Sitting of 21 April 1948

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  RAILWAY CLEARING SYSTEM SUPERANNUATION BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  CIVIL AVIATION

    Return Cargoes, Norway
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation on what grounds a Norwegian air charter company was refused permission to carry return cargo loads on aircraft bringing goods to this country.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): I am not aware of any such refusal, but if my hon. Friend will furnish details of the application for this flight, I will look into it.
    Mr. Cooper: May I ask my hon. Friend whether, as a matter of principle, he would agree that it is inadvisable unnecessarily to impose restrictions on foreign charter companies operating to this country, because thereby we shall forfeit the possibility of receiving reciprocal facilities from them?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir, so long as they do not contravene Section 23 of the Civil Aviation Act.

    London Airport (Visibility Standards)
    Mr. Cooperasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation why the new minimum standards of visibility imposed at London Airport are maintained in face of the strong representations made by operating companies to
    1780
    operate when the conditions are less favourable than the present minima permit.
    Mr. Lindgren: In view of these representations, my noble Friend has sought the advice of the Air Safety Board. I am, therefore, not in a position to make a statement pending the result of the review that is now being undertaken.
    Mr. Cooper: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is advisable, in such circumstances as this, to seek consultation with the air line operators concerned, so as not to impose unnecessary minimum restrictions which would put the London Airport out of use in conditions which really are not unsafe?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir, and in addition to the operators, there should be consultation with organisations such as B.A.L.P.A., as representative of those who fly the aircraft.
    Mr. Scollan: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it advisable that there should be a very definite cloud ceiling, and not, in effect, to leave it to the discretion of anybody, but to have a standard, and keep it, instead of varying it from time to time?
    Mr. Lindgren: The answer is not so simple as that. There is a considerable weight of responsibility on the pilot for the safety of his aircraft.

    B.O.A.C. Atlantic Services (Base)
    Mr. Beswickasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation why the B.O.A.C. Atlantic services of the Constellation aircraft cannot be maintained and the aircraft serviced in this country; and whether the Boeing aircraft, with which it is proposed eventually to replace the Constellations, will be serviced and maintained in this country.
    Mr. Lindgren: Because the safe and regular crossing of the Atlantic nine times a week in each direction with a fleet of six Constellations requires adequate hangar and workshop accommodation, which will not be available in this country until the new base at Filton is ready. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir."
    Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Does not the hon. Gentleman know that there is,

    1781
    and has been for some time, accommodation at Prestwick for three Constellations, provided that side-slipping gear be made available to take them?
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. I am afraid my information is not in accordance with that of the hon. and gallant Member.
    Mr. Beswick: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are at least six hangars in the country, apart from those in Scotland, which could accommodate these Constellations, and will he reconsider this matter? With regard to the second part of his answer, will he say where it is proposed to service the Boeing aircraft in this country?
    Mr. Lindgren: So far as the first part of the question is concerned, whilst it is true that the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Cooper) drew the attention of the Ministry to the hangars at a number of places, one needs, in addition to hangars, housing accommodation for maintenance staff. It is little use having staff without housing, because other problems arise therefrom. So far as the Boeing aircraft are concerned, they will be maintained at Filton.
    Group-Captain Wilcock: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that it is not necessary to have hangar accommodation to maintain these large aircraft, and that during the war aircraft of this type were maintained quite satisfactorily in the open by the Royal Air Force?
    Mr. Lindgren: I am afraid that, under civil conditions, men are not prepared to work in the open, as they were in the Royal Air Force.
    Mr. Cooper: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether there is any target date to which he is working for the transfer of the service from Montreal to this side of the Atlantic?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir, December of this year.

    London Aero and Motor Services, Limited
    Mr. Dribergasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation the circumstances in which London Aero and Motor Services, Limited, Stansted, were allowed to operate an air service to Australia; and if, in view of the
    1782
    fact that they have left a number of aircrew and other employees stranded in Australia, without pay or information, he will withdraw all facilities from them.
    Mr. Lindgren: London Aero and Motor Services, Limited, are an air charter company and have not been granted permission to operate a scheduled air service to Australia. Following a report from the United Kingdom High Commissioner in Australia, the difficulties of the crew were taken up with the company who replied on 31st March that the crew of the aircraft "are being supplied with funds and that we hope to get them back to this country as soon as we get an adequate load." The answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.
    Mr. Driberg: Is my hon. Friend aware that on 11th April, II days after the date he mentions, the crew still had not heard from the company or from the United Kingdom High Commissioner about their difficulties, and can he consider doing something to extend to aircrew in these circumstances the protection already afforded to merchant seamen stranded overseas?
    Mr. Lindgren: The company were in financial difficulties, and a new financial interest took over operations from 20th March. They are trying to take action. In reply to the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary, legislation would be needed; this case in particular, emphasises the necessity for such legislation, which is being considered.
    Mr. Keeling: Is the Minister aware that some hon. Members on this side of the House are less interested in the retribution suggested in the Question, than in getting their constituents home? Cannot he endeavour, through the High Commissioner, to get them home whether or not there is a pay load for the aircraft?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. That will be done.

    Aircraft Types (B.O.A.C.)
    Mr. Beswickasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he has given approval for the purchase of M.R.E. 175 aircraft by B.O.A.C.
    Mr. Lindgren: An order for prototypes has already been agreed. The question of a production order is being actively pursued and approval in principle has already been given.
    Mr. Beswick: Does not my hon. Friend agree that this aircraft will not be ready for five or six years, and that it is inferior in some respects, and not superior in any but one respect, to aircraft which are purchasable today?
    Mr. Lindgren: I am afraid that I have not sufficient technical knowledge to give an authoritative answer to the first part of that question. It is true that this aircraft is an insurance against delay or failure of the D.H. rob. It is considered to be an improvement on the Constellation.
    Mr. Gallacher: Would the Minister approve the purchase of Scottish built aircraft if the Government encouraged the building of a factory in Scotland for the construction of such aircraft?
    Mr. Cooper: Will the Parliamentary Secretary say if in his view we can afford the delay which is inevitable in the production of this aircraft, and is it not vital that we should obtain aircraft which are capable of being operated commercially now?
    Mr. Lindgren: I am in complete agreement with the hon. Member.
    Mr. Cooper: Can the Minister do anything about it?
    Mr. Rankin: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the statement he made that this machine is superior to the Constellation was made on the advice of his technical advisers?
    Mr. Lindgren: That is the intention of those who prepared the specification.
    Mr. Beswick: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bring to the attention of those who are considering the possibility of buying some economic interim types, the fact that other people do not believe that this aircraft is superior to the Constellation?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir.

  GERMANY

    Military Pensions
    Mr. Vaneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the proposal to re-start the payment of long-service pensions to members of the German Army is subject to many restrictive conditions, while the payment of pensions similarly earned by police, railway and postal official is made in full.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): The scheme authorising Laender Governments to pay maintenance grants to former long-service personnel of the German armed forces does not represent restoration of military pensions. In view of the provisions of Control Council Law No. 34 such pensions cannot be paid, and it has been necessary to specify that the grants shall be made in recognition of public rather than military service. The grants are designed to assist in cases of real hardship and the conditions relating to age and loss of earning capacity through physical causes have been inserted to restrict payment to such cases. The restrictions on grounds of denazification policy are no more stringent than those applying to the payment of Civil Service pensions. Police, Reichspost and Reichsbahn pensions are not analogous as they are payable under German Civil Service laws which have not been abrogated by quadripartite agreement.
    Mr. Vane: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is strange that the postal and railway services, which were strongholds of the Nazi Party, should be given so much advantage over the armed forces whose senior members on the whole provided the greatest resistance to the Nazi Party?
    Mr. Bevin: The matter must be adjusted with what the economy of the country can afford. I cannot take anything from the British taxpayer for this purpose. Therefore, we have tried to adjust it on the basis of the economy of the country.
    Mr. Molson: Does the Foreign Secretary, who has a reputation for being a fair-minded man, really justify this penalisation of military personnel who have earned their pensions by service to their country?
    Mr. Bevin: I do not attempt to justify the difficulties which arise from people going to war.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this question which concerns a number of men who, whether they were right or wrong, did the job they were meant to do for many years? We expect our own people to be properly treated in this respect: why should not we do our best for these people, because, much as I dislike the Germans, I cannot see why we should not treat them equally fairly?
    Mr. Bevin: I really cannot undertake responsibility which involves the money of taxpayers in this country. I have done my best within the economy of the country to help harsh and difficult cases. I cannot go further.
    Mr. Pickthorn: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's two answers indicating that the governing factor is the amount of money available, can he tell us why, if that is so, any distinction should be made between military pensions and police or other pensions? Why should they not all be cut down pro rata?
    Mr. Bevin: The civil pensions are dealt with under German Civil Service laws. They have been earned, and the services are still running.

    British Air Traffic (Protection)
    Mr. Molsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an assurance in writing has yet been obtained from the U.S.S.R. that British aircraft flying to or from Berlin will not be interfered with by Soviet aeroplanes.
    Mr. Bevin: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made on Monday, 19th April.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: In order to avoid such incidents in future, would the right hon. Gentleman consider offering to our gallant Allies the loan of some flying instructors?

    Yachts (Requisition)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many sailing yachts of all types have been requisition in the British zone of Germany by
    1786
    the occupying forces and the Control Commission; and when these yachts will be returned to their proper owners.
    Mr. Bevin: Sixty-three yachts of over 30 square metres sail area have been requisitioned, together with 340 small sailing boats. Requisitioned craft are purchased from the owners by the German Economy and will be returned to the German Economy as and when the reduction of British personnel justifies. The return to the former owners then becomes a matter for the German authorities.
    Mr. Stokes: Do the figures cover all the inland lakes, and is that the total, because it seems very small?
    Mr. Bevin: I am sorry my hon. Friend is surprised, but those are the figures given to me.
    Mr. Vane: Could the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that none of these yachts will be requisitioned for the Attorney-General?

    Refugees and Evacuees
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many refugees and evacuees entered the British zone of Germany from the Soviet zone and areas further east during 1947; and whether he will give the resulting total of both classes of persons in each of the four lands of the British zone.
    Mr. Bevin: Since this Question involves a certain amount of research, I regret that I am not yet able to give my hon. Friend this information. I will, however, let my hon. Friend have an answer as soon as possible.
    Mr. Stokes: Could my right hon. Friend say whether the recent announcement, supposedly official, that 3,600,000 came in from the East in 1947 is correct or not? It was given out as an official statement, but I have never been able to get it authenticated. That is why I asked the Question.
    Mr. Bevin: I was not aware that there had been an official statement.
    Professor Savory: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the anxiety of the Danish population in South Schleswig at being swamped by

    1787
    the influx of Germans, and to the complaints of these purely Danish people that they are losing their own nationality in their own land?
    Mr. Bevin: That is a separate question.

  DENMARK (GERMAN REFUGEES)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what developments have taken place respecting German refugees in Denmark and their repatriation to the British zone.
  Mr. Bevin: A Danish Delegation recently visited London to discuss this matter. Of the 62,000 German refugees still in Denmark 22,493 claim to have close relatives in the British zone. In view of the fact that these people would be a charge on the bizonal economy it has been necessary to consult the United States authorities and it has been agreed to take immediate steps to move 4,80o compassionate cases to the British zone. We are also seeking agreement to the early transfer of the remainder of those who have close relatives in the British zone. It is hoped that the balance will be disposed of by arrangement with the other occupying powers.
  Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long it will take before all these unfortunate people are repatriated, and will he say whether meanwhile he could draw the attention of the Danish authorities to the ameliorative measures we took in this country regarding a somewhat similar type of internee, with a view perhaps to their adopting the same method?
  Mr. Bevin: I cannot give the exact date. I have discussed it with the Foreign Minister of Denmark, and I have it under review with the military governors. I am trying to get these 62,000 people removed back to Germany as early as I can in proper proportion. So far as the treatment of these people in Denmark is concerned, I think that the Danes have done a remarkable job.
  Mr. Stokes: When it is said that these people all have, or claim to have, relations in the British zone, does it thereby mean that in fact they all come from the
  1788
  Russian zone and are seeking sanctuary in the British and American zones?
  Mr. Bevin: I cannot answer that question.
  Mr. Sorensen: Whilst thoroughly appreciating what the Danes have done, may I ask the Secretary of State if he cannot at least bring to their attention the measures we have undertaken in this country in the treatment of such internees, because they might desire to bring up their standard to ours?
  Mr. Bevin: I must say that the Danes have treated these people remarkably well at an enormous cost. It would be most unfortunate to raise other matters with them now. I am anxious to remove these people to Germany as fast as I can.

  BRITISH AND RUSSIAN DIPLOMATIC STAFFS
  Major Guy Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give the latest available figures of the number of persons, both male and female, employed in the Embassy of the U.S.S.R. and other official and industrial Russian organisations in the United Kingdom; and of the corresponding number of British subjects employed in British organisations in Russia.
  Mr. Bevin: As regards the first part of the Ouestion, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) on 5th March last. The information requested in the second part of the Question will be found in the Foreign Office List and Diplomatic and Consular Year Book.

  INFORMATION (UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the British representative at the recent United Nations Conference on Freedom of Information sought to delete from the Conference's recommendations a U.S. proposal to disapprove of all monopolies on informative media, but particularly those of a governmental nature.
  Mr. Bevin: The speech of the British Representative at the United Nations Conference on Freedom of Information was misreported in the United Nations Information Press. When moving the amendment to the United States resolution on the principles of freedom of information he stated that the form nationalisation took in Britain was public monopoly, not governmental, and that since the B.B.C. was a public corporation and a monopoly it would be contrary to the resolution proposed by the United States Delegation.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the unfortunate misreporting, to which the Foreign Secretary has referred, also include the report in "The Times" of the statement of the British Government's representative, the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies), who said that the development of Socialism in Britain would inevitably lead to the establishment of further monopolies?
  Mr. Bevin: I think that is a very accurate statement.

  BRITISH UNIVERSITIES (GERMAN STUDENTS)
  Mrs. Middletonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many German students are being granted facilities to study at British universities during the course of 1948; and whether he will consider extending the facilities by which such students are enabled to study in this country, especially in the case of those students who desire to come to Britain for vacation courses.
  Mr. Bevin: Twenty-one undergraduate and two post-graduate German students will spend the summer term at a British university. With regard to vacation courses this summer and to whole-time study during the next academic year, I shall be glad to continue to give facilities for any German students for whom places can be found, and for whom funds are available.
  Mrs. Middleton: Will my right hon. Friend be as generous as possible in this matter, and will he also see that facilities are given to both men and women students to study here in the vacation as far as possible?
  Mr. Bevin: Yes, certainly, and I appeal to the universities not to create too many difficulties for me when they get here.
  Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: While appreciating the efforts which my right hon. Friend has made in this connection, may I ask him if he will also extend these facilities to young lecturers from German Universities who are coming here and to teachers in training, because many people feel that this is the wisest form of expenditure to bring about German, re-education?
  Mr. Bevin: I have met the Vice-Chancellors and had a long talk with them, and I have asked for their co-operation and agreement. I have told them that, on the question of the re-education of Germany, I really depend on them very much, but, as the hon. Member has an influence with the universities, perhaps he could speed them up a bit.
  Mr. Harrison: Will the Minister take into consideration the difficulties which people in this country have in finding university places?
  Mrs. Jean Mann: Would my right hon. Friend assure the House that none of these facilities will in any way interrupt the normal course of education in our universities for our own ex-Service men, who are now waiting sometimes for a year or more?
  Mr. Bevin: It is a very difficult problem. The House sometimes wants me to do things to make Germany safe for democracy, and, on the other hand, suggests to me that no sacrifices should be made by this country at all. In the next breath, hon. Members ask me to make sacrifices, and the Foreign Secretary has great difficulty in adjusting all these tendencies. With regard to students for whom a gap was created during the war, my information is—although it is a Ministry of Education job—that the scheme which I laid down when Minister of Labour has worked out very satisfactorily, and I do not want to interfere with the British students, but I must, somehow, win Germany away from the spirit of aggression and war which has troubled Europe for so many years.

  AUSTRIA (BRITISH TROOPS AND MAILS)
  Mr. Blackburnasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether impediments to the passage of British troops and mail to Vienna still exist; and what action has been taken to bring them to an end.
  Mr. Bevin: As a result of representations by the British High Commissioner in Austria, no such impediments now exist.
  Mr. Blackburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the conduct of this matter by General Winterton, under his direction, and by General Winterton's colleagues, has been remarkably successful?

  SIAM (GOVERNMENT)
  Mr. William Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government has recognised the new Government of Siam; and whether the new Prime Minister has made any gesture to show that he is now friendly to this country.
  Mr. Bevin: The new Siamese Government has still to be confirmed in office by the Siamese Assembly, and His Majesty's Government are awaiting information on this point. As regards the second part of the Question, I understand that the new Prime Minister has given assurances to the Press that his Government will scrupulously respect all agreements and other commitments with foreign powers entered into by previous Governments.
  Mr. Teeling: In view of the vital importance of the position of Siam in South-Eastern Asia, and of the Communist propaganda there, will the Government make every effort to speed up a decision on recognition one way or the other?
  Mr. Bevin: We are continuously in touch with the whole of this problem, but I have to have regard to some antecedents as well as possible futures.

  REFUGEES, EUROPE
  Mr. Francis Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps His Majesty's Government has
  1792
  taken, or will take, through the International Refugee Organisation to provide quick travel facilities for the 20,000 refugees in Europe, whose resettlement in other countries has been approved, but who are now held up by their inability to pay transportation costs.
  Mr. Bevin: It is not altogether clear to me to which 20,000 refugees my hon. Friend is referring. Resettlement is held up less by shortage of funds than by shortage of shipping space, dollars and accommodation. His Majesty's Government, in close co-operation with the Preparatory Commission of the International Refugee Organisation, have helped, and will continue to help, by accepting displaced persons in Great Britain and by providing shipping space.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: While thanking my right hon. Friend for most of that reply, may I ask him if he could comment on the situation, which I understand is the case, that there are now 20,000 persons in Europe who have been given visas and authorisations to resettle in other countries, but who cannot get out of displaced persons' camps because no transport or money is available to get them out?
  Mr. Bevin: Transport is very difficult, and we have several problems—transport for emigration, transport for refugees and so on. We also have the desire of many citizens to return to their homes, of whom there is a long waiting list, due to the circumstances of the war. In the midst of all this, we are trying to do our best to get the accommodation to allow these people to be repatriated.
  Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps His Majesty's Government has taken to increase the scale of national contributions by member States of the International Refugee Orgnisation, in view of the inadequacy of the funds now at its disposal for carrying out the repatriation or resettlement of displaced persons in Europe.
  Mr. Bevin: The scale of contributions was laid down by the General Assembly of the United Nations when it approved the Constitution of the International Refugee Organisation in December, 1946, and can only be altered by the General Council of the International Refugee Organisation. When that body comes

  1793
  into being, His Majesty's Government will give favourable consideration to any proposals designed to ensure that the Organisation is set on a sound financial footing.
  Mr. Blackburn: May I ask my right hon. Friend, in view of the obvious inadequacy of the fund now available for dealing with this problem, if it will be considered whether or not the European Recovery Programme might in some respects try to deal with refugees?
  Mr. Bevin: No, I do not think they come within that category at all. I think the refugee problem is one which, if the United Nations really applied their minds to it, could be settled very quickly, and, if every nation in the world took its quota, it would be removed inside a few months.
  Major Tufton Beamish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in view of the lack of funds, at the present rate of progress it will be at least 10 years, before the question of European refugees is solved, and that if it is considered in isolation from the whole question of European recovery the more difficult will be the solution?
  Mr. Bevin: This question must not be confused with that of the recovery of Europe. It is a separate problem, and this is a separate organisation. I am willing to continue pressing all the nations to try to take a quota by special arrangement. I think this awful business of keeping these people dangling in Europe is a scandal. I would further state that of all countries in the world, this country, has done more than all the others combined.
  Mr. Speaker: In the last supplementary question the phrase "at the present rate of progress" was used. I should like to point out that at the present rate of progress here we shall be lucky if we do 32 Questions this afternoon. We have been doing one Question every two minutes.

  ECONOMIC COMMISSION (U.K. DELEGATION)
  Mr. F. Noel-Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will announce the composition of the United Kingdom Delegation to the forthcoming meeting of, the Economic Commission for Europe.
  Mr. Bevin: The United Kingdom Delegation to the Third Session of the Economic Commission for Europe will be led by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of State. He will be assisted by Sir David Waley, by Mr. E. R. Warner, the Permanent United Kingdom Representative in Geneva, and by the appropriate technical advisers.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the British Delegation will do all it can to see that the very valuable technical and practical work that the Economic Commission has been doing since it was set up last year will be continued, in spite of any ideological differences there may be between any nations?
  Mr. Bevin

  WEST AFRICA

    Commodity Prices
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what regulations in respect of the price of commodities have operated in the Gold Coast and in other West African Colonies during the past five years; to what extent commodity prices had risen before the Gold Coast boycott; to what extent they have fallen since then; what steps have been taken to increase local supply; and to what extent the cost of living in the Gold Coast has risen disproportionately to earnings.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): I have been asked to reply. As the answer is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is it not true that, in fact, there is a gross disparity between the increase in wages, on the one hand, and prices, on the other, and seeing that commodity prices did come down owing to the boycott, why was not action taken before to see that they came down to a reasonable level?
    Mr. Mayhew: I cannot altogether accept the first part of that supplementary question, but the facts and figures are plainly stated in the reply to which, perhaps, I may refer my hon. Friend.

    1795
    Following is the reply:
    In the Gold Coast the prices of foodstuffs and of other essential articles have been controlled by orders under the Defence Regulations since the outbreak of war in 1939. These orders have been amended and prices varied from time to time. Similar control has been in force in Sierra Leone since 1940 and in Nigeria and the Gambia since 1943.
    Commodity prices as a whole have risen over the past five years to a varying degree. In the Gold Coast the rise in the price of foodstuffs over this period ranged from 30 per cent. to 50 per cent.; the price of textiles rose in most cases by approximately 50 per cent. The figures in the other Territories are generally in accord.
    There was no change in prices charged by importing firms after the boycott, except for certain lines of textiles, which were reduced by varying amounts up to 20 per cent. The effect of the boycott on prices was most marked in the retail market, owing to selling prices being checked by the Native Authorities.
    The only local supplies which can be substantially increased are foodstuffs, and campaigns for greater production have been intensively pursued in recent years. Availability of manufactured consumer goods is inevitably restricted by world shortages and the need to restrict imports from hard currency areas to essentials.
    By August, 1947, minimum 'wages in the Gold Coast had risen by some 100 to 150 per cent. above those of 1939, and were considered to be satisfactory in relation to the increased cost of living. The price paid to producers of cocoa has risen from 7s. per load in 1943 to 40s. in 1948. The inflationary effects of this increase and of restrospective payments of wage increases has since led to a rise in the price of consumer goods in the retail trades which cater for the African population. Such increases in the supplies of goods as have been possible in spite of the factors mentioned above are limiting the effect of this rise, with the result that minimum wage levels are today higher than in 1939 in relation to commodity price levels.

    Medical Services (African Doctors)
    Dr. Segalasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Africans
    1796
    are serving as Directors or Assistant Directors of Medical Services in the West African Colonies.
    Mr. Mayhew: No Africans have yet reached those grades, but a number are serving in senior specialist posts and administrative posts below the rank of Director or Assistant Director.
    Dr. Segal: Would it not be a great encouragement to many African doctors with excellent medical qualifications if a precedent were set and a first appointment made in this direction?
    Mr. Mayhew: We should be willing to see posts occupied by Africans in that way, and that, is quite possible; but it so happens that so far the best available candidates happen to have been Europeans.
    Mr. Rankin: Would it not also assist if African students were able to take the complete medical course at a West African university?
    Mr. Mayhew: Perhaps I could have notice of that question.
    Dr. Segal: While the best candidates may have been Europeans, would not the Minister accept as a principle that Africans, provided they have adequate qualifications, should have the right for appointment to these posts?
    Mr. Mayhew: There is also the consideration that these health services are vitally important and must be run in the most effective way possible.

  COLONIAL EMPIRE

    Diseases (Research)
    Mr. Hugh Fraserasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what contributions in men or money His Majesty's Government are contributing to international scientific inquiries into tropical, cocoa, and rubber diseases which are being undertaken.
    Mr. Mayhew: As there are, so far as I am aware, no international organisations dealing with research on cocoa or rubber diseases the question of His Majesty's Governments contribution does not arise.
    Mr. Fraser: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that our only contribution to the Amazon project consists of two scientists?
    Mr. Mayhew: I will look into that point, but I did make inquiries, and I have failed to establish the existence of any international organisation dealing with these two subjects.
    Mr. Molson: Does not the Under-Secretary's ignorance in this matter indicate the disadvantage in having the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs answering for the Secretary of State for the Colonies?

    Franco-British Co-operation, Africa
    Mr. M. Philips Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps for mutual economic assistance by way of exchange of products and temporary provision of labour resources have been taken between the French and British Colonies in Africa.
    Mr. Mayhew: There is already valuable exchange of goods and of labour between these territories, and the possibilities of still further exchanges were discussed at a meeting of French and British officials held in Paris in February. Various useful lines of development were then agreed upon and are now being actively pursued. A copy of the communiqué issued after the Paris meeting will be sent to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Price: Does my hon. Friend realise that there is considerable desire among all parties, except perhaps the Communists, for co-operation on this as a contribution to solving the economic problems of the two countries?
    Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir, I am aware of that, and as a first step there are constant exchanges between officials of the two departments directly concerned in France and in this country.

  PALESTINE

    British Oil Refineries, Haifa
    Mr. Thomas Reidasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent the delivery of oil from Kirkuk to Haifa and its refinement at Haifa have
    1798
    been decreased recently; and what protection will be given by His Majesty's Government to this British oil business in Palestine after 15th May.
    Mr. Mayhew: The refineries were closed for three weeks early this year as a result of communal disorders, and full production was not resumed for a further three weeks. Work ceased again on 12th April as a result of a strike of Arab workers. After r5th May and until the final withdrawal the installations will be within the area occupied by British troops and will receive the protection afforded by their presence.

    United Nations Commission
    Mr. Platts-Millsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement regarding the criticisms contained in the report of the United Nations Palestine Commission alleging that His Majesty's Government is refusing to allow the Commission to go to Palestine earlier than 1st May; is refusing to arrange a progressive transfer of authority; and that it is taking financial and economic steps without consulting the Commission.
    Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend dealt with these criticisms in his speech on the Second Reading of the Palestine Bill and in subsequent speeches during the Committee stage of that Bill. The United Nations' Commission have been kept closely informed of all the intentions and actions of the Palestine Administration and their views have been sought whenever possible before any steps of major importance have been taken.
    Mr. Platts-Mills: Will my hon. Friend say whether we still intend to withdraw by the date we have given as our withdrawal date, and whether we still stand by the United Nations Resolution for partition?
    Mr. Mayhew: Our policy has been made perfectly plain, and I have nothing to add to it.
    Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: On the third part of the Question, could the Under-Secretary assure us that the supply of bread grains and sugar to 30th June is now assured, as requisitioned by the representative of the Commission in London?
    Mr. Mayhew: That is another question, which perhaps the hon. Member will put down.
    Mr. Janner: Will my hon. Friend have published the contents of this very scathing criticism of our action, or at least put a copy of this document in the Library so that hon. Members will see that they have been misled by previous statements?

    Medical and Nursing Staffs
    Dr. Segalasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the responsibility of the Government of Palestine for the maintenance of law and order until 15th May includes the safeguarding of free access of medical and nursing staffs to their hospitals; and whether the Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem is included under these arrangements.
    Mr. Mayhew: The free access of medical and nursing staffs to their hospitals is being safeguarded so far as resources permit. Comparative freedom of travel on the road which leads from the City of Jerusalem through an Arab quarter to the Hadassah Hospital had been maintained for some weeks by military action, but was interrupted on 13th April by an attack launched by Arabs on a convoy, apparently in retaliation for the murder of Arabs by Jews at Deir Yassin. British Military forces immediately went to the scene, engaged the attackers and rescued the convoy. Thirty-four Jews were killed and 21 wounded in this engagement and the British forces lost two soldiers killed and two wounded. A senior British police officer was also seriously wounded. It is understood that in view of this incident the Jewish authorities have decided to evacuate the Hadassah Hospital.
    Dr. Segal: Is not the Minister aware that a whole team of doctors engaged on full-time research work in the causation of cancer was wiped out in this engagement; and, if the British administration cannot safeguard the safety of two miles of open road, would it not be better to disclaim their intention of continuing responsibility for law and order in the whole of Palestine at the same time as our troops are engaged in withdrawal from that country?

  SEYCHELLES (LEGISLATURE, RESIGNATIONS)
  Mr. T. Reidasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement about the resignations of the senior unofficial members of the Executive and Legislative Councils of the Seychelles.
  Mr. Mayhew: The senior unofficial member of the Legislative Council, who was also a member of Executive Council, resigned because he was out of sympathy with the administration of the Government of the Colony. He has cited a number of reasons for his dissatisfaction on some of which my right hon. Friend is awaiting the observations of the Governor. One other member resigned on the grounds of ill health, and another without assigning any specific reason.
  Mr. Rankin: Can my hon. Friend say if some of the difficulties existing in the Seychelles are due, first, to the fact that we have now got there a very good Governor, and secondly, that he is making strenuous efforts to collect arrears of Income Tax?
  Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies is awaiting the comments of the Governor on the report, and I think we should await his comments.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is there any connection between the resignation of these senior officials and Income Tax?
  Mr. Rankin: Yes, a lot. They do not like paying it.

  SINGAPORE (ELECTIONS)
  Mr. Platts-Millsasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many persons were entitled to register as voters in the recent Singapore elections; how many actually registered; how many voted; how many parties contested the election; and whether he is satisfied that the outcome adequately reflects public opinion in the Malayan Union.
  Mr. Mayhew: The number entitled to register is estimated at about five times the number of registrations, which was 22,387. Fourteen thousand three hundred

  1801
  and seventy, or 64 per cent. of registered electors, voted. Only one party contested the election, but there were also nine independent candidates for the six seats. My right hon. Friend has no reason to suppose that the outcome does not adequately reflect public opinion in the Colony of Singapore.
  Mr. Platts-Mills: Would my hon. Friend accept the estimate of ten times the number of registrations being the correct figure for those who could have registered to vote; and, that being the case, would he not accept that whereas only 6 per cent. of the people entitled to vote did vote, it really amounts to a complete rejection of the Constitution by the Malayan people, and would he not consider making another shot at a constitution which they like better?
  Mr. Mayhew: It is certainly a small poll, and I think it is due largely to the fact that popular elections are a new experience in Singapore. On the other hand, sometimes a small poll which is fair is better than a large one which is faked.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: Could the hon. Gentleman say anything, perhaps in another capacity, about the voting in the recent Italian elections?
  Mr. Platts-Millls: Is my hon. Friend aware, when he says that people like having fair elections, that 75 members of the Legislative Council are nominated by the Government but that only six are elected?
  Mr. Mayhew: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's judgment of what is a fair and free election.

  HONG KONG

    War Damage Compensation
    Mr. Vernon Bartlettasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Hong Kong Government expect to make interim or final payments to compensate former British residents for their war losses in the Colony.
    Mr. Mayhew: It is hoped that a statement on the subject of war damage compensation will be made at an early date.
    Mr. Bartlett: When my hon. Friend refers to "an early date," would he bear in mind that the Colony of Hong Kong
    1802
    is one of the most prosperous in the British Commonwealth at the present time; that most of these people have lost everything they possessed; that because they worked for many years in the Far East they find it very difficult to get into jobs here; and could not something be done to speed up that "early date"?
    Mr. Mayhew: Yes, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies appreciates that. I will certainly draw his attention to that view.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: Can the hon. Member say what has been holding up this decision?
    Mr. Mayhew: I should like notice of that question.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is not the Under-Secretary aware that similar answers have been given for a very long time; and that there are very many claimants, mostly people in business in a small way, with small claims, who are put to considerable hardship?

    Air Travel Facilities
    Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any further statement to make concerning the new airfield for Hong Kong.
    Mr. Lennox-Boydasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made regarding the negotiations to build a new civil airport at Hong Kong.
    Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend regrets that he is not yet in a position to add anything to the reply which he gave to the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling) on 4th February. He hopes to be in a position to make a statement on the subject in the near future.
    Mr. Teeling: Does not the Under-Secretary realise that that answer said that the matter was under active consideration, which has now gone on for many months; and does he further realise that now international aircraft are by-passing Hong Kong because they cannot land there, and that the problem is becoming very serious.
    Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir. There will be a statement, though, in the near future.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Before that statement is made will the hon. Gentleman convey to his right hon. Friend that at the moment no aircraft of any kind can land at night at Hong Kong, which, in view of Hong Kong's importance, is humiliating?
    Mr. John Paton: Would my hon. Friend also bear in mind that the existing airfield at Hong Kong is difficult at all times, and on many days of the year is positively dangerous to the aircraft which use it; and would he impress on his right hon. Friend the need for urgency in the matter?
    Mr. Mayhew: I will certainly put those points to my right hon: Friend.
    Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the numbers of passengers passing through Kai Tak Hong Kong and Singapore, respectively, each month; what is the biggest aircraft which can land at either airfield at present; and what expenditure his Department has authorised to spend on airfields in Hong Kong and Malaya, respectively.
    Mr. Mayhew: As the reply to this Question is rather long and contains a number of figures, I propose, with the permission of the hon. Member, to arrange for it to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Teeling: As Singapore receives, roughly, about a quarter of the number of aircraft received at Hong Kong, why has the Colonial Office already spent a considerable amount of money on Singapore and nothing on Hong Kong?
    Mr. Mayhew: Perhaps the hon. Member would read the reply and put down a further Question on that subject.
    Mr. Teeling: On a point of Order. Although no doubt it will be interesting to read the reply, I feel that it really is time to give notice that I shall attempt to raise this on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment in order to secure a fuller discussion.
    Following is the reply:
    Kai Tak, the civil airport at Hong Kong, was used by over 15,000 passengers during March, and I am advised that
    1804
    the traffic is increasing. The largest aircraft that has yet landed there is a Douglas Skymaster, but the airport is not generally regarded as suitable for use by four-engined aircraft. At Singapore two airports are at present used by civil air-craft. Kallang airport is used by approximately 5,00o passengers per month, and Tengah, an R.A.F. airfield which, pending the construction of a new civil airport, has temporarily been made available for limited use by civil aircraft, is used by approximately 1,50o civilian passengers per month. The largest aircraft permitted to land at Kallang is the Douglas Skymaster, and at Tengah the Constellation.
    I assume that the last part of the Question refers to new constructional work and not to the recurrent expenditure necessary for maintenance. In so far as Hong Kong is concerned, I can only refer the hon. Member to the reply given to Question No. 37. A new airport is being built at Changi in Singapore. The expenditure so far authorised on this airport is £2,280,000, of which £1,425,000 will fall to be met from the Votes of the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Civil Aviation. In addition, approximately £534,000 of the Singapore share of the expenditure will be met from Singapore's allocation of Colonial Development and Welfare funds.

  KENYA (LABOUR CONDITIONS)
  Mr. H. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Dr. Northcote's recent report on labour conditions in Kenya will be published or otherwise made available to Members of this House.
  Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend has nothing to add at present to the answer which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) on 4th February.
  Mr. Hynd: Would the Minister at least see that a copy of this Report is placed in the Library of the House?
  Mr. Mayhew: The whole question 01 publication is still under discussion, and I should not like to make an announcement until those discussions are completed.

  CYPRUS (TOURIST TRAFFIC)
  Squadron-Leader Kinghornasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken towards developing Cyprus as a tourist centre.
  Mr. Mayhew: I would refer the hon. Member to the written reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) on 12th April.

  TANGANYIKA (DEPORTED GERMANS)
  Dr. Segalasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many of the 880 Germans formerly resident in Tanganyika Territory who were deported to Germany in 1947 were members of the Nazi Party or had criminal records; and what was the cost to the British taxpayer of their deportation.
  Mr. Mayhew: The number of Germans formerly resident in Tanganyika who were actually repatriated in 1947 was 653. Of these, members of the Nazi party and their dependents numbered 359, and two were persons with criminal records. The balance consisted of active Nazi sympathisers and persons who had no means of livelihood in Tanganyika, and were considered for other reasons to be undesirable. The cost of repatriation was borne by the Government of Tanganyika.
  Dr. Segal: In cases where Nazi affiliation was clearly in doubt would not the Minister consider sending them back to Tanganyika in preference to Fascist Italians, in connection with the East African development schemes?
  Mr. Mayhew: I will be glad to look at any evidence of injustice in individual cases which my hon. Friend may have.
  Mr. Scollan: Why not send some Communists out there?

  NORTHERN RHODESIA (TAXATION)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what recommendations have been made by the Committee
  1806
  set up in Northern Rhodesia to consider the question of automatic exemption from Native Tax of Africans whose incomes are below a certain figure; whether he is aware that a European with a wife and two children in Northern Rhodesia pays no tax until his annual income reaches £500; and whether exemption for Africans earning less than 20s. per month will now be granted.
  Mr. Mayhew: The Committee, which included an African member, recommended that there should be no automatic exemption from Native Tax of Africans in urban areas whose cash earnings are below 20s. a month, but that the present powers of District Officers to reduce or remit tax should be generously exercised when the capacity to earn had been lost or reduced by any cause. I am not aware of the decision of the Northern Rhodesian Government on these recommendations.
  Mr. Sorensen: Does not that seem a little unfair, and does it not look rather like discrimination between white and black that in one case there should be total exemption and in the other case none at all?
  Mr. Mayhew: Yes; but I should not like to prejudge this matter until I have heard the decision of the Northern Rhodesian Government.

  TRINIDAD CONSTITUTION (REPORTS)
  Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Committee reporting on a new Constitution for Trinidad has completed its work; when it will be possible for its proposals to be made public; and if the proposals received the unanimous support of the Committee.
  Mr. Mayhew: The Committee has now submitted its report to the Governor. I understand that of the 20 members 17 have signed the majority report. One of the remaining three has submitted a minority report. I understand that it is hoped to present the reports to the Legislative Council before it goes into recess next month, and that a debate on constitutional reform is expected to take place in Legislative Council on 30th April.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Dockyards (Merchant Ship Repairs)
    Mrs. Middletonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what tonnage of merchant shipping is at present under repair in His Majesty's dockyards; what further contracts for repair to merchant vessels are already in hand; and what provision is being made for merchant ship repair work in naval yards up to the end of 1948.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): There are at present three merchant vessels totalling 26,000 gross registered tons under repair in the Royal dockyards at home. No further contracts are in hand and no provision is being made for any substantial merchant ship repairs in naval yards up to the end of 1948, beyond that necessary for completing the vessels now under repair. I should add, however, that there is continually under repair a considerable tonnage of Admiralty tankers registered at Lloyds, some of which are allocated to commercial work.
    Mrs. Middleton: In view of the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 6th April, about the cost of repairing merchant vessels,' and the inability to do that work in our own yards, will my hon. Friend take steps to see that Admiralty yards are used to the full for this work during this critical time in our economic affairs?
    Mr. Edwards: The Primary of the Royal Dockyards, as I have told the House Previously, is to ensure that we have a most efficient Fleet. At present, we have a large volume of Fleet repair work which is long overdue, and it is Proposed to reduce that volume during this financial year. It might interest the House to know that even if we had sufficient space in the Royal Dockyards to undertake the repair of merchant ships it would not serve much purpose, because the steel which would be used for that work would be taken away from private yards which are undertaking merchant ship repairs.

    Pensioner Clerks
    Mrs. Middletonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether a decision has yet been reached
    1808
    concerning the absorption of naval pensioners serving as pensioner clerks into the clerical officer grade of Admiralty service, or when a decision upon this matter can be expected.
    Mr. W. Edwards: A proposal is about to be made go the staff side of the Admiralty Administrative Whitley Council concerning the principle on which this question should be settled. Assuming agreement on this principle, some little time may be required to complete negotiations concerning its detailed application.
    Mrs. Middleton: Will my hon. Friend hasten the conclusion of this matter, in view of the unfairness to many pensioner clerks who are employed in this service?
    Mr. Edwards: I can assure my hon. Friend that we have that in mind. I am happy to say that it is much nearer a solution than we expected it would be a short time ago.

  NATIONAL PARKS (SERVICES' USE)
  Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Defence in which of the areas proposed for National Parks and nature reserves it is proposed to carry out training or experiments; what proportion of each area will be so encroached upon; and from what proportion of each area will the public be excluded.
  Mr. Simmons (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of those areas which are affected by the proposals of the Admiralty, the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Supply. In the case of the War Office it may take a little time to prepare the necessary statement, but I will arrange for such information as can be given to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as is practicable.
  Mr. Keeling: Can we have it all published together, and not in driblets?
  Mr. Simmons: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman awaits publication of the Report, and then puts another Question.
  Mr. Keeling: That is exactly what I do not want to do; I want it published altogether, not in driblets.
  Mr. Simmons: The hon. Member's request will be transmitted to my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any of the areas which will be so used are in Scotland?

  NATIONAL PARKS.

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  5.

  —

  Total Area (acres).

  Area Used For Training or Experiments (acres).

  Public Entry.

  Department.

  Dartmoor

  250,880

  12,000

  3,000 acres open

  Admiralty.

  North Yorkshire Moors.

  392,960

  820

  Open except when training is in progress.

  Air Ministry.

  Lake District

  570,880

  350

  Access to 50 acres on the shore, in the evening and at weekends.

  Ministry of Supply.

  Pembrokeshire Coast

  146,560

  1,350

  Closed

  Admiralty.

  CONSERVATION AREAS, SCIENTIFIC AREAS AND NATURE RESERVES.

  1.

  2.

  3.

  4.

  —

  Area Used For Training or Experiments.

  Public Entry.

  Department.

  Anglesey Coast

  617

  Open except when training is in progress.

  Air Ministry.

  *603

  Closed.

  Artro Valley

  †*507

  Closed

  Air Ministry.

  Breckland

  †*4,087

  Closed

  Air Ministry.

  1,981

  Open except when training is in progress.

  Cannock Chase

  395

  Open

  Ministry of Supply. ‡

  Cardigan Coast

  279

  Closed

  Ministry of Supply.

  Castor Hanglands

  395

  Open except when trainings in progress.

  Air Ministry.

  Chilterns

  †*1,389

  Closed

  Air Ministry.

  Cornish Coast

  †*2,493

  Closed

  Air Ministry.

  Cotswolds

  *1,487

  Closed

  Air Ministry.

  Denbigh Moors

  1,750

  Closed for not more than 60 days a year.

  Ministry of Supply.

  Dorset Coast

  750

  Closed

  Admiralty.

  407

  Open except when training is in progress.

  Air Ministry.

  Hampshire Downs

  *690

  Closed

  Air Ministry.

  Malvern Hills

  161

  Closed

  Ministry of Supply.

  Marlborough and

  *2,677

  Closed

  Air Ministry.

  Berkshire Downs.

  720

  Open except when training is in progress.

  3,118

  1,170 acres closed, remainder open except when firing or trials in progress.

  Ministry of Supply.

  Morth Downs

  *748

  Closed

  Air Ministry.

  266

  Closed

  Ministry of Supply.

  Suffolk Coast

  †2,500

  290 acres open except when training is in progress.

  Air Ministry.§

  *671

  Whittlesey

  650

  Open except when training is in progress.

  Air Ministry.

  * Airfields.

  † Part only within conservations area, etc

  ‡ Joint use with War Office.

  § Part joint use with Ministry of Supply

  Mr. Simmons: Not without notice.
  Mr. Emrys Roberts: Will the Report make it clear that a large part of North Wales which has been allocated as a national park is to be taken over as a military training ground.
  Following are the details referred to:

  FILMS (CENSORSHIP)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the varying standards applied by the British Board of Film Censors, who withhold licences from serious works of cinematographic art while permitting the public exhibition of films condemned by responsible critics as unworthy of the British film industry, he will appoint a Royal Commission to investigate the standards and methods of the Board and to consider the desirability of abolishing censorship altogether or of replacing the present Board by a statutory body of impartial and educated persons.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): It is the general practice of the licensing authorities to accept the certificates pf the unofficial Board of Film Censors, but the ultimate responsibility for deciding whether a film shall or shall not be shown rests on the licensing authorities. I do not think there is any such case for the appointment of a Royal Commission, as is suggested by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Driberg: Without bothering to name one particularly notorious film, which will be a disgrace to the British film industry wherever it is shown, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether, without necessarily appointing a Royal Commission, he could find some way of ensuring that we had a consistent film censorship which did not allow such a scandalous film to be shown while rejecting serious films?
  Mr. Gallacher: Would not the Prime Minister take the iniative in arranging a conference of those interested in the British film industry, to work out plans for developing the industry independently of the tough stuff that comes from America?
  The Prime Minister: That is a rather different question.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Rabbits (Wholesale Licence)
    Mr. Price-Whiteasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the application of Mr. J. Barber, of 51, Aberech Road, Pwllheli, to the Meat and Livestock Division of his Ministry for a licence to sell rabbits by wholesale was acknowledged by that Division on the 7th
    1812
    November, 1947; that nothing further was heard until the 8th April, 1948, when Mr. Barber was informed that his application was refused; and, in view of the fact that Mr. Barber already carried out a considerable business in the retail sale of rabbits under licence at the date of his application, can he account for the unreasonable delay and for his eventual decision in this matter.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I regret the delay, but I am satisfied that the decision was correct. The hon. Member may not be aware that Mr. Barber's application was prompted by certain inquiries which my right hon. Friend had cause to instigate, and regarding which he has directed that a letter be sent to Mr. Barber.
    Mr. Price-White: Does not the hon. Lady agree that as Mr. Barber held a retailer's licence knowledge of his business should have been known to the Ministry? Is it not disgraceful that it should have taken nearly five months for the Ministry to have replied? In view of the fact that Mr. Barber was engaged in supplying swift moving Welsh rabbits to Lancashire, is it not more preferable that the people there should have these rabbits rather than the more traditional, but slower moving, trotters?
    Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. Member will have a word with me afterwards I may be able to tell him something which I should not like to say publicly.

    Potatoes (Buying Agents)
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Food what amount has been paid since 1st January, 1947, to the latest available date to traders appointed as agents for the purpose of the purchase of potatoes.
    Dr. Summerskill: Between 1st January, 1947, and 31st March, 1948, approximately £295,000 was paid to agents for the purchase of potatoes and carrots. Most of this was for potatoes, but I am afraid it is not possible to separate their cost.
    Sir W. Smithers: Has the hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend tried to clear up this mess in the Ministry? Why did the Minister, on 23rd February, quote a figure of £190,000 and, on another occasion, said that no expense had been involved? Which is right?
    Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand the simple operations of business. The hon. Gentleman asked before whether we had assumed these functions. We had not. These men are operating as our agents and we are paying them for their work.

    Tea Allowance Application, Newport
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that a small supply of tea has been refused by the local food officer for the monthly mothers' meeting at St. Andrew's Church at Lliswens, Newport; and whether, in view of the fact that such supplies are available for youth and other organisations, he will authorise a supply for this purpose.
    Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend is not prepared to make tea available for this purpose. The circumstances are quite different from those of youth clubs and similar organisations.
    Mr. Freeman: Why this discrimination against mothers?
    Dr. Summerskill: We are not discriminating against mothers. We are prepared to give allowances of certain foods to women who meet together to make garments for charitable institutions, but we are not prepared to allocate food to any group of women who wish to have an occasional chat.

    Seizure of Food Order
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Food why the Seizure of Food Order, 1948, S.I., 1948, No. 724, provides that the Crown shall retain any expenses of seizure out of the proceeds of sale by the Crown of an article of food, even when the owner has been acquitted of any offence alleged in respect of that article; and why in making this new Order he failed to respond to protests against a similar provision in the superseded Order.
    Dr. Summerskill: The Order empowers the Crown to retain expenses incurred in connection with the sale, but, in practice, we do not now exercise this power if the owner is acquitted.
    Sir J. Mellor: Does the hon. Lady recollect that in the Debate on the superseded Order, on 26th November, she said, according to HANSARD:
    1814
    "I would not, for one moment, say that an acquitted man might not experience some injustice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1946; Vol. 430, c. 1567.]
    Does she still adhere to that statement?
    Dr. Summerskill: Certainly, and as a result of that we have not deducted any expenses from acquitted men over the last year.
    Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Why does the hon. Lady maintain the law which she so consistently disregards? Why not bring in a new order, and drop this provision?
    Dr. Summerskill: After an order has been made, and we come to administer it, we have the right to waive certain legal rights, and we are doing that in this case.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Have the Ministry any right to charge a citizen for a mistake made by the Minister or the Department?
    Dr. Summerskill: No, and we do not so charge. I have already said that over the last year we did not deduct any expenses.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Then why retain the legal right?
    Sir W. Smithers: The whole thing is a farce.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the hon. Lady say whether this money is also exacted in a case where there is no prosecution at all and where, therefore, there cannot be an acquittal?
    Dr. Summerskill: In all cases where there is no prosecution we do not deduct expenses.
    Sir J. Mellor: So that attention can he drawn to this very unsatisfactory question of delegated legislation, I beg to give notice that I shall tomorrow night move a Prayer to annul this Order.

  SILVER WEDDING PROCESSION (TERRITORIALS)
  Major Haughton(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War why no members of the Territorial Army are to be among the troops lining the streets for Their Majesties' Silver Wedding procession next Monday.
  The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): The Territorial Army will, in fact, be very well represented, as the Honourable Artillery Company, the senior Regiment in the Territorial Army, will provide the guard of honour at St. Paul's Cathedral. To avoid taking men away from industry it was decided that in the broadest national interest other Territorial Army units should not be called upon to line the route of the procession. The Army units lining the route will, therefore, be units of the Regular Army immediately available in London.
  Major Houghton: Is the Minister aware that those of us who are connected with the Territorial Associations and with the Supplementary Reserve pay the greatest honour to the Honourable Artillery Company, but with its tremendous traditions we are inclined to think about it as being more regular than the Regular Army itself and I am pleading on behalf of the rank and file of the Territorial Army? As regards the second part of the Minister's reply, I am sure he is aware that the Government have invited employers all over the country to release men to do their training, and if attendance at a ceremonial parade of this kind is going to obstruct production, how about the other scheme?
  Mr. Shinwell: I am fully aware of the vital importance of the volunteer element in the Territorial Army, but we have received no representations from responsible Territorial Forces' Associations to be represented on the route of this procession. As regards the release of Territorials by employers for training purposes, that, of course, as the hon. and gallant Member well knows, only occurs during periods of camp.
  Mr. Grimston: Is it not a fact that representations were made in another place? Does the right hon. Gentleman ask the House to believe that it is impossible to find some token detachment of the Territorial Army without interfering with industry?
  Mr. Shinwell: As I said, no representations have come to me from the Territorial Forces' Associations. There have been individual representations from hon. Members or members of another place, but these are quite a different matter. They may not be truly representative in character, but represent merely personal opinions
  1816
  or the opinions of a few. As regards liberating Territorials for this purpose, no doubt it could have been done, but we are anxious to cause the least possible disturbance to industry.
  Mr. Oliver Stanley: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether there were any previous occasions of this nature on which the Territorial Army were not represented, and, secondly, if he made inquiries from the responsible authorities' in the Territorial Army whether it would not be possible to send a detachment without any interference with industry whatsoever?
  Mr. Shinwell: As regards the first part of the supplementary question, the right hon. Gentleman well knows that it would require notice.
  Mr. Stanley: Why?
  Mr. Shinwell: Because I have not the information in my possession.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Why not?
  An Hon. Member: Why should he?
  Mr. Shinwell: Unfortunately, I was unable to anticipate the supplementary question. I did not know it was coming along. As 'regards the rest, the remarks seem to me to be quite irrelevant.
  Brigadier Head: Is the Secretary of State aware that very recently he informed the House that he personally was taking every possible step to stimulate voluntary enlistment in the Territorial Army, and has he not here missed a glorious opportunity?
  Mr. Shinwell: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman is aware, we are taking all possible steps to stimulate recruitment for the Territorial Army and we are meeting with some measure of success. We are hoping to meet with greater success in future. We are quite satisfied that although this might have been desirable it is impracticable in the existing circumstances.
  Mr. Keeling: Does the Secretary of State recall that only six weeks ago he accepted a Motion in this House so that the links between the Territorial Army and the community should be strengthened? Is he aware that the boycotting of the Territorial Army on this great national occasion will be deeply resented? Will he consider, even at this eleventh hour, having a token representation which could easily be found without any interference with industry at all?
  Mr. Shinwell: I strongly resent the imputation that we are boycotting the Territorial Army. I repeat that we received no representations from the Territorial Forces' Associations in the London area in connection with the matter.
  Mr. Keeling: It was for the War Office to take the initiative.
  Mr. Shinwell: As I have said, the Honourable Artillery Company will be represented.
  Mr. Keeling: They are there as of right.
  Mr. Shinwell: Nobody is there as of right.
  Mr. Keeling: Yes, they are.
  Mr. Shinwell: There is no question of right about it. We will discuss that on another occasion when it is more appropriate, but the integration of the Territorial element of the British Army with the Regular Forces is in full swing.
  Mr. Nicholson: Has the right hon. Gentleman heard of the Royal Fusiliers and the City of London Regiment, and are they not Territorial units which have a right to be represented on this occasion?
  Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman will be surprised at what I know about the London Territorial Regiment.
  Mr. Nicholson: Why not answer my question?
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is this not an appropriate occasion for honouring the Salvation Army?

  BILL PRESENTED
    MOTOR SPIRIT (REGULATION) BILL
    "to create certain offences in connection with the supply and use of motor spirit, and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Mr. Gaitskell; supported by Mr. Herbert Morrison, Mr. Ede, Mr. Woodburn, Mr. Barnes, the Attorney-General, the Lord Advocate and Mr. Robens; to be read a Second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 75.]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[ Mr. H. Morrison.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 20th April].
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL

    CLAUSE 41.—(Miscellaneous amendments as to election expenses and propaganda.)
    3.40 p.m.
    Mr. Niall Macpherson: I beg to move in page 41, line 1, to leave out from "sixteen," to "cockades," in line 3, and to insert:
    "in so far as it prohibits."
    The purpose of this Amendment is to exclude payments for bands of music, torches, flags and banners. There is a good deal to be said for allowing payments for cockades, ribbons and marks of distinction for the excellent reason, if for no other, that it is almost impossible to check the practice of making payments for them. The position in regard to bands of music, torches, flags and banners is altogether different. If there is one thing we wish to avoid it is turning elections in this country into the kind of thing that we have seen taking place on the Continent. In those countries it has become easy to organise processions headed by bands, with a large number of banners, and to create general excitement of the population which wholly prevents them using their judgment. The primary object of elections is to enable people to use their judgment in as calm and collected a manner as possible. Nor do we wish to see in this country the kind of organisation which goes in for the use of bands and processions. Those are practices which are wholly alien to our customs. It will be to the benefit of the country as a whole to continue to exclude payment for music, torches, flags and banners to the extent that it has been done in the past.
    Mr. Charles Williams: view this Amendment with mixed feelings. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) has put a case for retaining the prohibition in many cases. Although it is a good thing to prohibit band music in processions in England, Scotland and Wales, it should not be prohibited in Northern Ireland as it is there a custom of the country. There

    1819
    is already enough noise in this country at election time. I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree with me that bands are rather apt to divert attention from the opinions of the candidate.
    As there is a shortage of fuel it would be completely and utterly wrong to remove the prohibition on torches. When we are not allowed properly to light up a shop window, it would be wrong to use oil, coal or wood for making torches. We then come to flags. Surely there can be no harm—my hon. Friends might agree with me in this—in having flags at an election time. The removal of the prohibition would be a good thing. I should not like to say that there is any great distinction between flags and banners. What about cockades? They have rather gone out of fashion and I doubt whether it is worth the while of this great Socialist Government, with its enormous majority, taking up the time of the Committee to bring in a special part of a Bill to deal with cockades. Cockades may be fashionable in some places, and it might be that this is the new mode of dress, but it is hardly necessary to deal with them in this Bill.
    3.45 P.m.
    As to ribbons, very few hon. Members, including those austere right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite, can say they are entirely innocent of ever having worn a ribbon at an election, and it seems rather ridiculous and absurd to prohibit ribbons. The last few words:
    "…and other marks of distinction"
    seem to me to be going rather wide in some ways, and I would like an interpretation before I am called on to vote of the precise legal idea about "marks of distinction." A few years ago we used to hear a certain amount about shirts of this or that colour. It would not necessarily be a good thing in these days of clothing shortage to encourage the use of various forms of material in that way.
    I have put these few points because, when we are legislating on a matter of this kind, which in all probability the House is not likely to discuss for some while, it is just as well that we should know the Home Secretary's mind on the various definitions which, undoubtedly after long and mature deliberation, he has decided are worthy of mention in this
    1820
    part of the Clause. Before I am called upon to divide on this matter, I would like some definitions and reasons why these marks and various forms of material are mentioned in paragraph (b).
    Mr. J. S. C. Reid: This does not appear to me to be in any way a political question. It may well be that all my hon. Friends will not agree entirely with what I am about to say, and it may equally be that all hon. Members on the other side do not exactly like the present form of the Bill. I agree with the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson). It is a great pity to introduce into elections in this country display as against argument any more than we can help. It is well known that if we get bands and banners and torches and all the rest of it, we get far too much drill and far too little thought. We had to prohibit uniforms before the war in connection with political demonstrations, and we may at some time—I do not say where the difficulties will arise; it may be from the extreme Right or from the extreme Left—find it essential again to emphasise the civilian nature of elections in this country and the fact that they are very much more a matter for argument than are elections in foreign countries where display and organisation sometimes take the place of argument.
    I see no objection to cockades, ribbons or other marks of distinction. They are small things and sometimes the existing prohibition was not strictly adhered to and no great harm was done. Therefore, I see no real objection to making it possible to buy cockades, ribbons and other marks of distinction or, indeed, to give them away as Subsection (4) provides, although that is perhaps getting on to more debateable territory. However, I think we are unwise to relax the existing law with regard to the more blatant forms of display. The Committee will observe that Clause 16 seeks to prohibit only payment, or contracts for payment, on account of these things. If anybody chooses to come along with them without asking payment, apparently Clause 16 does not prevent him from doing so. What it does prevent is the candidate making this a stunt in his election, and I am sure that the less stunts we have on either side the better.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I have no very strong feelings on this matter. The Carr Committee recommended that these prohibitions on payment should be withdrawn in this piece of legislation. As the right hon. and learned Member said, there is nothing to prevent a band being used now. All that happens is that the candidate cannot pay for it and, as far as I know, no one else can pay for it. If, however, one of the candidate's supporters is the president of the local band or vice-president, and he likes to turn out without asking for payment, there is nothing to prevent that. I was reading only this morning the account of the famous Eatanswill election where, when Mr. Fizkin addressed the electors, the band that had been provided by the Honourable Samuel Slumkey struck up so that Mr. Fizkin's remarks to the electors at the hustings should not be heard, and I understand they succeeded fairly well in their fell purpose.
    Carrying this Amendment will not prevent the use of these things. The only thing it will prevent is the candidate paying for them. I share the view that the less of this kind of thing there is, the better, but I do not feel at all strongly on the matter. The question of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), "What is a mark of distinction?" has given election agents and others considerable cause for doubt for a long time. If a small card is supplied to an elector which is so shaped as to make it convenient to insert in his hatband, that is a mark or distinction. If it contains the candidate's photograph, there might be occasion when it would be something other than a mark of distinction. If, however, it is shaped so that it does not conveniently fit into the hatband, but he nevertheless puts it in his hatband, that, it has been held, is not a mark of distinction. In these days I do not think we want to get concerned in trivialities of that kind. We are cutting down severely the amount of money that can he used on election expenses, I think quite rightly. After all, the candidate who pays money for bands and other things will not be able to spend the money, which will probably be quite tight enough, on the other things. However, I think I shall meet the spirit of the Committee if I agree to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. C. Williams: I thank the right hon. Gentleman sincerely for the immense amount of time and thought which he has obviously given to the points that I have put before him, which I am sure will give gratification everywhere.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: My hon. Friends and I are glad that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted this Amendment, but could I put a personal view to him? It is not a matter of a single band in a village which has been troubling us, but the prospect of a repetition of Nuremburg in this country, with organised torchlight displays and all the paraphernalia that goes with them. At the moment these things are permitted, as the right hon. Gentleman said, but I hope we shall have in him one who will, either by persuasion or otherwise, seek to prevent any possible expression in this country of the kind of unfortunate display that he understands has been used in other countries.
    Mr. Ede: I am sorry that my offer to accept the Amendment has not been met in a better way. With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) let me make this quite clear: if a candidate likes to spend money on these things he will be unseated, but if his supporters like to get up a huge torchlight procession, there is nothing in the existing law to prevent them.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 41, line 28, after "of," to insert "or disparaging."
    The point of this Amendment is fairly simple. I hold in my hand a communication sent out in the last election which does not aim, so far as one can see, at promoting or procuring the election of a candidate but at preventing the election of another candidate, which is not the same thing. It might be the same thing if there were only two candidates but, if there were more than two, one cannot say that by disparaging one candidate the election of another one is procured. In that case it is difficult to prove definitely. One could say that one was seeking to prevent the election of the person one disparaged. It might be in favour of any one of two or three other candidates also standing for the election. The point is simple but necessary.
    Mr. Ede: This Subsection relates to documents distributed for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate, and the Amendment seeks to add the words "or disparaging." There is a case in the courts in which it is held that a prohibition on doing something to promote or procure the election of a candidate includes a prohibition on doing something to hinder the election of another candidate. Therefore we are advised that this Amendment is unnecessary. Further, the phrase:
    "for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate"
    occurs frequently in the Corrupt Practices Act, and if the words "or disparaging" were added here, it would throw doubt on the meaning of the original words in every other case where they occur in the statutes. Therefore, if these words were added, we should have to promote a general provision giving statutory effect to the decision of the court which I have mentioned. A court decision is, in this kind of matter, a much more flexible instrument than a general provision in an Act of Parliament, and I am advised that what the hon. Gentleman means to do by his Amendment is, in fact, the law as it is. To put the words in here would be to throw doubt on numerous other Acts of Parliament. I hope, therefore, that he will feel that it is not necessary to press this Amendment.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. N. Macpherson: In view of the clearly expressed explanation of the Home Secretary, it appears that the point which I was trying to make is already covered. I beg to ask leave, therefore, to withdraw the Amendment. I would like in passing to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I would like to inquire about one point which, though comparatively small, might give rise to a good deal of difficulty. It concerns the inter-relations of Subsections (5) and (6). Subsection (5), quite properly I think, requires that every printed document distributed shall bear the name and address of the printer and publisher. Sub-
    1824
    section (6) goes on to say that "printing" includes any process of multiplication—for example, taking half a dozen copies from a typewriter. A great many documents are distributed—even if the number is as low as half a dozen—for the purpose of promoting the election of a candidate. It will be very difficult if the name and address of the publisher of the half a dozen carbon copies must always appear on every such copy. It is true that on the first copy of a letter, though not always on subsequent copies, the name and address of the election agent generally appears; but there may well be carbon copies and so on which do not carry those particulars.
    When one is circulating small numbers of quite inoffensive documents which are, strictly speaking, promoting the election of a candidate, it will be difficult to make quite certain that every one bears the proper heading. For one reason, stamped notepaper is not as easily come by or as cheap as some of us would like; further, one could not make as many copies on that type of paper as on flimsy paper. I think, therefore, that this matter needs to be looked into again. People may unwittingly get into trouble in doing something which the right hon. Gentleman does not want to put in. I agree that if printed, or even Roneod, documents are being distributed, there may be a lot to be said for having the printer's name included on the document, but not when it comes out of one's own office merely as a carbon copy.
    Mr. C. Williams: I have been extremely interested in following the course of the discussions and the case that has been made for the typewritten document. I will give an example of what I think might well happen. Let us suppose that I have a letter from the Home Secretary enclosing a copy—which is a document—which I agree to send by the usual courtesies. That is a copied document "other than by hand." There may, of course, be some legal definition, of which I do not know, that typewriting in those circumstances could be by hand, but I have known of several copies being done in this way. If this happened, proceedings might possibly be taken. I do not think that is what the right hon. Gentleman really means by the words suggested. Even if a good explanation is put forward now, I think that it might be better for an Amendment to be made at a later stage.
    Mr. Ede: I think that the requirement in the Clause is sound. It is true that the document may be inoffensive, but six documents containing something with which a malicious person desires to smear the character or party of an opposing candidate might be highly offensive; the six copies might be sufficient to do a great deal of harm. I always observed this rule when I was au agent, as have my agents when I have been a candidate. In any document which we have duplicated, even as a carbon copy, we have always taken the precaution of putting at the bottom: "Printed and published by" the election agent for the time being. It is not the inoffensive document that matters, but it is difficult sometimes to decide whether a document is offensive or inoffensive, a document that may be issued in good faith, in the belief of its accuracy, may in fact contain a substantial inaccuracy, and the document ought to enable the printer and publisher to be traced. I should have thought that it was desirable to retain this procedure.
    With regard to the case made by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), where he passes on, for example a letter which he had received from me about a constituent of his who happen to have a boy in an approved school and he wanted to know whether it was possible to release the boy I would not have thought that the carbon copy of the document I sent him came within this Subsection. I very much doubt whether the carrying out of his ordinary duty as a Member of Parliament could be regarded as something done in the promotion of his candidature.
    Mr. C. Williams: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said and am in full agreement with him on that matter. I am not concerned so much about the kind of example which has been quoted, but it is well worth having the definition properly in front of the Committee, and I am glad that I raised the question. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, however, before the Report stage to look again into the actual question of typewriting, in case it may have a wider application than that of which he has thought so far. If he will do so I shall be satisfied.
    Mr. Ede: I will look into the question raised by the hon. Member. If he were to take the copy of the letter to which I have referred, and if his agent were to
    1826
    have it duplicated and distributed in, for example, these terms: "See how a Member looks after the interests of his constituent. This is a letter he has just received from the Secretary of State showing his concern for this poor boy who was in the approved school"; that undoubtedly would then become a document which ought to bear the name and address of the agent.
    Mr. Williams: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman in that respect. Any document which I sent out would in all probability be correct in every detail. I am thinking of hon. Gentlemen opposite who may not always be quite as accurate. They sometimes get into all kinds of trouble. I realise that I am only human and that we are all liable to make mistakes, but I think I ought to put forward also the points of view of other people. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the courtesy with which he has treated this matter and also for enabling hon. Gentlemen opposite to know how hard lie works to keep them free and innocent of any offence. As I understand it, as long as we all put our names and addresses on such documents, even the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway might feel quite safe in the future although he never has in the past.
    Mr. Alpass: He can look after himself.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 42.—(Failure to appoint election agent.)
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): I beg to move, in page 41, line 37, to leave out from "candidate," to end of line 38, and to insert:
    "who remains validly nominated at the latest time for delivery of notices of withdrawals"
    If convenient, the following two Amendments in page 41, line 41 and page 42, line 1 may be considered at the same time. Under Clause 42 a candidate is required to name an election agent not later than the time when the statement of his nomination is published, but in local government elections it is open to a candidate to withdraw for a period of 24 hours after the time when the statement is published. It seems unnecessary to require that an

    1827
    election agent should be named within that short period if the candidate is going to withdraw. These three Amendments make the relevant time by which the naming of the agent must be made the last time for delivery of notices under this Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Consequential Amendments made.
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 42, line 29, at the end, to add:
    "(b) in paragraph 48 of Part III of the local elections rules (which prohibits a returning officer or officer appointed under those rules or his partner or clerk from acting as polling or counting agent) for the words "polling or counting agent" wherever they occur there shall be substituted the words "candidate's agent in the management or conduct of the election"; but nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Subsection or in Section fifty of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, or Section thirteen of the Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868 (which make similar provision in relation to parliamentary elections), shall be taken as preventing a candidate from acting as his own election agent."
    This is a slightly related matter and is consequential upon the provision of Clause 36 which now requires that local government candidates shall appoint election agents. As is set out in the Amendment, the present election rules prohibit
    "a returning officer or an officer appointed under those rules or his partner or clerk from acting as polling or counting agent."
    The Amendment proposes to include in that prohibition someone acting as the candidate's agent which, of course, was not formerly necessary in local government elections. The latter part of the proposed new Subsection is designed to ensure that the prohibition will not extend to prevent a candidate who is the partner or clerk of an election official from acting as his own election agent. As hon. Members will know, this possibility is open to him under the Bill and is what happens if the candidate does not name any other election agent.
    Mr. C. Williams: Before this Amendment is agreed to, I wonder whether we could be told why the Government did not include this provision in the original Bill? This is a matter of some importance, dealing as it does with the election laws of the country, and it is extraordinary that a Measure which was obviously being built up for a long time should not have
    1828
    included in its original form the provision which is made by this Amendment.
    Mr. Younger: I do not think it is of any great importance to know why these words were not included before. What is important, however, is to know why it is proposed to include them now, and that is the explanation which I have given.
    Mr. Williams: The explanation did not cover the reason why this wording was originally omitted. We were given to understand that this Measure had been carefully considered, and it will be difficult if these enormous Amendments, which are of considerable effect and importance, are to be brought up at this stage. I hope the position will be examined properly by outside authorities who have a great knowledge of election laws to see whether it is really right.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I beg to move, in page 42, line 29, at the end, to add:
    (6) this section shall have effect in its application to a local government election in Scotland as if for subsection (4) there were substituted the following subsection—
    "(4) Where a candidate is by virtue of this section to be treated as his own election agent he shall be deemed to have his office at his address as given in his nomination paper or papers or if that address is not in the local government area or in a county of a city or town adjoining thereto, at the address of the person named as the proposer of the candidate in the nomination paper first delivered in which the address of, the proposer is in the local government area."
    The procedure proposed occurs in England but not in Scotland under Scottish local government law.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. McKie: The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) on the preceding Amendment apply somewhat to this Amendment, although I do not think the Secretary of State for Scotland has been anything like so guilty, if I may use such a strong term, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. As the electoral law in Scotland now stands, if the Clause had gone through without this Subsection, it would have been impossible to comply with it in Scotland as regards the addresses of the candidate and election

    1829
    agent. Just as in the case of the last Amendment, those responsible for administering Scottish affairs should have realised that it would have been better if this Subsection had been put into the Bill before it was printed.
    Mr. McKinlay: Hear, hear.
    Mr. McKie: I am glad to have the support of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) because he is very much au fait with local government matters in Scotland, perhaps even more au fait than the right hon. Gentleman. It is as well to have this Subsection in the Bill, and it will be realised how completely jeopardised local government matters in Scotland might have been if it had been sought to operate the Clause without it. In entering this caveat I hope I shall have the complete support not only of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire but of all hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies who are gracing the Committee by their presence.
    Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) will understand that it a Bill were perfect in the first place there would be no occasion for a Committee stage, and we should miss the charming interventions which he makes and get on with the business more quickly.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. C. Williams: Before we pass away from this Clause, I would like to emphasise, for the sake of the Government and the Committee as a whole, that the Amendments we have made to the Clause take up nearly a third of a page of the Bill. I regret to say, and say it with great pain, that after further researches were made after the Bill was printed, the Government found two mistakes in one Clause which, added together, make about a third of a page. Such considerations and the blatant mistakes of the Government leave no room for wonder that the Bill is very lengthy. I congratulate the Government on these Amendments. It would have been a great pity if we had to have an amending Bill very shortly because these Amendments to this vital
    1830
    Clause had not been made. I congratulate the Home Secretary on having found the fault, and the Secretary of State for Scotland, who, no doubt, will be shortly praised and honoured by supporters, for having found out something which ought to have been obvious long before the Bill was printed.
    Mr. Ede: I can think of something else I would like to see pass away, besides this Clause. This Clause was inserted against the recommendations of the Carr Committee because we thought it would be unwise to deprive a man of his chance of standing as a candidate merely because he had omitted to appoint an agent. We thought that if a man appointed no one it would be quite right if he became his own agent. After we studied the matter when the Bill had been printed we found that consequences flowed from that—very unlikely to arise, in most circumstances—which might cast doubt on the validity of some person's actions. In order to make the Clause watertight, we decided to bring in the new Subsection. I hope the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) will not pass away too soon.
    Mr. C. Williams: I hope the Clause is more watertight than it was before, but I should not be the least surprised if there were very considerable leakages in the Bill. After all, we expect leakages in anything connected with this Government.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 43.—(Avoidance of election for employing corrupt agent.)
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 42, line 43, to leave out "at that election," and to insert:
    "to fill the vacancy or any of the vacancies for which the election is held."
    This is a drafting Amendment. The Clause lays down that a candidate shall be incapable of being elected at an election which is voided because of certain misconduct on the part of the candidate. The purpose of the Amendment is to make it clear that he is also incapacitated from filling any of the vacancies for which the election was held. This is a clearly desirable provision.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move in page 42, line 45, to leave out Subsection (2), and to insert:
    "(2) For the purposes of section eightyseven of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, and section thirty of the Elections (Scotland) (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1890 (which provide that an election may, on the grounds there mentioned, be questioned by petition, and not otherwise) a person declared by this section incapable of being elected shall be deemed to have been disqualified at the time of the election; but a vote given for such a person shall not, by reason of his incapacity under this section, be deemed to be thrown away so as to entitle another candidate to be declared elected, unless given at a poll consequent on the decision of an election court that he was so incapable."
    This is rather an interesting Amendment. We propose to leave out the existing Subsection (2), and to insert a new Subsection. We do this for two reasons. The first is that it is necessary to bring in the reference to Scotland because the Municipal Corporation Act, 1882, which solely relates to England and Wales, does not apply to Scotland. The second reason is a very interesting one and gives some insight into the way in which elections were conducted in the days of smaller electorates. If a person voted for a candidate who was disqualified, and knew that the person was disqualified, it was possible to get the votes of all such persons taken off the original poll of that candidate and then his opposing candidate, if he could reduce the number of votes polled below the number he polled, claimed the seat.
    Let us say that in the contest the voting had been 1,000 to the winning candidate, and 950 to the other. If the losing candidate could prove that more than 50 of the people who voted for the winning candidate knew at the time that they voted that he was disqualified, he could claim the seat. I am told that such cases actually occurred. Exactly how it was proved that people knew they were voting for a disqualified candidate, I do not know. We say that in any such case where a candidate is disqualified there should be a fresh election, and the electorate should have the opportunity of pronouncing between two candidates whom they may assume to be validly qualified. I hope that the Committee will think that in this departure from ancient tradition we are making a reasonable reform of election law.
    Mr. C. Williams: I do not quarrel with this Amendment. I am indeed glad to see it on the Order Paper, but again I am astonished that it was not in the original Bill.
    The Chairman: Anything the hon. Member has to say must be at least relevant, and I ask him not to continue that form of argument, but to deal with the merits of the Amendment, and not with the question of whether or not it should have been put in at an earlier stage. That might be said of many Amendments.
    Mr. C. Williams: Of course, if you, Major Milner, rule that it is not in Order for me to say that I am astonished that it was not in the original Bill, I willingly accept your Ruling, but I must say that if I am not allowed to express astonishment at the Bill not being perfect when we have very long Amendments, which I think should have been in the Bill originally, I must regret your Ruling. This Amendment is one of considerable importance, and I am glad that it has been put down. I support the Government and the right hon. Gentleman on this occasion, and feel sure that if the Amendment had not been put in we should have had the additional trouble of an amending Measure in future. I welcome this provision most sincerely in every way.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 44.—(Penalty for illegal canvassing by police officers.)
    Amendment made: in page 43, line 27, after "Ireland," insert "as references."—[Mr. Younger.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I wish to raise a point on the first Subsection. I quite agree that it is essential to limit the activities of policemen in connection with elections, but I wonder whether, on looking into the matter again, the Home Secretary would think this goes a little too far. It seems to me that if a policeman is asked by his wife for his views on the desirability of supporting one candidate against another, if he answered there would be a technical offence. Without derogating in any

    1833
    way from a general restriction against using the police for one party or candidate, I wonder whether we have gone a little too far in this Subsection and whether, if it were strictly enforced, it would be a little oppressive on the police. There may be a perfectly good answer, but on first reading the Subsection it does seem a little odd.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. McKie: I rise to ask a question about Subsection (2, b), which refers to Northern Ireland. The Committee have just agreed to an Amendment, to insert "as references." With that Amendment the paragraph reads:
    "In relation to Northern Ireland, as references to a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and to Northern Ireland."
    Would the Home Secretary be good enough to enlighten me as to why it is necessary to use the words "and to Northern Ireland"? It does not say anything about any other police force which may exist in Northern Ireland so that it might mean "to any member of the general public" in Northern Ireland. This phrase seems to me to require a little more elucidation. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey) might have required a little information about that. There is an Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) which went somewhat further than this paragraph—in line 28, after "Constabulary," to insert:
    "or of any other police force under the management or control of the Government of Northern Ireland."
    That Amendment was not called. I am not indicating that the hon. Member was seeking the right way to deal with the matter or that I would be prepared to accept that Amendment. It is unlikely that I should ever agree to any Amendment the hon. Member moved except the one which he moved in the recent all-night Sitting. I would like to hear the hon. Member's argument, as it might go a little way to clear up the whole position as to why the use of the phrase "and to Northern Ireland" is included in this Clause.
    I should also like to associate myself with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). He has difficulty
    1834
    in understanding why Subsection (1) should be drawn so severely as it is. He was, of course, speaking from the point of view of England and Wales. I am concerned to know how it may operate in Scotland. It may operate just as severely there as my hon. Friend thought it might do south of the Tweed. I hope that in expressing that doubt I shall have with me every Scottish Member on the other side of the Committee. I urge the Home Secretary, in regard to my first point about Northern Ireland, which is exciting the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone, to give us a little more light on the subject and clear away the lingering doubt which I have in my mind, and which it is obvious the hon. Member also has.
    Mr. Bing: I wonder whether the Home Secretary feels that this Clause really gives him sufficient power to deal with police interference with elections in Northern Ireland. I should say that there are two types of police in Northern Ireland. Subsection (2, b) refers only to one sort, the more regular sort of police. It is the irregular type of police who unfortunately most often interfere in the elections. Hon. Members will know of a report which was signed by a gentleman who sat opposite, Mr. William McKeag, and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) as well as by Miss Margery Fry. It was a report on conditions in Northern Ireland, in which the use of this police force in elections was described in the following terms—
    Sir Ronald Ross: What was the date of it?
    Mr. Bing: I am glad to note that the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) is here. He always takes an opportunity to interrupt me. I shall be raising a point later upon which I should like him to interrupt. This report was issued in 1936. In regard to the B. Special Constabulary, it says:
    "More than tour times as numerous as the R.U.C. the B. Specials are a trained and organised force having control of or access to official stores"—
    The Chairman: I think that the Special Constabulary have no relation to this Clause, which relates to what the hon. Member termed the regular Police Force. I see nothing about any irregular police force here.
    Mr. Bing: With respect, the argument I was addressing to the Committee was that while this is a Clause dealing with police, it only deals, so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, with one type of police force.
    The Chairman: Yes, but the hon. Member is dealing with some other body than the regular Police Force. Quite clearly that would not be relevant to a Clause which deals with the police proper.
    Mr. Bing: May I refer to the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act, in which the police are defined for Northern Ireland purposes as the Royal Ulster Constabulary and these various auxilliary forces—
    The Chairman: I am afraid I cannot permit the hon. Member to continue. What he is saying does not appear to come within the purview of this Clause.
    Mr. MeKinlay: On a point of Order. If the special police are under the control of the North of Ireland Government, and can be used at elections, surely it is in Order, although they are not specifically mentioned here, to discuss them in relation to this matter?
    The Chairman: I am afraid I cannot agree. There is nothing in this Clause about special police or anything of that sort, and I cannot permit further discussion on that subject.
    Mr. David Jones: Are we to understand, Major Milner, that your Ruling means that this Police Force is entitled to interfere in elections in Northern Ireland?
    The Chairman: No, the hon. Member must not interpret what I said as expressing any opinion on that matter but merely as calling the hon. Member to Order on the point that on a Clause dealing with a Police Force he could not deal with some other force, as he was endeavouring to do.
    Mr. Frank Byers: I am at a loss to understand this Ruling, Major Milner. I do not see why it is not possible for the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) to argue that this Clause should not stand part of the Bill because he wants to insert in the Clause some reference to special or auxiliary police forces. If he is not allowed to argue that point it is difficult to see at what point of the Bill he can do so. I
    1836
    always thought that on Committee stage one could argue that a certain Clause or provision should be inserted or that a Clause should not stand part because such a provision is not included.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member will appreciate that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has not been selected, and the hon. Member can therefore only deal with what is in the Clause.
    Mr. Bing: If I may continue, what I was saying can refer to police generally, which will come within the purview of what is in Order. I was about to say that the police in Northern Ireland, whatever type they are, have a great many powers. They are entitled to arrest people on suspicion without warrant; they are entitled to search premises without warrant and to stop vehicles anywhere; they have power to stop and interrogate anyone. In these circumstances it seems to me that there ought to be a very clear line drawn as to what power this Bill contains.
    I referred at an earlier stage to police action in an Armagh by-election. In that case the police took their rifles and fired them off. The defence which was offered by the Northern Ireland Minister of Home Affairs, and it is an understandable defence, was that this incident really had no effect on the election result because the shooting took place after the result had been declared, and secondly, that the man who was wounded was one of their own supporters. It is clearly quite improper that police should be permitted to fire off their rifles during an election campaign, and the people may well think that if their rifles were fired off after the campaign they—
    The Chairman: The hon. Member seems to be addressing his remarks, as he has done on previous occasions, to a general tirade against some unofficial or so-called police force in Northern Ireland. It does not seem to me that that is relevant. This Clause lays down certain penalties for illegal canvassing, etc. by police' officers. The fact that some other body took some other action on some other occasion is not relevant. The hon. Member must address himself to the terms of this Clause. I cannot allow him to engage in the kind of animadversions in which he is and has been indulging in this matter.
    Mr. Bing: The point I was trying to make was that I was objecting to canvassing by police with their rifles.
    Mr. Mulvey: As the B Special Constabulary in Northern Ireland is a recognised Police Force of the Northern Ireland Government, and as it interferes in election time, is it not permissible on an occasion like this, to discuss their actions? The Special Constabulary in Northern Ireland numbers about 10,000. The number has recently been given by the Ministry of Home Affairs—
    The Chairman: I am assured that the Special Constabulary, as the hon. Member terms it, does not come within the term of "police force" to which this Clause refers. That being so we cannot have a discussion on a body which does not come within the purview of the Clause.
    Mr. George Porter: The Clause says:
    "No member of a police force…"
    That surely presumes more than one police force, or the words would be "the police force"?
    The Chairman: The hon. Member will observe that the term is further defined in Subsection (2), and refers to certain specific police forces. I am assured by the Home Secretary that the special force to which reference has been made does not come within any of those definitions. That being so, it is out of Order to refer to them.
    Mr. McKinlay: If it is out of Order to discuss what is undoubtedly a police force with the backing of the Government of Northern Ireland, may I ask whether it would be legal or illegal for the Government of Northern Ireland to use that constabulary for electioneering purposes and to exclude the R.U.C.? I hope that the Home Secretary can give us an answer. I wish to say—
    The Chairman: I understood the hon. Member was addressing his remarks to me. He may be entitled to address them to the Home Secretary, but I cannot answer his question.
    Mr. Ede: Subsection (1) of the Clause does not apply to special constables. A special constable is entitled to canvass. He is an ordinary citizen who has entered
    1838
    into certain obligations with relation to the police, but it would be most iniquitous, certainly in England and Wales, to say that because a man was a special constable he could not participate in an election by canvassing. An ordinary member of the Police Force, that is a uniformed constable, is in an entirely different category and this Clause is the means of putting certain limits on his activities in elections.
    4.45 P.m.
    Mr. Beverley Baxter: Does not the Home Secretary think that the opening words of this Clause—I know that this has been raised by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter)—
    Mr. Ede: I shall deal with that later. I am now dealing only with the point of Order.
    Mr. Bing: Further to that point of Order. If what the Home Secretary has said is the position, that this Clause does not, in fact, refer to the special constabulary, surely it is in Order on the Motion, that the Clause stand part, to deplore that it does not refer to the special constabulary in any one particular area.
    Mr. Ede: The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames—
    Mr. Bing: I did make a submission on a point of Order, Major Milner.
    The Chairman: I do not know what the hon. Member's point was. If he will make it again I should be very much obliged.
    Mr. Bing: The Home Secretary has said that this Clause does not refer anywhere to special constables. Is it not, therefore, in Order to say that it ought to refer to special constables in one particular area? In my submission such an argument would, in fact, be in Order.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member puts me in some difficulty in putting an hypothesis of that sort. I have ruled, generally, that this Clause does not permit of reference to bodies other than those mentioned in the Clause, and I think I must adhere to that Ruling.
    Mr. Scollan: If it relates only to those referred to in the Clause, it refers to the constabulary. Are we to take it that special constables are not members of the constabulary?
    The Chairman: So I am advised. I understand the Home Secretary to say that this Clause does not refer to special constables, who we all know have the powers of ordinary citizens, but are not 'subject to the ordinary discipline of the regular Police Force.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to support this Clause, and to point out that it is really a very important part of this Bill. In these days when the police force in some countries is regarded as part of the totalitarian machine—whether it be in Bulgaria, or Poland or Northern Ireland—that we should insist that the Police Force should be absolutely neutral at election time. I can give one—
    The Chairman: The hon. Member is now arguing the merits of the Clause, and not the point of Order. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) had the Floor, if he desires to continue on the merits of the Clause.
    Mr. Byers: I rose earlier in order to clarify a point. The Home Secretary has said that this Clause does not apply to special constables. I agree, but surely it is open to hon. Members to argue that the Clause should not stand part because it does not include reference to special constables. I submit that if we accept the Ruling which you gave originally, Major Milner, and which you appear to have confirmed, we shall get into grave difficulties. I suggest that, in the interests of this Debate, we ought to have some clarification.
    Mr. Scollan: May I say that the point I was trying to raise is borne out by the first words of the Clause:
    "No member of a police force."
    Is a special constable a member of a police force?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Look at the second Subsection.
    The Chairman: I am advised that a special constable is not a member of the police force to which this Clause refers.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of Order. May I be allowed to resume?
    The Chairman: I called on the hon. Member on a point of Order, and not to make a speech. He was making a speech on the merits.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Am I not in Order in making a speech on the merits?
    The Chairman: No, I had called the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Ede: The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames raises the question as to the wording of the first Subsection of this Clause. This merely re-enacts the existing law. When the police force was established there was great fear in this House that it would be used for political purposes, and it was felt necessary that a police officer should not be allowed to participate in an election as a canvasser or a person who was entitled to argue the merits of the election with people who might be going to and fro on their way to the poll. I think that this is still a wise prohibition to place on the police. I quite agree with what was said by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). We do not want it to be thought that the regular police force of this country are participating in elections.
    I suggest that it would be very difficult indeed, and that the policeman himself would feel uncomfortable, if one or other of the parties at an election thought that the policeman, who was on duty at 'the entrance to the polling station—or possibly in the polling station—had taken sides with one or the other of the candidates. A policeman enters into a special relationship with the State, and I think that in this particular we are entitled to say that there must be certain disqualifications attaching to his office which do not attach to the ordinary citizen. Whether he would be guilty of an offence if he had a discussion with his wife or daughter as to the way in which his wife or daughter should exercise their vote, I would not like to say. I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames would like to have the opportunity of appearing in front of a bench of magistrates if the policeman was in fact charged with a breach of the law by having such a discussion with members of his family.
    With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie), the first part of the Subsection states:
    "In the foregoing Subsection references to a member of a police force and to a police area are to be taken…(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, to a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary"—

    1841
    that is the Police Force—
    "and to Northern Ireland"—
    that is the police area. I think he will agree that the words are necessary in order to make the Clause run.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have only one point about Scotland which is underlined and emphasised by what the Home Secretary has said. In the country districts of Scotland some very queer things frequently happen on election days, and there has been too much of a tendency in the remote districts of the Highlands of Scotland to regard the policeman as part of the entourage of the laird—something in the nature of a gamekeeper. I have had my attention drawn to a case where the presiding officer went away for two hours to a meal and left the polling station in charge of the local constable, which was really an act of intimidation to the local people. We should make it clear that the village policeman is absolutely neutral and not part of the apparatus of the local Conservative Party.
    Mr. Watkins: I wish to make one point about the special constables. I represent a constituency which has more polling stations than there are members of the Police Force. If they have to bring in members of the special constabulary to look after polling stations, what is the position of the special—
    The Chairman: The Clause does not apply to special constables.
    Mr. Butcher: I wish to take the opportunity of telling the Home Secretary how wise I think he is in confining this restriction imposed upon the Police Force to members of the regular force. If it were extended to members of other bodies, it would be obvious that he would run into all kinds of difficulties. May I remind the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) that in certain places members of irregular forces behave in an irregular way. It would be just as easy to refer to certain Members of the Labour Party because they are fellow travellers with Marxists. We must deal with these things on a commonsense basis, and I congratulate the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Mulvey: The Home Secretary assumes that a special constable is not a member of the constabulary force under this Bill. Will he assume that a special constable of Northern Ireland will not take part in an election?
    Mr. Ede: I cannot make any such assumption. All I say is that this Clause does not apply to special constables.
    Mr. McKie: I thank the Home Secretary for his gracious reply to me. I hope that he will not take as gospel truth the serious allegations made about the Police Force in Scotland by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I have a longer experience than the hon. Member—it is my country and it is not his—and I very much deprecate the kind of insinuations which he made. He had not any grounds for allegations. He could only take refuge in insinuations. I very much resent the kind of insinuations which he made about the Police Force in Scotland. He said something about a case where, as I understood him, at a rural polling station the presiding officer had to go away for necessary refreshment. After all, it is a long time—13 hours—and it is always the custom for the presiding officer to take refreshment. As the Home Secretary knows, he is entitled to some kind of refreshment—
    Mr. Ede: He is not entitled to leave the polling booth unattended by any person appointed by the returning officer to act.
    Mr. McKie: That may well be. I was not attempting to suggest that that was the case. Some provision has to be made. But I very much resent the allegations of the hon. Member and I do not take as literal truth the case he mentioned of a presiding officer leaving his duties for two hours in charge of the local police constable. I emphatically reject the suggestion that members of the Police Force in Scotland, and particularly in rural Scotland, are merely servants of the laird. Nothing could be further from the truth.
    I would ask the hon. Member to look up a speech made by the late Campbell Stephen, an hon. Member of this House for many years. Speaking on the Police Force, he said that, while he had no love for a Police Force as such, he did pay a strong tribute indeed to the individual

    1843
    members of the force in Scotland. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take those words to heart and that the Home Secretary will not pay attention to what he said.
    Mr. Watkins: I do not very often assert my rights in this House, but I am going to assert my right as a Member of Parliament to get definite information about this matter of canvassing by police officers. There are a greater number of polling stations in my constituency than there are members of the regular Police Force, so that there are not sufficient police to look after them. If special constables are brought in what is their position if they have been looking after the interests of one candidate? I want to get an assurance that none of these people will be employed if they are taking part in an election.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: In constituencies like that of my hon. Friend, the chief constable is placed in a difficulty. He must rely, as I am certain he is entitled to rely, on the good sense of the people appointed to act on the day to observe the traditions of fair play, whatever they may have done before that day. I know the hon. Gentleman's constituency fairly well and I think that there would be no difficulty in getting sufficient special constables of high character to carry out these duties.
    Mr. Bing: In view of the discussion which has just taken place on the subject of special constables, would I be in order in addressing an argument to the Committee on this subject?
    The Chairman: I am afraid not, if it is on the same lines as the hon. Gentleman's previous argument.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 46.—(Other voting offences.)
    Amendments made: In page 46, line 8, leave out "neither," and insert "not."
    In line 26, leave out from "section," to "shall," in line 27.—[Mr. Younger.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 48.—(Powers of courts with respect to granting of relief restraining false statements and inspection of ballot papers.)
    Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 48, line 26, to leave out Subsection (3).
    That Subsection states:
    "Any power given to a court by this Section may be exercised by any judge of the court otherwise than in open court."
    The effect of that is to facilitate the granting of dispensations in unimportant, small matters. It gives the power to county court judges, whereas, before, it was given only to High Court judges. We think that it would be well if the county court judge exercised this power in open court rather than by his own fireside, as it were. There might be some appearance of hole-in-the-corner business in the disposition of these matters if the Bill were not amended. It is not a large point, but I suggest it is worthy of consideration.
    Mr. Ede: The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) has correctly stated the position under the existing law. If there is an application to a judge of the High Court, he can hear the application in chambers if he thinks fit and if it is convenient to the parties. We are of opinion that the same conditions should be available to the county court judge. In country areas particularly, he may not be in the neighbourhood of the constituency where the application is made. These are trivial matters with which he must deal. We feel that it should be possible to get decisions quickly. It is entirely for the convenience of all the parties concerned and, as we have brought in the county court judges, it would be desirable to extend to them the same facilities for the quick discharge of the business before them as we have given hitherto to High Court judges.
    Mr. C. Williams: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's argument, but I would like to know whether the announcement will be made in public as in an ordinary court. This point might present difficulty. If the legal interpretation of what the Minister said is that it will be a public announcement in exactly the same way

    1845
    as an announcement in any other form of court, then it seems that his position is strong.
    Mr. Ede: We place the county court judge in exactly the same position as the High Court judge. Whatever the High Court judge can do, the county court judge can do. Whatever publication was given to the decision of the High Court judge will be given to the decision of the county county judge.
    Mr. Williams: What about publicity? I am a layman and I do not understand legal language. Do I understand that the announcement will be made where there are representatives of both sides present? Will it be done as it was done in the previous cases?
    Mr. Ede: Everything will be on exactly the same lines.
    Mr. Williams: Will it be done in chambers, for instance?
    Mr. Ede: This allows application to be made to a county court judge in chambers in the same way as application can be made to a High Court judge. There might be some election carried on during the county court vacation. These are only trivial matters, and it is desirable that the county court judge should settle them reasonably quickly. The county court will exercise the same powers in the same way as they have been exercised by the High Court judge.
    Mr. Williams: If it is done in chambers, I am not sure that that is a sufficiently public place. I will not pursue the matter further, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look into it to see whether the announcement can be published in a place where both people are represented.
    Mr. Ede: This has been the law of the land for a great many years without, as far as I know, any objection to it. I have known the most trivial cases concerning some slip on the part of an election agent, which was not at all blameworthy but which involved the man going to court. If the court does not happen to have been sitting, he has gone to a judge in chambers. The same procedure will be followed by the county court.
    Mr. Scollan: Will the Lord Advocate tell us what difference this provision will make in Scottish electoral law?
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. Wheatley): Power is being given to the sheriff to operate, in the sheriff court, powers which previously were only operable in the court of session. There is no other difference as between Scotland and England, subject to the reservations contained in the Clause. In any judgment given in the sheriff court, whether the case was heard in open court or in chambers, the method of reporting the judgment would be exactly the same. In the sheriff court in Scotland it will be an interlocutory judgment by the sheriff as distinct from a judgment given in the court of session. If the case is heard in open court in the court of session, the judgment will be given in open court, but if it is heard in chambers in the court of session, a written judgment will be given.
    Mr. Quintin Hogg: I think that the Home Secretary failed in one way to state the full strength of his case, because at any rate some of these applications—those under Subsection (1, d)—relate to false statements made by political opponents at elections. Some of these applications are made in chambers in order to avoid the possibility that somebody may aggravate the offence which he has already committed by creating a lot of prejudice in open court. It is for the same sort of reason that applications in the King's Bench Division for an interlocutory injunction restraining the publication of a libel pending suit, is made in chambers and not in public. There is a very good reason, in many of these instances which are mentioned, for the matters to be heard in chambers as has hitherto been the case.
    Mr. Grimston: The Home Secretary has made out an entirely reasonable case, buttressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 49.—(Period of incapacity for corrupt or illegal practice.)
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 49, line 42, after "summarily," to insert "for a corrupt practice."
    The effect of Subsection (6) is that an offence of which a person has been reported guilty by a court cannot be

    1847
    prosecuted summarily, but only by indictment. Under existing law, however, illegal practices are only punishable summarily. As the Bill stands, this would have the unfortunate result that no prosecution for an illegal practice could take place. The purpose of this Amendment is to limit the operation of Subsection (6) to the trial for corrupt practices only, leaving illegal practices, as under present law, to be prosecuted summarily.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 50.—(Area of incapacity and inquiry into corrupt and illegal practices.)
    Amendments made: In page 50, line 9, after second "or," insert:
    "to be elected to or hold any corporate office in the."
    In line 11, after second "or," insert:
    "to being elected to or holding any corporate office in."—[Mr. Younger.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. C. Williams: I would like the Home Secretary to tell me precisely what are the real changes in the law as a result of this Clause. Probably they are all right, but I would like to be in a position to say precisely what the Clause does. We have had no detailed explanation, and before I agree to a Clause I like to know what it means. I find this provision slightly complicated and I hope that we shall be given an explanation. I am sure that this Clause is necessary, but I would be more happy if the right hon. Gentleman would explain it.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: This is substantially a reenactment of existing law. It deals with an incapacity in respect of a particular constituency or local government area and the jurisdiction of election commissioners to inquire into a previous election in cases where there has been a change of boundaries. The effect is that the incapacity will apply, or the commissioners' jurisdiction will extend, to any new constituency or local government area which includes the whole or part of the previous constituency or area. It would be quite
    1848
    anomalous, if offences had been committed in a given area, that people who had committed the offences should be able to dodge the consequences merely because there had been an extension of boundaries or the area in which committed their offences had been absorbed in another area for local government purposes. It is highly desirable that it should be possible to bring home to the people responsibility for any offences which they may have committed and not allow them to ride off on a technicality such as the fact that the area in which the offence had been committed had ceased to exist.
    Mr. Williams: I appreciate what the Home Secretary has said, but will he tell me what happens now? Is it an abuse that has gone on for some time?
    Mr. Ede: This is substantially the reenactment of the existing law.
    Mr. Williams: It seems that it is not only necessary, but ought to have been done a long while ago.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 51 and 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 53.—(Ordinary day of election.)
    Mr. Heathcoat Amory: I beg to move, in page 52, line 9, to leave out "ninth," and to insert "twentieth."
    This is a very simple Amendment, the object of which is to give a little more time for the preparations for county council elections. The Subsection provides for a date for county council elections which would make them fall between 9th and 15th April. The date of publication of the Spring register is 15th March, and that means that a month or three weeks would elapse between these two events. Personally, I appreciate the amount of difficult work involved in the preparation of this register, but I understand that some authorities feel that three weeks is too little, more particularly in view of the fact that it so happens that during that period county quarter sessions would fall to take place, and that might impose an additional difficulty in respect of the returning officers. I hope that, if the right hon. Gentleman agrees that this object is reasonable, he will accept this Amendment or propose an

    1849
    alternative which would give effect to the same intention.
    Mr. Ede: The fixing of these dates was a matter of very prolonged negotiation between me and all the local authorities' associations—the County Councils' Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations and the Urban and Rural District Councils' Associations—and we had to find a method of fitting in the dates so that the, county council elections and the county district council elections, that is, the non-county boroughs and the urban and rural districts, could take place in the months of April and May. I had hoped that we might be able to have all the elections on one day, but there were very strong objections to that. If we were to move the date of the county council elections, as suggested by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory), it would involve us in having a very short space of time between the county and the district council elections. It was represented to us very strongly by those who are acting returning officers in both these elections that they must have a reasonable time between the two elections.
    I would point out that the registers have been published on 15th October for the borough council elections to take place on 1st November. The spring register will be published on 15th March, and the elections will not take place until 9th April, which is eight days more than has been allowed hitherto in the case of borough council elections in the autumn. These dates were adjusted at a conference at which all these associations were represented, and I think it would be a very great pity at this stage to upset an agreement which was reached. I must say that everybody felt that there was bound to be inconvenience, but this was the arrangement reached by all the associations meeting together, and I accepted it, because it seemed to me that they were the most likely to know.
    I do not think the quarter sessions point is very serious. After all, the acting returning officer for a county council election is generally the clerk of some county district council—one of the non-county boroughs or an urban or rural district. He is not concerned with quarter sessions unless he happens to have been driving his car in such a way as to bring him before the bench, and he decides to go to
    1850
    quarter sessions instead of being dealt with summarily. He can be getting on with the job while the clerk to the county council, in his capacity as clerk of the peace, is looking after the quarter sessions. I do not think there is anything in that point at all. The people who actually do the work are the people in the constituencies who are also engaged in the task of getting ready for their county district council elections, and they represent to me that the work would be too continuous for them and that they might not be able to carry out their duties if the second election were so close after the first.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I think it would be appropriate, and perhaps convenient to the Committee, if we were to discuss with this Amendment, the next two Amendments: In page 52, line g, leave out "ninth," and insert "fifteenth"; in page 52, line 10, leave out "ninth," and insert "fifteenth."
    Mr. Frederic Harris: I am sorry that the Home Secretary made the point that having the register ready on 15th October for the borough elections on 1st November is a satisfactory arrangement, because I feel that there is a very strong argument indeed, that it is too short a time and that it has always been found completely unsatisfactory in the past. I cannot understand why the associations have agreed to the shorter period, because I should have thought they would have wanted the date brought forward. To suggest that, because the register is published on 15th October, there is adequate time to prepare for the borough elections on 1st November, is, with great respect to the Home Secretary, untrue, because I have found it very unsatisfactory. I think that point should be borne in mind in future, so that as much time as possible can be given to the provision of all the information necessary for fighting the election. The position in the past has been completely unsatisfactory, and it is a pity that this date cannot be carried forward. I hope the Home Secretary will reconsider the matter.
    Mr. Grimston: I appreciate the point which the Home Secretary made about the consultations he has had with the various associations, but I think it must

    1851
    be remembered that the point of view which they put up, is entirely governed by the convenience of their own administrative officers, whereas the point of view which this Committee brings to bear on this matter is the interests of the various political parties, or, at any rate, a different political angle on these points. We have another Amendment on the Order Paper which is being discussed with this one, and, as it happens, it effects a compromise between the Bill as it stands and the Amendment which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory).
    May I suggest to the Home Secretary that he should have another look at this, particularly bearing in mind the fact that a Committee of this House does bring a different view to bear on the question from that put forward by those outside interests which he consults? I urge the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter and see whether he cannot accept the compromise between the Amendment which has been moved and what is in the Bill.
    Mr. Ede: I am always willing to look at things as frequently as may be necessary, but the difficulty created here is that, if this date were moved, it would involve moving the other dates in relation to the county district council elections. It is not true to say that the people consulted were entirely officers of the local authorities. Some of the associations were, in fact, represented by members of authorities and people who would have to take part as candidates in the elections. The arrangement that we reached between the associations seems to me to represent the maximum convenience to everybody concerned.
    As to the point raised by the hon. Member for North Croydon (Mr. F. Harris), we are giving eight extra days beyond those allowed for borough council elections in the past, so that to that extent, it is an improvement. I do not want it to be thought that I regarded the previous time as perfect. I think 16 days is a little short, but 24 days is a quite sufficient time. After all, we are here concerned only with the change in relation to the publication of the register. The rest of the work of the election can be going on. I think that it would be better to leave the date as we have it in the Bill. In view
    1852
    of the plea by the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston), however, I will undertake to look at the matter again, but I must point out—and it would be wrong of me to conceal it from the Committee—that if I make any alteration, it would involve altering the dates of all the other elections as well.
    Mr. Harris: I thank the Home Secretary for his offer to reconsider the matter find I invite him to remember the representations which have been made to him. Personally, I still think that 24 days is a very short time for all this work to be completed. I think this matter has been considered wily from the point of view of the administrative bodies and not from the point of view of those participating in the elections, and I claim to have had some experience in fighting elections in the last two or three years. This is a very important matter, and I hope that, even if it does involve moving the other dates forward, the Home Secretary will be prepared to consider it. We want to fight these elections on an up-to-date register, with all information available at the time. It makes it very difficult if we have not sufficient time in which to get everything ready. I think this applies to all parties and associations involved in any election whatsoever. I trust that the Home Secretary will reconsider the matter from the point of view of the people involved in the elections.
    Mr. C. Williams: I would like to ask the Home Secretary one question. He referred to the other elections in May. Would it have been easier to explain that position if an Amendment in the name of one of his hon. Friends—to leave out Subsections (2) and (3) and insert new Subsections—had been dealt with? If the acceptance of this Amendment would mean altering all the dates, it requires very careful consideration. Obviously these dates have been the subject of negotiation, but I do agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Croydon (Mr. F. Harris) that it is not so much the officials' convenience which we consider as the possibility of getting the largest possible number of people to the polls. That is a common object among all of us, and I am sure that the Home Secretary will not object to my emphasising that that is the most important point of view of all.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Amory: I was very glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that the authorities concerned had been consulted and that a kind of compromise agreement had been reached. I know it is impossible to give satisfaction to all the authorities on those occasions, but I believe that from the point of view of administrative convenience, a number of these authorities are far from happy about this matter. Therefore, I am very glad the Home Secretary is going to look into that point and see whether he can either telescope these elections—
    Mr. Ede Mr. Ede indicated dissent.
    Mr. Amory: Apparently the right hon. Gentleman cannot do that. If he cannot, then perhaps he can push them a little further on. In view of the assurance that he will look into the question, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move in page 52, line 27, to leave out "in," and to insert "for."
    This Clause provides that the day of election for borough councillors shall be fixed in each year by the Secretary of State. It is thought that as the wording stands it might be taken to require that the day should be fixed in the calendar year, whereas it may well be desirable that it should be fixed towards the end of the previous calendar year for the coming spring. The new form of words, leaving out "in" and inserting "for," will, I think, achieve that purpose.
    Mr. Butcher: I would like to express my gratitude to the Under-Secretary of State for going some way to meet the case for a definite fixed period. I think it would have been advantageous if the time had been clearly stated. Nevertheless, I would like to thank the hon. Gentleman.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Butcher: I beg to move, in page 52 line 28, at the end, to insert:
    "not later than the end of the preceding November."
    There is little need for me to argue this point after the observations which I made just now. I think the Home Secretary will realise that for all concerned there is a considerable advantage in knowing at what time the Home Secretary will
    1854
    fix the date. I do not doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will say that the Home Office has always given good notice in regard to Summer time and that they will continue their commendable practices in regard to this Autumn. On the other hand, many local authorities publish diaries of engagements of their prominent officials, such as the mayor, and they are usually prepared a long time in advance. If the right hon. Gentleman will accept my proposal I feel sure that he will be assisting and co-operating with many people who have to plan their future, and I hope he will see his way clear to do so.
    Mr. Ede: I do not think it would be wise to tie the Secretary of State in this way. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has just moved an Amendment which makes it clear that it is contemplated that this decision shall be reached in the later months of the year before the election takes place. I should not have thought that it would make much difference whether it is November or December. There might, perhaps, on occasion be advantages in postponing the date if it was thought it might conflict with some election which might be in contemplation. I have no hesitation in saying that we shall try to give the notice in the calendar year before the year in which the election takes place.
    Mr. Butcher: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Grimston: I beg to move in page 52, line 32, to leave out from "consultation," to "with," in line 33.
    Subsection (5) obliges the county councils to consult the rural district councils in fixing the date for the district elections, but not for the parish elections. In many parts of the country it has been customary for rural council elections to be held on the same day as the parish elections. The position here is that the county council only has to consult the rural councils upon the one lot of elections. Some such situation as this may arise: the county council will fix the date of the parish elections, which it can do without consultation with the rural councils, and will then say to the rural councils, "We have fixed these parish council dates; what dates do you suggest for your rural council elections?"

    1855
    They will either have to accept the date which has been fixed, without consultation, in accordance with custom, or if they want to select another date they will have to break that convenient custom which has been running for many years. It seems proper that the county councils should consult the rural district councils on the dates for both elections. I do not understand why these words, which provide that such consultation should not take place, are left in. I raise the point to obtain an explanation from the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Ede: It is the custom in this country, although it is not a requirement of the law, that rural council elections and parish council elections in the same county are held on the same day. I am informed that it is not statutory, but I think the custom has been so universally followed that most administrators by now imagine there must be some statutory effect behind it. I do not think the rural councils should be consulted about the date of parish council elections. The usual custom hitherto has been that rural councils have been consulted about the date on which their elections are to be held, and the county council has then said "Very well, on that day the parish council elections will also be held." I am sure the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) will agree that that arrangement has worked very well hitherto.
    I can see no reason for departing from that arrangement, because I do not think anyone would suggest that a parish council election is as important from the point of view of its arrangement and the effect it has on the life of the community as the rural council election. It is very desirable that we should retain the position that both these elections are held on the one day. If the parish councils and the rural councils suggested different days there might be difficulties. I do not think there has been any difficulty in the past, and I think we might very well leave the custom where it is.
    Mr. Grimston: I find it a little difficult to follow the Home Secretary's argument. Does he say that the present position is as is laid down in this Subsection?
    Mr. Ede: So I am assured.
    Mr. Grimston: I suppose it is one of those anomalies in our Constitution which
    1856
    works. For that reason, perhaps, it should be accorded some support. This Amendment is designed to cause to happen the very thing which is wanted—namely, that these elections should take place on the same day. As the Subsection is drafted, there seems to be a distinct danger that they may not. However, I do not want to force the point. If this provision has worked in practice with the desired result, let the anomaly remain, and I will not press the matter further, but if the Home Secretary is not quite certain that this is how the law stands, it might be worth while to have another look at it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Pargiter: I beg to move, in page 52, line 36, at the end, to insert:
    "(a) (i) The term of office of councillors in England and Wales shall be four years and one-half of the whole number of councillors being those who have been for the longest time without re-election shall retire every second year.
    (ii) The term of office of alderman shall be eight years, of whom one-half as nearly as may be shall retire every fourth year.
    (b) The Secretary of State shall make regulations for the purpose of carrying into effect the foregoing provisions of this Section and in particular such regulations shall provide for the retirement of one-half of the councillors for each county in the year nineteen hundred and fifty-one and for the retirement of one-half of the councillors for every county borough, borough, urban district, rural district or parish in the year nineteen hundred and fifty and for requiring the council for every local government area to submit before the fifteenth day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, in the case of a council of a county, county borough or other borough to the Secretary of State and in the case of every other council to the council of the appropriate county a scheme for constituting the number of councillors to be elected for each division, ward, parish or other area at two or a multiple thereof. The regulations so made by the Secretary of State shall not take effect until approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament."
    This Amendment is designed to effect a fairly considerable change in the question of the election of members to local authorities. It is designed also to meet cases which will arise in view of the other changes which are proposed in this Bill. I do not think I need deal with the second part of the Amendment. It merely provides that the Home Secretary may have the power to make regulations which would give effect to the principle.

    1857
    The present position is that county councillors are elected for a period of three years, with all the members retiring at the end of that period. Borough councillors are elected for a period of three years, with one of the members retiring annually; that is a statutory provision. Urban district councils have a combination of the two. Either they may have members retiring every year or they may be elected for the full period. I am not quite sure what the position is with regard to rural councils, but in any case there is a considerable variation in the arrangements regarding local elections, and I would have thought that it would be desirable to introduce some uniformity.
    Another purpose of this Amendment is to deal with the problem of the lack of interest in local government elections. I am of the opinion that there would be a greater interest in local elections if they were held rather less frequently. Democracy would be well served if, for local purposes, elections were held every other year and the period of election was four years, half the councillors retiring every other year. Such an arrangement, I think, would ensure a greater degree of interest in elections which would be to the general benefit of local government as a whole.
    The other point with which I am very much concerned is that while there has always been a difficulty in the third year on the election of county councils, just preceding the election of urban district councillors, the position will now become very much worse, because borough councils are to be brought into line. The gap will therefore not only affect urban districts but the period in between will also have a bad effect generally on the elections either of county councillors or of borough councillors, in view of the difficulty of this very short gap that remains in between. I am of the opinion also that in the transfer of functions as between authorities it is highly important that the public should have a clear conception of the differences between the two types of local authorities, and should also be able to deal with them separately rather than have them tangled and mixed up.
    5.45 p.m.
    The object would be for county council elections to be in one year and all the other elections in the other year. There would, therefore, be local elections in
    1858
    one year, but one would be clear-cut for county council purposes, and the other would be clear-cut for district council purposes. This might commend itself to the Home Secretary as a means of increasing interest, and of improving democracy rather than interfering with its operation. I inserted the provisions dealing with the terms of office of aldermen only because it follows logically on the period of four years. I am not unduly worried about that. Although I have been an alderman on a borough council, and am an alderman on a county council, I should not be at all worried if county or borough aldermen were washed out, and persons elected in the ordinary way at the appropriate time. I know that may be somewhat heretical, but it is a view which I hold, although rather against myself. I do not need to discuss the Amendment at great length. I hope that the reasons I have given will commend themselves to the Home Secretary. I appreciate that this would involve a number of consequential Amendments, which I have not put down, preferring to leave them in the hands of the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that the Home Secretary will not accept this Amendment. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Pargiter) put forward a very interesting point of view and argued it with great force and clarity; but his argument finally came down to the fact that he was suggesting a longer tenure of office for councillors. To urge that one needs some stronger arguments than those adduced by the hon. Member. After all, however much it is sought to disguise it, lengthening the tenure of office of any elected official reduces the control which the electors have over him, and there seems to me no case at the moment for reducing the countrol of local government electors over councillors.
    As I understood it, the argument of the hon. Member was that in so doing the interest in local government would be increased. I agree that it is important to increase that interest, but I think the hon. Member is a little out of date. In point of fact, interest in local government elections, as I believe statistics prove, has been steadily increasing in the last few years. Therefore, while the hon. Member's argument might have had a certain validity 10 or 15 years ago, it is much less strong today. Under our

    1859
    present system and with the present tenure of office of local councillors, interest has increased, as is shown by the percentage of electors going to the poll, so there is much less need than there was to stimulate that interest.
    Finally, there is the consideration, whether the hon. Member likes it or not, that local government elections are being conducted more and more on party lines in most parts of the country. If that be so, surely it is more important that local authorities should remain very closely related to prevailing political and public opinion in their localities. The effect of accepting this Amendment would be to increase the period during which local authorities would carry on, although the majority of local political opinion was against them. That seems to me to be undesirable, because so far from increasing the interest of constituents in the conduct of local affairs it would, if anything, tend to diminish their interest. Though this Amendment certainly puts forward an ingenious point of view I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept it.
    Mr. Ede: This Amendment, as I understand it, is aimed at bringing about something like uniformity in the method of electing local government bodies in this country. I should have thought it would have been more appropriate to a Local Government Bill than to a Representation of the People Bill, because the necessary Amendments to the law that would be involved if the Committee adopted this Amendment would have to be made in the Local Government Act, 1933, and not in any previous Representation of the People Act, although that is not an insuperable difficulty.
    I suggest that this attempt to emulate the American Constitution is not a thing that we should carry out in this country. The variety we have is a very interesting example of the way in which we fit our administrative machine to the requirements of particular cases. County councillors and metropolitan borough councillors are elected for three years. When non-county borough councillors in the country are elected, there is an annual election, and each councillor so elected sits for three years, one-third of the council retiring annually. Urban and rural councillors are elected for a term
    1860
    of three years; but it is at the discretion of county councils whether elections take place on one date triennially, or whether there is an annual retirement of one-third of the councillors. That seems to me to be a machine so flexible that it can be adapted to the particular needs of particular areas.
    I can see no advantage in having retirement by halves in areas where retirement now is by thirds. The advantage of the retirement by thirds is that any change in the composition of the council generally comes fairly gradually, and in administrative affairs there is reasonable continuity of administration. The retirement by halves would involve more drastic changes, and if people want more drastic changes they should have the courage to go to the county council and ask that the urban council shall be submitted to election en bloc every three years. As far as I know, there is no demand in the country among administrators—and by that I mean, not the officials, but the councillors—or among the electors for a change of this kind. I am bound to say that, until I saw this Amendment on the Order Paper I had never heard the suggestion canvassed before. I suggest that this is not the appropriate Bill in which to do it, and that there is no demand for it. I think that the Committee would be well advised not to accept it.
    Mr. C. Williams: I was sincerely glad that the Home Secretary resisted the very able speech of his hon. Friend, who undoubtedly put forward a strong case on behalf of a very weak Amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said, this Amendment would lengthen the period of office. At the present time there is an immense growth of interest in local elections—a growth which is being stimulated in a perfectly ordinary political way. It would not be right to try to stimulate that interest by lengthening the period between elections.
    I consider that lengthening the period between elections would set a very dangerous precedent in a Parliament of this character—or, indeed, at any other time. There is always a great temptation for any legislature to lengthen the term of their mandate; and, with the Leader of the House sitting on the Government Front Bench, I was glad to hear the Home Secretary take up the attitude that he did.

    1861
    We have now been given an excellent precedent for not lengthening any term of office. I see the Leader of the House smiles; but I noticed the sympathy with which his face glowed when the Amendment was moved. That was why I was worried whether or not the Home Secretary would stand up to him. An interesting situation might arise on this Amendment, which was obviously put down sincerely, having a certain amount of support on the Government side, albeit not very vocal. Are we to have a Division on this? Shall we see some hon. and right hon. Members opposite supporting it and others opposing it? Shall we have the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department getting up and saying that this is an excellent idea? We may. I hope we shall, because it would add enormously to the interest of local authorities to think that they had started such a discussion in this Committee.
    Obviously, one of the ideas at the back of this Amendment is to put off local authority elections as long as possible. That might affect—I do not say it does—elections of one of the worst governed bodies in the world, and we do not want that put off. I shall not enlarge upon that. I only use as an illustration how accepting this Amendment might effect a postponement of the election of one of the worst governed bodies in this country—the London County Council.
    Mr. Pargiter: I am sorry, but I could hardly follow the logic of the argument put forward by the Home Secretary. He extolled the principle that there should be an annual election, and said that it was a very good thing; but when it comes to county councils, who will exercise very wide and important functions, he is silent on the question of bringing that before the electors to a greater extent than before. My Amendment would at least have the merit of giving electors an opportunity to express their views on the conduct of county councils a little earlier than at present. If there is any logic in having an annual election, it ought to apply in spite of so-called flexibility; if the principle is good an opportunity ought to be given to county councils as well as to borough and urban district councils. Also, the position of urban district councils is quite illogical, because adjoining urban district councils have varying periods between which elections take
    1862
    place. Therefore, the question of flexibility does not appear to be of importance.
    The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said that whether we like it or not national politics are infringing on local affairs. I know from recent experience that that is very true, and I think it is a deplorable tendency. While I have no objection to politics and policies being concerned in local government affairs, I want to ensure that the policy of electing members to local authorities should be on the basis of the members and the electorate being concerned with the problems with which they are faced locally, and not being encouraged to deal with local affairs on national issues, to the exclusion of local considerations. I could not follow the rather devious argument of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), who suggested that in this Amendment there was a motive on which the Home Secretary might seize in order to lengthen the life of Parliament. That was quite fantastic, and I am sorry that any hon. Member should try to read such a thing into this Amendment which, as far as I am concerned, is designed solely to improve local government, and to encourage local government issues to be put more clearly before the electors so that they might exercise discretion in voting.
    The Home Secretary says that this Amendment raises very important issues of local government which would involve considerable alterations in other Acts. It may well be that if I pressed the Amendment, it would be resisted. I am glad the question has been aired, and I hope that Members will give it some consideration, but in view of the difficulties, I do not propose to divide the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. C. Williams Mr. C. Williams rose—
    The Deputy-Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the Amendment he withdrawn?
    Hon. Members: No.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. Williams: I only wish to intervene, because the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Pargiter) went out of his way to attack me. I have the same right to my opinion as he has to his. There is a considerable difference between us about the time of the election, but I think the hon.

    1863
    Gentleman might have done me the honour of accepting the point I was trying to put. After all, it is an honour which we all try to accord to each other when we are trying to thresh out our difficulties. The hon. Gentleman said something about local authorities and local elections. I, too, dislike the idea of local elections being fought on party lines, but I would point out that that has been forced upon us by hon. Members opposite—
    Mr. Pargiter: I did not say anything about local elections being fought on party lines; I said it was objectionable if national issues were introduced into local affairs.
    Mr. Williams: That interruption covers what I mean. What I thought the hon. Gentleman said was—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I have already given the hon. Member undue latitude. I would remind him that we are discussing the period during which elections should be fought.
    Mr. Williams: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Beaumont, although there is an answer which could be given to the hon. Gentleman, and which would be very unfortunate from the point of view of the Government.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 54.—(Timetable for local government elections.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Amory: Subsection (1, c) of this Clause deals with the time for delivery of notices of withdrawals from candidates. What it amounts to is that there are only 24 hours between the dispatch of the notice of acceptance of nomination and the time of withdrawal. That does not seem to be long enough, particularly in rural areas in which many people have to go to work before the arrival of the morning post. In these days of bottlenecks and breakdowns that post often arrives without bringing the letters which have been despatched the previous afternoon. That being so, a candidate who wished to withdraw might have to make a special journey to town to present his withdrawal, in person, to the returning officer. I ask the Home
    1864
    Secretary whether he considers that 24 hours are sufficient? I hope he might regard 48 hours as being the necessary minimum.
    Mr. Ede: I hope the Committee will realise that by what we have already done in this Bill we have considerably increased the strain on the administrative machine which will deal with this type of election. After candidates have been duly nominated, and it is evident that there has been no withdrawal, the staff have to get on with the job of getting the papers ready for those who will have the postal vote. I went into this matter very carefully with my administrators and, as one who has had considerable experience of local government elections, I came to the conclusion that we must allow every moment of time that is set down in the Bill. Cutting off one day might well mean that a number of people entitled to the postal vote would not be able to exercise it. I cannot think that candidates at elections could not, within 24 hours of the time at which they were nominated, make up their minds whether they wanted to be candidates or not; I am not so sure that a man who could not make up his mind in 24 hours would be very much helped if he were given 48 hours. It would only make him miserable for a longer time while he was trying to make up his mind.
    The acting returning officer for the county council election is in the locality in which the election is being conducted. Generally, he is the clerk to one of the local authorities in the constituency. If it covers an area of more than one local government body—say, two rural district councils—he will probably be the clerk to the larger authority. It is not a question of the candidate having to go to the county town; he has to go to the clerk's office. If we are to extend the facilities for postal voting, and make other elaborate arrangements for proxy voting in local government elections, we must recognise that the administrative staffs, between the close of nominations and polling day, will be very fully occupied. To cut a day off the time we have allowed might in certain cases impose an impossible burden upon them.
    Mr. Amory: I was concerned with the question of conveying the decision to withdraw. In rural areas men are at work

    1865
    all day, and that is where the difficulty might arise.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 55.—(Electoral divisions and number of councillors of L.C.C.)
    The Deputy-Chairman: I think it will be convenient to the Committee if the first two Amendments to this Clause are discussed together.
    Mr. Gallacher: I beg to move, in page 53, line 26, to leave out "an electoral division," and to insert:
    "divided in such manner as may be approved by the Secretary of State, after consultation with the London County Council and the metropolitan borough councils, into three electoral divisions."
    This morning I was reprimanded by some of my hon. Friends for delaying progress last night. I do not propose to do so on this occasion. I will let this Amendment and the following Amendment, in line 29, to leave out "three," and to insert "one," speak for themselves. I will merely say that if the Home Secretary accepts these Amendments, the Bill will be all the better for it.
    Mr. Ede: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his brevity, but I cannot help thinking that it did nothing to advance the merits of this Amendment. I am rather surprised to find this Amendment on the Order Paper, because earlier, the hon. Gentleman had an Amendment on the Order Paper to provide for proportional representation. The Liberal Party have put down an Amendment to apply the principle of proportional representation to these constituencies. I will deal with that Amendment later, if it is called by the Chair, but it is clear that in the case of a single-Member constituency a scheme of proportional representation could not be applied at all. I see no reason for departing from the well-established principle in London County Council elections that the Parliamentary constituency and the county council constituency should be the same. It has been a matter of great convenience to all concerned with London municipal government that this has been so. There might be difficulty in dividing these constituencies into three single-Member constituencies, and securing reasonable equality in the size of the
    1866
    electorate, unless we started to split up wards. If there is one thing which is undesirable in the arrangements for constituencies it is splitting up wards. I think that this long-established practice, going back to 1889, should be allowed to continue. The county council constituency and the Parliamentary constituency in London should be coterminous.
    Mr. C. Williams Mr. C. Williams rose—
    Mr. Gallacher: I do not want the hon. Gentleman's support.
    Mr. Williams: I can assure the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) that he will not get my support. I rise only to say that the Amendment would have a tremendous effect, and cause serious damage. Its effect, as the right hon. Gentleman said, would go far beyond its actual words. It is a great pity that we cannot have a Division on this Amendment, which would show those who are in favour of it and those who are against it. I should vote with the Home Secretary, but it would be difficult to know how right hon. and hon. Members generally would vote on this matter. I believe we shall miss a great opportunity of clarifying the position if we do not divide. It will be a great pity if the hon. Member for West Fife cannot get enough Members to go into the Lobby to support the party of which he is so distinguished an ornament.
    Mr. Gallacher: It is quite obvious that I made a mistake in moving this Amendment, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 53, line 29, at the end, to insert:
    "(2) The additional alderman required, in consequence of the increase by virtue of this Act in the number of the said county councillors, to maintain the proportion between the number of aldermen and the number of councillors shall be elected at the first ordinary election of county aldermen after the coming into force of the foregoing subsection."
    The composition of the London County Council is such that there is one alderman for every six councillors. As the result of the alteration we propose to the First Schedule to the Bill there are in future to be 129 London county councillors. At the moment there are 124, which entitles the Council to 20 aldermen because there is

    1867
    no arrangement for a fraction of an alderman. One hundred and twenty-nine councillors entitles it to 21, and this Amendment deals with the way in which the additional alderman shall be elected.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Byers: I beg to move, in page 53, line 29, at the end, to insert:
    "(2) The method of election of the three members shall be in accordance with the principle of proportional representation, each elector having one transferable vote."
    The purpose of this Amendment is to introduce proportional representation into the London County Council elections. It does not deal with proportional representation in any system other than that of the London County Council. The fact that each electoral division now returns three members gives us a very fine opportunity indeed of bringing in this innovation. As the Home Secretary noted, we in the Liberal Party were subject to Communist sabotage for having at the beginning of the Bill been in favour of proportional representation. They put down, in front of our Amendment, one which would have made it extremely difficult for us to proceed with ours. I am very glad that we got the usual Kremlin recantation from the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). Now it is all right, and I hope he will support us on this matter. I hope, too, that we shall have with us the Leader of the House, who has been connected from time to time with the L.C.C.
    Quite seriously, there is a case for proportional representation throughout the country, but there is an overwhelming case for trying it out in the London County Council, because no one, who looks at the London County Council elections, can fail to notice the fact that a very small margin of votes is sufficient to change the entire complexion of the representatives for any particular division, and also that under the present system—I do not think this will be disputed—literally thousands of people have no representation at all in the electoral division in which they live, because the votes go to one party or the other. The figures, which I am told are quite interesting, show that where in the past there have been two councillors for an electoral division councillors of the same party were elected as follow—in 1938 both Labour members were elected
    1868
    in 36 different constituencies; and in 1946 in 45 constituencies with no Conservative or Liberal councillors elected. As far as the Conservatives are concerned, in 1938 there were 21 divisions where both Conservatives were elected and there was no Labour representation at all and 14 in 1946. Those figures show how unfair our electoral system is as far as the L.C.C. is concerned.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: How?
    Mr. Byers: I will tell the hon. Gentleman. He does not believe it. Does he believe that it is right in an electoral division where there is a small difference between the number of votes cast for one party or the other that the party in the slight majority gets all the representation. If he does, let him get up and say so.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not going to argue the matter in the form of an interjection, but if I have the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Beaumont, at a later stage I may vary that point of view.
    Mr. Byers: That can best be done by the hon. Member keeping quiet and waiting for his chance. I am asking the Committee to consider first the substitution of a single transferable vote, in other words, voting one, two, three, instead of voting with three crosses. It is a very simple thing to change. To hon. Members on this side of the Committee I should like to say that I do not believe that the present system is fair and the evidence I have here goes to prove it. If we look at Manchster there were four wards of East Manchester which had nothing but Labour councillors, while others had only Conservatives, with the result that there is a differentiation between the East end and the West end which I should like to see go by the board.
    In London itself in the Broomwood ward of Battersea 2,844 voted Conservative—why is not my business—and 3,005 voted Labour, a very small difference indeed. The 2,844 got no councillor to represent them at all, while the 3,005 got not one councillor, but eight councillors. I claim that to be wrong. Here are 2,844 people who voted for the Conservatives but have no representation at all, while the 3,005 who voted Labour got all the eight members. If the hon. Member for Kingston - upon - Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) thinks that that is right let

    1869
    him say so. I do not think it is, nor would I think it right if it were the other way round. There are electoral divisions where the Labour party has no representation at all, and yet under the system of proportional representation which we suggest the Committee would have a chance to put that right.
    The second point I want to make is that under the present system of voting there is no method of discriminating between a good and a not so good candidate of any particular party. What one tends to do is to vote for the party ticket. That in itself is a bad thing. Under the system of proportional representation it is possible for the voter to select the majority of the candidates from the party which he supports—do not let us forget that we are discussing local government and not national issues—while reserving some votes for the man or men whom he believes on personal grounds would make a very useful contribution in the local circumstances although he or they do not belong to the voter's particular party. In other words, the system of proportional representation as applied to local government will give the electors a chance of personal discrimination in addition to party discrimination.
    I do not propose to discuss this at any further length, but there is enough evidence to show that the present system is unfair in the results which it gives. I am not denying that it may be more convenient to the bigger battalions. I am not denying that the Home Secretary may get up and, being the good little Conservative he is from time to time, say that this has been going on since 1889 and he sees no reason whatever for changing it. I ask him seriously to look at this problem again. The London County Council is one of the places where proportional representation could be introduced now to the advantage of everyone concerned. It has worked well in the university elections. Why not try it out on the London County Council?
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Why not?
    Mr. Byers: I am glad to have the support of the Leader of the House. If anyone would vote for this Amendment but for fear of party discipline I would ask them to remember what the Leader of the House has said, and also to notice
    1870
    the way the right hon. Gentleman is beaming at the remarks I am making.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member for Northern Dorset (Mr. Byers) with his habitual courtesy asked a question and then like a lady in the Bible would not stay for an answer. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who is she?"] I would hesitate to identify the historical character, save to add that the further information which has been given me seems to indicate that the metaphor is even closer than I thought when I made it and even more appropriate. I do not complain of the temper of the hon. Member for Northern Dorset. No doubt he is exhausted by the strain of his duties as a Whip.
    The question which he asked me, as I understand it, was whether it was fair that a person who was in a minority in a constituency should fail to elect the candidate of his choice. That seems to me to be wholly fair. A still more important question is: what is the whole object of an election for the L.C.C.? The hon. Member seemed to think that it was to secure the exact mathematical representation of different kinds of opinion. Surely the real object is not so highfalutin, but infinitely more practicable. The object is to secure a London County Council elected in general in accordance with the general trend of opinion and which is capable of carrying on the affairs of that body. Surely it is far more important that there should be a London County Council, which has a majority from a party of one political colour or another, but at any rate a majority with which to operate, rather than to secure the mathematical representation of any particular kind of splinter party, whatever particular appellation that splinter party may have.
    It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman who, I know, regards all forms of proportional representation with deep devotion, ignores the practical aspect of government. He seems to think that the object of an election is simply to secure an exact mathematical representation of opinion. I suggest to him that the practical necessities of the administration of the L.C.C. or any other similar body, which has got the confidence of the general swing of opinion and which has the numbers at its disposal to enable it to carry out that policy, is infinitely more

    1871
    important than the theoretical advantage of an exact mathematical representation of opinion.
    Perhaps I may be allowed to add this. It is the intention of this Amendment to introduce the principle of proportional representation to the L.C.C., and to that principle the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues are devoted. They advocate that not because they consider that it is a particularly efficient way of running the L.C.C. as such, but as a means of trying out their general ideas in this particular arena.
    Mr. Byers: And why not?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman said "Why not?" I am glad that he agrees that that is the intention behind the Amendment.
    Mr. Byers: And why should it not be? As I said, is there any reason why we should not start proportional representation, which we believe should operate throughout the country, with the L.C.C.?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In fact, that is, in a great many more words, "Why not?" I should suggest that the L.C.C. was a singularly unsuitable arena for trying out these theories. It is charged with enormous responsibilities as the biggest local government authority in the world on which are imposed immense administrative burdens. It would be difficult to find a more unsuitable laboratory for trying out the experiments of the Liberal Party. I hope that this attempt to put forward political theories at the expense of the sound administration of the capital of the Empire will not succeed.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Pickthorn: I do not pretend that I am very much excited by whether the L.C.C. is to have the single vote or not, but I think there is a point in this matter either of hypocrisy or muddle-headedness which is no doubt plain to hon. Members of the Committee but which perhaps ought to be put plainly in HANSARD. The single transferable vote produces a result more mathematically accurate than the present bare majority vote where there are three or four seats. I see that the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Byers) agrees with me. It therefore becomes a great matter of either hypocrisy or muddle-headedness when one
    1872
    recommends the single transferable vote upon the argument that it has worked very well in two-member seats. That is continually being done. It was done at the time of the Speaker's Conference and it has been done again just now. In a constituency which returns only two Members the single transferable vote makes the result much less mathematically accurate than the bare majority vote. Therefore it is quite plain that there may be practical advantages in having the single transferable vote in two-Member seats but the argument for principle is really a false argument except in the mouths of people who think seats ought to be three-Member, five-Member, seven-Member or eleven-Member.
    Mr. Ede: The Committee is indebted to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Byers) for the way in which he presented this case to the Committee. I am quite sure that he will not expect me to suggest to the Committee that the London County Council should be the dog on which this nostrum should be tried. I should have thought that there was no local government authority in the country where it was less desirable that an experiment of this kind should be carried out. The mere fact that we now have three-Member constituencies does not really differentiate it from outside boroughs. The wards of boroughs have to have a membership of three or a multiple of three, so that the argument could have been advanced with regard to boroughs, in some of which I should have thought there was less chance of doing harm than in the London County Council area.
    No one would be expected at any stage of a Debate on this subject to be able to say anything new about it. The question confronting the Committee is: Do we believe that elections should be aimed at providing a body which can carry on the administration generally speaking with one policy inspiring it, or should we arrange for every shade of opinion to be represented on the body with a danger that on many occasions a complete majority following one policy cannot be reached? I should have thought that the disasters which have overtaken democracy in many parts of the continent of Europe were sufficient answer to that. One can get the splitting of opinion into small fragments and the mathematical representation of each small fragment in an assembly to

    1873
    such a point that it becomes almost impossible to have a Government that can continue in office for any great length of time.
    This matter has been argued out on general principles so often that it would be an insult to the Committee if I elaborated the arguments against it. I accept the greater part of what the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said. The Liberal Party say that my own constituency is a shocking example of the way in which the single-Member principle works. They say that no Conservative vote ever polled in South Shields has been of any use since 1832, because I represent the one borough in this country which has never returned a Conservative to this House. When I first stood in 1929 the argument used against me was, "This borough has been Liberal for 96 years. Send up the century." I managed by a very adroit catch in the slips to prevent that century being scored.
    I suggest that the practical issue in front of the Committee is: Do we desire the London County Council, responsible for the administration of the capital of the Empire, and the greatest local government authority in the world, to have a composition which in normal circumstances would enable it to pursue a coherent policy no matter whether it be a policy of the Left or a policy of the Right, or do we desire to run the risk that there may be circumstances in which it would be impossible, for a period of three years, to have a London County Council with a policy that could command throughout that time the support of the majority of the members? I suggest that the London County Council is not a body on which to start these experiments.
    Mr. Clement Davies: I cannot say that I am surprised at the Home Secretary's reply, but I cannot withhold my keen disappointment. I could not agree with his conclusions. The reasons he advanced for them seemed to me to be reasons which should lead him to quite opposite conclusions. Let us consider the L.C.C. It is the most important local government body not only in this country, but in the world. It was the first great local government body to be established, and it is responsible for the welfare of many millions of people. Curiously enough it has differed from the other local authorities which were established at about
    1874
    the same time in that whereas until fairly recently the general rule was that people did not bring general politics into local government elections and did not stand for one particular side or another—during the last few years there has been a tendency for them to call themselves Labour, Conservative or Liberal—the London County Council from the very outset divided itself into two parties. For many years there were in control the Progressives, who really represented my party in those days, and the minority were the Moderates, who mainly represented hon. and right hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway.
    If this Amendment had been introduced into a Bill in 1906, I should have had the full support of the Lord President of the Council. Our views change according to our position. If one happens to be the minority party, one is in favour of proportional representation; the moment one becomes the majority party, one says, "Well, this really does not work. It is too cumbersome"—
    Mr. H. Morrison: Speaking for the benefit of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), may I say it is perfectly true that the Liberal Party could have passed proportional representation. In their great days they did not do it, and in their lesser days they would have it so. For myself, I have never been a supporter of proportional representation. I have always opposed it because I think it is contrary to good government.
    Mr. C. Davies: Why should it be contrary to good government when we get the fairest representation possible and the will of the people expressed more accurately than under the present system? It passes my comprehension how the Home Secretary can say that under the present system we get a fair and proper representation of the opinion of the millions of people of London when they have only one choice. With this Amendment we should have the views of the people better expressed, the people would have a wider choice and there would be a better representation on this very important body. That is why I am so disappointed at the reply to this Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the Home Secretary satisfied that the new City of London constituency has been included in this?
    Mr. Ede: I do not think there is anything in this Clause which interferes with the new constituency for the City of London. On the assumption that the First Schedule goes through as drafted, the new City of London constituency will consist of the City of London and the Metropolitan boroughs of Finsbury and Shore-ditch. The City and the two boroughs together will be one of the constituencies returning three members to the London County Council, and local government electors for the City will vote for the London County Council in that constituency.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 56.—(Method of election of parish councillors.)
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 53, line 40, at the end, to insert:
    "(2) The council of a county or county district may contribute towards the expenses of an ordinary election of parish councillors."
    This is a small point but one of considerable importance in rural areas. The Clause abolishes the parish meeting, and, if there are more nominees than there are vacancies, makes an election the only way of obtaining parish representation. The difficulty is that a parish meeting, though unsatisfactory in many ways, was at any rate cheap, but a parish poll and election in the way stipulated in this Clause will put a very heavy burden on parishes which have a good deal to do already and only limited powers of precept.
    It does not meet the case that rural district council elections and parish council elections are often held together, because I believe that under the rules for the purpose the cost of such elections, when held together, is halved between the two bodies. So far as I can ascertain, unless power is given to county councils or county district councils to do this, they cannot at present contribute towards
    1876
    the costs of a parish council election. I suggest that, small though parishes are, they are very numerous, they are important organs of effective democracy in the countryside, and their importance is becoming increasingly recognised by their being given gradually more and more to do. Therefore, while one welcomes the principle of this Clause cordially, one would not wish it to be frustrated by the financial difficulty which would otherwise arise.
    What is to happen if the parish cannot afford a parish election? There will be pressure on candidates to withdraw, and there will be difficulties in making effective the small scale democracy which this Clause has in mind. I hope the Home Secretary will be able to consider it a matter appropriate to this Bill, for this reason: that if the change is made without some provision of this sort at the same time, it may become immediately difficult to carry out. It is, therefore, not a matter that can be properly put off on this occasion.
    Lastly, the Amendment is entirely facultative, there is no obligation on either the county council or the county district council to contribute. That is a matter which should obviously be decided locally, as also which of them shall contribute. I should have thought the county council was the more obvious body, because the effect of their contribution will be to put some of the expenses of parish council elections on to a wider body of electors than would be available to a rural district council, and it really is fair that the urban areas, which have other advantages, should make some small contribution in this way to democracy in the countryside. On the other hand, it may be felt that the county district council, if it shares its elections with the parish council, might be the better body for the purpose. This Amendment leaves it entirely open.
    Mr. Asterley Jones: I hope the Home Secretary will view this Amendment sympathetically. At the same time I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend is quite right in saying that the Bill will adversely affect the very small parishes. As I understand it, they will continue as they are today, without having parish councils at all. On the other hand, there are parishes with perhaps 200 or 300 inhabitants which will find the expense of a parish council election

    1877
    a great strain on their rates. In many cases a penny rate in a parish does not produce more than a couple of pounds or so. I hope the Home Secretary will provide for this amelioration for hard-pressed parishes.
    Mr. Ede: No new problem is presented here, because in any parish in which a poll may be taken in future there was always the liability for a poll being taken in the past. What has happened hitherto has been that in parishes which are sufficient in population to have had a parish council there has been a preliminary election at the parish meeting. If a sufficient number of people were not satisfied with the result of the show of hands, a poll had to be held. Therefore, there is really no new problem presented by the alteration in the law. In the past the poll of the parish for a parish council election has been paid for by the parish in accordance with the principle that has been established in this country, that the local government unit in respect of which the poll is taken pays all the expenses connected with the poll. I cannot see that the alteration in the law, by which in future there will be no show of hands election at the parish meeting, alters the case in any respect.
    Nor do I think it is fair that one should call on the urban districts and boroughs within the county to pay, if the county council decides, the cost of conducting the parish council elections. Would the parish welcome the idea that in the two years out of the three in which there are no parish elections, they should be called upon to pay for the urban and borough elections which are being held in the county in those two years? They have no expenses themselves for elections, and if they expected the urban districts to come to their aid in the one year out of three in which there is an election, it seems to me that reciprocity might be expected.
    Let us face this: whereas boroughs and urban districts—all boroughs in the country outside London and most urban and rural districts in the country—have an election every year, the parish election takes place only once in every three years, and therefore any cost that may be incurred in the year in which there is an election should be spread over the two years in which there is no election. I
    1878
    have been pressed hard to make the concession whereby the vote at the parish meeting should be abolished. I had no hesitation, on a full consideration of the case, in thinking that the time had come when that should be abolished, but at no time was it suggested to me in the course of those representations that, if I did this, it would be necessary to provide financial assistance to the rural parishes in order to carry out their parish council elections, and I know of no case in the past where it has been represented as a grievance that they have had to bear this expense.
    Mr. Attewell: I am sorry the Home Secretary is unable to accede to what appears to me to be a reasonable request, but there is one point that I would like him to make clear. If I understood him correctly, he said that all that had happened was that the Bill abolished the show of hands, meaning that polls that would normally take place under the old regime will be no more frequent under this Measure. I do not think that is so. As one who has stood for a parish council and has been voted upon at a parish council, it is within my recollection that a majority vote was actually taken within that parish council meeting, and the majority vote was accepted. It was only if it was challenged that one went to the expense of a poll. Now that no show of hands is to take place, there must be a poll on every occasion, unless there are no more nominees than places to be filled. There is bound to be an election where previously that was not so, because the show of hands determined it.
    To ask the county council to bear the expense is not too great. The method of precept which is within the powers of the county council enables those within the parish council to have, not the luxury, but the necessity of a poll. Today, with more people in the countryside taking an active part in politics and in the government of their own locality than in past years, it must be expected that more polling will take place, and it appears reasonable to ask the county councils to bear at least a part of this burden which will otherwise fall on the inhabitants and the parish council.
    Mr. Mitchison: May I ask the Home Secretary to consider this matter again? This is not an unauthorised request, as he seems to consider. It is made with the

    1879
    full approval of the National Association of Parish Councils which his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House instituted recently. They feel strongly on this matter. I do not want to repeat the point which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Attewell) and, having put myself in the hands of the Home Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 57.—(Hours of poll at district and parish elections.)
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 54, line 11, to leave out from "is," to "or," in line 12, and to insert:
    "not validly nominated, or if he withdraws, or is deemed to have withdrawn, from his candidature."
    This enables candidates at district and parish elections to require the poll to be open until 9 o'clock, and it provides that a request by any candidate who is not shown as remaining validly nominated when the statement is published, shall be of no effect whereas, now, as the Committee know, candidates may withdraw after the day of the publication of the statement. It obviously is right that a request of a candidate who withdraws 24 hours later shall be equally of that effect, and it is the purpose of this Amendment to effect that.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. McKie: May I put one point to the Under-Secretary of State, whose Amendment has just been accepted? I can quite see the argument, from his point of view, that if anybody withdraws his candidature and has previously made a request that the poll shall remain open for an hour or so, that application should be null and void. One of the candidates who has made the request may have behind him a large body of electors who find it inconvenient to attend the polling station beforehand to have their votes registered. I hope the Under-Secretary will appreciate this when a request is made for the polling station to be kept open for a longer period, and that the request will not be turned down or rendered void.
    1880
    I am sure that the Under-Secretary, with his strong democratic views, will bear in mind this large section of the electorate, who might possibly be anxious to vote for his own party.
    Mr. Leslie Hale: One point which occurs to me may be a matter of some importance. The first part of this Clause refers to the number of councillors to be elected. The wording of the Clause might easily be held to include elections where candidates were returned unopposed. In such circumstances there might be a real difficulty in carrying out the obvious meaning of the Clause, because in the case of a district council election where there were three contested elections, there might be three people returned unopposed; and it might still be required under this Clause that six candidates must ask for the extension. I may be wrong, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give us his views.
    Mr. Ede: The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) has raised a point which is worth looking into. I imagine that he was dealing with the case of a district divided into wards where, in some of the wards, there were unopposed returns, and there was no need to ask for any extension of the hours. I should have thought that each ward would have been taken as a separate election. I will, however, go into the matter and, if clarification is needed, I will see that it is attended to on Report stage.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 58.—(Alteration of dates of election of county, town and district councillors.)
    Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 55, line 12, to leave out "or town," and to insert "town or district."
    If it is convenient to the Committee, I should like to refer also to the further Amendment in page 55, line 13, to leave out from the first "Act," to the end of line 17, and to insert:
    "shall not retire from his office until the day of election of county, town or elected district councillors as the case may be next after the day on which he would have so retired if this Act had not been passed."
    The purpose of the first of these Amendments is to bring the district

    1881
    councils within the meaning of Subsection (6). The purpose of the second Amendment is to enable all these councillors to retain their councillorships until May of next year instead of until November, as is the case with the Bill as it stands at present.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 55, line 13, leave out from first "Act," to end of line 17, and insert:
    "shall not retire from his office until the day of election of county, town or elected district councillors as the case may be next after the day on which he would have so retired if this Act had not been passed."—[Mr. Woodburn.]
    Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 55, line 28, at the end, to add:
    "(8) At an election of town councillors in Scotland, the latest times for publication of the notice of election, for delivery of nomination papers, and for delivery of notices of withdrawals of nominations, shall be the same in relation to the day of election as in the case of an election of county councillors in relation to the day of that election, and accordingly Part II of the Second Schedule to the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, shall have effect as if in the heading to the second column the words 'or town' were inserted after the word 'county,' and as if the third column were omitted."
    The purpose of this Amendment is to provide for town councils in Scotland an extended time which is approximately equal to that which takes place in the county councils, which will cover the time necessary for the printing, despatch and return of postal ballot papers, and the other extra duties which will be involved.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Clause as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. McKie: I do not seek to be fractious or to cause discord, but I wish to bring to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the fact that by this Clause we are making a far-reaching alteration in the method of local government in Scotland. It is true that Clause 58 only brings things into line with the situation that will be created in England and Wales when this Bill becomes law. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there have been the fullest consultations in Scotland with the representatives of the various local authorities concerned.
    Although I am interested in all parts in Scotland, I admit that I approach the
    1882
    question more particularly as one who represents two scattered rural county council authorities. There are, in addition, a large number of small burghs within my constituency. I very much hope that the representatives of small burghs have been consulted. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that there have been adequate conversations and consultations, because it should be our one desire that this Clause should include such bodies in local government. Such a step would ensure getting the maximum number of people to the poll whenever local government elections take place, whether in town or country.
    As far as the county council elections are concerned, the month of May is likely to be a great improvement upon November in ensuring that the largest possible poll will be obtained. There are many people in Scotland who must travel great distances to the polling stations and they would, of course, experience more difficulty in the autumn or winter months. Such people must be encouraged to attend the polling station if our new democratic system is to work in the way in which we all wish. We want to see Scottish people take an even greater interest in the affairs of their local authority. That is why I hope the right hon. Gentleman has had the fullest conversations and consultations with the representatives of those concerned in order that he may assure me and every other Scottish Member of the Committee that the proposed Clause has been drawn up and arrived at only after the fullest possible investigation.
    Mr. McLean Watson: I welcome the changes which have been made and which will enable local government elections to be held under much more favourable conditions than in bygone years. In the discussion a few minutes ago, there was a reference to English parish councils. We in Scotland have our district councils. I would like the Secretary of State to note that, whereas in England the parish councils have considerable duties—
    Mr. Ede Mr. Ede indicated dissent.
    Mr. Watson: The Home Secretary shakes his head. Perhaps I may have made a mistake. In Scotland the district councils are starved of duties. They have very few duties to perform and I am

    1883
    afraid that, so far as local government in Scotland is concerned, we are much behind England. England seems to have a better system of local government than we have in Scotland. I would like to see the district councils or the county councils performing many more duties than they are given under the existing Local Government Act. This may not be the occasion to discuss this matter, but I am merely drawing to the attention of the Secretary of State the fact that in England there are parish councils as well as rural district councils. We have to be content with much inferior local government machinery in Scotland.
    Mr. Woodburn: In reply to my hon. Friend, all the duties of local government are covered by one or other of the local authorities. It would be quite improper for me to enter a discussion as to the duties of county councils and district councils. I would not like to take sides. It is not very easy to get agreement amongst local authorities in Scotland to parting with any of their powers to lesser lights in the local government hierarchy. I can give the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) the assurance—although I cannot guarantee that there was unanimity of view—that there certainly were consultations.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 60.—(Consequential and minor amendments.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I would like the Secretary of State to give us some indication of what he contemplates under Subsection (2) of this Clause. This Subsection gives the Secretary of State very wide powers to make additions to or modifications in Acts of Parliament which may be necessary in view of the provisions of the Clause. I appreciate that, as there are four cities and one burgh which have private Acts of different kinds, it might be that there are provisions in those Acts which require some modification by reason of the passing of these
    1884
    Clauses. If the right hon. Gentleman can assure us that that is what he has in mind, and that there will be—as I am sure there will be—full consultation with the proper authorities in those areas, I agree that this is a proper and convenient way of dealing with the matter; but, if there is anything beyond that, we should be told what is in mind. It is an unusual thing, particularly in connection with election law, to leave matters to the discretion of the Secretary of State, even though there is a chance of a Prayer on a negative Resolution. I hope the right hon. Gentleman can tell us what he has in mind with regard to this Subsection.
    Mr. Woodburn: There are a number of statutory conditions applying to different local authorities in Scotland, and it might be that by experience we would find that the terms of this Measure did not quite fit in with the statutory conditions covering some of those towns. The only purpose of the Subsection is to provide for the adjustment of such matters without the necessity of an Act of Parliament, and I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we shall have full consultation before that is done.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 61.—(Discharge of registration duties.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. J. S. C. Reid: The same point arises here, in rather a different shape, under Subsection (1), which says:
    "A registration officer shall comply with any general or special directions which may be given by the Secretary of State with respect to the arrangements to be made by the registration officer for carrying out his registration duties."
    I am not sure what is in mind in that Subsection. I do not even know whether this is new or old, but special directions by a Secretary of State on election matters are a little uncommon. I can imagine the necessity for general directions, but we might have an indication of the kind of thing which has caused the insertion of the words, "special directions," which I am sure would not have been put there unless a particular point was in mind. It may be that the point is a good one,

    1885
    but we ought to be told what is contemplated before the words "special directions" go into the Bill.
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: This Clause is a re-enactment of Section 13 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1918.
    Mr. Reid: Will the Secretary of State say if it has ever been found necessary to use a special direction in either Parliamentary or local government elections? It may be valuable to know what has happened in the past.
    Mr. Ede: As far as I know at the moment, it has not been necessary, but from time to time matters do arise in which it is necessary to give directions to the appropriate officers.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 62.—(Power to make regulations as to registration, etc.)
    Mr. Osbert Peake: I beg to move, in page 57, line 43, at the end, to add:
    "(4) Regulations made under this section shall be laid in draft before each House of Parliament not less than forty days before the date on which they are made.
    "In reckoning any such period of forty days as aforesaid no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days."
    Under this Clause regulations may be made in respect of matters of some importance, namely,
    "the form of the register of electors and of the electors' lists, or any special list or records required by this Act in connection with the register."
    Those are lists of absent voters and proxy voters. There is no provision in the Clause by which the regulations shall come before Parliament. We do not go so far as to say that there should be an affirmative Resolution of the House before the regulations become law, but we think the House of Commons should have an opportunity of praying against the form of regulations where those regulations lay down matters which affect the election of Members to this House.
    Mr. Ede: I think the right hon. Member has overlooked Clause 70 (4), where it is prescribed that:
    1886
    "(4) Any power conferred by this Act to make regulations shall, except where this Act otherwise provides, be a power exercisable by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument, which shall not come into force unless or unil it is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
    It will be necessary, therefore, for these regulations to be brought before the House by affirmative Resolution. On occasion the compilation of these special lists might make it necessary for a regulation to be made very quickly, say, just before a general election. It would be very regrettable if we had not the power to do that with speed, and I think the requirements of an affirmative Resolution amply safeguards the rights of the House of Commons.
    Mr. Peake: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Our point is fully met, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill

    CLAUSE 63.—(Payment of expenses of registration.)
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 58, line 26, after "borough," to insert "metropolitan borough."
    This Amendment and the first Amendment to the next Clause in the name of my right hon Friend relate to the same matter. They are no more than drafting Amendments necessitated by the fact that some London constituencies will now include more than one metropolitan borough, and therefore certain powers proposed to be given to the registration officer in boroughs are now required to be given also in metropolitan boroughs.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Leonard: I wish to put before the Secretary of State a point affecting the city of Glasgow. It was the subject of an Amendment in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for North Lanark (Miss Herbison), my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) and myself, which was not called—in page 58, line 5, after "authority," insert:
    "for the spring register and the whole amount paid by the authority for the autumn register."

    1887
    The city of Glasgow has expressed the feeling that the value of these two registers varies as between local authority elections and a general election, and it would be appreciated if the Secretary of State could explain why the division of the cost should have been made in the proposed proportions. The Glasgow Corporation are of the opinion that the Spring register is the one in which they are primarily interested. Rightly or wrongly, they are of the opinion that the Autumn register has been specially designed for the purposes of a general election, and that that register would be of value to them only in the case of a by-election. Therefore, I would be glad if the Government could give an indication of the reason why the cost has been divided in the proportions provided for in the Clause.
    Mr. J. S. C. Reid: May I reinforce what the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) has just said. If we were dealing purely with local authority elections, there is no doubt that there would be only one register. No one would dream of having two registers for that purpose. That being so, and looking at the relative benefit which the locality and this House get from these registers, it would seem that, whereas a spring register is equally valuable for both types of election, the autumn register, as the hon. Member has just said, is, if not 100 per cent., nearly a per cent. available for Parliamentary elections only. Therefore, it seems that if the aim is that the expense should be divided in proportion to the use which is to be made of the register the local authority is being rather hardly treated in this matter.
    This is something which might be looked at. The sum involved is not very large, but in a city the size of Glasgow it amounts to a considerable sum. The right hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties there are, which we thrashed out upstairs—the point about rapidly rising rates and the fact that the concessions he recently gave have almost entirely gone, and will certainly go very soon. We are contemplating a very difficult position in local authority finance, and every little helps. I certainly reinforce the request of the hon. Member that we should have an explanation of why this 50–50 decision has been taken. There is great force in the view which has been expressed by Glasgow Corporation that a close examination of the situation would
    1888
    lead to a somewhat different division of the expense between the two bodies concerned.
    Mr. Woodburn: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, the Clause shares the cost between the local authority and Parliament. So far as I can see, the Amendment to which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) referred, suggesting a different division of the cost, indicated a misapprehension. The preparation of the election register is not something which is done in the spring and in the autumn, but is now very much a continuing process. So far as we can estimate, if there was only one register per year it would not be less costly than the two registers. In other words, the process, by being continuous, effects a considerable economy in the compilation of the register. Moreover, if the argument were to be addressed to the amount of use that was to be made of a register, I am not sure whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend would suggest that we might charge one-fifth to the State, because there is a general election only every five years, and four-fifths of the five years' cost to the local authority, because they use the register four times to every time it is used by the State. The matter is really beneficial to the local authorities, and there is some misapprehension. According to our calculations if there was any question of sharing the cost according to the use made of the register, it would cost the local authorities more than under the present system. The Amendment, which I understand was out of Order because of the financial provisions of the Bill, would not bring the benefits to the local authority as are presumed by that Amendment.
    Mr. Reid: I am a little surprised that the Secretary of State should say that there would be no saving by having only one register per year. I believe I am right in saying that at one stage between the wars—I am not sure whether it was under the Geddes Axe—the second register was done away with as a measure of economy. If that is so I find that action a little difficult to reconcile with the view that the production of two registers per year does not produce extra expense. I would ask the Secretary of State to re-examine the matter and see whether what he has said is accurate. The difference between local

    1889
    authority and Parliamentary elections is that one knows exactly when local authority elections are due, and there need only be one register a year for that purpose. A Parliamentary election, on the other hand, may happen at any time, and therefore we must always have the register in order for it. For that reason I would not in the least accept the right hon. Gentleman's view that what counts is the number of times the register is used. It is a fact that there must always be an up-to-date register for Parliamentary affairs, whereas for local government affairs a register is only needed when an election is imminent. Although the up-to-date register is used for by-elections there will be no question of making an up-to-date register for the purpose of by-elections. I understand the difficulty about making a change at this stage, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to re-examine the matter and see whether, when an opportunity occurs, there is not a good case for making some change.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 64.—(Ascertainment of amount of registration expenses.)
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 59, line 17, after "borough," to insert "metropolitan borough."
    As I indicated, this Amendment is linked with the last Amendment I moved.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 60, line 2, after "electors," insert "or voting by post or proxy."—[Mr. Younger.]
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 60, line 8, to leave out from the beginning to "applicable," and to insert:
    "for the purposes of either."
    This Amendment, and the next Amendment in line 10, are only drafting Amendments designed to facilitate arrangements between the Treasury and the Northern Ireland authorities for paying the cost of the Spring register when it is combined with the local register.
    Sir R Ross: I wish to be clear about this and I would like an explanation from the Under-Secretary. It is, I understand, a drafting Amendment, but the original draft is the one that seems to me to be appropriate.
    Mr. Younger: It is a very small point. It is proposed that the method of meeting the cost of the Spring register, when it coincides with the local register, will be fixed by agreement between the authorities in the two areas. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that there is power for these authorities, if they so agree, to adopt the scale of registration expenses laid down in Northern Ireland. In the present drafting they could not do so, though they could adopt the scale which applies in this country. This Amendment gives them the discretion to use either, according to whichever they may agree on.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In line 10, leave out "law of Northern Ireland," and insert "other, being expenses."—[Mr. Younger.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 65.—(Registration appeals.)
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 60, line 24, to leave out:
    "or reversing a previous decision allowing."
    This is purely a drafting Amendment. The words proposed to be left out are unnecessary.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 66.—(Supplemental provisions as to members of forces.)
    Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 62, line 10, at the end, to insert:
    "or any such person's wife who is resident with him."
    The purpose of this Amendment is to enable the wife of a Service voter, who is stationed overseas, to vote, if she is living overseas with her husband. She, of course, is a person who has no residence qualification here, because she gave up her residence here when she moved to the overseas station where her husband is serving. We think, however, that there is a strong case for enabling her to vote. After all, her husband can vote as a member of the Forces, and we think that wives stationed overseas should also have a vote.
    The only way in, which we can do that, so far as we can see, is to bring her within the definition of "members of the

    1891
    Forces" in Clause 66. It may not be a very precise or accurate or clean way of doing the job, but it is the only way which we can think of to entitle her to vote.
    Mr. Ede: I am not unsympathetic with the object of this particular Amendment, but there is an Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman and others which follows later, and which would very considerably extend the number of people and categories who might be brought within the Bill. I do not think it is quite accurate to say that the wife of a serving man is a member of the Forces. In fact, if some of the warrant officers attempted to assert that she was—and it has been alleged in bygone days that they used to do so—there would in these days, I think, be very considerable resistance on the part of the ladies concerned. I would prefer to see what happens to the later Amendment, because I do not feel that I could extend this to spouses there, and if the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw this Amendment now, I will see between now and the Report stage, if—for this limited number of people, that is, the wives of Service men, "the colonel's lady and Judy O'Grady," the whole of them—I can bring them, within the provisions of the Bill.
    Mr. Keeling: Although it may not be true today that wives are members of the Forces, if the right hon. Gentleman would go to the Royal Gallery, where there is a picture of the Battle of Trafalgar, he would see that it would appear that wives were members of the Forces at the time of the Battle of Trafalgar. I am quite content with the assurance which he has given.
    Mr. Peake: Before asking the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment I want to make it quite clear that we must reserve our power to argue on the new Clause that wives of the staff of the Control Commission for example, should have the same privilege.
    Mr. Ede: Yes.
    Mr. Peake: I cannot bargain with the right hon. Gentleman in the sense that I will give up my right to argue that Clause.
    Mr. Ede: May I say that I was not trying to extract a bargain. All I wanted the right hon. Gentleman to understand
    1892
    was that I realise that he was giving one blow now to the thin wedge which I have inserted in the provision that people must vote in respect of their residence in this country. I realise that he has a few more blows coming along later on and I wanted him to be aware that I had spotted it.
    Mr. Peake: Therefore, without prejudice to our future position on either side of the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 67.—(Punishment of offences committed outside the U.K.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: I wish to bring before the Home Secretary a point which I think creates a difficulty in the operation of this Clause. The Clause is designed to bring into operation proceedings under the Ballot Act, 1872, and the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, in order that in any infringement under the present Bill these particular statutes should be made machinery with which to institute proceedings for offences under the Bill and to apply the appropriate punishment. There is by Clause 67 added to the two statutes I have mentioned proceedings to come under the present Bill. That brings in Clause 35 which we were discussing last night in regard to any person transmitting from abroad with a view to influencing the voting at a Parliamentary election here. The phrase "any person," or as it says there "no person," which in effect is the same for this purpose, must include persons other than British subjects. I think that was expressly conceded yesterday by the Home Secretary.
    So far as Clause 67 is concerned any offence under this particular Bill relates expressly only to British subjects and to no one else. In that connection it has to be remembered that Subsection (3) of Clause 35 states specifically that any offence under Clause 35 is to be:
    "an illegal practice within the meaning of the parliamentary corrupt practices Act."
    I take it that that means the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Acts of 1883

    1893
    and the amending Act of 1895. If that stood alone, that would make a person other than a British subject liable, although Clause 35 does not attach any sanction whatsoever nor does it say what sort of proceedings, if any are to or can be brought. The question of proceedings is provided solely by Clause 67 but that Clause which is intended to be the machinery for that purpose, does not do that. It specifically limits proceedings and punishments to a British subject. In order to catch the offender under Clause 35 who is not a British subject, it would be necessary in my submission after the words "British subject" in line 5, to add the following or other similar words:
    "… or any person within the meaning of Section 35 of this Act."
    Then we would have a two-fold operation. We would have a British subject amenable to the Statutes referred to for any offence of what is prescribed there, and in addition we would also be able to cover any person who is not a British subject. I ask the Home Secretary to look at that point. I have not examined the matter closely, but from a superficial glance I cannot see that without those words a person other than a British subject would be caught under Section 35. The Home Secretary said explicitly last night that it was intended to cover non-British subjects as well as British subjects. I hope that he will consider this suggestion.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Home Secretary will recollect that in the course of a tolerably prolonged discussion on Clause 35 last night he indicated that when we came to this Clause he would have something to say upon the position. He said:
    "I have no doubt that when we come to Clause 67 I shall be asked to say something further on it, and I will endeavour by the time we reach that Clause to be informed of the proper answer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1948; Vol. 449, C. 1730.]
    I take it that among other things, the presence of the learned Solicitor-General is an implementation of that undertaking. I hope that we shall have a position cleared up which is far from clear at the moment. I hope that the Home Secretary will not allow himself to be induced by the blandishments of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) into going lightheartedly into a proposal to make an offence triable in the English courts when that offence is committed by a foreigner abroad. That would
    1894
    be a very serious development. It may be that there is an argument for it in these circumstances, but it would be a most serious thing to do. It appears to me that this Clause does not do that. I hope, therefore, that the Home Secretary will adhere to the wording of the Clause in that respect at any rate.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: Clause 67 does do that. In the last two lines of Subsection (1) it says:
    "… in the United Kingdom having jurisdiction in the place where the person charged is for the time being."
    If my words are added, that would include any person.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. and learned Gentleman's words have not yet been added. I hope that they will not be added. At the moment this applies solely to British subjects. I hope that we shall confine ourselves to British subjects, since obviously the implications and possible consequences of extending it further would be difficult and dangerous. In any event, I hope that the Solicitor-General will throw a light of blinding clarity upon the fogs that so far have engulfed this subject.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: The hon. Gentleman says that this matter should be confined to British subjects. That would open the door to the very thing against which we wish to provide. Suppose a British subject deliberately engaged some alien here as an agent for this purpose, then, of course, the provision would be defeated.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Under Clause 35 a British subject who procures the commission of an offence by somebody else is himself liable. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would read the Clause he would find the answer to his question.
    7.45 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): The last observation made by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) adequately meets the objection of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). My hon. and learned Friend thinks he has detected inconsistency between Clause 35 and this Clause. I am bound to tell him that in my view there is no inconsistency. A true reading of Clause 35 shows that the

    1895
    words "no person" do not include a person who was not a British subject. Clause 35 does not create an offence on the part of an alien. It only creates an offence on the part of British subjects. Therefore there is no inconsistency between the two Clauses. It is true, as my hon. and learned Friend points out, that the words "no person" are apparently unlimited in scope. If read by themselves they might be construed as including an alien, but in their context, and particularly as Clause 35 must be read together with this Clause, there can be no doubt that Clause 35 would not affect aliens and would not create offences on the part of persons who were not British subjects.
    If a British subject counselled and procured an alien to commit the offence described in Clause 35, the position would be entirely different. Then one would have to consider whether it was a case of the British subject using, or aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the use of a transmitter. In the circumstances, I hope that the Committee will agree that the difficulty to which my hon. and learned Friend called attention does not exist outside his imagination.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: This is more than a question of my imagination. This was the view expressed by the Home Secretary last night and, with all respect to the learned Solicitor-General, I think that it is the proper view. The meaning of the language in this Clause is perfectly clear. If Clause 35 is to be governed by Clause 67 the position of any person here other than a British subject is left in a vacuum. In that sense, the Clause would be otiose.
    The Solicitor-General: In order to correct a possible misapprehension, may I say that Clause 35 would apply to an alien in this country? I was referring to aliens abroad.
    Mr. Turner-Samuels: That is the point which is important. It completely destroys the whole argument of the Solicitor-General. The alien here would not be a British subject and, therefore, Clause 67 would not apply. It is as clear as daylight that an alien here doing this act would get off scot free, because there is no machinery by which he can be caught.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 68.—(Adaptation, interpretation and minor amendments of law.)
    Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 63, line 22, to leave out Subsection (2).
    The Subsection provides that:
    "(2) The provisions of the said Tenth Schedule may be supplemented in relation to any Act passed before this Act by an order made by the Secretary of State in any particular case where that appears to him necessary for harmonising that Act with this Act."
    This Clause is reminiscent of a former Clause which used to be known as the King Henry VIII Clause, which gave power by order to adapt Acts of Parliament to make them fit in with particular circumstances. If we look at the Tenth Schedule, we see that it refers to matters of considerable importance. It deals with the adaptation and interpretation of enactments, and Part I contains general provisions for the adaptation and the interpretation of law. Part II deals with specific adaptations. Presumably the right hon. Gentleman anticipates, quite apart from these adaptations and interpretations of law, that it may be necessary for him to make some additional adaptations of law, and therefore he wants to take power by order to make such additions to the Tenth Schedule to harmonise the present Measure with any Act which Parliament has passed in the past. That, on the face of it, looks like rather a wide power to take and one which requires some explanation.
    Mr. Ede: May I say that this Amendment has nothing to do with his late lamented Majesty King Henry VIII? We have searched the Statutes thoroughly, and, so far as public general Acts are concerned, we believe that we have managed to include in the Tenth Schedule all the adaptations that may be necessary. As was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland when a not dissimilar point was raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), there are in different parts of the country special Acts relating to elections and similar things in particular cities and boroughs, and we would not like to say that we can be certain that we have covered all the points, although we have done our best. We have, therefore, asked that this Subsection be included.
    I would point out to the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) that this Subsection has precedents to justify

    1897
    it. It was included in paragraph 7 of the Sixth Schedule to the 1918 Act, and, coming to even more modern times, in paragraph 8 of the Third Schedule (Adaptation of Enactments) of the Parliament (Elections and Meeting) Act, 1943, which I think the right hon. Gentleman had some responsibility in commending to the House, a similar Clause was included, and paragraph 5 of Part II of the Fourth Schedule to the Representation of the People Act, 1945, with which again the right hon. Gentleman had some close association, made a similar provision.
    Mr. Peake: If I may interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, there was not, of course, such a vigilant Opposition in those days.
    Mr. Ede: There was no Opposition at all. I shared with the right hon. Gentleman in a very minor capacity the responsibilities of government in those days, and he should not flatter himself that his lapses would not have been noted even on his own side of the House if they had, in fact, occurred. I suggest that these precedents and the needs of the moment are sufficient to justify the inclusion of this Subsection in the Bill. It would be lamentable if we found that some city or borough in the country had some special provision relating to its elections which we did not happen to have picked up in this Bill, and we thereby caused confusion in the conduct of the elections.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman is as persuasive as usual, but he has not satisfied me of the need for this Subsection as it stands. The right hon. Gentleman said he was satisfied that there was no conflict between previous public Acts and this Bill, and he was apparently concerned with private Acts. Is there any reason why this Subsection should not be drafted to refer only to private Acts? The right hon. Gentleman is taking power to alter public Acts, but he has told the Committee that he is satisfied that there is no need for that power, and it seems strange, therefore, to take it. In principle, it is a thoroughly bad thing to take power by order to alter public Acts of Parliament unless some real necessity is shown, and the Secretary of State has said that there is no such necessity. I should be grateful if this Subsection could be modified to give him power in this way to deal only with private Acts.
    Mr. Peake: Before asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the suggestion made by my hon. Friend. In the hope that he will reconsider the matter between now and the Report stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 63, line 35, to leave out Subsection (5), and to insert:
    "(5) The enactments mentioned in the Schedule (Obsolete enactments) to this Act shall cease to have effect to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule."
    This Amendment is for the purpose of transferring to a new Schedule a list of obsolete enactments to be repealed. The list of these obsolete enactments which come to light is increasing, and hon. Members will see on page 2321 of the Order Paper a proposed new Schedule giving a much more extensive list than the list proposed in Subsection 5 of Clause 68 as introduced. There are a great many very ancient and largely disused provisions affecting the law, and I think it would be more convenient now to write this list into a Schedule.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 69 and 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 71.—(Interpretation and application of local government provisions in England and Wales.)
    Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 66, line 31, at the end, to insert:
    "the expression 'special list' means a record kept or to be kept under the provisions of subsection (4) of section nine, subsection (7) of section ten or subsection (8) of section eleven of this Act."
    The term "special list" is used in the Bill to signify the list of absent voters, proxies and their appointers and postal proxy voters, which, under the Subsection quoted, has to be kept separately by the registration officer. The expression, where it first occurs in Clause 32 and subsequently, is not defined, and its meaning we can only get by inference. This is really a drafting point, but it seems to me that, in the interests of good drafting, a definition such as is set out in the Amendment, is required.
    Mr. Ede: I think the definition in the Bill is the correct one. The "special lists" are not those mentioned in the provisions referred to in the Amendment, but lists mentioned, and in effect defined, in paragraph 15 of Part II of the Third Schedule; that is, the absent voters' list, the list of proxies and the postal proxy list. No definition beyond that is necessary; nor, indeed, is it accurate.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Grimston: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I think that explains the position and, therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 66, line 39, after "borough," to insert "metropolitan borough."
    This is a drafting Amendment similar to the Amendments which have already been made in Clauses 63 and 64.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 72.—(General application to Scotland.)
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I beg to move, in page 67, line 30, to leave out "division," and to insert "area."
    This is a drafting Amendment. It provides that in the Bill, as it applies to Scotland, the expression "electoral area" will have the same meaning as in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In line 36, leave out "such," and insert "electoral."—[Mr. T. Fraser.]
    Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move in page 67, line 36, at the end, to add:
    "(4) Any reference to the report of an election court shall in relation to an election court under the Elections (Scotland) (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 18w, be construed as a reference to a finding of the court and the expression 'reported of a corrupt or illegal practice,' shall be construed accordingly."
    This is a drafting Amendment inasmuch as it was necessary to add these words to apply certain provisions of the Bill to Scotland; for example, Subsection (5) of Clause 49, and Subsection (1) of Clause 50.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Maclay: The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has made three admirable short speeches, but the fact that he is sitting surrounded by a large amount of paper cannot fail to make one feel that one ought to question him a little more closely on this Clause. Is there anything further he could say by way of explanation, with the assistance of the remarkable volume of paper beside him?
    Mr. Fraser: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that these papers have no connection with the Amendments which I have moved.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 73.—(General application to Northern Ireland.)
    Amendment made, In page 68, line 4, after "of." insert "the Parliament of." —[Mr. Younger.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 74.—(Commencement, repeals. etc.)
    Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 68, line 22, to leave out "autumn." and to insert "spring."
    The provision in this Bill relating to constituencies will be effective for the first General Election after the passing of this Bill. According to Subsection (1) the new registers will not be in force until the autumn of 1949. In the intervening period, if a General Election should occur —and I make no prophecy about that—the General Election would be fought upon the new constituencies but without the advantages of Part I in drawing up the registration lists. That would be very inconvenient, and the transition period caused thereby ought to be made as short as possible. That is the object of this Amendment.
    It ought to be possible to produce the new registers by the Spring, and in the event of a general election taking place during 1949 before the Autumn register is ready we should be in a better position. I hope I have made the point clear, and that the Home Secretary will say whether

    1901
    he can meet it. I think it is important to reduce this transition period to as short a period as possible in view of the disequilibrium which would take place if a general election had to be fought.
    Mr. F. Harris: This is a very important Clause, and I hope that the Home Secretary will accept the Amendment. I would like, first, to refer to a Question which I put to the Home Secretary the other day. I asked him whether it was proposed that the May, 1949, election of borough councillors should be contested on a register of electors to be published next October by reference to the occupation of premises on 30th June, 1948. His reply was in the affirmative. I intended to ask a supplementary question, but as I knew this point would be raised tonight, I refrained from doing so. I would like to know whether the Home Secretary agrees that the position at the moment is very unsatisfactory and whether, as it has been considered wise to adjust the election date from November to May, it would not be as well to hold elections on an up-to-date Spring register published in March, 1949.
    I raise this point because in an election a short while ago in the constituency which I represent, which had a certain amount of publicity, to my knowledge there were in the constituency some 5,000 or 6,000 people who, unfortunately, were not in a position to cast a vote. I consider that the vote in this country is very vital. Many of us have worked hard to obtain our votes, and it is imperative that everybody should be given the opportunity to cast a vote for the person whom he desires to support. It is to be regretted that apathy still exists, and that a large number of people do not take advantage of their votes; nevertheless, all who wish to vote should have an opportunity to do so.
    Let us consider the borough elections next year. In accordance with the provisions of this Bill, we shall have to refer to a register which is produced on a very antiquated basis. I believe there is only one satisfactory method of producing a register today, and that is by means of a house-to-house canvass in the constituency.
    The Chairman: I would remind the hon. Member that the only point raised by the Amendment is whether the first register prepared under this Bill should be an Autumn or a Spring register. Details of
    1902
    how it is made up, and so forth, are not relevant.
    Mr. Harris: With the greatest respect, Major Milner, those details are very relevant to my case.
    Mr. Hogg: Would not my hon. Friend be in Order if he argued that the method of preparing the present register is not so satisfactory as that proposed in the Bill, and that, therefore, it would be an advantage to produce the first register under the Bill in the Spring instead of the Autumn? I submit that that would be a relevant argument and, indeed, that was the sense in which I understood him.
    Mr. Harris: That is the point I am trying to lead up to. If there is no change, the borough elections in May, 1949, will be fought on the old register. Acceptance of this Amendment would mean fighting the borough elections in May, 1949, on the new system, with a register brought up to date at 31st December, 1948, which to me is a vital consideration. Under the present system the borough elections will be fought II months later on a very antiquated system, which will mean that in North Croydon, which is only half the borough, we shall be in the unfortunate position that there will be another 5,000 to 6,000 people who will not have the opportunity of casting their votes. That is a consideration of paramount importance to those people.
    I hope the Home Secretary will be prepared to concede that the date can be brought forward to 31st December. I am assured that the register can be produced on the new basis set down in this Bill, and can be published on 15th March, well in time for everybody to be ready for the elections in May, 1949. If there is an up-to-date register, compiled on a house-to-house canvass, we shall have an opportunity of achieving a true result, possibly for the first time in, say, Croydon for a very long time past. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to note that hon. Members opposite agree with me, and I hope that the Home Secretary also will be prepared to concede this point. He may say in reply that the task imposed upon the administrative authorities would be considerable. I am assured that it is by no means impossible. If this Amendment is accepted we can fight the borough elections of May, 1949, on an up-to-date register compiled to 31st December, 1948.
    Mr. Ede: I should like to be able to bring the provisions of the Bill into force in time for a Spring register to be published in 1949, but I am satisfied that it is physically impossible to do so in the time available. This Bill will not become law until well on in the present Session. We have not yet finished the Committee stage; there is still the Report stage and Third Reading; and there is the examination of the Measure in another place. After the Bill has been passed a vast series of regulations has to be drafted, brought into force, and made available for the scrutiny of the House of Commons and for the instruction of registration officers and others in the country. The registration officers will themselves have to instruct their staffs on the new method of compiling the election registers. If we are to get through all this procedure in order to get a Spring register next year at some point or other the work would have to be scamped.
    I am sure that the Committee would not agree to the first regulations made under this Bill being rushed. During our proceedings there have been indications that, quite rightly, the Committee will desire to scrutinise very carefully the first set of regulations made under the Bill. The hon. Member for North Croydon (Mr. F. Harris) said he had been told that it would be possible to get the register published if we had a qualifying date as late as 31st December. I have been in touch with the printing trades about the dates fixed in the Bill, and I had to go back a little earlier than the date I wanted to choose in the Bill because I was assured by the printing trades that, if a register is to be published on 15th March, the canvass must be completed well before the date mentioned by the hon. Member. I wanted to have 1st December as the qualifying date in the Bill, but I was unable to get it.
    8.15 p.m.
    The canvass forms themselves will be compiled subject to the regulations. Millions of them will have to be prepared for distribution throughout the country. It is only these physical limitations on the possibility of expediting the register which have led me to the unfortunate conclusion that I cannot accept this Amendment. I ask the Committee to believe me when I say that I desired a Spring register in 1949, but the physical
    1904
    difficulties that I am up against—the requirements of this House, and the requirements of the administrative staffs in the offices of the registration officers—make it impossible for me to bring the spring register into effect for 1949. I want the first register compiled under this Bill to be as good and complete a register as possible. I am certain that if this Amendment were accepted there would be many places in the country where a Spring register would not be available on the appointed day, and there would be a considerable outcry if one part of the country conducted local authority elections on one register and other parts of the country conducted them on another register. I should like to accept the Amendment, and it is only the physical impossibility of carrying it out which makes me ask the Committee to reject it.
    Mr. C. Williams: I, too, like the right hon. Gentleman, deeply regret that he has been, or is likely to be, obliged to reject this Amendment. I fully share with him the view that it is essential to do everything possible to make the new registration under this Bill as complete as we are able. Yet I am a little suspicious whether on this occasion he has not been slightly over-weighted in his mind by the natural difficulties which beset him. Obviously, the difficulties are great; but there is an enormous machine available to the Government for building up this kind of register. We are to have a new register which will be of vital importance to the electorate, and I am sorry that the difficulties of getting a new register have not been faced by the Home Secretary with the same vitality as the Government have faced other problems. It is curious that on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman has shown a vigorous capacity for research in discovering reasons for delay. I belong to a great progressive party, and for that reason I feel impelled to say that, although I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties, I am sorry he has not faced them with greater determination and a more progressive mind. There is a very earnest desire among the electorate to play a very full part in the management of their affairs. Any delay in the making of a new register will tend to have a bad effect upon them.
    Whether my right hon. and hon. Friends accept the excuses or the reasons of the Home Secretary I do not know,

    1905
    but I would like, on this occasion, to go into the Division Lobby in support of an earlier register. I believe that this work could be done. Much has been done to speed up this business in the past, and there is an enormous surplus of people, who are more or less skilled in these matters, who could be turned on to the job from other Departments. We have swallowed a good deal from the Government today, and I would like to express an opinion in the Division Lobby on this question. I do not suppose that Members opposite would support me, but there is no reason why those of us who really believe in democracy—[Laughter.] I am sorry to hear so large a number of supporters of the Government hoot with laughter when the word "democracy" is mentioned. Some of us, however, respect it, and sincerely believe in it, and are ready to work for it. That expression of opinion from supporters of the Government strengthens my view that the Home Secretary is not adopting a democratic attitude in this matter. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman should have forced me to take a critical view of his speech on this matter.
    Mr. F. Harris: I have already told the the Home Secretary about the unfortunate effect of the register in the recent by-election at North Croydon. I sincerely hoped that he would have been prepared to accept this Amendment. This is a very important matter; it is outside all political arguments or factions, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree that when an election is being held people should have the opportunity to cast their vote. The by-election in North Croydon was fought on a register which was produced in June, 1947. Nine months later, in half the borough, there were 5,000 to 6,000 people who were not in a position to cast their vote at all. Seven per cent. of the total number of electors went astray. We shall be faced with an even worse position in May, 1949, when, eleven months later—
    The Chairman: I am sorry but the hon. Gentleman is now repeating the substance of the speech he made a short time ago. He is not entitled to do that; he is only in Order if he has any fresh arguments to advance to the Committee.
    Mr. Harris: I am very young in this House, Major Milner, but I thought I was
    1906
    producing an entirely new argument. I was drawing a comparison between what happened in 1947 with what has happened this year and what will happen in 1949. I accept your Ruling without question, but I repeat, it is unfortunate that the Home Secretary will not allow people the vote to which they are entitled.
    Mr. Grimston: I am glad that the Home Secretary expressed his sympathy with this Amendment. I can appreciate his practical difficulties, but he will also appreciate the difficulties in running an election in the transition period, because there will be new constituencies and the old register will have to be carved up. To some extent, the practical objections on which the right hon. Gentleman based his inability to accept the Amendment are hypothetical. For instance, we do not know the date on which the Bill will become law. It may be sooner or later than the right hon. Gentleman expects. Would it not be possible to insert this provision as the latest date on which the first new register could be brought into force? Between now and the Report stage could not the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he can put some words into the Bill to enable him to advance the date, if the practical difficulties to which he referred turn out to be not so bad as he now thinks they are? The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the printing difficulty. I should have thought that in view of the shortage of paper printers would have been able to execute their orders more quickly.
    Mr. Ede: I will consider what the hon. Gentleman has suggested, but I do not like giving indications to the Committee about courses which I know, at the time I give them, I shall not be able to pursue. That is not a position which any Minister should adopt, and I consistently try, in my relationship with the Committee and the House, to say so definitely if I feel that I cannot do a thing. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I started out with the hope that the borough elections which will take place in May of next year should be fought on as up-to-date a register as possible. It is a disappointment to me that I have not been able to succeed. I will consider what has been suggested, but I hope the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) will not build on that the

    1907
    thought that I have spoken without acquainting myself of what are the real possibilities of the situation.
    Mr. Grimston: I appreciate that, and I am sure we would far rather be told what the right hon. Gentleman feels about any point and not have our hopes raised unduly. At the same time he might think it worth considering that he should allow himself a little elbow room so that he can improve the situation if it is found possible. In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 70, line 13, to leave out "order," and to insert "statutory instrument."
    This Amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State, when he appoints the day for the commencement of the Bill, does so by statutory instrument rather than by order. That will be acceptable to hon. Members of the Committee.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 75.—(Short title, and citation.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Hogg: I am sorry that the two Amendments which stood in my name have not commended themselves to the Chair, but I feel that some part of what I wished to say on those Amendments would be in Order on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." The Clause provides that this Bill may be cited as the Representation of the People Act, 1948. It further provides that it
    "shall be included among the Acts which may be cited as the Representation of the People Acts,"
    —a long series of honourable Acts of Parliament.
    So much has happened since this Bill was first introduced that I fear this title the "Representation of the People Act" is no longer appropriate or happy in the circumstances, and it would be a mockery to include it, as the second part of this Clause does, in that long line of Representation of the People Acts which great
    1908
    Liberal and Conservative Governments in the past carried into law. A more appropriate title to this Bill would be the "Representation of the Labour Party Bill," and I was prepared to advance numerous arguments to support this title as being the more appropriate of the two. I fear, however, as we are simply upon the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" that I am bound to criticise the title which is in the Clause without offering any arguments in support of an alternative title. If I do so I hope I shall not be criticised by hon. Members opposite as one who has no constructive alternative to offer.
    I do not consider that this Bill should be described by this honourable name. There are hon. Members opposite who in public and in private have told me that the name is appropriate on the grounds that the Labour Party will lose representation if all the provisions of the Bill are carried into effect, but that is not an argument of principle. It is true, of course, that the party opposite has for years enjoyed a number of rotten or pocket boroughs, which could no longer be justified on any satisfactory system of representation. It is true that the provisions of this Bill, in so far as they carry out the original recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, may be cited as putting away the anomaly of the undue representation of the Labour Party which is undoubtedly one of the features of this Parliament. In that sense the title the "Representation of the People Act" might be thought to be appropriate. I submit humbly to the Committee that that argument is specious rather than genuine, because a Measure is only entitled to be described as the "Representation of the People Act" if it proceeds upon the principle which provides for the better representation of the people. It is precisely at this point that this Bill falls short, and that one is compelled to feel that another title the "Representation of Something Other than the People Act," would be a slightly more appropriate designation. The original number—
    The Chairman: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that he is not entitled to indulge in a Second Reading speech. He must keep himself precisely to the contents of the Clause and, if he will

    1909
    forgive me for saying so, there is not a great deal that can be said about it which would be in Order.
    Mr. Hogg: You would be surprised, Major Milner. I was searching in my own mind for the various things I could say or wanted to say which would also be in Order, and I was trying to be particularly careful to confine myself solely to the two questions raised by this important Clause—first of all, whether it can properly be called the "Representation of the People Act" or not; and, secondly, whether it ought to be cited and included among the series of other Acts known as the Representation of the People Acts, which are familiar to the Committee. As a matter of fact, at the point which I had reached I was going to consider the question whether there was any reason why this particular Bill should be included as one of the series of honourable Acts which great Liberal and Conservative Governments of the past have passed.
    I was designing to address to the Committee certain arguments to show that this Bill was not properly one of that series. To begin with, the other Acts, amongst which it is proposed now to include this one and which were all named by the same designation, embodied one of two or three well established constitutional procedures. In the first place, either they were introduced as a result of a General Election, in which the principles embodied in them had been actively canvassed with the electorate, and, therefore, were properly called the Representation of the People Acts
    The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is quite clearly going into the merits and indulging in what might be appropriate on another occasion but not in reference to this Clause. I am afraid he cannot continue on that line.
    Mr. Hogg: I am particularly anxious to bow to your Ruling in this matter, Major Milner, but in my submission to the Chair we must consider, if we are including in this Clause a provision that the Bill, which we are now passing in Committee, should be known by a particular name and should be included as one of a series of Acts bearing that particular name.
    The Chairman: On that point the only argument which the hon. Member can put is on some technical ground and not on the
    1910
    merits. It he were able to say that on some technical ground it was not appropriate that this Act should be included he would be in Order, but in my view he is not in Order in dealing with the merits.
    Mr. Hogg: I am afraid I was not making myself clear. I was not for the moment seeking to suggest that this was not a perfectly good Bill in its own way. That is a question on which no doubt I have strong views, but I should be out of Order if I tried to press them on the Committee at this stage. Nor was I trying to suggest that the other Acts, which are to be included in this Bill under this Clause by the came designation, were not perfectly good Acts in their own way. I was solely addressing myself to the cold, technical question whether this Bill can properly be called the Representation of the People Act, and I was seeking to compare this Bill, to which this name is sought to be given—
    The Chairman: The hon. Member will, I am sure, appreciate that so soon as he begins to do that, he begins to discuss the merits of the various Acts which are in eluded and that is out of Order.
    Mr. Hogg: May I not, with due submission, put this to the Chair on the purely technical question of what is appropriate —supposing that the first 74 Clauses of this Bill contained nothing whatever except a series of provisions regarding the artificial insemination of cattle, and Clause 75 then went on to say:
    "This Act may be cited as the Representation of the People Act, 1948, and…shall be included among the Acts which may be cited as the Representation of the People Acts."
    The Chairman: I cannot admit that argument. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat unless he has some other point to raise.
    Mr. Hogg: If the illustration did not meet with your approval, Major Milner, I will gladly withdraw it and substitute any other. The point, and the sole point, which I was trying to put to you was that, supposing it to be true as a matter of principle that the other 74 Clauses have nothing whatever to do with the title proposed in the 75th Clause, which is what I submit to be the case here—
    The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a frivolous and, indeed,

    1911
    an impossible argument. In any event, it does not apply in this case, and, therefore, it is quite irrelevant.
    Mr. Hogg: With respect to the Chair and further to that point of Order, do I understand, Major Milner, that you are now ruling from the Chair that the title is an appropriate title? With respect, that is the matter which the Committee is entitled to discuss on the Question that Clause 75 stand part of the Bill. I am seeking the right from you, as Chairman, to put before the Committee—I am not asking the Committee to accept them if they do not care to do so—arguments which are designed to show that the title is inappropriate to the Bill because the contents of the Bill do not fit in with the title. It must be proper at some stage of a Bill that this should be the subject of some discussion. I submit that I must be in Order in putting an argument of that character—
    The Chairman: That argument might have been perfectly appropriate on Second Reading, but it is certainly not appropriate now. The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but it seems to me quite impossible to carry on an argument on the lines he is proposing without in some sense impinging on the general merits of the Bill, and he is not entitled to do that. The only matters I can think of to which he can properly address himself are technical matters. It appears that he does not desire to address himself to such matters. That being the case, I must rule him out of Order and ask him to resume his seat.
    Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of Order. I am not addressing the Committee on the subject of the Clause but putting a point of Order. This is the Clause which gives the Bill a title. I submit that it is a technical matter and that it is within the Rules of Order, on the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill, to argue that the title is totally inappropriate to the nature of the Bill. I am submitting that whereas it would be conceded that the merits of the Bill, be they good, bad or indifferent, are inappropriate and out of Order, nevertheless the contents of the Bill are appropriate in the general sense, and if it can be shown that the title of the Bill is totally inappropriate to the contents, it
    1912
    must be open to discussion that the title ought not to be passed.
    Mr. Tolley: On a point of Order, is the hon. Member—
    Mr. Hogg: I am on a point of Order. This is not the ordinary short title Clause. This is a Clause which says, first of all, that this Bill shall be given a particular name and, secondly, that it shall be cited, with certain other Bills, as the Representation of the People Acts. I submit that it must be open to the Committee, on discussion of the Question whether this Clause shall stand part of the Bill, to discuss the matter without in the least going into the merits of the other Acts, which is something which I should not in any way seek to do. It must be in Order to suggest as a purely technical matter of Parliamentary draftmanship, without going into the other question at all, that this series of Acts ought not to be known by the same designation but ought perhaps to be known by a series of designations.
    8.45 p.m.
    The Chairman: Perhaps it is not clear to the hon. Gentleman but it is clear to me, and, I hope, to the Committee that if the hon. Gentleman's argument were to be accepted, its very essence is that he desires to discuss the nature of the Bill. That involves the merits of the Bill. He is not at this stage entitled to make a Second Reading speech or to discuss the merits of the Bill, and that being the case, I must rule him out of Order.
    Mr. Byers: Further to that point of Order, Major Milner. I wonder if I could have some clarification, because while I do not agree with very much of what the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) was saying, he is deploying a line of argument which I was intending to put to the Committee. Surely it is possible to argue on this Clause that the name of the Bill is wrongly conceived, irrespective of the merits of the Bill? I was going to suggest that because it perpetuates an unfair electoral situation, it should be called the Redistribution of Seats and Miscellaneous Electoral Provisions Bill. Surely, it is in Order to make such a protest? If it is not in Order on this Clause, I do not see where it can be in Order.
    The Chairman: I must point out that, quite obviously, that proposition involves

    1913
    a review of the Clauses of the Bill and such a review is out of Order at this stage and on this Motion.
    Mr. Byers: With all respect—this is an important point—I submit that it does not require a review of any part of the Bill at all. Having arrived at the end of the Bill and looking back on the Bill, we say that it has got the wrong title because of what is contained in the Bill. I suggest that we are entitled to argue that.
    Mr. Attewell: On a point of Order, Major Milner, would it not be better if the arguments used by the two hon. Members were used on the stage at the Palladium?
    Mr. Hogg: Further to the point of Order by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Byers), it very often happens that important questions of principle are decided on Rulings of this kind which go rather beyond the nature of the Ruling, and I submit that if your Ruling were to be taken literally, it would mean that when we came to the short title Clause in a Bill in future during a Committee stage, we would no longer be free as a Committee to discuss the appropriateness of the title because we would no longer be free to discuss whether or not the name fitted the Bill. In my submission, that would be a very serious Ruling to have made, and one which would seriously curtail the freedom of Parliamentary discussion. Hon. Members opposite may not have liked what I said about the merits of this Clause—I should not expect them to, and they were not intended to—but it would be a great pity if, because of that, we landed ourselves in a situation in which it was impossible to discuss—
    The Chairman: I really cannot allow the argument to continue. I have given, to the best of my ability, a Ruling on the specific question which arises today. As to how far my Rulings will have effect in future, that is a matter for the future. I do not profess to lay down any rules about that.
    Mr. C. Williams: I wish to say only a few words and they will be on the technical effect of the words in the Clause. On the word "representation," I would not have dreamt of going into the back Clauses, but I would say that in a technical sense, in reference to the general structure of what has been done in the Bill, that word was a misnomer. I would
    1914
    not say that it was over- or under-representative, and I would not say this or that Clause, but I would like to suggest that in a purely technical sense it is not an accurate matter as far as this Clause is concerned. Now, I will turn to another word about which, Major Milner, I think, you allowed the hon. Member for Oxford to say a word or two, namely, whether the word "people" was accurate or inaccurate in a technical sense. Without going into any argument, I would like to express my own personal opinion that the title of the Bill in the technical sense—
    Hon. Members: Order.
    The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has great experience of the Chair, but I must point out that by the mere use of the word "technical" he does not make his argument a technical one, and in my view he is out of Order.
    Mr. Williams: I apologise most sincerely. I had no intention whatever of evading your Ruling, Major Milner, I would never dream of doing so.
    Mr. Logan: On a point of Order, Major Milner; on four occasions you have called hon. Members to Order, and they are still persisting in the same buffoonery. When will they be asked to resume their seats and let the business go on?
    The Chairman: I must call on the hon. Member to withdraw the words he used. He is not entitled to cast reflections on hon. Members.
    Mr. Logan: With all due respect, and further to what you have just said to me, Major Milner, I am sorry if I have said anything unparliamentary, but, listening to the hon. Members, I find it is an insult to this side of the Committee when they use the term "Labour Party" in substitution for the word "people."
    Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order—
    Mr. Logan: What is the matter with the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams)?
    Mr. Hogg: I must ask you, Major Milner, to direct the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan), who is now bouncing up and down in his seat, to withdraw—
    Mr. Logan: I did.
    Mr. Hogg: I did not hear him withdraw, and I do not believe he did.
    Mr. Logan: If the hon. Member did not hear me, I will do it now. If I have said anything unparliamentary I unreservedly withdraw my remarks but, none the less, I say that I am sick and tired of the buffoonery on that side.
    Mr. Williams: Of course, I accept entirely the hon. Member's withdrawal. I quite realise that he is bound—
    Mr. Logan: I realise it is a lot of tomfoolery.
    Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order, Major Milner, I have heard the hon. Gentleman who recently was compelled to withdraw his remarks—
    The Chairman: I should be obliged if the hon. Member would permit me to conduct the proceedings from the Chair.
    Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order, Major Milner—
    The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has raised a large number of points of Order, several of them being extremely
    repetitious ones. He is not entitled to go on doing that indefinitely. He is interrupting and obstructing the business of the Committee. With every respect to the hon. Member, I shall have to direct him in the first instance to resume his seat if he persists in doing that. I call upon Mr. Charles Williams.
    Mr. Williams: I should have been fortunate if there had been no interruptions because I should have finished long ago. The apology of the hon. Gentleman I accept absolutely, with the knowledge that I am sent here for the purpose of criticism. As far as the technical side of this Clause is concerned, I have no wish to prolong the discussion, but I emphasise that the title of the Bill is a completely wrong description of the Bill as it stands, and that it should not be called the Representation of the People Bill but should be called the Representation of the Socialist Party Bill.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 78.

    Division No. 130.

    AYES.

    8.55 p.m

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Cooper, Wing-Comdr, G

    Gooch, E. G.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Cove, W. G

    Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

    Attewell, H. C.

    Crawley, A.

    Guy, W. H.

    Austin, H. Lewis

    Crossman, R. H S

    Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Daggar, G.

    Hale, Leslie

    Bacon, Miss A,

    Daines, P.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

    Balfour, A.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R.

    Barstow, P. G

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

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

    Barton, C.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Hardy, E. A.

    Battley, J. R.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Harrison, J.

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Deer, G

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F J

    Delargy, H. J

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kigswinford)

    Benson, G.

    Diamond, J

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Berry, H.

    Dobbie, W.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Beswick, F.

    Dodds, N. N

    Hewitson, Capt. M

    Binns, J.

    Donovan, T

    Hobson, C. R.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Dumpleton, C. W

    Holman, P

    Blyton, W. R.

    Durbin, E. F M.

    House, G.

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

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Hoy, J.

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

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

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

    Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

    Janner, B.

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

    Evans, John (Ogmore)

    Jay, D. P. T.

    Buchanan, R Hon. G

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Burden, T. W.

    Ewart, R.

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

    Burke, W. A.

    Farthing, W. J

    Johnston, Douglas

    Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

    Callaghan, James

    Field, Capt. W. J

    Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A

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

    Jones, J. H. (Bolton)

    Champion, A. J

    Forman, J. C.

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    Cluse, W S.

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    Keenan, W.

    Cobb, F. A.

    Freeman, J. (Watford)

    Kenyon, C.

    Cocks, F S.

    Gaitskell, Rt. Han H T N

    Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E

    Coldrick, W

    Gallacher, W.

    Kinley, J.

    Collick, P.

    Ganley, Mrs. C S

    Lawson, Rt. Hon J J

    Collindridge F

    Gibson, C. W.

    Leonard, W.

    Collins, V. J

    Gilzean, A.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Cook, T F

    Glanville, J E (Consett)

    Lindgren, G. S

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Logan, D. G.

    Pearson, A.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Lyne, A. W

    Peart, T. F.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    McAdam, W

    Perrins, W.

    Tiffany, S.

    McAllister, G.

    Platts-Mills, J. F. F

    Titterington, M. F

    McEntee, V. La T

    Popplewell, E,

    Tolley, L.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Porter, E (Warring on)

    Turner-Samuels, M

    Mack, J. D.

    Price, M. Philips

    Ungoed-Thomas, L

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

    Pursey, Cmdr. H

    Usborne, Henry

    McKinlay, A. S.

    Randall, H E.

    Vernon, Maj. W. F

    Maclean, N. (Govan)

    Ranger, J.

    Viant, S. P.

    McLeavy, F.

    Rankin, J.

    Walkden, E.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Reeves, J.

    Walker, G. H.

    Mann, Mrs. J.

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E)

    Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

    Rhodes, H.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Richards, R.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M

    Watson, W. M

    Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

    Robens, A.

    Weitzman, D.

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

    Mellish, R J.

    Sargood, R.

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Scollan, T.

    West, D. G.

    Millington, Wing-Comdr E R

    Scott-Elliot, W.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)

    Mitchison, G. R

    Sharp, Granville

    White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W)

    Moody, A. S.

    Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

    Morley, R.

    Shurmer, P.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Wilkes, L.

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

    Simmons, C. J.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Smith, C. (Colchester)

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Mort, D. L.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Moyle, A.

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

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Mulvey, A

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Williams, R. W. (Wigan)

    Murray, J. D

    Soskice, Sir Frank

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

    Nally, W

    Sparks, J. A

    Willis, E.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Steele, T.

    Woodburn, A

    Neal, H. (Claycross)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Woods, G. S.

    Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)

    Stross, Dr. B,

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

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

    Stubbs, A. E.

    Younger, Hon. Kenneth

    O'Brien, T.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Parker, J.

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Mr. Snow and

    Paton, Mrs F (Rushcliffe)

    Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

    Mr. George Wallace.

    NOES.

    Baldwin, A. E.

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

    Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

    Birch, Nigel

    Kendall, W. D.

    Prescott, Stanley

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

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H

    Rayner, Brig, R,

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

    Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Renton, D.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

    Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

    Robinson, Roland

    Byers, Frank

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

    Sanderson, Sir F.

    Carson, E.

    McCallum, Maj. D.

    Scott, Lord W.

    Challen, C.

    MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

    Smiles. Lt.-Col. Sir W

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

    McFarlane, C. S.

    Snadden, W. M.

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

    Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)

    Spearman, A. C. M

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Spence, H. R.

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Dodds-Parker A. D.

    Maude, J. C.

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

    Drayson, G. B

    Medlicott, Brigadier F

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

    Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

    Mellor, Sir J.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N

    Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Turton, R. H.

    Gage, C.

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

    Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

    Wadsworth, G.

    George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Mullan, Lt. C. H.

    Wakefield, Sir W. W.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Nicholson, G.

    Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E)

    Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

    Noble, Comdr. A. H P

    White, Sir D. (Fareham)

    Harvey, Air-Cmdre, A. V.

    Odey, G. W.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Haughton, S. G.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H

    York, C.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Peto, Brig, C. H. M

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Mr. Frederic Harris and

    Mr. Hogg.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    NEW CLAHSE.—(Situation of polling stations at local government elections.)
    At any local government election the polling station allotted to electors from any parliamentary polling district wholly or partly within the electoral area shall, in the absence of special circumstances, be in the parlia-
    1918
    mentary polling place for that district, unless the polling place is outside the electoral area; and any power to constitute polling districts for the purpose of local government elections shall be exercised with that in view.—[Mr, Younger.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    I think this new Clause will commend itself to all hon. Members. Its object is to secure, as far as practicable, that the polling arrangements at local government elections shall be the same as they are at Parliamentary elections. I am sure the Committee will agree that that will be a great convenience to electors and will avoid the confusion which sometimes arises. There is an exception, where the Parliamentary polling place is altogether outside the electoral area in the local government election, but, subject to that, it is hoped that in nearly all cases it will be possible for persons to vote in the same place in Parliamentary and local government elections.
    Clause added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Avoidance of election for general corruption, etc.)
    (1) Where on an election petition it is shown that offences under the corrupt practices Act committed in reference to the election for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of any person thereat have so extensively prevailed that they may be reasonably supposed to have affected the result, his election, if he has been elected, shall be void and he shall be incapable of being elected to fill the vacancy or any of the vacancies for which the election was held.
    (2) In Section eighty-seven of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, and Section thirty of the Elections (Scotland) (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1890 (which provide that an election may, on the grounds there mentioned, be questioned by petition, and not otherwise), for the references to an election being avoided by general bribery, treating, undue influence or personation there shall be substituted a reference to its being avoided under this Section.
    (3) For the purpose of the enactments relating to the time within which an election petition may be presented or amended, an allegation that an election is avoided under this Section shall be deemed to be an allegation of corrupt practices, notwithstanding that the offences alleged are or include offences other than corrupt practices.
    (4) The reference in Subsection (1) of this Section to offences under the corrupt practices Act shall include offences under any other enactment which are punishable as corrupt or illegal practices under that Act.—[Mr. Younger.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    As many hon. Members will be aware, the existing law about the avoidance of
    1920
    elections as a result of general corruption is somewhat confused, and in some respects anomalous. There is a difference, for which there appears to be no obvious ground, between the effect of general corruption upon a Parliamentary and a local election, and also a difference between the effect of corrupt practices and the effect of prevalent illegal practices. The new Clause seeks to make the law reasonably uniform in those respects. By the combined effect of Subsection (1) and Subsection (4) it is provided that both Parliamentary and local elections may be made void owing to the general prevalence either of corruption or of illegal practices, provided they prevail to such an extent as may reasonably be supposed to have influenced the result of the election.
    Subsection (2) provides that a local election may be questioned by petition. That only refers to local elections because the situation in that respect is adequately covered in respect of Parliamentary elections not by Statute, but by case law. Subsection (3) provides that the time for presenting a petition under this Clause shall be the normal time, 21 days after the election. Although it makes the slight alterations to which I have alluded, the Clause does little more than consolidate in order to secure uniformity between two types of election.
    Mr. C. Williams: I can see nothing wrong with the technical side of this Clause. It is obvious that, as the Under-Secretary has stated, the two main guiding points are the first and fourth Subsections of the Clause. There is also a technical provision under Subsection (3). It is an exceedingly awkward and inconvenient fact, however, that this rather technical Clause should come before us now as a new Clause instead of having been in the original Bill. I rise to protest against the fact that it was not in the Bill originally, and that it has been left to hinder and hold up the present stage of the Bill by having to be brought before us now. I regret that our time should be wasted in that Way.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to have the support of some hon. Members opposite. It shows, among other things, that they are beginning to realise that it is due to the incompetence of their Front Bench that we have to do this now.
    Clause added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAusE.—(Application of Part III to City of London.)
    (1) For the purposes of Part III of this Act, the expression "local government area," shall include the City of London, the expression "local government election," shall include any municipal election in that City (that is to say, any election to which the local corrupt practices Act is applied by section thirty-five thereof) and the expression "corporate office," shall include any office mentioned in paragraph (1) of that section:
    Provided that in relation to municipal elections in the City of London the said Part III shall have effect subject to the modifications hereafter mentioned in this section.
    (2) In relation to those elections—

    (a) in subsection (3) of section thirty-eight the reference to the day of election shall be taken as a reference to the day fixed for the election and (where a poll is taken) any day thereafter up to and including the day of the poll, but in relation to a meeting held with reference to an election other than an annual election that subsection shall not apply to an offence committed on or before the day on which the precept is issued;

    (b) the expression "vote" in sections forty-five and forty-six shall not include voting otherwise than on a poll, and in the said section forty-six sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) shall not apply;

    (c) subsection (2) of section thirty-eight and subsection (2) of section forty-eight shall not apply.

    (3) In relation to ward elections—

    (a) the expression "electoral area" means ward;

    (b) subsection (4) of section thirty-six shall not apply.

    (4) In relation to elections other than ward elections—

    (a) the expression "electoral area" means the City of London;

    (b) sections thirty-six, forty and forty-two shall not apply, and accordingly—

    (i) section twenty-one of the local corrupt practices Act shall be modified as mentioned in subsection (2) of section thirty-seven of this Act, except that the form of declaration as to election expenses shall be such as may be prescribed by Act of Common Council; and

    (ii) in subsection (1) of section forty-eight of this Act, paragraph (b) shall not apply and references to subsection (1) and to subsection (7) of the said section twenty-one shall respectively be substituted for the references to subsection (2) or subsection (4) of section twenty-nine and to section thirty-four of the corrupt practices Act.—[Mr. Younger.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    Owing to the special position of the City of London in regard to its local elec-
    1922
    tions, Part II of the Bill, which applies to local government elections, does not apply to the City of London. When we come to Part III, which deals with corrupt and illegal practices, it seems clear that that part of the Bill should be made to apply to the City of London, subject of course to any technical modifications which may be needed in order to adapt it to the methods used in the City. By virtue of previous legislation the former rules regarding corrupt and illegal practices as they existed before this Bill were applied in this way to elections in the City of London, and what we are doing is to bring up to date what is quite an old practice.
    There is no substantial change in the procedure involved in the City of London. It is a rather technical matter, caused of course by the peculiar provisions of the various Acts which are in force in the City of London. I do not know that I need go through every paragraph of the new Clause, but I should say that Subsection (1) merely makes necessary adjustments in terminology. The first two provisions of Subsection (2) are inserted because in the City of London there are still elections which take place by a show of hands, and not by a poll. Therefore, adaptation is needed. Subsection (2, c) is inserted to exclude certain earlier provisions of this Bill—Clause 38 (2) and Clause 48 (2)—as regards the City of London because there are corresponding provisions in force adapted to the position of the City which seem to be quite satisfactory.
    Subsection (3) is instituted because in Clause 36 of this Bill, which is affected, the term "first ordinary election" is used, and "ordinary election" is not a phrase which is applicable in the City of London. Once again, a modification has to be made. Finally, Subsection (4) relates only to City elections other than those of aldermen and Common Council men, that is the election of the Mayor and Sheriffs. It refers to the appointment of election agents, and it really does not seem necessary to insist that election agents should be appointed in those particular elections for the Mayor and Sheriffs. Therefore, modification in the application of Part III of this Bill is made in that respect.
    Clause added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Transport facilities at elections.)
    (1) No person shall use a motor car or any such like vehicle for the conveyance of voters to or from a polling station during the holding of a parliamentary or local government election, provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent the owner from using such vehicle for his or her personal conveyance and of any person in residence with them.
    (2) It shall be a statutory duty of the returning officer in a parliamentary or local government election to provide transport facilities, if available, to and from the polling station for persons entitled to vote and who in the opinion of the said returning officer may owing to a casual illness be prevented from recording their vote unless means of transport were available, provided that no transport shall be so provided beyond the limits of the said parliamentary boundary or in the case of a municipal election the electoral division or ward.
    (3) The returning officer shall cause a public notice to be published in the local press setting out the form of application for transport facilities, the closing date for such applications shall not be earlier than six clear days prior to the date of the poll.—[Mr. McLeavy.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    9.15 p.m.
    Mr. Frank McLeavy: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This new Clause seeks to prohibit the general use of motor cars by candidates for the purpose of conveying electors to the poll at Parliamentary and municipal elections. Provision is made for the returning officers to provide transport facilities for persons suffering from a casual illness. It is assumed that the returning officers would form a pool of available cars, and that public-spirited owners would be willing to place their cars at the disposal of the returning officers. It is also felt that the national motoring associations would be willing to co-operate in carrying out this public duty. I believe that the motoring community would respond to any appeal which was made. If, however, sufficient cars were not available from voluntary sources, the returning officers would hire as many as might be available for this purpose.
    Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill deal with the problem of persons prevented from voting at Parliamentary and local government elections because of illness and other difficulties. I assume that this would mean that such persons would have to be placed on the absent voters' register.
    1924
    What I am concerned about, therefore, is casual illness. If this new Clause were accepted, it would be essential that casual illness should be catered for as indicated in the Clause. In moving the Second Reading of the Bill my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in what I thought was a very clear and explanatory speech, said:
    "This Bill completes the progress of the British people towards a full and complete democracy begun by the great Reform Bill of 1832…This Bill wipes out the last of the privileges that have been retained by special classes in the franchise of this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1948; Vol. 447, c. 839.]
    This was indeed a very bold statement to make. I should be the last person in this Committee to deny to the Home Secretary full credit for the far-reaching reforms which are contained in this Bill, but it can hardly be claimed that this Bill completes the progress of British people towards a full and complete democracy if we still have the unlimited use of motor cars by one candidate, to the detriment of others. To my mind, democracy is not represented by a collection of high-sounding phrases, but by the application of the principle of fair play and equity. It was said, I think by the late Lord Hewart, when speaking on the subject of the administration of justice, that justice must not only be done, but must manifestly be seen to be done. We cannot claim that justice is being done if we allow this abominable system to continue. It is foreign to the true conception of democracy and out of accord with the spirit and purpose of this great Bill. It is a system which loads the dice heavily on the side of the wealthy candidate. It almost makes our electoral laws for the prevention of corruption a mockery and sham.
    This is by no means a new issue arising from the desire of the present Labour majority to impose some unjustifiable restriction upon the more wealthy sections of the community. It has been the subject of Parliamentary and public discussion for many years. I ask the Committee particularly to note that 65 years ago a Measure was introduced in Parliament which eventually became the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883. That Act went some way to remove some of the evils then present in the electoral system. Section 7 made it illegal to make any payment or to enter into any contract

    1925
    of payment for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate. Subsection (3) of that Section expressly allowed the hiring and use by voters of any kind of vehicle provided it is for their own use. There is nothing in the law to prevent the use of privately owned cars. Section 14 of the 1883 Act prohibits the hiring and letting for hire of any public, stage or hackney carriage. Therefore, hackney carriages cannot be used to convey voters to the poll. It is clear that it is unlawful under that Act to buy pints of beer for voters, but we may use gallons of petrol to take them to the poll.
    I understand that the Debate on that Measure lasted for many nights and that Mr. Gladstone, Lord Randolph Churchill and other distinguished Members took part. It is reported that a strong case was put up in favour of the view that if the hiring of vehicles was to be abolished, as in fact it was, equally the lending of vehicles ought to be abolished. One hon. Member, in following up this point, said that the lending or hiring of carriages for electoral purposes appeared to be one and the same thing in principle, because it conferred a distinct advantage on the rich man over the poor man. Mr. H. H. Fowler, afterwards Sir Henry Fowler, then Member for Wolverhampton, pointed out that the Measure proposed to forbid the man who could afford two guineas to hire a carriage from doing so, while it continued to permit the man who could afford 200 guineas for the permanent ownership of a carriage to use that vehicle for the conveyance of himself and his friends to the poll. He went on—[Interruption.]
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: On a point of Order. In view of the noise that is being produced on this side of the Committee, will the hon. Member repeat the last few phrases?
    The Deputy-Chairman: May I ask hon. Members to be silent, and to allow the hon. Member to resume his speech? I myself was unable to hear what the hon. Member was saying.
    Mr. McLeavy: The occasion upon which the use of motor cars was raised was a private Member's Bill brought forward in Parliament in 1938 by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner). The new Clause now before the Committee conforms very
    1926
    closely to the terms and spirit of the Bill which my right hon. and gallant Friend proposed in 1938, the only difference being that, in the proposed Bill of 1938, provision was made for transport to be provided by returning officers in case of age, sickness and infirmity, and also for conveyances in country districts. The reason we have left out these two provisions contained in the proposed Bill of 1938 is because of the system which is being applied by the present Bill of postal voting and the increased number of polling stations in the country districts.
    I recommend this new Clause to the Committee, because I believe that it is unfair that motor cars should be allowed to be used, either at Parliamentary of local government elections, by those who are privileged to own the cars or to accumulate a number of cars. It is not merely a question of Parliamentary elections, but also one affecting municipal elections. I remember very well some 12 years ago fighting for a seat on the county council in an area which consisted of a municipal borough and a large number of small areas It was almost a Parliamentary division in itself. I found myself on election day without a single car for my own personal use in order to allow me to visit some of the outlying polling stations, while my Conservative opponent was very proud of the fact that he had over 50 cars at his disposal in order to take electors to the poll. However happy Members of the Opposition might be in such circumstances, it is neither fair nor reasonably good citizenship that the balance of conveyances should be all on one side.
    I think that, if our democracy is going to work at all, it must work out fairly as between all the respective parties. I therefore ask the Home Secretary to agree to accept this new Clause, which, at least, will right a very great wrong, and will restore a position, both in Parliamentary and local government elections, which will be fair and equitable to every section of the community.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Fernyhough: I am quite sure that this Clause must appeal to the fair-mindedness of hon. Members opposite. I have always believed that the Tories were quite sincere when they have said that in this democracy there should be equality of opportunity. Tonight they

    1927
    have a chance to demonstrate that they do not want any advantage merely because they have deep pockets and big bank balances which enable them to have cars which many of the workers who make the cars can never hope to own. It would be good for their self-respect if they agreed to this Clause.
    What do we see when we take part in elections? I have seen the big limousines pass Mrs. Jones waiting at the bus stop, probably with a baby in her arms; but when it is election day, how kind and considerate are the people in those cars to Mrs. Jones. She is somebody who must be seen to, somebody to be assisted. When I see the way those cars are used for picking up people on election days, by people who pass them in the street like dirt on other days, I think it is hypocritical. I remember the Jarrow by-election. At that time there was a danger that we might lose Jarrow because the Road Haulage Association decided to show the Tory Party how to defeat the Socialist candidate. They came in with all their cars. Their organisation was like the municipal transport service. There were at least 250 cars—more cars than Jarrow had ever seen. Of course, the cars departed when the result was declared; and the people of Jarrow have not seen them since, and are not likely to see them again.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: There has been no petrol.
    Mr. Fernyhough: We had seven cars. We were so short of cars that although I started to make a tour of the polling booths at 8.30 in the morning, I did not manage to get to the last polling booth until one minute to nine at night. The reason was that we were so short of cars, and the car I had was used to fetch in some poor cripples who would not go in a Tory car.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Why not?
    Mr. Fernyhough: Because they were honest. There cannot be a real and true democracy as long as one party has the power to bring hundreds of voters to the poll when that power and privilege is denied to other candidates. I ask hon. Members opposite, who I sometimes feel, in my kinder moments, are not quite so bad as other people make them out to be—
    Mr. Scollan: Is my hon. Friend a "crypto" Conservative?
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Send us a telegram.
    Mr. Fernyhough: I would send the hon. Member a telegram with pleasure, but my elementary education is such that I do not think he would understand the language.
    Mr. J. H. Hare: Put it in Italian.
    Mr. Fernyhough: I do not know much about the Italians or their language. If you really believe in fair play, if you believe that two men should enter a contest with equal chances, this is a Clause you should support, because it is one by which you as a party can demonstrate—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I must remind the hon. Member that I am not a party.
    Mr. Fernyhough: I apologise, Mr. Beaumont. By supporting this Clause hon. Members opposite can demonstrate their sincerity to those workers from whom they are so anxious to get support; they can win that support by revealing that they believe in fair play for all parties.
    Mr. Sidney Marshall: One car, one vote.
    Mr. Baldwin: I cannot help thinking that the supporters of this new Clause are living in the world of 25 to 30 years ago. Nowadays, there are as many Socialist Party members as members of the Tory Party with cars. It is quite unfair to expect voters in remote country districts such as mine to walk five miles and back to the polling station. I speak with some experience of running a car at elections, and I know that 25 or 30 years ago it may have been true to say that the Conservative Party had more cars at their disposal than the Socialist Party. Many people cannot get home from the polling station unless they are taken in a vehicle of some sort, and it is unfair for hon. Members to condemn people living in remote country districts to long walks after they have done a day's work, in order to go to the polling station and then to walk home.
    My part of the country may be different from that of some hon. Members, but there we have no hesitation in taking to the poll

    1929
    a man who may be voting against us. I have often taken to the poll a man who I knew perfectly well would vote against me. I remember one man who resolutely refused to go to vote, but his wife came with me, and she voted on our side; but it might just as easily have been the other way round. I hope that this new Clause will not be taken seriously. I do not understand the wording of the Clause where it says:
    "motor car or any such like vehicle."
    Mr. Scollan: Why not a barrow?
    Mr. Baldwin: Could that refer to a smallholder's donkey and cart? Cannot a smallholder take his neighbour or a friend to the poll in his own horse vehicle? This Clause is wrong and out of date and, like all controls that are being imposed on the country at present, will lead to further wangling, and I hope that the Government will not accept it.
    Mr. Keenan: Those who had motorcars, which they used at elections in the past, or whose friends had motorcars, have had an advantage. Those of us from my part of the country, who have had a long experience of electioneering, have felt for many years that this advantage was unfair. I do not wish to attempt to be humorous—not that I am a comedian of any kind—but I hope that as a result of this Clause I shall be spared the necessity, in future, of advising people who want to vote for me, or for one of my friends, to ride to the polling booth in someone else's car. There may be a case for consideration for the rural areas, but I think the time has come to make this change in our electoral law. We should so arrange it that one side will not have an advantage over the other through the use of motorcars.
    Mr. Gage: This is a serious Clause, which should be taken seriously. I have to make up my mind whether to support it or not and, in doing so, I look at the words of the Clause in the first line of which it says:
    "No person shall use a motorcar or any such like vehicle…"
    Before I make up my mind whether to support the Clause or not, I need to know from its Mover what is meant by the words "any such like vehicle"? I
    1930
    therefore propose to put two serious questions to the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. McLeavy), which I hope he will answer. First, do the words "any such like vehicle" include a hearse? During my election campaign I found myself in the undignified and regrettable position of having to go to meetings in a form of cart which some people would describe as a hearse, and which was certainly drawn by two hearse horses. I felt that horses of a better type should have been provided. Later, I observed these horses galloping through the streets, drawing vehicles which were filled with my supporters going to the poll. Will I be deprived, by means of the words "any such like vehicle", of the use of these admirable carts, which took my humble supporters to the poll? I can assure the hon. Member that most of my constituents cannot afford a motorcar, and have never had a motorcar.
    The next question I ask the hon. Gentleman is: do these words include donkey carts? The hon. Member described an occasion when he was fighting for a seat on his county council. That is nothing to the time when constituents of mine are fighting for a seat on the donkey cart, to get from the place where they live to the polling booth. That is one of the methods by which they get there. These things must be explained, and I hope the hon. Member for East Bradford, who moved this Amendment, will tell the Committee what he means.
    9.45 P.m.
    Miss Bacon: I only want to make a short point and to raise a query. I agree wholeheartedly with the principle of this new Clause, but I must confess that I have certain misgivings about the way in which it is drafted, because I believe it leaves certain loopholes whereby some sections of the community could evade the law. Most of us will realise that a great number of the constituencies in this country are composed at one end of a poor part, where there are very few car owners at all, and at the other end of better-off people where there is a car in almost every house in each street or road.
    I want to feel certain in my own mind that we are not prohibiting the taking of cars into the poorer areas while, at the same time, leaving the car owners in the better-off areas free to take their friends

    1931
    and relatives to the polling booths. It may be said that it would be an offence to take anybody but relatives to the polling booths, but as I can see this Clause there is nothing to prevent anybody from taking his or her friends in the car and dropping them off round the corner from the polling booth. I hope my right hon. Friend will accept the principle in this Clause, and that between now and the Report stage, he will draw up a Clause which will make such practices impossible.
    Mr. Ede: This matter has been frequently debated during my membership of the House of Commons, and I have always supported the principle in my hon. Friend's Amendment. In this Bill I have taken steps to make it easier for people to poll than has previously been the case. In addition to the postal vote, I have arranged that in rural areas, unless it is a very exceptional case, every parish shall be a polling district, so as to avoid as far as I can the kind of walk to which the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) referred and which some of the electors in rural areas have to take. I wish to see people being able to record their votes without making any previous declaration by way of indication as to the party they propose to support. The postal vote and other matters contained in the Bill very largely avoid the necessity for the second Subsection of this new Clause.
    I am quite certain that the first part of the Clause as drawn is not watertight and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Leeds (Miss Bacon) suggested, it would be perfectly capable of penetration as drafted. I accept the view, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Bradford (Mr. McLeavy) said, that in 1883 there was started the first use of vehicles by candidates for the conveyance of voters to the poll and that that is something that ought not to occur. I cannot accept the Clause as drafted. There are great difficulties in the way of finding any Clause that is not open to the kind of evasion mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Leeds. However, between now and the Report stage I will endeavour to see if it is possible to do something which will very strictly limit the number of motorcars which can be employed in a Parliamentary or local government election and the way in which they can be
    1932
    used even in the cases where they are permitted.
    Mr. Sparks (Acton): Will my right hon. Friend also consider the question of persons who do not live in a constituency bringing themselves and their vehicles into that constituency, in which they have no interest whatever, for the specific purpose of serving the interests of one particular party? I mention that because I am informed that last November in the borough council elections in my constituency more than 250 cars were used there, a large proportion of which came from outside my constituency and were driven by people who did not live in my constituency. Even if one admits the necessity to use cars at elections, it is manifestly unfair that persons shall be drawn from many miles away into a constituency, in which they have no interest whatever, for the purpose of assisting one political party.
    I would also like my right hon. Friend to look into the matter of persons owning more than one car. I have taken part in general elections in county constituencies and I have known persons owning more than one car sending not only their cars for use on polling day, but chauffeurs to drive them. That requires looking into, because it is manifestly unfair that a rich person who has more than one car, no matter to which party he belongs, should send them along with drivers for that specific purpose. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take those matters into account in his consideration of this Clause.
    Mr. Spence: I wish to comment on what the Home Secretary said about limiting the number of cars to be used at an election and finding some words between now and the Report stage to give effect to such a limitation. I would bring to his attention the very careful heed which should be paid to the differences between constituencies in different parts of this country. I represent a very rural area in Scotland—this Bill would apply to the whole country—and under the conditions which apply there at the time of a general election it is nothing uncommon in some of the outlying districts for people to have to make a journey of 10 or 12 miles each way. It may be peculiar to Scotland but in Scotland we drive people to the poll

    1933
    whichever way they are going to vote, and hope for the best. So far as I can find, there has been no question of selective driving, at any rate not in the country areas, though it may be different in the towns. I hope that the Home Secretary will bear in mind the varying conditions in constituencies in this country.
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. Grimston: I rise to make it clear that so far as I am concerned, and I think most of my hon. Friends, we do not accept the entire principle which the Home Secretary stated on this matter. The Socialist Party evidently take a dim view of what their achievements are likely to be if they are always to remain the people who have fewer motor cars than anybody else. I was interested in a remark made by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) that many workers make motor cars, not one of which they can hope to own themselves. That is a dim view of the future under Socialism. In the United States the workers who make motor cars drive down to the factory every day in droves, and enormous car parks are needed for the workers alone. Apparently, the Socialists do not envisage anything of the kind in this country under their regime. I think the Home Secretary will find it difficult to draft a Clause, through which a coach and four cannot be driven, unless he orders all motor cars off the streets on polling day, and I cannot imagine that he, even in conceding to his back benchers, will go as far as that. With regard to outlying constituencies, although there are to be polling stations in every parish, there will nevertheless remain places where people will still have to walk great distances to the polling station.
    Mr. Tolley Mr. Tolley indicated assent.
    Mr. Grimston: I see the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Tolley) agreeing with that point of view. The Home Secretary will have to look carefully at any form of words which can be drawn to cover the abuses which will be able to take place, and also to cover the points I have mentioned. I hope we shall not see another example of the degradation of the law by some form of words which cannot be enforced, simply to pander to the inhibitions of the Socialist Party.
    Mr. Watkins: I want the Home Secretary to think about the point made by the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) with regard to rural constituencies. I suggest that he should look at it in two ways. First, as to whether he could allow constituencies with an acreage of over 500,000 to have a fleet of cars placed at their disposal; secondly, where an elector has a distance of over five miles to travel, that a car should be placed at his disposal. I listened with appreciation to what the Home Secretary had to say about a polling station being in every parish, but I have in my constituency 14 parishes voting at one polling station at the present time. Surely, he will not put up a polling station for a parish of 60 electors? If so, my own will go straight away to 150 from 80. If that is not possible, any elector who has to go more than five miles to a polling station, ought to be conveyed at the expense of the State.
    Mr. Hogg: I hope the Committee will forgive me if I say, first, one or two things about the individual ways in which a Clause of this kind might work and, secondly, something about the principle upon which it is alleged to be based. To begin with, I think that hon. Members opposite have failed to draw a somewhat important distinction of principle in their minds. The hon. Member who proposed this new Clause compared the conveyance of voters to the poll to the giving of free drinks at an election. I do not see the analogy. In one case one is assisting, without any obligation, a person to discharge his right to vote. It is a moral obligation on the voter as a citizen. We are helping him to do something which it is his obligation to do. In the other case we are trying to influence him to vote in a particular way. I think it is pure hypocrisy to pretend that there is any analogy of that kind to be drawn.
    Let us see how far the principle behind the Clause will achieve its alleged objects. One of the alleged objects is to prevent a disproportionate advantage to those who own motor cars, and who it is alleged are more likely to be Conservatives than not—and I am not surprised at that after what has happened recently—as against those who do not own motor cars. Curiously enough, the effect of the Clause, and I think the effect of any Clause which is substituted for it, will be directly the opposite. No one is going to make it

    1935
    illegal to drive to the poll in one's own car. No one suggests that in this Clause. What is to be made illegal—let us face it —is not the rich driving up to the poll in their Rolls Royce cars, but the poor who have not got cars, getting a lift from anybody else. That is the effect and object of the Clause. To represent that, as it is now sought to do, as a means of penalising the rich at the expense of the poor, is exactly to contradict its actual effect.
    The matter does not really stop there. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) told a pitiful story about his own failure to arrive at the poll before a minute to nine, because he was so short of cars that they were always carrying some cripple to the poll and had not time for him. He seconded this Amendment, but has it struck him that cripples cannot in future be carried to the poll under this Amendment? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes they can."] No they cannot. The only type of sick person who can be carried to the poll under the Amendment is the case of casual sickness. The hon. Gentleman who proposed the Amendment told us that that was not a mere oversight. It was a matter of deliberate intent, in order to drive the permanently sick, the crippled, the blind and those who might live at a distance from the polling station, or outside the constituency, to exercise their right by voting by post. My own view is, and I know I am not more likely to be more dispassionate about this matter than hon. Members on the other side of the Committee, that it is a thoroughly retrograde step to prevent people carrying the sick, the blind and the crippled to the poll.
    I regard it as an extraordinary example of the perversity of a certain type of mind in the party opposite—I am not saying it is universal—that when they are faced with a situation which they have alleged exists here, that parties on both sides of the House do not have an equal quantity of motor cars or other conveyances to convey crippled people, or otherwise incapacitated people to the poll, their instinct is not to level up, to provide more people with more transport. It is not to enable those who may otherwise be prevented from voting for the Labour Party from being carried to the poll. Their instinct is to prevent those who vote for the Conservative Party from voting at all.
    1936
    That is what they mean in this connection by equality. It means that if for some economic reason, which is not their fault, people who are inclined to vote Labour cannot get carried to the poll, the remedy is not to provide them with carriage, but to prevent other people who can get carriage from exercising their legal right of going to the poll. That is what is put to the Committee in absolutely naked form as a form of equality. In answer to it I cannot go at very great length, and I shall not try to, but I suggest to hon. Members a view of the matter which might put it in a rather different light. It is true that in any highly complicated society when different parties represent different kinds of locality, different kinds of persons and so on, in one matter one party will have an advantage and in another matter another party will have an advantage. We are constantly complaining that the Labour Party have an immense advantage in the matter of funds owing to the political levy, but it does not follow, therefore, that because they have a great deal of money that we ought to take that money away.
    Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members Rose—
    Mr. Hogg: I cannot give way for the moment, there is too much noise going on. This new Clause is put forward on the basis of equality, or as one hon. Member put it, "equality of opportunity." It may be true—although I do not think it is, for a reason I will give—and it has been true in the past, that in this matter of transport we, exercising perfectly legal and proper rights according to rules which are perfectly rightful rules, have very likely gained on the balance. It is also true that hon. Members opposite, with other rules—and other rules affect electoral law—notably those affecting trade unions, benefit hon. Members opposite. The right moral to be drawn is not for each party to try to deprive the other party from such advantage as they get from proper rules—[Interruption.] Even if it were true we have done so, which I deny, I still say that two wrongs would not make a right. It is not for hon. Members who happen to be in a temporary majority to say that this is something which advantages the party opposite and therefore it is against equality and we should destroy it. The proper remedy in each case is to

    1937
    consider the legitimate rights of the voter, and what are the real obstacles to his exercising his rights and to try to remove those obstacles.
    My case, and I have yet to hear a single argument from the other side of the Committee against it, is that even if it be true that certain people on the Labour side are prevented from voting by the absence of motor cars, it cannot be a remedy for that evil—because obviously it is an evil if they want to vote and cannot—to take away the opportunity from a number of Conservatives who want to vote and can because they have available to them a lift in a motor car. That is mere political spite and it is not democratic.
    I conclude with this observation in which I associate myself with the remarks of an hon. Friend behind me and my hon. Friend on the Front Bench. Hon. Members are very largely—and this has struck me more than ever in this Parliament—living in the past in matters of this kind. There was a time, and I can remember it, when a great fleet of Conservative cars was to be seen carrying blue colours at elections and one tiny little Socialist car, gallantly bearing the yellow and red flag, would be seen trundling along on the other side, but those days are past. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Even if the fact of their passing has not become obvious to hon. Members opposite, partly owing to the war and partly owing to other factors which limit the development of the mechanical age, they will certainly soon discover that fact.
    I would ask hon. Members to vote upon this Amendment putting away from them all the miserable inferiority complexes which they have acquired over 25 years, and looking into the future when this country, a great social democracy, will go to the polls supporting and opposing parties representing great interests in this country, both of which have an almost unlimited quantity of transport at their disposal. That is the real future for which we are legislating. Let hon. Members turn their eyes from the past and look to that future, and they will find not a shred of argument to support this Amendment.
    Mr. Mitchison: There was some very remarkable special pleading in that speech to which we have just listened. I can
    1938
    assure the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) that I have no more inferiority complex than he has. Let us go a little further into this matter. When this Clause was brought forward there were two kinds of argument produced from the benches opposite. The first was the common or garden cackle. One heard a lot of it. It did not impress me, and I do not think it was a credit to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to treat a serious matter in that way. The second kind of argument was to pick holes in the particular wording of this Clause. I agree in that respect with the Home Secretary. There are holes in the wording of the Clause, and I put my name to it with some hesitation on that account. I felt it right to support it, however, as a matter of principle. Quite frankly, I did not think that the Clause would be accepted in the form in which it was put down.
    That, however, has nothing whatever to do with the principle, and the principle is a very serious matter. To describe it as a kind of party warfare, about which the hon. Gentleman talked, and which in my view he practised, is to treat questions of principle in a way in which they ought not to be treated in this connection. I come to the principle. It seems to me to be perfectly simple that either both sides of this Committee and the parties they represent have an equal opportunity in this respect or they have not. If they have an equal opportunity, we have to direct ourselves to the question of whether it is or is not for the public good that motorcars should be used in this way. Actually, does any one on either side of the Committee believe that in practice the position of both sides has been or is now equal?
    10.15 p.m.
    One hon. Gentleman said that this was taking a poor view of the future and that the time would come when the aspirations of various leaders of humanity would be fulfilled and there would be a car to every voter. Lenin wanted a car for every moujik. I am glad hon. Gentlemen share so fully Lenin's aspirations in this matter, but at this point we have to deal with the present and the immediate future, and we are justified in having some regard to our own experience in this matter. I have taken part in three general elections. There are hon. Members who have taken part in a great many more. I do not

    1939
    believe that there is one who can stand up and say in honesty that in respect of transport for transporting voters to the polling booth, there was equality between the two parties.
    Surely that is the one point we have got to consider. We are told that to carry voters in a car is an act of kindness, and that no inquiries will be made as to the way they will cast their votes. Do hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite really mean to say that carrying voters to the poll is an act of charity that happens to occur to them on that day, and one without any political thought whatever? It is a claim which, frankly, we cannot support. The cars come out covered with flags and invitations to vote for one candidate or the other as clearly instruments of a political battle as anything possibly could be.
    Mr. Baldwin: Can the hon. Member say whether, at any of the elections at which he has been connected, there was any number of voters who could not get to the poll because they were not able to be carried in a vehicle?
    Mr. Mitchison: That is not the point. The real point is this: are we, in fact, exercising, or attempting to exercise, persuasion on the voters by offering them a free ride? That is what it comes to. A free ride is something which they regard as worth having. There is the common case in which a man who has worked all day has to decide for himself whether it is worth his while to go to the poll. I agree it is harder for him to go a long distance in a Worcestershire constituency than it is for him to walk along a few streets in a town; the problem is even more acute in a rural constituency. There will always be human beings who will not vote if they have to walk, but will vote if they can get a free ride. Does anybody seriously suggest that they are not either influenced or attempted to be influenced by being carried in motorcars belonging to the supporters of one political party, carrying exhortations to support that political party? It is an absolutely ridiculous suggestion, if I may say so. Surely we ought to approach this in a way which befits the dignity of this Committee.
    We know perfectly well that, if we go back far enough, to the time of Eatan-
    1940
    swill, there was wholesale corruption in every election in this country. In those days it was not looked at in the same way; voters were openly bought in the old rotten boroughs. Anyone who goes back to the excellent political novels of Victorian times will find it described many times by others than Dickens. We have now brought the matter to a degree of strictness in most respects; and that does credit to our democratic institutions and our political practice is a matter of the greatest importance. Reference has been made to the candidate who stands a man a pint of beer. I cannot think that giving a man half a pint of beer long before polling day, when a candidate is in the field, is really a more serious form of corruption than taking a tired man to the poll by car at the very last moment instead of making him walk. I fail to see the distinction drawn in the, respect by the hon. Member for Oxford.
    My strong objection to this practice in the past has been, and still is, two-fold. Firstly, I regard it as a form of political corruption to take people to the polls in a motor car when by so doing we are trying to induce them to vote one particular way. I have no doubt that that is why people bring motor cars into polling districts at election time. As for my second objection, I think we should have a real equality of opportunity. As between the two parties or any number of parties in the State, let us at least see that each has an equal chance. It is not the least use telling me that in theory they ought to have an equal chance. I know quite well that as a matter of fact the party opposite has a far better chance than the party on this side of the Committee. It is no use telling me that I have a car. Of course I have, and I shall use it if I am allowed to, but I would far rather that cars were not used at all except where they were really needed. It is right and proper that people should walk to the poll and exercise their votes freely, uninfluenced by considerations about what car they came in and under what colours they travelled.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: We are all agreed on the fundamental principle which is that in casting a vote in an election no undue influence or outside pressure should be exerted. I ask hon. Gentlemen to believe that we think that they have a certain amount of undue in-

    1941
    fluence which they can exercise just as they think that we have a certain amount of undue influence. But the Committee would be making a great mistake if they tried to go into too much detail in this important Measure. It a Clause such as this results in a multiplication of election offences, it will do a great deal of harm Political parties and agents can easily be prevented from hiring cars or organising the presence of cars in large numbers But what is to prevent some supporter of nine in some village or town, without any reference to me, picking up his friends and neighbours and taking them to the poll in his own car? The Home Secretary would find himself involved in innumerable difficulties connected with the multiplication of election offences if this Clause were accepted. If we multiply election
    offences any more than they have been multiplied so far, the number of elections that will be invalidated will he enormous there will be an atmosphere of uncertainty and a careful watch over one's opponent in an effort to catch him out. It would be a mistake to adopt this proposal. In the long run, we must leave the issues at general elections and by-elections to the good sense of the people of the country.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Freasury (Mr. Whiteley)rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put. "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 230, Noes. 108.

    Division No. 131.

    AYES

    1.24 p.m

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Edwards, John (Blackburn)

    Leonard, W.

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

    Leslie, J. R.

    Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

    Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

    Alien, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Alpass, J. H

    Evans, John (Ogmore)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Attewell, H. C

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

    Awbery, S. S.

    Ewart, R.

    Logan, D. G.

    Bacon, Miss A

    Farthing, W. J

    Lyne, A. W

    Balfour, A

    Fernyhough, E.

    McAdam, W

    Barstow, P G

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

    McAllister, G

    Barton, C.

    Foot, M. M

    McEntee, V. La

    Bechervaise, A E

    Forman, J. C

    McGhee, H. G

    Belcher, J, W

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    Mack, J D

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J

    Freeman, J. (Watford)

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

    Berry, H.

    Gallacher, W

    McKinlay, A. S.

    Beswick, F.

    Ganley, Mrs. C S

    Maclean, N. (Govan)

    Bing, G. H. C

    Gibson, C. W

    McLeavy, F.

    Binns, J.

    Gilzean, A.

    Mallalieu, E. L (Brigg)

    Blyton, W. R

    Glanville, J E (Consett)

    Mallalieu, J. P W (Huddersfield)

    Boardman, H.

    Gooch, E. G.

    Mann, Mrs J

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

    Griffiths, D (Rother Valley)

    Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

    Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

    Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Guy, W. H.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

    Middleton, Mrs. L

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

    Mitchison, G. R

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

    Monslow, W

    Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G

    Hardy, E. A

    Moody, A. S

    Burden T. W

    Harrison, J.

    Morley, R.

    Burke, W. A.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S)

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)

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

    Callaghan, James

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Moyle, A.

    Champion, A. J

    Hewitson, Capt. M

    Murray, J. D

    Coldrick, W.

    Hobson, C. R

    Nally, W

    Collick, P.

    Holman, P

    Neal, H. (Claycross)

    Collins, V. J.

    Hoy, J.

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Colman, Miss G M

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

    Noel-Baker, Capt. F E (Brentford)

    Cook, T. F

    Hutchinson, H. L (Rusholme)

    O'Brien, T.

    Corlett, DT. J

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Crawley, A.

    Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N)

    Palmer, A. M. F

    Crossman, R. H S

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon, G A

    Pargiter, G A

    Daggar, G.

    Janner, B.

    Parker, J

    Daines, P.

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Paton, Mrs. F (Rushcliffe)

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

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

    Paton, J (Norwich)

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

    Johnston, Douglas

    Pearson, A.

    Deer, G

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

    Peart, T. F

    Delargy, H. J

    Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

    Perrins, W

    Diamond, J

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    Popplewell, E

    Dodds, N. N

    Keenan, W.

    Porter, E. (Warrington)

    Donovan, T.

    Kenyon, C.

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Dumpleton, C. W

    Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E

    Price, M. Philips

    Durbin, E. F. M.

    Kinley, J.

    Pritt, D. N.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Pursey, Cmdr. H

    Randall, H. E

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

    Ranger, J.

    Stross, Dr. B.

    Wells, W. T (Walsall)

    Rankin, J.

    Stubbs, A. E.

    West. D. G

    Reeves, J.

    Sylvester, G. O

    Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Symonds, A. L

    White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

    Richards, R.

    Taylor, H B (Mansfield)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon W

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Wigg, George

    Robens, A.

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Wilkes, L.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Thomas, D. E, (Aberdare)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Royle, C

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Sargood, R.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Shackleton, E A A

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Sharp, Granville

    Tiffany, S.

    Williams, R. W. (Wigan)

    Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

    Titterington, M F

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

    Shurmer, P.

    Tolley, L.

    Willis, E.

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Turner-Samuels, M

    Woodburn, A

    Simmons, C J.

    Usborne, Henry

    Woods, G. S.

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Vernon, Maj. W. F

    Wyatt, W.

    Smith, C. (Colchester)

    Viant, S. P.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Walker, G. H.

    Younger, Hon. Kenneth

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

    Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E)

    Zilliacus, K.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Warbey, W. N

    Soskice, Sir Frank

    Watkins, T. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Sparks, J. A

    Watson, W. M

    Mr. Snow and

    Steele, T.

    Weitzman, D.

    Mr. George Wallace.

    NOES

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H

    Baldwin, A E

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Barlow, Sir J

    Hogg, Hon. Q

    Peto, Brig, C. H. M

    Birch, Nigel

    Hollis, M. C.

    Pickthorn, K.

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

    Hope, Lord J.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Bower, N.

    Howard, Hon. A.

    Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

    Boyd-Carpenter, J.

    Hurd, A.

    Prescott, Stanley

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

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

    Rayner, Brig. R.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

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

    Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T

    Jennings, R.

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

    Byers, Frank

    Keeling, E. H

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Carson, E.

    Kendall, W. D.

    Robinson, Roland

    Clarke, Col. R. S

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Ross, Sir R D. (Londonderry)

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G

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

    Sanderson, Sir F

    Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U (Ludlow)

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Scott, Lord W.

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

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Shephard, S. (Newark)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E

    Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

    Spence, H. R.

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Lyttelton, Rt Hon. O

    Stoddart-Scott, Col M.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    McFarlane, C. S.

    Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Mackeson, Brig. H R

    Studholme, H G

    Drewe, C.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Maclean, F. H. R (Lancaster)

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

    Eden, Rt. Hon A

    Marples, A. E

    Teeling, William

    Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

    Marsden, Capt. A.

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

    Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

    Marshall, D (Bodmin)

    Thornton-Kemsley, C N

    Fyfe, Rt Hon. Sir D. P M

    Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

    Turton, R H.

    Gage, C.

    Medlicott, Brigadier F

    Vane, W. M. F

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

    Molson, A H. E.

    Wadsworth, G.

    George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

    Wakefield, Sir W. W

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

    Morrison, Maj. J. G (Salisbury)

    Walker-Smith, D.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

    Mullan, Lt. C. H.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Neven-Spence, Sir B

    York, C.

    Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)

    Nicholson, G.

    Harvey, Air-Cmdre. A. V.

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Headiam, Lieut.-Col Rt Hon Sir C

    Nutting, Anthony

    Major Ramsay and

    Major Conant.

    Resolution agreed to.

    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put accordingly, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Persons entitled to be registered in the same manner as Service voters.)
    The provisions of this Act relating to persons entitled to be registered and vote as Service voters shall apply to any British subject of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity to vote who is resident outside the United Kingdom by reason only of any ser-
    1944
    vice of himself or his spouse in respect of which payment is made out of moneys provided by Parliament as they apply to a member of the Forces, and for the purposes of the said provisions membership of the Forces shall be deemed to include such service as aforesaid:—[Mr. Keeling.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. Keeling: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

    1945
    Whatever may be said about the democratic quality of the last new Clause proposed, there can be no question about the democratic quality of this one. The Bill gives a vote to the fighting Forces abroad but denies it to British Government servants abroad. It even denies it to members of the Control Commission, although they had a vote at the last General Election, when they were put on the same footing as the troops. The result is an anomaly which is exceedingly unfair to the civil servants. The disfranchisement of the staff of the Control Commission is contrary to the unanimous opinion of a committee, which the Home Secretary set up, representing all parties in this House and a number of outside experts. The disfranchisement of other Government servants produces a not less striking injustice—namely that attaches—naval, military and air—and their staffs of all ranks at foreign embassies and legations get the vote, while the civilian staffs of the embassies, who are working side by side with them do not.
    It is undemocratic to differentiate between classes of Government servants. These civil servants are serving their country and, I might add, are paying British Income Tax, no less than members of the fighting Forces, and I have a number of letters which show that they feel their disfranchisement deeply. This new Clause enfranchises not only the Control Commission staffs and the Diplomatic Service, but also consuls, representatives of the Ministries of Supply and Food and of other departments, and dockyard artisans abroad. They are all to be on the same level as the fighting Forces, and they are all to be subjected to the same condition contained in Clause 6, which deals with the fighting Forces. That says that a member of the Forces must make a declaration, first, that he is a British subject; secondly, that he is 21 years of age; and thirdly, that he resides, or but for his Government service would reside, at a stated address in the United Kingdom.
    Three objections may be, and have been, raised to the principle of my new Clause. The first is that the fighting Forces ought to have preferential treatment because their service is compulsory. There is absolutely nothing in this point, because most of the compulsory service is now to end before a man is 21, and it
    1946
    is only the volunteer long-service men who will qualify for a vote at all.
    The second objection raised is that if the franchise exerciseable abroad is extended from the fighting Forces to the Civil Service we cannot deny it to private people abroad. My reply is that there is a clear distinction between Government servants, whether military or civil, on the one hand, and private persons on the other hand, because all Government servants abroad pay British Income Tax, whereas the private person usually escapes it. Payment of Income Tax has never been a qualification for a vote, nor does my new Clause seek to make it so; but surely the principle of "no taxation without representation" ought to be applied wherever possible. It therefore seems reasonable to draw the dividing line between Government servants and private persons.
    The third objection was made by the Home Secretary himself some time ago in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). My hon. Friend said:
    "Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that all servants of the Crown, like members of the Forces, ought to be qualified to vote?"
    The Home Secretary replied:
    "The difficulty is to associate them with a territorial constituency. That is difficult enough with regard to members of the Forces, and it would be quite impossible in some of these cases."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1945; Vol. 416, C. 1515.]
    But the difficulty is no greater with civil servants than with members of the fighting Forces. The procedure is quite simple. All that a member of the Civil Service abroad would have to do would be to make a declaration and give his home address. If he has no home address, he will not get a vote.
    Finally, the number of people who would be enfranchised by the new Clause is not great. Eighteen months ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed me that the number of civil servants paid by the Treasury who were living abroad was 15,000, including 8,500 servants of the Control Commissions for Germany and Austria. Some of those 15,000 are not British, and therefore would not get the vote. Also, the staffs of the Control Commissions have, I believe, been reduced; so that it would be a fair guess to say

    1947
    that not more than 10,000 would be enfranchised by the new Clause; and about half of them might not want to exercise their right.
    My proposed Clause gives the vote to the spouse. On a previous Amendment this evening the Home Secretary said that he was favourably disposed—I am not sure if he accepted the principle—to giving the vote to the wife of a member of the fighting Forces abroad. In stating that he reserved his opinion on the word "spouse" in my Clause. If that is all there is between us I am prepared to drop the word "spouse." If my Clause is accepted civil servants abroad will, for the purposes of this Bill, be deemed to be members of the fighting Forces, and as the wife of a member of the fighting Forces is covered in principle by what the Home Secretary said on a previous Amendment, the wife of a civil servant must likewise be covered. That leaves only the husband of a civil servant—a rarity abroad. Therefore, I am prepared to drop the word "spouse." I hope with that modification the Home Secretary will accept my new Clause.
    Mr. Quintin Hogg: I hope the Committee will allow me to add one word to the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) since it is a matter, as my hon. Friend said, in which I have hitherto in, terested myself. My hon. Friend has stated his answers to the arguments which have been put forward by the Government against the Clause, and I associate myself with them. I would only add that I cannot myself see any force in the arguments put forward by the Government against a Clause of this sort which could not equally in peace-time be advanced against the registering for voting purposes of members of the Forces, because the great majority of Armed Forces in peace-time, in so far as they are beyond the seas, are volunteers serving for a term of years. Whatever difficulty there may be associating civil servants and their wives with any constituency in this country must equally apply to members of the fighting Forces serving abroad unless it happens to be the limited class of person—the National Service man. With the Armed Forces that difficulty has been surmountable, but with the Diplomatic Service there is apparently an insuperable objection.
    1948
    I can but feel that if the Home Secretary had only had to deal with a more numerous class of person who could speak through a number of advocates in this House he would have been a great deal m re sympathetic to these points. I beg of him now to accept this Clause, or at least its principle, in order that we may be able to implement the principle to which he has stated himself to be attached, namely, one man one vote. I am not impressed by the argument that this Clause tends to admit the claim to be registered of large numbers of private persons not in the service of the Crown, for the reason which my hon. Friend gave and which relates to taxation.
    10.45 p.m.
    The criterion is this. We ought to give a vote to every part of our home community so far as it is reasonably practicable. The Diplomatic and the Civil Services, have members abroad; they are resident there by reason of their service, and they are just as much a part of our home community as the civil servant in Whitehall. It does not disenfranchise a man—or it ought not to do—because he is posted to Baghdad or the Control Commission in Germany. One is, to some extent, dealing with people semi-detached from the home community; they may have formed ties elsewhere which would be difficult to associate with the voting system in this country, but with the limited class of persons in the service of the Crown resident outside this country by reason solely of their service, the case is, I should have thought, overwhelming.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I do not know to what extent my hon. Friends on this side are pressing against an open door and if the Home Secretary is going to concede this Clause. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he realises the extent of the feeling on this subject in Germany, for example? I had the honour to present a petition to this House last October on behalf of several thousands of wives in Germany, but, like all petitions, it found its way to the green bag. So far as I know it has never been taken out. [HON. MEMBERS: "How do you know?"] Well, petitions go into the green bag; there is some procedure by which they get back to Government Departments, where Ministers consider them, and hon. Members get some sort of answer, but one must presume that they rest in the green bag.

    1949
    Does the Home Secretary know what is the feeling in Germany? Wives in scores have written to hon. Members, including myself, on this subject. They want to vote, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman why they should not. Can he give one reason why they should not? Business people are in a different category. They come and go; they may be in this country or abroad, and their wives and families may be with them while they are abroad. But these are people stationed abroad in the service of the Crown, people who are recompensed by the Crown through Government funds. Why should they be treated in a different category from people here? Why should General Robertson's wife not have a vote, or why should not the wife of a private soldier stationed in Mulheim have a vote?
    My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) said he did not insist on the word "spouse," but I take it that the Home Secretary—although I was not in my place at the time—has accepted it. My hon. Friend says the Home Secretary has accepted it, but we shall get the truth in a moment.
    Mr. Ede: I resent the insinuation of the noble Lord that I was not telling the truth. He said "We shall get the truth in a moment." The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) was careful to say that I had not accepted the spouse with regard to the soldier I have not accepted it in that regard. What I said earlier today was that I would reconsider the matter and reserve my judgment until I had heard the arguments on this Clause.
    Mr. Keeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to civil servants?
    Mr. Ede: I had not accepted the position of the spouse with regard to the soldier. I said I would reconsider that.
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I would not dream of accusing the Home Secretary of not telling the truth. He has stated that he is not accepting the suggestion that soldiers' wives should be given the vote. Why not? We ask that wives of soldiers in Germany and the wives of members of the Control Commission resident in Germany should be given the vote. I am not sure that we seek so strongly that the husbands of women employed by the
    1950
    Government in Germany should be given the vote, but that is a point we might consider later.
    I beg the Home Secretary to give a favourable answer on this Clause. It is surely a proposal that would commend itself to the Committee on all sides. Hon. Members opposite can have no complaint about this matter. Socialism is spreading overseas quite as effectively now as it did under former Conservative administrations. They are responsible for maintaining large armies of administrators and civil servants overseas. We gave them the vote in 1945, in fact many more got the vote in 1945 than now, but these people are servants of the Crown overseas and I do think they justify some consideration from the right hon. gentleman.
    Sir Richard Acland: Opposition speakers were so unreasonable on the last Clause that it is a pleasure to find them being so reasonable on this Clause. There is an argument against this Clause that has occurred to my mind, and I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to show sympathy to its general principles even if amendments have to be made to the wording. I have reason to be aware of one argument against the Clause which I do not think has been referred to. It is suggested that the Clause would allow people to vote who for reasons of very long absence have no idea about conditions in this country at all. There might be diplomats who have been abroad for years and years and who are entirely out of touch with conditions here, and I think there is something unreasonable in allowing such people to vote. I would, however, be prepared to take a chance. It would not worry me very much because I imagine that the majority of such people would be inclined to vote for the party opposite.
    I would like to put to those who moved the Clause that if this point is felt to be a strong argument against it, would they consider saving the principle of the Clause by including in it some words which would limit its effect to those who have been out of the country for not more than, say, five years? I do not insist on that figure. If that condition had to be conceded for getting the principle of the Clause through, would those who moved it see their way to accept

    1951
    it? I hope the Home Secretary will accept the principle of the Clause.
    Mr. Ede: I have listened with considerable interest to the arguments that have been used in favour of this Clause. My difficulty is largely the one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland). There are some people who would come under this Clause who have been out of this country for a very long time and, as far as I know, may not ever return to it. Those are the kind of people about whom I have misgivings. I regret that the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Lord Hinchingbrooke) should have said that General Robertson's wife has not got a vote but the private soldier has. That is the kind of argument which I hope will not be adduced in favour of this Clause. I recall ladies of five or 20 years ago saying, "It is iniquitous that my gardener should have a vote but I have not got one." If it comes to a single vote, the private soldier is as much entitled to a vote as General Robertson's wife, although I would not say he was more entitled to a vote if the circumstances were such that I could put both of these people on the register.
    I think that the case for this Clause has been made out, but I want to make it quite clear that I must not be pressed after this on a later stage of the Bill to say that any British subject abroad has the right to make this claim, think the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) would agree that at a very early stage of this controversy this claim was made—not by him, but it was advanced by those who advocate this principle, which is to be very limited. My difficulty is to associate these people with a territorial constituency in this country. The kind of man whom my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend mentioned is a case in point. It may sometimes be very difficult, after he has been abroad for a great number of years, legitimately to associate him with any particular constituency in this country. A man who is abroad for only a couple of years probably still regards himself as in the constituency in which he resided when he left, or where his family home is. But when people are abroad for a great number of years, the head of the family dies, the family home is broken
    1952
    up, and it is very difficult definitely to associate them with that territorial constituency.
    However, I will accept the Clause on the understanding that this deals with persons in the employment of the Crown and the wife of a person in the employment of the Crown. If the Clause will need any tidying up between now and the Report stage I will see the hon. Member for Twickenham before I proceed any further.
    Mr. Keeling: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Method of voting to be by alternative vote.)
    (1) The method of voting at a parliamentary election shall be according to the principle of the alternative vote and shall be conducted in accordance with the rules set out in this Section.
    (2) A person voting as an elector shall indicate the candidate who is his first choice by placing the figure r or the mark X on his ballot paper opposite the name of that candidate, and any ballot paper so marked shall be counted as a first preference vote given to that candidate; he may also place the figure 2 opposite the name of the candidate whom he would prefer if the candidate who is his first choice cannot be elected; and in cases where there are more than three candidates, he may indicate his subsequent preference by the figures 3 or 4 and so on opposite the names of further candidates.
    (3) If, on the counting of the votes a candidate receives an absolute majority of first preference votes, that candidate shall be declared elected.
    (4) If no candidate has received an absolute majority of first preference votes, the candidate who has received the smallest number of first preference votes shall be excluded, and each ballot paper counted to him which indicates a second choice for one of the unexcluded candidates shall be transferred to, and counted as a vote given to, that other candidate, and the candidate who receives an absolute majority of the votes reckoned at that count shall be declared elected.
    (5) If still no candidate has received an absolute majority of the votes, the process of excluding the candidate who has received the smallest number of votes and of transferring to unexcluded candidates such of the ballot papers counted to the last excluded candidate as indicate second or subsequent choices for some one or other of the unexcluded candidates and of counting ballot

    1953
    papers so transferred as votes given to the candidate to whom they are transferred shall be continued by means of succeeding counts until one candidate receives an absolute majority of the votes reckoned at the count or until only two candidates remain unexcluded.
    (6) The candidate who receives an absolute majority of the votes reckoned at any count shall be declared elected.
    (7) The votes reckoned at any count in respect of any candidate shall be taken to be the votes counted to that candidate at the previous count with the addition of the votes transferred to him at the count in question.
    (8) Nothing in these rules shall require the returning officer to reject as invalid or void for uncertainty any ballot paper which is so marked as to indicate the intention of the voter to vote for any candidate as his first choice or to reject any ballot paper by reason only that no effective second or subsequent choice or a subsequent choice in excess of the valid number of preference is indicated thereon.—[Mr. Emrys Roberts.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    11.0 p.m.
    Mr. EMITS Roberts: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This is quite a simple proposal, and I have been at some loss to understand why there has been so much opposition to it in the past. It is a far more simple process than proportional representation. It is not open to the same complexity and it can be far more easily explained to the electors. Furthermore, it has the great advantage that it preserves the system of single member constituencies. It is possible to operate it within the framework of the present Bill. It is an attempt to secure that any person elected to this House shall have the maximum support of the electorate and at the same time to deal with the problem of people whose votes at the moment do not count. It only comes into operation where there are three or more candidates and the elector, if he so wishes, can mark his preference one, two and three. If he does not wish to do it, he need not. If he wishes, he can merely put a mark opposite his first preference.
    If, in an election where there are three or more candidates, one of the candidates secures an absolute majority over the other two, there is no need for this Clause to operate because it is quite clear that out of the three candidates, one has obtained a clear majority over the other
    1954
    two. This Clause will come into operation in the case of the first candidate not having a clear majority, and it then enables the electorate to have what is, for all intents and purposes, a second ballot. It will operate in this way where there are three candidates so that the bottom candidate is eliminated.
    Mr. Henry Strauss: Why?
    Mr. Roberts: Perhaps if the hon. and learned Member will contain his impatience for a moment, I can tell him. He should be the last ones to ask for brevity in this House. The second preferences are then divided among the remaining two candidates. At the moment, the votes cast for the unsuccessful third candidate are largely wasted, but under this process these votes are counted among the remaining two candidates according to the preference expressed by the people who voted for the lowest candidate in the first ballot. It therefore gives the elector the maximum choice. If there are three candidates—Conservative, Labour or Liberal—the elector may prefer the Labour candidate, but if the balance of political forces in the constituency make it unlikely that the Labour candidate would be successful, then it is up to him to choose whether as a second alternative, he prefers the Liberal or the Conservative. Similarly in another constituency, he may prefer to vote Liberal though it is a favourite pastime of other parties to say that votes for Liberals are wasted. But it enables a man to express his preference by voting Liberal and he can then say to himself—"If I do not get my Liberal in "—and this is what Members above the Gangway may fear—" I may prefer a Labour member to a Conservative one." It is a simple process. It is used by many trade unions in the election of committees. I see one hon. Member opposite is shaking his head and another assenting.
    Mr. Hogg: They are using the alternative vote.
    Mr. Roberts: It is used when there are many candidates for political committees and when there are many applicants for posts. It is virtually a second ballot and it has a long history. I do not propose to go into all of it, but a Royal Commission of 1910 considered this method of

    1955
    election and decided strongly in favour of the alternative vote. It is hardly necessary for me to remind the Committee that in 1931 the alternative vote proposals, as embodied in this Clause, were carried through this House and, but for the 1931 election, would undoubtedly have become law in that year. The Lord President of the Council was at some pains to make it clear that he had never been in favour of proportional representation, but he could never say that as regards the alternative vote, because many Members of the present Government voted for this proposal in 1931—no fewer than 15 of them.
    They included the Prime Minister, the Lord President of the Council and the Home Secretary, who made a very good speech in favour of it on the Third Reading. He said:
    "It will enable the electors themselves, and not through caucuses"—
    a good word that—
    "to exercise a greater and wiser preference in the choice of their representatives.—[OFFIVIAL REPORT, 2nd June, 1931; Vol 253, C. 127.]
    The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, then Solicitor-General, was one of the most ardent defenders of the proposal. Others included the present Minister of Health, the present Minister of Labour and the present Minister of Food and—though I do not want to weary the House with the list—even the present Secretary of State for War.
    Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham): Can the hon. Member explain how this is going to work out? Let us assume there is a four-cornered election and that there are Conservative and Socialist candidates and that there is a National Liberal who, we may assume, would have all his votes cast for the Conservative if he does not succeed—
    Mr. Roberts: There would be no Conservative if there was a National Liberal.
    Mr. Hale: That is one of the curious forms of Conservatives emerging on the benches opposite. Let us assume that there is also a member of the I.L.P. who is likely to have his votes cast in those conditions for the Socialist, and votes of the National Liberal for the Conserva-
    1956
    tive. It will depend on how the first preferences are transferred. Is not the result going to be that the one who gets the smallest support will win in the end? Because if the National Liberal polls only 400 votes and the I.L.P. polls 600, then the 400 will be transferred to the Conservative and the I.L.P. 600 will be transferred to the Socialist. Is not that really how it will work?
    Mr. Roberts: It does not work till you get an actual majority and the process goes on till you eliminate the smaller voting totals. I think the system better than the present one because these votes have an effective value which they do not possess at all under the present system. The hon. Member interrupted me at the most interesting part of my argument when I was giving a list of members of the Government. [Interruption.] I am very glad to hear one Member below the Gangway applauding the Members of the Government who voted for this proposal.
    Mr. H. Strauss: It is very desirable that the Committee should understand, as I am quite certain the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) understands, that the proposal contained in this Clause is not even theoretically sound. There is a respectable intellectual case to be made
    for Proportional Representation. For reasons given by hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite and on the Front Opposition Bench on numerous occasions, the great parties in this country reject Proportional Representation. Those reasons I personally believe to be good reasons. Nevertheless, anyone who has studied the subject knows that there is a respectable intellectual case to be made for Proportional Representation. What is the meaning of Proportional Representation for which a good case can be made? One ascertains as far as possible the first choice of everybody in a constituency. The constituencies are constituencies returning several Members to Parliament, and one attempts to allocate the Members of Parliament between the parties in the same proportion as the voters have expressed their choices. They, have only one vote under this system.
    The system in this Clause is something quite different. It says that one shall retain the constituency returning one

    1957
    member and one member alone, but if no candidate has an absolute majority over all others, one eliminates the bottom man. When the hon. Member who moved the Clause got to this point I asked "Why?" because I wanted to give him notice of what I considered was the point he had to answer. There is no more reason for eliminating the bottom man than for eliminating anyone else. There is no reason at all, if one is going to give a value to people's second choices, why one should look only at the second choices of those who have given their first choices to the most unpopular candidate.
    Let me take an imaginary example which may please my hon. Friends below the Gangway. Let me assume that a Conservative is top on the first choices. It is conceivable, although not perhaps very likely, that the second choices of those who voted for the top man may go to a Liberal who on the first choices is at the bottom. Therefore, the Liberal at the bottom on the first choices might have on first plus second choices more votes than anyone else. If one transferred the second choices of the man who got the most votes the man at the bottom on first choices would actually be elected.
    Mr. Byers: I think that is a little misleading because under this system the man at the bottom is knocked out. Then he cannot be elected.
    Mr. Strauss: That is exactly my point. I am sorry if the hon. Member has failed to follow me. I quite agree that he is eliminated but there is no reason in justice why he should be. I am sure hon. Members are in error if they think they are putting forward a case that is intellectually respectable. If they examine their own proposal they will find that they eliminate entirely—if nobody has an absolute majority of first preferences—the man who has the fewest first preferences. Having eliminated that man, they take great account of the second votes of those who voted for him.
    11.15 p.m.
    Let me take the simplest case where there are only three candidates. By reallocating the second choices of the man at the bottom of the list, they may put the man who was number 2 on first preferences into the position of number 1. whereupon—on the hon. Member's pro-
    1958
    posal—he is declared elected. Hon. Members below the Gangway think that is very satisfactory. I will tell the Committee why they think so. They assume that the Liberal will always be at the bottom of the three, and they are delighted that his second choices shall count. But this will not be received with the same enthusiasm by either of the other two parties, who expect to occupy first and second places.
    I know that this illogical proposal commended itself to the majority of the House in 1931. It was necessary for the Government party which had no independent majority to make an immoral bargain with the Liberal Party. But no party is in that position now. The point I am making is that there is no reason whatsoever why you should pay more attention to the second choices of the man who gets the fewest first preferences than to those of the man who gets most first preferences. In the simple case I have taken, of only three candidates, once you have eliminated the bottom man and redistributed his second choices, the top man who then has a majority is declared elected, without anybody else's second choices being considered. I say that is quite impossible to justify on any intellectual basis whatsoever.
    The hon. Member who moved this Clause began his speech with two perfectly true propositions. He said this is much simpler than Proportional Representation. It is. He said that everybody can understand it. With the exception of the hon. Member himself, I think that is true. What he did not add was that it was not a system which purported to be fair. There is no intellectual case whatsoever for the single alternative vote in a single-member constituency. There is a respectable intellectual case for Proportional Representation. For good reasons, I believe, the great parties in this House and in the country reject it. But for this proposal there is absolutely nothing to be said on the ground of justice or principle. I advise the Committee to reject it unanimously.
    Mr. Ede: This is really the second preference of the hon. Member, because the Liberal Party put down an Amendment for Proportional Representation at an earlier stage, but they forgot to work, out the First Schedule which would indicate how Proportional Representation would be applied, and therefore, if I

    1959
    understand the Ruling of the Chair, their Amendment was not called.
    Mr. Byers: I think I had the argument with the Chair on that occasion. The Amendment was ruled out because it was said to be outside the scope of the Bill.
    Mr. Ede: I think the hon. Gentleman will see, if he looks up the record, that an allusion was made to the First Schedule. At any rate, it is clear that this is not what the Liberal Party want. They want Proportional Representation. I gather that the Conservative Party do not want it. And, so far as 1948 is concerned, the Labour Party do not want it. I cannot think it would be wise for the House to insert in the Bill a provision which none of the three parties want. After the episode with the Communist Party this afternoon—having asked for Proportional Representation at one stage, they came down this afternoon on the side of single member constituencies—I am not quite sure whether they would like this or not. If they are not here to speak for themselves, I do not propose to explore their philosophical attitude. After the mathematical analysis to which it has been subjected by the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss), I advise the Committee not to include this new Clause in the Bill.
    Mr. Byers: I am disappointed in the Home Secretary. I admit he is right in saying this is our second preference. I am sure the Committee would agree when I say that the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) has given the authoritative Conservative view on this matter.
    Mr. H. Strauss: Not the Conservative view—
    Mr. Byers: It is either the Conservative or the intellectual view. It cannot be both. I am assuming it is the Conservative view. I think the Home Secretary is possibly right. The Conservative Party do not agree with this Clause, and will never agree with it, as the correct form for our electoral system. I am glad to know that, but I suggest to the Home Secretary that, since we are all agreed that this is second preference, he should now have a second look at the case for
    1960
    Proportional Representation itself, which, of course, I would not dream of arguing. In the circumstances, I can only say I am sorry that the Home Secretary has not seen fit to accept this second preference for second preference.
    Question put, and negatived.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Residence qualification in Northern Ireland.)
    Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act no person shall be entitled to vote at a parliamentary election in any constituency in Northern Ireland unless he has resided in that constituency for a period of at least three months immediately preceding the qualifying date.—[Sir H. O'Neill.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir Hugh O'Neill: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The new Clause is to provide that in Northern Ireland there should be a qualification of three months' residence for a vote. There are special reasons in that part of the country why that should be so, and these reasons are recognised by the Committee on Electoral Registration. In Section 24 of their report (Cd. 7004), which was published in December, 1946, they refer to this matter. I should like to read what they say.
    "Objections have been raised to the qualifying period being abolished, on the ground that there would be great difficulty in determining questions as to residence on a qualifying date only, having regard to the large number of people who cross the border into Northern Ireland. This difficulty, however, would not be confined to Northern Ireland, and we take the view that, if, as we believe, our proposal that the qualifying period should be abolished is right in principle, the proper solution of the difficulty, in Northern Ireland as in Great Britain, is to ensure that interpretation of the term 'residence' is such as to give effect to our intention that a person should be registered for the address at which he ordinarily lives. We are advised that there is substantial case law on the point, and we do not doubt that the draftsman will be able to give satisfactory statutory expression to our intention."
    As far as I can see, in this Bill the draftsman has not given any statutory definition of what really does constitute residence. I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to tell us what is the case law on this matter to which the Committee referred.
    Another point which I would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman is whether

    1961
    people who may come into Northern Ireland from Southern Ireland are British subjects. I am not quite clear on that point—whether they are British subjects and qualify for the vote. If they are, and if they can be brought into the United Kingdom at a time of a general election for the purpose of getting a qualifying residence merely by being resident in a particular house on a particular day, that is the kind of abuse which is a real danger. I admit that it is a danger, to a certain extent, in any part of the country; but it is especially a danger in Northern Ireland because of the large number of people, as recognised by the Committee to which I have referred, who are habitually crossing the border, and who might, at an election time, come in for the purpose merely of qualifying by residing at a particular house or place on one particular day. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us what constitutes residence, and that he will be able to give us some really cogent arguments, if he does not accept the proposal of my hon. Friends and myself, why he is unable to accept it. If he does not accept it, I hope he will give us arguments which make it quite clear what does constitute residence, and that it is something more than being in a particular place on a particular day.
    Mr. Ede: The question of what the word "residence" means in this connection was dealt with cogently by the Attorney-General on 17th March which is reported in Column 2239 of HANSARD for that day. "Residence" does not mean staying for one night in a hotel or being for one day in a particular place. That has cropped up several times during the course of the Bill, and I think that view has never been challenged when it has been stated from this Box by my hon. and learned Friend. The question which arises on this Amendment is whether there are to be two methods of qualification for being on the voting register in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. This proposal would make the qualification for Northern Ireland different from the qualification for Great Britain. All the while we are a united kingdom it is desirable that there should be uniformity in this matter.
    Sir H. O'Neill: The right hon. Gentleman will agree that there was a difference under the old law.
    11.30 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: That is no reason why we should not right now what was wrong under the old law. That is one of the reasons for having this Bill.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) asked me whether a citizen of Southern Ireland was a British subject for the purpose of this Bill. A citizen of Southern Ireland for that purpose is a British subject. When he comes to England he will be included in the register if he is resident, having regard to the definition of residence that I have given, in an English constituency on the appropriate date. I cannot see why he should be in a different position in Northern Ireland. While this may be aimed—and I gather from the right hon. Gentleman's speech that it is so aimed—at people who come from Southern Ireland to Northern Ireland, it equally applies to Englishmen, Scotsmen and Welshmen who go to Northern Ireland—
    Mr. McKie: It says nothing of the kind here.
    Mr. Ede: I do not know what the hon. Member means by that remark. What I asserted—and I gathered from the approving nods which I had from the assembled Members from Northern Ireland that I was right—was if the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie), having got rather tired through the numerous interventions he has made in our Debates today, decided to settle in Northern Ireland so as to remove himself from temptation, he would, under this new Clause, have had to reside for three months in Northern Ireland before qualifying to be a voter. I cannot see there is any necessity for such a differentiation and I advise the Committee not to accept the proposed new Clause.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: I want to point out the facts as I really believe they are. The border between Eire and Northern Ireland is not the same as the border between Yorkshire and Lancashire, or even the border between England and Scotland. After all, in Yorkshire and Lancashire and in England and Scotland they all acknowledge one King and one flag. Mr. de Valera—and he is quite sincere in his belief—has said that they in Southern

    1963
    Ireland belong to a different country. They are under a different flag, and Mr. De Valera himself has talked about the British King being a foreign king. In Eire they teach Irish in their schools. We do not teach Irish in the schools of Northern Ireland. I could cite other instances of the differences between us. During the war there was one town on the border of Eire and Northern Ireland. One side of the street was in Eire and ablaze with lights; the other side was in Northern Ireland and in darkness. Surely that shows there is quite a different boundary between Eire and Northern Ireland from what there is in this country, and that in Ireland they are two different countries.
    The Home Secretary talked about people who are British subjects coming to Northern Ireland and whether they are Englishmen, Scotsmen or Welshmen they would suffer the same disabilities. I unfortunately am not a lawyer, but so far as I can see from this Clause as drafted that would appear to be true. However, those are not the sort of people we want to exclude. In places like Newry or Londonderry, the border is so close that it is quite possible for people to come from Eire to Newry or Londonderry to work and go home to Eire in the evenings. They have far less distance to cover than the average man or woman working in the city and travelling to and from Greater London every day.
    The very real danger in which we might find ourselves is that of being flooded with "foreigners" in some of our Northern Ireland constituencies [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but I call them "foreigners" because they have ideas different from ours, and it is not impossible that we might get a flood of such people, not loyal to the British flag, who might alter the whole course of an election. After all, hon. Members opposite would not wish a flood of Frenchmen or Russians coming into their constituencies and altering the proper turn of the election. For those reasons, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this matter.
    Mr. Mulvey: The object of this Clause is to bring the law into conformity with the franchise law of Northern Ireland, which is, undoubtedly, the most undemocratic of any in any part of the British
    1964
    Isles. Thousands of voters in Northern Ireland are under that law deprived of Parliamentary, as well as local government votes, and if this Clause is accepted it will mean that still more people would be deprived of the vote. Hon. Members will ask how that can be done. At the moment, there is the Safeguarding of Employment Act under which residence permits must be obtained by workers who come from outside Northern Ireland. If the three months' residence prior to the qualifying date was adopted, it would be an easy matter for the authorities to get rid of these workers just before the time fixed for the registration of voters. That is what was in the minds of the sponsors of the Clause, and I am glad to hear that the Home Secretary has said he will not accept it.
    I would remind the House of the keen desire of the Unionists of Northern Ireland to wipe out the Nationalists in the areas in which they hold majorities, and I ask leave to detain the Committee for a few moments by quoting a reference of a Member of the Northern Ireland Parliament, made a few days ago. He spoke at a Unionist meeting in Enniskillen, at which the Premier of the Northern Ireland Parliament was present. The report of his speech states:
    "That was just one thing which was rather a 'black spot' in the report."
    That is the report of the Unionist Association.
    "The Nationalist majority in the county, notwithstanding a reduction of 336 in the year, stood at 3,684. They must reduce, and-711imately liquidate that majority. 'This county, I think it can be safely said,' stated Mr. Ferguson, 'is a Unionist county. The Boards and the properties are nearly all controlled by Unionists, but still there is this millstone round our necks.' He would ask the meeting to authorise their executive to adopt whatever plans and to take whatever steps, however drastic, that they may deem necessary to wipe out this Nationalist majority. They asked for the people's support as it would not be done without plenty of hard work and some very drastic steps, but in the long run he thought they would succeed. So long as this majority stood against them in the county, so long would it be a very useful and potent weapon of propaganda against them."
    The Chairman: I really have given the hon. Member a great deal of latitude, but I do not think his remarks are relevant to the new Clause.
    Mr. Mulvey: Hon. Members are thoroughly aware that within recent years there has been the liquidation of different sections of people in Europe, but few of them are aware that in Northern Ireland, in the areas under the jurisdiction of this House, not a subtle but an open campaign is being carried on designed to wipe out the Nationalist majority. That is the object of bringing in this Clause by hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. Keeling: I was a member of the Home Office Committee on Electoral Registration and of its sub-committee which went to Northern Ireland to investigate this point. Some of us presented a minority report which hon. Members can find at the top of page 23 of the Committee's Report, Command 7004. We found that the view of the overwhelming majority in Ulster was that movements across the border created conditions quite different from those experienced in Great Britain, and that with a qualifying date as the basis of registration it would be difficult to determine whether residence had been established. The Home Secretary said that the question was whether there should be two methods of qualification. As my right hon. Friend has said, there always have been two methods of qualification. The principle that residence requires to be more firmly established in Northern Ireland has always been accepted. The qualifying period has always been longer than in Great Britain. The right hon. Gentleman said that that was no reason why the difference should continue, but I should like to point out that there was and still is a very good reason, in addition to others already given, namely, that Great Britain is surrounded by the sea whereas Ulster has merely a land frontier with Eire, and therefore it is easier for a man to slip across from Eire to Ulster than to slip across from Eire to England or Scotland. Whatever the Home Secretary may say about the definition of residence, I am quite certain that the abolition of the qualifying period will multiply claims and disputes many times. I am quite sure it is wrong to abolish the qualifying period for Northern Ireland.
    11.45 p.m.
    Mr. Bing: I think it might help the Committee if I were to call to their attention what was said by a Unionist Member of the Northern Ireland Parliament on
    1966
    this subject. This proposal put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite is an attempt to continue the system of residence permits in another form. Speaking quite frankly—and this is an extremely courageous Member of the Unionist majority—he said this about it. He gave various instances where residence permits were used at times of elections to remove opponents of his own party, and I will quote one of these instances. Speaking of a residence permit, he said:
    "It was refused because her sister and some other people in the house were suspected, and rightly suspected, of voting for and supporting the Commonwealth candidate at an election in South Belfast. A lady Unionist living across the street reported the matter, and this woman was refused a residence permit."
    Then he said, addressing not the Chair but his colleagues, with a freedom which is, perhaps, permitted in the Northern Ireland House, but which we do not allow here:
    "When you stooped to that, you stooped to the lowest level of degradation."
    It is unfortunately true that means of excluding political opponents are often used by the Northern Ireland Government.
    I will give only one more example, as I do not want to delay the Committee at this late stage. I will take the case of Captain White, of Whitehall, the son of the great Field-Marshal who fought at Ladysmith. He, as an elderly man, took up the cause of the unemployed in Northern Ireland. He was a Protestant landowner. He was served with an exclusion order—exactly the sort of thing for which this Clause would leave an opening—and when he fell into some family difficulty, when his children were ill, what was the document which the Government of Northern Ireland laid before him to sign before they allowed him to return to Northern Ireland? It was this:
    "For reasons connected with my family and private affairs, I have decided that I cannot take any further part in public affairs in Northern Ireland, and I now undertake not to take any further part in public life here, and to keep the peace while the exclusion order is in force."
    I hope the Committee will support the Home Secretary in rejecting the Clause, which would lay the way open to abuses of this sort.
    Sir R. Ross: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing)—[An HON. MEMBER: "Apologise."] I should have thought that if anybody should apologise it should be the hon. Member for Horn-church, whose venom against the Government of Northern Ireland is the best guarantee of unfriendliness to this country, because those whom he supports are not friends of this country as a rule, and those whom he attacks are. Fortunately, his interventions in elections, even in the local Hornchurch elections, are not successful. It was the most peculiar account of Captain White that has ever been heard, and it is some time ago since that happened. I forget the precise year. The hon. Member went back 25 years to dig out something that he thought he could use the other day, and I suspect that this is not very far short of it. However, to return to the substance of the proposed new Clause, rather than this business of trying to throw mud at a loyal part of the United Kingdom—
    Mr. Bing Mr. Bing rose—
    Sir R. Ross: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman seldom gives way when he is speaking—
    Mr. Bing: On a point of correction—
    Sir R. Ross: Very well, if the hon. Gentleman wants to correct something.
    Mr. Bing: The hon. Gentleman accused me of going back 25 years. The Report from which I quoted is dated Wednesday, 30th April, 1947.
    Sir R. Ross: Yes, but not the case of Captain White which is the matter I asked about. The hon. Gentleman is not able to quote the date for that. Probably he does not know it.
    To return to the merits of the Clause, the whole case as put by the right hon. Gentleman has been entirely compromised by the speech of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey). The substance of the speech of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone was that if there has to be even so short a period as three months as a qualification for residence, the Nationalist majority in his constituency would be jeopardised. That is the effect of the speech. It is not a question of years,
    1968
    but of three months' residence. The hon. Member says it is an attempt to jeopardize an important Nationalist majority—
    Mr. Mulvey: I did not say that. I said it was to prevent a Nationalist majority, or words to that effect, from increasing.
    Sir R. Ross: So it is. We do not want people nipping over the border and then nipping back again, voting in Eire first, and then in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member has given his case away entirely because he says it is a very material factor in Nationalist tactics. I believe I have heard it said that identity cards can be obtained on reasonable terms in some parts by those who wish to come over from Eire to vote.
    If I might have the right hon. Gentleman's attention for a few moments, there is a point I would like to bring to his notice. The hon. Gentleman in his speech on the new Clause, alluded to the Attorney-General's speech of 17th March. He said that the matter had been clearly and effectively dealt with by the Attorney-General. If the Home Secretary thinks it is clear, then I do not. The Attorney-General began by saying:
    "As hon. Members know, the meaning of the term 'residence' varies very greatly according to the context in which it is used. It is perhaps one of the most difficult words to define in the whole vocabulary of the English Law."
    He then went on to give a definite instance. In respect of one law, it means one thing, and in respect of another law, it means something utterly different. He finally said:
    "With regard to the franchise, it had a fairly well recognised connotation, although it had not been the subject of any very precise definition; but it was supposed to be something equivalent to 'inhabitance,' but if I were asked what is inhabitance 'I should have to reply in the words of a learned judge, who said that it is something approaching residence'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1948; Vol. 448, C. 2239.]
    This is the precise definition which the Home Secretary wishes us to rely upon, with an open border which people can come across quite easily from various directions on the Appointed Day. I am glad to see that the Solicitor-General is here. Perhaps he will be able to improve on the Attorney-General's definition, because so far the thing is complete and utter confusion.

    1969
    Then there is this further point. Practically everybody in Northern Ireland thinks that the registration will already be very difficult, and to have two registrations will mean a continuous registration practically throughout the year. That is the opinion of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone as well as myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, with the knowledge of years not spent in Northern Ireland—I do not know whether he has ever been there—proceeded to overrule us both. Think of thousands of objections being argued on the question of inhabitance and what that means. Nobody yet knows. Even the Attorney-General does not know. I do not know whether the Home Secretary will say that he knows, or whether the Solicitor-General will clarify the whole matter in due course, but so far the whole thing is complete and utter confusion.
    The suggestion that we made of a period of three months in one place was largely in order to cut out the difficulties which otherwise might ensue when there is this registration session. To have two in a year will be very difficult from the Imperial point of view. Therefore, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, in view of this, either to give us a definite and more precise ruling on which something can be done, or else to consider whether this suggestion of three months' residence is not a very reasonable one.
    I think the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey) is really pessimistic when he thinks this is going to affect any genuine voters. I cannot see how it could. I beseech hon. and right hon. Members opposite not to allow their passion for unity to be carried to the length of having this unity also as regards residence qualifications, and so forth, because the conditions are totally different. Indeed, I do not think the Government know very much about the entirely different conditions in Northern Ireland. They are as different as walking across a street is from taking a journey across the Channel in a ship. Therefore, I urgently appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the whole matter, because it is a serious problem for us. I am sure he wants just and reasonable elections and does not want to land all parties in these interminable squabbles over jurisdiction.
    Mr. Delargy: I think the Committee is really getting a little weary of these matters. After all, there is a Government in Northern Ireland; yet its representatives here, irrespective of this Government's legislation, come over here, whining, groaning and grovelling, and asking for special sessions for themselves. Surely, we are entitled to ask why should special, exclusive and preferential treatment be given to these people in Northern Ireland. Three hon. Members from Northern Ireland have spoken in support of this preferential treatment, including the senior member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill), who shows his vast interest in his own Clause by going out—
    Mr. Gage: He is here.
    Mr. Delargy: He was not in his place and he still is not. He made certain objections which apply with equal force in any part of the United Kingdom, As they apply with equal force all over the country, why should special legislation be made for Northern Ireland?
    Sir R. Ross: They do not.
    Mr. Delargy: The hon. and gallant Member for Down (Sir W. Smiles) thinks we should pass this Clause because the Irish language is spoken in Eire. But Welsh is spoken much in Wales and the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) reminds me that most of his election speeches were made in Scots Gaelic, an old and beautiful language, older than the language we speak here.
    Sir W. Smiles: What about the flags?
    Mr. Delargy: I do not admit anything about flags: I should like to keep to one point at a time. Some hon. Gentlemen fear Irish voters in these constituencies. We on this side have no such fear because we know—and the Home Secretary must realise it, too—that unless Irish voters had come into Great Britain, there would not have been a Labour Government here tonight.
    The hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) reproached the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) for going back 25 years to find some peculiar abuse in the system in Northern Ireland. I can give the hon. Member for Londonderry one example which took place in his constituency, when three people, a man, his

    1971
    wife and a servant girl, came from County Donegal. Two of them, as they were born in Northern Ireland, were granted residence permits and votes: they belonged to the Unionist Party. The servant girl, who was born in Londonderry, had spent some time outside Londonderry with her employer and his wife, but when she came back at the same time as they did she was refused a residence permit, because everyone knew very well that she would never have voted Unionist. That is not going back 25 years, because the case came to my notice on 17th March, 1948, 'a date which the hon. Member for Londonderry ought to remember, because that was the day he tried to prevent my going to his constituency. I believe the House is growing weary of this subterfuge, special pleading, and sycophancy. The one good thing tonight has been the encouraging words used by the Home Secretary, who said that all the while there is a United Kingdom including Northern Ireland, we must do this and that. I like the phrase "all the while" because he seems to see a time to come when Ireland will be a united country.
    12 midnight.
    Mr. Ede: Nothing that I have heard from hon. Members opposite makes me think that the decision I announced to the House ought to be varied. During my period of office I have done my very best to understand the temperament and problems of Northern Ireland, and I have on occasions incurred some odium with my hon. Friends on this side because I have endeavoured to observe strict impartiality in the discharge of the duties of my office in so far as they concern Northern Ireland. I am bound to say, however, that I consider the greater part of my work in that regard undone by the deplorable speech made by the hon. Member for Down (Sir W. Smiles). I can think of nothing more calculated to make it difficult for me to pursue my policy than the attacks he made on other British subjects with whom he happens to disagree in politics. I would regret to think that that represents the considered view of the people of Northern Ireland on this problem and similar problems. I repeat what I have said. I can see no reason why there should be two residence qualifications in one United Kingdom.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.
    To report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Pearson.]
    Committee report Progress, to sit again Tomorrow.

  EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make fresh provision with respect to the functions of the Minister of Labour and National Service relating to employment and training for employment; it is expedient to authorise—

  A. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the following expenditure, that is to say,—

  (1) Expenditure incurred by the Minister of Labour and National Service under the provisions of the said Act requiring that Minister to provide such facilities and services as he considers expedient for purposes connected with the promotion of employment, and authorising him—

  (a) to establish and maintain employment exchanges, and to provide information, guidance, advice and other services for the purposes aforesaid;

  (b) to defray or contribute towards expenditure of local authorities in providing any such services as aforesaid, and to contribute to the funds of voluntary associations having the provision of such services among their objects;

  (c) to make payments in respect of the travelling attendance and medical examination of persons availing themselves of such services;

  (d) to provide training courses for persons above the upper limit of the compulsory school age, to make payments in respect of the maintenance or travelling expenses of persons attending at such courses, and to provide facilities and services incidental to such courses;

  (e) to defray or contribute towards the cost of training courses provided for such persons as aforesaid by any other authority or person, including the cost of making such payments and providing such facilities and services as aforesaid, and to make the like payments and provide the like facilities and services for such persons when trained by employers in accordance with arrangements made with the Minister;

  (f) to make provision by way of grant or loan or otherwise for facilitating the removal of persons for the purposes of obtaining employment, and of the dependants of such persons, for the maintenance, welfare and resettlement of

  1973
  persons so removed, and for their further removal;

  (2) Expenditure incurred by the said Minister in the payment to local authorities of sums in respect of the administrative expenses under schemes made under the said Act of the present Session authorising those authorities to undertake, in relation to persons under eighteen years of age or attending school, any such functions as are mentioned in subparagraphs (a) to (c) of the foregoing paragraph;

  (3) Any expenditure of the Minister of Education or the Secretary of State under the said Act:

  (4) Any expenses or allowances payable to the members of the National Juvenile Employment Council and the Advisory Committees for Scotland and Wales to be established under the said Act, or of any other committee appointed by the Minister of Labour and National Service under the
  1974
  said Act, or of any committee or subcommittee thereof.

  B. The charging on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, and the issue there-out to the Government of Northern Ireland, of any amounts required under the said Act of the present Session to be so charged and issued on account of expenses incurred by that Government under any laws made by the Parliament of Northern Ireland pursuant to the said Act for purposes similar to any of the purposes thereof."

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes past Twelve o'Clock.

PALESTINE
  Jews (Departure)
  Jews (Departure)
  Immigration (Control)
  Immigration (Control)
  Religious Establishments
  Religious Establishments
NYASALAND
  Chiromo Railway Bridge
  Chiromo Railway Bridge
  Cotton Piece Goods (Duties)
  Cotton Piece Goods (Duties)
  ROYAL NAVAL HOSPITALS (FOOD)
  ROYAL NAVAL HOSPITALS (FOOD)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Officer's Suspension
  Officer's Suspension
  Groundnut Scheme
  Groundnut Scheme
  Quick-Freezing Plants
  Quick-Freezing Plants
  SOAP RATION
  SOAP RATION
POST OFFICE
  Telephone Service, Scotland
  Telephone Service, Scotland
  Sorters
  Sorters
  Telecommunications (Skilled Workmen)
  Telecommunications (Skilled Workmen)
  Overseas Mail
  Overseas Mail
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Commissions (Aircrew)
  Commissions (Aircrew)
  Skilled Workers (Indentures)
  Skilled Workers (Indentures)
  Ammunition, Tumby Woodside
  Ammunition, Tumby Woodside
  COUNCIL COTTAGES (COSTS)
  COUNCIL COTTAGES (COSTS)
FUEL AND POWER
  Petrol Ration
  Petrol Ration
  Supplementary Petrol Allowances
  Supplementary Petrol Allowances
  BRISTOL MEDIUM RANGE AIRCRAFT
  BRISTOL MEDIUM RANGE AIRCRAFT
  OLD AGE PENSIONS
  OLD AGE PENSIONS
  FISH LANDINGS, GRIMSBY (LUMPERS)
  FISH LANDINGS, GRIMSBY (LUMPERS)
  AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (COUNTY COMMITTEES)
  AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (COUNTY COMMITTEES)
  GERMANY (PASSPORT APPLICATIONS)
  GERMANY (PASSPORT APPLICATIONS)
  BUILDING LICENCE, BETHESDA
  BUILDING LICENCE, BETHESDA
  H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE (PAPER CONSUMPTION)
  H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE (PAPER CONSUMPTION)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Hydrocarbon Oils
  Hydrocarbon Oils
  Inessential Imports (Official's Statement)
  Inessential Imports (Official's Statement)
  NEW SCHOOL, ALDRIDGE
  NEW SCHOOL, ALDRIDGE
  ALUMINIUM HOUSES, GLASGOW
  ALUMINIUM HOUSES, GLASGOW
  WALKER ART GALLERY, LIVERPOOL
  WALKER ART GALLERY, LIVERPOOL

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

TRANSPORT USERS CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEES.
2.35 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I beg to ask the Government the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government when they intend to implement the provisions of Clause 6 of the Transport Act and set up consultative committees of users and whether the Minister, in so doing, will make certain that two additional members, really representative of the travelling public, will be recommended for such consultative committees.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, the Minister of Transport is about to invite nominations for the Central Transport Consultative Committee for Great Britain from the national bodies representative of the interests concerned. He proposes to appoint on this body two additional members, who will be the persons to be designated as the Chairmen of the Transport Users Consultative Committees for Scotland and for Wales. When setting up the transport users consultative committees for various areas he will have fully in mind the assurance given in this matter to the noble Lord opposite on July 9, 1947.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, arising out of the noble Earl's answer, I should like to ask him whether he is aware that we have in London a body called the London Passengers' Association, which is the sort of body that is eminently suitable for the selection of one of these additional members.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I have no doubt that my right honourable friend will bear that organisation in mind.

CURRENCY DEVALUATION.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask His Majesty's Government the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether, in view of the unilateral action of the French Government in devaluing, in contravention of the agreement undertaken by signatories of the Bretton Woods Agreement, of which it is understood France was one, they can state if it is to be understood that the Foreign Assistance Act recently passed by the United States Congress contains any provisions direct or implied which would exclude similar unilateral action in devaluation by the British Government.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's question is in the negative.

POLICE SERVICE COMMITTEE.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask His Majesty's Government the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether they will now announce the names of the members of the Committee to be appointed to inquire into the Police Forces and what are the terms of reference.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I hope to be able to make an announcement at an early date, but I cannot say anything more to-day.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (FAMILY PENSION FUNDS) (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1948.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Order, as presented to Parliament, and reported from the Special Orders Committee on March 16 last, be approved (The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE ECONOMIC SITUATION.
2.41 p.m.
LORD CHERWELL LORD CHERWELL rose to call attention to the economic situation; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is almost exactly two years ago that I moved a Motion in your Lordships' House in almost identical terms to those which I have put down to-day. On that occasion I expressed great anxiety about the grave danger of continuing inflation, about the difficulties of distributing man-power in the best way to maximise the output of goods required for export, and, above all, about the prospect of a grave deficiency in our balance of trade. I am sorry that the twists and turns of life in the Socialist Party have found out the Achilles heel of my noble friend Lord Pakenham, who replied then. I trust that he will soon be with us again. On that occasion, the noble Lord indicated that Ministers had no grave misgivings about the questions that caused me anxiety, and that the Socialist Government would no doubt be able to cope with these problems without great difficulty. The Economic Survey published last month shows that the Government have proved unequal to the task. The Government, as a whole, I think, realise this. Some Ministers, like those who said that the demand for increased exports was a fallacy or that exports are a silly will-o-the-wisp are, of course, past praying for. But I believe that the majority have now begun to see the red light.
Before we can discuss remedies, we must have a diagnosis. Many attempts have been made by Ministers and others to explain our troubles. While I do not invariably agree with them, I always pay great attention to what Ministers say. I was much interested, therefore, to read the other day that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply, who ought to be well informed, attributed many of our troubles to "a lot of jumped-up Left Wing idiots." Of course, that is really getting down to fundamentals. But even if we could agree about
246
categories, I may say, frankly that I think it is an over-simplification. A more usual excuse, and a more comfortable one, is to say that the whole trouble is due to word conditions. This a very convenient way of shifting the onus, equivalent to writing "Passed to you, please, for necessary action," and putting the whole problem on the "Out" tray marked "To the Deity." Nobody denies that world conditions have been difficult; but they have not proved insurmountable elsewhere. We have only to look at the progress made in Belgium to see what can be done by energetic, hard-headed people who get down to work instead of chasing lain-bows. It is quite true that in Belgium they also have a Left Wing Government. A friend of mine recently asked one of their Ministers how they managed to avoid being hamstrung by all sorts of Utopian schemes of nationalisation, and the like, despite the large Socialist element in their Cabinet. The answer was: "Well, you see, our Socialists are sensible people." Some people have all the luck!
The two outstanding threats to our economic life to-day are the fact that we are not balancing our foreign trade, and the growing inflation. I propose to concentrate my remarks on those two problems, in that order. As to the balance of trade, the position is shown very clearly in the Economic Survey. Broadly speaking, it is this. For the last two years the cost of our imports has exceeded our earnings abroad by something approaching £50,000,000 a month. In other words, every household in this country is getting, and has been getting for two years, goods from abroad to the value of about £1 a week—goods which are not being paid for by our earnings. Every family has been enjoying £1 a week for two years now as a gift from the generous American people. And since the Loan ran out, it is to the extent of £1 a week that every family in this country has been drawing on its capital reserves, amounting to about £40 per family. That is the position. So far there is no sign of improvement. Last night's newspapers had great headlines: "Exports best since 1920." Only in small type did I see that the imports were also a record, and that the negative balance for the month amounted to the appalling figure of £57,000,000. Obviously, this cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.
Many people have wondered why this country, which used always to be able to pay its way, has suddenly been reduced to living upon charity. True, our population is 4 per cent. up; but so is the number of persons gainfully employed. It is not as though we were living on the fat of the land. On the contrary, the Government have admitted that the housewife's rations give her less than two-thirds of the nourishment given to prisoners in gaol. Nobody has ever explained how she is to make up the deficit. It is true that in Table IX of Command Paper 7371 we are told that our personal expenditure is 102 per cent. of what it was in 1938, revalued at pre-war prices. As this implies that prices have gone up by only 61 per cent., whilst, as we know, raw materials have risen two and a half times, and wages, salaries and profits 1.8 times, I do not think it need be taken too seriously. People may well ask why we should be short of pretty well all the ordinary articles needed in the home; why we should find it impossible to-day to pay for our essential imports by the export of manufactured articles, as we have been doing for the last 100 years; and, worst of all, why the position in 1946, which suggested that with the help of the American Loan we had four years to get things straight, should have worsened so catastrophically that the whole Loan was exhausted by the end of 1947.
This urgent problem of paying for our imports should not have taken the Government by surprise. It had been foreseen by the Coalition Government, and a number of committees were set up to prepare for the enormous expansion of our exports which would be required in order to pay our way. As I said last October, the Socialist Government failed to cope with the situation. They failed to realise in time how important it was to man the export industry. They embarked upon a vast capital programme, which used up man-power without any prospect of adequate return for many years. They dissipated our resources by free gifts and long-term loans, and by expenditure of various sorts all over the world. They sent large quantities of unrequited exports abroad to compensate nations which have not themselves been ravaged by the war for any efforts they may have made to help win it. They allowed a large part of the American
248
Loan to slip or leak away, and then allowed exports to be lost to a value equivalent to a considerable fraction of the American Loan by the gross inefficiency of their handling of the coal situation which led last year to the so-called fuel crisis.
I expounded these failures of the Government at some length six months ago, and I will not weary your Lordships by going into them all once more. I think they have been largely admitted sub silentio, for our new Chancellor and economic dictator has reversed almost all the vicious activities of which I complained. But though he has admitted the need to cut down the capital programme in this respect his performance has not matched his professions. Frankly, I was shocked to learn that the Government planned to spend this year £1,800,000,000 on capital investment—that is to say, about one-third of the total material physical production of the country. If only one-third of this amount could be diverted to the production of exports, and we could sell these exports, all our troubles would be at an end. I cannot believe that in 1948, when we shall be so hard put to it to make ends meet, the country can afford this terrific outlay on capital investment, much of which will bring no return for many years, however desirable it may be in itself.
I would not mind so much if the capital investment consisted mainly of machine tools and the like, but in fact these form only a small proportion. Roads are being straightened and widened all over the place, although private motoring has been reduced to a trickle. Railways are being electrified, though we are short of power. New lines are being constructed which will not come into use for three or four years at the very least. New factories are being built, although we had already expanded our factory space for war purposes. Yet the Government intend to direct more than one-third of the physical output of the country in 1948 into capital goods—and this when the consumer is starved of practically all articles of domestic use and the exporter is often working short time for lack of steel. I am convinced that the Government are misguided in planning this vast investment at this moment.
I now come to the catastrophic collapse last summer, when we suddenly learned

249
that the American Loan, which was expected to last three or four years, was virtually exhausted. I think the reasons for this debacle emerge fairly clearly from the Economic Survey. Naturally there are a variety of causes, but the figures given in the Economic Survey show that their relative importance has frequently been misconceived. A major item was our failure to reach the export target—attributed largely to the so-called fuel crisis—which seems to have cost us about £260,000,000. The fuel crisis, however, should have been foreseen when our stocks of coal did not reach 11,000,000 tons in October. Apparently the then Minister of Fuel and Power preferred to hope against hope.
Incidentally, there is a small point concerning our exports which the Government might care to clear up. According to the Digest our exports in 1947 amounted to £1,196,000,000. According to the Economic Survey they amounted to £1,125,000,000. I am told that one of the figures derives from the Board of Trade returns and the other from the Exchange Control. In view of this a difference of £71,000,000 seems a little disquieting, although I expect there is some perfectly innocent statistical explanation.
In our last debate great stress was laid upon the rise in American prices. It is quite true that between 1946 and 1947 they did rise by about 19 per cent. and, according to the Digest, import prices averaged over the year rose by 20.4 per cent. This meant that our imports cost about £268,000,000 more than they would have done if prices had not risen. But as against this the prices of exports rose by 16½ per cent., so that we received £159,000,000 more for exports than we had a right to expect. Thus the damage to our trade balance caused by the rise in prices was less than £110,000,000, which is not nearly enough to account for our troubles. And had we succeeded in exporting the anticipated amount—which was unfortunately prevented by the Government's coal muddle—the losses due to rising prices would have been considerably less. Then we are told that our troubles are due to the loss of earnings on shipping. That this is erroneous is proved completely by the figures given in Table VIII of the "Economic Survey, which show that our annual shipping earnings are only £3,000,000 down on pre-war. Another popular explanation is
250
that the sale in the early days of the war of our assets abroad has reduced our investment income, which used to pay a large part of the difference between the cost of our imports and the value of our exports. Actually, according to Table VIII, our investment income from abroad is only £60,000,000 down as against pre-war.
Quite another point is that we seem to have agreed to pay out in the form of interest and profits £64,000,000 more than in 1938. Is this some long-term funding arrangement? It is a considerable amount; it would be 2 per cent. on £3,200,000,000. Or does it represent profits and more interest on foreign capital invested here during the war? Or what? Where docs the £64,000,000 go? I am sure the House would be interested if the noble Viscount could give us an answer to that. An even more mysterious and equally important loss is shown in Table VIII under the heading "Other Receipts" According to the figures given there, we had a profit of £100,000,000 in 1938 and £73,000,000 in 1946. But for some totally unexplained reason this was suddenly changed to a loss of £20,000,000 in 1947. I think the Government should give us an analysis and an explanation of this sudden change. It amounts to twice as much as the loss of interest and profits paid on our foreign investments since 1938, which is always stressed as being one of the main causes. This enormous change over of £120,000,000 should not merely be lumped under the heading "Other Receipts."
All of these items, however, fade into insignificance compared with Government expenditure overseas. This is the: rue nigger in the woodpile. It amounted in 1947 to £352,000,000—£211,000,000 classified as "military," £62,000,000 for relief and rehabilitation, and £79,000,000 for Germany. Of course, if we spend these extravagant sums abroad it is not surprising that we cannot balance our trade. £352,000,000 is more than half our deficit. It is just about what we paid in 1947 for all wheat, meat, bacon, sugar, butter and shell eggs which we imported in the year. No wonder our ration has to be reduced, if the Government are spending these sums abroad! I do not know how many troops we have overseas, but £211,000,000 for military expenditure, with a forecast of £76,000,000 in the

251
first half of 1948, is a figure which requires some sort of explanation.
I am sure the House would welcome also some elucidation from the Government of the figures given in Table X. We are told there that the United Kingdom expenditure in the dollar area went up 84 per cent. in 1947 above the figures in 1946. This is no doubt due in part to the rise in prices. But, after all, they rose only 20 per cent., and the increase in the volume of our exports can scarcely account for the remaining 53 per cent. Much more odd are the figures for the net expenditure in dollars of the rest of the sterling area. In the dollar area they rose from £38,000,000 in 1946 to £266,000,000 in 1947—a seven-fold increase. This is surely very curious. As for the dollar expenditure of the sterling area in other countries, this changed from a net gain of £80,000,000 in 1946 to a net loss of £157,000,000 in 1947. Surely this extraordinary reversal, a loss to this country of £237,000,000, can scarcely be accounted for by normal commercial transactions.
These mysteries seem to be reflected in the last four items in Table XI. Apparently we allowed £190,000,000 to be invested in some form of capital assets abroad, and we also allowed £165,000,000 to be drawn from the sterling balances in England, which I have always maintained should have been frozen until a general settlement could be made. All this £355,000,000, apparently, had to be set against our dollar drawings of £963,000,000. Am I right in thinking that the sudden running out of the American Loan, which seems to have taken the Government by surprise, is connected with this draft of over £300,000,000 in 1947 as against an investment of nearly £200,000,000 in 1946? It seems to be the only intelligible explanation. With huge figures like these floating about unexplained—quantities equal to half the American Loan—can the Government really complain if the public seek enlightenment?
Before proceeding I must say a few words about the Chancellor's plans for improving our situation. All of us, I am sure, will agree that the proposal to increase our agricultural output so as to save £100,000,000 in three years' time is admirable. The need for such action has been stressed in your Lordships' House in numerous debates ever since the war
252
and we can only regret that the Government set this plan in motion only last autumn. Another project, which all of us I am sure will approve, is the plan to increase the export of textiles. I mentioned the need for this when I spoke two years ago. Textiles are one of the few materials where the terms of trade are greatly in our favour, their price in January having risen to 3.26 times the 1938 value, whereas the average price of our imports went up to only 2.69 times the 1938 value. I am glad the Government now realise how important it is to augment man-power, or rather woman-power, in the textile industries, and I am sure we all wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer success in his endeavours to increase the numbers and bring them back to something like pre-war figures.
I am sure we all hope that the Government will succeed in raising man-power in the coal mines. Uphappily this seems the only hope of getting production back to pre-war figures. It is no use the Government boasting about a 3 per cent. increase in the output per man-shift due to the improvement in the whole spiral of the industry, if, as is now happening, the men work fewer shifts. Actually, according to the Survey, the output of deep-mined coal per man per year increased only 0.7 per cent.—three-quarters of 1 per cent.—between 1946 and 1947. It is the output per man per year which counts. Of course it is a step in the right direction, but we still have a long way to go before we reach the 1938 figure for the annual output per head, which was 8.3 per cent. higher still, not to speak of the 1937 figure which was 17·7 per cent. higher. Three-quarters of 1 per cent.! That is what we have gained by nationalisation. In the old days we were 17·7 per cent. up. In this connection I might stress one important matter, and that is the getting of clean coal. I gather that the calorific value of coal now delivered is something like 6 per cent. lower than it used to be, owing to the excessive amount of dirt. This not only implies a huge waste of transport, but has the added disadvantage that a considerable amount of coal has to be thrown away unburnt with the ashes. I trust that the Minister of Fuel and Power will realise the importance of thoroughly screening and washing coal—whatever he may think about the importance of washing the human body—and that arrangements will be made to

253
improve the quality even though it may mean a statistical decrease in the amount of saleable coal shown in the Monthly Digest.
The need to increase electrical generating capacity has also been evident for some time. Whether it would have been so great had supplies of domestic coal been better can be argued. We are told in the Survey that coal used for electrical generation rose by 12.2 million tons between 1938 and 1947. The amount of coal available for domestic use fell in that period by 14.2 million tons. In the circumstances it is not surprising that the unhappy domestic consumer resorted to electric fires. Apparently over 2,500,000 fires were sold in 1946 alone, and this corresponds to an increase in possible peak time of over 2,000,000 kilowatts. The planned increase of electrical capacity by 1,000,000 kilowatts a year, which will involve the efforts of over 200,000 men, is a heavy price to pay for this, but I fear it is inevitable. This brings me to the remarkable plan to use 1,500,000 tons more oil in 1948 than in 1947. No doubt this accounts for the forecast increase in expenditure on petroleum products of £19,000,000, despite the loss of basic petrol which has caused so much hardship to so many millions of people. No doubt this is the aftermath of the panic measures taken by the late Minister of Fuel and Power about which I complained last year. He pressed industry to change over from sterling coal to dollar oil when he realised what a mess he had made of things in general. On his own showing, we would have to export coal at a price of £5 to £7 a ton, and, what is more, to dollar countries, to offset the cost of those oil imports. That is indeed a heavy price to pay for that Minister's assistance in running our affairs.
I come now to what we are told is likely to be this year's bottleneck—namely, steel. I see that one newspaper said that it is one of the bottlenecks which ought to be ironed out! It is really most surprising, when we are producing more steel than ever before, to learn that there is a shortage. During the war, when we were turning out millions of tons of shells, armoured vehicles and so forth, we managed all right. And now, when every dollar counts, I am told that the Nuffield organisation, which can sell every M.G. car it can produce for American dollars,
254
is working at little more than half-speed owing to shortage of steel. Many people believe that some firms with long-term contracts are getting the steel in now though they may only need it years hence. No one can blame them, for they can never be sure, under our carefully-planned economy, whether they will be able to get it later on or what price they may have to pay if they do. If this is happening it might, of course, well create a temporary statistical shortage.
Can the Government tell us how they are getting on with their census of steel stocks? I hope that before long they will give us something like a steel budget showing both the capital position and the production and consumption figures, and indicating in broad categories where the vast quantities of steel produced annually actually go. If the shortage is real,: he gravity of the situation seems to justify some relaxation of the safety factors in structures on which we normally insist. Very large amounts of steel might be saved in this way without appreciable risk, in view of the greater uniformity and reliability of the modern product.
On the whole, the Economic Survey is undoubtedly an able and honest document, representing an unbiased attempt to state the facts as they are, such as one might expect from our new Chancellor. It was, of course, written before Congress had voted Marshall Aid, and it is very difficult to see how our trade balance will develop now that we can count upon this generous subvention. I see to-day that Britain is to get £331,000,000 under the Marshall Aid Plan. So far as I can make out, this is to be spread over fifteen months, making about £22,000,000 a month. On last month's figures this still leaves a gap of £35,000,000. I hope the Government spokesman, when he replies, may be able to give us some reassurance in general terms on this matter and show how and when the present fatal drain on our gold and dollar resources will be halted. In my view, the Survey scarcely places sufficient emphasis upon a very dangerous aspect of our foreign trade—namely, the question whether we shall be able to sell all the goods shown in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's target figures, even if we can produce then.
Two years ago one could sell almost anything at almost any price. Then, unfortunately, we had not much to sell

255
and we shrank, rather ineptly it seems to me, from asking very high prices. Now many other competitors are in the field, and our costs of production are going up so fast that it is difficult to meet their competition. If we failed to sell our exports and were in consequence unable to buy our raw material, we would pass at a bound to unemployment and slump conditions. One of our great difficulties is the long time that we have to quote for delivery, due largely to the elaborate system of Government controls, licences, quotas and so on, which are such a drag on production. In Belgium none of these things exists. They have no trouble in selling their exports, even though their prices have gone up about three and a half times, as have their wages. On being asked recently whether they would not soon have to devalue their currency to enable them to export, one of their Ministers told a friend of mine that sooner or later it might be necessary. "For the time being, however," he said, "we can sell all we can make, as we can promise quick delivery, and we have quite a satisfactory export surplus."
This brings me to a matter to which the Government, in my view, do not pay nearly enough attention. One of the greatest difficulties afflicting Europe at the present time is the shortage of food in the towns, due largely to the reluctance of agriculturists to sell their produce for a paper currency in which they have no confidence. This is the reason why continental Europe, which used to be 80 per cent. self-supporting in food, is now demanding—and I hope will receive, under the generous Marshall Plan—such large imports of food. Surely by far the most important thing that could be done to promote European recovery would be in some way to restore confidence in the various European countries in their currencies or, if necessary, to start some new currency, as Schacht did in Germany with the Rentenmark, in which the inhabitants had confidence. If something like this could be managed, continental Europe would, I believe, rapidly become more nearly self-supporting and its demands on the food-exporting countries would dwindle, with excellent results from the British point of view, on food import prices. If something like this could be done, presumably with American help,
256
I believe that many of the economic difficulties of Europe would vanish into thin air.
One thing we should strive for, I suggest, is that some arrangement be made by which any export surplus we may develop in countries which are receiving Marshall aid should be credited to us in dollars. It would surely be to everybody's interest that we should be able to pay for our American imports by sending manufactures to Europe—thus relieving America of the need to do so—rather than that America should have to make a gift of similar goods to Europe and also of imports of a corresponding value to Britain. As I have said, one of the great dangers confronting the Chancellor of the Exchequer's plan for restoring trading equilibrium is a rise in manufacturing costs due to inflation. In his Budget speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer very properly devoted most of his attention to this topic. Of course, there are all sorts of definitions of inflation, but there is no question about its principal symptom—namely, a considerable general rise in prices. There is little need to give reasons why we all dislike this: our income buys less, our savings become less valuable, we have to make do with much less, and people who are dependent on pensions or annuities are permanently crippled.
It is true that certain classes may be able to force an increase in wages, by means of strikes and methods like that, but strikes cause only hardship all round and, in any event, there is always a time-lag during which the weekly wage will not go so far as before. Even when an increase in wages has occurred, this only leads to an increase in costs of production, prices rise again and the well-known vicious spiral takes another turn. Moreover, there is always the risk of galloping inflation supervening, the horrible conditions that arise when people lose confidence in currency, when the rate at which prices rise becomes so marked that everybody tries to buy any object in the shops rather than wait a day or two, lest his money might purchase only half as much. I remember that when this happened in Germany in 1923, people used to race one another on their bicycles to the shops and buy anything they could lay hands on, rather than keep their wage packet an hour longer than could be

257
helped. I do not think I need labour the case against inflation, its social evils, the impossibility of exporting without devaluing the £, and so on. I think this is all common ground.
What are the causes of inflation? The answer we have been told ad nauseam in the last two years is "too much money chasing too few goods." It reminds me of a cartoon that I saw, in which two natives were talking to one another, and one of them said "the whole trouble is that there are too many goats chasing two few wives." What I object to is the idea that this condition of affairs is an act of God. Why is there too much money, and why are there too few goods? It is easy to see why this happens in war time. During the Second World War, for instance, nearly a quarter of the working population were in the Services, and another quarter were engaged in making munitions of every sort and kind for their use. Only half the normal working population were available to provide the goods and services for all the people not in uniform. Thus, while everybody had to draw pay or wages in some shape or form, far fewer goods could be produced on which the money could be spent. It is simple enough, therefore, to see why we had too few goods during the war, and why people were prepared to pay more for what there were.
The Government did what they could—by pegging the price of food through food subsidies, by rent restrictions regulations, a great savings drive and the like—to hold down prices. But the workers would have been more than human if they had refrained altogether from asking for higher wages to meet the general increased cost of living. Considering that there was a war on, I do not think we can complain about what happened. The cost of living index rose by about 33 per cent.; wage rates went up about 50 per cent., though of course earnings were higher, owing to over-time work. What I think we have a right to complain about is that this process of inflation has continued—and, indeed, has been deliberately encouraged—since the war ended. As the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, pointed out, the Government are entirely to blame for this.
It is a curious fact that the late Chancellor, who lamented so frequently and so bitterly of the existence of inflationary pressure, never seemed to realise that he
258
was himself entirely responsible for it. He boasted that he had given the country cheap money. But what is cheap money? Money is, cheap—that is to say, people are prepared to lend it at low rates of interest—if they have plenty of it but nothing to spend it on. The Chancellor never tired of telling us that we could not expect a large volume of output in the transitional period be: ore our industries had got going, so that there was bound to be a shortage of goods on which to spend our money. Yet at this very time, when people were crying out for every conceivable form of capital and consumer goods which they had been forced to forgo for six years during the war, the Chancellor, through his control of the Bank of England, pumped £1,000,000,000 of extra credit into circulation. Can anyone imagine action more calculated to produce the very inflationary pressure which the Chancellor never ceased deploring? You might as well complain if your kitchen got flooded after you had stopped up the sink, turned the tap on and left the water running. The Middle Ages knew the Angelic Doctor, the Seraphic Doctor, and the Irrefragible Doctor. Perhaps this century will re cognise the Egregious Doctor.
Though the new Chancellor's desire to check inflation is clear enough, the question is whether the methods he has adopted are suitable. As I have said, if people have plenty of money and have not much to spend it on, they will be prepared to pay more for what little there is, and prices will rise. That is the situation the Chancellor has to correct. Obviously the best way to do this is to see that more goods are made available. If there is plenty in the shops, they cannot hold out for higher prices. But this involves producing more—that is to say, simplifying and reducing many of the controls which are hamstringing industry, and working harder or working longer hours.
It would take too long to-day to discuss the delays and frustrations caused by the infinitude of petty, detailed forms of Government intervention which hamper anyone trying to carry on business. Their noxious effect on output is, I think, admitted by everyone except members of the Government. But I think even Ministers would admit that more output could be secured if greater efforts were made. It is not surprising, however, that

259
they find it hard to put this thesis across. For generations their slogan has been that extra output profits only the boss. It is difficult for them now to put their propaganda machine into reverse. When the Lord President of the Council, in the intervals of listening to "Dick Barton," puts up "Work or Want" posters, the wage-earners suspect that he has been "nobbled." And despite the efforts of the Government and their close relations with the T.U.C., working hours have been reduced 2 per cent. between 1946 and 1947 over the country as a whole.
In the circumstances, I think we all agree that the Chancellor was well advised to pray in aid the wicked profit motive, masquerading for the time being under the more respectable alibi of "incentive." I think we shall all welcome the changes he has introduced in direct taxation, which tend to give people earning up to £2,000 a year a greater reward for their effort. Whether they will suffice to reduce the manual worker's objection to handing over a considerable part of his overtime earnings to the Government remains to be seen. We must all hope they will. However, I cannot help thinking that a flat reduction of a shilling in the rate of Income Tax would have had a much greater psychological effect.
The essential thing is, by some means or other, to increase the output per head. As I said in our debate in October, much as I wish it were otherwise I fear there is little doubt that the country's output per head is down on pre-war figures. The noble Viscount who leads for the Government reproved me for taking such a gloomy view. In evidence to-day I will merely quote two figures given by the Government. According to the Statistical Digest, the number of men engaged in the export industries in January, 1948, was 1.96 million as against. 99 million in June, 1939; in other words, we have nearly twice as many men working for export as before the war. Yet the volume of our exports, according to Government figures, is up by less than one-third. How is it, if output per head is the same or better than pre-war, that 98 per cent. more men can produce only 28 per cent. more goods? Actually I do not believe that output per head is down to that extent—namely, some 35 per cent. But that it is down is certain, probably by about
260
10 to 15 per cent. And if it is down in the export industries there is no reason to suppose that it is not also down over the rest of the industries of the country. How much of this is due to controls and how much to slackening of effort I must leave the Government to evaluate, but I think the Prime Minister was not far out when he asked for an increase of 10 per cent. It should be possible to obtain it and, if this were achieved, it would not be difficult for us to re-establish our position.
If we can make sure that no more money is put into circulation unless there is a corresponding increase in production, things should at any rate not get worse. This, of course, is the intention of the Government's suggestion set out in rather a tentative manner, as it seems to me, in their Paper on wages and prices. There they say that wage increases should not be granted unless there is a corresponding increase of output. In principle, of course, that is right; but it is surely rather feeble for a Government with the slogan "We are the masters now" to content themselves with advice and to put the onus of really preventing wage rises on the employer by threatening not to take increased costs arising from increased wages into account in Government contracts.
A crude and rather naïve method of preventing prices from rising, which, of course, commends itself to the bureaucrat, is to put on price controls. All we need do, he says, is to fix the prices of the principal commodities. Then they cannot rise, and inflation is stopped. To some extent this method has been employed. It has led to the disastrous result which might have been anticipated. For if the price of any commodity is fixed, the wages that can be paid to people producing or handling that commodity, and the profits that can be made thereby, are ipso facto limited. On the other hand, anyone producing or handling other commodities whose prices are not pegged is not hampered in that way. If he can get higher prices he can afford to pay higher wages and is able to make bigger profits. Hence controlling the price of any one commodity or form of service, when there is plenty of money about, simply drives effort into making or providing uncontrolled items. In other words, if we control the price of necessities, this will encourage the production of junk and the

261
provision of unnecessary services where high profits can be made and high wages paid. That is precisely what is happening. Short of controlling all prices and directing labour, there seems no way of escaping this dilemma. The Government's appeal to all concerned to avoid any rise in prices is, I suppose, a mild and well-meaning effort to achieve the result: without actual compulsion and, in a patriotic community such as ours, we must trust it will be successful. But, unfortunately, to a great extent the harm is already done. The makers of junk have established themselves. The football pools are a going concern. They can undercut the unhappy purveyor of necessities even without raising their prices.
If, as I have pointed out, we cannot obtain a rise in output per head or peg prices, the only way of stopping a rise in prices—in other words, inflation—is to reduce the amount of money in circulation. This crude device, of course, is supremely attractive to the bureaucrat, who can do it with a stroke of the pen in his Budget proposals. It is much easier to cure a man suffering from blood pressure by drawing off his blood than by treating the real cause of the disease. It is, however, by no means easy to do it without doing more harm than good. The amount of money in circulation may be reduced in two ways: either by taxing the people more, or by inducing them to save more. Only a few weeks ago this House unanimously approved efforts to induce our people to save as much as possible.
But if we want to reduce the total amount of money "chasing goods," as the saying goes, it is no use imposing taxes which induce people to save less. And this is what the Chancellor has done with his so-called levy. The very people who are of a saving disposition and who have put money aside are the ones to be hit. I will not here discuss the moral aspects of the case or the injustice inherent in this particular form of tax which afflicts different people in such a various measure. I confine myself to the simple argument of expediency. Private savings differ enormously from year to year. In 1946 they were £272,000,000 more than in 1947. Yet, in order to get a mere £50,000,000 in the fiscal year, the Chancellor has aimed a blow at all thrifty people more calculated to discourage
262
them from putting money aside man anything that can be imagined. And this blow, whether deliberately or not, was amplified and reinforced by his predecessor's mischievous and illogical oration. Nor must we forget that people in the dollar area, on whose investments in the sterling area the Chancellor is banking, to some extent, to balance his dollar accounts, may well be deterred by this action from putting their dollars within the Chancellor's reach. It is really surprising that a man of the Chancellor's integrity, intelligence and stature should have allowed himself to be made the stalking-horse of such an obvious bit of Party rancour.
I must say, quite frankly, as I said two years ago, that I doubt whether it is possible to avoid inflation in the long run if the Government spend such an enormous proportion of the country's real income and, therefore, have to collect such a huge amount in taxes. If no incomes over £500 a year were allowed, only about 15 per cent. of the national income would be saved, This year we are to be mulcted to the extent of over 35 per cent. in rates and taxes. It follows that a large amount must be taken away from the poorer sections of the community. If this is done by direct taxation it is resented. As we know from our experience with P.A.Y.E., this tends to reduce output so that goods become scarce and prices rise. If the Chancellor plumps for indirect taxation, the prices of the affected commodities rise and the worker asks for higher wages. Either alternative leads directly to indation. Apart from some extraordinary change of heart, therefore, inflation may well be inescapable unless the Government can reduce their expenditure and, therewith, taxation.
The Government's attitude seems to be that it is impossible to reduce expenditure, but that they hope by appeals and persuasion to induce their followers to refrain from demanding higher wages and thus giving another turn to the inflationary-spiral. I devoutly hope that they may succeed. But they will have a difficult past to live down. There is no reason why we should not surmount our troubles if Socialists would drop the class war and get all our people to pull together. But the nation will have to realise that you cannot get more than a pint out of a pint pot; that a country cannot, in the long run, consume

263
more than it produces; that you cannot make a country rich by raising taxes or produce prosperity by Act of Parliament; and that you cannot create wealth as easily as you can make laws. It is no use saying, as sentimental Socialists frequently do: "Never again will we tolerate conditions in which a man has to work 48 hours a week merely in order to get his pre-war standard of life." You might as well say: "Never again will we tolerate conditions in which people have to sow in order to reap." Even before the war, when we were paying for a considerable fraction of our imports by invisible exports, we could only manage to produce what we needed by working 46½ hours a week. Now that this source of foreign currency has largely dried up or been dissipated, when we are paying almost as much interest as we are getting, and, above all, when we are spending abroad hundreds of millions a year, it is stark lunacy to think that we can cut our hours of work by 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. and still enjoy the same amenities.
The Chancellor has said that we are making a great experiment in civilisation. I think that this is true in an even more fundamental sense than he intended. As I have said, the country is living beyond its means. The public, misled by generations of Socialist propaganda, believe that it is possible to raise their standard of life by Government decree. The unhappy wage-earner thinks that he can combine social services on the highest scale with the highest standard of life in other respects, while only working a 40-hour week. He has been persuaded that the fact that his actual standard of life is much lower than before the war is due to world conditions which, he is given to understand, will no doubt improve, and, with it, his allowances of food, clothing and housing and all the fundamental things. And since he has plenty of money in his pocket, which he is unable to spend, owing to rationing, dockets, coupons and other controls, he has the illusion of wealth. Actually, as I have said, there is not much hope of any notable rise in living conditions through a general improvement of world conditions. That can come only if we can pay our way by harder work and more production. Some slight amelioration may come if and when good harvests cause a glut of food, provided, of course, that the Government
264
allow the free interplay of normal economic factors to reduce the cost of our imports, which have so often been unduly high because bulk buying allowed us to be held up to ransom.
On the other hand, as I have pointed out, we have all been living since the war to the extent of £1 per family on American generosity, or by selling our capital assets, gold, Argentine railways, or whatever they may be. The Marshall Loan should give us another breathing space. But a breathing space—as we have seen in the last two years—is not of much use if you just breathe. The great question is, whether this democracy will have enough sense and self discipline to realise the position and agree to make the necessary, often unpleasant, steps which should be taken now if we are to escape a complete debacle. Many people believe that nothing will bring home to the public the gravity of the situation except a complete crash. The Chancellor and the more sensible members of the Government realise the truth and are, I believe, trying to disseminate it, so far as this can be done without allowing any blame to fall on the Party. Others, perhaps hoping to fish in troubled waters, insist that there is nothing much amiss and that everything will come right if only they are allowed to get on with their Party programme and the class war. If they have their way, nothing can save this country from complete disaster, mass unemployment and starvation. It is indeed a great experiment and a great test that lies ahead.
In a totalitarian State, orders would be given and the people would have to obey. The question is, can this Government—dare this Government—really bring the facts home to the electorate and get them to accept the harsh truth that they cannot consume more than they produce; that they must either work more and harder or reduce their standards of life; and that they must do this now, at once, and not relax upon the cushion of Marshall Aid. Can the people be convinced by reason and moved to act before they are bludgeoned by disaster? It is not only the Government, it is democracy that is on trial. I beg to move for Papers.
3.41 p.m.
LORD BRAND: My Lords, after the speech of my noble friend Lord Cherwell, I think your Lordships will agree that a

265
sufficient number of questions on the external problem are now before the Government. Therefore I shall not go very deeply into the external position of the country. It is obviously exceedingly precarious. The figures that we have seen in to-day's papers are sufficient indication to prove that to us. In the Economic Survey we hoped for a deficit during this year of £270,000,000. We are now running, according to the figures in the Press to-day, at a rate of £550,000,000 a year. Even Marshall Aid goes only a certain way to meet that huge deficit. If it continued, the rest of it would have to come out of our reserves, and that would be a disastrous solution. What surprised me in these figures in the Press is that the enormous cuts in imports which the Government made towards the end of last year, totalling in all, I think, £300,000,000, do not yet seem to be effective. No doubt the Government will be able to give us an answer why that is.
In my opinion, the adverse balance of payments is not our own fault, in the main. If it were, it would be much more easily remedied. Like all other European countries we are suffering from profound trade alterations throughout the world, particularly in the disequilibria which exist between European countries themselves and in the still greater disequilibrium which exists between Europe and the Western Hemisphere. It is something which cannot be remedied quickly. We particularly suffer from the very great rise of prices, both of imports and exports. It matters much more to us because our imports are so huge and so much greater than our exports. I put down the causes of our extreme adverse balance of payments more to price rises than to anything else; secondly, to the loss of our invisible exports; and, thirdly, to the great Government expenditure abroad, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, referred. The noble Lord gave certain figures about invisible exports which rather surprised me. I thought the net loss on invisible exports was something like £200,000,000 a year. I am speaking from memory, but that was my impression. If we put the loss from price rises at some £400,000,000 and add our invisible exports and Government expenditure, it is easy to account for the total adverse balance. I am afraid that when the sellers' market is at an end we may find it still more difficult to make both ends meet. The extreme difficulty of our
266
overseas position is all the more reason for making every possible effort internally. We cannot solve the external problem solely by what we do or do not do, internally, but we can certainly make it much better or much worse. I propose, therefore, to say something about the internal situation.
First of all, I should like to pay a tribute to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement. But like the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, I very much regretted to see him include in his Budget the special contribution, not because I think the taxpayers, who like myself, have to pay something, are not anxious to do what they can for the sake of their country but because in my opinion the special contribution will do more harm than good. It will be a great blow at saving, and that is exactly the opposite of what is required at this moment. I can see some reason for imposing a tax which is regarded as a reasonable and justifiable tax for a number of years, but to upset all the savers in the country for the sake of a special contribution of one year is something I find it difficult to understand. Otherwise, it seems to me, the Budget was a courageous attempt to control inflation. That this should be done is very important for our external position, as the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, has pointed out, because inflation tends seriously both to increase imports (and that may be some reason why our imports continue to be great now) and to decrease exports. If it were allowed to go on, we might be forced later, merely to secure more exports, seriously to consider the devaluation of our currency; and that is the last thing we wish to do.
The most serious internal danger, however, seems to me to be the huge Budget and the huge taxation that it involves. If we ever have to devalue the currency, this, to my mind, is the most likely reason. Can we stand a Budget of this size? I seriously question it. It depressed me to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, winding up the debate in another place, seemed to see no hope of a reduction. I think that is too pessimistic. My own impression is that world prices are likely to fall—certainly, I think, food prices. Probably food prices will fall in the next six months or year, and if there were a fall in food prices, I assume that we should see a fall in food subsidies.

267
Possibly we might even have cheaper money later, if inflation were really overcome. But we cannot have cheaper money now.
Perhaps I may interject here a remark about something that Dr. Dalton has recently said. I had the pleasure of serving under him when I was in Washington, and I do not like to say anything that he might feel is not very polite. Nevertheless, Dr. Dalton has stated that he feels there is a conspiracy against him in the financial Press and in the City. I have lived and worked for 40 years or so in the City, and I cannot think of any better word to use than to say that any idea of a conspiracy in the City is moonshine. Everybody living in the City knows that. I cannot but think Dr. Dalton must have been misled by people who did not fully understand the position.
If the burden of the Budget is too heavy, then something has to happen. A country is just like an individual or a company. If our expenditure is really too great, serious results will show themselves. The real test will come when inflation is curbed, when the sellers' market ends, when taxation reduces enterprise, and when, perhaps, we have a considerable amount of unemployment. We may then have to face devaluation, or drastic cutting down of our expenditure. Frankly, I desire to express the opinion that our expenditure is too great. My own opinion is that we have put the cart before the horse. We ought to have secured greater recovery and greater production before we spent such huge sums on social welfare. I realise that to say this will bring criticism upon me. Nevertheless, how can it be denied? We could not possibly have spent all this money without the help of the taxpayers of the United States and Canada. Without such aid the social schemes which have been passed during the past two or three years would not have been worth the paper they are written on. In this respect, I prefer the Russian method. I prefer the method of asking the people to make all possible sacrifices until they can get a little way further on towards increasing production and raising the normal standard of life. It must astonish the world that we borrow so hugely, and at the same time work less hours at the expense of other people. It seems to me a curious
268
paradox that American and Canadian help, first, and American help now, again, should twice have saved the present Government, as well as the country, from disaster, and twice have been the cause by which so much Socialist legislation has been enabled to be passed.
The only possibility of our standing the present Budget, and of solving our other problems, is by much greater production. Here we face peculiar difficulties, unlike those of such self-contained countries as Russia and the United States. We need enormous masses of raw material, and we find it very difficult to pay for them. How then, can we greatly increase our production at home which would require still more raw materials? Marshall Aid will help temporarily, but the greatest efforts and sacrifices are required as well from every section of the population. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is fully aware of all this, and he has emphasised the necessity of further production, and also the necessity of further saving. He said himself that he thought some moderate incentive to encourage production was necessary, and for this reason he gave certain relief to some P.A.Y.E. classes, and also to the members of the managerial and technical staff—particularly, he said, "those to whom we look for production." These measures, in my opinion, are satisfactory. Nevertheless, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives a very limited meaning to the word "producer." In an army you have to have commanders-in-chief and officers, as well as non-commissioned officers and privates. I do not think we need be so democratic as to pretend that, so far as production is concerned, it is only the common man that matters. The uncommon man matters a great deal more.
In the end it is the few who make all the difference, whether it be the great enterprisers, the great scientists, the great managers or the great technicians. Those are the people who will decide whether or not production goes up much higher than it is now. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself is a good example: he makes all the difference to his Party. I think we can apply that to the country at large. The greatest danger is too heavy taxation at the top now. In the long run that must have a great effect on enterprise. No young man starting now without capital can create a business. Such a man cannot, unless he has extreme luck, build up his

269
capital. There will thus be no new grass growing up underneath. Without being too critical, I think the trend of Socialism is all against recognising this danger; Socialists do not see the vital importance of incentive for new private enterprise. The bad effect of no incentive works slowly, but in the end the effect is disastrous.
The other vital need in order to produce more, in my opinion, is modernisation of our plant. I do not think many people realise, perhaps as much as I do, having been a good many years in the United States, how far behind we are in this respect. It may be the case, as my noble friend Lord Cherwell said, that there is already too much capital expenditure. But I should like to see a great deal of capital expenditure, so long as we all skimp ourselves for that purpose. Certainly I would give A.1. priority for any capital expenditure directed to modernising our industry, from which action, after all, we shall get more production than from any other. For this purpose, of course, we must have plentiful private savings, and private savings are hardly possible with the enormous taxation we have. Therefore, they are likely to be unavailable.
I do not think anything I have said is contradicted by the fact that there has been, in the last two years or so, a very great increase in profits. The Economist said not long ago that according to their estimates between 1944 and 1947 profits had increased by 45 per cent. That may well be the case. It is due, of course, entirely to inflation, and, if deflation were to come, the turn round the other way might be just as big. But even with those profits the position is still, as is shown in Table V of the National Income White Paper, that after deducting taxes—that is, taking net profits—wages have gone up to 44 per cent. of the national income, as compared with 39 per cent. in 1938; salaries have gone down from 24 per cent. to 20 per cent., and interest, profits and rent have gone down 1 per cent.; that is from 37 per cent. in 1938 to 36 per cent. in 1947. But I would draw attention to the fact that interest, profits and rent are not limited to a particular class. They are earned by other classes in the population than the high Income Tax payer. The salaried class and even the wage-earning class take a share of interest, rent and profits. You have, however, to set
270
against the figures in that Table the fact that they do not include indirect taxes, and therefore from that aspect they over emphasise the re-distribution in favour of the wage-earning class. On the other hand, it is quite certain that a very large proportion of interest, rent and profits go to those with not more than £1,000 a year, whether salaried or otherwise, and even below that level and to those paying no tax at all.
I have had calculated certain figures which may interest your Lordships. I calculate that the Income Tax paid in 1947 on interest and profits earned in 1945, with Surtax paid in 1947 on interest and profits earned in 1944 were together at an average rate of 4s. 9d. That is, all those receiving interest and profits paid on the average only 4s. 9d. This to me is very surprising. It appears to indicate that a large proportion of interest and profits go as I say, to Income Tax payers in what I might call the comparatively low brackets. If you add to this the fact that £4,000 is more or less the absolute upper limit of any net income, I think one can say that what might be called he "great income profiteer" is a mythical figure—he does not exist.
I should like to say much more on this all-important question, but I cannot do it now. There has no doubt been a great distribution of wealth since the beginning of the war. I think this question of profits—and I apologise to your Lordships for insisting on it—is all-important, first, because private enterprise, in my opinion, is absolutely essential for a country of so complex a character as ours and, secondly because private enterprise depends on: he profit and loss system. Yet a large part of the population think that profits are what might be called "money for jam"—that nobody does anything for them. There is no foundation for this view, and we shall never have social peace in this country, until that is better understood. Profits, in essence, so far as they do not represent interest on capital or remuneration for management, are remuneration for risk. I have had a good deal of experience in forty years of what the world is like in that way. The world is a very risky place; it always has been risky, and it is much more risky now than it was. There must be losses, and, therefore, there must be profits. I have heard nobody propose

271
that when there are losses a kind Government should come to the rescue of those who make losses. They are quite prepared to limit dividends, but not to pay any proportion of losses. The Government, too, already know all about losses; they know that losses can easily be made. One has only to look at the results shown by the B.O.A.C. or the National Coal Board. Those are losses just like private losses, but they would bankrupt any private concern, because it has not the taxpayer at its back.
I should like to express my own conviction that, under reasonable competition, profits are broadly the measure of the service rendered by the company or the individual to the community. None of this, of course, is recognised by the great bulk of wage-earners. I would like to urge on the Government that they should get the Inland Revenue, and any other authorities, to provide the fullest information as to total profits and the categories of Income Tax-payers to whom the profits go. With the distribution of White Papers, Economic Surveys and so on, the whole public, for the first time, are getting a view of what are the real economic problems facing the country and how the national income is divided. It is vitally important that the public should know how it is divided. Nothing is more important than that we should all know to whom the different shares go and understand which services are rendered for them. For that purpose it has to be recognised that those who save money and buy ordinary shares are performing a service, and those who make profits in their business are performing a service—they are not just getting profits for nothing. I suggest, too, to the Opposition Leaders that it is vital that they should make a convincing case to the public for the profit and loss system. It is not that the public do not wish to understand, but I do not think anybody has ever really tried to make them understand. It should be quite easy to do, but it requires full figures and a knowledge of the whole situation.
I admit that laissez-faire private enterprise by itself brings too great an inequality. I admit it has to be tempered by taxation in the first place, and inheritance taxes in the second place. But you cannot go too far, particularly in the way of taxation, without so damaging the
272
working of the system that you cannot get back again. You have to go forward to more and more controls, and more and more towards a system under which the standard of life in this country will certainly be reduced. In my opinion we should be able to find means by which it is possible to combine reasonable justice with a reasonable reward for risk and enterprise.
4.8 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, it has been a great pleasure to have the opportunity of listening to the thoughtful, careful and well-balanced statements made by the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat. I think the whole House owes him a debt for the interesting facts which he has been able to give us. The figures which he has had looked up as to the distribution of profits between different classes of the community are well worth pursuing. As I understood the statement, it applied not to what are called rentes in general but exclusively to profits. It may be that the holding of equities is so well distributed throughout the community that a large part does fall to persons with incomes in the category of £500 to £1,000 a year, who would probably be the people who are paying Income Tax at about 4s. 9d. on their whole income. I hope the noble Lord will pursue his inquiries in that way, and I am sure the figures he produces will be of great value.
There were many other statements which the noble Lord made, with which I find myself in substantial agreement. There were one or two things I did not agree with, but a great deal of what he said had my full concurrence. As to what he said about large numbers of people having strange ideas about profits, I recall that when I first went into the House of Commons I shared the opinion of a great many people of one Party who took a strange view of the members of the other Party; and I found that the members of the other Party, when they first entered the House, took a strange view of the working people of the country. After a time we came to the conclusion that character, ability and honesty of purpose were in about the same proportion in all classes and sections of the community. One of the great advantages of the other place in its present membership is the way in which people from all

273
classes come together and are able to understand one another and each other's problems. I think I can assure the noble Lord that among all thinking people in the Labour Party, the people who really direct and devise the policy of the Party, there is a much better understanding than among people who know only of what they do themselves.
I should like to say a word or two about the speech of the noble Lord to whom we are indebted for opening this debate. He is, of course, a great expert on economic matters, and he justified that by giving us a large number of figures in the early part of his speech. But perhaps I may be allowed to recall that when I was an undergraduate at Cambridge I made a speech in the early days of my oratorical career; and a writer in the Granta, who criticised my speech, said that the honourable member had spoken in "contemptuous footnotes." When I listened to the noble Lord and to the large numbers of figures he gave us, I could not help being reminded of that criticism of my own early efforts. Statistics are all right provided they are gone into carefully, understood, and documented so that one knows where they come from. In his desire to press his point, the noble Lord gave us such large doses of figures that it was difficult for us to follow exactly what he was driving at, and still harder to be able to test his figures in the light of established facts—
LORD CHERWELL: In order to assist the noble Lord's argument, may I say that all the figures were gathered either out of the Survey or out of the Statistical Digest?
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I know the noble Lord is not the sort of man to try to make up figures out of his head. I think, however, that some of the figures the noble Lord gave may not prove the points which he desires they should prove. Let me give one or two illustrations. He told us in the first place that the Government were planning an expenditure of £1,800,000,000 in the course of the year on capital development. But the Government are not expending all that £1,800,000,000 themselves. What they are doing is to attempt to give an estimate of the amount that they and private employers of the country are going to spend during the next year. I should like to know whether the figure
274
includes the amount needed to make good depreciation; I have a pretty shrewd idea that that would account for perhaps £800,000,000 out of the £1,800,000,000.
In the old days, before the present Government came in, no one knew what the expenditure was by people other than the Government. The amount spent by private employers could perhaps be vaguely ascertained by people who had access to a large number of figures. This is the first occasion on which any attempt has been made to give the country the facts and figures which it has really needed all down the years. I think a great tribute is due to the Labour Government in that they have prepared for the first time figures on which the noble Lord can attack them; such an opportunity has never been possible before I am prepared to admit that during the war some distinguished persons, including the late Lord Keynes and probably the noble Lord himself, assisted in ore-paring certain White Papers which enabled members of both Houses of Parliament to get an insight into the real economics of the country. I have always been anxious that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should regard himself not merely as the custodian of the State purse but also as the Finance Minister responsible for the economy and expenditure of the country. Now let me take one or two other figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell. He told us that production was down on pre-war production.
LORD CHERWELL: I said production per head.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Of course I accept that, but I do not think the noble Lord can prove his statement. In an estimate of the economic situation, made by a United Nations Committee and published a few days ago, the industrial production in this country in the third quarter of 1947 is given as 109 per cent. of the production in the corresponding period of 1938. I do not think the increase in the population approaches 9 per cent.; and, making allowance for the correction which the noble Lord has just made, I do not think his statistics can be borne out. He said just now that every one of his figures was taken from these White Papers, but I certainly have not been able to find this one there. Then we come to the question of output per manshift.

275
This problem is a difficult one, because all sorts of questions arise, such as whether people are working at the same process as before or whether they are in different categories. The noble Lord said that the coal output was very slightly higher—less than 1 per cent.—between 1946 and 1947. That is not the figure that I have here. The figure given in the Survey shows an increase between 1946 and 1947 of 1.07 tons as against 1.04 tons—an increase of 3 per cent. It is now 1.11 tons per man-shift—an increase of 7 per cent.
LORD CHERWELL: The point is that they are working 2 per cent. fewer shifts. The amount per shift is up by 03 per cent. but they are working 2 per cent. fewer shifts.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: If that is so, then I misinterpreted the figures the noble Lord gave. That was the impression I had, that he said it was less. Then he said that the situation in the mines of this country was so very shocking, implying, in the course of the general tenor of his speech, that it was due to the misgovernment of this country. I have here figures comparing what has happened in this country with what has happened in other countries of Europe. They give the output per man shift in October, 1947, as a percentage of the 1935–38 average. These are the figures: Great Britain, 95 per cent. of what was produced pre-war; Germany (French Zone), 80 per cent.; Czechoslovakia, 77 per cent.; Belgium—I notice that noble Lords have been murmuring "How can you expect Germany and others to be up?" But Belgium was the country which the noble Lord himself specially singled out as having done so much better than we have done, with our wicked Socialist Government—Belgium 76 per cent. as against 95 per cent. in this country; Holland, 75 per cent.; Poland, 75 per cent.; France, 68 per cent.; and Germany (British Zone) 57 per cent. The net result is this: the output per man-shift in this country compares with all those countries in Europe that I have put forward as reaching a higher percentage of the pre-war output than any of them. Of course I cannot follow up all the noble Lord's statistics and figures, but I think I have put forward enough to show your Lordships that you cannot accept all his
276
figures as correct and as proving the point that he is trying to make, and that you need to examine them with a little care.
The noble Lord mentioned a number of things that were going wrong in this country, and he claimed in a generous fashion that the whole of them, or nearly all of them, were due to the machinations of the present Labour Government. I was interested when the noble Lord who spoke last got up and, without saying so in so many words, threw over that wide claim of the noble Lord who introduced this Motion. Lord Brand took an entirely different view and, if I may venture to say so, a much saner view of the position.
LORD BRAND: Perhaps that is because I am a non-Party man. If I were a Party man, I should have done what the Americans call "lambaste" you more than I did.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am indebted to the noble Lord for his intervention, because it rather dots the i's and crosses the t's of the point I was making. I notice that the noble Lord who spoke last did not take up the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, who, in opening, held up Belgium with such singular commendation to us. He had told us later two things about Belgium. The first was that prices have risen there, not in the proportion in which they have in this country but three and a half times since the beginning of the second World War. That surely is more than double the inflation (if you can so call it) that you have in this country Another fact about his wonderful Belgium is that they all regarded devaluation of the currency as almost inevitable The noble Lord, Lord Brand, said that the terrible disaster might never come here. Apparently, the noble Lord who opened the debate looks upon the position in Belgium, where devaluation is almost certain, as better than that which the Labour Party, through their malignant misguided machinations, have achieved in this country. I should be interested to know whether the noble Lord who followed him really thinks that it would be wise for us to copy in this country the Schacht plan for the restoration of the Rentenmark. Personally, I should have thought that it would be most undesirable.
I come now to the question of the Budget. As a House of Commons man,

277
it seems to me a little peculiar that we in this House should be discussing the Budget when the Budget is not in any sense before us. We have neither had an explanation of its terms nor are we in any sense strictly bringing it—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: With great respect, the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked that the whole of the economic debates should cover not only the Survey but also the Budget.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am not in the least criticising or complaining that: we should do this. As an ex-House of Commons man, I am regarding with interested surprise the fact that we can enjoy discussing the Budget. In the ordinary House of Commons way of treating the matter, it would be out of order. I am happy to have an opportunity of discussing the Budget rather before its time.
I want to take the bull by the horns and go to the question of the special levy to start with, because that is something which honourable members do not like. I can fully understand their reasons and I would be prepared to say this: that I do not think the proceeds of the special levy will have the effect of helping to cure inflation. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that it would. The Chancellor of the Exchequer quite frankly admitted that most of the money for the total contribution would not come out of income and would not, therefore, be a reduction of the amount of purchasing power; it would come out of capital. Therefore, when the noble Lord says that the policy of the Socialist Government is to find money, and find it in any way, and that in the Government's opinion it will stop inflation, I do not regard that as a fair criticism of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What he said was that as the country was in considerable straits, he did not think it was a bad time for people who were in possession of special wealth to make some special contribution to the needs of the country.
It is true that a large number of members of this House will have to pay a great part of this levy. It is no use pretending that that is not the case. Anyone who will have to pay it, and who tries to hide that fact, is taking a step which is easily discovered to be incorrect. I suppose
278
that this is the justification for the levy. The one class that have not been saving—I want to direct the attention of the noble Lord below the gangway to this point—during the last few years is the class who will pay this special levy. They are the class who live upon investments, and who have had their income seriously impaired during the war years. I am not blaming anyone in the least, but it is a notorious fact that, in order to keep up something like their standard of living, the class who live more generously have dipped into their capital resources. Owing largely to the fall in the rate of interest which has, up till recently, appreciated the capital value of their wealth, they have been able to do that without reducing the nominal value of the wealth that they have had, because they have made up for their lack of income by the appreciation which they have had upon their capital resources. I am not complaining of that or saying that it is wrong. All I am saying is that those are the facts.
The position is that in point of fact, though it was true in years gone by that the class from whom savings came were mostly the very wealthy, it has not been true, as I venture to suggest—I speak without knowledge; perhaps the noble Lord knows more about this subject than I do, but I think it is true—that the classes from whom the savings have come have not in the last few years, been mainly the classes of great wealth, but rather the less wealthy classes in the community. Therefore I do not think it unfair, in view of the great appreciation which has come to the wealth of the other class to which I have referred, that they should be called upon to make some special contribution at this time, provided we quite clearly see, as I said before, that it will not help appreciably in avoiding inflation. Towards the rest of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals, the noble Lord, Lord Brand, was, I think, fairly favourable. But the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, said he thought it would have had a much better effect on incentive if, instead of the special arrangements that were made, there had been a flat rate reduction of 1s. in the pound on income tax. Is that really the opinion of this House? I venture to think it is not so, and your Lordships will be hiding

279
your heads in the sand if you follow the noble Lord in taking that view.
What did the Chancellor actually do? He increased the allowance for earned income from one-sixth to one-fifth, making a considerable advance in incentive. He took the third slice of a man's income—the bottom slice being the part that is exempt, the second part being that which is taxed at 3s. in the pound instead of 9s. in the pound. The third slice is the one on which he paid 6s. and still will pay 6s., but the Chancellor increased the size of the slice from £75 to £200. That is a considerable additional incentive to people who work. On top of that he made a concession with regard to married women. There is a considerable incentive to a married woman to add to her resources by working, if there is an allowance to her of a rebate similar to that which is allowed a single person. For the noble Lord to rise in this House and suggest that it would have a better effect and enable people to go on earning money had there been a fiat reduction of one shilling, instead of those admirable concessions which were made, seems to me to insult your Lordships' intelligence. I do not think it is true at all. I have spoken longer than I intended, but I have dealt with those points. I suggest that if the noble Lord who opened this debate wants his figures taken seriously there ought to be an opportunity for them to be examined. I beg your Lordships, as a whole, not to swallow his figures and all the conclusions that he would apparently wish to draw from them until those figures have been examined and their full bearing understood. Not till then will you be in a position to know whether the conclusions that he has drawn are right, or whether they are wrong.
4.33 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just addressed us is always interesting and lucid, and on this subject is particularly well informed. But, with all respect, I venture to say to him that in his remarks to-day he has not really addressed himself to the great problem that confronts this nation and about which his two predecessors in the debate spoke in such strong terms; I allude, of course, to the fact that, as a nation, we are consuming a great deal more than we are producing.
280
That is the root problem. That has been going on since 1939, and, as has been said, it cannot be avoided in war time. But I think it is mainly the fault of the present Government that it has been going on for so long since the conclusion of the war, and, as has been pointed, out, it is going to continue, certainly through 1948 and goodness knows for how much longer. In so far as Marshall Aid masks the real facts from the British public, it is really a great disaster. Of course, I am far from saying that Marshall Aid is not necessary in present circumstances, but it seems to me that one of the psychological factors from which we are suffering is that the British public, or a great section of it, does not even yet appreciate how desperate is our economic position. If it had not been first for the Canadian and American loans, and now for the Marshall Plan, we should have been faced with starvation a long time ago. It is true that our Socialist Government is carrying on on the savings of capitalism—American and Canadian capitalism, and also the savings of Nineteenth Century capitalism in this country. Our assets are being whittled away, and must continue to be whittled away so long as we are not making both ends meet.
Therefore, it seems to me that the complacency with which the noble Lord who has just addressed us views the situation is very uncalled for, and I think it is a most dangerous thing that statesmen in his position, having occupied the offices that he has occupied, should not tell the country, and especially members of his political Party, how extremely serious the economic situation of this country is to-day. Instead he, and other noble Lords and members of the other place on that side, are continuously trying to make the people in this country think that things are really not so bad as the Tories make out.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: May I interrupt? I never said a word to that effect. So far as I have spoken, and so far as the members of the Government are concerned, we are saying quite frequently that the situation is very serious and has to be dealt with.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I will give the noble Lord an instance of what I mean. What he said in regard to coal

281
output is within your Lordships' recollection. What the noble Lord said, taken by itself, no doubt was accurate, and I agree with him that certain figures can be quoted with complete accuracy in nearly every case, and yet be far from presenting the whole picture. I agree with the noble Lord about that. But he quoted certain figures in regard to coal and I would merely refer him to the words of Sir Charles Reid, Production Director of the National Coal Board, which all of your Lordships have read. On Saturday last he was addressing the miners, and this is what he said:
" Output is not commensurate with the volume of machinery being installed in the pits. Taking the country as a whole, the output per man-shift at the coal face in 1938 was 2.9 tons, to-day it is only 2.85 tons, although 74 per cent. of coal is now cut by machinery against 58 per cent. in 1938."
I think, if I quote a man in the position of Sir Charles Reid, it gives a better guarantee that the figures present a genuine picture than could be given with figures selected by an outsider.
We all know that the miners to-day are not working as they used to work in 1938. Not only is that one of the chief causes of our lag in recovery, but it is also one of the greatest causes of the lag in European recovery. That is one of the main problems that confront all those nations of Western Europe which used to be dependent upon Britain for their supplies of coal. But have the miners ever been rebuked by any of the noble Lords who sit on that Front Bench opposite? On the contrary, in our last economic debate, a month ago, I listened to Lord Pakenham (whose absence to-day owing to ill health we all very much regret), praising the miners, metaphorically speaking patting them on the back, because, forsooth, they had worked better in January, 1948, than they had in the same period in 1947 or 1946. That is not the sort of comparison which will bring home to the people of this country the realities of our economic situation. The real comparison is between what we used to produce before the war and what we are producing now.
I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Brand, said about the importance of modernising our capital equipment. But there is this point to be borne in mind. You can modernise your capital equipment and yet achieve two different results. On the one hand, you can secure
282
much greater output through your new equipment; on the other hand, you can secure the same output as before, but with less work. I know of cases—and I expect other noble Lords also know of them—in which modern machinery is being put into works in order to make the job easier and, thereby make it more attractive to labour. I am not complaining about that, but it will not bring us the same economic advantage as we should derive from capital equipment used to achieve increased production.
What is happening in the coal mires is true with regard to a great number of other industries to-day. I am afraid it is true of the great majority of industries. Look at the housing output. Consider the number of men who have been employed in housing since this Government came into office and the miserable number of houses that they have put up. I know a small speculative builder in the country who formerly built houses for sale. He used to lay 1,500 bricks himself every day. The average rate of bricks laid by bricklayers to-day is nothing like that, and noble Lords opposite know it perfectly well. Ask any factory manager, and he will tell you that output to-day is not what it used to be. Why should that be so? The character of this people has not changed. We are bound to ask ourselves the cause of this reduced output, and I think that, undoubtedly, it is partly due to the fact that men are not working as they used to work. When, some time ago, the reason for reduced output was asked, it used to be said—I think with justice—that it was largely due to war weariness. But I do not think one can go on saying that, three years after the conclusion of the war. Another reason is given, and I believe there is still a lot of truth in it—insufficiency of the right sort of food. I do not believe that the people of this country to-day are getting the food that would enable them to achieve the outputs they achieved in 1938. I am sure that that is true of certain classes of agricultural workers who are not, for some reason which I have never been able to understand, allowed to have the same amount of meat foods as the miners. The work of those men is just as hard as that of any miner.
But another and most potent reason—indeed I am afraid it is the main reason—for reduced output is lack of incentive

283
to the wage-earners. Many wage-earners find that they can earn, at present wages, all they require to spend in order to maintain their standard of living without overexerting themselves. And they have not the desire to exert themselves in order to save money. That seems to me to be a psychological fact which cannot be blinked. I am aware that the Government have indulged in a vigorous Savings Campaign; I propose to say something about that in a minute. But they are not making it easy for people to save. I think that in view of the way the prudent man is being treated by the present Government the man who sat back and said he would not save can now point the finger of scorn at the man who has saved.
Finally, I do not think you can get away from the fact that there have been two generations of propaganda by the Labour Party designed to persuade people that once Labour were in power everyone could draw bigger wages and do less work. It is quite true, in a great many cases, that they are drawing bigger wages, and I am afraid it is also true—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Will the noble Earl forgive me for interrupting him? Will he produce to me any Labour pamphlet ever published that has recommended that?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Unfortunately, I do not go about with my pockets stuffed with Labour pamphlets, but in the course of my political career I have fought nine political elections—nearly all of them against the Labour Party—and I won every one of them except one. Therefore, I have had my dose of Labour propaganda. I shall have great pleasure in obliging the noble Viscount by sending him some of his old pamphlets—I have kept a great many by me—in which the general impression given, and the promise held out to the voters, was that if only a Labour Government were returned to power the working man would have more money and would not have to work so hard. It is all part and parcel of the propaganda that all wealth is produced by labour (which is untrue), that the capitalists and the managements take more than their share of the profits (which I do not think is true), and, generally, of the propaganda by which the Labour Party climbed to power.
284
But that is not the only cause of our reduced output. It is also due, in my opinion, to the difficulties of management at the present moment. I am not speaking now of nationalised industries. Nationalisation is a new experiment which we must all watch with attention, but in regard to those industries which are not nationalised, I say that managements today are impeded, obstructed, frustrated and thwarted at every turn by numerous Government officials and controls. There are now 700,000 more civil servants than there used to be. People in business cannot do the slightest thing without having to secure the consent of half a dozen different Departments. If those Departments would only agree among themselves the task of getting their consent would frequently be twice as easy. But as often as not the Departments differ among themselves. I can assure your Lordships that I spend a lot of my time in business, and a large part of it is spent—and I think this is the experience also of every other man who is concerned with management in business—in getting over the obstacles which these numerous controllers and Government officials put in our way. I am not saying that in these days control is unnecessary. In the abnormal times through which we are passing, when there are still great world shortages, it is clear that some controls are necessary; but there are controls and controls, and ways of controlling. My complaint is that the Government have tried to control the economic problem from the wrong end. They have erected a vast machinery of small bureaucrats whose permission has to be obtained at every turn. These people simply make work for each other—and they make work for everybody else as well. I am convinced that that is one of the major factors holding back the economic recovery of this country.
The third factor holding back economic recovery is the attack of the Government and Labour Party on the so-called wealthier classes—the policy that is known as "soaking the rich." That does so much to discourage confidence and gives so much discouragement to the ablest men in business that it is an important factor in retarding our economic recovery. What encouragement is there to anybody to save to-day? Directly you have saved money, you are held up to obloquy by

285
the whole Socialist Party. You are regarded as a rentier, as a parasite, almost as an enemy of society. Any income you derive from your savings is taxed at a specially heavy rate. It is classified as unearned income, though you may have earned every penny of it. Generally, you get no sympathy at all from the Government or the Party in power. If that is not discouraging people to save, I do not know what is. I do not see how any honest-minded man can advise people to save money and put it in Government securities under a régime of this sort.
The noble Lord who has just spoken justified the special levy on the ground that it would come only from the class that has not been saving—the most extraordinary argument I have ever heard. I think even the noble Lord himself would admit that the Government have not made it very easy for the once wealthier part of the community to save money, because they have taken every penny off them in one exaction or another until it is practically impossible to save. But how does the noble Lord know how individuals have handled their means? To justify a new imposition on the ground that it falls on a particular class that has been so highly taxed that it cannot save any money appears to me to be not only illogical, but unjust. And this question emerges. Who are the men who have made modern British industry? It is men of the class of Jesse Boot, William Morris, Thomas Lipton, Lever and many others—men who have risen from the ranks. Under the régime of the present Government it is impossible for anyone to found businesses as those men did. Under our present system of taxation, people are prevented from accumulating the capital to build up a business. If we are to adopt a system of taxation which produces that result, it is clear that we cannot hope to survive when Marshall Aid has come to an end.
In my judgment the only solution to our economic problems is for the Government greatly to reduce their expenditure. The Government persist in spending money which we as a nation simply have not got, and persist in social schemes which, however excellent they may be in themselves, we just cannot afford. If it were not that we are receiving a stream of dollars from across the Atlantic, we would not be able to keep any of those schemes going to-day. As a nation we
286
are living above our means. We are consuming more than we are producing. Our people are not working as they used to work. In the past they have received from the Government encouragement in that attitude. I agree that during the past twelve months the Government have changed their tune and are trying to explain to the people that they must "Work or Want," but that message has not yet carried conviction, coming, as it does, after forty years of Labour propaganda in a contrary direction. I do not see any chance of recovery under the present régime. I cannot feel that this Budget, though an improvement on its predecessors, makes any serious contribution towards solving this economic problem—increase production: reduce consumption.
When the sellers' market has disappeared we shall be in a far worse position than we are to-day. Something has been said about Belgium this afternoon. I do not propose to enter into that question, but I happened to be in Brussels last week and I looked into a Belgian shoe shop, which was crowded with purchasers waiting in a queue to be served. Then I looked across the road and saw a shoe shop belonging to a well-known British shoe company which was selling shoes made in Northampton. I looked into that shop and saw there was only one customer. I wondered at first what the difference was, because I felt sure that the British shoes were the best. Then I looked at the prices in the windows and saw that the English prices were about ten shillings higher than the Belgian prices. I could not help reflecting that when the sellers' market has come to an end—it is already waning—it will be impossible for us to keep our present prices and retain our markets in Europe.
5.0 p.m.
LORD PIERCY: My Lords, the noble Lord who introduced this discussion began by stating broadly the problems which face us, and I have no doubt that your Lordships felt he had stated them with great conciseness. But as he began to turn his microscope over a wide field I am bound to confess that I for one felt the broad perspective was a little lost. So far as the external factors are concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Brand, restored the perspective most effectually, and I say nothing on the point. With

287
others of your Lordships I shall look forward to reading, and considering in detail, the points that Lord Cherwell brought forward. He claimed, I think, some priority for the diagnosis of our ills, but I was glad to note that he did agree that at the present time there is little or no difference of opinion as to what those ills are. His criticisms were really concerned with the results achieved to date, and with the measures adopted. At the level of political and practical results one is dealing with a level of reality rather different from that of diagnosis. However, one cannot complain of any of the criticisms which the noble Lord put forward.
I wish to deal with two of the themes which have run through this debate, one inflation and the other production, and in the course of my remarks I propose to say something on the view of the Budget expressed by the noble Earl who has just spoken. First, with regard to inflation, there is no difference of opinion about the evils, but it may be worth reading a short statement from the Economist. It says:
" Inflation has been doing much damage by depleting stocks, and thereby forcing industry into spasms of short-time work, by frustrating the physical controls, encouraging the black markets, and attracting workers and materials into non-essential activities."
I do not say that I agree with every clause of that, but it sets out the evils.
I begin by picking up a point from the noble Lord. I agree with him that some of the effects that brought about our inflationary situation have largely disappeared—for example, the 700,000 odd persons demobilised from the Forces who at one time were not gainfully employed. The disappearance of these particular factors was brought out most vividly in the study of production in 1947, which has appeared independently from two sources within the last week or two. That study showed that our production in 1947 had reached, and, I think, slightly exceeded, production in 1938. That, of course, is the total volume of production, and if it was slightly larger than 1938 it was because the employed population was slightly larger. So that nothing arises there on the point about productivity per head. But that restoration of the working forces and its product does not remove the evil of inflation. There is no doubt
288
that the Economist, before the Budget came out, was right in saying that the paramount need was to restrain inflation. The journal went on to say that the restraint could be achieved only by budgeting courageously for a large and genuine surplus. From that arises the point on which I feel bound to disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, when he said that the Budget has made no contribution to our present problems. Perhaps, however, I state his point more broadly than he meant it.
The Budget establishes prospectively a surplus of not less than £330,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer took some trouble to unravel the arithmetic of surpluses, and as a result there is no doubt that this £330,000,000 is a surplus in the most genuine sense of the word. It is something over and above the balance of revenue and expenditure, something over and above the Government's capital expenditure; it is a genuine deduction from the spending power of the community. Therefore, it is precisely what the Economist called for as the principal means in restraining inflation. I think it would be fair, and relevant to the noble Lord's argument, if I were to point out that the dispositions bringing about a Budget surplus of roughly these dimensions were established by the present Chancellor's predecessor. In other words, this surplus of round about £300,000,000 is a result of Government policy which goes some way back beyond the present Budget. No doubt I should add that it is one thing to inherit a Budget surplus prospectively, but quite another to maintain it. And the Economist may well be right in saying that it took a politician of courage to refuse to allow a surplus of those dimensions to be nibbled at.
As regards the dimensions there is an important point. It is not possible by any absolute measure to say what the amount of the Budget surplus ought to have been in present circumstances. But the Economic Survey for 1948 points out that, on the assumption of a surplus on revenue account of public authorities in 1948 of £275,000,000, and with a net saving of 5½ per cent. of personable, disposable income (it was 8 per cent. in 1947), we could avoid inflation and reach an overall balance on foreign account by borrowing abroad, or selling assets to foreigners, to a total of £250,000,000. As the noble

289
Lord, Lord Brand, pointed out, that figure of £250,000,000 as the final overall deficit might to-day be in jeopardy. But we have recently been told officially that, translated to the same basis as the White Paper calculations, the Budget surplus, plus the net result of local authority finances in 1948, would bring out a figure nearer £400,000,000 than £275,000,000. That being so, there is—I do not say it is adequate—some margin left in this surplus which the Chancellor has so courageously preserved intact for us.
Let me now turn to the question of production. The problem of production has many branches, and I am not able or qualified to speak on all of them. There is the vital question of redistribution of labour among our major industries—the so-called problem of the redeployment of labour. On the results of last year, it begins by being a problem of preventing undesirable movements in the distribution of labour, rather than of stimulating the desirable ones. All I can say under that head is that the administrative achievement in the way of redirection of labour to the right industries seems to be rather greater than appears in the figures disclosed up to date. Apart from the question of the redistribution of labour, there is the question of productivity per head, with which the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, dealt, and on which my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence broke a lance with him. I am not going to say anything on that, because my sympathies are rather with the noble Lord opposite. As an observation which should not be taken too seriously, I would say, however, that if he examines his argument on this head in the Report, I do not believe that he will approve its logical form when he sees it in print. But I may be mistaken on that. Thirdly, there is the question of incentive, with which I will deal later; and fourthly, there is the question of controls, with which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, dealt. As regards controls, we know that they are numerous, they are vexatious and they may have to continue for some time. But as a crumb of comfort we believe that they are being examined section by section, and let us hope some mitigation will be possible even in the difficult circumstances of the present time.
Now I would like to say a word about incentive. Many people speak as if incentive
290
were the whole problem of production, and we are bound to admit that it is a most important part. In setting out to construct this Budget, it is clear that the Chancellor had in mind two main objects. One was to check inflation by establishing a large surplus; the other was, by some means or other, to heighten the incentive among our working population at all levels. Viewing that task beforehand, one might have thought that any re-arrangement of taxation which would accomplish those purposes would be little short of a miracle. Expenditure being what it is—and I will come to that subject later—every instrument of taxation is over-pressed; there is very little elasticity anywhere. On the proposition that relief given in some directions must be balanced by increases in other directions, the problem was extremely difficult and, to my mind, it has been solved with remarkable virtuosity and very remarkable success. The heads of that solution are well known to you and it would be a waste of your Lordships' time if I were to go into them in detail.
First, there is this rather comprehensive scheme of Income Tax reliefs. My noble friend dealt with that, and he made it abundantly clear that relief had been given in places where it was sorely needed. First of all, it affects members of the professional classes in the lower income brackets. My own boy, who is struggling along with a family of three children, rejoices in a reduction of Income Tax in the neighbourhood of £30 a year, and no doubt he will work the better. Married women are encouraged to go out to work, which is important in some parts of the country. My noble friend did not touch upon one important feature of this scheme, which is that the rate of tax upon marginal earnings such as overtime is much reduced, and I cannot help thinking that that may be almost the most important aspect. Finally, a large number of people are exempt who were not previously exempt. There is also the rearrangement of Purchase Tax. That, again, must be viewed as providing considerable stimulus in certain directions, mainly on the domestic side.
The counterpart of these rearrangements and some minor adjustments—all of which cost money, and all of which do raise incentive—was the taxes on beer, tobacco and betting. I will not deal with

291
those, though I should have liked to say something about them. I need not, either, say much on the subject of the special contribution, which again has been dealt with rather exhaustively. The cost of the Income Tax reductions, plus the cost of the Purchase Tax rearrangements, came, if I recollect rightly, to somewhere round about £107,000,000 in 1948–49. The compensatory imposts on beer and spirits, tobacco and betting—the three great democratic engines of taxation which are left to us—came to about £65,000,000, which left a gap. I agree with the Economist that it took a politician (and the words are very advisedly chosen) of great courage to preserve the surplus intact. There was a gap of some £40,000,000 this year, and some £56,000,000 next year. The device chosen for bridging that gap was the special contribution, and upon that I say two things. First, I think one should, whatever the merits of the device, attach some importance to the spirit in which it was conceived, and I understand and believe that it was conceived by the Chancellor on the basis that the people with what he considered to be the broad backs would show a certain alacrity in bearing it. That may have been an unjustified hope. In the second place, looking at the other devices which to-day are open to a Chancellor who means to raise money, I could think of possibly worse means of bridging the gap.
We have in this Budget a powerful instrument dealing with two of our present needs, one the correction of inflation, and the other a stimulus to increased production. It is apparent that, rightly or wrongly, the Government do not rely in the main upon these measures for correcting the inflationary situation, powerful as the Budget dispositions are. They are relying above all on the policy which stems from the White Paper on personal incomes, costs, and prices. This it is which, if successful, will moderate our propensities to spend, increase our efforts to work and to save, keep prices controlled and, by agreement—because it must largely be by agreement—produce the essential stabilisation of wages. The Government, adopting a policy which might be anathema to orthodox economists, is relying upon methods of argument,
292
persuasion and propaganda such as, in the past, the noble Earl thinks the Socialist Party have used in a wrong way. I think he might give them some marks for the endeavour to use them, in our present critical situation, in the right way.
I have only two further points upon which I should like to say a few words. One is the general subject of reduction of expenditure. One can sympathise heartily with the view which has been put forward to-night that the weight of this Budget is extremely heavy; it is almost of back-breaking dimensions. There is one angle from which that can be exaggerated, the angle being that a large part of the revenue raised by taxes is transfer revenue which is paid out in interest or in social service payments and the like. However, there is another angle from which it is clear that the burden is becoming too heavy, and that is the fact that it is rendering the instrument of taxation a very difficult one to wield. Therefore, one would hope that the burden of expenditure could be reduced, and one would have great sympathy with arguments to that end.
As regards the particular argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Brand, that the Government might have deferred some of these measures of social services until the economic house was in better order, I think there again—although it is a politician's point rather than an economist's—it might be remembered by noble Lords who are Party politicians that all the main measures involving new payments were devised and agreed before the present Government was set up, and might presumably have been introduced by a Government of another complexion.
However, there is an answer at the present time to the demand for retrenchment. The first part of the answer is that very considerable reductions have already been effected in the country's expenditure. These have been set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech in another place, and the picture was also presented with rather more attractive figures by Mr. Douglas Jay in a speech on the next evening. There is a substantial reduction of expenditure which would be far more apparent if it were not for certain necessary items of expense such as the increase of National Health services by £143,000,000. Even then over £200,000,000 net saving is

293
shown on next year's accounts. The remainder of the answer, too, was given in another place. It is that the main possibilities of reduction at the present time are concerned with the dismantling of controls. In present circumstances, it cannot be expected that controls can be reduced except by comparatively minor steps—not indeed until the evil of inflation has been abated and the production situation is more healthy and more normal than it is now.
Finally, there remains the question of food subsidies. Undoubtedly it is a great misfortune, from any Chancellor's point of view, when he has to deal with the taxes of the country, that the Budget should be burdened with an item of £400,000,000 for these subsidies. But I would remind your Lordships that these food subsidies were introduced at an earlier date—during the war, in fact—precisely as a measure of stabilisation to prevent inflation; and they are performing a similar function at the present time. Of course, their removal in proper stages would make life much easier for any future Chancellor; and it is open to anyone to say that it would make the whole economic scene much more healthy. I personally would hope that the reduction of these subsidies, by stages, could be contemplated at no very distant future. But bear in mind, my Lords, that any Government which undertakes to abolish these subsidies—by stages, of course—will find itself obliged, both as a political matter and as a matter of equity, to accept such consequences as may flow from the abolition. In the first place, while world prices remain where they are it will be necessary to increase the amount of the social service payments, and by the ordinary logic which rules these things it will be necessary to accept certain increases in wages and in salaries, those being consequences which in my view are not only unavoidable but fair. It can hardly be argued that steps to abolish the subsidies or to reduce them at present are possible. At this moment: what we are trying to do is to stabilise prices and, if possible, to reduce them, so that under that cover we can secure, largely by agreement, the stabilisation of wages and of economic quantities generally. That is quite essential from every point of view; that necessity rules the situation. Those were the considerations I wanted to offer to your Lordships.
294
The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, spoke on a theme which is very familiar and which has haunted the minds of many of your Lordships—that is, that the people of this country as a whole are not taking the financial crisis seriously enough. It is open to anybody who takes that view and wishes to give it political import to suggest what more the Government can do. Propaganda has been pursued by the Government by every means and pursued almost ad nauseam. There is no question of disguising the gravity of our situation; it is evident to all your Lordships. Over every discussion of: his topic, whenever it recurs, there hangs the shadow of possible economic disaster—and one cannot speak those words lightly. A comment was made on a recent politician—a very unkind comment—that he was capable of looking the most appalling dangers straight in the eye—and failing to see them. I hope none of us can be accused of that. I think it would be exceedingly uncharitable to suggest that any of the leading members of the present Government are in that frame of mind.
5.25 p.m.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, the two last speakers have approached: his question from different angles. The root of our financial troubles appears to be that very few people realise where we stand. It is little recognised that the real income of this or any country, as distinct from its money income, consists of the; yearly value expressed in goods and services of all its material assets—buildings of all kinds, roads, fields and other fixed objects; vehicles and other movable objects—together with the goods and services produced during the year by the work of the whole population. To arrive at the country's net income the value of the work done to maintain all fixed and movable assets must be deducted. Effort which does nothing to increase or maintain the production of objects useful to man, such as service in the Forces or the manufacture of munitions, must also be deducted. The most notable effects of war from an economic point of view are that maintenance has to be neglected because most of the man-power normally devoted to maintenance has to be diverted to war work, and at the same time a large amount of wealth is destroyed. Large numbers of buildings and other incomeproducing

295
assets having been destroyed and the maintenance of many more neglected, the income which used to come from them has ceased or dwindled. In this way the interest on hundreds of millions of pounds is lost, with corresponding decrease in the national income. This is what has actually happened in this country.
Nevertheless, this is the moment chosen to increase nominal wages, reduce hours of work and promise enormous new subsidies to the old, the young, the poor, the sick, the unlucky and so on. This is not the raving of lunatics but it is what the British Parliament appears seriously to suppose it will be able to do by the simple process of passing laws. Parliament can pass laws and allot as much paper money as it likes to all and sundry, but it is completely impotent to settle the value of money. The value of money keeps pace with the real national income. Unless production of wealth is sufficient to keep pace with the swelling volume of money distributed by the action of Parliament itself, the value of money declines. It is a completely automatic process. The real fact of the matter is that wages, salaries and subsidies are much too high, while the reward of thrift is too low, but no political Party will face the loss of votes which the recognition of this fact would involve. The consequence is inflation. The supply of money for wages and salaries, but not for the reward of thrift, is allowed continually to increase, while the supply of goods and services lags far behind. The value of money being dependent upon the proportion which exists between the volume of money in circulation and the amount of goods and services available, the degree of inflation settles itself. It cannot be influenced by laws or by Parliament unless the proportion is changed.
When the value of money declines, it is possible for any group of persons, if they can exert sufficient pressure on the Government or on the public, to secure for themselves an increase in remuneration to offset the loss they have suffered. So long as other groups do not do the same thing, they can in this way avoid undertaking their share of the burden. But when, as at present, every group of wage and salary earners is perpetually engaged in a struggle to be even with
296
the most favoured of the other groups, there is no end to the process. Therefore, as wages and salaries are forced up and up, so is the value of money forced down and down. No doubt, it is possible for wage and salary earners to improve their position in comparison with that of investors in securities bearing fixed interest. By forcing down the value of money and securing a larger share for themselves, they can plunder the holders of fixed interest-bearing securities.
If this were the end, and there were no further consequences, it would just be too bad for the holders of fixed interest securities; they would have to grin and bear it. But this is far from being the end. It discourages thrift, and to discourage thrift is to discourage production. Civilisation rests, and always has rested, on thrift. By work, man produces goods and chattels of two kinds. One kind, like food, can be used once, and is then of no further value; the other kind, like houses, is of permanent utility. Thrift requires the devoting of part of one's income to the production and maintenance of objects of the latter kind which themselves produce more income. Without thrift, civilisation could never have come into existence and, as things are always wearing out, without thrift civilisation must come to an end. Thrift is civilisation's essential support and should be its most cherished and carefully protected possession. The more thrift the better. The man who can save £1,000,000 is much more use in the public than the man who can save £100. I am most emphatically one of those who regard the existence of individual holders of large blocks of capital as of great value to the State. I regard the vendetta against them as suicidal. They have the immense advantage of being able to command the best equipment with the minimum of delay and official obstruction, and, from the nature of the case, they are usually among the more intelligent citizens, having best succeeded in the struggle to make money, in which we are all more or less engaged. Therefore, they are the people most likely to make the best use of money.
Of course, thrift of money is not the only kind of thrift. There are also thrift of effort and thrift of time, both of which are important aids to production and both of which cut right across many of the restrictive customs of British workpeople.

297
It is difficult to believe that the Government are in earnest when one finds that inflationary pressure for increased wages appears to be continuing unchecked and no serious resistance is offered to waste of time and effort. A peculiarly disgraceful case was recently reported, and I should like to ask the Government if the particulars are accurate. It is said that a workman at the Government railway works at Darlington reported that time was being wasted. Thereupon 2,000 men struck and demanded his dismissal, which was granted. Perhaps the Government can also tell us whether anything was done to speed up the work or whether the slackness which caused the trouble was allowed to continue unchecked. Thrift of money, time and effort are all one. It is thrift that makes one man better than another. Unfortunately, for this very reason, it is thrift that generates class hatred. To my mind, the most disturbing feature of the whole situation is the blind and venomous hatred of thrift displayed by so large a proportion of our people and actively encouraged by many prominent politicians. Thrift is the sheet anchor of our survival. Without it we die. Yet, those good citizens who practise it are hated, bullied and plundered, and the more successful they are in their efforts to help, the worse they are treated. I hope that some of your Lordships can see the way out. I cannot.
5.38 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, most noble Lords who come into this House in the hope of addressing your Lordships find that when our turn to speak arrives, almost everything to which we had wished to draw attention has already been dealt with. Particularly if one comes after a spell abroad, inspired by the enthusiasm of the evangelist or the indignation of somebody offended, one feels confident that one's theme is original. However, in addressing your Lordships this afternoon, I am quite satisfied that my noble friend the mover of this Motion not only gave us a reference to almost all the points to which anybody could with usefulness have referred and which have in turn been reinforced with effect by succeeding speakers, but also gave us a wealth of figures which will take considerable digestion and will be well worth studying.
I am glad that I had the good fortune to follow so quickly upon the noble Lord,
298
Lord Piercy, because his engaging and convincing manner of speaking—I am sorry he has just left the House, but I feel I can say it with a greater frankness in his absence—is one which appeals to us. His experience and achievements qualify him to speak with authority on the subject on which he chose to address us to-day. He started to say a great deal with regard to the Budget. I thought that was less important than the subject which had been referred to by so many of the previous speakers and upon which the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, laid such emphasis—that we are in fact planning to live to a considerable extent on charity. I refer to that point with greater confidence because it was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Brand. His contribution to-day will be recognised by all—I think the more so by any of your Lordships who take the trouble to read his words again, as I am sure many of your Lordships will—to be an achievement which admittedly succeeds the two or three notable contributions that he has made before, and which established him as such a valuable addition to this House. Not only does he speak with authority and life-long experience, but that temperate manner which he adopts must convince even some of the noble Lords on the opposite Benches whose instinct is to resist acceptance of any of his purist reasoning.
At this stage I would like to support what was so impressively put by Lord Selborne, and which Lord Brand also supported—namely, the urgent need for greater re-equipment of our industries. This is of as great importance as the correction in our balance of payment. It is obvious that we have not only to export more, but to buy less. Whatever may be the degree of correction under either head, there will be no disagreement about the risks we run by not more rapidly spending money on the re-equipment of our industries. Reference was made to the export targets. I am among those who have grave doubts as to whether those targets will be attained. Lord Selborne gave a striking illustration. From what I have seen in the U.S.A. and Canada, in addition to what one hears from other parts of the world, out costs are rising to a crippling point. I do not fear capacity to produce but our ability to find markets. I have in mind textiles, on which the Government lay importance as

299
a contribution. Reference has been made to-day to the importance of making sure that as wage advances occur they shall be accompanied by increases in production. After an absence abroad, I must say that it is a little mystifying to find a proposal for pegging dividends without its being accompanied by a freezing of pay rates, unless with any wage increase there is also increased production. In the industry with which I am particularly concerned—the wool textile industry—the agreement to preserve the status quo on dividends and wages has been broken by a 7½ per cent. increase of wage rates. Presumably the truce is already broken in that industry. I must admit mystification at this development.
My main point in asking your Lordships' indulgence this afternoon is that I have just returned from a stay of some months on the North American Continent. I have travelled widely, met many groups of industrialists, and had many conversations in places from California to Maine. I saw and heard a great deal, and I wish to take this opportunity to make reference to the American outlook. The assistance that we are to receive from the United States means that a Socialist and collectivist Government are readily accepting assistance from an individual enterprise or capitalist State. I want to present the impression of a journey often made before—namely, going across that great Continent and witnessing the stupendous pioneering achievements that have been carried out, and to recognise that they were made possible only by individual enterprise; no bureaucracy could possibly have produced them.
We hear eulogy of their achievements by a Socialist Government here, but when one sees how in Texas, Arizona and California, cities have doubled within the space of a few years, one realises that all the tremendous expansion could never have been achieved except by individual enterprise. The garage hand of to-day is the owner of to-morrow. The U.S.A., with only 7 per cent. of the population of the world, is producing over 50 per cent. of its industrial production. The installed horse-power per operative in the United States is already double that of this country. Lord Pethick-Lawrence made comparisons of production in European countries and the United Kingdom. But he omitted any reference to the production
300
per operative in the United States. We should take the highest standard and strive to achieve it. I have unswerving belief in the prinicple of individual enterprise and the normal price mechanism.
I spent a considerable time in Washington, and I availed myself of the privilege which is afforded to your Lordships of spending some time on the floor of the Senate. One can sit there and listen to the debates, and one can also converse with individual Senators. I also attended the House of Representatives. I came away with no illusions as to the perplexity of the average member of Congress in regard to the degree to which the American voter will support the idea of being taxed to provide funds for Governments who carry out policies with which he is in entire disagreement. Let us look at it in regard to ourselves. We are not believers in the totalitarian system of Russia. Would we be enthusiastic in accepting taxation for overseas disbursements on politics with which we were in disagreement? The hard-working farmer in Iowa or Oklahoma has doubts about providing funds for a country working less hard, through a reduction of hours which—desirable as it is in principle—is not appropriate at this time.
I took the trouble to read the Foreign Assistance Bill from cover to cover—which I suspect few members of the Senate or Congress did. Incidentally, I would say here that the common term in the United States is E.R.P. I think we too should refer to it in that way, because it is the European Recovery Programme; it is not directed to this country alone, or to any particular country, but to Europe as a whole. Moreover we hope it will continue when perhaps Mr. Marshall is no longer in a Democratic Administration. I am convinced, as the result of conversations which I had with many Senators, that there is considerable uneasiness as to how long they can rely upon the voters supporting charity on this scale. If Mr. Stassen is elected—and there is good prospect that the Republican Party will win at the next Election—there will be some stiff instructions to the Administrator as to how the funds which come from the sale of these contributions from America shall be dealt with. Your Lordships will be aware that, under the Act, all funds accruing to the recipient Governments under E.R.P. must be subject to the direction and supervision of

301
the Administrator himself. That, I suggest, is likely to prove a handicap to recipient Governments pursuing policies of extravagance—amongst which, it is widely held, is the policy of nationalisation.
I would turn for a moment to the inflationary effect of these exports on the United States economy, a matter referred to briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell. Let us remember that there is a ready inclination in this country for critics of the United States to assume that the removal of controls there has been the cause of rises in prices. It is impossible to measure the truth, or the reverse, of that view. One thing is certain: if you take out of the country all the goods produced under this programme, and leave there all the wages that must have been distributed in payment for their production, it must tend to raise internal costs. Remember that none of these receipts will have gone to reduce internal taxation. I think that it is fallacious to attribute rises in prices to relaxation of controls. Whatever they may be, they have been easily balanced by production following the removal of the bureaucratic impediments and frustrations of which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, has so brilliantly spoken this afternoon. This strain on the U.S. economy undoubtedly makes the capitalist system appear to work less well than is really the case. This whole system of provision of aid to Europe must, if it is to succeed, receive the continuing endorsement of Congress—and it certainly would be disappointing if policies which would antagonise voters in the U.S.A. and the members of Congress should be pursued unreasonably here We in this country are consuming more than we are producing. This promises the result that applies alike to business and to private individuals. All the warnings which have been so emphatically given by other speakers seem to me to be fully justified. Assuredly, all this help from the United States will be futile unless the recipient countries discontinue the pursuit of policies which tend to unbalance trade and cause confusion, and which may even prevent or interfere with production.
5.55 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I looked forward to this debate, anticipating that we should learn something about
302
alternative policies which might be adopted if the present Government were to go out or were to make a change. Frankly, I am disappointed because, whilst we have heard a great deal of criticism of the Government, and indeed some charges levelled at them, we have heard little or nothing to indicate what is the alternative to their policy. The nearest that we have come to it was in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brand. It seems to be his view that because we are living in a complex society in Great Britain collective organisation is unworkable, and that we ought to depend upon competitive enterprise. It is true that the noble Lord took the precaution of saying that he did not want competitive enterprise entirely without controls. But he seemed to suggest that the only way in which we in this country can survive or recover is by warring against one another for the things that now exist, and to see which of us can become the richest. I therefore have recourse to-night to something that was said in another place to give me the key to what I want to say.
Mr. Harold Macmillan, speaking on April 13, put in a very few words what he appeared to think described our present condition, and I wish just to paraphrase it in order to convey the chief point of it to your Lordships. Mr. Macmillan said, in effect, that if we can check inflation, if we can avoid substantial leakage of our capital assets, if we can get some fair settlement of the raw debts, if we can maintain our savings, if we can cut our imports to the required millions without injury to our exports, if we can expand our exports by the targets which have been proposed, if we can get the right kind of currencies for the exports that we sell, if the foreign markets remain open and continue to expand their imports in a rapidly contracting world, if we can pick up a few millions here and there from the remaining international funds, if Marshall Aid is sufficient in quantity and flexible in form—why then we can scrape through for a year or two.
LORD CHERWELL: That is what you have brought us to.
LORD BARNBY: The millennium!
LORD SHEPHERD: As I was saying, Mr. Macmillan said that if we can do all this we can scrape through for a year or

303
two. But Mr. Macmillan did not finish there. He went on to say that these are all tremendous "ifs" and, even so, the main underlying problem remains. That problem is only partly economic; it is also psychological. It is not only material; it is also moral. It is not only national, but it is international. As a Socialist of many years standing, I would like to add another "if." If we can get rid of speculative, competitive capitalism, and substitute the organisation of industry from top to bottom on a basis of cooperation, we can not only carry ourselves over the next few years but secure for all time a well-ordered state of society.
I want to back up the point I have made by reference to some well-established facts, and I hope that at the conclusion I may arouse the interest of your Lordships and, in some degree perhaps, your support. I want to take an industry—namely, agriculture—which has been left entirely alone in to-day's discussion, and I want to take a single product of that industry, wheat—of all foodstuffs perhaps the one which most excites the feelings of the mass of people of the world. Between the two wars there existed at the time when the new harvest was being reaped in all exporting and importing countries vast stores of old wheat. They were never less than 15,000,000 metric tons, and they would rise on occasion to as much as 30,000,000 or 32,000,000 metric tons. I sometimes-asked myself whether those great stocks of wheat consisted of what had been left after human needs had been fully met. I came to the conclusion, and I feel sure your Lordships will come to the conclusion, that that was not the case. Those great stocks of wheat—in some cases more than double the normal world trade in wheat—existed because of the failure of purchasers and sellers to do a deal. Indeed, your Lordships will remember that, apart from the untold millions of Asia and Africa, and apart from the underpaid sections of the population on the European Continent, there existed in this country between the wars a great deal of poverty, of such an intensity that it has been said by Sir John Boyd-Orr that no fewer than 10,000,000 of the people suffered from malnutrition.
There were these great stocks of wheat, both abroad and in this country, and we
304
had this poverty side by side with them. Those facts constitute one of the principal reasons for the growth of the Socialist movement. They constitute, also, one of the principal reasons why this Socialist Government of ours intend to pursue their way in the direction they have started. I want now to look at those wheat stocks from an angle which may interest your Lordships perhaps more than the point I have just made. What was their effect on the landlords in this country? What was their effect on the farmers who tilled the soil? And what was their effect on the farm labourers? If those great stocks of wheat had belonged to those people, they would have been part of their wealth, but as they belonged to other people, they ceased to be of interest to those whom I have mentioned. Nevertheless, they had a great effect on the well-being of those living by the land in Great Britain. Let me quote a few figures: they will not be many; and lest I should be asked where the figures came from, I will tell your Lordships that most of them have been taken from the Report of the Preparatory Commission on World Food Problems.
In 1929 and 1937 wheat averaged on the Liverpool market 140 cents a bushel. It may have been that in those years landlords and farmers had something to rejoice about, although I suspect that the profits did not come their way, but rather remained in Liverpool among the brokers, the bears and the bulls. In two years before the war (namely, 1932 and 1939) the price of wheat came down to 55 cents a bushel—a tremendous drop. Those who believe in the law of supply and demand and advocate its usage, those who believe in private deals in the distribution of food, should pause to consider what these two figures mean. What effect on the British farmers and farm labourers had a market, which in one year gave us wheat at 140 cents a bushel and in another at 55 cents? Many in the farming community, rather than lose their entire capital, went out of the industry, or emigrated to other countries. I do not know the number, because I have no figures. There were landlords who reduced the rents to enable their tenants to survive, and there were farmers who applied for a reduction of the wages of their labourers in order to make up the deficiency from that end.

305
In the House of Commons on December 18, a question was put to the President of the Board of Trade asking the number of farmers in Great Britain who went into the bankruptcy court during those inter-war years. The President of the Board of Trade replied that the number was 7,456.
With these facts in front of me, as a Socialist, I came to the conclusion that private enterprise, and the absence of over-all organisation, is a destroying thing. It is not a developing thing. And those interested in the land, unless they have a degree of organisation and some control of their products, are unlikely to survive in the struggle which confronts them. Another point about prices which may interest your Lordships refers to the years 1935 and 1936. This is what happened under the old system. In Liverpool in the middle of that period the price of wheat was 60 cents a bushel, in Chicago 75 cents a bushel, in Paris 95 cents a bushel, in Milan 125 cents a bushel, and in Berlin 140 cents a bushel. Why was there that variation of price? It was due first to the action of Governments, and those who supported Governments, in straightening out the difficulties in the markets. Sometimes the price was brought about by taxing at the ports; at other times it was brought about by forbidding imports entirely. We in our Party therefore believe that we must organise through Governments—not merely this Government, but Governments of other countries—the marketing of wheat in the interests both of farmers and of the people Who have to buy.
The question arises: If the old method is not good enough, what is the new method? I would urge the House to give attention to the recommendations of the Preparatory Commission, to whose Report I have drawn attention. The objectives they propose are as follow:
" To co-ordinate and reinforce national policies designed to promote greater stability of wheat prices. To establish a co-ordinated system of world wheat reserves through national holding of stocks. To promote increased consumption, and to provide security for efficient producers."
Then, on the subject of prices, they urge that the Governments of the world together should establish something in the nature of a price at both floor and ceiling levels. I am glad to say—perhaps your Lordships have noticed it—that that has
306
now been brought about. The recent settlement that was reached by thirty nations is now before us. Under that settlement the exporting countries are to produce for export 500,000,000 bushels of wheat per year, and the other nations, who are the importers, undertake to buy that wheat from the exporting countries. There is to be a minimum price in the first year of 150 cents a bushel, and a maximum price in the same year of 200 cents a bushel. I myself think that the prices are a little high, but there is an escape clause in the agreement under which, as food increases in production, those prices can be brought down. His Majesty's Government have given their support to the plan, and with the Governments working in that way the interest of the farmers and the consumers should be looked after.
I conclude with this question: If the Labour Party and His Majesty's Government are going to adopt methods of that kind, where do our friends of the Conservative Party stand in the matter? Are they prepared, with the Labour Government, through co-operation with other countries, to control the production of wheat, to control the distribution of wheat and to control the price of wheat? I sincerely hope they will give attention to those points. As I understand it, the Conservative Party now stand, as do the Labour Party, for a fair price to the farmer for his product. They also stand for an assured market to the farmer for his product. Neither of those things can be obtained by going back to the old system of buying and selling that we knew before the war. In the wheat pits of the world, with the bulls and the bears at work, a steady price, a fixed price and an assured market cannot be given. If the Parties of the State can agree together that this shall be done for the farmers, it seems to me that we shall be laying the foundation stone to enable us to get through the crisis that now faces us, and bring days when men and women can have certainty and a sense of security in their position. We will then forget these ugly times through which we are now passing.
6.16 p.m.
LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, after five days' debate in another place, and almost at the end of a long discussion here, it is not easy to find anything fresh to say on this topic. However, before

307
offering a remark or two on the general question, I should like to draw attention to two subsidiary points which seem to me to be of some practical significance, and which have not been mentioned throughout the debate here or elsewhere. The first has reference to the voluntary limitation of dividends. I think it will be found that every company of any importance will accede to the Chancellor's request voluntarily to limit their dividends, at any rate for the next twelve months. Certainly every company in the iron and steel industry will do so. The iron and steel industry is enjoying great prosperity, and is doing very well. A good example of it is afforded to-day by the preliminary statement of Messrs. Stewart and Lloyds, which shows an increased net profit for the year, after tax, of 35 per cent., and would have justified that great company in increasing their dividend from 12½ per cent. to at least 20 per cent. But, in accordance with the Government request, they have not done so. If they did so, then the value of that share would be at least £1 higher than it is, because Stock Exchange prices are always fixed with reference to yield and not to capital value.
The reason why I mention that is that the Labour Government threaten to nationalise the iron and steel industry. It has always been freely rumoured that many influential members of the Cabinet are against that extremely unwise course; indeed, some people have thought that Mr. Herbert Morrison invented the Parliament Bill in order to draw a red herring across the trail and postpone the consideration of the Iron and Steel Bill for a year. However, in view of the categorical statement of the President of the Board of Trade in another place only two days ago, that the mind of the Government is unchanged on this matter, we must take it for granted that proposals to that effect will be put forward in the next Session. The point I want to make is that in former nationalisation schemes—in the case of the railways, electricity and gas—compensation has been fixed by reference to the Stock Exchange value of the securities on a given day. It will be very unfair if the same basis of valuation is made in the case of the iron and steel industry, because they have acceded to the Government's request to limit their dividends, whereas they could have paid a much higher dividend. Therefore I take
308
this earliest opportunity of drawing such public attention as I can to that point.
Now I pass from that point to another, which has reference to the transport and electricity stocks recently issued to holders of railway and electricity securities. There seems to me every reason why those stocks should be surrenderable at par, in payment either for estate duties or this special levy. I understand that the point was put to the Chancellor at a Press conference the other day that all Government stocks recently subscribed should be surrenderable in this way, but he turned the suggestion down. I can well understand his doing so, because, of course, anybody who was so unwise as to subscribe to the loan which is now known as "Dalton's two-and-a-halves," now finds that his £100 is worth only £76, and perhaps it is asking rather a lot of Dr. Dalton's successor to ask him to accept that at par value.
But surely the transport and electricity stocks are in a totally different category? The Treasury promised, when those stocks were thrust upon unwilling shareholders, that they would be worth par. That promise has not been fulfilled, because the Treasury made a mistake and chose too long a date for those stocks. Although the electricity stock may eventually work nearer to par, I think it will be many, many a long day before there is much chance of the transport stock being higher than it is now. After all, in four short months it has fallen to 4 discount, thereby becoming quite a competitor to Dr. Dalton's effort. Seeing that these stocks have, as I say, been thrust upon shareholders, and seeing that the Treasury said they would be worth par, surely it would be illogical for the Treasury not to accept them at par in payment of death duties or of special levy, because if they refuse they stultify their own statement. I would ask the noble Viscount who is to wind up the debate, if he would be so good as to spare a moment of his speech, to promise me that he will represent that point to the Chancellor, and if he has any valid objection to it I shall be very interested to hear what it is.
Turning to the general question, I would remark that a man who is consistently living beyond his means may put off the evil day of destitution by living upon his remaining capital or by cadging a present from a rich relative. When his capital

309
is used up and when his rich relative is no longer willing to dole out, what is he to do? I have never heard of any other remedy for a man in that condition but for him to work much harder and to spend much less. We are in exactly that position as a nation. For years we have been living beyond our means. We are using up our capital, using up our gold reserves, infringing upon the savings of our capitalists (not only by this special levy but, of course, by death duties and by the penal direct taxation which has to be paid) and, of course, we are receiving charity—large doses of it—from America. The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, who has just returned from the United States, has pointed out that this charity, which is fixed for only one year and is subject to review at the end of that time, may not be renewed, and in any event it is quite certain that one day it will cease. Our capital reserves are being rapidly used up, and in any case Marshall Aid, as is shown in the statement of the President of the Board of Trade and by the comment in to-day's financial leader in The Times, is going only rather less than half way towards bridging the adverse gap which already exists.
I would like to know what plan anybody has, other than much harder work and much less expenditure, when those two advantageous aids end. I have read every word of the debate in another place, I have listened to noble Lords opposite speaking here this afternoon, and none of them offers any solution. The plain fact is that the people are not working harder, and that we as a nation are not working as hard as we used to do. That fact is not being brought home to the people of this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer makes a speech and says that the workpeople of this country are doing a good job, but two days later Sir Charles Reid, one of the coal controllers, informs an audience of miners in Edinburgh that it takes three miners to-day to do the work that used to be done by two. All of us know in our heart of hearts that throughout the nation nothing like so much or as good work is done as used to be done in days gone by. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked in his speech if anybody had a constructive suggestion to make. Well, I speak only for myself and, therefore, no propaganda can be made out of me. I say that, all through the nation, we shall in due course be
310
forced, whether we like it or not, to work very much harder than we are doing now.
I will pass from that matter to expenditure. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, scouted that subject altogether, but the noble Lord, Lord Piercy, did make some attempt to deal with it. In the end he said much the same thing as Sir Stafford Cripps said in another place when he read out the totals of expenditure under all the different heads and challenged the Opposition to say which of them they would reduce. Of course, that was done in the hope of getting some cheap electoral propaganda, such as was made out of the speech which Sir John Anderson recently made in Scotland on the subject of food subsidies, and the Opposition were not going to be caught like that. I speak only for myself but I would have said to the Chancellor that there is not a Government Department in this country, or one of the Services, in which very substantial economies could not be made without interfering in the slightest with efficiency, but, indeed, improving it. If one were asked to make specific references, I would say that I consider that in the circumstances of to-day it is absolutely crazy to embark upon a new expenditure this year of £143,000,000 for an improved National Health Insurance Scheme. Nor does that expenditure end at £143,000,000. As is shown by a letter in The Times to-day, the employer of 300 hands will be mulcted of an additional £1,000 a year for increased contributions. Every employer and employee will have to pay about two shillings a week extra. The total cost of this new expenditure, therefore, will be far more than the £143,000,000 to which Sir Stafford Cripps made reference three times in the course of his Budget speech.
That is one end of the scale. At the other end of the scale, infinitesimal expenditures which could so well be ruled out go on to make up a great total. I do not think that the fringe of economy has been touched. I believe that before we have finished unheard-of economies will have to be inflicted. Of course, that is a very unpopular policy, and one cannot expect the Socialist Party ever to put it forward. According to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, he is quite complacently satisfied with the way in

311
which things are going. But so, I remember, were his Party complacently satisfied in the years 1929 and 1930. In the year 1931, however, they came up against it; and the result was that they were sent into the wilderness for years, because when the people of this country realised their danger their common sense was good enough to make them appreciate the true position.
I promised not to detain your Lordships more than a few minutes and therefore I will conclude by saying that I do not believe that Socialism will work in this country. I am an unashamed supporter of the capitalist system. If we had a population of about half of what it is, if we were still the workshop of the world without competition, as in the Victorian era, if we had not suffered the affliction of two World Wars, perhaps some of the experiments of Socialism might be tried without danger. But as it is we shall be subjected to severe competition, and it is only if we can stand up to that that we can survive. I ventured to offer some suggestions on these lines in a maiden speech which I made in your Lordships' House about six weeks ago, and the noble Lord who followed me characterised my remarks as the efforts of one who had not been able to clear the fog from his mind in moving along the corridor from one Chamber to another. He may be right and I may be wrong; the course of events in the next three years will show.
6.33 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate but there were two points in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Piercy, which I should like to take up, since I fear that because of the charming manner in which he made them they might pass unnoticed. He spoke in particular about the very creditable effort made by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to stem the consequences of inflation by creating a true Budget surplus; and thus far I think most of your Lordships will agree with him. Whether all the methods which the Chancellor adopted are equally creditable I am not prepared to say, but no doubt we shall have an opportunity of discussing that hereafter. The noble Lord, Lord Piercy said that the policy which led to the creation by the Budget of this surplus was one which had been started by the
312
present Chancellor's predecessor. It seems to me that the admirable calculation that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer made about the nature of a true surplus, and how it should be arrived at, were in terms which we all appreciate and which undoubtedly shed a new light on the way in which a Budget surplus should be calculated; but it does nothing to show how fictitious and wrong were the Budget surpluses alleged to have been made by his predecessor. In fact, it was about a year ago in your Lordships' House that the prospective Budget surpluses were described by a number of noble Lords, including some from these Benches, as being entirely fictitious and as having been calculated in a manner which, in other parts of London, might have earned a great deal of criticism and discredit. I think that possibly the greatest service that Sir Stafford Cripps has rendered to finance in this country has been to show how fictitious those surpluses were.
The second point in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Piercy which I wish to traverse is that which dealt with possible economies. The noble Lord said, in dealing with possible economies in expenditure in connection with certain social services, that these were political matters and not economic matters. That is a point which surely cannot be allowed to pass. If any of your Lordships, under the pressure of economic circumstances, do not at the present moment find it possible or desirable to live on oysters and champagne, but nevertheless do so, then that is an economic fact, and not a political one. And it seems to me that we are rather in that state of living beyond our means and of requiring a reduction in our expenditure and a more modest outlook on the standards of life which we ought to enjoy. But it is not a purely political issue, and to say that it is is a travesty of the definition of economics and finance. I was glad to see that the noble Lord damned with singularly faint praise the special contribution, which we shall no doubt have an opportunity to discuss when the Finance Bill comes before your Lordships. But I was much struck by what he said to the effect that the burden of taxation in this country is almost too heavy to bear. We on this side cordially agree with that. I would only remind your Lordships of what happens, and what has happened in history, to countries in which the burden of taxation has been too heavy to bear.
6.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I do not propose to stand for long between your Lordships and the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. We all want to hear his detailed reply to the pertinent questions and challenges put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, by the noble Lord, Lord Brand, in a most valuable speech, and by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. I have no doubt that he was informed in advance of the points, but they are certainly all matters which arise—I may almost say, without disrespect, as a matter of course—on the Survey which we have all read. The Survey is all very well in itself. Indeed, after what we have had in the past we must all be grateful for it. It is realistic in its approach, and realistic in its statement of the danger and of the task. There is no talk about recovery being "round the corner." I only hope that the estimates, which I am sure are sincerely made, are more realistic than those given by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will not go in for percentages; I agree that percentages can be made to suit one's purpose—as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, well knows.
I was interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, on Lord Cherwell's figures. I must say that I thought my noble friend's statistics were, on the whole, not unreasonable. I remember someone once saying in this House, though I have forgotten on which side, "Never make a mistake in your logic; the facts remain at your disposal." The future is in the womb of time; but the past we now see in the light of the present. In the Estimates which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer gave with such buoyant, if inflated, assurance, he estimated our hard currency deficit for 1947 at £350,000,000. In fact, as we know, it was more than three times that amount: it turned out to be over £1,023,000,000. I know the difficulties of estimating when prices are fluctuating, but the error which changes a deficit of £350,000,000 into one of over £1,000,000,000 is more than would be tolerated in any pupil in a lower form, much less in the headmaster himself.
In so wide a field, so well covered in this debate, I would select only a few topics. I entirely agree with my noble friend who has just spoken that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right to have a
314
genuine surplus. I am more doubtful about the method employed to obtain it, but there will be a further opportunity for discussing that. I think it would have been wiser to reduce expenditure and maintain the taxation, apart from the special inducements, to which I take no exception. I say in all sincerity—and in this I am sure that I speak for noble Lords who criticise the special levy—that nobody in this House, or indeed outside it, objects to paying a special levy imposed as a particular tax on somebody fortunate enough to possess rather more than his neighbours, although, under the combined efforts of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, it is becoming a rapidly diminishing difference. It is not that. We would gladly pay this special import if we believed that it was genuinely for the good of the country and would do its job. What I am very doubtful about is whether it is going to do what the Chancellor of the Exchequer means it to do; in fact, whether it will not do more harm than good.
I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself really considers that it will have any effect on inflation, that it will be deflationary, because he has admitted that it will be paid almost entirely out of capital; one person will sell and another person will buy. It certainly cannot help saving; in fact, it must have a most damaging effect upon saving. It certainly cannot help what his predecessor was anxious to secure—cheap money—for the immediate effect of its announcement was to bring Government stocks down several points.
I would pause for one moment to say one word about cheap money. The noble Lord has challenged us, and I always try to be constructive; in fact, I am not sure that I do not offer too many hostages to fortune in this respect. I will tell your Lordships where we stand in regard to cheap money. We on this side of the House are all in favour of a realistic and effective policy. What is more, the man who did far more to create the policy of cheap money, and to make it effective, was not Dr. Dalton but Sir John Anderson. Certainly it has not been helped by Dr. Dalton's nonsensical talk about conspiracy. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Brand, need be anxious that he was unduly impolite. I thought it was with studied moderation that he referred to

315
that curious outburst. What did this late Chancellor of the Exchequer say? When all experts and practical men—I do not mean that the two terms are necessarily mutually exclusive—but some of us are more practical—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: More synonymous.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: More synonymous on this side of the House. When all the experts and "practical men agree, they are conspiring; and when events justify their forecasts, then the events are conspiring. Really, this is going even one better than the Communists. When the Communists want to pull off a terrorist coup, they discover a conspiracy among their political opponents, or even among the members of their own Government whom they do not particularly like. The existing Chancellor of the Exchequer has no doubt taken note of that technique for, in a curious way, Dr. Dalton appears to me to be able to combine both the technique and the vices of the Communists and of Dr. Schacht. We shall all be behind the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in a real policy of cheap money, if it can be obtained by practical and honest means. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer can restore the confidence which his predecessor squandered, and is still doing his best to undermine, and if he will curb Government expenditure, he will be taking effective steps to enhance Government credit and keep the rates of interest down. I make no bones about it in saying again that there certainly should be a reduction in Government expenditure. It is an indispensable contribution which the Chancellor of the Exchequer must make, and a most valuable example when we are all urged to reduce costs and to save.
I make one or two suggestions. As one noble Lord said, I am sure it is true that, when you go through these swollen Departments, the whole spirit of war extravagance is not only still rampant but becoming regularly worse. Frankly, as an old administrator, I am shocked at the approach that I see to these questions of expenditure. Can it be reasonable or necessary that non-industrial public servants should to-day be costing the taxpayer £245,000,000 a year in salaries? That was the figure given (I speak subject
316
to correction) a few days ago by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I do not criticise the payment of good money to good men, but what we want there, as I think was said about another set of people—I am not sure that it was not generals at one time—are "fewer and better." Nobody will grudge the money paid to good men. The Government themselves estimated at the beginning of 1947—you will find all this in the two Surveys—that the number of public servants during 1947 would be reduced by 80,000. What happened? Actually, they were increased by 14,000. Therefore, in place of this proposed reduction, you have actually 94,000 more.
I take the Air Services. We are told that they are small figures. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, more than achieved his target last year. He has told us that he is going to beat his record next year. More than £10,000,000 in a year was lost on these airlines. It is alleged that prestige requires this. Prestige can be bought too highly, and I hope that the noble Lord, the Minister of Civil Aviation, is not too proud to economise. After all, I do not see much prestige in losing £10,000,000 a year on nationalised airlines when the Belgians and the Dutch can carry on at a profit. We want from the Government example as well as exhortation. The exhortation given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at any rate, is a firm exhortation, although other people do not always speak with the same voice.
I am bound to say that I thought the Leader of the House was a little rash when he challenged the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, on his suggestion about Socialist propaganda in the past. The noble Earl did not carry an anthology with him. In the interval, I have supplied myself with one. May I give your Lordships one quotation? It is this. It is about wages, your Lordships will remember.
" The level of wages depends on several factors, but not in the least on how much the worker produces. If he doubles his production that is no reason why wages should increase by a single penny. Our conclusion "—
that is the conclusion of the Socialist Party—
" is that, however hard the workers work they will remain workers, and poor workers at that."
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to this passage also:

317
" Allied with this propaganda for industriousness you will remember the old Produce more ' cry. I suppose we shall get it again after this war too."
That is an extract from a production by a most eminent author, a Cabinet Minister. It is called " Why you should be a Socialist," and it is described as "A completely revised and up to date version by Mr. Strachey," published by Gollancz in 1944.
LORD SHEPHERD: Would the noble Lord quote the publication, and tell us who issued it?
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I have just quoted it—" Why you should be a Socialist." It is "A completely revised and up to date version by Mr. Strachey," published by Gollancz in 1944.
LORD SHEPHERD: It was not published by the Labour Party.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Oh, I see! That is very interesting. Here is the doctrine of collective responsibility! We have been seeing a little of it lately. I did think there was at any rate one motto which held some repute in practice among politicians, and that was that you all "Hang together to avoid hanging separately."
LORD SHEPHERD: The Labour Party publishes a programme, and it is generally known that that programme is the policy of the Party. From what the noble Viscount has just said, I understand that that publication is not a Labour Party publication and is, therefore, not necessarily Labour Party policy.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That is very interesting. It would have been interesting to know whether the noble Lord, who, I think, used to be the boss of the Labour Party (or, should I say, the organiser of victory?), is now saying that unless it has his approval it is no good.
LORD SHEPHERD: I do not say that.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: Does the noble Lord repudiate Mr. Strachey?
LORD SHEPHERD: I do not agree with what you have read.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: That is very interesting. It would perhaps have been more effective from a voting point of view if the noble Lord had said that before the election, and not after. I will leave him now to settle with Mr. Strachey. We will
318
certainly remember that, on the authority of the late Organiser of the Labour Party, no attention is to be paid to what any individual Minister says, however vocal he may be.
LORD SHEPHERD: I do not say that.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: We must all do our best to close the gap. By that I do not mean the gaps in the Labour ranks, I mean the more serious gap which confronts us in our national life. In happier days invisible exports made a large contribution. We must try to get back to them. It will be difficult to restore: hat position by saving, but we must try all we can. Invisible exports produced some great figures, but a large part of them were built up by something which in these days we ought to be most careful to endeavour to restore and maintain—by this country being the great market and the great clearing house for many of the commodities of the world besides money. A great deal goes with that, and with the confidence it begets. The markets came here, and, as the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack knows, the arbitration clauses in every agreement had to be settled in London. It was not only money, hard currency, which came from that, although there was a great deal of it; it was the confidence which flowed from that position. Does not that show what folly it was, for example, to wipe out the Liverpool Cotton Exchange?
The major contribution, however, must be made by our industry and commerce. Industry has financial and production problems and the two are closely linked, and the Government must help, or at any rate not hinder, in both. I would say that the aim in industrial finance should be, first, to encourage the creation of reserves so that companies may re-equip and may engage in research and development in the only way they can—namely, by ploughing back into the business some of the profits they have made. That is essential if we are to have increased production and lower costs. I entirely agree on this matter with Lord Brand; the last form of capital expenditure I would like to see curtailed is capital expenditure in the modernization of industrial plant. But that does not mean that we can afford everything; we must put first things first.

319
For the time being I think companies should not increase distributed dividends. I do not say that because increased efficiency and risk are not entitled to their reward. Certainly we are not in the least ashamed of the fact that profits are made. I am sorry that under private enterprise 7,000 farmers went bankrupt in a particularly difficult year. What I am anxious about is whether under the present Government's régime it will be not 7,000 people but 47,000,000 people who will go bankrupt by the losses which are made on bulk purchasing and by the nationalised industries. I am not at all ashamed of efficiency getting its reward, but spending power must be temporarily withheld. That is well secured by the very high rate of taxation on Income Tax and Profits Tax, coupled with what has been most honourably observed, the undertaking by industry to limit distributed dividends. But I would say, as a counterpart, that it is the Government's bounden duty—and I know there are many experienced noble Lords on the other side of the House who agree—and it is right, to encourage the creation of reserves and the ploughing of them back into industry. I hope the present Chancellor will consider abolishing his predecessor's ill-considered and tendentious penal tax on the capitalisation of reserves.
There are two passages in the Chancellor's Budget speech which I think are as true as they are relevant. In the first passage I quote he is speaking of time, and he says:
" Time, I would remind the Committee, is the scarcest commodity of all to-day, and we cannot afford to waste a moment of it."
The other passage is this:
" We must maintain a great degree of flexibility as these plans develop, so that we can manufacture for the countries which send us additional supplies the goods they need, at the price and quality they can afford, in return for the imports which we need from them. This is not a matter which is capable of precise regulation by the Government. It must be left to close co-operation between the Government and industry."
Time! I wish he had convinced some of his colleagues two years ago or even one year ago that we could not afford to waste or lose a moment of time. Now time can be lost in two ways. It can be lost first of all by not getting down to the job soon enough. Here, frankly, I think the Government are grievously to blame.
320
But the more important it is that we should make up for lost time now. Time can also be lost, and, in the aggregate, a great deal of time is lost, on the job. Factories, like trains, lose time if they are stopped or slowed down. The bottlenecks due to excessive and meticulous controls have just the same stopping and time-losing effect in factories as continued signals or breakdowns would have upon the progress of a train. The White Paper says somewhere that no system of control can make nine tons do the work of ten. That is perfectly true. But excessive controls, meticulous, delaying, unintelligent controls, may make nine tons do the work of eight. And I believe it is that which, in some cases, leads to what has been called a statistical famine.
I come back to the old plea for the Government to give the general directives and the general economic intelligence and to trust industry and commerce to carry out the tactical operations. The last time we debated this subject, the Government, in their reply, were not unfriendly to what I said. I hope that that is going to be evidenced in action. I am sure they need not be afraid that industry will not conform to their general plan. But it is only by giving directives and by giving industry some free play that the real partnership between the Government and industry which we need to-day will be established. The Chancellor spoke of the need for flexibility. I think he was right. He might have added that no Government Department can possibly know the infinite variety and complexity of the export trade. In the experience of manufacturers and traders, we have a priceless asset in the know-how. But they must have a wide tactical discretion as to how to apply their knowledge. We need merchant adventurers just as much in the new world as ever we did in the old, and they must have reasonable freedom to conduct their adventures. It cannot be done on Government sealed patterns and Government blue prints. We have to be flexible to meet changing conditions where so much is uncertain and so much is outside our own control.
But we want certainty in planning and operation where we can get it, and the greatest certainty as well as the best opportunity in the development of mutual trade lies in our Commonwealth and Empire. I believe that that is common ground between us to-day. The Colonial

321
Empire can not only supply us with the food and raw materials that we need, and take an increasing share of our exports to our mutual advantage, but it can be a great earner of dollars as well. In this matter, I hope the Government will go for first things first. I am all in favour of big planning, but do concentrate first on what can give the quickest and best returns. I think it is equally accepted that development of Commonwealth and Empire trade is not in the least inconsistent with European co-operation; it is, indeed, its necessary counterpart and complement. The more trade that is done within the Customs Unions, or within what I have called before the looser trading association of the British Commonwealth, the more prosperous the individual countries will be, the quicker they will restore their own economies and the more trade they will do with the rest of the world. Here again there can be no sealed pattern. We must be flexible. I beg the Government to avoid the danger of committing themselves to a rigid formula or to a uniform system.
I am grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for the undertaking he gave me on behalf of the Government the other day, that the Havana Charter will not be ratified until it has been brought before both Houses of Parliament. I have not studied the latest version sufficiently, and frankly I am very nervous of it, particularly at this time. But what is vitally important is the spirit and the intention. The British Commonwealth and the countries of Western Europe are anxious to co-operate in their own interests and in the interests of the world. What matters is the common aim and objective. If countries believe that that is the right objective—genuine co-operation—they will work to it and play the game. If they do not believe that, they will find a way round the highest hedge or the most carefully drawn formula. I would say, do not try to make the rules of the club too rigid.
" Many roads thou hast fashioned. All of them lead to the light."
In practice, such success as the Government have obtained in breaking down restrictions and increasing trade with countries which have been imposing restrictions have not been by some great broad universal formula but by carefully
322
conducted bilateral negotiations. What is needed is the right aim, but no rigidity. Let there be plenty of flexibility in its application and, all over, the same outlook, the same spirit; let there be leadership, united effort and individual responsibility.
7.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, with what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said in the latter part of his speech, as he knows well, I am in full agreement; and the pledges I gave with regard to Havana and other matters will, of course, be kept. I agree with the noble Viscount, very sincerely, as to the necessity of maintaining flexibility in our methods. I will refer later on to what the noble Viscount said with respect to developing supplies and increasing trade within the Commonwealth and Empire. Leaving aside the noble Viscount's usual skilful and charming dialectics on Party matters, I will say that he contributed a most valuable and helpful speech to our debate. I followed as closely as I could the complicated array of figures which the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, paraded before us, but I cannot pretend that I shall be able to comment upon them all. Indeed, I do not think that at this time of the day the House would expect me to do so. But I will comment on two or three of them.
At the end of a long series of interrogations the noble Lord asked us this question: "Dare this Government bring these facts before the people?" I took this down, I think, correctly. I do not know what he wanted us to do, but for my part I do not believe there has ever been a British Government that has displayed the clear facts before the people with more frankness than this Government. I am not saying anything about whether we have achieved well or ill, but at least we have tried to tell the people what the facts are. I am sure that we cannot be accused of not daring to tell them how unpleasant things are. So I was perplexed when the noble Lord addressed that question to us, at the end of his catalogue of crimes and wickednesses and inefficiences. Earlier on, he glibly asked why we were not able to buy by our exports everything we wanted, as we did before the war. What a strange question! Before the war! Something has happened since that happy day when

323
we were able to buy what we wanted by our exports.
LORD CHERWELL: I did not ask that question of the Government. I said that the people of this country are asking that, and I do not think they understand the answer.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I took the words down as well as I could. The noble Lord asked the question in the House and that is good enough for me. I do not propose to answer it; the reply is self-evident. 11,000,000 tons of British shipping were sunk or damaged. Goodness knows what happened to our overseas investments! I need not occupy the time of the House explaining why this country, after its immense sacrifices and prodigious losses, is not so well able now as it was before the war to buy all our imports. I will not delay the House by pursuing that topic any longer.
I shall reply to one or two points of which the noble Lord was good enough to give me notice. He asked why should £64,000,000 more have been spent abroad on profits and interest in 1947 than in 1938. The reason is, that in 1938 we were a creditor country and in 1948 we are very heavy debtors. We have to pay interest on the immense balances held against us.
LORD CHERWELL: Funded long-term interest?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Funded sterling balances. The noble Lord, referring to Table VIII in the Economic Survey, pointed out that there was a surplus in our investment receipts of £73,000,000 in 1946 and a deficit of £20,000,000 in 1947. I have inquired how that has been arrived at. A very complicated series of tables have been supplied to me, but it is an entirely honest calculation. The main reason is that in 1947 British concerns abroad started upon the re-equipment of their damaged industries and properties. The money sent abroad is for the re-equipment of British concerns all over the world, and a large part of it is for the re-equipment of the oil industry. I will make reference to that later.
The noble Lord also commented on Government capital expenditure and expressed surprise that the figure was to be £1,800,000,000. I noted what he said
324
with great care, and I was overcome with surprise. I hope that I may fairly assume that the noble Lord has studied the other figures with more care than he has studied this, because he is dreadfully out. The figure relates to the estimated amount of money required for increased capital equipment, for what is described as "investment capital equipment and improvement, public and private"—I repeat, and private." Here I come to a point raised by the noble Viscount—namely, the importance of making sufficient provision for depreciation and other reserves to enable this equipment to be provided. I entirely agree with that. The estimated figure for depreciation allowances, which makes up part of the £1,800,000,000, was about £700,000,000 last year, and is estimated to be about £800,000,000 this year. Where is the rest of the money which will be required for capital investment to come from? I will give the actual Government figure. Here, may I say that I appreciate sincerely what the noble Lords, Lord Brand and Lord Rennell, said about the character of the Budget statement on this point.
The normal surplus was £787,000,000, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken great pains to exclude items—like the sale of Government stocks—which are not really part of a dependable surplus. When they are excluded, the real surplus on revenue account is £598,000,000. That figure is reduced by the amount of Government capital expenditure, which is £279,000,000. When we take this from the £598,000,000 of real surplus, we have, as the net surplus, £319,000,000. I make this somewhat lengthy explanation because I was so horrified at the noble Lord's figure of £1,800,000,000. I have since taken considerable trouble to ascertain the facts, and I think he must have been looking at the wrong column. Apart from that, I would like to express my sincere agreement with what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said as to the necessity for making as much capital as possible available for capital improvements, and for directing it into the right channels. I fully agree, also, with what the noble Lord, Lord Brand, said as to the vital need for improved capital equipment in the industries of this country.
I will now mention, quite briefly, some of the facts of our effort. Re-equipment is required in every industry, but perhaps

325
more than any other in the vital textile industry. As we know, the textile industry is one of our best dollar earners. And, in that connection, I think it is right to draw attention once more to that element of the Budget which gives relief in Income Tax to the lower income levels with the idea of encouraging production. The earned income relief is £46,500,000, the reduced rate relief £50,000,000, and the relief in respect of married women's allowances is £101,000,000. I see that since 1945, in Income Tax relief on the lower scales of income, this Government have provided no less than £581,000,000—an immense figure.
I would refer to one other point which the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, raised quite properly, and which has caused every one of us great anxiety—that is the drain on our reserves in the non-sterling countries. It was very great last year, and we all know what disastrous consequences it had. I know the House will be glad to be informed that we now have firm agreements with both India and Pakistan, and with other countries, putting a precise limit, which is absolutely essential, upon the drawings on the central fund. We have also good working agreements with Australia and New Zealand to the same effect. Therefore, whilst: I myself would be reluctant to give any figures, it is estimated that we shall keep the drawings on the fund for the first half of 1948 down to a very much lower figure (I have the figure here, but I will not quote it) than it was last year. I refrain from quoting the figure because we have so often been disappointed.
I would now like to make one or two comments on our efforts to bridge the gap. I do not want to say a word to minimise the gravity of the situation. Heaven knows, it is dreadful enough. This country is confronted with a situation that is almost unprecedented, and I freely accept that there are only certain ways out of it. We have to spend less and produce more. That is obvious. We have said so from one end of the country to the other. It is nothing new; it is not a discovery of to-day. Far from it! Indeed, the Government have incurred considerable unpopularity in some quarters by saying it rather loudly. But, be that as it may, we have said it, and it is true. In this respect, when I listened to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, my mind went back to the days when he was opposite me in another
326
place, and how he belaboured me sometimes for my sins in various offices in the Government. It was quite like old times to hear him on the subject again. But I think he rather overdoes it, if he will allow me to say so with respect. He seems to single out the unfortunate working man and the Labour Party for all his censures.
I do not propose to go back into past history but, to tell the truth, we are the inheritors of many things for which we are not responsible. No doubt extreme things—and sometimes, perhaps, foolish things—have been said by people when describing the worst features of the capitalist system, of which I am sure nobody is more ashamed than the noble Earl himself. No doubt you can find extracts in one paper or another condemning this system. But that has nothing to do with the policy of realities, and I will come back to realities now. In the first place, our great handicap is the increase in prices, which is something like 60 per cent. We can only do our best to put the brake on that. I think the White Paper and the efforts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are courageous indeed, and every noble Lord will hope that they will be successful.
The first element in our self-help is clearly increased production. In the coal and steel industries we are at the present time up to the targets. Let me just say a word about steel. The noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, seemed to question whether there was a real shortage of steel. That was most astonishing. Without a doubt there is a shortage of steel. In the first place, we have not been able to import as we did before the war. I see that the diminution of imports was more than 1,000,000 tons in 1947, as compared with 1938. There is at the present time an entirely unprecedented demand for factory construction, for rebuilding, and all the rest of it. Some hundreds of thousands of houses, and many factories, have been destroyed or damaged all over the country, and there: is an unprecedented demand for steel. We only wish that it were not so. However, the fact cannot be questioned, and I was somewhat surprised that the noble Lord should question it. In many other industries we are up to the target, but in one industry in particular, which is of vital importance, we still have a long way to go—that is in textiles. Here we need not only the re-equipment of which the noble Lord spoke

327
but many other improvements as well. With regard to agriculture, I can report at present that quite good progress is being made; and with regard to some elements of it (I will not give the House the details, though I have them here) we are in advance of the programme. The production of fertilisers has exceeded the target by a very large amount, which is most encouraging. Some other industries are still disappointing, and I am afraid that I must hark back to textiles, for there is no target for increased production more important than that, and at the present time we have not realised the target.
I need say little or nothing here about the export drive, although that is, of course, vital. However, I would like to say a word about increased supplies from non-dollar sources. I come now to what the noble Viscount said a minute since. We are making immense efforts to expand the supplies from the Colonies and, with the co-operation of the Dominions, from non-dollar areas. We have about three years under the Marshall Aid—and no more, I think—to try and develop those sources of supply as they will need to be developed. I know that it will take time, but I hope that the three years will be enough. The fact is that by the end of three or four years we have to obtain supplies of food, materials and other things from sterling countries in a much greater volume than we are now doing, if the assistance given by Marshall Aid—which of course will taper out as the years go by—is to be sufficient. One of these supplies I would like in particular to mention, because it arises out of the table which the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell asked me about. I am quite sure that in the coming years we must develop sterling oil. We are spending an alarming number of dollars on oil, as we all know, although we obtain a great many dollars from our own sterling oil production. But I am glad to say that there are very ambitious plans for improving the quantity of sterling oil in the provision of refineries and other installations connected with the oil companies. If the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, were to consult with the engineers who are advising these companies, and were to ask them whether they had any difficulties in obtaining sufficient steel, I think he would be no longer in any doubt as to the facts of the case. However, that is a source of supply which
328
must be substantially developed during the next few years.
I am sure the House will expect me to refer here to what has been said with regard to the Marshall Aid scheme—this great scheme of international co-operation, the generosity of which is unprecedented. It does not cover the whole of the gap. We shall have to make economies and we shall have to develop other sources of supply, as I have just been indicating. But it does give Western Europe and ourselves an opportunity. I have little doubt that, as time goes on, there will be many discussions in your Lordships' House upon the progress that is being made. Therefore I will not anticipate anything, but I would like to pay this tribute to the scheme on behalf of my colleagues here. We are doing our best, too, to curtail the rise of prices, and the rise of salaries, wages and so on, which contribute to increased costs, and in doing so we are incurring considerable unpopularity in some quarters. But nobody can accuse the Chancellor of any lack of courage in this vital matter, and I think we are approaching it in the right way. I do not think, for example, that the unfortunate effect upon savings which the noble Lord, Lord Brand, anticipated would follow from the special levy will be realised. I cannot help but think that he was more despondent in his outlook on that than need be. After all, I understand that the total number of persons estimated to be affected is about 125,000, the vast majority of whom will be people with relatively small amounts above the £2,000 level. I quite expect that the influence of the levy upon them will be to diminish their expenditure which is, of course, what we want. I do not think we shall find that it will have the depressing effect on savings which the noble Lord anticipates.
Before I sit down, I will just complete the sum in arithmetic which I started some time ago, when I was accounting for the £1,800,000,000 required for investment purposes. £800,000,000 was put down to allowances for depreciation. There will be a real revenue surplus in the calendar year—not the financial year—of about £400,000,000. If you put that to the money made available by depreciation of other things you will discover that we have still to find—if you have allowed for imported supplies which we have not paid

329
for—some £400,000,000 from real savings. The figure last year was over £700,000,000, and I sincerely hope that it will be more than £700,000,000 this year. At all events, it is quite evident that the estimates of the Budget, and the provision of real savings as a contribution towards this accumulation of resources, will leave us with a good prospect of encouraging personal savings to do more than fill the gap. Finally, I hope we shall find that in the course of the year our experience will induce the noble Lord below the gangway, Lord Brand, to be a little less despondent about the effect of this levy than he seems to be at the present time. I would like at the same time to join with many other noble Lords and conclude my observations by thanking him for one of the most informed and valuable contributions I have ever heard upon this subject in this House.
6.37 p.m.
LORD CHERWELL: My Lords, we have all listened with great interest to the speeches which have been made on the other side of the House. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, says that figures can be taken seriously only if they have been examined. We all agree about that, and I had hoped, of course, that he had examined all the figures in the Survey and that I did not need to go into these matters in great detail. As to output per head, I think the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, has answered that question. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, said: "We produce more than other countries in Europe," but he did not ask: "Why do we produce so much less than the United States? "Nobody answered my simple straightforward question. According to the Government figures, we have 98 per cent. more people on exports, and we are producing only 28 per cent. more exports. After that it does seem to me that it is no use saying that the people are producing as much per head. The noble Lord seemed to be under some misapprehension about this business of output per shift. We agree that there is a bigger output per shift, but people work fewer shifts. If the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, before the King's birthday, were recommending the efforts, let us say, of Lord Walkden, and said, "Oh, he has done an awful lot more work; his speeches are twice as long as they used to be," and
330
forgot to say that he spoke only half as often, he would not be giving a fair picture of the noble Lord's activities. That is what is happening in the mines.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd has gone, but he tells us that according to Sir John Boyd-Orr 10,000,000 people suffered from malnutrition before the war and that is why he is a Socialist. I seem to recollect the Under-Secretary for the Ministry of Food saying that on the wireless, and I am glad there is something on which he agrees with some Minister. But on that standard, I would beg to point out that there are 30,000,000 people in this country suffering from malnutrition to-day. It is no use pretending that everything in the garden is lovely when, of all the countries in Europe, Britain is the one from which most people want to emigrate, as was shown by a Gallup Poll published the other day by the News Chronicle, which is certainly not a Tory paper.
I now venture to come to what the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, said. He complained of my complicated array of figures and said in effect, "Look at the way we have put the matter before the country Look at our Digest." The Digest, as far as I can estimate, has over 100 pages, each containing about 300 figures. If members of your Lordships' House could not follow the twenty or thirty figures which I gave, I do not think we can expect the country to read the Digest with great success. The second point I wish to mention is that of capital expenditure. I do not think I said it was Government capital expenditure. I said "the Government plan capital expenditure." If I said anything else, it was a slip of the tongue. The Government plan, and they boast of their plans.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: No, that £1,800,000,000 is not Government-planned capital expenditure; it is an estimate of capital expenditure that will be incurred. It is not planned by the Government We are responsible for the £279,000,000.
LORD CHERWELL: If the Government say that people can spend £1,800,000,000 in this country without Government blessing or support, I am very much surprised
VISCOUNT ADDISON: That is a different matter.
LORD CHERWELL: The noble Viscount said just now that they will direct capital expenditure into the proper channels. If they can direct, they must take responsibility for it.
The noble Viscount mentioned investment income. But the drop in our investment income accounts for only 4 per cent. of the cost of our imports. As for shipping, the drop in shipping receipts is only one-fifth of 1 per cent.; that does not make much difference. He told us that £64,000,000 was long-term interest on the sterling balances. I was certainly not aware that these things had been funded and that these rates of interest had been agreed. I think it would be interesting to the country to know what has been agreed. I am glad to know that £93,000,000 was expended last year in the form of re-equipping firms abroad. But I am surprised that we have been able to send £93,000,000 worth of stuff out of the country to re-equip firms abroad. I only hope that the amount sent to expand our oil production in the sterling area will not lead to a big increase in military expenditure there. But the principle is good. As to steel, I trust we shall get a Steel Budget. Why should not the country know what happens to the steel, what the stocks are, and who is getting it? It would cause a great deal of satisfaction amongst many people.
I do not wish to detain the House any longer. I am reminded sometimes of the Hegelian Scottish Minister who prayed, "Oh Thou that enjoyest the singular privilege of uniting within Thyself all contradictories … ", when I hear noble Lords answering these points. At any rate, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House agreed that we should spend less and produce more.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Quite right.
LORD CHERWELL: I am so pleased at that that I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ROUND OAK STEEL WORKS (LEVEL CROSSINGS) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with amendments.
SOUTH LANCASHIRE TRANSPORT BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with amendments.

DUDLEY BRIERLEY HILL AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1948.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Dudley Brierley Hill and District Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

TIVERTON GAS ORDER, 1948.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Tiverton:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

BANGOR GAS ORDER, 1948.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Bangor:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned at a quarter before eight o'clock.