of the present Bill incorporates that part of the Act of 1944 with slight changes and a somewhat wider scope. I am advised that there are very similar provisions already existing in the Housing Acts and other statutes.
  Owner-occupiers or the spokesmen for the owner-occupiers may think they are not being treated as generously as they should be in the provisions we are here making. That point can be argued later. I think it will be found that the owner-occupiers are gaining as a result of this Bill. They are better off compared with the 1939 standard. They are gaining as compared with the changes we are making in the law even if they are not gaining as

  1177
  much as some of them think they should. If we had let the period run for five years as laid down in the Act of 1944, up to 17th November, 1949, they would have been less well off than they will be. We are advised that the current restricted value subject to notional lease which we are now proposing will in practically all cases give a higher value than the basis which is being repealed, namely, the 1939 unrestricted value plus a 60 per cent. supplement. The owner-occupiers are being made the beneficiaries under this change.
  There is only one other point I should like to mention to the Committee, and that is the bearing of these provisions upon war damage cases on which we have had discussion recently in another context. Where total loss properties are acquired, that is to say, properties qualifying for an original value payment, the Clauses here make no special provision for that class of case. The result is that the owner in such a case will get his value payment from the War Damage Commission in the ordinary way. That is not affected at all. The Committee has approved, and I have given an undertaking so far as it is administratively possible to do it, that all original value payments will be made within the present calendar year, or at worst, within the present financial year; but I hope most by the end of the calendar year.
  Mr. Medland: What about the converted value payment?
  Mr. Dalton: I will speak of the converted value payment in a moment. The original value payments will be made as the Committee have already agreed they shall be and as I indicated in my Budget speech it was our intention. On the acquisition of the property, whether before or after the value payment is made, the acquiring authority will merely pay for what they get, often only a bare site. They will simply pay the current restricted value the property bears in its present state.
  There is a little more complexity when we come to the cost of works property acquired before the damage has been made good, and that is where we get the converted value payments referred to by the hon. Member for Drake (Mr. Medland) just now. That is a case where a cost of works payment is due but, before the work is carried out, the property is compulsorily acquired. In this case, the
  1178
  Government proposal is that the acquiring authority will pay to the owner the full current restricted value subject to the notional lease, if that is applicable—the full current restricted value of the property in its undamaged state. We are advised that that is a practical procedure.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: The full current restricted value, subject to something I did not hear.
  Mr. Dalton: The notional lease. That is to say, where there is a case of early vacant possession, the notional lease will be deemed to exist and that will modify the value, but it is the property in its undamaged state—the full current restricted value, subject, if there is early vacant possession, to the notional lease. In that case, the converted value payment will be diverted from the owner to the acquiring authority, and the authority will get the converted value payment with the result that the net cost to the acquiring authority will be broadly the value of what they are getting. The owner will get his money in a single sum without having to argue about the amount of value payment and the authority will in effect pay the value of what they are getting, which will very often be only a bare site. I believe that will be found to be satisfactory.
  This is a very technical matter and I have barged into a series of lucid explanations by my right hon. Friend and by the Attorney-General and others because it was suggested that it might be useful if I were briefly to summarise the main provisions of these Clauses. When we come to the Clauses separately, no doubt questions may arise, but I think it would not be convenient that I should continually intervene. I hope the Committee will think it proper, this having been said, that when detailed points are raised, my right hon. Friends who are conducting this Measure through in detail should reply. It would have been discourteous of me not to have intervened, because from the Treasury point of view these Clauses are of great importance.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: It would be discourteous and ungracious perhaps if I were to say nothing about the intervention which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made in the Debate. I am sure the work of the Committee will

  1179
  be aided by the brief and rapid description of the new proposals which he laid before us. My hon. Friends and I rejoice that the 1939 prices are being departed from. It was quite obvious that the problem of valuation on the 1939 basis was with the passage of time becoming daily more and more fantastic and unreal. No valuer could call to his mind with any degree of certainty what the conditions were in 1939. Since 1939 everything has altered in the property market as well as in many other aspects of national life, and to ask people by Statute to throw their minds back to that now remote period was asking them to value on a basis which was no valuation at all but mere guesswork. The adoption of a current market value, even though restricted, is an improvement on those notional 1939 prices. With every day that passes, the longer we get from 1939 the more difficult and absurd the other thing becomes.
  The only general criticism I have to make of the proposals before us is that although they are an improvement, they substitute for the 1939 prices a very complicated and involved system. At least, it appears so to the ordinary man who looks at it. There was a letter in "The Times" this morning written by Mr. Howard which stated that for 12 identical properties in the same street, under the terms of this Bill, 12 different prices would actually be obtained for each of the houses according to whether it was owned by an owner-occupier or owned under a lease, according to the date of the notice to treat, and according to whether it was war damaged badly enough for a value payment or a cost of works payment. It is clearly advantageous to the Committee and to the country as a whole if we can simplify this in order to let people know where they stand, but this device of a notional lease we shall have to deal with later in detail. The Chancellor said it was a piece of valuation technique The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a master of meiosis. To call a thing a mere matter of valuation technique whereas it is really calling a freehold a leasehold, seems to be stretching the modesty of expression beyond endurable limits. We shall, therefore, pass the Clause which is before us in a mood of subdued gratitude not unmindful that, though one false standard has been abandoned, we are asked in general
  1180
  to put in its place one which, if it has the merit of modernity, is not free from that obscurity and uncertainty which frequently characterises the remotely antique.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Piratin: I listened with attention to what the Chancellor had to say in explanation of the several new Clauses. I take it, Mr. Touche, that we are discussing the Second Reading of the first Clause although they are all, in a way, related. I agree that it has been necessary for some time to bring up to date the valuation of property under various Measures which have come before the House from time to time, but I am doubtful about the way in which it has been introduced at this stage. Particularly am I impressed by the fact that this is the latest of a series of Measures which have more and more put money into the hands of the capitalist land-owning class. In 1941, when this country was in a difficult situation, the War Damage Act allowed only 1939 prices. In 1944, after a long and very violent controversy in the House of Commons, a proviso was made for allowing 1939 prices plus 30 per cent. in the case of owner-occupiers. But how was "owner-occupier" defined? It was defined as including not merely people who lived in houses which they owned or were paying for but also large stores with branches up and down the country, branches of banks and all kinds of concerns which normally would never be looked upon as coming within the description of "owner-occupier." I am sure I speak on behalf of every hon. Member on this side of the Committee when I say that we have sympathy with the ordinary men and women who are owner-occupiers, but not with branches of banks, branches of Woolworths and so on. You, Mr. Touche, may recall, as I cannot, for I was not present in 1944, the rather vigorous Debate which took place on that question.
  A few months ago, as the Chancellor said, the 30 per cent. was increased to 60 per cent. Once again there was no real definition of the term "owner-occupier." Therefore, while it might be pleaded that it was only 30 per cent. in 1944 and therefore there might be a measure of generosity even to the big people who had suffered, we are now talking about 60 per cent. Also we have a revision of the

  1181
  Bill, for originally it was proposed to maintain 60 per cent. and now the Chancellor, on behalf of his colleague the Minister of Town and Country Planning, proposes to introduce by this, and the later Clauses, a provision which throws that overboard and inserts 1947 values. If ever there was a running away from facts and a toadying to pressure from the other side, here is an instance of it. I will give an instance of this pressure. I will quote from paragraph 17 of a memorandum submitted by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. This was written a couple of months ago:
  "The Bill will perpetuate the 1939 standard of value as the basis of compensation for land compulsorily acquired. There is no justification for the permanent retention of this basis of compensation. The Institution adheres to the view which it has expressed on previous occasions, that compensation on compulsory purchase should be the open market value of the land at the date of the notice to treat."
  When this matter came up in Committee, the Minister did not see eye to eye with those who made that proposal. Now, however, this new Clause and the subsequent Clauses are being introduced to that effect. This request did not come from owner-occupiers as we understand them, or from their organisations as we know them; this request came from the land-owning class, and from those who represent that class. While it is true that the Chancellor and the Minister have devised some way by which this benefit can go to the genuine owner-occupier, a revision of the definition of "owner-occupier" is called for, because that definition remains as it was in 1944 when we had a different kind of Government from the one we have today. I believe I speak for some, at least, on these benches when I say that we cannot allow that definition, by which Lloyds' and Barclays' Banks and Woolworth Stores are treated in the same way as a man or woman owning his or her own house in some part of London, Manchester, Birmingham, Gloucester, or wherever it may be; we cannot tolerate it, and therefore we cannot accept the proposal contained in this Clause.
  The Chancellor admitted that this would mean higher values. Now there has been some doubt about that. Some have been trying to argue that it would mean a saving in the long run. I hope hon. Members who listened to the right hon. Gentleman's words will have noted how the bulk of the increase will fall on the
  1182
  Government. That is where the additional payment is to come from. That is my interpretation of the Chancellor's speech. Therefore, the Government will pay, and the Government means the public. So the public will pay. However, if it was not in that particular form, what would it mean? It would mean that rates would go up and the public, in that sense, would pay. It would mean that rents would go up, and the public, in that sense, would pay. Therefore, the land-owning class will get this increase in the money they will receive for their land, and that money will come from the public directly or indirectly. Here likewise I cannot see eye to eye with the Chancellor in his statement. I think it would be too much to ask, speaking only for myself, that the whole of this Clause should be taken back for further consideration, but I ask those responsible on the Front Bench very earnestly that there should be at least a revision of the definition of "owner-occupier," so that only ordinary folk will gain by this, and not the big people who have made enough money out of the war already.
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I think the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin), who addressed us with great indignation, might have realised that his reference to the compensation of the owner-occupier has little relevance to the Clauses which we are now discussing—
  Mr. Piratin: If I may interrupt the hon. Member, with all respect, he was not here when the Chancellor spoke, and therefore does not know what I was talking about.
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I have been here the whole afternoon. I was here when the Chancellor spoke. The hon. Member's eyesight must be at fault.
  Mr. Piratin: The hon. Member's sense of geography is at fault.
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I cannot follow the relevance of that interjection except to say that I have been here in this place during the whole afternoon, and the whole of the time the Chancellor spoke. However, that really is not very relevant to what we are discussing. I would like to say this about what the hon. Member for Mile End said, that the departure from 1939 values for properties which are com-

  1183
  pulsorily acquired was not advocated exclusively by the land-owning classes; it was advocated by everybody who knows anything at all about the matter, by all the professional bodies, and by everybody who realises that it is utterly unjust to try to compensate a man whose property is taken from him compulsorily in 1947 or 1948 or 1950 with reference to prices of property in 1939. Does the hon. Member really want retention of the 1939 values? If he does, he is certainly in a class by himself. But I am not going to spend any more time on the hon. Member.
  The effect of this new Clause is to divide the compensation payable for compulsory acquisition of property for town and country planning purposes into three chronological categories—first, those in respect of which notice to treat was served before the passing of this Bill; second, those in respect of which notice to treat was served after the passing of the Bill, but before the appointed day; and third, those in respect of which notice to treat was served after the appointed day. I had the benefit of attending, at the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, a gathering at which the Minister of Town and Country Planning expressed the hope that the appointed day would be as soon as possible after the Royal Assent was given to this Measure. He hoped the appointed day would be brought in very soon after. From what we have heard today, and from the new Clauses on the Order Paper, it seems to me that the Minister has changed his mind, and that now there is likely to be a substantial lapse of time between the passing of the Bill and the coming into effect of the appointed day. If not, why should a complex matter be further complicated by introducing a special category of cases of those whose property is compulsorily acquired after the passing of the Bill and before the appointed day? It now seems probable that the appointed day, and with it the effect of the Amendment which I see put down to Clause 5—
  The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member cannot discuss the Amendments until the Motion, "That the Clause be read a Second time," has been passed.
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I quite agree. and will pass from that point, but I
  1184
  wished to draw attention to Amendments on the Order Paper which will come on later, in order to say that the effect of the postponement of the appointed day in that way would increase the stagnation of development, which the Bill is already certain to bring about. It would have the effect of further accentuating that stagnation. May I say what has already been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) about this complex matter, and underline it by giving some examples of the different valuations which we will have if these Clauses are passed in their present form?
  8.15 p.m.
  I will take first a standard example, because I want to relate the valuation of other properties influenced by these Clauses to that standard example. It is the standard example of a three bedroomed, two reception roomed type of house, which sold in 1939 for £800 freehold, and which would sell today with vacant possession for about £2,000 freehold. That is the kind of property one sees on the outskirts of London on new building estates, and it is the easiest type of property to take for the sake of these examples. The position at the present time is that the 1939 value is £800, and from that the value of the site has to be deducted. The value of the site in 1939 would be, say, £100, and £700 would be the value of the building. To that, assuming that it is owner-occupied, we would add the maximum supplement of 60 per cent., which is £420, bringing the value up to £1,120. Add back the value of the site in 1939, and we get £1,220 as the total compensation for the owner-occupier. Up to the time when the Bill becomes law that is the value.
  For the second category, which is after the Royal Assent has been given, and before the appointed day, the land and buildings have to be valued at the condition they are in at the time of the notice to treat, but subject to a permanent restriction prohibiting their development other than that development which is allowed in the Third Schedule to the Bill, and the valuation must be at prices current on 7th January, 1947. We are not now considering vacant possession cases, which are specially dealt with under a further Clause in this group. The assumption for my present purpose

  1185
  must, therefore, be that the property we are considering is let either subject to the Rent Restriction Acts, or on a tenancy subject to a term which expires after 1st January, 1954. In respect of that property we again have a different value. The net rent would be about £50 a year. It would be fairly well secured, because it is a fairly long lease, and the year's purchase would be, I think, 6 per cent., which brings the compensation up to £833, which is very close to the freehold value of £800 in 1939. That seems to be logical, because, owing to the fact that the tenancy is controlled, the owner would be very unlikely to sell the property at a higher price than it would have fetched before the war.
  The third category is the category of houses which will be acquired compulsorily after the appointed day. Here, as the Chancellor has told us, we come on to a basis of market value as laid down in the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, but on the assumption that the land can only be used for those types of development allowed under the Third Schedule, that is to say existing use with no addition in respect of potential value for development purposes; it is in fact the restricted value of Clause 54., If we eliminate the complications which have been introduced, quite rightly, to cover cases where planning permission has been refused or permitted conditionally, the value at present is likely, even after 1st January, 1954, to be affected by scarcity conditions. In our standard example the value today with vacant possession would be £2,000. It is not likely to be as high as that, but it is unlikely to fall to the 1939 value of £800. We do not know what it will be.
  Let us look briefly at the position where vacant possession can be given. Here we have what is known as a notional lease commencing on the date of notice to treat and terminating on 1st January, 1954, at a rent which is five per cent. of the capital value, or a rent which might reasonably be expected upon the assumption that a tenant pays the rates and bears the cost of repairs needed to keep a property in the position to maintain that rent, whichever of those two figures is the lower. I want to ask the Minister if there is anything in his view to prevent the scarcity value entering either into the
  1186
  capital value or into the notional rent of property of this kind. We see the rubric to the Clause refers to the elimination of the special value attributable to vacant possession. But it appears not to do so, and if it does I should like to be told how it is going to, because I do not see how it does that at all. The value in these vacant possession cases, as I understand it, must be assessed on the assumption that the property is subject to no restrictions and the house itself is worth £2,000 with vacant possession. Five per cent. on the capital value of £2,000 is £100. We have now to ascertain the rental value to see which is the lower, and there again we have to bear in mind the scarcity value. I do not think we can do anything else, because that is what the prospective tenant will think of at once. In the case of a house of this size I think it is safe to assume that the rental value will not be less than £100 a year. So I take that figure as a basis which I myself would value at a six per cent. price.
  Mr. Medland: I should like the hon. Member to give us his definition of scarcity value. Does he mean the difference between a property with vacant possession and a property without vacant possession? Is that scarcity value?
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I do not mean that, because scarcity value attaches if properties are let as well as if properties have vacant possession. I mean by scarcity value—and I do not claim any particular sanction for these words—that a special value attaches to that property because there is a scarcity of properties for occupation at the present time. I think that is all I need say there.
  I will now go back to the notional rent of £100 and take 6 per cent. for a six years term, when the valuation of the term of the notional lease comes to £490. We have got to add the value of the reversion and a prudent valuer would probably assume that a tenant would give a lower rent at the expiration of the lease. The year's purchase depends almost entirely upon the conditions which are likely to prevail in 1954. I have taken it at 5½ per cent. bearing in mind that money is likely to remain cheap for some time, and at 5½ per cent. the value of the reversion after 6 years comes to £990. Add that to the valuation of the notional lease, the

  1187
  compensation for the value of the property amounts to £1,480. It is interesting I think to compare this figure, which is almost £1,500, with the vacant possession value of £2,000 and to observe that a value of 25 per cent. is due to vacant possession—in fact 25 per cent is attributable to scarcity. I apologise for going at such length in all these details.
  I want now to deal with the valuation of these properties in round figures. A house worth originally £800 with vacant possession is worth £2,000 today. If it were compulsorily acquired the owner would receive about £1,200 under the present law; £800 if notice to treat were served after the day of the Royal Assent but before the appointed day, and about £1,500 if notice to treat is given after the appointed day. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury referred to the letter from Mr. Edmund Howard in "The Times" today. I enjoyed reading that letter because it justifies my contention that there are so many complications. Mr. Howard concludes his letter with these words:
  "… although justice may be done, the man in the street will certainly not see how it is done."
  I agree with those sentiments. The intrinsic value of a property under these proposals becomes completely subordinate to factors such as the nature of the occupancy and the date of notice to treat. I think some of these are quite inevitable, and I agree that we must make provision for the smooth transition from the 1939 values to the new basis of market value for existing use. But some simplification can be made and I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman one way in which that can be done and that would be to eliminate the special proviso covering the period between the date of the Royal Assent and the date of the appointed day. I apologise for keeping the Committee so long on rather technical points, but I think that they were worth making.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Medland: I am afraid I cannot follow the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) in all those intricacies into which he and his profession have led us this evening, but I should like to say that immediately the decision was made to increase the uplift on
  1188
  damaged buildings and to give the owner-occupier a 30 per cent, increase over and above other owners, there began this descent from the 1939 standard. When we, in response to great agitation and a great sense of unfairness, decided to increase the uplift on the 1914 built house from 45 per cent. and on other houses by 60 per cent. it became inevitable that the 1939 standard for such values on compulsory acquisition had to go.
  When I saw the Clauses—there has been some argument this afternoon, but I think it was some time in April—I wondered what on earth all the jargon meant. I had a bucket of water and a couple of towels, but they did not improve my ability to understand it. I must say that I think they are a remarkable record which I do not imagine any ordinary man outside the professions could possibly understand. I went to a public authority valuer and asked him if he would tell me what was his view of the proposal to substitute the 1947 standard under the new set-up as against the 1939 one, and how it would affect local authorities who were compulsorily acquiring land for various purposes and particularly for town and country planning purposes. Our own valuer gave this matter his very careful consideration and came back to me afterwards and said that in his judgment, as a local authority officer and from the point of view of the acquiring authority, he thought that the new proposals were substantially fair and gave a measure of justice far in advance of the 1939 basis. At the same time, there were certain questions arising out of the proposed alterations upon which we should like some elucidation from the Minister.
  Under the old basis the 1939 value was paid, where land had not received war damage. Under the present proposals current value at existing use excluding the development value is to be paid. We would express the opinion that this will add to the reconstruction account of development authorities. In other words, local authorities which have large areas to acquire in order to replan their towns will find that this adds a considerable sum of money to their reconstruction account for the very simple reason that at the present time the values are greater because of the exorbitant cost of building. We think that while there has been no appreciable increase in the value of land since 1939 yet, because of the extremely high

  1189
  cost of the buildings, although the addition now goes on to the cost of building and not to that of the land, afterwards it will go on to the land and will increase our indebtedness. We should like some kind of assurance from the Minister in this respect.
  The second point upon which we should like an assurance concerns undamaged buildings without vacant possession. Under the 1944 Act we should have to pay 1939 values. Under this Bill and the provision of the new Clause we should have to pay the current value excluding the development value. Incidentally, buildings without vacant possession are very largely subject to lease. We are convinced that this will mean a considerable increase to the acquiring authority—in our judgment something from 45 per cent. to 65 per cent. Since the local authorities will have to foot the bill in their reconstruction account, will the Minister tell the Committee how he proposes to make this up to them? Will there be an adjustment of the grants under Clause 86 to make that possible? The third case about which I wish to ask is the cost of works cases which are not owner occupied. Here again the authority is prejudiced. Under the old law they were liable only for the 1939 value of the site and the remains of the buildings, no supplement being payable to non-owner-occupiers. Now they are liable for the 1947 value of the site and the buildings on the assumption that all war damage has been made good, but they will still get back from the War Damage Commission only the converted value of 60 per cent. In other words, we have to pay the difference between 60 per cent. and all damage made good under this Clause. The position of the owner is improved, the War Damage Commission gain by the fact that they pay only the minimum uplift, and all this is at the expense of the acquiring authority. The local authority must bear both.
  Mr. Silkin indicated dissent.
  Mr. Medland: I am very glad to see the Minister shaking his head. These are the problems, and I shall listen with very great interest to his explanation. They are the problems arising out of this Clause as they occur to us. On the other hand, there are parts of the Clause which will he of great value to the authorities, and it is the considered opinion of our advisers that by and large substantial justice is being done. We
  1190
  hope that with some explanation of the points I have raised the Minister will be successful in his submission of this new Clause.
  Mr. Hogg: I must apologise for having missed the preliminary statement by the Minister, but I hope that the Chancellor, and in particular the Minister, will be complimented to hear at any rate the pleasant part of what I have to say. I rose in particular to say how delighted I was when I saw on the Order Paper a series of Clauses one of the main purposes of which was to abolish the adherence to the 1939 value. I think it was a considerable act of courage to take this step because it certainly renders the Minister liable to, and has rendered him subject to, misrepresentation. I think it is a vast improvement in the Bill that he has taken this step, and I am very happy to congratulate him upon it.
  I was especially sorry to hear the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) suggest that this was toadying on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues to what the hon. Member for Mile End described as the "land-owning class." In the last Parliament I was one of those who urged rather strongly the adherence to the 1939 value as a political necessity. That was done for reasons which I still think were satisfactory. There were at that time strong political reasons for establishing the 1939 standard of value as the basis of calculation. To begin with, the Bill was introduced during the war. It was particularly necessary to secure some sort of basis of political agreement on the financial Clauses in order to get any sort of Bill at all, and it was only after great difficulty that this Bill was produced on the basis of that compromise.
  Hon. Members opposite, who were present in the last Parliament, will have vividly before them the kind of difficulty we had then to face. I was not satisfied that, on its merits, the 1939 value was a satisfactory basis even then, but it had a certain political advantage in that it enabled both sides to agree upon a Bill which was obviously necessary on grounds of higher policy. Now we are in peace time, and it is proposed to depart from the 1939 value, and I can imagine no argument in favour of keeping it. It does not particularly matter, from the point of view of this discussion, whether the present values will remain as they are,

  1191
  substantially in excess of 1939, or whether, for some reason, the values will fall catastrophically below that level. The real point is that in establishing a basis of calculation for compensation, the further away we get from the date by reference to which the value of property is fixed, the more chancy and artificial the calculation becomes.
  Take, for instance, the figure which is still chosen by a pure historic accident as the basis of standard rents under the Rent Restriction Acts—3rd August, 1914. It really becomes a matter of metaphysics when you have to advise people about a property, which, perhaps, has not been let since then. You have to determine what its rent would have been, and then establish your statutory additions, to advise what its rent ought to be now. There can be no advantage, either to the public at large or to any particular class of the community, in adhering to an artificial date of that kind, by reference to which value is assessed. It is for that reason that I think it was mere misrepresentation on the part of the hon. Member for Mile End, and a mere desire to keep values down for the sake of keeping them down, instead of doing substantial justice, which led him to attack the Government for their decision on a matter of this kind. My hon. Friend established one thing at least, and that was that there are numerous pitfalls in trying to differentiate between different types of occupations, on the very crude level on which the hon. Member for Mile End would have insisted.
  One really cannot base compensation—although we did so again in 1944—upon the criterion of what is an owner-occupier. To begin with, there are many meritorious owners of property who are not owner-occupiers and there are many owner-occupiers who are not, even according to the standard of the hon. Member for Mile End, meritorious. He quoted Woolworths and Barclays Bank as among those whom he did not wish to see given additional compensation, but it so happens that they occupy nearly every set of premises they own, and so his own criterion would break down if he sought to apply it to the examples he gave. On the other hand, there are numerous owners of small property, who may have acquired it for their own occupation, and who thereafter may
  1192
  have let it as they grew older and their housing needs became more restricted, or because they have left the locality. These properties represent the life savings of these people.
  All this and the very elaborate argument of my hon. Friend establishes the wisdom of the step the Government have taken. There is only one criterion on which compensation should be paid, and that is what the property is worth. If it is to be scaled down, as the Government, for reasons with which I personally do not agree, have scaled it down, it must be scaled down equally, but to attempt to differentiate between different owners of different kinds of property for the purpose of assessment, will only lead us to Bedlam. The only test must be the objective test, and the objective test must be what the property is worth.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Braddock: Whatever may be the merits of this proposal, I think it will be generally agreed that it came as a considerable surprise to most people in the country and certainly to most of us on these benches. I can well understand it receiving the approval of hon. Members opposite. Can the Minister assure us that this is not going to mean additional profits or additional sums paid in compensation to the landowners over and above what they would have obtained under the Bill as originally drafted? The argument for the change is that it is perfectly right to limit prices for a short period such as between 1939 and 1944, but that when the period gets longer we are justified in forgetting all about the necessity for the limitation. I do not follow the argument at all. If it is wrong for a short period to refuse to give an additional price, the same argument ought to apply to a longer period.
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Member will appreciate that all sorts of special circumstances arose as a direct outcome of the war, such as the effects of heavy bombing in some places and evacuation leading to an increase in population in other places. Surely he will agree that there is justification for a special valuation.
  Mr. Braddock: The 1939 value was taken because that was the value before all these catastrophes took place and before the results of the war came upon

  1193
  us. The reason for trying to stick to that valuation was to prevent landowners and speculators making additional profits out of what occurred during the wartime period. That seemed to me to be a sound argument, because, after all, the men who gave their lives in the war were not expected to make any profit out of the war, and the general argument has been that if those who had given their lives get nothing, why should the landowners get additional profits?
  Mr. Hogg: I think that the hon. Member was referring directly to me. If so, he has misrepresented my point. My point is not whether it is desirable to limit prices, because that is not what is proposed. The question is whether compensation is to be limited to a particular type of transaction, namely, compulsory purchase, when prices are not limited and when it is proposed to do it by reference to an artificial date in the past. That is my point and that is what I suggested is wholly wrong.
  Mr. Braddock: I contend -hat the 1939 prices were not artificial prices.
  Mr. Hogg: They are now.
  Mr. Braddock: They were the known prices which existed before war broke out. One great argument against this change is that it would be impossible, after a lapse of some time, to know what 1939 prices really were. It is said, "Let us forget all about it, and judge by present-day conditions." I cannot think that that is a relevant argument. We are not living in times of no printing and no paper, and it is reasonable to expect that if we want to know what 1939 values were, sufficient records will be available to show, if not the actual value of the property in question, the value of a similar property. The Chancellor is assuming what he calls a notional lease. He is admitting that there is need for an artificial barrier to the rise of prices. If we can operate this system by means of a notional lease there is no logical reason why referring back to 1939 should not also be equally logical.
  The Chancellor, in putting forward this suggestion of a notional lease, has admitted that it is necessary, in present-day circumstances, to keep some curb on prices. In admitting that he is admitting my whole case, that there is no justification for this alteration. I am prepared to agree that
  1194
  there are technical difficulties, and if the Minister can assure us that the result of this Clause will not mean payment of any sums to landowners in addition to those they would have received under the Bill as originally drafted, I shall be satisfied. But if the result will mean increased payments to land and property owners, then the people generally will not regard this new Clause with favour.
  Mr. Silkin: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I now deal with some of the points which have been made. The discussion has been very helpful, and, on the whole, gratifying to those who have been responsible for the new Clause. The criticisms have not been more severe than I anticipated. This is a complicated matter, and with the best will in the world I have not been able to see how it can be considerably simplified. May I, first, give my broad justification for this Clause? I put it on two grounds. I say that the 1939 standard has become unworkable and that it has become inequitable. On both those grounds, something of this sort is essential. I recognise that, in trying to value property, paper records may be available in a great many cases, although not in all. But valuation is not an academic science. It involves knowing the property. I should be very dissatisfied with a valuation which took place merely on the basis of records. One must know the condition of the property, and the changes that have taken place in the neighbourhood, which is a very important factor in valuation as, I am sure, my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) will recognise. Property may perhaps remain entirely unchanged but, by reason of what has gone on around it, its value may be completely different from what it was before. No valuer can appreciate whether there has been any change of that kind without actually knowing the property. The number of people now in existence who knew the condition of property in 1939 is becoming fewer and fewer. In any case, by general agreement, the 1939 basis was coming to an end in 1949. In this Clause we have anticipated the change by about two years.
  I say that the 1939 standard is inequitable because, although, when the 1944 Act was passed, we sought to pre-

  1195
  vent people benefiting as a result of the war, today we find that many changes of ownership have taken place. So many people have had to buy property during the war, that to impose a 1939 basis for acquisition would be inequitable in a great many cases. Although, in some cases, it may be equitable to pay a 1939 value, I agree with the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), that we cannot base our compensation on the individual who happens to be the owner. We are buying land and buildings, and we have to pay compensation on the basis of what we are buying, and not on the basis of ho happens to own it, or even when he bought. Therefore, I think that continuance of the 1939 basis would have been inequitable and generally regarded as inequitable.
  I have had representations from local authorities who have felt inhibited from compulsorily acquiring land which they ought to have acquired for public purposes because of the working of the 1939 basis. I have had representations from local authorities, not necessarily those of one political complexion, who have said that they were in great difficulties about operating 1939 values. We have recognised this in the case of the owner-occupier. Some months ago, we increased the 1939 permitted addition from 30 per cent. to 60 per cent. in his case, with the general approval of the House. I do not think that there was any opposition to it. So I feel that the time has come to make a complete change from the 1939 basis.
  Now let me comment on the observations of the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) who, on these matters, speaks with an authority which I cannot pretend to equal. He inferred, incorrectly, that there had been a change of view about the fixing of the appointed day. I am not aware that there has been any change. I do not know on what basis he inferred that; there is evidently some internal evidence in the Clause which I have not been able to fathom. In fact, there is no change of view about the date of the appointed day. I cannot tell the Committee when the appointed day will be, not because I would not if I could—I do not want to make any secret about it—but because I cannot say when the organisation will be complete to enable the appointed day to be fixed. I can tell the
  1196
  House, however, that I hope very much that it will be in the early part of 1948. This does not represent any change from what was originally anticipated
  9.0 p.m.
  That fact may perhaps give some force to the point which the hon. Gentleman made that there is a different basis of valuation in respect of properties where notice to treat was served before the appointed day and similar properties where notice to treat was served after the appointed day. In one case, the basis of valuation was 7th January, and, in the other case, it is the date of the service of the notice to treat. The suggestion which the hon. Gentleman makes is that we should have in both cases the date of the service of notice to treat as the date in respect of which valuation is made. I have very great sympathy with that point of view. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will go into it once more with my advisers to see whether it is practicable. Reasons were given to me which appeared to be convincing at the time, but as they are technical, I will not weary the Committee with them. If it is at all possible—and I am fortified by the experience of the hon. Gentleman—I would prefer to have one date, namely the date of the notice to treat.
  The hon. Gentleman is also right in saying that even the formula of the notional lease does not entirely remove the scarcity element. I do not know any method which will do that entirely, except by going back to the 1939 basis from which we are seeking to get away. I think that the right solution is some form of compromise. It is quite wrong to pay market values in respect of land where vacant possession is available, except in the case of agricultural land. I think that the public cannot be expected to chase after inflationary values. There must be some compromise and the formula of a notional lease is, I think, quite frankly the compromise. It does not remove the whole of the difficulty of scarcity value, but it removes a part of it. On the figures which the hon. Gentleman quoted, the payment would be about five-sixths on the basis of 5 per cent. of the value being less than the rent, and on the assumption that the 6 per cent. return is right, it would be in fact five-sixths of the rent. I think that is not bad. It has the advantage, for what it is worth—and I do not want to

  1197
  put the case too high—of putting the person whose property has been damaged as a result of enemy action in something like the same position as the person whose property has been acquired compulsorily. In fact, even now, the person who has suffered war damage will get slightly less compensation than the person whose property is being acquired. I do not put it any higher than a compromise, and the best compromise which we have been able to devise. We want to reduce compensation in respect of scarcity value, but we feel that we have to pay something. If anyone can produce a better compromise, my mind is quite open on the subject.
  The hon. Member for Drake (Mr. Medland) raised the question of the effect on local government finances. I think he answered himself when he said that broadly speaking the local authorities were satisfied that this was reasonable, and that he did not think it would materially affect their financial position. I think that is so because, where on the one hand they will be paying on a higher basis of valuation for their land, on the other hand they will be paying on a restricted value—that is, the value of the land free from the development value. Setting one off against the other, I should say that by and large they will not be any worse off. I think that probably answers the hon. Member for Mitcham, who asked whether the additional sums paid in compensation to the landowners under the new Clause would be greater than the amounts that would have been paid under the Bill as originally drawn. The answer is that the amounts actually paid will be higher, and that is the intention. It flows from the 1939 basis being abandoned. On the other hand, if it is any comfort to the hon. Gentleman, the owners of land will in fact be paid on the restricted basis of the value of their land without development value, in respect of which they will make a claim on the fund of £300 million.
  Mr. Braddock: If they are suffering hardship.
  Mr. Silkin: I am not able to say what the regulations will be, but they will be paid on the basis of the restricted value of the land, though on the present day value and not on the 1939 basis. That being the case, I should not have thought they were being treated too generously. or in a manner of which my hon. Friend need complain.
  1198
  I have endeavoured to deal with what has been said on the new Clause, and I should like to thank the hon. Member for Oxford for his observations. At one time he and I fought this fight together. In 1944 we were on the same side against the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but unlike him I think we were right in those days, both politically and in equity. I am very glad to have his moral support for the new Clause, and as we have this rather long and interesting discussion, I hope that we may be able to save some time on the Amendments to it which will now have to be discussed.
  Mrs. Middleton: Before my right hon. Friend concludes his remarks I would like to ask him a question. I understood him to say that the owners of war damaged property would be slightly worse off than those whose property was acquired and had not been subject to war damage. Was he referring to the original value payments in that regard, or to converted value payments, or did his remarks apply to both? I would further like to ask him whether he is not of the opinion that the balance should have been tipped in the other direction, in view of the fact that the owners of war damaged property have in many instances been deprived of the use of their property since the war damage occurred?
  Mr. Silkin: This is not the time to discuss the merits or demerits of payments for war damage. I was pointing out, what I think is an obvious fact, that the value payments, even with the additions made under the recent order, will be less than the compensation that will be paid for acquisition. Of course, if a local authority acquires war damaged property, they will pay on the same basis as they will if they acquire any other property. I was really comparing the value payment, whether converted or original, with the compensation that will be paid for the acquisition of land.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 5, to leave out "passing of this Act," and to insert:
  "seventh day of January nineteen hundred and forty-seven."

  1199
  A considerable part of the arguments in favour of this Amendment has already been adduced in the discussion on the new Clause, and I need not repeat it, except to pay a tribute to the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), which quite clearly have had a considerable effect upon the Minister's mind and upon his attitude to our suggestion. I think those arguments can be developed a little further in a slightly different connection. An argument which the right hon. Gentleman has gone a long way to accept—and I do not press him tonight to say more on it—was that of the three categories of value which will exist now that this Clause is in the Bill, the middle stage should be eliminated; that is to say, there is no logical reason for saying that between the time this Bill becomes an Act and early in 1948 the standard by which the value of the assessment is to be made should be the value on 7th January, 1947. Obviously for that short interval that intermediate stage introduces a great and entirely unnecessary complication. There is yet another complication which, I think, could be eliminated from this Measure without disadvantage, without inequity, and without doing what the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock) dreaded—that is, paying anything to a landowner which a landowner should not obtain—and that would be to eliminate the first of the three categories, to eliminate from 7th January, 1947, the assessment of prices in relation to 1939 values.
  The reason for that can be put quite shortly. Earlier this afternoon, the right hon. Gentleman rather indicated that local authorities might be in a dilemma in determining whether the 1939 values under the 1944 Act, taking into account development values, would be greater or less than the 1947 values from which the development value had been deducted, and he argued that local authorities would not seek to take advantage of buying by serving a notice to treat or buying under the 1944 Act and so getting the property cheaper. I think that the force of that argument has been demolished by observations of hon. Members behind him. I do not know whether, on balance, it will work to the advantage of the local authority, or to the advantage of the owner-occupier of the property. It would
  1200
  be quite wrong to have anomalies between two adjoining owners of similar property, depending solely upon whether notice to treat was served before or after 7th January, 1947, or the date of the passing of this Measure. That would be unjustifiable and unfair. The local authority may serve the notice thinking it is going to make a good bargain. On the basis of the Bill as at present drafted it will in particular instances be to its advantage to do that. I am not suggesting that a local authority which adopted those tactics would be doing anything wrong. If it is allowed to do it by law; it should pursue that course in the interests of its ratepayers. But that might operate to cause considerable injustice.
  9.15 p.m.
  Take the question of agricultural land. Does anyone suggest that agricultural land round villages, for instance, where there is no appreciable development value for building, would not have a 1947 value far in excess of 1939 values? Does anyone dispute that, even deducting the development values from the agricultural land? Surely, any local authority which is desirous of saving its ratepayers' money will serve as many notices to treat as they can before this Bill becomes an Act. What is the argument for this differentiation? Why should we not say that where a notice to treat is served after 7th January, 1947, the current values shall be the determining factor? It may be that current values have gone down, it may be, in some instances, that they have gone up. One can be sure, where compulsory acquisition does take place, that the dispossessed person, who may not always be a large, powerful, rich individual, but may be a small man, will get what is assessed at that date as sufficient to enable him to reinstate himself elsewhere in a similar capacity.
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say that he will also give serious consideration to making the change from 1939 prices to current prices operate from the date of the publication of this Measure. That will prevent anyone seeking to take advantage of the technicalities of the Measure, a Measure which is bound to be technical, and will also prevent the payment of widely varying prices for similar categories of property. Adopting the most excellent argument of my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen

  1201
  but without seeking to repeat it, and also adopting the argument of the hon. Member for the Drake Division (Mr. Medland), which I think I can also claim in aid in this instance, I express the hope that the Minister will be able to give a satisfactory answer.
  Mr. Silkin: I am sorry that I cannot meet the hon. and learned Gentleman on this Amendment. He bases it on the fact that hardship and inequity will arise as between persons who have notice to treat after the date of the Royal Assent and people who have had it prior to that date. But differences in compensation cannot be removed. Whatever date is taken, the same consideration will arise.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: What can be done is to stop local authorities taking advantage of those provisions by serving notice to treat so as to get agricultural land for 1939 prices, before this Bill becomes an Act.
  Mr. Silkin: I would only say that it is a gross insult to the local authorities of this country to suggest that, by and large, they are going to serve notices in order to be able to acquire land more cheaply. I do not believe for a moment that that is the case. That was not the argument that the hon. and learned Member put forward. His argument was in regard to the inequity that would arise as between people who had received notice to treat on one day and those who had received it on another. My answer is that whatever date is chosen, a similar position is bound to arise. Suppose notice to treat had been served on 6th January, 1947. That person would get the 1939 values even under the Amendment. If the notice were served on 8th January, then he would get the new basis of compensation. There would still be this inequality of treatment as between the two. That is unavoidable, whatever date we choose. There is no particular virtue about 7th January, 1947, except that it is the day on which this Bill was introduced. There is no other significance about selecting that as the date of demarcation. Under a notice to treat served after that date, people will get one form of treatment and under one served before they will get another form. The date of the Royal Assent is the logical date. The Bill will become law and certain things will flow from that. That is perfectly well understood. Moreover, the
  1202
  alternative proposed would cause great administrative difficulties, but I do not want to put that argument too high.
  Commander Maitland: Is it not the case that a situation has arisen in which the country knows that 1947 values are going to take effect and, that being so, would it not be better to remove the 1939 values as soon as possible?
  Mr. Silkin: The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) and the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) would be on stronger ground if instead of saying 7th January, 1947, they said the date of the publication of the Amendment, or even the date of this discussion. It may be assumed that it would have taken even the local authorities a day or two to understand the significance of the Amendment. I could have understood that sort of argument, but I cannot understand the argument for 7th January. The fact is that a great many things have happened on the basis of notices to treat given after 7th January. In some cases there have been arbitrations and decisions as to the amount of compensation. There have been agreements entered into, there has been land acquired by agreement and there have been contracts made. I do not suggest it would be impossible to go back on all that and to start again on a new basis of compensation, but it would be exceedingly difficult.
  There is one other difficulty which is that the new basis of compensation assumes that permission will be granted in respect of development referred to in the Third Schedule. So far, we do not know what will be in the Third Schedule finally. There are still other stages of the Bill and, although I hope the Third Schedule will remain pure, unsullied and intact, one cannot fix compensation on that assumption. It would be quite wrong to do it. If it turned out that there were changes in the Third Schedule, it might mean that the basis of compensation would have to be revised once more. We might then have one basis of compensation already settled, a new basis if the Amendment were accepted, and possibly another one if there were changes to the Third Schedule—a really impossible position. I hope, therefore, that the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept the situation and accept the fact that we are doing a very good thing; that the date of the Royal

  1203
  Assent must be taken and that it cannot be retrospective. If we were to make it retrospective, the logical thing would be to go right back to 1944. The other logical thing, perhaps, would be to date it as from today, but I think the right thing is to date it from the Royal Assent.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I would like to press the right hon. Gentleman a little further. He said it was an insult to the local authorities to suggest that they would serve notices to treat so as to get land more cheaply, but I do not think that is really putting the question quite fairly. The point is that if we leave the Clause as it is now drafted, there will be a period between now and the passing of the Act during which the decision whether or not to serve notice to treat on any particular piece of land will affect the compensation payable to the owner of that land, and the authorities considering acquiring that piece of land can, by taking action, deliberately affect the price which will be paid to the owner for better or worse. It may be that very few authorities would deliberately serve a notice sooner than they would otherwise have done, in order to deprive the owner of a piece of land or whatever it may be, of the value of it. It would be a rare occurrence. On the other hand, I can very well imagine the converse taking place. Suppose we had a local authority of a political complexion which might be favourable to the right hon. Gentleman who failed to serve a notice to treat until, say, a week after the passing of this Bill. I can well imagine what the constituents of members of that authority would say at their having let off such and such a landlord mom lightly than they need have done.
  Our objection to this is that it puts authorities into an invidious position. The right hon. Gentleman quite convincingly pointed out the difficulty of making this retrospective to any great extent. Decisions have been taken on matters which it would be difficult now to readjust. If we had to go back to January of this year, it might be that the passage of three or four months would create some genuine administrative difficulties. But I really believe that if we were to go back to the date of the introduction of this Amendment—everyone was fully warned of what was in the wind—for making a change in this respect, I do not believe it would create any administrative difficulties.
  1204
  After all, it can only apply in the case of notice to treat, and little can have beer done in respect of notices to treat during the eleven days since 1st May. I canner believe that if the right hon. Gentleman were to indicate tonight that he was considering this matter, there would be any administrative difficulty whatsoever about amending the words "the passing of this Act" to the words "1st May, 1947." I press the right hon. Gentleman to say that he is considering this matter further At any rate, no further administrative difficulties will arise in the future, because all concerned will have been warned that there is a possibility of an alteration being made.
  9.30 p.m.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I speak with some trepidation, having personified the entire Opposition to the Minister in an earlier Act of his, during which I expressed the wish that he might somehow suffer misfortune it touring round the countryside in search of new towns. However, I hope that that fact will not induce the Minister to run away from any concession which he might feel called upon to make as a result of the powerful arguments which have been addressed to him in the last few minutes by my hon. Friends. The Minister in this respect is somewhat like the Chancellor of the Exchequer; he produces an Amendment which causes a change in the law of compensation. What would be said of a Chancellor of the Exchequer who introduced a Budget and made Budget regulations apply, not to the night on which he made his speech, but to some weeks after? The most astonishing effect would take place in the rise and fall of prices. I hope, therefore, the Minister will regard himself somewhat in the light of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing this change in his Bill, and will realise that certain people will do certain things as a result of his speech tonight as well as on the new Clause which he put down on the Order Paper some few days ago. I hope he will look at this matter again, to see whether it is not fair and equitable to establish the terms of compensation at the date when his Clause was introduced, or even at tonight's date, because that would prevent local authorities from serving notices to treat upon landlords in a great hurry and before the passing of this Measure. As my hon. and learned Friend

  1205
  the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) said, it might work both ways; it might also be for the benefit of local authorities to have this date put in because they might, therefore, be paying for land something less than they would otherwise have to pay. So I hope that we can get further consideration by the right hon. Gentleman of this question.
  Mr. McAllister: The Minister has been so courageous, and at the same time so conciliatory, that it would not be asking too much to ask him to be even a little more conciliatory. The 1939 values were designed to prevent speculation in land in wartime, and to a large extent, they succeeded in preventing that speculation. When one thinks that we have gone through all this escalation, and that it was the Minister who finally came down and said, "We are going to end all that, and we are going to have a new datum line on a realistic basis," one agrees that the Minister is showing himself extremely wise and competent and bold, because he must have known that he was at least risking misinterpretation on his own side of the Committee. We do not take kindly to anything that seems in the nature of a sop to the landlords or any special compensation for them. There was one virtue alone which belonged to 1939 values, and that was the virtue of simplicity, It was a clear-cut datum line of value, and I regret that I cannot see in this and the other Clauses any such simplicity. There will be confusion, there will be a feeling on the part of some people of unfairness. I am quite certain the Minister does not want to encourage any charge of that sort. He has tried to be practical in an extremely difficult and complex matter. Probably hon. and right hon. Members opposite do not expect him to accept their Amendment, but I think that if he would pursue the line of his Second Reading speech, and eliminate the second stage in the valuation process, so that at the worst we have two different scales, and at the best only one scale, it will appear not only that he is being courageous and bold, but, to the ordinary man in the street, he will be doing something which looks strictly like justice. I do not think he need be afraid of the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin), or my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. Braddock), because I am sure that as the Bill progresses and it
  1206
  becomes clear that he is not trying to increase the global sum by one penny—
  Mr. Braddock: Might I point out that the question of the global sum of compensation is not being dealt with at the present time?
  Mr. McAllister: No, but we are trying here in Committee to get the Bill simplified, so that it can be understood not only by learned surveyors, architects, and lawyers, but by ordinary men and women, who are going to be very much affected by it. I am sure the Minister does not wish to make the law unnecessarily complicated. He will be doing a great service to himself and to the country if he would consider this matter further.
  Mr. H. Strauss: I must apologise to the Minister if, not having heard his speech and what preceded it, I either say something with which he has already dealt, or possibly repeat something which has been said, but I promise to be brief. I hope he will respond to the request, which has now been made from both sides of the Committee, to reconsider this date. I can appreciate that there may be arguments against the date which appears in the Amendment, but I ask him to give most serious consideration to an alternative date. I am now thinking of the effect on his Department. I am certain that if he meets the wish expressed on both sides of the Committee he will greatly increase the appearance of justice in this matter, and any increase in the appearance and fact of justice will increase the reputation of his Department and the ease with which it can act. I may be wrong, not having heard his speech, but I gather he suggested that if local authorities hastened to give notice to treat, they would be acting in some unworthy manner and that therefore it was making an unworthy suggestion against them to suppose that they would do so. That is by no means clear. Those who determine the conduct of local authorities may well feel that they are acting in the capacity of trustees, and must do the best they can for their beneficiaries, and if it will be possible for them to acquire land a good deal more cheaply by giving notice on a certain date, they may well conceive it to be their duty to do so.
  What is in fact being done by this new series of proposals the Government are

  1207
  putting forward? They are putting forward a basis of market values in the interests not only of the—
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is going very wide of the Amendment which we are discussing.
  Mr. Strauss: I apologise and I see the line that I must not pursue. I was coming to the reasons for the change of date. Whenever the Government have come to a decision on a basis of compensation, they have generally thought it right to give a warning that they would have regard to the circumstances as they existed at the time when they first announced that decision. If I might remind the Minister—and I am now quoting from memory—I remember answering a question from the Government Front Bench on the publication of the Uthwatt Report, and giving a warning in the name of the Coalition Government that in all subsequent transactions in land, regard should be had to the terms of that announcement, because the Government in their legislation would consider the state of affairs existing at that moment. The right hon. Gentleman will find that reference if he looks it up; and he will find numerous other instances of the same kind where the Government, announcing an important decision or change in compensation to be paid on the acquisition of land under similar circumstances, rightly gave a warning that future transactions must be based on the announcement they were making.
  The right hon. Gentleman gave reasons against the date mentioned in our Amendment but none against substituting the date when he tabled his. There will be nothing which is not in accordance with precedent if he enacts in this Bill to make that date the operative date. I do not know haw it will work out, but I am quite sure that he will have avoided injustices which, on any other alternative, would be unavoidable. I do not doubt for one moment that there will be certain difficulties of drafting, as is always the case when we try to make something operate as from a date before an Act comes into force, but those difficulties of drafting are not beyond the ingenuity of the Parliamentary draftsmen and the learned Attorney-General. If the proposal which we on this side of the Committee have embodied in our Amendment, which
  1208
  has been supported in general by the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister), is adopted by the Government they will have nothing to lose and a great deal to gain.
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: I heard the reply of the Minister to this Amendment and I confess I was a little disappointed by it. I hope in a few words to put this matter into its proper perspective. This is not a question of trying to alter the compensation for land publicly acquired. It is purely a question of decent administration. The Government have frequently passed Acts of Parliament which have affected values, and it is a general principle that when that is done, the Minister in charge prevents people utilising the time while a Bill is going through Parliament to manipulate affairs to their own advantage, by forestalling the result which is in the draft of the Bill. It is common in all Budget Resolutions. They date from the time they are announced so that no one will take advantage of an increased tea or tobacco duty or whatever it may be. It has been done already by the right hon. Gentleman in this Bill. If one considers the provisions in Clause 54 for ascertaining the development value of land, a matter that affects landowners, it will be seen, in Subsection (3) that:
  "For the purposes of this Section, the restricted and the unrestricted values of interests in land shall be calculated by reference to prices current immediately before the seventh day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven. …"
  Not the prices obtaining "on the passing of this Act." Why did the right hon. Gentleman introduce in this Clause of the Bill a prior date as the measure by which these values should be ascertained? Quite frankly, he did it in order to prevent the owners of interest in land from manipulating their transactions so as to obtain greater or lesser development values when the Bill is passed. We on this side did not stand up and complain that this was an insult to the probity of landlords, and that no landlord would do such a thing. We know that human nature, whether it be a private individual or the chairman of a local authority committee who is concerned, is very much the same all over the world. The right hon. Gentleman need not accuse us of insulting the local authorities, any more than we accuse him

  1209
  of insulting the landlords because he took a rudimentary precaution which all wise legislators take by fixing a date for these changes in value so that no one could take advantage of the period between the introduction of the legislation and the Royal Assent.
  We say that in some cases the restricted current value may be against the landlord and in other cases in his favour. We are quite agreeable that all cases should stand alike, but we do want to prevent the possibility of this intervening period between the notice of this proposed change in the law—which changes values in land—being used to manipulate the values by changing the date of the notice to treat. That is a very simple question of ordinary, good administration. It is not pro-landlord or pro-local authorities; it is pro-Parliament and its control over the legislation of this country. It is directed against persons using the inevitable gestation period of our legislation to take advantage of what is printed in this Bill and enriching themselves in the process. There is no doubt about the fact that this Bill and these Clauses will affect the value of land, and I say that the date from which the value is affected ought to be anterior to the time when anyone has an opportunity of using it to his advantage. That is the simple principle involved, and there is nothing else in it.
  When he replied to my hon. Friend, the Minister said that he based too much of his argument on the theory of inequalities. It is true that if a change is made in the law there has to be a date from which the change operates, and it in all these cases is inevitable that those on one side of the date are in a different position from those on the other side. But that is not the argument for this Amendment. If it is necessary that the law should be changed there will inevitably be a difference between the people on one side of the date and those on the other, but the important point is that one of the parties to the transaction shall not have the opportunity of fixing the date. If the words of this Clause are scrutinised, it will be found that everything hangs on the date of the notice to treat, and that is a date that can be fixed by the purchasing authority according to their will. It is not fixed by the House of Commons. The authority can deliver their notice to treat any time before the Bill receives the Royal Assent, or any time after, as it
  1210
  chooses. It can choose the date which is crucial to the value of the property. I say that that is bad practice. We ought to fix a date beyond the reach of manipulations of that sort.
  The right hon. Gentleman cavilled with some reason against going so far back as 7th January, 1947. I must confess that I put in the date on the principle of "what is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander." It was the date chosen by the right hon. Gentleman himself, because it was the date when he gave notice of his intentions by the printing of this Bill. I do not mind changing the date to the date when I first saw this Amendment printed. The only reason why I have a preference for the earlier date is because this matter has been under such constant consideration in Parliament. I am afraid that I have wearied the Committee by my denunciations of the 1939 price, but I should have thought it common sense that the further back you go, the clearer you are from any sense of speculation on the contents of a Bill printed in Parliament. If there is a puritanical feeling for adhering to the strict logic of the position, I do not mind taking the date on which this Amendment was first printed. I do not mind, so long as it is a date which prevents anyone profiting by knowledge of what is printed in the Bill. That is all I ask on this matter.
  With regard to contracts already entered into and, perhaps, completed, I agree that it would be an impossible task to re-examine them all. But that is a matter which could be got over. It is common, when changes in the law take place, to enact simultaneously that it is without prejudice to anything done before the change was made. There is bound to be a certain amount of hardship involved, but I should not have thought it would have taken us beyond our depths in framing legislation to meet it. The hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister), whose speech I listened to with the greatest interest and sympathy, referred to the 1939 price. The real reason for adopting the 1939 price was the absence of any proper standard owing to the insidence of bombardment, in various degrees, in our island. It had one advantage in that it fixed a date. No one in 1944 could do anything about a standard fixed in 1939 to enrich himself one way or the other. Similarly, it is essential not to leave the fixing of this date in the

  1211
  hands of people who can use it to their advantage in the indefinite period that must elapse between now and the Royal Assent.
  The right hon. Gentleman was a little dubious of what the Third Schedule might contain when the Bill reached the Statute Book. That shows a proper appreciation of the hazards which attend the passage of legislation through Parliament, but if he is doubtful of the contents of his Third Schedule, still more doubtful must he be on the date when approval is finally given. To leave a period of uncertainty like this, within which certain people may think it to their advantage to throw in notices to treat, and others may think it to their advantage to abstain until the Bill is passed and thus delay acquisition of the land, and the development required, is bad administration and bad legislation. We ought to fix a date behind which no one can go, and have a clear, untouchable, standard of value which affects all members of the public, whether purchasers or vendors, under this Bill.
  Mr. Medland: I want to take great exception to some of the remarks which have just been made by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison), because they cast a great slur on the integrity of our local government bodies. We ought to refute the suggestion that there must be a date in this Bill because it would give a local authority the right to determine when they will give notice to treat. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that notice to treat is not determined by a local authority until they have carried out many of the provisions of the previous Act and this Bill. It has sometimes taken nine months before a local authority could get anywhere near a chance to give notice to treat, and to get up in this Committee and say that local authorities could use the date to their advantage is a great insult to them and a slur on the foundation of the good government of this country.
  Mr. Manningharn-Buller: The hon. Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Mr. Medland) entirely ignores the
  1212
  possibility that a local authority might retard things so as to obtain an advantage for the purchasers. I am not suggesting any impropriety on the part of any local authority; it is their duty to save the ratepayers as much money as they can. However, I do not rise to answer the hon. Member, who represents some local authorities, but to ask whether the Minister can say something further about acceptance of a date for publication in connection with this new Clause. If he can offer a further explanation, perhaps it will save the time of the Committee.
  Mr. Silkin: I would be misleading the Committee if I held out any hope that further consideration of this matter would induce me to take a different view. I have given a great deal of thought to it, and I must say that I was at first attracted to the view of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. But I came to the conclusion that it would be unworkable, for the reasons I have given, and for, perhaps, this other reason; If land is acquired on the basis of the Amendment development values would have to be excluded. That would be very difficult before the passing of the Bill, unless we were going to hold up transactions until we saw which way the Bill went. The right hon. Gentleman may "pull my leg," if I may use that unparliamentary expression, but if there is to be real consideration of this Bill, one must expect that some changes will be made, and one does not know what those changes will be. It would be quite unworkable to try to acquire land now on a new basis when one cannot say what is to happen, and to complete transactions on the basis of the restricted value when we have not in fact got this Bill through the House. For those reasons, while; gladly, for the sake of peace and in order to get on, give the right hon. and learned Member the assurance that I will consider it, I would be misleading him if I were to hold out any hope that the decision would be different.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Clause."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 259; Noes, 99.

  Division No. 202]

  AYES.

  10.2 p.m.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Foot, M. M.

  Moyle, A

  Adams, W T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Forman, J. C.

  Nally, W.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

  Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Gaitskell, H. T. N.

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

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Ganley, Mrs, C. S.

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

  Alpass, J. H.

  George, Lady M.. Lloyd (Anglesey)

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

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Gibbins, J.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Attewell, H. C.

  Gibson, C. W

  Oldfield, W. H

  Attlee, Rt. Hon. C R

  Gilzean, A.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Austin, H. Lewis

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  Paget, R. T.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Ayles, W. H.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

  Palmer, A. M F

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Grey, C. F.

  Parker, J.

  Baird, J.

  Grierson, E.

  Parkin, B. T.

  Barstow, P. G.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

  Barton, C.

  Guest, Dr. L, Haden

  Paton, J. (Norwich)

  Battley, J. R.

  Guy, W. H.

  Pearson, A.

  Bechervaise, A. E.

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  Peart, Capt T. F.

  Benson, G.

  Hale, Leslie

  Piratin, P.

  Berry, H.

  Hall, W. G.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Beswick, F.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R

  Porter, G. (Leeds)

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Price, M. Philips

  Blackburn, A. R

  Hardy, E. A.

  Proctor, W, T.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Pursey, Cmdr. H.

  Blyton, W. R.

  Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)

  Ranger, J.

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Rankin, J.

  Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Reeves, J.

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

  Hewitson, Captain M.

  Reid, T. (Swindon)

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Holmes, H E. (Hemsworth)

  Rhodes, H.

  Bramall, E A.

  Hoy, J.

  Robens, A.

  Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

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

  Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

  Brown, T J. (Ince)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Bruce, Major D. W. T.

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

  Roberts, W (Cumberland, N.)

  Buchanan, G.

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Robertson J. J. (Berwick)

  Burden, T. W.

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A

  Burke, W. A.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon G. A

  Scollan, T.

  Byers, Frank

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Scott-Elliot, W

  Callaghan, James

  Jeger, G. (Winchester)

  Segal, Dr. S.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

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

  Shackleton, E. A. A

  Chamberlain, R. A

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Sharp, Granville

  Champion, A. J

  Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

  Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

  Chater, D.

  Jones, P Asterley (Hitchin)

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

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Keenan, W.

  Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

  Clitherow, Dr. R

  Kenyon, C.

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Cobb, F. A.

  King, E. M.

  Simmons, C. J.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

  Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

  Coldrick, W.

  Kinley, J.

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Collindridge, F

  Kirby, B. V.

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

  Collins, V. J.

  Lang, G.

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

  Colman, Miss G. M

  Lavers, S.

  Solley, L. J

  Cook, T. F.

  Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J

  Sparks, J. A.

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Leslie, J. R.

  Stamford, W.

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Lever, N. H.

  Stephen C.

  Corvedale, Viscount

  Levy, B. W.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

  Cove, W. G.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

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

  Crawley, A.

  Lewis, J. (Bolton)

  Stress, Dr. B.

  Crossman, R. H. S

  Lipson, D. L.

  Swingler, S.

  Daggar, G.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Daines, P.

  Lyne, A. W.

  Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  McAdam, W.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

  McAllister, G.

  Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  McEntee, V. La T.

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Mack, J. D.

  Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

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

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Thurtle, Ernest

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughlon)

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

  Tiffany, S.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  McLeavy, F.

  Titterington, M. F

  Deer, G.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Tolley, L.

  de Freitas, Geoffrey

  McNeil, Rt. Hon, H.

  Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

  Delargy, H. J

  Macpherson, T. (Romford)

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Diamond, J

  Mallalieu, J. P. W

  Vernon, Maj. W. F.

  Driberg, T. E. N

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Walker, G. H.

  Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich)

  Manning, Mrs. L, (Epping)

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Durbin, E. F. M.

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Warbey, W. N.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Medland, H. M.

  Weitzman, D.

  Edelman, M.

  Messer, F.

  Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  West, D. G.

  Evans, John (Ogmare)

  Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

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

  Fairhurst, F.

  Mitchison, G. R

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

  Farthing, W. J

  Monslow, W.

  Wilkes, L.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Moody, A. S.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Field, Capt. W. J.

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

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

  Wise, Major F. J

  Young, Sir R. (Newton)

  Williams, Rt. Hon T. (Don Valley)

  Woodburn, A

  Zilliacus, K.

  Williamson, T.

  Woods, G. S.

  Wills, Mrs. E A

  Yates, V. F.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell.

  NOES.

  Allen, Lt.-Col. sir W. (Armagh)

  Gammons, L. D.

  Nutting, Anthony

  Amory, D. Heathcote

  Grimston, R. V.

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V

  Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Prescott, Stanley

  Beamish, Maj. T. V. H

  Hogg, Hon. Q.

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Birch, Nigel

  Hollis, M. C.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Bower, N.

  Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

  Howard, Hon. A

  Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

  Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

  Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N J.

  Sanderson, Sir F.

  Braithwaite, Lt-Comdr. J. G.

  Keeling, E. H.

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

  Kendall, W. D.

  Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T.

  Kerr, Sir J. Graham

  Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

  Butcher, H. W.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Carson, E

  Langford-Holt, J.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Challen, C.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Stanley, Rt. Hon, O.

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G

  Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

  Low, Brig. A. R. W.

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

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

  Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

  Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E

  Maclay, Hon. J. S.

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

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Digby, S. W.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Manningham-Buller, R. E

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Drewe, C.

  Marples, A. E.

  Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A F

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Marsden, Capt. A.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Erroll, F. J.

  Marshall, S. H. (Sullon)

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  Maude, J. C.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lansdale)

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir D. P. M

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (C'nc'ster)

  Gage, C.

  Neven-Spence, Sir B

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D

  Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

  Commander Agnew and

  Mr. Studholme.

  Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, to leave out from "have" to "effect", in line 8.
  I move this Amendment in a spirit of inquiry because it is rather hard to discover what is the effect of the words which it is proposed to delete. In Subsection (1) the Clause abolishes the 1939 standard, and in Subsection (2) it refers to a new Schedule (Modifications of Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944), and it says that those provisions:
  "shall have effect and shall be deemed always to have had effect in relation to land compulsorily acquired in pursuance of a notice to treat served after the commencement of the Act of 1944."
  I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to enlighten us on the effect of those words.
  Mr. Silkin: I think I can satisfy the right hon. Gentleman. The purpose of the words which the Amendment seeks to omit is to eliminate the possibility of overlapping between the 60 per cent. supplement under the recent Order under the War Damage Act and the 60 per cent.
  1216
  supplement under the Town and Country Planning Act. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the point was made in the report of the War Damage Commission, in paragraph 18, that this question of the overlapping would have to be dealt with, and this is the method by which it has been done. It is rather elaborate, but I am advised it is necessary.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am indebted to the Minister for his explanation. I was a little startled to read the words originally. Taken in conjunction with the right hon. Gentleman's speech on the previous Amendment, in which he exposed himself as an opponent of retrospective action, it seemed to me to be rather curious that the next thing he should be asking us to do was to say not only that things had effect, but should be 'deemed always to have had effect, because I do not consider the right hon. Gentleman to be a victim of schizophrenia, or split mind; but I thank him for his explanation, which is entirely to my satisfaction, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Compensation for Compulsory acquisition after the appointed day.)
  (1) Any compensation payable in respect of the compulsory acquisition of an interest in land by a government department or a local or public authority within the meaning of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. in pursuance of a notice to treat served on or after the appointed day (not being compensation which falls to be assessed in accordance with Rule (5) of the rules set out in section two of that Act) shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of that Act as modified by the, provisions of this and the three next following sections.
  (2) The value of any such interest shall be ascertained on the assumption that planning permission would be granted under Part III of this Act for development of any class specified in the Third Schedule to this Act, but would not be so granted for any other development; and where such permission has been granted before the date of the notice to treat for any such other development, then in so far as the development in question has not been carried out at that date, no account shall be taken of any additional value attributable to that permission:
  Provided that where at any time before the date of the notice to treat permission for development of the land of any class specified in the said Third Schedule (other than development specified in paragraph r thereof) has been refused or granted subject to conditions, or, having been granted, has been revoked or modified by the imposition of conditions, it shall be assumed for the purposes of the ascertainment of the value of the interest in question that such permission would not be granted, or, as the case may be, would not be granted otherwise than subject to those conditions.
  (3) Where the interest is acquired in pursuance of a purchase notice served under section seventeen of this Act, and it is certified by the Minister, on confirming the notice, that any building comprised in the land has become incapable of reasonably beneficial use, then if the purchase notice was served in consequence of the refusal of permission for development which would have involved the demolition of the whole or substantially the whole of the building, or in consequence of the revocation or modification of such permission, no account shall be taken for the purposes of this section of the value of the building except in so far as the value of any materials therein would exceed the cost of demolition.—[Mr. Silkin.]
  Brought up, and read the First Time.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  I do not think I need take up much time in dealing with this new Clause, the substance of which has already been discussed for some considerable time. It provides for the payment of compensation
  1218
  on the basis of market value, and it provides for payment being made on the basis of the existing use value of the land.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 12, to leave out from "development" to the end of line 15.
  The Clause which the right hon. Gentleman has just moved lays down certain principles for assessing the value of land to be compulsorily acquired after the appointed day. In stating those principles, it prescribes the assumption that planning permission would be granted under Part III of the Bill for development of any Class specified in the Third Schedule of the Bill,
  "but would not be so granted for any other development."
  Then follow the words which we seek to exclude by the Amendment. We do not object to the provisions of the first part of that Subsection to which I have just referred, but the words which we seek to exclude would eliminate from considerations of compensation a planning permission given before the notice to treat. In regard to that, we say that the position is inequitable. I do not know what your intentions, Major Milner, are in regard to the following Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend and others, which proposes in line 15, at the end, to insert:
  "Provided that where land to which such permission relates is compulsorily acquired under this Section, that permission shall be deemed for the purposes of Sections nineteen and twenty of this Act to have been revoked on the date on which the notice to treat in respect of such land was served."
  Perhaps it would be convenient if I were allowed to refer to that because, as the Minister will appreciate, the two matters hang together. We consider that it is inequitable to eliminate the position there specified from the computation of compensation because the granting of permission to develop in itself establishes a development value and, therefore, founds a claim to compensation. At present, with the inclusion of those words, that claim is excluded. Further, in the absence of the words which we propose to insert in the second Amendment, the following unsatisfactory result also arises. Where expenditure has actually been incurred on development for which permission has

  1219
  been granted in that way, the owner of the land in question is not entitled to compensation for abortive expenditure which is prescribed in Clauses 19 and 20, unless the compulsory acquisition of the land is in itself regarded as constituting revocation of planning permission for the purposes of this Clause. It is for that reason that we propose to import into the Clause the words that figure in the second Amendment.
  Mr. Silkin: I am sorry, but I cannot accept either of the two Amendments. In reference to the first, when the Clause provides that in assessing compensation no account should be taken of a planning consent which has not been acted upon, I think that is quite a proper provision to include. The planning consent may have been given a very long time ago. It may be a consent which the local authority will desire to revoke or which would have been revoked within the time permitted. For instance, it might be a planning consent to development in a green belt. One of the first things that the local authority would do would be to revoke a consent of that kind. Yet, if these words were deleted, it would mean that the owner could get the benefit of a planning consent which would be against the public interest. If he did get the benefit of that consent, would he not also, in equity, be liable to pay a development charge even though he had not carried out the development? If the consent is to be treated as if the consent had been acted upon, equally a development charge should be payable in respect of it. The Clause, as it stands, provides that no account should be taken of a consent which has not been acted upon, and there would naturally be no development charge payable.
  As regards the second Amendment, the words proposed are not necessary. The fact is that in so far as a volume of expenditure is involved, that can be met, and will be met, in the ordinary way. It is covered by Clause 20, and with the Amendment that has now been accepted by the Committee, any kind of abortive expenditure can be provided for and there is no need for the inclusion of the words which it is proposed to insert. For those reasons, I hope the Committee will not agree to the deletion of the words proposed in this Amendment or to the insertion of the proposed words after line 15.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: Do I understand from what the Minister has just said that the words in the second Amendment are redundant, because the land there specified would, in any event, come under Clause 20 in regard to revocation? That is the point which the Amendment seeks to make. If the Minister says the Amendment is redundant and that the principle there sought to be imported into the Bill is already in the Bill, by reason of Clause 20, I agree that there is an end of the Amendment, but I would press the Minister to be a little clearer on that point.
  Mr. Silkin: Yes. I think the position is that if the owner has started on the basis of his planning permission—that is what the second Amendment is designed to deal with—then insofar as works have been done, their value will be included in the purchase price insofar as a development charge has been paid, it will be refunded under Clause 66; and insofar as the owner has incurred other abortive expenditure of the kind covered by Clause 20, he will be entitled to claim for the loss. I am not clear whether the Amendment is designed to cover any other forms of expenditure, but the various types of expenditure I have described will be paid. I had difficulty in discovering exactly what the Amendment intended to do.
  Amendment negatived.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 33, at the end, to add:
  "(4) In ascertaining the value of any interest in land designated as land subject to compulsory acquisition it shall be assumed for the purpose of number two of the Rules in Section two of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, that the land has not been so designated."
  I have not by me the text of the Rules referred to, but the effect of them is that the price the land is worth is to be the price that it would fetch in the open market if sold there by a willing seller. These words, since 1919, have defined what we loosely term "market value," and it is Rule 2 which describes the psychological and material surroundings of an open market value. Of course, all compulsory purchases are, in a way, fictitious—there cannot be a willing seller if there is compulsory purchase—but for the purpose of finding the market value, one has to assume a willing seller and

  1221
  say what the land would fetch in the open market. All the incidences that affect land and value, and what a. willing seller would be likely to take for it, are well known. They have been considered by surveyors and valuers ever since the Act was passed in 1919, but this Bill introduces a new factor which may be supposed to be capable of influencing the mind of the so-called seller. It introduces a new factor into the open market price. That is the effect of the earlier Clauses of the Bill, which introduce the device of designation.
  I will not, at this hour of the night, rehash the differences of view which have been expressed frequently both upstairs and here between the Minister and hon. Members on this side of the Committee as to the effect which designation for compulsory purchase of land has upon the fortunes of the landlord and upon the value of the land. The right hon. Gentleman has, with praiseworthy persistence, advocated throughout that this designation was a blessing to the landlord in that it gave him notice of the fact that his land was in jeopardy of being acquired, and that it was better to know the worst as soon as possible, rather than be left in doubt as to its ultimate destination. That argument, I have always thought, would have more force if the designation of the land were the only means permitted to public authorities of acquiring it, but that designation comes on top of all the other statutory provisions which enable land to be compulsorily acquired. So it adds nothing to the certainty of the landlord and, as we on this side think, it increases the jeopardy and the danger to his land.
  If the right hon. Gentleman is right, and we are wrong, and designation is a great blessing to the landlord, enriching the value of his assets and really making everybody happier all round, then it would be an act of great self-sacrifice on my part to propose that this great blessing of designation should be disregarded in ascertaining the price. If the right hon. Gentleman is to be consistent in the argument he has so far resolutely advanced—I almost said obstinately, but perhaps "resolutely" would be the kinder word—then he must agree with this Amendment, because it is not, I understand, his intention to add an element to the calculation of the value of land which would undoubtedly inflate its price. As he has told the Com-
  1222
  mittee that designation of land for compulsory purchase would be such an added advantage, we are willing to accept his argument for once and ask that it be excluded from the terms of the value of land. That is on the supposition that the right hon. Gentleman is right, and I am willing to accept it for the sake of friendly relations and so on. I really think he is wrong, and if it be a fact that the designation of land has an adverse effect upon its selling market value, then I suggest, if the right hon. Gentleman means what he says by a willing seller, he should exclude from the conception of a willing seller the whole idea of designated or doomed land. Whichever side is right on the main theory—whether designation is a curse or a blessing—or on whichever side of the argument we stand, I think both sides can agree that the Amendment should be accepted.
  Mr. Silkin: I have never resolutely argued that designation adds to the value of land. It is an advantage to an owner to know that his land is likely to be acquired within ten years; that is an advantage, but I have never argued that it had any effect on the value. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be wrong for a local authority to take action which reduced the value of a person's land, and then to acquire it at the reduced value. That would be inequitable, and we should not be parties to such a procedure. Yet, I do not think that would be the case. Nor do I think any such Amendment as this is necessary. I believe that value for the purpose of compulsory purchase is the price which a willing buyer will pay to a seller. That, of course, is a hypothetical sum, which has to be calculated. I am in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman on some points, but in the circumstances, while I am advised that this Amendment is quite unnecessary and that recourse under the Acquisition of Land Act will give the right result, I am willing to look at this again. If any Amendment becomes necessary to achieve the position, I assure the Committee that it will be made at a later stage of the proceedings.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, but I must add that I am rather disturbed at his suggestion that the Amendment is unnecessary. This is a matter on, which none of us can be too sure. This acquisition of land is new to our law, and

  1223
  although I have not the advantage of the advice which the right hon. Gentleman has, I think that the fact that a piece of land has been designated will have an adverse effect on the value of that land. Before the land can be designated, he must be prepared to approve it, and it may be acquired within ten or fifteen years, as the case may be. If the designation is approved, the land will remain in the possession of the owner only for a limited period. I can see no harm in including the words proposed. I, myself, do not believe that by leaving it to chance, the thing which we wish to avoid will, in fact, not occur.
  Amendment negatived.
  Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: If it is not intended to call the next Amendment on the Order Paper—in line 33, at the end, to add:
  "(4) The value of an interest in land to which section seventy-four of this Act applies shall be ascertained on the assumption that the acquiring authority would be entitled to carry out the development specified in subsection (1) of that section and that such authority is acquiring the land for the purpose of carrying out that development."
  —I wish to take this opportunity to raise the matter, which is of considerable substance and importance. Under Clause 74 of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman sought to give special treatment to land which is colloquially described as "ripe." With regard to that land, there will be no liability to pay a development charge, and there will be no payment by way of compensation out of the £300,000,000 fund. But the "ripe" land within the definition of the Clause is land where the planning Permission is given under this Act, and also land where the development values are wholly or mainly attributable to the prospect of that development at the appointed day, and where a building contract is in force. I have summarised the provisions of Clause 74 for the reason that it is clear that in that Clause, the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to single out for special treatment land coming within that category.
  What he has not done in this Bill, as yet, is to relate that part of the Bill to the part of the Bill dealing with compulsory acquisition. He is freeing the "ripe" land, in one part, from liability
  1224
  to development charge and a right to claim compensation, and making no provision for that category of land with regard to compulsory acquisition; because under this new Clause with regard to compulsory acquisition, what is going to happen? The owner of land which is in its true sense "ripe" is only going to obtain, by way of compensation, the value of his interest in that land, less his development rights. That is all he is going to obtain as a right. He will have a claim, which is unlikely to be paid in full, for the difference out of the £300,000,000 fund. That, I apprehend. to be the present position. So one reaches this anomalous situation, that the owner of "ripe" land is really excluded from this Bill so far as development charge is concerned, if he has the good fortune not to be subjected to compulsory acquisition. If, on the other hand, he is subjected to compulsory acquisition, he will get less than his land is now worth, because I do not think anyone suggests that people are going to get 100 per cent. of their claims from this £300,000,000 fund.
  I have had brought to my notice during the interval since the Committee stage, a case with which the right hon. Gentleman may be familiar. It concerned a local authority for which he did some valuable work in days gone by. In my opinion, this case illustrates very strongly the force of my contention that, just as in Part VII of the Bill special provision is made for "ripe" land, so also there should be special provision made in the part dealing with compulsory acquisition. In this case, the local authority entered into a most solemn obligation by law. It made a deed whereby it gave permission for the development of a cleared site for industrial purposes The land is absolutely "ripe" for development, and but for the war, would have been developed by now. Now that land, if it is not compulsorily acquired, will not come within Clause 74, because the local authority, notwithstanding the deed, indicate that it is now their intention to zone that area for housing. They may be right in doing that, having regard to the present need. But the effect, of course, of the announcement of their desire now to acquire compulsorily this land, which they had agreed to let the owner develop himself, is going to place a very heavy burden upon the owner of that land. These cases are not likely to be

  1225
  small in number. I cannot but think that in many cases where land is ripe for development in its true sense, you will find also that the local authority is willing to acquire.
  10.45 p.m.
  I suggest to the Minister that where land is really ripe it is unfair to say, as he does under the Bill as it stands, that the owners of this land—it may be a charity, it may be people who have invested—shall in fact get less than the land is now worth, ripe as it is for development, because, within Clause 74, it has been selected as land for compulsory acquisition. I do not know what answer the right hon. Gentleman will make on this point. It is a point of substance and importance, and I hope that the Minister even at this late stage will undertake, if he cannot accept our Amendment, at least to make some provision for dealing specially with the compulsory acquisition of land which will fall within Subsection 1 (a) and (b) of Clause 74 and within the planning commission part of that Clause if the local authority does not change its mind as to what permission it would give.
  The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman has raised what appears to be a perfectly valid point, and one into which we shall certainly look with sympathy. There may be cases in which dead ripe land may be acquired but will not be able to share in the £300 million. There are two ways of dealing with that case. One is that the acquiring authority should pay a price which includes the development value of the land and should itself inherit, so to speak, the owners' right to carry out the development free from any development charge. The other is that the acquiring authority should pay a restricted use value only and later on, if it were liable to pay development charge, the owner should have restored to him the right to claim against the £300 million. The hon. and learned Gentleman has adopted the former alternative in the Amendment which has been put down. We need not go into it, but we did not think that the Amendment in the terms in which it was put down was apt to meet even the object which the hon. and learned Member has in view. We shall consider both alternatives and try to put down an Amendment in another place
  1226
  which will meet the point, in one way or another.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am glad that he recognises that this is a casus omissus in the Bill, not intentional, but due to the complexity of this Measure. I was not aware that' the owner of ripe land compulsorily acquired could not have a claim against the £300 million fund. I would urge the Minister to make provision so that the owner of land which is really ripe, should receive a price which includes the development value rather than have a claim against the £300 million. I thank the Attorney-General for what he said and I shall be glad to hear of the result of his attention to this matter, because as the Bill now stands hardship will be imposed on a landowner in these cases concerning the acquisition of land.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: We on this side of the Committee welcome the attitude of mind of the Attorney-General in the consideration of this subject. We are not, of course, here concerned with the particular words of the Amendment, which you, Major Milner, in your discretion have not seen fit to call, but we are discussing this question on the Motion, "That the Clause be added to the Bill." The right hon. and learned Gentleman said he was satisfied that there "might be" a case in which an inequitable result would be arrived at if this Clause remained as at present drafted. With all respect to him, I think those words should be altered. I should like him to substitute for them words to the effect that as the Clause at present stands, there will inevitably be occasions on which an inequitable result will be arrived at. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) referred to compensation but there the Attorney-General rightly said that under Clause 74 (1) the right to compensation out of the global figure under Part V of the Bill is excluded. The right hon. and learned Gentleman lucidly put before the Committee two alternatives as a possible solution of those difficulties. Might I reinforce the argument for the first of these alternatives. We on this side of the Committee—and it is one of the principles on which we approach the whole discussion of the problems raised under this Bill—turn our face against the

  1227
  enlargement of claims upon that global sum of £300 million compensation. We do not desire in any case to extort concessions by way of larger slices for any particular interest. Therefore, I urge upon the Government when giving this matter further consideration to lean towards the first of the two alternatives rather than the second.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: The justification, if any ever existed, for a global sum as a method of compensation lies in the phenomenon of floating values, not ascertainable, to the degree to which development will take place. But where land is ripe for development there is no floating value, because it is settled on the land affected and we are able to give it a proper reckoning.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Temporary provisions for eliminating special value attributable to vacant possession.)
  Where the notice to treat giving rise to the claim for compensation is served at any time before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, and the interest in land in respect of which the compensation is payable carries the right to vacant possession of the land or any part thereof, or the right to obtain such possession at any time before that date, then, unless the land is agricultural property within the meaning of this Section, the value of that interest shall be calculated as if there were derived therefrom a lease of the land, or of that part thereof, as the case may be, for the term, subject to the conditions and at the rent specified in this section.
  (2) The term of any such lease as aforesaid shall be deemed to be a term beginning on the date of the notice to treat and ending on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-four:
  Provided that—
  (a) where the interest in question is subject to an actual lease on the date of the service of the notice to treat, the said term shall be deemed to begin on the first date thereafter on which the owner of the said interest would be lawfully entitled to obtain vacant possession of the land; and
  (b) where the interest in question is a leasehold interest which is limited to expire at any time before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, the said term shall be deemed to end on the day before the expiration of that interest.
  (3) The conditions of any such lease as aforesaid shall be deemed to be conditions by virtue of which the tenant would be liable to pay all usual tenant's rates and taxes and to bear the cost of repairs and insurance and other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain
  1228
  the land in the state in which it was on the date of the notice to treat, and the rent payable thereunder shall be deemed to be a sum equal to five per cent. of the capital value of the premises, or a sum equal to the rent which might reasonably be expected to be payable by a tenant in occupation of the premises, under a lease for the term and subject to the conditions aforesaid, whichever is the less.
  (4) In this Section the expression "agricultural property" means agricultural land or agricultural buildings as defined by the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, and includes a house used as a dwelling house by a person who is primarily engaged in carrying out or directing agricultural operations on land in the neighbourhood of the house; and for the purposes of this Section the capital value of any premises shall be deemed to be the value of an unincumbered freehold interest therein calculated in accordance with the provisions of any enactment other than this Section which would apply to the assessment of compensation on a compulsory acquisition thereof by a government department or a local or public authority within the meaning of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919.
  (5) For the purposes of this Section, an interest in land shall not be deemed to carry the right to obtain vacant possession of the land or any part thereof if at the time of the service of the notice to treat the land or that part thereof consists of a dwelling house which is subject to the Rent and Mortgages Interest Restrictions Acts, 1920 to 1939. or any future enactment amending or extending those Acts, and any person other than the person entitled to that interest is for the time being in possession thereof either by virtue of a tenancy or by virtue of the provisions of the said Acts.
  (6) Compensation for disturbance in respect of an interest in land the value of which is calculated in accordance with the provisions of this Section shall not be assessed at any greater or less amount than that at which it would have been assessed apart from the provisions of this section.—[Mr. Silkin.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
  This Clause has already been discussed in general terms on previous Amendments, and I propose only to refer to four major issues in it. The first is in the case of land on which there is a right to vacant possession. There is assumed to be a notional lease based on the current rent, which expires on 1st January, 1954. The land is subject to this notional lease, either at the current rent or at the rent which represents five per cent. of the market value of the land whichever is the least. We have had a considerable discussion on that and I do not think I need add anything to what has already been said. There are two exceptions to the principle of the notional lease. The first is that agricul-

  1229
  tural land is not deemed to be subject to any lease and that the compensation for agricultural land will be ordinary market value. The reason for the distinction is that, generally speaking, agricultural land has not risen in price as much as other types of land. That is to say, there is not the same element of scarcity in the price of agricultural land as in that of other land. The other exception is land with property which is subject to the Rent Restrictions Act—although that is not really an exception because there the market value is paid having regard to the fact that there is a restriction of vacant possession. Lastly, in order to ensure that compensation for disturbance is not unduly increased, there is a provision that there should be no increase in the compensation for disturbance as compared with the existing provisions. Those are the main points of the New Clause, and I hope the Committee will be prepared to accept it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 6, after "section", to insert:
  "or the interest to be acquired is the interest of an owner-occupier of a building within the meaning of this section."
  It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we considered at the same time the other Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 41, at the end, to insert:
  "(5) An interest in land consisting of or comprising a building shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to be the interest of an owner-occupier of such building if any of the following conditions is satisfied, and not otherwise, that is to say—

  (a) if he is in occupation of the building at the time of the service of the notice to treat;

  (b) in the case of a building so damaged at that time as not to be fit for occupation, if he was in occupation thereof when the damage occurred;

  (c) in the case of a building of which possession has been taken without other title by virtue of any enactment, or by an authority by whom, and in circumstances in which, possession thereof could have been so taken and has not been given up before that time, if he was in occupation thereof when posses. sion was so taken; or

  (d) if—

  (i) the title under which the building is held at that time is such that he then has the right to enter into occupation thereof or will be in a position to obtain that right within five years from that time, and

  1230

  (ii) it was at that time his intention, subject to its being possible for him so to do, to enter into occupation of the building within the said five years, or, if it is so damaged as not to be fit for occupation, to cause it to be restored for his occupation or to enter into occupation of premises to be substituted therefor, within the said five years."

  This matter has been discussed in general terms both in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier on and in other speeches during the course of the Debate today, and I do not wish to go into it again in any great detail at this time of the night. The Amendment to line 41 merely supplies a definition of what is meant by "an owner-occupier." That is necessary because in this Bill there is no such definition, and indeed no such category of possessor of land is contemplated at all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister have justified this Clause upon the argument that there now exists in our community a scarcity of land which has the facility of offering vacant possession upon a change of ownership. The right hon. Gentleman seeks to eliminate the scarcity by imposing upon the land a notional lease of seven years' duration so that though in fact the land does carry with it the right of vacant possession so greatly desired, we are to step in here in this Committee—in the first place—and say, "Though you have the right to give vacant possession yet we shall take that right from you and presume you to be burdened with a lease of seven years' duration."
  11.0 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer described this very lightheartedly as a device of valuation, but surely it is far more than that? It is saying that an unburdened estate is burdened when in fact it is not. That may be a valuation device, but it is a device which starts by saying something which is not true about the estate we are purporting to value. I do not propose tonight to widen the discussion to cover the possible excision of this notional idea, but to put in a plea for a particular class-of landowner, and that is the owner-occupier. He is defined in this Amendment as a person who not only has possession of the land, but also owns it. It is true that owner-occupiers of agricultural land are already excluded from these notional leases, but I can foresee many others who ought to be excluded

  1231
  and are not. To such a man, his wealth consists not in the value of the site, but in the fact that on the site he carries on his business.
  Take again the case of the owner of a small factory. He is the owner-occupier of the premises, and the value to him of the site is not its investment value, but its value as a base for his operations—the ground upon which he stands to make his living. If such a man is dispossessed by a public authority, he has to go out into the world and try to get another site, where he will be confronted with the scarcity value and the difficulty of getting vacant possession. In other words, what is being proposed in this Clause is to invoke on behalf of the public authority the existence of a scarcity of vacant possession, and to deny to the man who is being dispossessed the existence of any such scarcity when he wishes to recoup himself.
  I have always believed that the only sure way through this jungle of land legislation is to look how it affects the citizen affected. Though the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman can put up a great plea here on the difficulty of getting vacant possession, it is no answer to the man who says "I had vacant possession, but you took it from me by Act of Parliament. You turned me into the world where vacant possession is hard to come by." From the public point of view, if there are owner-occupiers—and I am sure there are many—who will be disturbed by the public taking away their land, we had far better pay them the full scarcity value of the vacant possession they are able to convey, so that they shall have enough to be able to go into the world and get possession of some other land. Otherwise you are not only taking the man's land, but denying him the opportunity of restarting his business. To meet that is, shortly, the purpose behind the Amendment.
  It is curious to reflect how things run more or less in full circle. When we had discussions, in 1944, on this business of the 1939 price for land, there was a great difference of opinion between the two sides— and it was not confined to party lines— when we thought the best compromise we could come to was to pin down the investor owner to the 1939 value. We recognised in that the peculiar position
  1232
  of the owner-occupier. In other words, we recognised the fact, to which I am now drawing attention, that the occupation of his land was much more than his investment. The years have in no way lessened my affection for the owner-occupier, whom I regard as a very stable member of society, and one to be encouraged. Although he is generally a small man, it is all the more necessary for us to be careful that we do not adversely affect his interests. It is wrong that if you take land from him for public purposes you should give him less than he would have to pay outside to reinstate himself.
  Mr. Silkin: Perhaps it would be useful if I intervened in the discussion now, although I do not suppose that it will have the effect of terminating the proceedings on this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman opposite commented on the fact that feeling on the question of the owner occupier had, apparently, turned full circle, and that the owner occupier was to get less generous treatment than he was getting under the 1944 Act. The right hon. Gentleman posed as the friend of the owner-occupier, thereby implying that we, presumably, were not his friends. As a matter of fact, we are being more generous to the owner-occupier, under this Bill, than the right hon. Gentleman was, even in relation to the investor. The hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) explained that the value of a property, subject to a lease, was no greater today than it was in 1939, or not substantially greater. Paying the owner-occupier market value, he said, was not really giving him substantially more than 1939 value. The hon. Member made a calculation, from which it appeared that the owner-occupier would get £833 as against £800, which, he thought, was about right. The investor, he said, was not going to get very fat out of being paid market value.
  On the other hand, the owner-occupier, even when his land is subject to a notional lease, will get a very substantial benefit over and above the 1939 value, even with the addition of 60 per cent. The benefit is really substantial. Indeed, on the hon. Member's calculation, he can get five-sixths of the full market value, which is not bad. What is the case for not paying the full amount? Why not give the owner-occupier the whole amount, to enable him to buy other premises? There are several reasons. We have to consider,

  1233
  not only the owner-occupier, but the public as well. After all, it is the community that pays. It has always seemed to me to be inequitable that the community should be called upon to pay these highly inflated values for vacant possession. After all, the scarcity of housing is one of the consequences of the war. Apart from the war, there would not have been this tremendous scarcity and these high values for vacant possession. Before the war, we were gradually getting over the scarcity of housing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear,"] We were. What is the comment of hon. Members on that? Would they like to comment on that statement?
  Captain Crookshank: It is perfectly true.
  Mr. Silkin: Then we are in agreement. We were gradually getting over the shortage of housing, and, therefore, the element of scarcity value in respect of vacant possession was very small. The war intervened, and as a result of the destruction of large numbers of houses, the impossibility of building, the increase in the number of separate families, and various other causes, a great shortage of housing has arisen, and consequently the scarcity value is very high. That is a factor for which the community is not responsible. It is something which arises as a result of the war in very much the same way as in the case of a person whose property has been damaged by enemy action. Nobody has suggested that you should pay an owner whose property has been destroyed by enemy action full market value of his property. Only a very short time ago the House accepted without dissent—without even a dissenting voice—the proposition that the value payments should be 45 per cent. above the 1939 value, and that is what a person whose property has been destroyed by enemy action gets. I think there was a general recognition that, as between the individual and the community, this was reasonable justice, and I submit that it is reasonable justice in the case where the community requires for public purposes to purchase a property which could be sold subject to vacant possession to pay something less than the full market value, including the high amounts that are due to scarcity value. This measurement at least is admittedly a compromise. It is something more than the ordinary invest-
  1234
  ment value and something less than the full market value.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to hard cases. Of course, one can always make a great deal of play by producing hard cases, and hon. Members always produce the small business man and the small owner-occupier as the hard cases; but, in fact, if the community paid in every case full market value, including scarcity, they would be paying considerably more than the occasion called for in a great many cases. There are a great many people who are not going to acquire other property. Only a limited number of people will necessarily go into the market and acquire other property. People adjust themselves, people make other arrangements, but they do not go into the market and buy other property. Those people who do not will have been getting more than the needs of the case merit and more than that to which they are strictly entitled. Moreover, there is an obligation contained in the Bill itself to provide people in residential property with other accommodation suitable to their reasonable requirements. People living in dwelling houses which are being acquired for public purposes have an absolute right to be provided with other accommodation, and it would be wrong to pay these people inflated values for their property and, at the same time, provide them with other accommodation suitable for their reasonable requirements.
  11.15 p.m.
  The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the business man. Even in those cases there is an obligation in the Bill to provide such people with other accommodation wherever practicable—[Interruption.]— "So far as is practicable," really does mean something. It means that, except n cases where it is not practicable, you lave to provide alternative accommodation. There will be an obligation, and have always contended in answer to ion. Members opposite, that "so far as practicable" really has a significance, and that it was only in cases where it vas physically impossible, or undesirable from an amenity point of view to provide other accommodation, that it would not be done. In the vast majority of cases it will be practicable to provide alternative accommodation, so that now we have the case of the dwelling-house, where there s an absolute obligation to offer other accommodation and where in the majority

  1235
  of cases it will be practicable to provide it.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Could the right hon. Gentleman say to which Clause he refers? He says there is an obligation to rehouse the occupants of dwelling-houses and businesses so far as is practicable, but I cannot recollect any provision in this Measure, although there was provision in the 1944 Act.
  Mr. Silkin: The 1944 Act has been attracted to this Bill.
  Mr. Molson: My recollection is, that the 1944 Act is not attracted, with regard to that particular provision. The argument on the Committee stage was that it was possible in the case of the redevelopment of the small area, but would not be possible in the case of the large area.
  Mr. Silkin: It is the case that there is an absolute Obligation to provide other accommodation in respect of houses.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: If it would assist the right hon. Gentleman, what he seeks is in Clause 42, which attracts Sections 19 to 30 of the 1944 Act, and it is, of course, Section 30 of the 1944 Act which provides for re-accommodation where practicable, on the lines to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but that applies only to residential property, and does not apply to businesses.
  Mr. Silkin: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I cannot refer to it at the moment, but I will do so. We will be meeting again, and I think I can then satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that that is the case. But the substance of my contention is that a large number of people, at any rate, will be provided with alternative accommodation, and it will be inequitable and unfair to the community that they should have their accommodation provided and also get compensation for their existing accommodation at the present-day inflated values due to vacant possession. Admittedly there is a residuum of cases where other accommodation cannot be provided, and there will be a number of cases where the persons do not desire to have other accommodation provided for them. Even of these, there will be a number who will not desire to acquire other accommodation, and you will have left a limited number of people for whom other accom-
  1236
  modation will not be provided, and who will have to go into the market to acquire other property. But I submit that number will be very small indeed in relation to the total number.
  As regards this, one can say that they are being treated even more favourably than if their property had been destroyed by enemy action. Apart from that, it would be quite wrong to pay a large number of people more than is justified, at the expense of the taxpayer. For those reasons, I feel that the case for the notional lease has been made out, and, while I have every sympathy with the very small number who may be adversely affected, I think it would be wrong to impose an unduly heavy burden on the community where this treatment would not be justified.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: I think that the right hon. Gentleman, in moving this new Clause, has moved what will prove to be a great blemish on the general scheme which he is substituting for the 1939 basis. In the first place, in an Act which, in most of its provisions, is designed to be a permanent contribution to our planning law, he has inserted a temporary Clause which is continuing a practice established by a certain part of the Act of 1944. The Act of that year applied an artificial price on compulsory acquisition for the next five years. In an exactly similar way, this Clause provides an artificial price where the notice to treat is served before 1st January, 1954.
  I have listened carefully to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman have said in defence of this temporary provision, and I do not think that they have given any sufficient defence of it. The Minister has said that it would be wrong that the community should pay an unduly large price. Of course, I agree. The whole of the Committee will agree, but the question is, what is an unduly large price? The excuse and defence of the compensation under the 1944 Act was that there was, at that time, because of enemy action which was continuing, no market price to which to appeal. That was the only justification for the reference to the last date when there was a stable market, which was in 1939.
  The general scheme of the Government is based on the fact that it is once more possible to refer to market values. But

  1237
  then the Government puts in this exception. What they are really doing is not saying that there is no market in houses with vacant possession, but saying that they do not like the prices which that market gives, and they would like a scheme by which they could be lowered. What is the justification for this very artificial method of lowering prices, and what is the justice of lowering them? The right hon. Gentleman said these prices were inflated as a result of the war, and the consequent scarcity. Suppose they are. The same applies to motor-cars. Let us suppose that the Government decided compulsorily to acquire a motor-car. They would not say, "We will give you much less than the market value because the war has inflated the price." If we say that such a sum is the market value, that is the value of which we are depriving the legal owner; therefore, if we can ascertain the fair market value, we give him that. Now in exactly the same way, there is a much more real market for determining in the ordinary way what is the value of a house with vacant possession than there is for ascertaining the value of a house subject to a notional lease.
  The effect of what the right hon. Gentleman is doing is, first of all, quite unnecessarily, to put a blemish on his Bill by introducing what is, admittedly a temporary provision. Secondly, the temporary provision is highly artificial; and thirdly, it admittedly causes hardship in some cases, though the Minister thinks they may not be so many as we suppose. He is, I think, wrong in thinking that we should only be troubled about the hard cases. We ought to be troubled wherever a man has suffered an injustice. I can understand the Communist thesis that you should not give a certain class of the community any compensation at all. That, though I think it entirely wrong, is, at least, a contention which can be put forward clearly, and presumably on Communist principles can be defended. What I find so very difficult to understand is the right hon. Gentleman's contention that we should give compensation, but that compensation should only be five-sixths of what the market says is fair. What is the basis of that? No basis has yet been suggested, either by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the right hon. Gentleman.
  I do not know how this thing will work out, but there are enormous advantages
  1238
  in having your compensation law, and the rest of the Bill, as simple as it can be made, and not as complicated. Market value for the owner-occupier, without exception, is something which everyone can understand, and which would generally be considered fair. To deny market value in the case of vacant possession, when the owner-occupier will, as a result, be deprived of what may be the basis of his living, and in some cases at any rate will be unable to find anything equivalent for the compensation he is given, seems to me to be obviously unfair and obviously inequitable. I cannot imagine what public service the Minister thinks it will serve,
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. Molson: The argument which I am going to put to the Minister is not the argument put with so much force and eloquence by my hon. and learned Friend, but it is, nevertheless, addressed to this particular Amendment. In regard to the 1944 Act, an hon. Friend of mine and I had a good deal to do with extending the scope of the definition of the owner-occupier, and I hope, and believe, that it is the intention of the present Government to continue to apply that general principle in the matter of compensation. I had nothing to do with the drafting of this Amendment. Indeed, I was abroad at the time it was drafted. Therefore, I brought a completely independent mind to the consideration of the Amendment. I quite understand the point of view of the Government in introducing this idea of a notional lease. I think that in cases where property is going to be permanently acquired for the State it would be unreasonable or unjust that two properties identical in value should be acquired at entirely different values, according to whether there happened to be vacant possession or not. Therefore, I accept the general principle of this Clause that in determining the rate of compensation—purchase price is a more accurate way of putting it—where there is compulsory acquisition, in ordinary cases, the existence of vacant possession or otherwise should not be allowed to affect the price at which that property is acquired.
  This Amendment has been drafted in order to meet only the case of the owner-occupier and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Town and Country Planning did not do himself justice when he argued that although there might be a certain number of hard cases and in-

  1239
  justices there would not be a great many of them. If the State or any local authority decides to acquire property from somebody who owns and occupies that property, it seems to me to be only fair and equitable that the State shall pay not only the permanent value of that property, but shall also make some fair compensation for the disturbance that is occasioned by that compulsory acquisition. This Amendment as I say is directed only to cases of the owner-occupier and, therefore, the price that should be paid must take into account the incidence of ownership-occupation. I shall be prepared to accept this quite artificial idea of the notional leasehold if it were to prevent owners obtaining quite different prices for their property according to whether there was vacant possession or not. But this Amendment has been drafted in order to meet that point, the legitimate point, in my view, of the Government that there shall be compensation for the disturbance that is caused. Now, the right hon. Gentleman surely is not justified in saying that we cannot legislate to deal with individual cases. If there is a disturbance to somebody who owns property and who occupies it then, surely, there is nothing unreasonable in saying that the State if it turns him out of property which he owns, which he is occupying and using, shall pay him compensation to enable him to set up in business again in another property?
  I have never seen the right hon. Gentleman so embarrassed in replying to any Amendment before, and I ask him to consider this matter again. I think that the whole of his argument was directed to this point, that it was not right that the price to be paid by the State for acquiring property should depend upon the existence of vacant possession. That is not the gist of this Amendment as I see it. That is not in dispute. The Amendment deals only with the case of the owner-occupier and surely a person who is occupying property and is turned out of his property by the Government is entitled to such additional compensation as will enable him to set himself up in business again. If the right hon. Gentleman says—and, with all respect, I ask who is he to judge the issue—that in the vast majority of cases this proviso is not going to create injustice I reply that
  1240
  that is not the way in which the British. House of Commons should deal with this matter. We have made it perfectly plain that this Amendment deals fairly with the owner of property, and is directed to making fair compensation to those who are occupying property and using it for their own substance.
  Mr. Gammans: The right hon. Gentleman put forward three arguments which I cannot accept and which I sincerely hope the Committee will not accept. First, he said that only a small number of people would be adversely affected. I do not think it will be a small number of people. It is much more likely to be a considerable number, but even supposing it were a small number, are we to do an injustice, merely because not many people are going to be affected by it? Surely that argument could be used both ways. If only a small number of people will be affected, why not prevent any injustice at all, since it is not going to cost so much money? The second argument that I cannot accept is that which puts war damage on the same basis as acquisition by a local authority. If I understood the point aright, the right hon. Gentleman said if a man's property were damaged by bombing, he was only entitled to receive a certain amount of compensation. Surely we are not going to drag this Bill down to the level of bombing by the Luftwaffe. There is a difference between the man whose house has been knocked down by the hazards of war, and one whose house is knocked down by the machinations of local authorities. I think that that argument is unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Bill which he is piloting through the Committee.
  The third argument he used was that a number of people who were going to be dispossessed, might not need another house, but if they did need accommodation, he would do his best to find it for them. It is all very well to say that, but what is to happen? Here we have people who have bought houses for themselves and lived in those houses for a number of years. Along comes the local authority and pushes them out. What do they get in place of their own house? Half of a requisitioned house. t is accommodation in the literal sense of the word, but it is not the equivalent of what has been taken from them. The least that we can do in such circumstances is

  1241
  what has been done for a long period of years, by this House when a Government Department or a local authority takes away somebody's possessions whether it be a house or anything else— to give what is the equivalent of that which was taken away.
  Mr. Digby: At first sight it would appear that there is something to be said for the new Clause because it is clear that in the majority of cases where land is acquired compulsorily, the owner will not, in fact, have had the vacant possession of that land. But it seems to me that in setting up these distinctions we are going to get into difficulties. It was made clear earlier in this discussion that owners of business premises would have no right to obtain other business premises equivalent to those which they had lost and from which they could continue their businesses. The Minister of Town and Country Planning was at pains to emphasise the importance of the fact that this land was to be acquired by the community, and he gave that as a reason for saying that it should pay something less than the full market value. It seemed to me that he should have pointed out that it is not only a question of the community in the sense of Government Departments and local authorities. We are also dealing here with new State trading undertakings which will, in some cases, be in competition with other traders affected by this particular Clause.
  If we take the case of the Transport Bill which we were discussing recently, this provision for compensation will apply under Clause 8 of the Bill. Of course, there are a number of owner-occupiers in the road haulage industry who will be in direct competition with the new State undertaking. If the State undertaking acquires under these powers it will do so without having to pay for vacant possession. The road haulier who has been dispossessed will then have to go into the open market, where he will be obliged to pay what he received in compensation and, in addition, will have to pay for vacant possession. In other words, he will be penalised as against his competitors.
  Hon. Members opposite are often at pains to assert that they want fair competition in these matters. This is only one illustration of the way in which competition would be most unfair. There
  1242
  is no doubt at all that many owner-occupiers in businesses, whether they are in competition with State enterprises or not will be unduly penalised if they have to go out into the open market. One thing is quite certain: after they have received their compensation no property in the open market' will be any use to them unless they also obtain vacant possession. They will have to pay for that element of vacant possession as well and will be placed in a most unfair position.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I feel that this issue is a narrow one, under the Amendment which we are arguing now, but at the same time it is a deep one which raises a great personal and human issue in this question of owner-occupiers and the rate at which they shall be compensated if their property is acquired. With his characteristic felicity of phrase, my right hon. Friend said a little earlier in the consideration of this Amendment that when he was seeking his way through the jungle of our land laws he took as his guide the way in which the individual citizen is affected. Here is a case in which the individual citizen is affected very markedly in his life, and on a large scale. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister has suggested—and I think the argument is unworthy of him—that if injustice is being done, it is being done only on a small scale and therefore does not matter very much, and further that those who are suffering this injustice must remember that we are living in a hard world. That, I thought, was an argument as unsympathetic as it was unfounded.
  In fact, the number of people who may be affected in practice by this Clause is very substantial. The right hon. Gentleman attacked that part of the problem. by suggesting that very few of those who were dispossessed in this way would come into the market to seek alternative, accommodation, but he was not good enough to go on and elaborate that argument by explaining just how otherwise they were to be accommodated. It did, it is true, pray in aid the provisions of a Section of the 1944 Act, the exact number of which he had temporarily forgotten. It is, in fact, Section 30, which says:
  "Where the carrying out of redevelopment of land acquired or appropriated by a local planning or highway authority for the purposes of this Part of the Act will involve the displacement of persons residing in premises thereon it shall be the duty of the authority in so far as there is no other residential

  1243
  accommodation available on reasonable terms to secure the provision of such accommodation in advance of the displacements from time to time becoming necessary as the redevelopment proceeds."
  I do not know whether the words "available on reasonable terms" have yet received any judicial interpretation in the courts. I shall be interested to hear from the Attorney-General whether they have yet secured the advantage of judicial interpretation, whatever the interpretation may be. I do not think it could for one moment be admitted that the words of the Section in any way solve the problem of large-scale dispossessions of owner-occupiers. There will always be a substantial number who are displaced from their residential premises, who will have to go into the open market to seek alternative accommodation, and in addition to the large category of residential owner-occupiers, there are the people in business premises. I have a recollection of moving an Amendment, some 12 months ago, to include in the Acquisition of Land Act, a provision to extend to owners of business the advantages of re-accommodation prescribed for residential owner-occupiers under Section 30 of the 1944 Act. Unfortunately, that is not now law, because the Whips were put on against my Amendment.
  Therefore, we have these two substantial bodies of persons in whom we on this side are interested, the residential owner-occupier who will not be found accommodation under the 1944 Act, and the small businessman whose land is taken away under compulsory acquisition. The right hon. Gentleman has said that they should be content with something less than market value, but he put forward no valid argument why that should be so, other than the fact that there was a shortage of housing accommodation and that in any case it was a hard and difficult world. I agree with the two propositions, that there is a great shortage of housing accommodation which will continue for some time, and that it is a hard world. But these are people who have already enjoyed the benefits of housing accommodation who are being displaced, not because of an act of God or any act of the enemy, but because of compulsory acquisition of land carried out in the name of the community. If that is so, it is wrong that they should be penalised and paid less than the market value. The Committee
  1244
  I think will agree that the Minister, when he addressed himself to the considerations advanced on this Amendment, fell well below his usual standard of reasonableness. I hope we can look forward to a more constructive and helpful reply from the Attorney-General, and that he will show that he appreciates the great human problem raised by this Amendment.
  Mr. McAllister: The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) usually impresses the Committee with his wisdom and moderation. He accused the Minister of falling short, but the hon. Member himself has certainly fallen short of his usual standards of morality. There is a moral question involved here, which seems to have escaped entirely, not only the hon. Member, but the hon. and learned Member for the English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss). The Committee should be grateful to the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), who introduced a note of realism into the Debate by giving certain comparative cases, with actual figures. One case he took was that of a house which, before the war, was worth £800, and was now worth, to the owner-occupier, in the open market, £2,000. Running right through the arguments from the Opposition benches was the suggestion that 2,000 for an £800 house was reasonable, fair, and moral—
  Mr. Walker-Smith: No.
  Mr. McAllister: Indeed hon. Members opposite have been arguing entirely for the market price. In that, they differ entirely from Members on this side of the Committee, because we regard £2,000 for an £800 house as an outrage—
  Mr. Molson: Does the hon. Member mean to say that if the State compulsorily acquired a house from an owner-occupier, it should pay to him a price for it which is not sufficient to enable him to buy another house, in which to reside?
  Mr. McAllister: If the hon. Member will allow me to continue, I will meet that precise point. There is only one justification for that price, and that is that a man paying another man £2,000 for an £800 house, knows that in the present conditions of housing scarcity, the man who receives the £2,000 will have to pay that sum to get equivalent accommodation. That is the only justification for the transaction. While we should like to see some control over price, and some relation to the actual

  1245
  construction value and a price paid in the first place, it is impossible without creating the likelihood of a black market on an enormous scale. We are not proposing merely to deny the right of a man to get £2,000 value. The hon. Member for Hertford said, quite rightly, that this Bill attracts Sections 19 to 30 of the 1944 Act. Clause 30 (1) lays down an absolute obligation and duty on the Minister to provide the person whose house is being acquired with alternative accommodation which is suitable and reasonable to his needs. If hon. Members opposite accept that as the fact, they are left with only one slight argument, that it does not apply to business premises. Section 19 (6) of the 1944 Act lays the obligation, not quite so strong, on the Minister to find alternative accommodation even in respect of business premises.
  Mr. Henry Strauss: Does the hon. Member suggest that Section 30 of the 1944 Act is applicable to every case of compulsory acquisition? It applies to

  Division No. 203.]

  AYES.

  [11 57 p.m.

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

  Nutting, Anthony

  Amory, D. Heathcote

  Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

  Prescott, Stanley

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Gage, C.

  Ramsay, Maj. S.

  Barlow, Sir J.

  Gammons, L. D.

  Rayner, Brig. R.

  Beamish, Maj. T. V H.

  Grimston, R. V

  Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)

  Bower, N.

  Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

  Ropner, Col. L.

  Bracken, Rt Hon. Brendan

  Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.

  Sanderson, Sir F.

  Braithwaite Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

  Herbert, Sir A. P.

  Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Hollis, M. C.

  Spearman, A. C. M.

  Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

  Keeling, E. H.

  Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

  Byers, Frank

  Kendall, W. D.

  Stuart, Rt. Hon. J (Moray)

  Carson, E.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Challen, C.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

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

  Clarke, Col. R. S.

  Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

  Teeling, William

  Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

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

  Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

  Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E

  Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Cuthbert, W. N.

  Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

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

  Davies, Clement (Montgomery)

  Manningham-Buller, R. E

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Digby, S. W.

  Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

  Walker-Smith, D.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

  Ward, Hon. G. R.

  Drewe, C.

  Maude, J. C.

  Wheatley, Colonel M. J.

  Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

  Mellor, Sir J.

  Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

  Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

  Molson, A. H. E.

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Erroll, F. J.

  Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (C'nc'ster)

  Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.

  Fletcher, W. (Bury)

  Neven-Spence, Sir B.

  NOES.

  Adams, Richard (Balham)

  Berry, H.

  Champion, A. J.

  Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

  Beswick, F.

  Clitherow, Dr. R.

  Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

  Bing, G. H. C.

  Cobb, F. A.

  Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

  Blackburn, A. R.

  Cocks, F. S.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Collindridge, F.

  Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

  Blyton, W. R.

  Collins, V. J.

  Attewell, H. C.

  Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

  Colman, Miss C. M

  Awbery, S. S.

  Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

  Comyns, Dr. L.

  Ayles, W. H.

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

  Cook, T. F.

  Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

  Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

  Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

  Bacon, Miss A.

  Bramall, E. A.

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

  Baird, J.

  Brown, T. J. (Ince)

  Corlett, Dr. J.

  Barton, C.

  Burke, W. A.

  Crawley, A.

  Bechervaise, A. E

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

  Crossman, R. H. S

  Belcher, J. W.

  Callaghan, James

  Deggar, G.

  Benson, G

  Chamberlain, R. A.

  Daines, P.

  acquisition, in certain cases, by local authorities or highway authorities, but this Clause applies among other cases to acquisition by Government Departments, to which Section 30 of the 1944 Act has no application at all.
  Mr. McAllister: I would certainly say that the Clause applies to the vast majority of cases under consideration, but Clause 19 (6) applies to business premises. Here the point made by the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) is completely met. We are not saying, "You will get £2,000"; we are saying "You will get reasonable and fair compensation, and at the same time we will, as far as is practicable, provide you with alternative accommodation." For the Government to accept the Amendment would be to put a premium on inflation.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 80; Noes, 192.

  Davies, Edward (Burslem)

  Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.

  Pearson, A.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

  Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

  Peart, Capt. T. F.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

  Piratin, P.

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

  Janner, B.

  Popplewell, E.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Jay, D. P. T.

  Porter, E. (Warrington)

  Deer, G.

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

  Price, M. Philips

  Delargy, H. J

  Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Diamond, J

  Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

  Ranger, J.

  Dobbie, W.

  Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

  Rankin, J.

  Donovan, T.

  Rhodes, H.

  Driberg, T. E. N.

  Keenan, W.

  Robens, A.

  Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

  Kenyon, C.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

  Durbin, E. F. M.

  King, E. M.

  Royle, C.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C

  Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

  Sharp, Granville

  Edelman, M.

  Kinley, J.

  Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. elens)

  Edwards, John (Blackburn)

  Kirby, B. V

  Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

  Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

  Lang, G.

  Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

  Evans, John (Ogmore)

  Lavers, S

  Smith, C. (Colchester)

  Fairhurst, F.

  Lever, N. H.

  Snow, Capt. J. W.

  Farthing, W. J.

  Levy, B. W.

  Solley, L. J.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Field, Capt. W. J

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

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

  Foot, M. M.

  Lyne, A. W.

  Stross, Dr. B.

  Forman, J. C.

  McAllister, G.

  Swingler, S.

  Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

  McGhee, H. G

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Gibbins, J.

  Mack, J. D.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Gibson, C. W

  McKay, J. (Wallsend)

  Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

  Gilzean, A.

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

  Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

  Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

  McLeavy, F.

  Thorneycrott, Harry (Clayton)

  Gordon-Walker, P. C.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Tiffany, S.

  Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W.

  Ungoed-Thomas, L.

  Grierson, E.

  Mann, Mrs. J.

  Walkden, E.

  Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

  Manning, Mrs. L, (Epping)

  Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

  Guest, Dr. L. Haden

  Marshall, F. (Brightside)

  Weitzman, D

  Guy, W. H.

  Medland, H. M.

  West, D. G.

  Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

  Hale, Leslie

  Middleton, Mrs. L.

  Wing, Col. G. E.

  Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

  Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R

  Wilkes, L.

  Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Hardy, E. A.

  Moody, A. S.

  Williamson, T.

  Hastings, Dr. Somerville

  Moyle, A.

  Wills, Mrs. E. A

  Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

  Nally, W.

  Wilson, J. H.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Neal, H. (Claycross)

  Wise, Major F. J.

  Hewitson, Captain M.

  Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

  Woods, G. S.

  Hobson, C. R.

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

  Zilliacus, K.

  Holman, P.

  Noel-Buxton, Lady

  Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

  Oliver, G. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hoy, J.

  Paget, R. T.

  Mr. Michael Stewart and Mr.

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

  Palmer, A. M F

  Simmons.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Parker, J.

  Clause added to the Bill.
  It being after Twelve o'Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

  SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Stafford, a copy of which Order was presented on 8th May, be approved."
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Hailsham, a copy of which Order was presented on 8th May, be approved."
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Lydd, a copy of which Order was presented on 8th May, be approved."
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Cheltenham, a copy of which Order was presented on 8th May, be approved."
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Cambridge, a copy of which Order was presented on 8th May, be approved."
  Resolved:
  "That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the City of Bristol, a copy of which Order was presented on 8th May, be approved."—[Mr. Oliver.]

COTTON INDUSTRY
12.6 a.m.
Mr. Erroll: I beg to move,
"That the Control of the Cotton Industry (No. 78) Order, 1947 (S.R. & 0. 1947. No. 480), dated 17th March, 1947. a copy of which was presented on 24th March, be annulled."
I propose, with permission, to discuss at the same time the two other Motions on the Order Paper relating to the Control of the Cotton Industry (No. 9) Order, and the Control of the Cotton Industry (No. 80) Order. The purpose of the first Order is to enable a producer of yarn, who sells what is termed "controlled yarn destined for export" to receive a price above the "domestic controlled price." On the face of it, such an Order is undoubtedly sound, because it enables the producer to receive a higher price which formerly went to the merchant. This Order, and the related Orders, enable some of the price differential to be passed on to the producer. However desirable this may seem to be on the face of it, there are consequences which are not so desirable, and the reason for putting down this Prayer is to seek assurance on how the Orders will be implemented, and also an assurance that no hardship will be caused.
The Orders make a price differential between home and exported yarn. In the past, it has not mattered to the spinner where the yarn went, because he got the same price. However, now that export allocations are made, those firms producing yarn for the export market will have an advantage over those producing yarns solely for the domestic trade. The matter is not quite so simple as it would appear. Most firms have an export allocation, while the majority of the output is destined for the home trade. With the appearance of these Orders, there will be a desire on the part of spinners to obtain a revision of their allocations for export. There will thus be something of a scramble for export allocations so that the higher prices for yarn for export can be obtained by the spinners.
I should like to hear how the Minister intends to obviate this scramble, for. certain signs have already been given out, showing what is in the Minister's mind in this matter. For example, the Cotton Control recently sent a circular letter to all spinners asking for a return of all yarns exported in the years 1937, 1938 and 1939. The letter which accompanied this request
1250
suggested that yarn exports in the future will be, if I may quote the actual words, "rather free". Naturally, the industry is anxious to know what groups and types of yarn are going to be made rather freer under the terms of these Orders, because a great deal depends on which yarns are to be exported.
An interesting point arises from the request for these returns. They are being sought solely from spinners. Merchants are not being asked what they exported in the basic years. The effect of this is that those spinners who knew where their yarns went in the years 1937, 1938, and 1939, score an advantage over those spinners who sold direct to merchants without knowing the exact destination of their yarns. They are mostly the smaller spinners, whose book-keeping was simple, and who relied upon merchants to secure the ultimate sale of their yarns. I, again, ask for assurances and explanations from the Minister on this matter of the allocations to spinners. For it seems to me that —probably without any intention that it should be so—an unfair allocation may be adopted on the basis of the returns of those spinners who knew what they were exporting in 1937, 1938, and 1939. At least, the merchants ought to be consulted as well, though I am not in any way, in this matter, pleading the case of the merchants, but rather for fairness to the spinners in the implementation of these Orders.
Incidentally, the performances of 1937, 1938, and 1939 relate to a period which is now very long ago, and favour the large combines with complicated records, rather than the small man. These Orders have lain on the Table for a number of days. In fact, I think that today is the last day upon which they could be prayed against. The appearance of the Orders has naturally led to some enthusiasm on the part of the spinners, the idea being that they would be able to increase their export of yarns, of several types of which there is already a known surplus. They have formed the idea that yarn exports are going to be encouraged, and it would be interesting to learn from the Minister to what extent it is his intention to encourage the export of yarns, as indicated by these Orders. There is undoubtedly, at the present time, a certain surplus of fine yarns in this country, and as the industry has tended to go to finer counts, it would seem logical, of course, that only

1251
the finer yarns should be exported. There is, of course, in any case a tendency in the industry to spin the finer counts. The work is lighter and the conditions are better. It might be that we would not want to stimulate a movement which is already operating within the industry perhaps rather faster than it ought to be operating. It would be interesting to know whether it is intended, under the Orders, to restrict the export of fine yarns, and not to cover the whole range of yarns which is at present being spun.
The operation of the Orders is already proving somewhat peculiar. I have before me the case of a spinner who had a surplus of fine yarn and who, encouraged by these Orders, was able to find a buyer for the yarn in Switzerland. He applied to the Cotton Control for the necessary licence to export, and his application was turned down. No reason for this was given, and it was obvious that he would not have gone to the trouble and expense of finding a buyer in Switzerland if he had been able to find a buyer in England. Here we have a group of Orders designed to encourage the export trade in surplus yarns, but the administrative machinery is operating in exactly the opposite direction. It does not seem logical to issue Orders if it is not intended also, by the Cotton Control, to issue the necessary export licences. The point is that the machinery is not functioning in accordance with the intentions of the Minister, unless his intentions are different from what, on the face of it, they would seem to be.
There is also the question of what is the price differential established by these Orders, between yarn for home use and yarn for export. They established that price differential without stating exactly, what the differential is. The Order says that the yarn may be sold at a price
"exceeding the price for that yarn determined in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraphs."
Does that mean that the whole of the price differential is to be passed on to the producer? It does not say that the full price may be passed on, but only "a price." As certain licences have to be obtained from the Cotton Board, it would be reassuring to know whether the Cotton Board intend to limit the extent of the price differential, or whether the spinner is to get the whole of it.
1252
There is the final point that many of these yarn surpluses arise through unbalance in the cotton industry. Warp yarns were recently held up by the fuel shortage, while weft yarns were produced in relatively greater abundance. It seems unfortunate that a state of unbalance should be permitted. It would be far better to take the necessary steps to redress the balance and so avoid having these yarn surpluses. In addition to that unbalance, there is also the bottleneck of doubling. If doubling capacity could be increased some of the fine yarns at present surplus could be used in this country, but it seems to be Government policy to export them. It is questionable, in those circumstances, whether these Orders are wise. We shall see when the Minister replies whether there is a satisfactory explanation for them.
12.18 a.m.
Sir John Barlow: I beg to second the Motion.
There are a few questions which I should like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) has pointed out that the spinners only are being asked for returns of exports for the years 1937–8–9. Those are very old figures now, and it is not very advantageous that the present export licences should be based upon orders of nearly ten years ago. Merchants have not been asked for any returns whatsoever. Large spinners had their own merchanting sections abroad can handle this new business, but the small businessmen who ordinarily sold to merchants, not knowing whether the yarn was to be used at home or abroad, and never knowing, if it was going abroad, to what country it was going—they have not the slightest idea whether they qualify for export at all. It would be most unfair that these small spinners should be penalised.
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted and, 40 Members being present—
Mr. Stanley Prescott: On a point of Order. Is it permissible to draw attention to the fact that the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) had only entered the House immediately before calling a Count?
Mr. Speaker: That is perfectly in Order.
12.30 a.m.
Sir J. Barlow: I was pointing out that under these new regulations the merchants had not been called upon to furnish the figures of exports during the three foundation years. Very often merchants were doing far more valuable export business than the spinners were at the time, and merchants had the knowledge and experience which were necessary to carry on the export of yarn for the small spinners. If the small spinners are allowed an allocation at all it will be something, although they will be sorely put to it to know what the merchants themselves will send abroad. I, therefore, suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should carefully consider the advantage of asking the merchants for a return of their exports in the three basic years. By adding those to the returns of the spinners we shall get a real picture of the export business during that period and it will give a basis for the allocations which the Board of Trade are to make in the near future.
There are two other points about which I should like to question the hon. Gentleman. Obviously, it is of the utmost importance to get as much export as we possibly can, provided we cannot use the yarn in this country. Much of this yarn used to go forward in a highly manufactured way. It might be bleached or wound a particular way for a particular market, and very often only the merchants knew what was the complete content of the exports. That is another reason for encouraging the merchants to go into this. In other words, it is of vital importance to have exports of all kinds as well as to get as high a content as possible in the value of the export. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will pay attention to that when making arrangements for these exports. When this Order comes into operation it seems obvious that there will be a great urge to produce a. superfluity of finer yarns, so that the spinners can get the higher prices for export. That may have an unfortunate consequence in the industry and may upset the balance, more than it is upset at present. Would the Parliamentary Secretary consider the advisability of having a pool for the excess of the export profits of the finer counts which would be divided over the spinning industry as a whole? That would tend to keep the balance of yarns much more satisfactory and stationary than would be
1254
achieved by letting the surplus high quality yarns go for export as suggested at present.
Mr. Rhodes: That is not so under the Order. It applies to all ranges of yarns and not merely to the finer qualities.
Sir J. Barlow: The Order seeks to export all the finer yarns because there is a surplus of some of those yarns at present.
Mr. Leslie Hale: The hon. Member who moved this Prayer called attention to one factor which really does exist. He said there is a superfluity of finer yarns. How is the hon. Gentleman going to upset the balance of the cotton industry in order to get rid of a superfluity, even if that were the intention of the Order, which it certainly is not?
Sir J. Barlow: The intention is to take off the market the surplus of the finer counts. If the producer of the finer counts can obtain a higher price then obviously, other spinners and workers would probably try to drift into the production of finer counts, in order to qualify for export, and there would be increased export of finer counts which we do not want. We want to use all the yarns we can for production in this country as far as possible. Where there is at present a substantial amount of finer counts which cannot be used here obviously they should be exported in the best way possible in order to prevent an undue increase in the production of finer counts. I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should consider the formation of a pool so that all the spinners can benefit by this. I believe that that would not embarrass the production of yarn more than is the case at present.
12.28 a.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): I am certain that hon. Members on the other side of the House who are praying against these Orders misconceive the situation as it exists and the intentions of the Government. The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) has asked that our inquiries be directed not only to the spinners but to the merchants. I think that the House would agree that what we have done, in the letter referred to by the hon. Gentleman who moved the Prayer, was right. We have asked for

1255
returns of exports in the three year period 1937–1938–1939. If we had taken a later period that would have been unfair to those firms who were concentrated during the war years. The Cotton Control consulted spinners because they are not in direct contact with export merchants. In fact the Cotton Control does not know who the export merchants are. All the Cotton Control has tried to do has been to achieve a fair allocation as between spinners, and may I say here that we have had representations from spinners which led to the decision to make these Orders?
I am under the impression that what is wanted is not so much the annulment of these Orders as an explanation of the facts which led to their being made, and I should like to give that explanation in some detail. We desire to put right an anomaly which has existed since 1940. The three Orders relate to single yarn, double yarn and waste yarn, and exactly the same considerations apply to all three. The spinners work to fixed margins. They are bound under Statutory Orders to sell at a prescribed price, except in the case of direct exports, where the prescribed price has been a minimum and not a maximum. In other words, before the making of these Orders, spinners who sold their yarn direct to a foreign customer could charge more than the prescribed price, whereas the spinner who sold to a merchant who then resold to the foreign customer could not. During the war there was not much difficulty about this, but in the present sellers' market this state of affairs has been objected to both by spinners and export merchants. The spinners object very naturally on the ground that the whole of the profits on export sales have gone to the merchants who have done nothing more than procure the orders from the foreign buyers. In present conditions that means nothing at all, because the foreign buyer is only too anxious to place his order.
Strangely enough, the merchants have also objected. They say that the spinners have sought to by-pass them and establish direct contact with the buyers overseas instead of placing their contracts through what, in normal times, would be regarded as the normal channel, namely, the merchants. We sought to put this right by permitting the spinners to sell yarn for exports to merchants at more than the
1256
prescribed price. We think that we are meeting the objections of both the spinners and the merchants by enabling the spinners and the merchants to share in the profits on the exports in proportions they agree to among themselves. The spinners cannot be paid the excess over the prescribed price until it has been established that the yarn has been exported. Moreover, the relaxation only applies to yarn in the form in which it leaves the spinner. It does not extend to yarn which is to undergo further processing in this country before it is exported. It may be the desire of hon. Members opposite— although I do not think it is, having listened to what they have said tonight— to criticise our policy in allowing exports of any yarn at all. I can assure them that I would certainly not be a party to exporting yarn from this country if it could be used in this country to advantage. I quite agree with those who say that the right way to export textiles of any kind is in a finished form, wherever possible. I certainly would not be a party to exporting yarn, if that yarn could be usefully converted here.
Mr. Stanley Prescott: Is it not a fact that we are importing a considerable amount of yarn from overseas at the moment?
Mr. Belcher: It may be the case. It may be that at any one time we have a surplus in this country of a particular type of yarn and a shortage of another kind of yarn which can be imported. If the hon. Member will listen to my remarks, he will see how we have worked this out. We have always had a certain amount of trade in unbleached yarns, mostly to the Dominions, and particularly to Canada. In 1946, the value of exports of unbleached yarn was about 3 million, out of a total for all cotton textile exports of £60 million. There would be difficulties if we were to say to the Dominions, particularly to Canada, which has been of such great assistance to us in so many ways during the last seven or eight years, that they can no longer receive from us the yarn on which they have based a certain amount of their own industry. That would not be an expression of gratitude to that Dominion for all they have done for us during the difficult years from which we are just emerging. I would be prepared to make some sacrifices in order to maintain that goodwill.

1257
In 1946, we exported to our overseas customers, mainly the Dominions, and principally Canada, yarn to the value of 19 million lb., as compared with 123 million lb. in 1938. They are taking today the very minimum of their normal requirements. They have always depended on us to supply them with their yarn requirements. Although our own yarn using industries are most anxious to obtain increased supplies of yarn there is not— and, in the nature of things, there could not be—such perfect adjustment between spinners and yarn users that yarn surpluses would never arise. It may be that at one time you will have a surplus of one kind of yarn and the shortage of another. But you cannot divert a surplus to a particular section of the industry which was using yarn in short supply with any good effect at all. In those circumstances, it would be wrong to forbid the export of surplus yarn.
These Orders do not affect the total quantity of yarn exported. We can control that by export licensing. Relaxation cannot increase the total quantity of yarn exported. It merely enables the spinners —most worthy people, whom we are anxious to encourage—to share in the profits of the quantity which, anyhow, would be exported. I believe it is felt by hon. Members opposite that there should also be relaxation, to a large extent, in respect of bleached yarn, cloth, and, possibly, made up goods. In principle, we are sympathetic, but the difficulty which faces us in all cases of price control is to find any way of relaxing the present system without jeopardising essential home productions. It is fairly easy to follow any unbleached yarn, and to see that it is exported, or, if it is not exported, that the spinner does not get an excess price. But it would be quite impossible to follow yarn which was to be subjected to further processing. We are, at present, confronted with a very serious shortage of textiles of all kinds, and there would be a tremendous incentive on the part of the buyers of yarn, or cloth, to allege that they wanted the material for export, in order that they might get priority in delivery, and, in fact, would use the product on the home market. As every hon. Member knows, the market for these commodities, for cloth and made-up goods, is so pressing that the prices which would be offered would act as a very considerable incentive, but apart from
1258
that, apart from the possibility of abuse, there is a more fundamental objection.
Prior to the recent fuel difficulties, manufacturers had an order book with dates of delivery between five and eight months. Due to these fuel difficulties, their order books are probably longer. Five to eight months have probably become anything up to twelve months. If the export orders were made more attractive by a higher price attaching to them, manufacturers would scramble for them, would deliver them first, and would, of course, be most reluctant to accept orders for other purposes, and as the export orders in total amount to something like one-sixth of the total production, that would mean a very serious hold-up on other production. If I might take an extreme case, production for the utility production might be held up for a month or six weeks while priority was given to export orders, and the resulting shortage of textiles in the shops might very well wreck our whole coupon rationing scheme, which has confronted us with very considerable difficulties as a result of the hold-up in production during the last two or three months. There are other cotton products where continuity of production is essential, and a serious interruption in the flow of supplies to those manufacturers would have very serious effects on this country. I might cite belting for the coal mines, and supplies for hospitals; paper-makers require cotton felts. All of these industries would be affected. At the present moment yarn production is nicely balanced as between the competing demands under a detailed allocation scheme, and it is essential that we should maintain this balance if we are to avoid industrial dislocation.
The hon. Member for Eddisbury asked me whether I would consider a point he put to me. If the cotton industry can suggest a scheme whereby price relaxation can be carried further than these orders carry it without endangering essential home production, I should be only too pleased to consider it, but meanwhile I do not feel justified in releasing exports from price control or in creating an incentive to give priority to them so long as the present general shortage of textiles persists.
I am sorry to have been so long, but I wanted to give a detailed explanation to the House. May I, in conclusion, quote from the "Manchester Guardian" in its

1259
issue of 22nd March, 1947? I do so because the "Manchester Guardian" speaks with very great authority on these matters. It has a specialised staff which has made a study of these things for quite a long time. It said about these Orders:
"Hitherto producers who sold and shipped controlled yarns direct to customers abroad could charge higher prices than those prescribed in Control Orders. Producers, however, who sold yarn to customers in this country who then exported it could only charge the controlled prices. This was a serious disadvantage to the spinner who could not himself undertake the sale or shipping of yarn abroad. Under the new system, however, prices above those laid down in the Control Orders may be charged by spinners who sell yarns to customers in this country for export without further processing or winding. As prices at which Lancashire yarns are sold to overseas importers and consumers are now usually considerably higher than those fixed for sales in the United Kingdom, the new arrangement gives the spinner the opportunity of benefiting from the difference in prices which has hitherto benefited the exporter."
I am quite certain it would be the desire of every hon. Member of this House that if advantage is to be gained it should be gained by the man who does the work, and not by the man who does nothing but get the order in circumstances where it is easy to get an order.
12.45 a.m.
Mr. William Shepherd: We have listened to a lengthy explanation, but the Parliamentary Secretary has not cleared up all the points about which hon. Members on this side of the House are concerned. In the first place, he has not made clear the position of the merchant under the new dispensation. Why are these inquiries only to be made to spinners? What is to happen to the merchants' trade? It is true that the merchant has no entitlement to this exceptional profit, but surely it is reasonable that his trade should not be taken entirely out of his hands. We should like to know exactly what the Parliamentary Secretary intends to do about the merchants. Then the Parliamentary Secretary refers to exports of yarn, and says that we can control this by allocation or quotas, but what is to be the allocation of yarn for this period or the next period? The trade at present is in something of a quandary, over exports. It does not know where it is going, or what the intentions of the Board of Trade are, and I am afraid the Parliamentary Secretary has not made the position very clear.
Mr. Belcher: The hon. Member asked what we are doing about the merchants. I do not know whether he has seen the letter—obviously the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Errol) has—but in this letter the figures asked for were for either the yarn exported direct or yarn sold by them to merchants or agents. In other words we have sought information about the merchants, and we are endeavouring to see that justice is done to all.
Mr. Shepherd: Surely that is not very satisfactory, because it is possible and indeed likely that the spinners will not be able to give the names of the merchants. It was so long ago.
Mr. Rhodes: There is no question about it. Of course they can.
Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) is more confident about the merchants getting a square deal than I am. I feel the merchant is likely to be robbed of his just dues under this Order. What I am anxious to establish is what is to be the position so far as the export of yam is concerned. I should have thought that in the present difficulties nothing should be done to increase the export of yarn. We are faced with an immense shortage in most yarns, and it is important that nothing should be done which increases the allocation of yarn for the overseas trade. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the House whether there is a surplus of yarn in any cotton.
Mr. Hale: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it relevant on an Order which merely shifts the commission from the merchant to the spinner to discuss the whole of our cotton exports, to discuss the whole of our allocation, and to discuss surpluses and their disposal?
Mr. Speaker: Normally one could not go outside the Order, but I gather the hon. Member was referring to what the-Parliamentary Secretary said.
Mr. Shepherd: I was endeavouring to clear up some of the points raised by the Parliamentary Secretary, and I hope I was not going outside the ambit of his reply. I am concerned to know whether or not there was an exportable surplus of yarn. I have a copy of a letter written by the late Parliamentary Secretary which indicated that owing to the fuel crisis.

1261
there was not a surplus. Therefore it is most important that the trade should know exactly where it stands. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us exactly what is the yarn export position at the present time.
Mr. Erroll: I think we have had a good explanation from the Minister, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Hon. Members: No.
Question put, and negatived.

COTTON INDUSTRY

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Simmons.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Nine Minutes to One o'Clock.

  TROOPS, BOMBAY (DRINK RESTRICTIONS)
  TROOPS, BOMBAY (DRINK RESTRICTIONS)
  BURMA TEAK EXPORTS
  BURMA TEAK EXPORTS
  ITALIAN LINER "REX"
  ITALIAN LINER "REX"
GERMANY
  Non-monetary Gold
  Non-monetary Gold
  Refugees (Resettlement Fund)
  Refugees (Resettlement Fund)
  Braille Correspondence
  Braille Correspondence
  Purchasing Power
  Purchasing Power
  SPAIN (PRISONER'S TREATMENT)
  SPAIN (PRISONER'S TREATMENT)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Oysters (Imports)
  Oysters (Imports)
  Allocations, South Wales
  Allocations, South Wales
  Rice Prices (Malaya)
  Rice Prices (Malaya)
  Ice-cream Ingredients (Allocations)
  Ice-cream Ingredients (Allocations)
  Flour Consumption
  Flour Consumption
  Canned Fish and Chewing Gum (Dollar Purchases)
  Canned Fish and Chewing Gum (Dollar Purchases)
  United States Asparagus
  United States Asparagus
  Visitors' Ration Books
  Visitors' Ration Books
  Consumption Statistics
  Consumption Statistics
  Farm Canteens
  Farm Canteens
  GREYHOUND RACING RESTRICTIONS
  GREYHOUND RACING RESTRICTIONS
AGRICULTURE
  Fowl Pest
  Fowl Pest
  Livestock Slaughtering (Workers)
  Livestock Slaughtering (Workers)
  SOAP (SCHOOLS)
  SOAP (SCHOOLS)
  RAILWAY COAL WAGONS
  RAILWAY COAL WAGONS
SHIPPING
  Unused Cargo Space (Strikes)
  Unused Cargo Space (Strikes)
  Merchant Seamen's Mail
  Merchant Seamen's Mail
  London Pilots (By-laws)
  London Pilots (By-laws)
  Dominion Passages (Doctors)
  Dominion Passages (Doctors)
  BY-PASS ROADS, WHARFEDALE
  BY-PASS ROADS, WHARFEDALE
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Surplus Military Aircraft (Foreign Sales)
  Surplus Military Aircraft (Foreign Sales)
  Atomic Bomb (British Contribution)
  Atomic Bomb (British Contribution)
  Hostel, Featherstone
  Hostel, Featherstone
  Electrical Power Plant (Exports)
  Electrical Power Plant (Exports)
  Atomic Research
  Atomic Research
  Timber (Motor Vehicle Bodies)
  Timber (Motor Vehicle Bodies)
  Canadian Aluminium (Imports)
  Canadian Aluminium (Imports)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Exhibitions (Timber Allocations)
  Exhibitions (Timber Allocations)
  Building Industry (Payment by Results)
  Building Industry (Payment by Results)
  White Horse Hill Project
  White Horse Hill Project
  Building Material Depots
  Building Material Depots
  Wrest Park, Silsoe (Conversion)
  Wrest Park, Silsoe (Conversion)
  Requisitioned Shop, Northampton
  Requisitioned Shop, Northampton
  Window Boxes, Government Offices
  Window Boxes, Government Offices
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Glycerine Exports
  Glycerine Exports
  Mending Wool
  Mending Wool
  British Interests (Japan)
  British Interests (Japan)
  Anglo-Soviet Trade Talks
  Anglo-Soviet Trade Talks
  Newsprint Supplies
  Newsprint Supplies
  PARCELS (DISPLACED PERSONS, GERMANY)
  PARCELS (DISPLACED PERSONS, GERMANY)
  WEST AFRICAN COCOA PRICES
  WEST AFRICAN COCOA PRICES
  MUFTI OF JERUSALEM
  MUFTI OF JERUSALEM
  EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT, SCOTLAND
  EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT, SCOTLAND
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax (Age Allowance)
  Income Tax (Age Allowance)
  Dutiable Kerosene (Agriculture)
  Dutiable Kerosene (Agriculture)
BRITISH ARMY
  N.A.A.F.I., Germany (Food Purchases)
  N.A.A.F.I., Germany (Food Purchases)
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  Territorial Army (Disabled ex-Servicemen)
  Territorial Army (Disabled ex-Servicemen)
  COAL SUPPLIES, KENT
  COAL SUPPLIES, KENT
  ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION (BANKSIDE SITE)
  ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION (BANKSIDE SITE)
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (FIBROSITIS)
  DISABILITY PENSIONS (FIBROSITIS)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  HOVE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  2.35 p.m.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I have a short statement to make regarding some rearrangement of the business now down on the Order Paper for this afternoon and to-morrow (Tuesday). On the one hand, there are a considerable number of Amendments to the National Health Service (Scotland) Bill, the Committee stage of which is being taken this afternoon. That would mean that we should not reach until late in the sitting the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Bruce of Melbourne, on the Report of the Preparatory Commission on World Food Proposals. On the other hand, consultations concerning the Radioactive Substances Bill, which is down for Second Reading to-morrow afternoon, are still going on. His Majesty's Government desire to be in a position to proceed with this Bill as an agreed measure, and we are anxious for a little more time. We propose, therefore, pending further consideration, to postpone the Second Reading which was down for to-morrow. With these circumstances in view, I have suggested to the noble Viscount that both your Lordships' convenience and his own would be met if he were agreeable to postpone the debate on his Motion until to-morrow afternoon. The noble Viscount has consented to this course, and I hope that none of your Lordships will have been put to any inconvenience by the re-arrangement, which seems to be eminently desirable.
  LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, I entirely agree, on behalf of those who sit on these Benches.

  ADDRESS OF WELCOME TO THE ROYAL FAMILY.
  2.38 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON VISCOUNT ADDISON rose to move to resolve, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty assuring His Majesty on the occasion of his return from the Union of South Africa, of the loyal and affectionate welcome of this House to His Majesty, to Her Majesty the Queen, and their Royal Highnesses the Princess Elizabeth and the Princess Margaret. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will join heartily in support of the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It rejoices all of us, I am sure, that Their Majesties were able to return to this capital city with the sun shining. It was very different from the morning, one of the grimmest of our grim winter, when they set off on their long journey.
  It has been a notable journey. It is the first tune in history that a reigning British Monarch has visited the Union of South Africa. And how notable that is those of us who are old enough to remember the incidents of forty and fifty years ago will appreciate, when we realize that His Majesty has visited the Union as King of South Africa, and in that capacity has been recognized gladly by all. Their Majesties and the Princesses have had a long journey, and have visited all parts of the Union, the Rhodesias, and the Protectorates, Basutoland, Bechuanaland, and Swaziland; and it was perhaps especially remarkable, as those who remember history before the beginning of the century will agree, that His Majesty was received with immense acclaim by great gatherings of Zulus in Zululand—another of those strange and dramatic events in the history of the Commonwealth which I should think are unequalled in the history of any other State.
  Their Majesties, as we know, have endured the fatigue of their journey and have performed their duties with energy, as we should have expected, and in a manner that must have won the admiration of all. Holding the office that I do, it is my business to receive the comments of experienced observers, and I can say, with absolute faithfulness, that the records

  565
  are unanimous that in all parts of South Africa, from all races, the reception of Their Majesties has been conspicuously friendly and marked with immense good will. This journey, I am quite sure, will be found to have contributed greatly to strengthening those invisible bonds which bind our Commonwealth together. We are glad to congratulate Their Majesties on their safe return; we welcome them back, particularly, as it happens that today is the tenth anniversary of Their Majesties' Coronation. I beg to move.
  Moved to resolve, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty assuring His Majesty on the occasion of his return from the Union of South Africa, of the loyal and affectionate welcome of this House to His Majesty, to Her Majesty the Queen, and to their Royal Highnesses the Princess Elizabeth and the Princess Margaret.—(Viscount Addison.)
  LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lords who sit on these benches, I should like to associate myself with the sentiments which have been expressed by the noble Viscount who leads this House. It is a matter of regret that both the Marquess of Salisbury and Viscount Swinton are prevented, by circumstances that are quite beyond their control, from occupying the position that has fallen to me to-day. On their behalf, I beg to express their regrets to your Lordships. To-day is, indeed, a happy day for Britain. To have our beloved Royal Family again in the centre of their Dominions, and in our midst, is a matter of pride as well as of gratification to us and to the people of this country, who, so far as they have been able, have demonstrated, both to-day and yesterday, their great joy at Their Majesties' return. We beg to join in expressing to Their Majesties not only our loyal affection, but the sense of pride which we have shared with the people of the Union of South Africa, the Commissioned Territories and the Rhodesias, as we have followed, day by day, Their Majesties' triumphant though laborious tour.
  They have never spared themselves—that, indeed, is their custom and their tradition. They are the visible bond and the symbol that bind together the people of this Empire, and these last few months of personal contact with so many people—people of such diverse origins and, indeed, colour—to all of whom His
  566
  Majesty is King, have further strengthened the fellowship on which our Empire rests. We, in this country, think always of the Royal Family as a family. Their Majesties have done much, both by precept and example, to show us how greatly they value family ties, and we have watched with delight the way in which Their Royal Highnesses, the two Princesses, by their charm and simplicity, have helped to make this the most successful of Royal tours. In humble duty, we beg to offer our welcome, as well as our congratulations, to their Majesties on their return to these shores.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches wish to participate wholeheartedly in the Resolution moved by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House. Parliament again has occasion to thank Their Majesties for another great service rendered to the Commonwealth. We rejoice at the unqualified success of this journey which was completed two hours ago by their return to their home. We have followed, with close interest and the greatest pleasure, the reports that have reached us of the enthusiastic welcome which was given to Their Majesties by the varied peoples of South Africa and the Rhodesias, spontaneous and heartfelt as that welcome was, as the Secretary of State for the Dominions has reported to us to-day. The people were happy to welcome the King and Queen and the two Princesses, for they soon saw that the Royal Family were happy to visit them. We all know of individuals who seem to make a duty of their pleasures, but there are some who make a pleasure of their duties, and duty so done is twice as efficacious.
  As the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, has said, those of us who are old enough to have taken part in the controversies over South Africa fifty' years and forty years ago, are happy to have lived to see the success of this journey of good will and reconciliation, and to have seen one of the leading protagonists of those days, Field-Marshal Smuts, in health, vigour and authority, presiding over it. This journey fittingly rounds off the decade since Their Majesties' Coronation, of which to-day is the anniversary. Looking back, we realize that the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth have indeed been fortunate in our Sovereigns. Not only has

  567
  His Majesty observed absolute constitutional propriety in all political matters—we are so long accustomed to that that we take it for granted—but he has also finely represented the spirit of the nation, by his imperturbable courage and endurance during the seven years' ordeal through which we have all passed. Not least important among the public services of the King and Queen has been the example of their private lives. So loyalty is combined with personal respect, and respect is combined with affection. Behind them stands the Throne, stately and august, around it the aura of a thousand years of history. But Their Majesties, as their people see them, are persons rather than personages; not aloof, separate, indifferent, but—as we saw in South Africa—human, accessible, sympathetic, and belonging to those of whom one of our present-day poets has written:
  "Who watch the world with pity and pride, And warm to all mankind."
  2.5o p.m.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, on behalf of the spiritual Peers I wish briefly to associate myself with and to endorse, all that has been so admirably said in the speeches to which you have already listened. The deepest joys in human life come from the sight of or the sharing in the perfect doing of some matter; and the greater the matter the deeper the joy. Their Majesties' visit to South Africa, from beginning to end, has been as near perfection as can be given to any human undertaking. All who have been their hosts in every part of South Africa, without distinction of nationality or race, have conspired to make it perfect; but they have found their will and power to make it so transformed and transported beyond their own foreseeing by that which their Majesties showed themselves to be, so that what might have been a great ceremonial visit became a personal conquest and a creative act of concrete loyalty and good will.
  It is the genius of Their Majesties to make their Royalty a perfect expression of that which Royalty truly symbolizes by the simplicity with which they enhance the dignity of their office, by the sincerity and kindness of their interest in every kind of person and in everything which concerns them, by the grace of their personal touch, by their ready
  568
  sympathy, and by their genuine enjoyment of other people's happiness as part of their own. It was to these personal qualities that South Africa and all its peoples gave their enthusiastic response of admiration and affection; and not only to their Majesties but, as has been truly said, to the Princesses who played their notable part in the success of this occasion. Indeed, in a special way, it was a response to the Royal Family as such, abiding in their midst parents and daughters. It is an added perfection to this memorable mission that South Africa saw, and rejoiced in seeing, a family which so perfectly expresses the graces and the sanctities of family life, and therein touches the truest, the most enduring, and the most universal of all human emotions.
  Neither South Africa nor we shall ever forget the bond of unity created between us by the fact that it was on South African soil that the Princess Elizabeth came of age, and that from the South African soil she made to the whole Commonwealth, in profoundly moving terms, her vow of dedication to its service. So, with proud and full and grateful hearts, we welcome Their Majesties and their Royal Highnesses home, happy, as South Africa is happy, and as I am sure Their Majesties' must most deservedly be happy, to know that a great undertaking has been accomplished to perfection.
  2.53 p.m.
  LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, with our humble duty to His Majesty the King, the vast body of Free Churchmen, not alone in this country but throughout the entire Empire and Commonwealth, would desire to be associated with the tribute of loyalty and affection that has been so eloquently expressed in your Lordships' House this afternoon. We gratefully acknowledge the invaluable influence of the Crown in Commonwealth relations, but, most of all, we pay our tribute to Their Majesties for their influence and example in the sphere of home life and for the emphasis they continue to place upon the sacredness of the family circle. We have followed their eventful journey with our prayers; and now we unite in thanking God for their safe return, and wish for them and Their Royal Highnesses, the two Princesses, God's peace and joy in ever-increasing measure.

  569
  On Question, Motion agreed to, nemine dissentiente: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
  COUNTY BOROUGH OF NEWPORT ORDER;
  BOROUGH OF CLEETHORPES ORDER;
  URBAN DISTRICT OF BLETCHLEY ORDER;
  BOROUGH OF BEDFORD ORDER;
  BOROUGH OF SWINDON ORDER;
  BOROUGH OF TAUNTON ORDER.
  LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Walkden, I beg to move that these Orders be approved.
  Moved, That the Orders made under the Act by the Secretary of State for the Home Department for extending Section one of the Act to the said areas be approved.—(Lord Henderson.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  2.55 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3:
  Provision of hospital and specialist services.
  3.—(1) As from the appointed day, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to provide throughout Scotland, to such extent as he considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements, accommodation and services of the following descriptions, that is to say:—

  (a) hospital accommodation;

  (b) medical, nursing and other services required at or for the purposes of hospitals;

  and any accommodation and services provided under this Section are in this Act referred to as "hospital and specialist services."
  (2) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, in providing hospital and specialist services, to make available such facilities for
  570
  undergraduate and post graduate clinical teaching and research as he considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements.
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSE THE DUKE OF MONTROSE moved, after subsection (1) (b) to insert:
  "(c) Clinics for otological and aural aid services."
  The noble Duke said: The reason I moved this Amendment is that a large number of people suffering from deafness are anxious to be included in the benefits provided by the Bill. Therefore, in order to meet their desires, I propose to insert the words: "Clinics for otological and aural aid services," causing the present paragraph (c) to become paragraph (d). In support of this Amendment I may say that I sounded all the people in the Scottish Association for the Deaf, an organization co-ordinating all the Deaf Societies, all the Deaf Missions, all the Deaf Workshops, and all the organized agencies for the deaf; and they gave me their unanimous support. Likewise, I approached the National Institute for the Deaf, which represents all the different organizations, missions, and societies in Great Britain, so that in moving this Amendment I am speaking for all the deaf of the British Isles, and they are unanimous in their request to be included in this Bill.
  I know that the Secretary of State for Scotland had two fears about it, The first was that he did rot wish to "clutter up" the Bill. I do not think anybody can say that my seven words will "clutter up" the Bill. The second objection he had was that he did not like including in the Scottish Bill something which had not been approved in the English Bill. The only reason it was not included in the English Bill was that my noble friend Viscount Cecil moved his Amendment in the wrong place. He moved the Amendment in Part IV and it should have been moved in Part II. Therefore I am asking for this Amendment to be accepted in Part II. As for the reluctance to include in the Scottish Bill something that has not been approved in the English Bill, I do not see any strength in that argument. After all, what is the object of having a separate Scottish Bill? It must surely be that the circumstances of Scotland are different and, because of that fact, Scotland has to be treated in a different way. Therefore I do not see any argument against this Amendment on that ground. I am not arguing against the

  571
  principle of the National Health Service (Scotland) Bill. All I am asking for is the insertion of these seven words—"Clinics for otological and aural aid services" as paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of Clause 3.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 5, at end, insert the said paragraph.—(The Duke of Montrose.)
  3.3 P.m.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I wish heartily to support this Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, may remember that on Second Reading he said it was quite fortuitous that the English Bill came before the Scottish Bill. At that time I said that I thought that occasionally we might have a Scottish Bill introduced first, so that there could be argument on the Scottish Bill before the position was settled by an overwhelming number of English members who would say: "You cannot have this because it is not in the English Bill." That seems to me a very weak argument. I do not know how strongly the deaf in England put forward their case for inclusion in the English Bill, but, to my mind, there can be no reason for omitting the deaf from a Health Bill. When my noble friend the Duke of Montrose spoke on the Second Reading he made a most eloquent speech in support of the deaf. If we could only have those words put into the Scottish Bill, perhaps England—a little late—will do something to look after their deaf people.
  3.5 p.m.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I desire to do my utmost—which I am afraid is very little—to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose. He justly said, as did the noble Earl who has just spoken, that there is no reason in the world why, because we made a bad mistake in England, we should make an equally had mistake in Scotland. The question is not to be determined by any consideration of that kind at all, nor by the kind of departmental dislike—which there always is—to have anything changed which has already been approved in a Department. I hope that your Lordships will treat this question (because it is a very serious and important one) entirely without reference to
  572
  any considerations of that kind. I shall be extremely brief in the observations which I am going to make, the more so because some of your Lordships may remember that I made one or two speeches on the same kind of topic in connexion with the English Bill.
  The issue is extremely simple. The whole point arises because of the age-long neglect of the treatment of the deaf in this country. That is the real point, and the only point of importance. There is no doubt that that has been so. So far as I can remember, there has never been anything done by public authorities on behalf of the deaf as such. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose cited the names of a number of institutions which support this plea. Those institutions are private institutions. Though such institutions are admirable, and are wholehearted in their support for justice for the deaf, they do not represent anything like the public support without which—particularly with the present Government—nothing can be done. I do not know why it is that there has been this neglect of the deaf, but the result has been disastrous. There is no doubt that in, I think one may say, the whole realm of medicine, there is no part which has shown such little progress as the treatment of the deaf. Within the past few months a great advance has been made—or at any rate we hope that a great advance has been made—in the treatment of a particular kind of deafness. But, with that exception, it is not untrue to say that substantially the deaf have seen no advance in their treatment since the Roman Empire was at its height. The only thing that was done was to sneer at them whenever opportunity served, and to give them a speaking tube.
  As a result, it is no exaggeration to say that everybody who has been into the question knows (I am speaking only the literal truth) that in the great majority of cases deafness is incurable. I do not mean to say that there are not some cases where something can be done, but in the great majority of cases deafness is incurable. You can mitigate it sometimes, but not very often. But you can never cure it. Undoubtedly, that is due, partly to the dreadful neglect which there has been, and partly, no doubt, to the extreme complexity of the machinery of the ear. I do not know whether any of your Lordships have ever looked at a medical

  573
  diagram of the inside of the ear. If you have you will know (my noble friend who leads the House will certainly know) the immense complexity of the machinery which deals with the question of hearing. And not only is it very complex, but, because of its nearness to the brain, it is very difficult to deal with by way of surgical operation or surgical treatment. In addition, there is the little sympathy which the deaf have received, of which I need say no more.
  One other thing, however, I should like to say, and here your Lordships have an opportunity of doing something important and useful for the deaf. Granted that deafness is incurable, what you can do is to assist the partly deaf people who, of course, constitute the immense majority of those we call deaf. You can help them to utilize such power of hearing as they have in order to hear the speech of other people, and otherwise to make those deaf people useful members of society. For that purpose we have seen the growth in the last few years of a considerable number of aids for deafness. They are aids of a new type, depending, roughly speaking, on the principle of the microphone and the telephone; that is, utilizing electric force in order to multiply the sounds which are made by speech and to convey them to the deafened ear. That has been of immense value to a number of deaf people. At intervals during the last few years we have been told that the Government were going to do something about it. They have not done anything yet. They appointed a Committee and the Committee considered (I believe at great length and I have no doubt with great ability) the possibility of producing a new instrument which would be not only effective but relatively cheap—because at the present time the cost of those instruments is such as to make them quite unobtainable by anybody who is not fairly well off. However, nothing has been done.
  The point is this: that in the manufacture of those instruments, the manufacturers get no assistance from science except what they can themselves produce. If you are blind, or if your eyesight is defective, you go to an occulist. The occulist examines you very carefully and ascertains what is wrong with your eyes. In the majority of cases he writes you out a prescription—a prescription which, I admit, is always quite unintelligible to me—which you take along to an optician,
  574
  who thereupon produces a pair of spectacles which are of some assistance. No such thing happens with regard to the deaf. If you go to an aurist he tests you and tells you what it is you are suffering from, but then, if he is an honest man, he says that he is afraid he can do nothing more.
  You may then say: "But there are these instruments. Which instrument would you recommend?" He will tell you that he has great admiration for those who produce the instruments; that there is this, that or the other instrument, and certainly some of them are likely to be of use. But he does not say that your particular deafness requires a particular kind of instrument, or that you might try a particular way of dealing with it. He does not say that you might be amenable to what they call bone instruments. That would be the kind of advice he might give, but no such advice is given. I am not complaining of that. No one could be more courteous, more skilful or more well instructed than the aurists whom I have visited on my own behalf and on behalf of others; but they do not regard it as any part of their duty to prescribe the deaf aids that are required.
  That is a very serious defect. Normally, if you go to a hospital, there is no special provision for dealing with these cases; and in point of fact you have almost a complete divorce between the people who make the instruments and the men of science who know all about what ought to be done mechanically—if it can be done. That seems to me to be a serious defect, and it has had one result which I will mention only in a phrase, because it is well known to many of your Lordships. Round this honest and honourable business of the manufacture of deaf aids has grown up a whole jungle of wicked fraud and deception of the worst kind. I need not elaborate on that, because many of your Lordships know all about it, but it has partly arisen from this complete separation between the scientific leaders of opinion on deafness and the manufacturers of deaf aids.
  Even teeth are treated better than ears. We all know that a dentist performs operations, whether they be agreeable or not. He also frequently has to say: "I am afraid that what you really want is a new set of teeth." He then lays down what kind of teeth you require, but he does not make them; they are made by a

  575
  separate set of business people who operate, as I understand it, under the orders of the dentists but without in any way competing with them. That is a state of things which I think ought clearly to prevail in the case of deaf aids. What is needed is skilled otologists, as I believe they now prefer to be called, somewhere in the centre to see not only what is wanted for the patients, but that all school children are examined for any sign of deafness which can he dealt with in the very early stages. In addition, it is necessary that the manufacture of these deaf aids should be carried out ably and honestly.
  I hope that before this Committee stage ends we shall be given some indication as to what has happened to the Government machines. I hope that instrument will be a great thing, but, as we all know "hope deferred maketh the heart sick," and my heart, I am afraid, is getting rather sick at the total failure of these instruments to appear. That is the case. The Government now have an opportunity of including aid to the deaf in this great new system of health which they are establishing in Scotland, as it has already been established, so far as Act of Parliament can establish it, in England. We ask—and I do not think we are asking very much—that it shall be clearly laid down on the face of this new Statute that one of the duties of the new authorities to be created shall be to deal with this question of the deaf. It is not right or proper to leave these people, many of them helpless, absolutely without assistance from the State in treatment for their deafness.
  I do not think I need say anything more to your Lordships on the subject. I am glad my noble friend the Duke of Montrose has moved the Amendment in this form. I do not ask for any special treatment for the deaf beyond what we give to the blind or even to those who suffer in respect of their teeth. I do, however, think that they are entitled to the same amount of assistance. I ask strongly that provision for them shall be made in this Bill, and that deafness shall not be left merely as a kind of sideshow to be dealt with by the hospitals to be established under the terms of the Bill. I desire to see it made specifically one of the duties of the new authorities. I do
  576
  hope, if my noble friend persists in this and goes to a Division, that he will give me the opportunity of voting in his favour.
  3.19 p.m.
  VISCOUNT LEVERHULME: On one or two previous occasions it has been my privilege to support the noble Duke of Montrose when he has raised matters in your Lordships' House concerning the welfare of the deaf and the hard of hearing. I am sure the noble Viscount who has just spoken will share my pleasure, as a mere Sassenach, in being able to try to do something for the hard of hearing in the country of the noble Duke, because I know of nobody who works harder for that cause, wherever the deaf or hard of hearing are to be found, whether in England, Wales or Scotland. This is not the occasion to enter upon that thorny question as to whether blindness or deafness, or defective vision or defective hearing, is the worse affliction. But I think that we can agree that when it comes to legislation the eyes and the ears have an equal claim for consideration. In his very interesting speech the noble Viscount covered the ground so fully that there is little I can add.
  I quite agree that the development of hearing aids is nothing like so great as that which is possible with lenses, in the case of spectacles, but great strides have been made recently, and are still being made. Last June when I was in America I was greatly impressed with a consultation that I had with a leading otologist there. I went to his clinic, where he spent an hour measuring my hearing with an audiometer, and he told me the type of aid he thought would suit my particular case. He then got in touch with the maker, and made sure that I went back to see him afterwards, when I spent another hour with him to see whether any further adjustments could be made. I mention that only because I am sure we are entering upon a better phase, and advances are being made. I think the day will come when it will be part of the aurist's job to prescribe an aid, in very much the same way that the oculist prescribes lenses for spectacles, although I think the parallel is not exact. If the Amendment proposed by the noble Duke is accepted, I think that medically speaking and scientifically speaking it will make this Bill more up-to-date, and I earnestly hope that His

  577
  Majesty's Government will give very careful consideration to the points which the noble Duke has made, and will make later on.
  LORD SALTOUN: On a previous occasion His Majesty's Government gratified us all by explaining the interest they are taking in this question of deafness, and when—I hope I am right in using the word "when"—they do produce a good aural aid at a reasonable price they will have done a service to everybody in the country who is deaf. As the Bill will not be complete unless the noble Duke's Amendment is inserted, I hope they will make a big swallow and accept it. The clause says:
  "… it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to provide throughout Scotland, to such extent as he considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements …"
  That does not mean that a lot of things must be provided immediately. It merely means, if these few words about deafness are inserted, that the treatment of deafness is part of the Government's plan; and if that is included now, the deaf people will know they are to be looked after. If it is left out, then on any future occasion the Government will be able to say, "It was an unfortunate thing, but at the time the Bill was passed we could not include it." I beg His Majesty's Government to make a big swallow now and accept this Amendment. If they do so, the result will be that they will, in due course, accumulate a mass of experience which will greatly improve the treatment of the deaf in all future times. This is really a foundation stone in the improved treatment of the deaf, and I sincerely hope that the noble Lord who is to reply will weaken on this point.
  LORD MORRISON: I have seldom—in fact, never, during the time that I have been in your Lordships' House or in another place—heard a discussion in which I agreed so entirely with the points that have been put forward. And yet the only answer I am going to make is to doubt whether this is the way to do what is sought. The noble Duke referred to "cluttering up" the Bill. He suggested two possible objections. One was that it was not in the English Bill, and the other was that if it were put in it would "clutter up" the Bill. I have not heard either of those objections. The real point, so far as I understand it—and the point upon which all noble Lords are agreed—
  578
  is that the time has come, and is indeed overdue, for a great campaign throughout this country to give much more prominence to the diseases of hearing, to deafness and partial deafness.
  It is in that connexion that the noble Lord has done such magnificent work in arousing public opinion in this matter. Almost all other ailments have received great prominence, but in regard to deafness I have often wondered why it is—perhaps it is because it is not accompanied by any real physical pain—that there seems to be a slowness on the part of anyone to start moving. 1 want to make it clear at the outset—and I am sure I am speaking on behalf of the Government—that what I am going to say with regard to the Amendment which has been so ably moved (and perhaps it would be for your Lordships' convenience that I should make a general statement covering the whole question of deafness as it arises) is that this Government are very keen indeed that much more attention should be given to this matter of deafness. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, has referred—as indeed did the noble Duke in his speech on a previous occasion—to the frauds which have been perpetrated upon the public for many years, and to the number of people who have made large fortunes out of swindling and preying upon the afflictions of people.
  That is a question upon which I do not think the Government will hesitate at all. If they were prepared in this case to give private enterprise a tree hand (this is surely a matter upon which all of us would agree, whatever our political views might be, calls for Government interference) the only way in which I can see that the Government could interfere would be by the ordinary process of prosecuting the people who are doing that sort of thing. That is very difficult, and it is almost impossible to catch the people responsible. Alternatively, the Government could do what they have decided upon—and that brings me to the point tae noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, emphasized—which is, to do something themselves, and to enlist the aid of scientists to make a real deaf aid which can be relied upon and supplied to the public at a reasonable price. I am advised that, from my point of view, there is nothing in this Amendment, and I would obviously have a much easier task if I could get up and say, "Yes, I will agree to put these words in." But how

  579
  would that help if it does not start the campaign which I think noble Lords have in view, of trying to make the public conscious of the seriousness of this matter?
  I speak with some considerable knowledge of industrial conditions, and I know the terrible handicap of workmen who are physically fit themselves but handicapped, particulary when working amongst machinery, by the fact that they are deaf. There is a reluctance on the part of employers, because of the increased danger of a man suffering from deafness, to do anything to help. That brings me to this point. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, interrupted me on the last occasion, when we were discussing the Second Reading of this Bill, and said that I was endeavouring to explain to the House that it was generally accepted that this was a better Bill than the English Act. I think the noble Earl will remember that he interjected to say that the blue print of a Bill would not necessarily mean an improved health service. The same remark applies here; if you put a few words in this Bill they will not make all that difference.
  It was announced in another place last week that in anticipation of the new service a Government order for the manufacture of large quantities of these aids had been placed. The contracts covered an initial supply of 50,000 instruments, of which Scotland will have a fair share. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, complained about the delay in this matter. The delay was due to the fact that two of the valves needed in this instrument were not manufactured in this country. It was very difficult to get them for any reasonable sum.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to say that the difficulty of getting them was due to the fact that the Government would not allow them to be imported.
  LORD MORRISON: I am pleased to be able to inform the noble Lord that the Government have made arrangements for manufacturing these valves in this country, and the arrangements are well advanced: so much so that by the time this Bill comes into operation it is anticipated that the supply of deaf aids will have risen to 50,000. In that connexion may I invite noble Lords who have taken
  580
  part in the debate to-day to see and test these aids for themselves? If they would be good enough to give their opinion—and I should be glad to arrange the test—it would be of great value to the Government and to those responsible for the manufacture of the aids. These 50,000 instruments have been ordered and are to be made wholly in Great Britain, except that a few valves are to be imported from America while preparations are being made for the manufacture of the valves in this country.
  It is anticipated that a considerable number of these instruments will be ready for the inauguration of the new service. I think it can be claimed that this is a demonstration of the Government's earnest intention to promote facilities for the benefit of the deaf and hard of hearing. In addition, immediately this Bill is passed preparations will be made to establish throughout Scotland centres where these deaf aids can be serviced. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, referred to the scandal in connexion with the repair and servicing of instruments. The setting up of these centres should enable people to feel that they can go and have their instruments serviced and be sure of being dealt with honestly and fairly.
  Perhaps your Lordships would like to have further reasons why it would be inadvisable to put into the Bill the words that the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, has moved. In the future, under this Bill, there will be a public responsibility for the health of the people of this country and of Scotland, in the widest sense, and not merely confined to specific ailments. Subsection (1) of Clause 3 places on the Secretary of State the duty of providing hospital accommodation, medical, nursing and other services required in hospitals, with the services of specialists; or clinics, or services elsewhere. The definition of "hospital" makes it clear that the term includes clinics and out-patient departments maintained in connexion with hospitals proper. Subsection (3) of Clause 3 makes it clear that the duty of the Secretary of State includes the provision of appliances. The service provided under this clause will necessarily include provision for hearing aids, and provision will be made not only in hospitals but also at out-patient departments, clinics and health centres.
  This clause does not seek to specify the various kinds of aids that are to be dealt

  581
  with under it. It is quite impossible to single out deafness for special mention. Widespread as deafness may be, there are many other diseases of greater importance, and it would be out of the question to specify all the complaints for which aids are to be provided. One might mention rheumatism, cancer, tuberculosis, mental diseases and so on. Cancer is one of the great killing diseases of our time. There was on the Statute Book a special Act of Parliament dealing with the arrangements and treatment necessary—the Cancer Act of 1939—but that Act is now repealed and the disease finds no mention in the present Bill. That is an argument for not putting in deafness. The reason why cancer is not mentioned in this Bill is because of the desire to make it clear that the Government's concern is for the general treatment of all kinds of ailments.
  The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, made reference to ophthalmic treatment, but there is no mention in the Bill of sight, any more than there is of hearing. The noble Duke also argued that there should be imposed on the executive councils responsibility for providing appliances supplementary to the main provision in Clause 3. He suggested that if it is appropriate to make supplementary provision for the treatment of the eyes it is equally appropriate to make such provision for the deaf. This is entirely a false analogy. Opticians are not trained in the treatment of eye diseases, and consequently the service provided by them is not complete, or not so complete as if the work were done by a specialist. However, if, as the Amendment proposes, executive councils were to include in their arrangements the service of medical specialists, they would be duplicating, not supplementing, services which the Secretary of State is developing through the hospital organization.
  I suggest to your Lordships, and in particular to the noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this Amendment, that the adoption of the Amendment would not speed up the provision of facilities for treating aural disorders, but, by dissipating effort, and in other ways, would postpone the establishment of a satisfactory system. I apologize for speaking at such great length on this particular Amendment, but the noble Duke has a number of Amendments on the Paper, and I thought it would be better if I made a full statement now so that
  582
  the Committee might be in possession of ail the facts of the position. I close by repeating that I am, if I may so put it, "all the way" with the noble Duke in his desire to help the deaf. I admire immensely the very great fight that he is putting up for them. I think that he is winning in his fight and that he is doing much that is helpful.
  But I hope the noble Duke will realize that I have spent a great deal of time, since the Second Reading, trying to assimilate the full facts of this matter. I have spent time in studying it, not with any desire of hindering him but rather with a view to trying to help him if possible. I am convinced that the Government, in the campaign they propose and with the powers to be given to them under this Bill, will achieve so much that the noble Duke who has been such a pioneer on behalf of people afflicted in this way will have no reason to regret the course we have taken, and that he will find that every effort is being made in Scotland to see that Scotland leads the way in this branch of healing, as it has done in so many others.
  3.43 p.m.
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: I have moved this Amendment to a clause which deals with the provision of specialist services. As the noble Lord knows, there is a great deal of exploitation of the deaf, and the only way to stop it, I suggest, is to set up clinics where they can get impartial service. I should call the stopping of exploitation by setting up clinics for giving impartial service a specialist service. This particular clause deals with specialist services and there is nowhere in the Bill that I can see, except in this clause, where this Amendment could be inserted. I should like to know whether the noble Lord will accept my Amendment or not.
  LORD MORRISON: I was hoping that, as the result of the considered statement which I have just made, the noble Duke would not seek to press his Amendment. As I endeavoured to explain to him, apart from the matter of wording, I am advised that, far from improving the Bill, on the contrary it might make matters more difficult than they are at present, and that the Amendment would not be helpful in achieving what the noble Duke is anxious to do and what we are all. trying to do—

  583
  that is, to improve conditions relating to the deaf.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: May I be allowed to say a word here? I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, for his statement, but it seemed to me that it was a speech directed almost entirely to supporting the Amendment, until at the very end when the noble Lord seemed—under the influence, perhaps, of some of his less wise advisers—to make a sudden turn and to say that he was against the Amendment. I had hoped that he was going to conclude by saying that he was in favour of it and would agree to its insertion in the Bill. That, at any rate, would have been something. The Amendment, I suggest, could not possibly do any harm, and its insertion would be something by way of recognition of the debt which is owed to the deaf. That debt would, to an extent, be discharged by the insertion of this Amendment. Surely that would be a good thing to do in the circumstances.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: May I be allowed to intervene and to make an appeal to noble Lords? There really seems to be a little misunderstanding here. I do not think that there is any difference between us about what we want to accomplish, but the fact is that if this Amendment were put in it would then become a statutory obligation on the authorities to provide those special services. The fact is that you could not provide them, because the people needed to staff them do not exist. There are, of course, a number of specialist aural surgeons, but there are nothing like the number of trained people in this branch of treatment that there are, for instance, in ophthalmology. If you made this a statutory obligation you would be putting upon the authorities something which unfortunately they would not be in a position to develop; they could not carry out the law laid down in this respect.
  If I may say so, the method which the Government have suggested is really the better way of dealing with it, as my noble friend Lord Morrison has already explained. The Bill does not catalogue all the ailments for which there are to be special services. The whole thing is comprehensive. As I say, if you were to make this a statutory obligation, you would not be any further advanced because you
  584
  could not get the necessary staff-there are simply not the necessary numbers of trained people to do the work. That is why we are appealing to noble Lords to agree not to insert this Amendment. If they will take advantage of the offer which my noble friend has made, and will examine the things which are now being made and are already on order (and that, I suggest, is the best test of our sincerity), I think they will be satisfied that we are taking the right steps. I do hope that this Amendment will not be pressed to a Division.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I wonder if the Committee would permit me to say a word or two at this point, in order to ask my noble friend the Duke of Montrose not to press this Amendment. We all listened very carefully to my noble friend, Lord Morrison, although I am bound to say that at one time he rather confused me because I was not sure whether he was talking about ears or about eyes. In fact, I rather thought he was talking about eyes and not about ears. From what he told us, the Government apparently want to be led by the feeling in the country as regards this matter of the treatment of ailments affecting hearing. I should have thought that the Government could have led themselves in this matter. The noble Lord also gave us some hope that there might be a Bill later which would be concerned with the deaf. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House is here, and if it is true that the deaf are to be specially cared for in some short Bill, perhaps he will give us some information. I have no doubt that the Government will say that there is no time just now for such measure, but I can think of many Bills that might be delayed without much harm to this country, so that something might be done which would greatly assist the deaf.
  If we could have an assurance on the Report stage that something concrete—a matter not of words but of deeds—will be done, we should be very grateful. We do not want to see these appliances which have been spoken of—we can take them for granted. I know that they are very expensive. I must say that I do not quite appreciate the statement of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, about there not being sufficient people to staff this service. Them may not be sufficient people to provide the staffs necessary to

  585
  carry out the whole of this Bill. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House has said that it is quite impossible to insert this Amendment. I would be quite prepared to accept that statement if we could have something further on the Report stage—something more concrete. If the noble Duke is in agreement with me on this matter, I would ask him not to press his Amendment.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: May I just be allowed to say that we discussed all this on the English Bill? We were continually being told to leave it to the Report stage, and we were assured that the Government would then see to it that what we wanted would be done. Then the Departments proved too strong for the Government, and they were not allowed to do anything. That is what will happen again now. I beg the Committee to put in this Amendment, for it can do no harm to do so now. If it can be shown that the Amendment would do harm, we can strike it out on the Report stage. If it is put in now, it will be a definite declaration that Parliament really desires something to be done to help the deaf. That is all we can hope for.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I again appeal to noble Lords not to make this a statutory obligation upon the authorities. I am sure that it would be an obligation which they could not carry out. It is no good putting it in the Bill in this way. With regard to the matter to which the noble Earl has referred, I will certainly look into it and ask my noble friend to give it his attention. I think that if my noble friend Lord Morrison could arrange for some of these appliances to be seen by noble Lords—possibly he could arrange for a demonstration to be held in the House—it would be of value. It is no good putting a general obligation upon the authorities which they are not in a position to carry out. That is the only point, and it really is quite sound. I will look into the other matter, I do not know about it.
  LORD REA: I hope my noble friend will not submit to the blandishments of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. It is all very well to say that this could not be carried out, but has the noble Viscount: read the Bill? It is only imposing a duty to such an extent
  586
  as the Secretary of State for Scotland considers necessary to meet all requirements. To suggest that to make such an insertion in an Act of Parliament is to put an impossible obligation on a Department is really trifling with the House. We are a little tired of being told, "Oh, don't put anything in the Bill, but wait. The Government are going to provide it." This is becoming a public scandal, and it is time that something was definitely done. If we were to pass this Amendment it would make it clear to the Department concerned, and to the officers who are so anxious that no duty should be put upon them, that this House means that something shall be done for the deaf in a reasonable time.
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: Clause 1 of this Bill states quite clearly that this is to be a comprehensive national service. Then why hesitate to put in the seven words of my Amendment? The noble Lord referred to cancer and tuberculosis. If those people want a clinic, why should they not have one.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: They have one.
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: Well, if other people want one, why should they not have one, if this is a comprehensive service? It is simply trifling with the House.
  LORD MORRISON: I endeavoured to explain that if you include one you are excluding the others. You either include all of them, or put in none of them. I pointed out that this Bill repealed the Cancer Act because when this Bill is passed that Act will no longer be necessary. It is not necessary to put in a special reference to cancer, but that does not mean that treatment for cancer is being abolished. It means that it is no longer necessary in a general health service to mention specific diseases, because such a health service includes all of them.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  3.53 P.m.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, at the end of subsection (2) to insert "after consultation with the universities and the Royal Medical Corporations." The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with subsection 2 of Clause 3. This is a very important subsection, and the intention of the Amendment is to strengthen it and to give the Secretary of State, who

  587
  accepts duties in it, the means of carrying out those duties. The noble Viscount, Lord Addison, has just said that it is no good putting general obligations into the Bill which the Government are not able to carry out. The intention of this Amendment is to assist the Secretary of State in carrying out obligations he has here undertaken. I want to emphasize that the degree to which this Bill interferes with medical schools is very much greater than has been represented from the Government Bench. In another place it was said, on behalf of the Government, that the Bill does not affect teaching. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, said there was no mention of it in the reasoned Amendment which was moved in another place. In fact, the reasoned Amendment refers to the fact that the Bill gravely threatens the training of students and research, so this is a matter which has been of some general concern.
  I would like to say one or two words to show just how this Bill does affect teaching. The hospitals form a pyramid with the Secretary of State at the top, and entirely separated from that are the medical schools. It is of very great importance that there should be intimate and close touch between the medical schools and the hospitals. Where do we find that contact? We find only one point at which there is an absolute and assured contact, and that is on the boards of management of individual hospitals or groups of hospitals. There are two other committees of an advisory nature upon which representation may be made, but there is only one assured place. Quite rightly, the Government realize that there is a very considerable gulf, and they have endeavoured in some measure to close that gulf by this clause, in which the duty is laid on the Secretary of State to provide facilities for teaching in his hospitals. I am suggesting that he should add, "after consultation with the universities and the Royal Medical Corporations."
  I want to emphasize the extremely intimate nature of a teaching hospital and the medical school that goes with it. If I may draw an illustration, I will take one by quoting from the Goodenough Report on page 13.
  "The interests of both patients and students are served if, in the framing of policy and the conduct of the hospital's affairs, the
  588
  two functions of a teaching hospital, namely, the care of the patient and the furtherance of teaching and research, receive equal emphasis,"—
  I repeat "emphasis"—
  "being regarded as complementary and mutually reinforcing,"
  What do we find? We find, in fact, that the intimate contact does not exist, and I am going to ask the noble Lord how he thinks that this general obligation in subsection (2) is to be performed.
  The Secretary of State is clearly not qualified to express an opinion on medical schools, which is a highly technical matter. From whence is he going to seek his advice? In the Scottish National Health Service Council there is no representation of teaching, so he cannot go there. In the Regional Hospital Board there is very slight representation, and there may be none of teaching at all. Where else is he to seek advice as to how he is to perform the duties laid down by Statute under this clause? The noble Lord may say that he will turn to the Department of Health. I am going to say two things in that regard. The first is that the Department of Health are not qualified and should not attempt to advise on teaching matters; that is a matter for the universities themselves. If it is not a matter for the universities, then I would ask the noble Lord why the explanatory memorandum specifically states:
  "The Bill leaves untouched existing responsibilities for medical education."
  In this matter the Secretary of State should lean directly on the universities to provide him with advice as to how medical education should be conducted. Otherwise the statement in the memorandum attached to the Bill cannot but be regarded as misleading in substance. I would add that there is no reference here to health centres. Is that included in subsection (2)? Finally, I would repeat again very strongly that the Secretary of State must get advice from somewhere. Where is he to get advice? I suggest in my Amendment that the proper method is to have consultation with and receive advice from the universities and the Royal Medical Corporation on how to perform these essential duties which are an integral part of medical education.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 17, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  4.0 p.m.
  LORD MORRISON: So far as I understand, there is nothing in this Bill to debar the universities or any other body from a direct approach to the Secretary of State on any difficulty which is not resolved at the regional level. The Amendment which the noble Earl has moved seeks to require the Secretary of State to discharge his duty of making available facilities in the hospital service for teaching and research only after consultation with the universities and the Royal Medical Corporations. That is, in effect, what will happen, for the Secretary of State's duty under this subsection will, of course, not be carried out by himself personally, but by the Regional Hospital Boards acting as his agents, and the Regional Hospital Boards are already advised on this aspect of their work by the Medical Education Committee set up under Clause II (3) of the Bill. That Committee include university nominees, and the Royal Medical Corporations will also be represented in regions where those Corporations have responsibilities in this field. I am a little uncertain as to why the noble Earl has put down this Amendment, because it seems to me to cut across the machinery of the Medical Education Committee which is provided in the Bill at the suggestion of the universities themselves. In those circumstances, I regret I am unable to accept the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lord very much for what he has said, but I am afraid that I do not follow the logic of his case. He has stated specifically that the universities may have direct access to the Secretary of State.
  LORD MORRISON: Yes.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Then why should the Secretary of State not consult the universities in the provision of facilities for medical education? Is it not a quibble to refuse a very simple Amendment of this sort? May I also ask this question? The noble Lord says that the Secretary of State may approach the Regional Boards. The Regional Boards do not exist. The Secretary of State has to approve this scheme, and he has to do that without advice from anybody. Surely it is simple and straightforward for him to accept advice from and to have consultation with the universities and the Royal Medical Corporations. After all, the Medical Education Com-
  590
  mittee exist, but they are only advisory, and they must be filtered through the Regional Hospital Boards before they reach the Secretary of State at all. It is very long-distance administration.
  The point that I am trying to make is that the connexion between medical education and hospitals is very intimate, and that if you break that up—as I have endeavoured to explain has been done—you must ensure, so far as possible, that a very effective coupling is put in its place. I have said that that coupling is weak; that there is a big gulf existing between the hospital system on the one side and medical education on the other, and it is very loosely bridged at the present time. I am not suggesting that my Amendment is a strong one, but I should like the noble Lord to think about it. To some extent, it helps the Secretary of State in the discharge of his duties. I would remind the noble Lord that we have recently been told by the Leader of the House that it is no good imposing a general obligation which the Secretary of State is not able to carry out. I say this—and I say it without fear of contradiction—that, as the position stands at the present moment, the Secretary of State cannot carry out these obligations, because he has no one to advise him who is thoroughly competent to do so, without shifting the responsibility for education which he has said he would not do. I would like the noble Lord to think of this matter again.
  LORD MORRISON: I can only say to the noble Lord that perhaps he misunderstood me when I said that there was nothing in this Bill to debar the universities or any other body from a direct approach to the Secretary of State. I added some other words of which perhaps the noble Earl did not have time to take a note. I said "on any difficulty not resolved at the regional level." I am sure that the noble Earl will now understand that I do not mean that this continuous discussion should go on with the universities on all questions, but merely on questions not resolved in the ordinary way. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent, in exceptional cases, the universities or any other body from a direct approach to the Secretary of State. That is the explanation. I can only add that I am advised that the machinery of the Medical Education Committee provided in this Bill was put in at

  591
  the suggestion of the universities themselves, and, therefore, I repeat that the reason is a little obscure as to why the noble Earl should attach any considerable importance to this Amendment.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said, which I think amounts to this: that the universities may approach the Secretary of State at any time when they find their facilities unsatisfactory.
  LORD MORRISON: That is so.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5:
  Accommodation for private patients.
  5.—(1) If the Secretary of State, having regard to his duty to provide hospital and specialist services, is satisfied that it is reasonable so to do, he may set aside in any hospital vested in him and providing such services special accommodation for patients who undertake, or in respect of whom an undertaking is given, to pay such charges as may be determined in the prescribed manner, being charges designed to cover the whole cost so far as falling to be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament of the accommodation and services provided for the patient at the hospital, including an appropriate amount in respect of overhead expenses, and the Secretary of State may recover those charges:
  Provided that no accommodation shall be so set aside unless there will remain available, as part of the hospital and specialist services, for other patients at least as much accommodation as was immediately before the appointed day available free of charge or at hospitals vested in local authorities, being accommodation which became part of the hospital and specialist services on that day:
  4.5 P.m.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY THE EARL OF ROSEBERY moved, at the end of the first proviso to subsection (1) to insert:
  "but subject to so much accommodation remaining available for other patients, the special accommodation previously used for patients who undertake to pay shall be so set aside."
  The noble Earl said: The Amendment which I move is one which I very much hope the noble Lord will accept. There is one point particularly which I should like to bring to his notice, and that is that the endowments in the Scottish teaching
  592
  hospitals are being taken away from the hospitals by the Government, which is not the case in England. A number of these endowments must have been specially given for the help of patients whom one might call private patients—people who can afford to contribute. In taking away those endowments, I think the noble Lord might have consideration for the wishes of so many people who have given money to those hospitals. There is another point. The noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, in speaking on another Amendment this afternoon, talked about the lack of staff—the impossibility of there being enough staff to help the deaf. I would say to the noble Lord: If you do not accept this Amendment, what will happen will be that you will have a mushroom growth of private nursing homes which will compete with your
  hospitals—and I should think compete successfully—for nursing and other staff. Therefore I think that if you do not accept this Amendment you will harm your own Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 17, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
  LORD MORRISON: I much regret that I am unable to accept the Amendment just moved by the noble Earl, which is similar to an Amendment which was voted upon and rejected on the Report stage in another place. The Amendment seeks to secure that hospital accommodation used for paying patients before the appointed day shall be set aside under Clause 5 of the Bill for use by patients paying the whole cost of their treatment. The Secretary of State has said that he intends to set aside a limited amount of accommodation for the purposes of this clause. He cannot, however, bind himself so as to set aside as much accommodation as was previously used for paying patients, because some of that accommodation may be more appropriate for use by patients paying, not the whole cost under Clause 5, but only the extra cost for single rooms or small wards under Clause 4. Apart from that, the Secretary of State could not bind himself to set aside under Clause 5 the precise accommodation previously used for paying patients; because in a regionally planned service that particular accommodation might be especially needed for other purposes, while suitable accommodation elsewhere could,

  593
  with greater convenience to all concerned, be earmarked for private patients. The Amendment would bind the Secretary of State to do both these things, and therefore I am unable on his behalf to accept it, but I add as a postscript that I am also advised that the drafting is defective and this actual wording could in any Case not be accepted.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like to make one point. The noble Lord has said that he would be bound by this Amendment to set aside precise accommodation for this particular purpose. If he looks at the Amendment carefully, I would suggest that he will see that that is not the case. What the Amendment says is "so much accommodation"—that is to say, the Secretary of State is entirely free to set aside any accommodation, or re-adapt accommodation for different purposes. That was one of the points which was raised, and that point is fully met. I do not think the Secretary of State ever said that he does not intend to set aside so much accommodation as is available, and the purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that it is provided in the Statute. As to the second point with regard to the drafting, I should have thought it was quite clear that there can be no doubt about the provision of special accommodation of those who had undertaken to pay. I do not know what the difficulty in regard to the drafting is, but I should have thought the meaning was quite clear. Finally, there is the point that if people can afford to pay there is no very good reason why advantage should not be taken of it: to relieve the taxpayer, who receives so little consideration these days.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I regret that the Amendment was not couched in the proper phraseology, which I may say causes me surprise, because I submitted it to what I thought was sufficiently expert judgment. However, I bow to the noble Lord's ruling, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  4.10 p.m.
  Clause 7:
  Endowments of voluntary hospitals.
  (6) Regulations may provide, notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section, for enabling the application, to such extent as may be prescribed, of property comprised in any endowment to which subsection (2) of this section applies to the discharge of any liabilities transferred to the Secretary of State from the governing body or trustees of a voluntary hospital under the last foregoing section or to a Board of Management under either of the last two foregoing subsections.
  LORD TWEEDSMUIR LORD TWEEDSMUIR moved, at the end of subsection (6) to insert:
  "Provided that the liabilities to be discharged shall be liabilities incurred for a similar purpose to that for which the endowment was given by the donor."
  The noble Lord said: This deals with the important question of the future of endowments. I think the wording of the Amendment is such as to make it perfectly plain, and I will say only a few words on it. As the Bill now stands, it would permit of an endowment intended for the use of a specific hospital being converted to the discharge of liabilities of a foundation of a different kind; in other words, the express purpose for which the donor provided the money would not be served. If the money is left to a hospital which deals specifically with nervous disorders, the donors in the past have had an explicit assurance that the money would be used for that particular purpose. Under the present wording of the Bill the donor would have no such assurance. The money might, in fact, be applied for the use of a totally different foundation, such as one dealing with tropical diseases. It appears to me that if the Bill stands in its present form the future of endowments is going to be an extremely bleak one. Machinery will be set up that will at first discourage them; then the number of donations will dwindle, and finally they will disappear. I move this Amendment purely as a safeguard. It is one which I consider eminently reasonable, and I hope the noble Lord who replies will be able to see his way to accept it. The wording is designed to reassure intending donors that if they make endowments for specific medical purposes to a specific foundation, although the money may not be applied to that specific foundation, yet that specific medical purpose will be respected, and his money will be applied in accordance with his wishes. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 44, at end insert ("Provided that the liabilities to be discharged shall be liabilities incurred for a similar purpose to that for which the endowment was given by the donor.")—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)
  LORD MORRISON: I have in my possession a very lengthy reply to the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved, but it may save your Lordships' time if I summarize the position. The difficulty is that little detailed information is yet available about the kind and extent of assets and liabilities possessed by voluntary hospitals in Scotland. Before this information has been collected, the Secretary of State cannot see his way to debar himself from access to particular classes of assets. That is why this particular provision is left to be made by regulations and is not incorporated in the Bill itself. When the full information has been collected, the Secretary of State will proceed to make regulations, and in so doing he will bear in mind the points of view that have hem urged upon the Government in both Houses of Parliament and, just now, by the noble Lord. If, thereafter, the Secretary of State proposes in the regulations to make what appears to Parliament to be an improper use of the power conferred by the clause, then either House has in its own hand the remedy that it can annul the regulation. As the noble Lord will see, the suggestion is that this is a matter which ought to be dealt with by regulations, which will have to be submitted to Parliament and which can be confirmed or annulled by either House. In the circumstances, I hope the noble Lord will consider that this is a satisfactory methed of dealing with the point.
  LORD SALTOUN: Before we leave this subject, I would like to raise one point. When we were dealing with the English Bill the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, gave me an assurance on one aspect of this question, and I should very much like to have it repeated in respect of this Scottish Bill. Scotland is a country which has always been enriched by the generosity of its children, and there are many places where money has been given for the express purposes of maintaining a hospital in a particular locality. When we dealt with the English Bill, I asked the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, whether the Act would be so construed and so used as to take away these benefactions, and
  596
  also to take away from the locality the hospital which those benefactions had been given to preserve. The reply I received was that this would not be so unless there were a shifting of population that would justify such a step, and that while the old conditions remained the hospital would be maintained. I should be obliged if the noble Lord could give me a similar assurance in regard to this Bill.
  LORD MORRISON: I am afraid I am not in a position to give the noble Lord assurances in this matter. I have already explained that it is desirable that this matter should be dealt with in the regulations, and if anything improper appears in the regulations I feel sure the noble Lord will lose no time in putting down a Motion in this House that the regulations be annulled. I am advised that that is the proper time to do it, and not during the passage of the Bill.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I do not think that answer is quite satisfactory, if I may say so. What we wish to know to-day is that these endowments, or monies which have been given for a certain purpose will be used for that purpose. I have a case in mind where monies were given for the purpose of building a new hospital. We want to know that such monies will be devoted to the purposes for which they are given. The noble Lord in his reply has given no indication that that will be the case. All he has told us is that regulations will be drawn up. He has not given us even a slight indication that what the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, is seeking in his Amendment is likely to be embodied in the regulations. To tell your Lordships' House that these regulations will be laid before the House, and then they have to be considered by the House after the Secretary of State has decided what shall appear in them, is, as we all know, to say something which usually means nothing at all. The regulations are laid before your Lordships' House, or they are laid before another place, and they have to be accepted in toto or not; and we know that if one or two points are not satisfactory they are accepted in toto. I therefore feel that the reply which has been given by the noble Lord to my noble friend is not one which is acceptable.
  LORD SALTOUN: May I add one word on this point, because I think it will

  597
  reinforce my point with the noble Lord, Lord Morrison? I took charge of a trust under the obligations of the benefaction. Under this Bill I am supposed to transfer all those funds to the Regional Board. If I already know that the purpose of those funds is to be maintained under the Bill and carried out by His Majesty's Government, I may do so with a clear conscience: but to be asked to transfer these funds to the Regional Board and not to know what is to be done with them when they are transferred is to put a pressure on me, as an honest man, to which I do not know that I can submit. I think you will take them, but you will not take them over my signature unless I am satisfied I am carrying out my trust. When I put the point as it affects me—and as I am sure it would affect the noble Lord if he were in a similar position—I am sure he will see the force of my argument. Perhaps at a later stage he will give me an assurance on that point.
  LORD MORRISON: I can quite see the force of the noble Lord's argument, but the difficulty is—and this is the whole of it—that little detailed information is yet available about the kind and extent of assets and liabilities possessed by voluntary hospitals in Scotland. Before this information has been collected it will be very difficult indeed for the Secretary of State to debar himself from access to particular classes of assets. That is the reason why this particular provision is left to be met by regulations and is not incorporated in the Bill itself.
  LORD SALTOUN: If I might interrupt the noble Lord: have not the Department of Health in Scotland had the accounts of almost every hospital in Scotland under the emergency hospitals scheme during the war? They have seen all our investments, and if they have not got the information they should have it.
  LORD MORRISON: I am afraid I cannot answer that question. All I can say is that that is a matter between the Department and the noble Lord. If the Department say they have not got the information and the noble Lord says they have, far be it from me to take any action in the matter. I think the noble Lord had better get in touch with the Department and see what they have to say about it. I am advised that the real difficulty is that little detailed information is available about the extent of assets and liabilities
  598
  possessed by voluntary hospitals in Scotland, and that is the reason why this particular provision is left to be met by regulations and is not incorporated in the Bill itself.
  LORD TWEEDSMUIR: I am Obliged to the noble Lord for his answer, which I understand from his own lips he boiled down from a very compendious and substantial document. I must say that I do not derive a tremendous amount of satisfaction from knowing that we cannot have this in the Bill, and that it is merely to come into the purview of Parliament by resolution. I would like to put this to the noble Lord. We should feel very much happier about this state of affairs if we knew that when this was made a matter of Resolution it had to be an affirmative Resolution, rather than bringing up an Order to be negatived by a negative Resolution. I would be grateful if he would signify assent or dissent, and whether he would let us know about that on the Report stage.
  LORD MORRISON: I am quite willing to give the noble Lord an answer to that question on Report stage, but whether it will be favourable or otherwise I will not say. At the moment, I frankly confess I am not able to give him an answer. May I say again that under Clause 7 endowments must, pending the coming into operation of a scheme, be held for the purposes for which they were given? I think that answers the question which the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, put to me.
  LORD TWEEDSMUIR: I am grateful to the noble Lord far that reply, and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8:
  Hospital Endowments Commission.
  8.—(1) The Secretary of State shall constitute in accordance with the Second Schedule to this Act a Hospital Endowments Commission.
  (2) It shall be the duty of the Hospital Endowments Commission to frame and submit to the Secretary of State schemes for the government and management of endowments transferred to Boards of Management under subsection (2) of the last foregoing section, for the transfer in appropriate cases of such endowments to other Boards of Management or to Regional Hospital Boards constituted under the following provisions of this Part of this Act, and for the application of the capital

  599
  or income of such endowments to such purposes as the Commission think fit.
  (7) The powers of the Hospital Endowments Commission shall terminate on the expiry of five years from the appointed day:
  Provided that the Secretary of State may from time to time by order direct that the said powers shall continue for a further period.
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSE THE DUKE OF MONTROSE moved, in subsection (1), after "Commission," to insert "in Edinburgh." The noble Duke said: Clause 8 provides that a Hospital Endowments Commission shall be established by the Secretary of State. I presume there will be a good many endowments to be handled, and I move that that Endowments Commission shall be seated in Edinburgh. There is a general feeling that too much Scottish administration is sent down to Whitehall, and it would be much more satisfactory to have this Endowments Commission seated in Edinburgh, where it would be in close touch with the various Scottish Endowments.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 3, after ("Commission"), insert ("in Edinburgh").—(The Duke of Montrose.)
  LORD MORRISON: I was a little doubtful when I saw the noble Lord's Amendment as to whether that was his point, because I thought that what he wanted to ensure was that the meetings of the Commission should always be held in Scotland, and that it should be a Scottish body. Now I am assured that that is the position. If the noble Duke is anxious to be assured that the Commission will be a Scottish body, meeting in Scotland, he need have no hesitation on that score, because the Bill relates to Scotland only, and obviously the Commission would hold its meetings in Scotland. I am not prepared to say that it would always hold them in Edinburgh, because I think the noble Duke will agree that circumstances might arise at some time when it would be necessary to meet in other parts of the country apart from Edinburgh.
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: Do I understand that the whole of this Bill would be administered in Scotland?
  LORD MORRISON: That is so.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: What this clause says is that the Secretary of State
  600
  shall constitute a Commission, and the noble Duke says it should be in Edinburgh. This clause has nothing to do with where it sits, and I cannot see any objection to constituting the Commission in Edinburgh, because that is where I presume it would be constituted. It seems to me, therefore, small matter to accept the Amendment.
  LORD MORRISON: It was the noble Duke himself who said that his object was to secure that this Commission should meet in Scotland and not out of the country. He is perfectly satisfied on that.
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: My idea was that the Commission should operate in Scotland, but I understand the noble Lord to say that the whole Bill and the whole administration will be seated in Scotland.
  LORD MORRISON: That is so.
  THE DUKE OF MONTROSE: In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE moved, in subsection (2), after "fit" to insert "provided always the scheme is framed to provide for the interests of hospital and specialist services." The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is to help in the work of the Endowments Commission. May I say that I welcome very strongly the action of the Secretary of State in appointing this Commission and in following the lines adopted by a predecessor of his in the review of educational endowments? The policy differs from that adopted under the English Bill in this respect, but speaking with some experience of the operations of the Educational Endowments Commission—on which this Commission seem largely to be framed, although not following exactly the interpretation of that Commission—and having had the responsibility of the Chairmanship of that Commission for eight years, I feel that I may bring forward two points in which the work of that Commission was strongly criticized. They are brought about by the conditions which follow in this clause, that in framing their schemes the Commission must have special regard to certain things. It was on that point that the Endowments Commission were very strongly criticized.
  We were told that although the endowments had been given for a special purpose the scheme which we adopted and brought forward reorganized the whole of those conditions, and allocated the endowments for other purposes. But we were always able to satisfy the lawyers that we had fulfilled the condition, which was that we must have special regard to these things. I feel that there is a difference between the Educational Endowments Commission and the Commission proposed to be set up in this Bill. Education endowments cover a very wide field. A large number of those endowments were obviously anachronisms, and the general policy adopted by the Commission was to produce a scheme which gave great latitude to the new governing body. But here in this Commission we have endowments dealing specifically and only with one service—that is, the hospital and health service; therefore I feel it would help the general working of the scheme and the solution of the problem if these words that I have put into my Amendment preceded the production of their scheme. It deals to a certain extent with the point recently raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, in his Amendment to Clause 7. But, quite frankly, the whole of Scotland will look to the retention of those endowments for the provision of hospital and such services, and will not expect them to be swept away, as is possible under the literal terms of this Bill, to some completely different service. It is for these reasons that I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 13, after ("fit") insert 'the said proviso.—(The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine).
  LORD MORRISON: The noble Earl, Lord Elgin, who is well known as the Chairman of the Educational Endowments Commission, on the results of whose work the present Bill is partly based, seeks by this Amendment to secure that the Hospital Endowments Commission shall be required to have special regard to the interests of hospital and specialist services (among other things). The chief objection to the Amendment, apart from the drafting difficulty, is that it would require the Commission to pay more attention to the interests of the hospital and specialist services than to those of others which have to be taken into account. In particular there is the
  602
  question of the intention of the founders of the endowments. Regard for this latter factor has all along been a feature with regard to administering hospital endowments. It is because we must bear in mind the spirit of the intention of the founders of endowments that I am unable to accept this Amendment.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I wonder if the noble Lord would consider if his answer is not rather splitting hairs. The obvious intention of the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, was that the endowments funds should in the future be administered as they are at the present time. It may be true that the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, narrowed the line a little by employing the terms he did in his Amendment, and there may be some besides specialist services which will included in the endowment; but the real reason we want this Amendment is to prevent outside bodies robbing the endowment funds in the same way, for instance, as the Road Fund was robbed. We want to be absolutely satisfied that the Endowments Commission will not depart from the views and the wishes of the people who originally subscribed the endowments. In his answer the noble Lord intimated that the Government wished to keep within this line. If that is so, and he does not agree with our phraseology, would it be possible for him to put down some Amendment in his own name which would conform to what the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, desires?
  LORD MORRISON: I should be very surprised if it were possible, under the terms of this Bill, for money from endowments to be used for purposes quite outside the scope of the Bill. The point at issue in this matter seems to be a very narrow one; the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, wishes to give first priority to the hospital and specialist service; on the other hand, the Government's attitude is that the first consideration shall be the spirit and the intention of the founder of the endowment.
  THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: It is not a question of preference. It is a question of tying assurance that monies which have endowed to hospital services should remain available for those services. It is a definite provision—and these preferences come afterwards—so long as the fund is retained "to provide for the interests of hospital and

  603
  specialist services." That is the actual provision, according to my Amendment.
  LORD MORRISON: I can only say that it would not, in fact, be possible for the Commission to transfer endowment monies away from the hospital and specialist services. Under subsection (2) they must either leave the endowments to the boards of management who initially inherited, or transfer them to other boards of management or Regional Boards. Under subsection (4) Regional Boards or boards of management are empowered only to use the endowment "for such purposes relating to hospital or specialist services of to the functions of the Regional Hospital Board or the board of management with respect to research as they think fit." That assurance ought to satisfy the noble Earl, and I hope it will.
  THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: It comes nearer to what I was aiming at. I have had sufficient experience of these things to know that when a Commission are told to have special regard to matters it means that they must think about those things, and having thought about them they may form a completely different scheme for a completely different purpose. That was right with regard to the Educational Endowments Commission, but I feel that the situation in regard to these endowments is quite different, and that we ought to have an assurance such as the noble Lord has now given us. I do not feel quite satisfied, and if he will agree to look at this again, and, possibly, give us a further reassurance on the Report stage I will not press this Amendment at this moment.
  LORD MORRISON: I shall be happy to look at this again, and if the noble Earl would raise this point again, either on the Report stage or on the Third Reading, I will see whether it is possible to strengthen the assurance which I have just given to an extent which leaves no further room for doubt.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE moved, in subsection (7), to leave out "five" and insert "ten." The noble. Earl said: My second Amendment is also based on my experience of the work on the Educational Endowments Commission. The Commission were appointed for a period of three years, with the same pro-
  604
  vision as is contained in this Bill for extension if required. We had five annual extensions and, therefore, we were in operation for eight years. But we were unable to accomplish the task before us. As a result of that experience I feel that the period of five years suggested in the Bill is insufficient for the Endowments Commission under this Bill, and that it should be extended. I have this further reason—and this is a point which was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk—that after the demise of the Commission powers are handed to the Secretary of State. My view, again based on my experience—although it was an unenviable experience—is that this leads to a good deal of criticism. I feel that the Endowments Commission did useful work, but they were not allowed to finish their work.
  I think in this case it is most important that the Commission, and not the Secretary of State, should have the responsibility of finishing the job. Therefore, I suggest that a longer period should be inserted in the Bill. That is my reason for suggesting that "five" should be left out and "ten" inserted. I think it is wrong, on principle, that one individual, the Secretary of State, possibly on account of the difficulties connected with some of the endowments, should have the responsibility placed upon him, after the lapse of five years, of saying: "This is to be the destination of a particular endowment." One or two of the endowments which came under review by the Educational Endowments Commission were very long and intricate and many inquiries were needed. We spent months over some of them and some had to be left in a state of suspended animation. That was most unsatisfactory, and I strongly urge that the period of this Commission's life should be extended.
  Amendment moved,
  Page to, line 7, leave out ("five") and insert ("ten").—(The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine.)
  LORD MORRISON: I hope that the explanation which I have to give to the noble Earl will bring home to him that the Secretary of State and the Government, so far as Scotland is concerned, have learned something from the Educational Endowments Commission, and hope to improve upon that in the case of the Hospital Endowments Commission. The noble Earl suggests that ten years ought to be the

  605
  period of life instead of five. Of course, there is another angle from which to look at this. It seems desirable that the Hospital Endowments Commission should get on with their work as soon as possible. The period of five years ought to be enough for this purpose, and if the kind of contingency which the noble Earl has envisaged did arise it would always be possible for the Secretary of State to continue the Commission in office for a further period. That was not possible with the Educational Endowments Commission. There was no power to continue them in operation by Order, as there is in the case of the Hospital Endowments Commission. That, it seems to me, makes all the difference. The maximum life of the Educational Endowments Commission was laid down from time to time by Statute, and, as I say, there was no power to continue them in operation by Order. But there is such power in the case of the Hospital Endowments Commission. It might have a bad effect for a Commission to be appointed and be informed that it would continue in office for ten years. I think it might be far better to hurry them along, so to speak, and seek to prevent them becoming dilatory. This could best be done, I suggest, by putting in the period of five years. For these reasons I hope that the noble Earl will not wish to press his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I ask a question upon this? Is it the Government's intention to use the Endowments Commission for dealing with all endowments of hospitals? That is a very important point, and we ought to know the answer. As the Bill stands at present there are all sorts of points at which the Secretary of State can step in and—as the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, has said-do with endowments exactly as he thinks fit. That was the reason why in the last Amendment, moved by the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, there was an endeavour to restrict the use to which the Secretary of State could put the endowments. In the first place the Secretary of State may step in and appropriate any endowments in Scotland for liabilities. In the second place he may take a Report of the Commission and modify, change, alter, add to or subtract from it, in any way he likes. He may, after five years, terminate the Endowments Commission and then do exactly what he likes. I think the Secre-
  606
  tary, of State is sensitive about this point, I think he realizes that the powers which he has secured for himself are rather great, and the only answer he has is to say that there might be a question of deadlock. There is one example of a breakdown which he can quote, but that it is unlikely to happen in the future.
  The powers which at the present time the Secretary of State has over endowments are very great indeed. I am sure that he is most anxious to keep faith with the benefactors. He has said that, and I am sure that he means it. At the same time I think it is proper to remember that many of these endowments are handed up in church collections and I feel that there is something a little improper in saying that church collections should go to pay what amounts to a political tax—or should go to be paid under a political head. It would be a great pity if the fullest possible use were not made of this Commission. The Secretary of State should not cut short its life. If the noble Lord can say that it is the intention of the Secretary of State to ensure that all endowments are dealt with before he terminates the Commission, it will be an assurance of some value.
  LORD MORRISON: We have now narrowed down this discussion to a very small point. I am advised that the Commission will be expected to review all endowments except those which are not to be diverted. The Orders of the Secretary of State approving his actions are subject to annulment by Parliament. The narrow point we have arrived at is whether "ten" should replace "five," or whether "five" should stand. I think there is very little in it, because, as I have already explained to the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, it is possible, under the Bill as it now stands, for the Secretary of State to continue the Commission in office for a further period. He is empowered to do that. If the period of five years should prove insufficient for the Commission to complete their task it will be possible, as it was not possible in the case of the Educational Endowment Commission, for the Secretary of State to continue the Commission for a further period.
  THE EARL OF SELEIRK: It is certainly possible for the Secretary of State to do so, but is it the intention of the Secretary of State that the Endowments

  607
  Commission should be expected to complete their work, or does the Secretary of State wish to do it himself?
  LORD MORRISON: I should doubt whether the Secretary of State has any hard and fast notions on that. It is difficult to know how long this task will take but the Secretary of State fears that if you put down a period of ten years it will encourage the Committee to proceed with this work, which ought to be proceeded with as expeditiously as possible, in a somewhat dilatory way.
  THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: I do not really think there is anything in that argument. I am quite certain that any Commission appointed would want to get on with the job as quickly as they could. I can speak with strong personal experience. I do not think there is a great deal in the noble Lord's other point that the provision enabling the Secretary of State to extend the life of the Commission by Order makes it very different from the condition under which the life of the Educational Endowments Commission was also extended. That was not by Order; it was by Statute, and that was, perhaps, rather more of a safeguard than otherwise. The provision of extending it by Order means that the responsibility at the end of five years for saying whether or not the Commission should continue is the Secretary of State's and nobody else's. I should say that the other procedure was safer from the point of view of Parliament. That put the responsibility on Parliament, and not on one individual. Therefore, I am not convinced in any way by the argument produced by the noble Lord. I still feel quite strongly that the Commission should have adequate time to do their work, and that the Commission should be the people who do the work.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
  Clause 11:
  Regional Hospital Boris, Medical Education Committees and Boards of Management.
  (4) Every Regional Hospital Board shall, within such period as the Secretary of State may specify, submit to the Secretary of State a scheme for the appointment by them of boards to be called Boards of Management,
  608
  for the purpose of exercising functions with respect to the control and management of individual hospitals or groups of hospitals vested in the Secretary of State and providing hospital and specialist services in the area of the Regional Hospital Board.
  (5) Before submitting a scheme under the last foregoing subsection the Regional Hospital' Board shall consult any university with which the provision of hospital and specialist services in the area of the Board is or is to be associated.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I trust that some time this evening the heart of the noble Lord opposite will melt, and that he will grant us at least one Amendment. So far he has been adamant, but in a most courteous manner. This Amendment is quite a simple one. We feel that consultation with the university alone is not enough, and this Amendment is designed to ensure consultation with local health authorities and boards of governors of hospitals.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 44, after ("Board") insert:
  "in addition to consulting local authorities having jurisdiction under the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, and the existing governing bodies of the voluntary hospitals to be included in such scheme."
  LORD MORRISON: I thank the noble Earl for his appeal to me, and I can only say that, as he will agree, up to now I have been batting on a sticky wicket. I hope an improvement may now begin to be apparent. The Amendment moved by the noble Earl seeks to require the Regional Hospital Board, before framing schemes for the grouping of hospitals under boards of management, to consult local authorities and governing bodies of voluntary hospitals as well as universities, with whom consultation is already required. As the noble Lord has indicated, he feels that wider consultation should also be specified. I am quite prepared to give a promise to consider an appropriate Amendment before the Report stage. I am advised that the Amendment as it is at present drafted will not do, because it would bring in the town councils of small boroughs which have had no health functions since 1929.
  On the other hand, it might be just as important for Regional Boards to consult with associations of voluntary hospitals and local authorities as to consult the particular hospital or authorities. If the noble Earl would allow me to consult

  609
  with the Department and put down an Amendment covering the sense of his Amendment, and submit that Amendment either to himself or to one of his friends to seek their approval, I would be pleased to bring it forward on Report stage.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I thank the noble Lord. We are quite content that he should produce an Amendment as he suggests, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause II agreed to.
  Clause 12:
  Functions of Regional Hospital Boards and Boards of Management.
  (2) Every Regional Hospital Board shall, within such period as the Secretary of State may specify, submit to him a scheme for the exercise on their behalf by Boards of Management of hospitals or groups of hospitals within their area of functions relating to the control and management of those hospitals or groups of hospitals, and any such scheme may include provision as to the following matters:
  (a) the appointment of officers required to be employed at or for the purposes of any hospital controlled and managed by a Board of Management;
  LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, at the end of subsection (2) (a) to insert:
  "other than a hospital providing facilities for under-graduate or post-graduate clinical teaching."
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment reflects the anxiety of the teaching hospitals that their appointments should remain in their own hands. The noble Lord is as well aware as I am, and as proud as I am, of the magnificent service of the teaching hospitals to Scotland, but I do not know if he realizes the anxiety of the teaching hospitals at the present time about the quality of medical teaching. That quality is magnificent, but on the way in which it is continued depends the doctoring of the future. They are very anxious that the present state of affairs should not be changed. The situation is not the same as under the English Act. It is the Regional Board now, and not the teaching hospital, that is going to have the say. I think that so far as this is concerned the teaching hospitals have a very strong case, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to accept this Amendment, which I am very happy to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, Line 20, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Saltoun.)
  LORD MORRISON: If the noble Lord and the House would agree, I would like to discuss this Amendment together with the next two Amendments standing in the name of the same noble Lord, because they all cover the same point and it would be convenient to discuss them together. The noble Lord's Amendments cover one particular aspect of the proposals in the Scottish Bill for dealing with teaching hospitals. As I explained in my Second Reading speech, the Scottish Bill diverges from the English Act in that it does not make a sharp distinction between teaching hospitals and non-teaching hospitals. All hospitals alike are administered by boards of management acting as agents of Regional Hospital Boards. The endowments of all voluntary hospitals are treated alike. Where, in fact, a hospital provides facilities for clinical teaching, that is recognized by including on the board of management nominees both from the university concerned and' from the teaching staff.
  The precise functions to be exercised by boards of management are not laid down in the Bill, but will be settled in schemes to be submitted by the Regional Boards under Clause 12 (2) for the approval of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State expects that Regional Boards will delegate the appointment of officers quite extensively to boards of management, especially those of important hospitals. But he must resist any attempt to insert in the Bill itself provisions which would interfere with the flexibility of the administrative arrangements to be made in the light of experience. The principal teaching hospitals may require arrangements different in degree from hospitals where a smaller amount of teaching is carried on. The appointment to a teaching hospital of members of the clinical staff whom the university will wish to appoint also to teaching posts is a matter in which the university must have an important voice. This is secured by the university's participation in the advisory appointments committee which will be set up under Clause 14 of the Bill in connexion with any such appointment.
  Whether the actual appointment to the clinical post is made by the Regional Board, or by the board of management as its agent, does not appear to me to be

  611
  a material factor in this connexion. It is true that the university have direct nominees on the board of management, but these nominees form a minority. Similarly, there are members on the Regional Board appointed after consultation with the university, who may be expected to look after the interests of medical teaching. On the other hand, if the board of management of a teaching hospital were to appoint all the clinical staff of the hospital, this would mean that the Regional Board would not have the decisive voice in most of the major appointments of the region; because in the key hospitals which undertake most of the teaching the senior physicians and surgeons are very often consultants for areas much wider than those served by the particular hospital in which they hold their primary appointment.
  To avoid raising doubts in the noble Lord's mind, it might be well to mention that the procedure outlined for the appointment of persons to hold clinical posts at a hospital along with teaching posts at a university—a procedure involving the setting up of an advisory appointments committee under Clause 14—will not necessarily apply to the most senior teaching appointments: for example, Clinical Chairs at universities, the holders of which are normally also in clinical charge of hospital wards. Clause 14 is so drafted that these appointments could be excluded from that procedure, and the Secretary of State intends to discuss with the universities the precise arrangements which he will make in cases of this kind.
  LORD SALTOUN: I am obliged to the noble Lord for his answer. I think he has in his last few words met my point. It would be an unthinkable position that, say, the University of Aberdeen should not be able to appoint a Professor of Surgery without consultation with the Regional Board. As I have understood the noble Lord, it would be impossible for such a situation to arise, and the universities will have a free hand in their own house.
  LORD MORRISON: I can only repeat the last sentence to which the noble Lord referred—namely: The Secretary of State intends to discuss with the universities the precise arrangements to be made in cases of this kind.
  LORD SALTOUN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his answer, and for his good will on the matter: With the permission of the House, I will withdraw my Amendment, but I should like to hear something further on this subject on the Report stage, because I think it is very important.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13 agreed to.
  Clause 14:
  Conditions of service and appointment of officers.
  (2) Regulations may make provision with respect to the appointment of such classes of the medical or dental officers employed on the staff of any such hospitals providing hospital and specialist services as may be specified in the regulations, and such regulations shall, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, provide—
  (b) for the constitution, on the occasion of each such vacancy, of an advisory appointments committee consisting of—

  (i) persons nominated by any Regional Hospital Board concerned;

  (ii) persons nominated by any Board of Management concerned;

  (iii) in the case of an appointment involving specialist duties, specialists nominated from among their own number by the members of a national panel constituted in accordance with regulations for the purpose of making such nominations; and

  (iv) in the case of an appointment involving teaching duties, persons nominated by any university concerned;

  LORD TWEEDSMUIR: The Amendment which I now move is a very brief one in every sense of the term. In Clause 14, page 16, line 47 there appear these words: "… among their own number by the members of a national panel …" This Bill gives no definition of a "national panel" at all. The purpose of the Amendment is to substitute the word "the" for the word "a". We are left entirely and completely in the dark about this matter. From the present wording, it is very hard to say whether the word "a" means that there will be one national panel or that it will be one of a number of them. If there is to be one, let us be specific and use the word "the". As to these national panels, what, may I ask, are to be their powers, and how are they to be constituted? We are entitled to get some further information on those

  613
  points before we accept this clause as it stands, quite apart from the point as to whether or not they are to be singular or plural. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 16, line 47, leave out ("a") and insert ("the").—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)
  LORD MORRISON: I am afraid that I am not able to answer the last questions of the noble Lord, which seem to me to be rather outside the very narrow scope of his Amendment. I had some little difficulty in understanding exactly what it was that the noble Lord had in mind. I thought the purpose of his Amendment was to make it clear that there should be only one national panel for this purpose, and not several. I think I am right in that. If the noble Lord wished to make it clear that there should be only one national panel, I can tell him that it is certainly the intention that there should be only a single panel, and if the regulations attempted to provide otherwise they could be annulled by either House of Parliament. As a matter of drafting, the Secretary of State is advised that it would be incorrect to make the Amendment, for the paragraph would then refer to "the national panel" although no national panel will be in existence until it has been constituted in accordance with the regulations. I hope that I have cleared up the point and the difficulty of the noble Lord.
  LORD TWEEDSMUIR: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, who has released a small ray of light into the gloom surrounding this particular matter, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, at the end of subsection (2) (b), to insert:
  "but so that there shall be an equal balance in the number of persons forming the committee between the university representation and the other representation."
  The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment to Clause 14 of the Bill and in particular to paragraph (b) (iv) of that clause. That deals with the appointment of teaching staff in the hospitals and, by extension, necessarily to the universities. By the manner in which the noble Lord handled the first question which I raised in regard to the universities, I have been confirmed in my opinion that the import-
  614
  ance of the alteration in the status and position of the universities under this Bill is not fully appreciated. I will give a simple illustration of what I mean. Under statutory obligation, with regard to supplying teaching facilities, the Secretary of State is content to exercise those functions through a Regional Board on the advice of another organization. I do not think that that shows a very keen appreciation of the burden of these statutory functions. That is the first point.
  I now come to this clause, the real implications of which I think are also not fully understood. Its meaning is that, in regard to any clinical appointment, the only assurance that the university will be represented at all is that there will presumably be one appointed representative on the advisory committee. That is the only assurance which is given in this Bill. I am afraid that I am not content to accept the statement from the noble Lord that the Secretary of State will discuss this matter with the universities. May I say that, as the noble Lord knows, he has already discussed that several times with the universities, and the universities are still discontented with the arrangements which have been made. I am not absolutely wedded to the words that have been put down here, but I am bound to say that the present arrangement is entirely unsatisfactory. It means that a university cannot appoint anyone—cannot even accept (and this is the extreme case) a regius professor until he has been through the procedure of this Advisory Committee and been appointed by the Regional Board. That is a completely unsatisfactory position. I would like, if I may, again to refer to the quotation which I made before, of the extreme importance of the closest co-operation between teaching and care of patients. It was emphasized that what is required is an equal balance between teaching and care of patients, and that is the correct way in which the conduct both of the hospital itself and of the appointment of teachers should be conducted.
  But there is in this a very much deeper point, and I would like to refer to one statement which the noble Lord made when speaking on the Second Reading. He referred to the fact that there would have to be central negotiation—that is with the Secretary of State—on matters of remuneration. That introduces an entirely new element. Does that mean to

  615
  say that the Secretary of State wishes to have a dominant say in the appointment of teachers in our free universities? It is nothing more nor less than that which is being claimed, in a somewhat invidious manner, by the clause as it stands at present. I am afraid that this is a matter on which I hold very strong opinions. The universities must be free to make their own appointments. If anyone wishes to claim autocratic powers, one of the first things he will seek to do is to get the power to appoint professors and teachers at universities. That is, in fact, substantially what will happen under this clause. The universities attach very great importance to the way in which they can make their appointments.
  The Amendment which I have suggested is a very modest one, if I may say so. It suggests simply that there shall be a balance on the advisory appointments committee in which the university and other interests will be represented about equally. To my mind that is a very moderate request, but it does ensure that in the appointments the universities have a very real say. I would like to add that it is not only in the senior posts that the universities are interested; they are interested also in ensuring that all the people in the assistant posts who may have to carry out teaching are competent to do their job. There is not a great distinction between what might be called "clinical ability" and "teaching ability," but there is some distinction. The qualities for teaching are not necessarily conscientiousness and hard work; they are an ability to grasp and hold the attention of pupils so that they will learn from the leadership given by the teacher. Those are important points.
  It is consistent with this that the universities have searched all over the country for the very best men for the post. There can be no two opinions on that. In circumscribing them in this way, I suggest that the Bill is undermining the strength of the Scottish medical schools at a time when it is very dangerous to do so. The noble Lord himself very correctly said in the course of Second Reading that the Scottish medical schools hold a high and unequalled position in the medical schools of the world. I am sure it is not the wish of the Secretary of State, or of His Majesty's Government, that this should be
  616
  in any way impaired, but I do say, without hesitation, that the universities are very worried about the way in which this clause is at present framed. I hope the noble Lord can see his way to make some alteration to this clause. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 6, at end, insert ("but so that there shall be an equal balance in the number of persons forming the committee between the university representation and the other representation").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  5.18 p.m.
  LORD SALTOUN: I should like just to support everything which my noble friend the Earl of Selkirk has said. It really hangs on what I have already said, and I sincerely hope the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, will accept this Amendment.
  LORD MORRISON: The noble Earl has put up a very strong case with regard to this Amendment, much of which would not be remedied if his Amendment were passed. My difficulty is that I have to decide, not upon the case the noble Earl has put up, but upon the actual wording of the Amendment which he is endeavouring to insert in this Bill, the Amendment being that there should be an equal balance in the number of persons forming the committee. There may or may not be a great deal in what the noble Earl has said, but it does not seem to me that this Amendment would make the case any better; indeed, I think it would make it weaker merely to insist on a rigidity in which there should be an equal number. The Secretary of State takes the view that the university element on the advisory appointments committee in such a case should be in keeping with the relative importance of the teaching duties as compared with the whole work of the post. Thus, if teaching duties are to take up only a small part of the person's time, a relatively small university representation on the committee would seem appropriate. On the other hand, if the clinical duties of the hospital post were relatively less important than the teaching duties, then it might be appropriate that the university should nominate more than half the members of the selection committee.
  If the Amendment which the House is considering were accepted, it would have the result that in every case the university representatives would be half of the

  617
  committee; not more and no less, however important or unimportant the teaching duties in relation to the clinical duties. I would also add that there is nothing in this Bill affecting the rights of universities to appoint and pay their own teachers. Where these teachers are simultaneously to hold clinical responsibilities to the hospital organization, the hospital authorities claim the right, as recommended by the Goodenough Report, to have some say in the selection of the individuals to hold the dual posts. I hope in those circumstances the noble Earl will not import this amount of rigidity into the Bill by insisting, no matter what the circumstances, that there shall be an absolute balance.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: The noble Lord has said that he is greatly impressed by the noble Earl's arguments; in fact, he seemed to agree with his whole thesis. As the noble Lord proceeded he told the House that the Amendment which the noble Earl had moved did not really meet what the noble Earl wanted, for certain reasons. But when the noble Lord ended his speech he stated virtually that he rejected the Amendment altogether. I was hoping, having listened to his line of argument, that before he sat down he was going to suggest to the noble Earl that the noble Earl was right, and if he would leave the Amendment the Government, on the Report stage, would produce something which would meet the noble Earl's point of view more aptly than the Amendment at present before your Lordships' House. I should like to hear from the noble Lord whether that is possible, and whether he can reconsider the Amendment, with the object of bringing into it the views of the Government, rather than having the Amendment withdrawn and allowing the whole matter to lapse.
  LORD SALTOUN: Before the noble Lord replies, I may say I am getting a little confused between the hospital and the university. I suppose there is no possibility under this Bill of the situation arising that a member of the teaching staff in a university could fail to have free access to the hospital with which the university is connected. That is the question in my mind.
  LORD MORRISON: Obviously, I am not in a position to answer that question off-hand, but it will be given considera-
  618
  tion. I am perfectly sure that noble Lords opposite realize the position in which I am placed. I am not here as a direct representative, but merely as a Lord in Waiting in your Lordships' House to pilot this Bill through. In regard to what the noble Viscount has said, I can only say that if this matter is raised again on the Report stage, without making any promises at I will do my best to answer. I am unable to make any promise that any concession will be made, but the noble Earl does not need me to tell him that. He can raise this matter again if he so desires. I cannot say more than that.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I must say that I am most disappointed with what the noble Lord has said, because he is trying to water down this Amendment with reasons which, frankly, are rather woolly. He has said it is too vague and general, and it might produce too many university men or too few university men.
  LORD MORRISON: I said it was rigid.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord said he wanted to make the representation on the selection committee exactly representative to the clinical duties and teaching duties. One could go on arguing like that indefinitely, and get nowhere. I may recall to my noble friend what I said about the chasm which exists between the proper contacts. This Bill provides no more than the right to appoint one man to an advisory committee. I do not call that a contact at all. Would not the noble Lord undertake to put down an Amendment of his own, because we are told that all the Amendments we put forward are badly drafted? It is not our business to draft, and it is very easy to say that somebody else's Amendment is badly drafted. I think the noble Lord agrees that there is a case for adjustment here and I would ask whether he could not undertake to make some alteration. I must say that I shall ask your Lordships to see that the clause does not leave this House in this state; it must be strengthened. Will the noble Lord put down another Amendment on the Report stage?
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I would like to support my noble friend. We all realize that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, is a Lord in Waiting, endeavouring to

  619
  pilot this Bill through, but surely the people who are responsible for producing this Bill, and for instructing him about it, must have had some idea that an Amendment of this sort would be put in, and they must have realized that there would be a considerable amount of animadversion about Clause 14 as it stands. Apparently they thought we were going to accept this without ever being given any concrete reply by the Secretary of State or his representatives to any Amendment that might be put up on this clause. I must say that this is most unsatisfactory, and I hope that my noble friend, if he does withdraw this Amendment, will see that some Amendment to improve this position will be put down on Report stage. If on that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, says it is unsatisfactory or wrongly worded, then on the Third Reading something will have to be decided.
  LORD MORRISON: Provided that the noble Earl understands clearly that I am not committing myself to anything, I am quite willing to meet the noble Earl and discuss this further, to see whether we can arrange for an Amendment to be put down. It could be an Amendment from the Government side, or an Amendment in the name of the noble Earl. I am quite willing to meet him with the officers responsible for drafting this Bill in order to discuss this—to-morrow if he likes—with a view to going into It thoroughly. So long as the noble Earl understands that I am not taking the responsibility of committing myself, I hope we may find it possible to do something in the direction the noble Earl desires. If he will be prepared to accept that, I will do my best to see that it is implemented.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: If I understand that the noble Lord will make representations to the correct quarter, I will withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15:
  Health Centres.
  15—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to make such provision in such areas as he may deem necessary for the establishment, equipping and maintenance of premises, which shall be called "health centres,"
  620
  at which facilities shall he available for all or any of the following purposes:—
  (b) the provision of general dental services under Part IV of this Act by dental practitioners;
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is a Government Amendment. Together with the next two consequential Amendments it remedies a drafting defect in Clause 15 (I), by making it clear that health centres provided by the Secretary of State can include facilities to be used by education authorities for school health service purposes. The kind of provision envisaged is clinic accommodation, which could be used for sight testing, skin treatment and treatment of minor ailments, which in the early years of the new service will continue to be provided for groups of children by education authorities as part of the school health service. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 28, leave out ("services which local health") and insert ("health services which local health or education").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, at the end of subsection (I), to insert:
  "Provided that a health centre shall not be established solely for the provision of general dental services."
  The noble Earl said: This is a small point which concerns and gives interest to people of the dentists' profession. They are very anxious—and I think one can appreciate their eagerness—that in the event of health centres being set up, they should not be set up for the express purpose of serving dentists, and dentists alone. I feel great sympathy for this point of view. This is a comprehensive service, of which all are expected to be an integral part. They are very glad to take part, but they do not wish to be segregated from others who practise in other aspects of the medical profession, and to be put by themselves. If the noble Lord could insert these words, I do not feel it would be unduly restrictive, because I do not think the Secretary of State would normally wish health centres to be solely for the purpose of dentistry. I know it would give great satisfaction to the dental profession.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 33, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Selkirk).
  LORD SALTOUN: Another very strong reason for supporting this Amendment is that dentists, under the national health service, as I understand it, can do only the work they arc directed to do by the doctor. That means that by the time the dentist has got half way down your gum, if he finds he must go the whole way down he has to stop, seal off, and go and fill up a form. I have just come into contact with a woman who has been in agony for three years. I said: "It is time you paid off your doctor. Up you go to my dentist.' The job was done at once, but the dentist told me that if he had had to do that under the national health service, and had drilled the tooth and found he would have to kill a nerve, instead of killing the nerve he would have had to fill up a form. It is, therefore, very important that dental services should be associated with medical services, to give them a little more authority.
  LORD MORRISON: If the noble Earl and the noble Lord who have spoken on this Amendment will listen carefully, as I am sure they will do, to the reply I am going to make, I think they will find it satisfactory. In terms of Clause 15, health centres may provide facilities for all or any of six purposes; that is, general medical practice, general dental practice, pharmaceutical services, specialist: and out-patient services, local authority services, and the publication of health information. This Amendment would secure that a health centre should not be established solely for general dental practice. It is the Secretary of State's intention that health centres should provide as wide a range of health facilities as is possible and appropriate in the circumstances of each particular area. He intends that in the majority of cases there shall be provision under all six of the heads set out above, although the attitude of the local authorities concerned, and the provision already in existence for their clinic services, will determine the extent to which facilities for these services will be provided at health centres.
  The Secretary of State has given repeated assurances to representatives of the dental profession in Scotland that the establishment of a chain of centres providing for dental treatment alone is no part of his plans. In practically every case, dental provision will be associated at least with provision for general medical practice, and in the tentative
  622
  plans for health services which are now being worked out in the Secretary of State's Department, provision for dental treatment is always associated with provision for medical treatment in this way. At the same time the Secretary of State is not able to accept a provision in the Bill which would debar him from dealing with the exceptional case which might arise from setting up a dental centre in an area where special conditions obtain—as, for example, where there was no early prospect of a health centre being provided for medical services, but where there was an urgent need for improved facilities for dentists to carry on their work. The Amendment would debar the Secretary of State from making special provision for dentistry— in exceptional cases of this kind, and it is therefore unacceptable. If it were not that power was required to deal with the exceptional case, I should have been able to accept this Amendment, but in the circumstances I hope your Lordships will feel that the explanation I have given and the assurances given in another place, which I have repeated, are satisfactory.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lord for what he has said. On the understanding that these powers will be used only to create a separate dental centre in very exceptional circumstances, I will accept what the noble Lord has said, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD MORRISON: The next two Amendments are the consequential ones I mentioned.
  Amendment moved —
  Page 18, line 2, leave out ("services which local health") and insert ("health services which local health or education").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 18, line 4, after ("health") insert ("or education").—(Lord Morrison.),
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 16 to 20 agreed to.
  5.32 p.m.
  Clause 21:
  Proposals for provision of services by local health authority.
  21.—(I) Every local health authority shall, within such period as the Secretary of State may specify, submit to the Secretary of State

  623
  proposals for carrying out their duties under the next following six sections of this Act, including their duties as local supervising authority for the purposes of the Midwives (Scotland) Acts, 1915 and 1927.
  The Secretary of State may specify different periods under this section for proposals relating to different duties.
  THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE moved, after subsection (I), to insert:
  "(2) Subject to the provisions of this section proposals submitted to the Secretary of State under the immediately preceding subsection may make provision for the local health authority entering into any arrangements with a view to securing the local co-ordination of any of the services referred to in section two of this Act, and for incurring expenditure in connexion with any such arrangements."
  The noble Earl said: Clause 21 purports to deal with proposals for the provision of services by local authorities. The purpose of this Amendment is to secure that, so far as possible, it is left to local authorities to look after the services. The desire is to maintain local interest in hospital services and also to maintain the principle of properly elected representation of local health authorities on the various boards and committees proposed to be set up under the Bill. As it is proposed in the Bill, Clause 21 does not in any way give local authorities power to enter into any arrangements of this kind to secure local co-ordination of the services which is so necessary to secure the efficiency of the local health service.
  I understand that discussions have taken place between the local authorities, the County Councils Association and the Secretary of State, on this matter and that Clause 30 is designed to meet this point; but my contention is that it fails to do so. Clause 30 is merely a permissive power to local authorities to make financial contributions towards the expenditure incurred by the Regional Boards. The primary consideration is to give to the local authorities power to provide in a scheme for the setting up of a co-ordinating committee, and the financial provision, if it is required at all, is quite a minor point. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 21, line 13, at end, insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine.)
  LORD MORRISON: I think the noble Earl has summed up the position in connexion with his Amendment by saying that Clause 30 fails to do what he requires.
  624
  This is a very difficult Amendment for a layman to discuss. I understand that the form of words adopted in the Amendment is a form which was urged upon the Secretary of State by the Fife County Council. Probably the Clerk to the Fife County Council was the draftsman. The Government's draftsman, however, advised that from the drafting standpoint it was unacceptable—for a number of reasons. In the first place, any provision which purports to authorize a local health authority to enter into arrangements of this kind is unnecessary, because that is something they can do without express statutory power. An attempt to put power specifically in the Bill throws doubt upon their power to enter into other kinds of arrangements in connexion with the health service. In the second place, the clause deals with the machinery for the submission of proposals, and not with the content of these proposals. In the third place, the clause relates only to services provided by local health authorities under certain clauses of the present Bill. It is impossible to include in it a subsection which purports to refer to a very much wider range of services.
  That is the opinion of the Government's draftsman but it is not the opinion of the Fife County Council, and therefore your Lordships will have to make up your minds, on the somewhat scanty information I have given and from your Lordships' own knowledge, whether the draftsman of the Fife County Council is more likely to be correct in his interpretation than the Government's draftsman. It is a very difficult matter, and, quite frankly, I can act only on the advice given me, and say that I am prepared to put my money on the Government's draftsman.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: The noble Lord does not know the Clerk to the Fife County Council if he says that. Those of us who do know that gentleman know that the noble Lord is making a very bold statement when he says he is prepared to back the opinion of the Government's draftsman against that of Mr. Mitchell. We have been given no lead in this matter; the noble Lord says he does not know which is the better opinion but he is prepared to assume that that of the Government's draftsman is the better. Would it not be better still if this matter were postponed to the Report stage, and if the

  625
  noble Lord, Lord Morrison, and the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, got together, perhaps with a representative of the County Council and someone from St. Andrew's House? We could then have some considered opinion before us.
  LORD MORRISON: I think the noble Earl's suggestion is an excellent one, I did not give many reasons, but I have beside me pages and pages of very learned matter dealing with this difference of opinion which has arisen between these two great men. Perhaps the noble Earl would be good enough to meet me, together with the Government's draftsman, to-morrow, and to go through with us the material which has been submitted in contravention of the opinion of the gentleman from the County of Fife. If after that he is still dissatisfied, and is still of the opinion that Clause 30 would not operate as the Government say it would, then it would be quite in order for him to revert again to the subject on the Report stage. I hope that in these circumstances the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: With that assurance—except that I am afraid I shall not be able to meet the noble Lord to-morrow, because my duties with the Fife County Council demand that I should be in Fife—I am quite prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 21 agreed to.
  Clause 22:
  Care of mothers and young children.
  22.—(1) It shall be the duty of every local health authority to make arrangements for the care, including in particular dental care, of expectant and nursing mothers and of children who are not attending a school under the management of an education authority and who have not attained, or are deemed under section thirty-three of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, not to have attained, the age of five years.
  5.41 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, at the end of subsection (I), to insert
  "and of young persons (as that expression is defined in and for the purposes of the said Act)."
  The noble Lord said: This is a very small point. Clause 22 lays down that it shall be the duty of every local authority to make arrangements for the
  626
  care—particularly dental care—of three special categories of persons, those categories being expectant mothers, children of school age, and children up to the age of five—that is, below school age. The purpose of the Amendment is to extend this by including the words "young persons". I am advised that that would cover the ages from fifteen, or from school-leaving age of sixteen, to eighteen. I understand the pupils at junior colleges will get dental treatment under arrangements made with the local authority. The junior colleges have not started yet and will not start for a considerable time, and even when they do they will probably not include all young persons up to the age of eighteen. It does seem, therefore, that young persons between sixteen and eighteen are not covered and I submit that they should be covered. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 22, line 16, at end, insert the said words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  LORD MORRISON: The kind of provision which local authorities will make under this scheme will, of course, be related mainly to expectant and nursing mothers and young children. The kind of provision required by adolescents between fifteen and eighteen would be quite different. At the present day, young people, when they leave school, are outside the scope of any organized medical service. In future, they will be entitled to the services of a general practitioner. The kind of treatment provided for school children would be neither necessary nor appropriate in the case of these older boys and girls. The Bill provides a general dental service for the whole population. In order to ensure that the population do not suffer through any shortage of dentists, the Bill also places a supplementary duty on local authorities to provide dental care as part of the maternity and child welfare services. Education authorities have a duty to provide dental treatment for all children in junior schools, including adolescents up to the age of eighteen attending junior colleges. Moreover, the Secretary of State has said that he will be happy to consider in consultation with the dental profession, when the time comes, whether some arrangement can be devised under which preference can be given to adolescents seeking dental treatment. I hope that reply will satisfy the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lord for what he has said, but I do not quite follow the force of his argument when he says that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to provide such treatment as I have mentioned, and then adds that the Secretary of State will not provide for those who are not already covered by school dental schemes. The two things do not seem to tie up. I should be glad if the noble Lord would look at that point again. I do not wish to press the matter unduly, and I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 22 agreed to.
  Clauses 23 to 33 agreed to.
  Clause 34:
  Arrangements for general medical services
  (2) Regulations may make provision for defining the personal medical services to be provided and for securing that the arrangements will be such that all persons availing themselves of those services will receive adequate personal care and attendance, and the regulations shall include provision—
  (b) for conferring a right on any person to choose, in accordance with the prescribed procedure, the medical practitioner by whom he is to be attended, subject to the consent of the practitioner so chosen and to any prescribed limit on the number of patients to be accepted by any practitioner;
  (d) for the issue to patients or their personal representatives by medical practitioners providing such services as aforesaid of certificates reasonably required by them under or for the purposes of any enactment.
  LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved to leave out the first two lines of subsection (2) (b), and insert:
  "(b) for protecting the right of any person who has complied with the prescribed procedure to choose or change the."
  The noble Lord said: If I should carry this Amendment I should feel rewarded for a whole year's work, because it tries to deal with a very deep-seated and widespread grievance and one that is very deeply felt. If one of your Lordships has someone ill to whom you owe affection or duty and are not quite satisfied with the diagnosis of the doctor, or if you are yourself not satisfied with your doctor, you can—with the greatest difficulty—change your doctor. It is a very difficult thing to do, but it can be done. But the ordinary patient under the national health scheme is not in that position, and that
  628
  is a matter which ought to be dealt with. It is one of the hardest things in the world even for a private patient to change his doctor; and my experience has shown me that this is felt as a grievance, and felt very deeply.
  People in every walk of life have told me on many occasions of their passages with a very much overworked doctor. They have told me the diagnosis and the whole history of the case and I have been satisfied that in many instances these people are perfectly genuine and are suffering from a real grievance. The only way to deal with the matter is to give the patient the power to change his doctor. The words I have put down would achieve that. I do not think there is the slightest danger that the right would be over exercised. You can safeguard it in any way you like. I will not waste your Lordships' time by enlarging upon this and I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 27, line 9, leave out lines 9 and I0 and insert the said new words."—(Lord Saltoun.)
  LORD MORRISON: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for helping us to get along quickly. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not make a detailed reply to this Amendment, but simply say that if noble Lords are anxious that some form of words should be included in the Bill to make it clear that a person can change his doctor, a promise can be given that a suitable Amendment will be devised for the Report stage. The present Amendment, I am advised, as it is worded has drafting defects which make it unsuitable. It is, of course, not desirable that a person should change his doctor frequently. As I say, if noble Lords responsible for this Amendment will accept this promise, I will see that an Amendment is put down for the Report stage. If they desire to consult with me before then about the wording of that Amendment I will do my best to make myself available to them.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I just say a word about this? The Bill speaks of "conferring a right" on any person to choose a medical practitioner. We have always had a right in this country to choose any doctor we like—we do not require statutory authority. I do not see why it should not be put in less offensive terms.
  LORD SALTOUN: It is with very deep satisfaction that I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, for his assurance, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5.52 p.m.
  LORD TWEEDSMUIR LORD TWEEDSMUIR moved, at the end of subsection (2) to insert:
  "(e) for ensuring that the remuneration of general practitioners shall be by way of capitation fee subject only to such supplementary basic salary as may be prescribed by regulation."
  The noble Lord said: I think that the vast majority of people, both inside and outside Parliament, will agree that extra ability, extra skill, and extra work must be rewarded if we are to maintain the high standard of medical service which Scotland has always had. I know that there are certain devotees to the idea of a full-time State-salaried medical service. The Minister of Health said in another place that the time is not yet ripe for it. In the view of noble Lords who sit on these Benches, the time never will be ripe for it. Unless the greater part of the medical practitioner's remuneration is by way of capitation fee then his skill, knowledge, and industry will not be, and cannot be, reflected in his reward, nor will there be any spur to his endeavour. These, we think, are not unimportant considerations.
  In our view, the capitation fee should be the basis of the reward, and what is referred to as "basic salary" should be an adjunct. What will this element "basic salary" be? How will it be calculated? We shall be very grateful if the noble Lord can give us any information about it. Is it, for instance, going to be a sort of consolation prize for those doctors who do not possess the public confidence sufficiently to build up substantial lists of patients, or is it to be paid to all practitioners, at the same rate commensurate with present earnings, in which case it might be rather an extravagant measure, for a successful general practitioner with a very big list of patients would be in receipt of a very substantial income. I am moving this Amendment believing that many noble Lords are with me in thinking that it will have the effect of ensuring that a right and proper equation between reward and merit shall be maintained. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 27, line 24, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Tweedsmuir.)
  LORD MORRISON: When the English Bill was discussed, both in another place and in your Lordships' House, Amendments designed to exclude any salary element from remuneration of general practitioners, except in special local circumstances, were fully discussed. One such Amendment was carried against the Government in this House, but was deleted by another place. In the discussion on the Scottish Bill an Amendment of the same kind was rejected in another place. The principal argument against the inclusion of such a provision in the Bill is that it is undesirable, and contrary to the best practice in connection with national health insurance, to incorporate in the Statute itself any limiting provisions about the method of remuneration to be adopted. This was the reason given by another place for their rejection of the Lords Amendment to the English Bill, and it was accepted in your Lordships' House when it returned.
  It has frequently been stated, on behalf-of the Government, that it is not proposed that the salary element should be the main part of the remuneration. The main part of the remuneration will be by capitation, and the salary element will be a smaller part. The arguments in favour of a salary element in remuneration are: first, that it would reduce, to some extent, competition for patients. It will be especially important in health centre practice that co-operation rather than competition among the doctors should be encouraged. Secondly, it would make it easier for a young doctor to start in practice, by ensuring at least a minimum remuneration during the time while he is building up his practice and attracting patients. Thirdly, it would provide a variable element in remuneration, which could be increased to attract doctors to under-doctored areas and perhaps also to take account of special experience or qualifications. The idea of a salary element in remuneration was not invented by the present Government. The 1942 Draft Interim Report from the Medical Planning Commission sponsored by the British Medical Association, which put forward proposals for a system of general practice based on health centres, suggested that remuneration should consist in part of "a basic salary with special additions for special qualifications and length of service." The 1944 White Paper issued by the Coalition Government stated that there was "a

  631
  strong case for basing future practice in a health centre on a salaried remuneration or some similar alternative which will not involve mutual competition within the centre."
  Of the replies to the questionnaire issued to all doctors on behalf of the British Medical Association, after the publication of the 1944 White Paper, 62 per cent. favoured either salary alone or a basic salary in health centre remuneration, as against only 23 per cent. who favoured straightforward capitation fees. Even for practice conducted outside health centres, 5o per cent. of the replies favoured either whole-time salary or a basic salary element, as against 44 per cent. in favour of capitation fees alone. In Scotland, especially, there is really no need at all for the medical profession to discuss the inclusion of a basic salary element of remuneration, for the grants paid to the practitioners in the Highlands and Islands Medical Service over the last thirty years are, in fact, little different from basic salaries. The question whether basic salary need be a universal element in remuneration, or whether there may be circumstances in which it can be dispensed with altogether, is essentially a matter which has yet to be discussed between the Government and the medical profession. Pending these discussions with the medical profession, it is not possible to make any further statement on the subject.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Whilst we are very grateful to the noble Lord for his statement, it does seem to me that he has not met the main charge. The main charge is that under this Bill, as at present drafted, a State-salaried medical profession could be set up. I do not think that the noble Lord will deny that. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent the whole of the general practitioners in the profession being State-salaried personnel. We have, it is true, had a statement from the noble Lord and from the Secretary of State that it is intended that there should be a capitation element. Would the noble Lord be willing to accept an Amendment stating that the capitation element will exist in the payment of general practitioners? I think that that is an important point—it is certainly one to which the British Medical Association attach very great importance. I would like to make this clear. We are told that
  632
  at the present time negotiations are proceeding. If the general practitioners' stand out—and it would need only about 500 or 600 in Scotland to stand out—the whole scheme falls to the ground.
  Would it not be better to give them something in which they are really interested, in order to attract them to come into it, and to give them at least some measure of assurance that they are not going to have merely a basic salary? Payment in the Highlands and the Islands Scheme is partly by basic salary, but it is also very substantially by a capitation fee from crofters, local authorities, and panel patients. I would emphasize that the position in Scotland is entirely different from the position in England.
  If this were the best solution for England, almost naturally it would not be the best solution for Scotland. The noble Lord laughs, but I will give the reason. The position is entirely different. In figures given in 1942 there were 33,000 doctors registered and trained in England, but there were 40,000 practising doctors. In Scotland the number trained was 19,000 and the number practising was 7,000. That indicates that whereas in England the task is inevitably to attract doctors from outside to under-doctored areas, in Scotland the task is to make the home market more satisfactory and attractive to these men who are being trained there. I put that point because it is important. I would suggest, if the noble Lord can give way, that this would present a more attractive proposition to the medical personnel, and a large number of our people would remain in Scotland in order to pursue their profession in that area.
  LORD MORRISON: Whatever merits the noble Lord's argument may have, I would not be prepared to agree with him that this House is the authority to decide this question at a time when the medical profession itself is committed to discussions with the Government. Surely it would not be tactically wise for this House to intervene and, by a decision, make a statement on something upon which the medical profession may be far from unanimous. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord to consider whether it would not be better for this House to wait until these discussions have taken place before making a decision on this issue.
  LORD TWEEDSMUIR: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the shower

  633
  of facts he has released on the subject of a basic salary. He also told us that conversations are proceeding between the Government and the medical profession. It seems to me a very odd time for discussions to proceed.
  LORD MORRISON: If I said the conversations were proceeding, I did not intend to do so. I said that it was essentially a matter which has still to be discussed between the Government and the medical profession. Both sides understand the matter has still to be discussed.
  LORD TWEEDSMUIR: I misunderstood the noble Lord. I am obliged to him for the rain of facts which he has given, and as we have received some assurance from him that a capitation fee will be the main part of the doctor's remuneration, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 35 agreed to.
  Clause 36
  Prohibition of sale of medical practices.
  (2) Any person who sells or buys the goodwill or any part of the goodwill of a medical practice which it is unlawful to sell by virtue of the last foregoing subsection, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a fine not ex-ceeding—

  (a) such amount as will in the opinion of the court secure that he derives no benefit from the offence; and

  (b) the further amount of five hundred pounds;

  or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and such imprisonment.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert:
  "Provided that no offence shall be committed by a medical practitioner or his personal representative who sells his house by bona fide public auction."
  The noble Earl said: This Amendment seeks in some small measure to relieve the very narrow bonds which are placed by this Bill on general practitioners. One of the noble Lord's own supporters in another place referred to this clause —subsection (3) of Clause 36—as "a disgraceful piece of workmanship." I entirely endorse that view. It is an extremely complicated measure which ties up the general practitioner's house in a
  634
  manner which is seriously to his disadvantage. This Amendment seeks in a small way to alleviate that burden. It is taken straight from words which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, uttered in the course of the Second Reading. It will be extremely interesting to see whether ministerial statements carry any weight whatsoever, or whether they are allowed to disappear as a breath of air disappears on the seashore. After all, the words we speak here to-day will soon be forgotten by everybody. There will be very few people except students of literature—
  LORD SHEPHERD: Politics.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I had better withdraw that. There wit be very few people, except students of history, who will ever look to read what is spoken here. But the Statute has an entirely different Unless tills is put into the position. Unless this is put into the Statute what does it mean? As the Lord Advocate said in another place, it is no good quoting somebody as saying that something happened or was to happen. That is not a plea that can be made, and we have the Lord Advocate's assurance that, theoretically, it would be possible to bring an indictment many years after the transaction. That means that when a house has been sold to another general practitioner, whether by auction or not, it is possible at any time in the future to bring an action and for a person to be prosecuted for a breach of this clause. I could say a great deal more about it, because I feel that this is a quite unreasonable burden on a general practitioner. I was talking to a law agent the other day, and he said that if any general practitioner or widow of a general practitioner came to him he would say: "Sell your house to anyone except another doctor. "This is a very serious matter. It means to say that, of all people in the world, doctors are going to find it more difficult than anyone else to settle themselves in practice and buy a house. I submit that that is a most unreasonable position. The noble Lord says he is anxious to help young people to start. No doubt that is true, but anything that is certain to prevent them getting hold of material with which to practise is a very serious thing.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 30, line II, at end to insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  LORD MORRISON: This is the second round of a contest which the noble Earl and I have had upon this point. It arises from the fact that under this Bill a sum totalling £66,000,000 is provided, to be shared between the doctors in Scotland and the doctors south of the Border, in respect of the consequent loss of the capital value of practices. It is necessary for the Bill to include provision making sure that a kind of black market in doctors' practices cannot arise. This is achieved by Clause 36, subsection (3) of which strikes at the sale of doctors' houses at a price which includes any element for goodwill of the practice if that sale is made knowingly to another doctor for the purposes of his practice. The Amendment proposes that the Bill should declare that no offence shall be committed where a doctor's house is sold by bona fide public auction. The noble Earl raised this on Second Reading, and I replied giving him an assurance—which I gather he is not so keen to accept. It all boils down to what is the value of a Parliamentary assurance.
  In the first place, the Amendment is unnecessary. The same question was raised in another place, and in reply, on Report stage, the Lord Advocate—who is the person responsible for the initiation of all criminal proceedings in Scotland—said that it seemed to him that:
  "where a doctor's house is sold at a genuine auction sale there could be no danger of prosecution. The fact that a sum was paid at such a genuine auction by a purchaser who had no prior agreement with the seller, would negative any suggestion that the price contained an element of goodwill."
  The Lord Advocate could not conceive of a genuine auction where the parties had no kind of prior agreement, in connexion with which there could be any suggestion of prosecution. On the other hand the sale of a doctor's house at an inflated price is one of the devices which might most readily lend itself to illegal transactions. The insertion of a provision such as proposed in the Amendment would raise real difficulties, for it would be a temptation to people who wished to defeat the law to make a private arrangement and then cover it by a public auction with every appearance of good faith. Difficult legal questions as to the meaning of such an imprecise expression as "bona fide public auction" might well arise, and lead to complicated and extensive litigation.
  636
  The noble Earl asked me the direct question: If my sentiments are as I expressed them on Second Reading, why should this provision not be in the Bill? The short answer to him is that I am advised—and I think he will be if he seeks legal advice—that the Amendment would enable a coach and horses to be driven through the Bill. I know perfectly well that the noble Earl does not want that to happen, and, in view of the Lord Advocate's observations in another place, I hope that the noble Earl might be prepared to withdraw his Amendment. In conclusion, I would only say that I have spent a great deal of time upon this particular Amendment, because I wanted to see whether it was possible to accept it, but my final advice is that, if the Amendment were accepted, it would be almost impossible to prevent a coach and horses being driven through the Act. The Government are anxious that that should not be done, and that no encouragement should be given to enterprising people who try to get behind the law. I ask the noble Lord to support me in that desire and to withdraw his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I find it most difficult to reconcile what the Lord Advocate is quoted to have said—that he finds it almost impossible to conceive of a case in which a prosecution would arise —with what the noble Lord says—that a carriage and four could be driven through the Act.
  LORD MORRISON: No, no.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is precisely what you said.
  LORD MORRISON: That with the inclusion of the noble Earl's Amendment a carriage and four could he driven through the Act. That is what I said.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: If I may respectfully say so, the Amendment which I have moved simply authorizes what the Lord Advocate says could not give rise to a prosecution. May I point out, in any case, that even when this Amendment went through, it would still be illegal to sell a practice. That still remains an illegal action; it still remains an offence. And I will mention one further example. It still remains an offence to rig an auction sale. Therefore, you are liable for two offences. All

  637
  that my Amendment seeks to do is to make it a little easier for a doctor to get rid of his house, or to buy another one. May I give the noble Lord one specific example? I am taking this example from the Committee stage in another place. It was taken as an example, I think by one of the Government spokesmen. Suppose a house worth £2,000 were sold for £3,500. I do not know whether that is considered as substantially more or not, but it is common knowledge that any house worth £2,000 before the war would be a very good "buy" at £3,500 to-day.
  Now look at it from the other angle. Suppose in ten years' time we review the inflated prices of houses in the year 1945, and suppose by the year 1955 (I do not suggest that with the present financial policy we shall) we drop to the housing values of 1938, or even earlier; would not to-day's prices, in the view of an ordinary jury, look extremely inflated? Would it not be easy to prosecute general practitioners who had in fact changed their houses during this inflationary period? Frankly I do not see why a carriage and pair could be drven through this Bill. After all, auction sales have been going on for a very long time —for several hundred years—and there are regular rules under which they should be conducted. Does not the noble Lord think that there may be other methods by which this difficulty can be overcome?
  LORD MORRISON: I am sorry but in this matter I cannot agree with the noble Earl. There is no question that the auctioneer would probably be entirely innocent, and would not know anything at all about what happened. The offence might be committed far away from the auction sale. I am advised—and one can easily imagine the position—that in such a case as the noble Earl has mentioned it would be possible for a bidder to approach the buyer and arrange with him to bid up the property, and indeed probably find another bidder to support him, in bidding up to a certain agreed figure, which would cover not only the value of the property but so much for the practice. At any rate, this need not have anything to do with the auction sale at all. It could be carried out without the auctioneer having any knowledge that anything wrong was being done; so that factor does not come
  638
  into the matter. But I am perfectly sure in my own mind that it would be possible for abuses to take place. I know that the noble Earl does not want any shady practices to go on in these matters, any more than any of the rest of us, and I am sure he would not wish to open a doorway to enable that sort of thing to happen.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord is no doubt aware that the procedure which he suggests is already illegal. That amounts to the rig of an auction sale, and if the noble Lord proceeds in that way he will in due course be prosecuted for doing so. He does not require this Amendment to be prosecuted. He may be prosecuted in the ordinary way. What I wish to press is this. A general practitioner now would not dare to pat up his house for auction, because, if he did so and the house was bought at an inflated price by another general practitioner, he would be liable to prosecution. What does he do? He cannot tell the medical practices committee, because he does not know the price. It just means to say that a general practitioner is prevented from selling his house by public auction. I am putting this to the noble Lord because I think the position is most unreasonable. Auctioning is a very normal way to sell, and I do not see why a medical practitioner should be excluded from such a course that has been pursued on many occasions.
  LORD MORRISON: May I make one suggestion to the noble Earl? I suggest that between now and the Report stage he should consult with legal advisers as to whether the words "bona fide public auction" are legally water-tight, see what those legal advisers say, and act accordingly on the Report stage.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: In those circumstances, I will withdraw my Amendment, but I reserve the right to put it down on the Report stage if I think fit.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 36 agreed to.
  Clauses 37 to 42 agreed to.
  Clause 43:
  Disqualification of persons providing services.
  (7) Regulations shall make provision—

  (a) with regard to the procedure for the holding of inquiries by the Tribunal and for the making and determining of appeals to the Secretary of State under this section

  639
  and, in particular, for securing that any person who is the subject of an inquiry by the Tribunal under this section shall have an opportunity—

  (ii) of being heard by the Tribunal or the person so appointed and of calling witnesses and producing other evidence on his behalf;

  and that the hearing, whether by the Tribunal or the person appointed as aforesaid, shall be in public if the person who is the subject of the inquiry so requests;
  6.20 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after subsection (7) (a) (ii) to insert:
  "(iii) Of being informed at the time of the representation made by an Executive Council of the details of any charge or complaint that may have been laid."
  The noble Earl said: This is a very short point on the procedure which is to be adopted in the tribunal before which general practitioners may be brought in the event of unsatisfactory conduct. The Amendment proposes what is the normal process of any criminal court (and, after all, this amounts, in effect, to a criminal case) that the persons accused should have the right to know exactly what the complaints are against them. That is very desirable in order that, if other things are subsequently divulged, they may know that they are not being charged over a wide and unlimited sphere. I feel that this is a reasonable proposition, and I would ask the noble Lord to consider it. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 39, line 26, at end insert, the said sub-paragraph.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  LORD MORRISON: I am advised that there is no doubt that the regulations to be made under the subsection will, in fact, provide for the person concerned being supplied with a statement of the complaints that are made against him. But if the noble Earl feels it is desirable to make this plain on the face of the Bill, I am prepared to give a promise that appropriate words will be devised for insertion on the Report stage. Here again I am advised that the wording of the noble Earl's Amendment is defective in drafting and does not come in at quite the right place in the clause.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lord for what he has said and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK: moved, at the end of subsection (7) to insert:
  "It is hereby declared for the avoidance of doubt that no admission or statement made by any person who is the subject of an inquiry by the tribunal under this section at a hearing by an Executive Council shall be admissible is evidence before the tribunal."
  The noble Earl said: This deals with the same part of the Bill. It refers to part of the procedure which will take place before the tribunal, and endeavours to establish that any admissions made by a doctor under examination will not be used in that form before the tribunal at a later stage. In this country we do not use the process known in France as the juge d'instruction—the investigating judge; that has never been used here. No evidence is allowed except that which is taken before the tribunal itself. The tribunal can take evidence on oath in the ordinary course of events. I suggest it is proper that this protection in what normally would amount to a criminal procedure should be allowed. I think there are special reasons for it. The investigation undertaken by the Executive Committee is far more likely to be satisfactory and full if the man upon whom the investigation is being carried out knows that anything he says will not be used as evidence against him at a later date, and that the whole of the evidence has to be submitted in proper form to the tribunal. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 39, line 43, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  LORD MORRISON: The noble Earl has explained this Amendment so clearly that I do not think I need take up the time of the House in going into detail about it, beyond saying that I agree with him. It is essential that the hearing before the tribunal should be a completely independent inquiry into the facts. If the noble Earl will not press me to make any definite commitment, I am quite willing to consider the matter further before the Report stage. I would be obliged if he would leave the decision on this point to the Report stage.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lord very much for what he has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 43 agreed to.
  Clause 44 agreed to.
  Clause 45:
  Recovery of charges in respect of certain appliances and dental treatment.
  45.—(1) Regulations may provide for the making and recovery by persons providing general dental services or supplementary ophthalmic services of charges in respect of—

  (a) the supply, as part of those services, of any dental or optical appliance which is, at the request of the person supplied, of a more expensive type than the type which would normally be supplied, or the replacement or repair of any such appliance; or

  (b) the replacement or repair of any dental or optical appliance supplied as part of the services aforesaid, if it is determined in the prescribed manner that the replacement or repair is necessitated by lack of care on the part of the person supplied.

  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY THE EARL OF ROSEBERY moved, at the end of subsection (I) to insert—
  "or
  (c) the giving of dental treatment which is more costly or elaborate than that provided in connexion with the general dental services if such treatment is provided at the request of the person treated and such person furnishes a certificate to that effect."
  The noble Earl said: In moving this Amendment, which stands in the name of my noble friend the Earl of Selkirk, I want to try and put something into this Bill which would give some incentive to dentists to improve their work and make it more efficient. The dentists themselves feel this very much indeed. What we want to make quite clear is that, as part of the general dental services, a patient may receive more expensive or more elaborate treatment than that provided by the State, and at the same time receive a grant in aid. Unless this principle is accepted, the leading dentists will not participate, because they will not be prepared to accept remuneration on the normal scale.
  Moreover, I should like to submit that if the patient desires to pay the higher fee demanded by such practitioners there is no reason why he should not be refunded by the State the amount which would have been paid had the treatment been afforded by a practitioner who was content to accept the standard rate of fee. Those of your Lordships who were here on the Second Reading may remember that I commented rather fully on this clause at that time. What this Bill does at the present time is to grade down the efficiency of the dentists at the expense of their
  642
  clients, who will feel it in more ways than one! There is no incentive under this Bill. It turns the dentist into a general utility dentist with no incentive to improve his work or his amenities in any way. In fact, as I said before, if the dentist does try to improve his facilities it is more expensive for him. He will have only the same fee under this Bill and he is worse off by trying to improve his amenities and his dentistry than he would be if he were content to keep in the common rut. I know it is true Socialism to keep people on a dead level, and the only way to keep people on a dead level is to reduce effiiency—
  LORD SHEPHERD: Not "dead."
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Not dead, but moribund. This may be Socialism, but it is bad dentistry. It is bad both for the dentists and for their patients. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 41, line 14, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Rosebery.)
  LORD MORRISON: Subsection (2) of the clause as it stands in the Bill makes provision for charges being paid by the patient to the dentist in respect of special dental treatment to be prescribed in the regulations. The purpose of this provision is to meet the case where a patient asks for a form of treatment which is more costly or elaborate than is required on clinical grounds—for example, gold fillings, where fillings of a less costly material would be equally good from the clinical point of view. The intention is that in such cases—the nature of which will be settled in consultation with the profession—the patient should pay the dentist the extra cost of the method of treatment he chooses over and above the cost of the normal type of treatment in respect of which the dentist will receive payment through the service in the ordinary way. This seems to be what the present Amendment has in view. The Secretary of State is unable to countenance an arrangement whereby patients in the service would get better—and not merely more luxurious or more expensive—treatment by paying extra. Where the dentist is paid on a salaried or sessional basis at a health centre, the difficulty will not arise; and the more experienced dentists will obtain additional remuneration in other ways, by holding part-time appointments in the hospital and specialist

  643
  service. In short, I think this Amendment is intended to make it possible to set up what I might call a dental Harley Street, and I regret I am unable to accept it.
  LORD SALTOUN: Can the noble Lord give the House an assurance that any patient who wants gold filling can get it under the Bill, if he is willing to pay for it? I believe that nearly every other filling that has yet been discovered has chemical reactions which generally result in the destruction of the tooth to which it is applied. The only satisfactory filling, as far as I can make out, is gold filling. Therefore, I would very much like to get an assurance from the noble Lord that a patient who is willing to pay for gold can get it, because I do not understand that from his answer.
  LORD MORRISON: I think the difficulty is that there are some dentists of whom it is said that they are better than others, and this would enable them to gain a reputation, just as many people know that they can get a much better practice if they manage to obtain a room in Harley Street.
  LORD SALTOUN: I applied myself to the noble Lord's own argument, that gold filling in a tooth is much better.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I will not detain the noble Lord any longer, because he seems adamant about this Amendment, which I should like to see passed. I do not at all agree with him about a Harley Street in Edinburgh. In the first place, perhaps I do not know so much about Harley Street as I should, but what I really want is that people should have the incentive to become more efficient. I understood the noble Lord to say that he was afraid that some people would get better dentistry than others. I am all in favour of that, because if some people get better dentistry than others the standard is raised, and you gradually get the other people getting better dentistry. That is the whole idea of enterprise, which I do not think is sufficiently thought out on many occasions on the Government Benches. It makes for better dentistry because dentists are only too happy to pass on anything they discover. What we want is to try and get better dentistry, if only for the few, because then the many will follow. In
  644
  this Bill there is no such incentive. The noble Lord says that there is, but I am sorry to say I cannot agree with him. However, as he says he will not accept my Amendment, I ask leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 45 agreed to.
  Clauses 46 and 47 agreed to.
  Clause 48 [Provision of courses for persons providing services]:
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I do not know if the noble Lord can answer this question. Clause 48 states that certain courses are available for persons providing services under this part of the Bill. What I would like to know is why it is confined to this part of the Bill. Why are the services not operating for those under any part of the Bill? There may be a very good reason for it, and perhaps the noble Lord could refer to it on the Report stage.
  LORD MORRISON: I do not know the answer to the noble Earl's question at the moment, but I will see that he does receive an answer to it.
  Clause 48 agreed to.
  Clause 49 [Functions of Secretary of State under Lunacy and Mental Deficiency Acts]:
  6.35 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK had given notice to move, after subsection (6) to insert:
  "(7) Periodical reports of the medical committee of the General Board on all hospitals visited shall be made to the Secretary of State and shall also be available to the General Board and to any Regional Hospital Board and board of management concerned."
  The noble Earl said: The Amendment which I am proposing in Clause 49 deals with the reports of the medical commissioners of the General Board of Control. I should perhaps say that there is a clerical error in the Amendment, and it should read: "periodical reports of the medical commissioners," and not, "the medical committee." I hope the noble Lord will accept that minor correction. The memorandum on the Bill, and indeed most statements on this measure, indicate that there are very small changes in the existence, structure and position of the general Board of Control; but in actual fact the position of the Board is entirely changed by the Bill. I raised certain points on the

  645
  Second Reading in regard to this matter, and I must confess that I was not entirely satisfied then, particularly because the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, made a very disturbing remark. He said that the medical commissioners would be acting in a dual capacity.
  Now the whole basis of the Board of Control is that they are entirely independent commissioners who hold the Royal Commission. How can they act in a dual capacity, partly under the General Board of Control, and partly under the Department of Health? I was very greatly disturbed when I heard that, and the purpose of this Amendment—and it is an extremely small Amendment—is to emphasize the importance of the General Board of Control, who are responsible for the liberty of the subject and who are responsible for the whole wellbeing of the inmates of mental hospitals. If the noble Lord ever goes to a mental hospital—he may be visiting, no doubt as part of his duties in the Scottish Office—
  LORD MORRISON: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I would like to say that for over ten years I was a member of the visiting committee of one of the largest mental hospitals.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Then the noble Lord knows very well that if he goes to any mental hospital—particularly if he is a member of the visiting committee—the inmates will come to him repeatedly and say, "I am perfectly all right; will you please arrange for my discharge? "There is a very strong desire for liberty among all the people in those hospitals, and it is a most delicate matter as to when they are fit for discharge and when they are not, and one which, to my mind, should be decided by an entirely independent General Board of Control. I am moving this Amendment to emphasize the independent position of the General Board of Control. As I say, it has been emphasized that its functions are undisturbed, but I am afraid that I cannot accept that. Its functions are considerably disturbed, and I think further emphasis is required to bring out that it is an independent body and not simply the servant of the Secretary of State. The statement that the commissioners are dual in their responsibility is disturbing, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to enlarge
  646
  upon that and possibly to deny it when he comes to reply. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 42, line 41, at end insert the said subsection, as amended—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  LORD MORRISON: If my recollection is right, during the Second Reading I explained to the noble Earl that the responsibility of providing and running mental hospitals and mental deficiency institutions will in future rest with the Secretary of State. The General Board of Control will, however, continue to exercise all its existing functions relating to the liberty of the subject and the interest of the patient as an individual. Moreover, in perforating his functions relating to mental illness or mental deficiency the Secretary of State is required to consult the General Board of Control. In practice—and this applies to the question the noble Earl has asked—a system of dual appointments is envisaged whereby the medical commissioners—that is, the medical members of the General Board of Control—and also the medical officers employed by the Board, will at the same time hold appointments as officers of the Secretary of State. This will ensure that both the Board and the Secretary of State will discharge their respective functions with full appreciation of the whole position before them. Reports by these medical men of their visits to particular institutions will cover the interests both of the Secretary of State and of the Board. They will be reports both to the Secretary of State and to the Board. In the great majority of cases they will no doubt be communicated also to the Regional Board and the board of management concerned. There may, however, be exceptional cases where a communication to both Boards might be desirable. All these are matters of administration, and not matters for which provision can suitably be made in an Act of Parliament. With these explanations and assurances, I invite the noble Earl to withdraw his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Would the noble Lord he willing to accept this Amendment with the deletion of the words, "and to any Regional Hospital Board and board of management." He has said that the reports will be communicated to the Secretary of State and to the General Board of Control. Now I

  647
  am emphasizing this for this reason. It has been repeatedly stated that the position of the General Board of Control is unchanged; but in fact it is very much changed. Its members are now no longer independent members; they are to be employed partly in the Department of Health. There is no reason for that; they could continue to be entirely separate, and to make reports to the managers or to the proprietor of the hospital—formerly the local authority, and to-day the Secretary of State. Their relationship could have been exactly the same, but, deliberately and purposefully, their functions have been changed. I would ask the noble Lord to consider that point. This Amendment would, in some measure, ensure that they retained their independence.
  LORD MORRISON: I am not able at the moment to answer the noble Earl's question as to whether I would accept such an Amendment, but if the noble Earl will put down such an Amendment on the Report stage I shall then be able to tell him whether I can accept it or not. I cannot go any further than that.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am bound to say that I do not think that reply is very satisfactory. After all, anyone can put down an Amendment on the Report stage. I have been trying to emphasize something which I think is in the general interest—namely, the independence of the General Board of Control. I am very sorry that the noble Lord cannot see his way either to accept any part of this Amendment or to put forward an alternative suggestion.
  LORD MORRISON: May I put it in another way? If the noble Earl will confer with me with a view to altering his Amendment, I shall be prepared to give consideration to it on the Report stage, if that does not commit me to acceptance of it.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lord very much, and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 49 agreed to.
  Clauses 5o to 66 agreed to.
  Clause 67:
  Transfer and compensation of officers,
  67.—(1) Regulations shall provide—
  (c) for the payment of compensation subject to any prescribed exceptions or conditions, by the Secretary of State or such local health authority as may be prescribed, to persons who immediately before the appointed day—
  (i) devoted the whole of their time to employment by the governing body of a voluntary hospital, a local authority, an insurance committee or any such other body as may be prescribed, or to any combination of such employments; and
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (I) (c) (i), after "hospital" to insert:
  "Or to employment by an officer of such body for work on behalf of such body or to employment by."
  The noble Earl said: This is a small point. There are, at the moment, a certain number of permanently employed personnel engaged in hospital work who are employed by part-time chiefs, and I am asking the noble Lord to accept them as personnel who will be transferred or who, alternatively, will receive compensation. It is a reasonable request, and I would like the noble Lord to consider it carefully. These men are losing their jobs, not through any fault of their own, not through any chance of nature, but through the deliberate and calculated policy of His Majesty's Government. I think they are, therefore, worthy of consideration. To take a recent example, we have heard that the miners in Durham arc to be compensated to the extent of £50,000 because they were put out of work for reasons which had nothing to do with themselves. I think we all sympathize with that action, and appreciate the reasons for it. Equally, if a man loses his job through the calculated and deliberate policy of His Majesty's Government, he is, I suggest, worthy of consideration. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 54, line 38, after ("hospital") insert ("or to employment by an officer of such body for work on behalf of such body or to employment by").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  LORD MORRISON: I think the kind of case which the noble Earl has in mind as likely to arise is where a voluntary hospital employs, for instance, a lawyer in private practice as part-time secretary and

  649
  where the lawyer in turn employs someone in his office full-time on the work of the voluntary hospital. Very careful consideration has been given to the basis for payment of compensation in respect of loss of employment caused by the major reorganizations of industries and social services which the Government are undertaking. For example, the National Insurance Act had to make provision for displaced officers of approved societies. The National Health Service Act made similar provision in England to that in the present Bill for persons engaged on hospital, local authority and insurance committee work. In all these cases compensation has been provided only for whole-time officers of the body whose position is affected, and not for persons employed indirectly. Persons who have been employed indirectly in this way have never had any contract with the body concerned, and have held no security of tenure under that body.
  The problem at the start of the new service will not be a superfluity of manpower. Quite the contrary will be the case; it will be very difficult to find staff with the qualifications and experience necessary to administer the new service. In these circumstances, persons with experience in hospital administration need have no real fear that they will have difficulty in finding suitable employment in the new service. While, of course, the Secretary of State is unable to commit himself to find employment for particular individuals, he would certainly be prepared to do what he could in any cases of this kind that were brought to his notice, where the person concerned had difficulty in finding employment after the appointed day. I think there is little prospect that the principle of the proposed Amendment could be accepted by the Government in any circumstances. It is much too far-reaching for that. In any event it would be quite unjustifiable to do what the Amendment proposes, and to limit compensation for whole-time servants of part-time officers to persons working in the voluntary hospital field. A similar provision would be necessary at least for part-time officers with whole-time clerks to insurance committees.
  THE EARL or SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lord for what he has said. May I take it that any man who, as a result of the lapsing of a particular job through the operation of this Act, finds himself without work may have his affairs referred to
  650
  the Secretary of State? In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 67 agreed to
  Clauses 68 to 76 agreed to.
  Clause 77 [Arbitration]:
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, at the end of the clause to insert:
  "and at any stage in he proceedings in any such arbitration the arbitration may and shaft if so directed by the Court of Session state a case for the opinion of that Court on any question of law arising in the arbitration."
  The noble Lord said: This is a Government Amendment which extends the procedure laid down in the Bill to be followed when arbitration is resorted to in cases of dispute. These cases arise mainly in connexion with the transfer of hospitals to the Secretary of State—for example, under Clause 6 (6) dealing with the apportionment of voluntary hospital property which is partly transferred. There may frequently be legal questions at issue in these arbitrations, involving the interpretation of the provisions of the Act. It is, therefore, appropriate that the arbiter should be able to seek the opinion of the court on any such question; and indeed that any party to the arbitration should be able to apply to the court for a direction to the arbiter to seek such an opinion. This is achieved by the addition to Clause 77 made in the Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 59, line 12, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 78 to 81 agreed to.
  First Schedule agreed to.
  Second Schedule:
  Hospital Endowments Commission.
  I. The Hospital Endowments Commission shall consist of a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State and such number of other members so appointed as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved in Paragraph I to leave oat "Secretary of State" where that tern first occurs and insert:
  "Lord President of the Court of Session."
  The noble Earl said: In the course of the Second Reading of this Bill the noble Lord admitted that the powers of the Secretary of State were excessive and he more or less apologized to the House for the scope and powers which the Secretary of State was taking to himself under this Bill. He went on to say this:
  "It has been asked over and over again whether it is possible to devise any system under which those who do not pay the piper will, still be enabled to call the tune. If somebody would be good enough at some time to answer that problem I should be very grateful."
  In moving this Amendment, I am neither affecting the person who is to pay the piper nor reducing the power of the Secretary of State. If the noble Lord's statement was bluff I should be very glad to know it. This is, in fact, a perfectly straightforward request. The Endowments Commission, we all agree, are a most important Commission, in whose results the Secretary of State is personally interested, because they affect his property. If the Lord President of the Council appoints the Chairman of that Commission it will undoubtedly give the Commission independence which will add to the respect with which that Commission's results, duties, and work, will be viewed by the community, and to the confidence with which the Commission will be regarded in the future. I beg to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 63, line 12. Leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord President of the Court of Session").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  LORD MORRISON: This is the last Amendment and I would have been much happier, thankful as I am for the forbearance of noble Lords during these long passages, if I could have ended on a note of triumph by accepting the Amendment, but, alas, it is not so. Schedule 2 of the Bill proposes that the Hospital Endowments Commission which have to re-allocate the endowments of voluntary hospitals shall consist of a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State and that such number of other members shall be appointed as the Secretary of State may from time to time determine. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has just put forward an Amendment to place the appointment in the hands of the Lord President of the Court of Session, while leaving the Secretary of State to determine the number of members. May I point out that there is
  652
  provision in the Eighth Schedule of the Bill for the Lord President to appoint the chairman of the tribunal which deals with representations that individual practitioners should be excluded from the service. This, however, is not a parallel case, for the Council's advocate must be a practising advocate or solicitor, with not less than ten years' practice of a judicial nature. The Secretary of State does not think it would be proper to invite the Lord President to make appointments of this kind, of men who are not appointed because of their judicial knowledge but for their general training and experience in public life. That is the explanation I have to give to the noble Lord.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lord for what he has said, but I assure him that next time he asks me to propose a solution I shall take it much less seriously.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Remaining Schedules agreed to.
  House resumed.

  CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
  6.41 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order paper.
  Moved, That a Committee of six Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons as a Joint Committee in the present Session on Consolidation Bills, and all Bills for re-enacting in the form in which they apply to Scotland the provisions of an existing Statute:
  That the Lords following be named of the Committee:

  M. Reading,

  L. O'Hagan,

  L. Addington,

  L. Marley,

  L. Tweedsmuir,

  L. Shepherd:

  That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to: Ordered, That a Message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to appoint six Members of that House to be joined with the said Committee.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL, [H.L.]
  The evidence taken before the joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered out, except to members of the Committee and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further notice.
  NAZEING WOOD OR PARK BILL. [H.L.]
  Report from the Committee of Selection that the Lord Holden be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Foley: Read and agreed to.

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

  City of Gloucester;

  County Borough of Derby;

  County Borough of Doncaster;

  Borough of Colchester;

  Urban District of Northallerton;

  Rural District of Clowne;

  County Borough of Hastings;

  Borough of Newport (Isle of Wight);

  Urban District of Sandown - Shanklin;

  City of Bradford;

  City of New Sarum;

  City of St. Albans:

  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  Class of road

  Total of Estimates already submitted by County Councils.

  Amounts towards which grants will be available.

  Difference (2)less(3).

  Percentage Reduction (4) as a percentage of (2).

  (I)

  (2)

  (3)

  (4)

  (5)

  I and II

  …

  13,269,030

  9,737,144

  3,531,886

  Per cent 26·6

  III

  …

  8,931,030

  3,763,712

  5,167,318

  57·9

  Totals

  …

  22,200,060

  13,500,856

  8,699,204

  39·2

  House adjourned at seven minutes before seven o'clock.

  EXPENDITURE ON ROADS.
  THE EARL OF MANSFIELD THE EARL OF MANSFIELD asked His Majesty's Government whether they will state the total amount by which local authorities in Scotland and England, respectively, have been asked to reduce their estimated expenditure upon road repairs and maintenance in the current year; and how much this cut amounts to, upon a percentage basis of the original proposed expenditure, for Trunk, Class I, Class II, Class III, and unclassified roads respectively?
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD INMAN): Road maintenance estimates for this financial year have not yet been received from the county councils in Scotland, nor from six of the county councils in England; the remaining county councils in England and Wales have been informed that the anticipated grant-in-aid of the Road Fund will not suffice for grants to be made available towards the full amount of their estimates. The difference between these councils' estimated expenditure on the maintenance of classified roads arid that towards which grants will be available is shown in the appended table. No grants are made towards the maintenance of unclassified roads, or of classified roads in county boroughs, the Metropolitan boroughs, or large burghs; the expenditure on these roads is within the discretion of the highway authorities. Trunk road expenditure is borne entirely on the Road Fund, and the highway authorities are involved only as agents of the Minister of Transport.
  Following is the table referred to: