Sitting of 2 February 1948

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
For the Burgh of Paisley, in the room of Oliver Ridsdale Baldwin, commonly called Viscount Corvedale, now Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, called up to the House of Peers.—(Mr. Whiteley.)
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SHIPPING

    Passenger Service, Larne—Stranraer
    Sir Ronald Rossasked the Minister of Transport why the coal-burning R.M.S. "Princess Margaret" was run to and from Lame and Stranraer without carrying any passengers during the first half of December; and why she ceased running altogether during the Christmas holiday season, although the passenger traffic was such that sailing tickets were in use.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): To convey perishable cargo which was more than the "Princess Victoria" could handle. Throughout December, the "Princess Victoria" was well able to deal with all passengers on this route.
    Sir R. Ross: Is the Minister aware that although the "Princess Victoria" has first-class sleeping accommodation, there is no third-class sleeping accommodation? Will he not pay the same attention to the people of Ulster who are going home after their holidays to produce the food we need, as to the conveyance of the food to this side of the Channel?
    Mr. Barnes: The passenger certificate is for 1,515. I am informed that the highest number of passengers carried during that period was about 840.
    Sir R. Ross: Why were there sailing tickets?
    Professor Savory: Is the Minister aware that during the whole of the summer the "Princess Margaret" sailed only on Fridays and was lying up at Stranraer for the rest of the week, while thousands of people were being refused sailing tickets?
    Mr. Barnes: I think the hon. Member was aware of the position at that time, because I met him and his friends who were concerned about the matter. He knows that every effort was made to meet the position, having regard to the difficulties arising out of the necessity to save fuel.

    Yacht Master (Coastal) Certificate
    Captain Marsdenasked the Minister of Transport if he intends to renew the award of Yacht Master (Coastal) Certificate to those qualified.
    Mr. Barnes: No, Sir. This Certificate was instituted at the request of the Admiralty to ensure the examination of officers of the Royal Naval Volunteer Supplementary Reserve. The Admiralty have agreed it is no longer necessary for this purpose.
    Captain Marsden: In view of the fact that this certificate is highly prized, and is a great incentive to yachtsmen to acquire a close knowledge of our coast, which is of great value in time of war, will the Minister disregard the Admiralty and reinstate it?
    Mr. Barnes: There is no evidence that the certificate is in very great demand. I cannot very well overlook the advice of the Admiralty on a matter of this sort, because there is no other special reason why it should be continued.

    Laid Up Tankers
    Captain Marsdenasked the Minister of Transport how many tankers are laid up in United Kingdom ports.
    Mr. Barnes: Three, Sir.
    Captain Marsden: Does the Minister mean that those three tankers are awaiting reconditioning or are they rated as redundant?
    Mr. Barnes: They are not awaiting either minor or substantial repairs. There is rather a long history about two of them, but I should say at least two out of the three are practically finished. If the hon. and gallant Member wants details of all three I will send them to him. I do not think any of them stand much chance of seeing further service.

    Service Stores, Palestine (Evacuation)
    Mr. A. R. W. Lowasked the Minister of Transport for what tonnage of Service Department stores scheduled to be evacuated from Palestine will shipping be available in each month of 1948.
    Mr. Barnes: It would not be in the public interest to disclose details of the evacuation plans while the operation is in progress, but I am arranging to make, available the quantity of shipping required by the Service Departments for their planned evacuation of stores from Palestine.
    Mr. Low: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is sufficient shipping for the plans, and has he recently had an application from the Service Departments to increase the amount of shipping to be made available?

    The table below gives the number of casualties to ships (excluding those clue to mines) reported to the Ministry of Transport as having occurred during the years 1945, 1946 and 1947, and includes:

    (a) all casualties to ships of United Kingdom registry, wherever they happened, and

    (b) casualties in United Kingdom waters to ships of foreign, Colonial and Dominion registry.

    Year.

    Total.

    Trading Vessels.

    Fishing Vessels.

    Total losses (included in previous column).

    Serious.

    Minor.

    Serious.

    Minor.

    Trading.

    Fishing.

    1945

    …

    …

    4,560

    332

    4,039

    72

    117

    46

    23

    1946

    …

    …

    4,095

    339

    3,464

    83

    209

    38

    20

    1947

    …

    …

    3,992

    323

    3,238

    100

    331

    26

    20

    Mersey Docks (Inquiry)
    Mr. A. Edward Daviesasked the Minister of Transport when the working party investigating the causes of congestion at the Liverpool and Birkenhead Docks is expected to complete its inquiries; and if in the meantime any action is being taken to mitigate the difficulties and to expedite the handling of traffic for export.
    Mr. Barnes: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "Yes"; the answer to the second part has already been given in my reply.

    Wrecks
    Brigadier Petoasked the Minister of Transport whether he will give the number of shipwrecks, including total losses, but excluding losses due to mines, for the years 1945, 1946, 1947; and whether he is satisfied that seamanship is sufficiently stressed both in the examination for certificates of competency and before seamen are granted certificates of discharge as able seamen.
    Mr. Barnes: Yes, Sir, I am circulating in HANSARD particulars of casualties to ships in the years in question. I am fully satisfied with the scope and efficiency of the examinations for certificates of competency and for efficient deck hands. The requirements are kept constantly under review.
    Brigadies Peto: To what part of my Question did the right hon. Gentleman answer "Yes"?
    Mr. Barnes: I am giving the number of shipwrecks and I will circulate the de tails in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the particulars:
    Mr. Barnes: I hope to receive an interim report from the working party towards the end of this month. In the meantime, additional shed space is being provided as a reception depot and other remedial measures are under urgent examination by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.
    Mr. Davies: Is this not a question of having adequate labour to deal with motors when they arrive as well as space?
    Mr. Barnes: I will certainly take notice of that.
    Mr. Marples: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the difficulty of getting labour to the docks on Merseyside, and the shortage of tramcars which is due to a recent fire on Merseyside?
    Mr. Keenan: Has the Minister asked anyone with local experience to go into this very important matter?
    Mr. Barnes: I shall be glad to receive the views of my hon. Friend if he sends them to me.

    INLAND WATER TRANSPORT
    Captain Marsdenasked the Minister of Transport what is the mileage of inland-canal waterways now available for water transport; and what was the mileage in 1939.
    Mr. Barnes: Full information is not available, but it is estimated that there are now approximately 2,400 miles of navigable canals and locked river navigations, as compared with 2,700 miles in 1939.
    Captain Marsden: Does the Minister mind that the mileage will steadily decrease, or is he intending to take steps to encourage the use of canals?
    Mr. Barnes: I certainly do not anticipate that the mileage will steadily decrease. There has been a decrease of 300 miles, 200 miles of which was in connection with L.M. and S. canals. As I emphasised during the passage of the Transport Act, I am hoping that the Ports and Inland Waterways Executive will develop the canals to their fullest capacity.

    RAILWAYS

      Season Tickets
      Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the large number of season-ticket holders who do not travel more than five or six days a week, he will arrange for a revision of the cost of long-period tickets which will take this fact into account.
      Mr. Barnes: I assume that my hon. Friend's Question relates to season tickets on the railways of the British Transport Commission. The matter is one for the
      1448
      Commission, to whom I am sending a copy of the Question.
      Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Is this not a matter of national importance on which a question can properly be asked of the Minister?
      Mr. Barnes: the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who was a member of the Committee which considered the Measure, knows very well that it is not the intention, now that the organisation is set up, for the Minister to interfere with its day-to-day operations.
      Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: On the contrary, does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that during the Committee stage he gave an undertaking that he was going to be forthcoming on these matters, and that on that understanding he obtained the Clause?
      Mr. Barnes: I also recall that Members opposite were very doubtful about the Minister's capacity to do all these things.
      Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my right hon. Friend at least make representations to the Transport Commission on the lines I suggest, and use his influence to help?
      Mr. Barnes: No, Sir, I do not think that I can exercise my position as Minister to influence the day-to-day management decisions of the Commission. The powers of the Minister are clearly defined in the Statute.
      Sir Waldron Smithers: On a point of Order. Is it not possible for you, Mr. Speaker, to protect Members of the House when they are asking for information about nationalised industries—for instance, the B.B.C. and transport, gas and electricity undertakings? It will be a dreadful business if we cannot ask Questions about the administration of the nationalised railways.
      Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter which lies within my province in the slightest.

      Cheap Fares
      Mr. Wadsworthasked the Minister of Transport (1) if he wig standardise the system of giving concessions for workmen's tickets on the British Railways, to avoid the situation where, in densely populated areas, workmen can mostly enjoy this privilege, whereas in less densely populated areas this privilege often is refused;

      1449
      (2) if he will raise the age at which children can enjoy the benefit of half fare on the British Railways to the school leaving age which is now 15.
      Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Transport what is the reason that he cannot make a workable arrangement now that the Government has control of the railways that would enable clerical workers to have the same privileges of cheap travel that are available for artisans, mechanics and labourers.
      Mr. Bramallasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that children of 14 can no longer be wage-earners, he will advise the British Transport Commission to raise the age for half-fares on their trains and road vehicles from 14 to 15.
      Mr. Barnes: Such arrangements are matters for the Commission, and I am bringing the hon. Members' Questions to their attention.
      Mr. Bossom: Is it not ridiculous to segregate one section of the community and give them a privilege, while cutting off another, who do equally good work for the country, and refusing to give them the same rights?
      Mr. Barnes: That may be the case, but, as I have indicated, this is a matter which will now have to be considered by the Commission when they are reframing the whole of their charges, rates and schemes for submission to the Transport Tribunal.
      Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Are not the matters raised in Questions 8 and 9 of major public interest, and does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that the House is to be denied any opportunity of obtaining answers from the responsible Minister?
      Mr. Barnes: I do not think it is legitimate to draw that conclusion. Members are aware that under the Control Agreement the fact that the nation paid the whole of the rent of the railways meant that every conceivable Question could be asked. With the passing of the Transport Act the position has been altered. In any case, by 1st January this year the whole situation would have been altered whether the railways were under their original ownership, or under the Transport Commission.
      Mr. Leslie Hale: Will my right hon. Friend say whether all these anomalies and difficulties have arisen since 1st January, or whether they existed before that date?
      Mr. Barnes: They existed before, but, as I have explained, Members of the House were entitled to put Questions of detail then because the State paid the rent of the railways. Since 1st:January, however, the date of decontrol, it has not been legitimate to put such Questions to the Minister.
      Mr. Wadsworth: Will the right hon. Gentleman promise that this matter will be considered by the Commission at an early date?
      Mr. Barnes: The hon. Member can use his imagination, but it would not be based very much on fact.

      Central London Line (Services)
      Mrs. Leah Manningasked the Minister of Transport when it is proposed to increase the number of trains on the Central Line to cope with the alarming increase of travellers due to the recent extension of the line.
      Mr. Barnes: This is a matter for the British Transport Commission, and I am bringing my hon. Friend's Question to their attention.
      Mrs. Manning: Is it proposed to shrug off every Question that is difficult? Has my right hon. Friend ever been on one of the Central Line stations during the peak hour? If so—and this has nothing to do with the Transport Commission—does he not consider that the conditions in which people have to travel to and from work are absolutely disgraceful, and a danger to life, limb, and the nervous systems of those who have to undergo journeys on this line?
      Mr. Barnes: My reply was not given to avoid a difficulty. I am not in possession of the information which my hon. Friend needs, but I am satisfied that she will get from the Commission a full explanation of the difficulties and causes of this problem.
      Mrs. Manning: I beg to give notice that I will raise the question of the Central Line extensions on the Adjournment, at the first opportunity.

      Electrification (Finsbury Park—Muswell Hill)
      Mr. Gammansasked the Minister of Transport to what extent the cut in capital expenditure will involve the postponement of the electrification of the railway from Finsbury Park to Muswell Hill, when it is expected that this work will be completed and if in the meanwhile he will arrange for a diesel service to Kings Cross and Broad Street.
      Mr. Barnes: I am afraid it will involve the further postponement of this scheme. I cannot say for how long. The question of a diesel-service to Kings Cross and Broad Street is a matter for the British Transport Commission, whose attention I am drawing to the hon. Member's Question.
      Mr. Gammans: Does the Minister's answer mean that I can hold out no hope to my constituents of a better service than they are getting now, and that they will have to put up with whatever service is given them by the British Transport Commission, in which the majority of them are unwilling shareholders?
      Mr. Barnes: I regret the situation, but many capital projects have had to be stopped at the present time.
      Mr. Joynson-Hicks: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to draw the Commission's attention to this, will he define the different circumstances in which is is prepared to draw their attention to a matter, to make representations to the Commission about a matter, to refer a question to the Commission about a matter, and to take no action in the matter at all? All of those four courses he has proposed this afternoon.
      Mr. Barnes: I would prefer to study the comments of hon. Members at greater length.

      Hotels Executive (Chairman)
      Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport the salary to be paid to the chairman of the Hotels Executive; and the length of his appointment.
      Mr. Barnes: The authorised salary for the chairman of the Hotels Executive is £5,000 per annum. The appointment is to 30th September, 1952.
      Mr. Davies: May I ask the Minister on what principle these salaries are fixed? Would the Minister say that the job of the Executive in charge of the roads is no more important than that of the Executive in charge of hotels, or whether the two positions are comparable?
      Mr. Barnes: The salaries are the same, and I should say that both positions are worth the money.
      Mr. William Teeling: Will the Minister say whether any of the ordinary executives are being dismissed in order that this particular gentleman may have the appointment of chairman, or is he just an extra one?
      Mr. Barnes: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means when he talks about anybody being dismissed. These are appointments under the Transport Act. They certainly take the place of a good many railway directors, it that is what interests the hon. Gentleman.
      Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Will the expenses in this instance be in kind or in cash?
      Mr. Barnes: I have already indicated that so far that matter has not been settled. The Executives have only just been appointed.
      Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Will the Minister state whether this gentleman is to be entitled to expenses to facilitate his progress from hotel to hotel?
      Mr. Pickthorn: Can the Minister tell us how expenses can be a matter of negotiation beforehand? How can expenses be anything but a matter of fact?
      Mr. Barnes: Obviously the type of duties that different Executives have to perform will be taken into consideration by the British Transport Commission in settling any matter such as expenses.

      Hotel Great Central, St. Marylebone (Use)
      Sir Wave11 Wakefieldasked the Minister of Transort for what purpose is the former Great Central Hotel in St. Marylebone now being used; and what accommodation is being provided for railway workers in the building.
      Mr. Barnes: I am informed by the British Transport Commission that rooms on the second and third floors of No. 222, Marylebone Road, formerly the Hotel Great Central, are being used as offices by

      1453
      the Railway Executive. No railway workers are accommodated in the building.
      Sir W. Wakefield: Is the Minister aware that owing to the grave housing shortage in St. Marylebone there is very great resentment at this place being used for offices and not for housing accommodation, as it was originally stated it would be?
      Mr. Barnes: Steps are being taken already and other premises have been acquired, but it was very desirable—at least, in my view—that these Executives should be sitting in existing requisitioned properties so that other buildings did not have to be requisitioned.
      Sir W. Smithers: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. As this is the last Question to the Minister of Transport today—this is a matter of great principle—can you tell the House with whom the decision rests as to the responsibility or otherwise of the Minister for answering any particular Question?
      Mr. Speaker: With the Minister, of course.

      SOCIALISED INDUSTRIES (QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS)
      Captain John Crowder: On a point of Order. Can you tell us, Mr. Speaker, whether instructions have been given to the Clerks at the Table not to accept Questions on the day to day working of the railways and the Coal Board, or whether it is to be left to the Minister to say whether he will not answer such Questions?.
      Mr. Speaker: During the war, the custom was that the Minister indicated to the Table that certain Questions would not be answered. Those Questions, therefore, were not put down. The Ministry of Information, for instance, did not answer Questions on administration during the war.
      Sir W. Smithers: Are we now to understand, Sir, that the Minister is a dictator, and the decider of the rights of the House of Commons?
      Mr. Driberg: Is it not the case that before Christmas my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made a statement on this whole question, and indicated that it might be considered further, possibly in a Debate, or in a statement by you, Sir?
      Mr. Speaker: This is a matter on which I have no authority whatsoever, but I gather that in the near future we may have a Debate upon it, in which case Members will no doubt be able to express their views.
      Colonel Ropner: I always understood, Mr. Speaker, that the Clerks at the Table acted on your instructions. The position at the moment is that the Minister is able to instruct the Clerks as to what Questions he is, or is not, prepared to answer. We wish to submit to you, Sir, that Questions should be allowed, and that it should be for the Minister to refuse to answer with the full knowledge of the House that the Question has been asked?
      Mr. Speaker: The Minister says to the Clerks at the Table, "I have no responsibility for this; this is a matter of administration by the Board, and I therefore disclaim responsibility." That being so, a Question cannot be put down about it.
      Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Could you not help the House, Sir, in this way? A Question having been permitted, and put down, and the Minister having given a reply, are we entitled to give notice to raise the matter on the Adjournment if we are not satisfied with the reply?
      Mr. Speaker: Certainly.
      Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Might there be made available to the House the information which you have just given, Sir, and also the subjects on which the Minister is prepared to answer? The House could then know what Questions the Minister purports to answer.
      Mr. Barnes: On a point of explanation: If there is any allegation that I have attempted to give instructions to the Clerks, I deny that. The fact that there are Questions on the Order Paper today which I propose to refer to the Transport Commission makes that position quite clear.
      Colonel Ropner: Then I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    ROADS

      Bus Services, Scotland (Nationalisation)
      Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Transport when it is proposed to nationalise the bus service in the West of Scotland.
      Mr. Barnes: I am not in a position to say.
      Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that, while he is considering this and is not able to say anything, there was an extensive bus strike in the West of Scotland last week; and is he also aware that the S.M.T. Company have declared a dividend of 55 per cent. free of Income Tax? When are the Government going to carry this matter through to its logical conclusion?
      Mr. Barnes: The strike is rather a different question. My hon. Friend should be aware that, under the Transport Act, before the Commission can proceed with the policy of dealing with the whole of the bus problem of Scotland, they must proceed by the process of the area scheme. The Commission have power to acquire particular bus operations by agreement, but I am not in a position to say when it is proposed to nationalise the whole of the bus services of Scotland. My hon. Friend knows the procedure that must be followed.
      Mr. Frank Byers: In view of the Minister's answers, is it intended to keel the Ministry of Transport in being?
      Mr. Barnes: That, of course, is a matter for the Government and the House, whenever they are disposed to tackle the problem.
      Mr. Willis: Are we to understand from the Minister that the decision to nationalise the bus service will be left to the Transport Commission and not to him?
      Mr. Barnes: The Statute imposing that obligation on the Commission is well defined. Where there is unnecessary delay, the Minister has powers to take the appropriate action. I would remind my hon. Friend that the Commission has only been in operation approximately one month. The task of nationalising the whole of the bus services of Scotland is one upon which, I presume, Scottish opinion will want to have a say from the start.
      Mr. David Renton: Will the Minister say to whom the British Transport Commission are answerable for their decisions on this and other matters?
      Mr. Barnes: My hon. Friend is just as well aware of the position as I am. The
      1456
      Commission has certain powers that this House has imposed upon it. The Minister has also certain powers, and the questions I have been dealing with today are, in the main, concerned with matters of day-to-day management, which rest fairly and squarely upon the Commission. I am confident that if I were to depart from that position, hon. Members who are criticising me today, would be the first to disagree.
      Sir Wavell Wakefield: Is not the Commission responsible to the Minister, and, in that way, is not the Minister responsible for answering these Questions?
      Mr. Speaker: That is rather a wide argument. We are dealing only with the bus service in the West of Scotland.

      New Buses, Rural Areas
      Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Transport if, in order to improve rural bus services and so enhance rural amenities generally and assist in increasing agricultural production, he will endeavour to secure a more substantial allocation of new buses to services operating in rural areas.
      Mrs. Manningasked the Minister of Transport if it is proposed that the rural areas which are so dependent on road transport should receive their share of the allocation of new buses.
      Mr. Barnes: There is a general shortage of new public service vehicles, but I have no reason to believe that rural areas generally are worse off in this respect than elsewhere.
      Mr. Driberg: Will my right hon. Friend give some facts to substantiate his incredulity? The services in the rural areas are very bad.
      Mr. Barnes: The reply is that there is a general shortage everywhere, and it is not possible, at the present time, to make up the deficiencies. The services are no worse in the rural areas generally, owing to the shortage, than during the war. I am quite aware that there are certain rural areas which have always had an insufficient service, but that is not aggravated at the moment by the general shortage of buses.
      Mrs. Manning: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the rural areas must be worse off than the urban areas because many of

      1457
      them have no buses at all, and no transport of any kind? All I am asking is whether, under the new allocation of 4,000 buses by L.P.T., as advertised, the rural areas will get some of that allocation, and a better allocation than the urban areas because they are worse off?
      Mr. Barnes: My reply did not dispute that the rural areas generally are in a worse position than the urban areas. I stated that that shortage could not be made up out of the present limited production of vehicles.
      Mr. Driberg: On what basis is the allocation divided between town and country?
      Mr. Barnes: I could not answer that in reply to a supplementary question, but I shall be delighted to give my hon. Friend further information on a rather complex and difficult situation.
      Commander Maitland: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is prepared to give priority to the scattered districts in regard to buses?
      Mr. Barnes: No.
      Colonel Clarke: Will the Minister consider whether the position could not be helped from the production point of view? Will he take into account that the big buses cannot run on many of the rural roads, and that this difficulty might be overcome by supplementing the number of smaller buses, so that they could feed the bigger ones?
      Mr. Barnes: I doubt whether that would ease the present difficulty. It might be desirable to produce more double-deck buses, in view of the limited number which we have for public service.
      Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is not the Minister aware that doing away with the basic petrol ration has affected the load on rural bus services to a far greater degree than it has in the urban areas? In view of that, will he reconsider the question of giving direct priority to rural bus services in the supply of buses?
      Mr. Barnes: I am, of course, aware that the removal of the basic petrol ration has increased the strain on transport generally. I would not wish to place myself in the position of indicating where the strain is most acute.

      Petrol Economy
      Commander Nobleasked the Minister of Transport what saving in the petrol issued to C licence holders has been made since 1st October, 1947.
      Mr. Barnes: Statistics of fuel issues to "C" vehicles are not kept separately. It is estimated that since the 1st of October the net saving on the petrol issued to A, B and C vehicles is about 5 per cent, which is equivalent to a saving at the rate of about 100,000 tons a year.
      Commander Noble: Can the Minister give an assurance that these applications are gone into as carefully and thoroughly as are applications for supplementary allowances by officers of the Ministry of Fuel and Power?
      Mr. Barnes: I always consider that the officers of my Department are just a shade better than those of any other Department.
      Sir W. Smithers: Would the right hon. Gentleman translate 100,000 tons into dollars?

      Driving Licences (Renewal Notices)
      Commander Nobleasked the Minister of Transport what is the estimated yearly cost of sending out reminders for renewal to holders of driving licences.
      Mr. Barnes: The annual cost of this service to the public is charged as part of the cost of collection of motor vehicle duties, etc., and is not available as a separate item.

      Safety Campaigns (Posters)
      Major Tufton Beamishasked the Minister of Transport what is the object of the large number of posters displayed by his Department in many parts of the country saying "Get Home Safe and Sound"; what has been the cost to the taxpayers involved in this particular poster campaign; and whether he is satisfied that the posters have achieved the desired effect.
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan): The posters to which the hon. Member refers are part of the national road safety propaganda campaign and have cost about £50,000. I think that the campaign is having a good effect.
      Major Beamish: Generally we all want to get home safe and sound in any case, and is not this a very good example of quite unnecessary waste of the taxpayers' money and of paper?
      Mr. Callaghan: As to the point raised by the first part of the question, 125,000 people were killed or injured on the roads between April and November, 1947. As far as paper is concerned, if that is what the hon. and gallant Member is after, he should go and talk to the Conservative Central Office about some of their rather vapid posters which are disfiguring the hoardings.
      Sir William Darling: Can the hon. Gentleman say how he reasons that persons who will not pay attention to oncoming traffic will read posters?
      Mr. Callaghan: I prefer in this case to rely on statistics, and when a campaign was not being run nine years ago the number of killed and injured on the roads for the same period was 40,000 more.

      Workers' Priority Tickets, East Kent
      Mr. Carsonasked the Minister of Transport why, by order of the Regional Commissioner, workers' priority tickets have been cancelled on all bus services run by the East Kent Road Car Company in the Isle of Thanet; and whether he is aware that this will cause great difficulty to them, especially in the summer months.
      Mr. Barnes: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) on 22nd January. After hearing representations at a public sitting on 27th January, the licensing authority for public service vehicles confirmed the decision.

      Kerbs (Rural Roads)
      Mr. Bossomasked the Minister of Transport what is the number of men now employed in Great Britain in putting stone or concrete kerbs along country roads which never had any kerbing before.
      Mr. Barnes: The information requested by the hon. Member is not available.
      Mr. Bossom: is the Minister aware that we are hearing everywhere of the abnormal need of labour, and why is there any reason now to put kerbs on roads which have not had them for a thousand years?
      Mr. Barnes: The hon. Gentleman is aware of the importance of this in the general scheme of road improvements, but, of course, with the cutting down of the road improvement programme this work is steadily coming to an end.
      Mr. Bossom: Have we not heard that other works have to be stopped now on account of the cuts in capital expenditure, and if that is so, why waste money on things that were not needed before?
      Mr. Barnes: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the cut in the capital expenditure on roads is probably one of the heaviest of the items so far considered.

      Tramcars, London (Windscreen Wipers)
      Mr. Medlicottasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that London tramcars are not fitted with windscreen wipers; and if he will consider whether mechanical aids of this description should be provided, so as to give the drivers clearer vision during wet weather.
      Mr. Barnes: Yes, Sir, I am aware of this. I am bringing the hon. Member's suggestion to the notice of the British Transport Commission.

      Cats-eye Studs
      Dr. Segalasked the Minister of Transport why cats-eye road studs are in future to be banned from the roadways in built-up areas.
      Mr. Barnes: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 26th January to the hon. Member for Royton (Mr. Sutcliffe).
      Dr. Segal: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an appreciable number of road accidents are due to the inability of motorists to see the crown of the road owing to the very bad lighting that exists in some built-up areas, and will he use every possible means at his disposal to decrease the number of road accidents?
      Mr. Barnes: The evidence is that the accidents are not caused by the absence of cats-eyes in the urban areas. I am a very great believer in them generally, bait where there is a proper standard of lighting they are not so necessary, and in the urban areas, where the traffic is very heavy in times of fog, the motorist can add to the number of accidents by being

      1461
      attracted to the crown of the road. I want my hon. Friend to accept the reply in the spirit I have indicated.
      Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that with the possible cuts in fuel for lighting and the incidence of fog these cats-eyes ought not to be removed at the present time? Will he make representations to the county councils to try to avoid their removal?
      Mr. Barnes: I am making it plain that they are only being removed in the urban areas where the lighting is of reasonable standards.
      Mr. Somerville Hastings: Does my right hon. Friend agree that cats-eyes encourage motorists to put up their headlights, and that that increases the danger to other motorists and also to the general public?
      Mr. Barnes: Particularly so in the urban areas, where headlights are not so necessary.
      Mr. Bossom: Is not the Minister aware that in times of fog overhead street lights are not very effective and that these cats-eyes are very much more useful at that time and prevent accidents?
      Mr. Barnes: The hon. Gentleman is proving my point, that they attract traffic to the crown of the road in heavy traffic areas.

      Transport Act (Compensation)
      Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport if he will name the undertakings on which notices of acquisition have been served in accordance with Part III of the Transport Act, 1947; and the amount of compensation payable in each case.
      Mr. Barnes: So far no notices of acquisition have been served under Part III of the Transport Act, 1947.
      Mr. Davies: Will the Minister state whether any negotiations are going on at the present time with road haulage concerns for their acquisition; if so, will this House be informed of the terms of agreement, if reached; and will the Minister have to approve the terms of compensation or refer them to the Arbitration Tribunal?
      Mr. Barnes: Certain negotiations are proceeding with regard to the acquisition of property by agreement. I am not under the obligation to submit the terms in any particular deal to the House. They are generally governed by the procedure of compensation under the Bill. The Commission will no doubt take that into consideration.
      Mr. Mitchison: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what course ought to be adopted by small road hauliers who want to be acquired?
      Mr. Barnes: It is up to the small road hauliers, as in the case of large hauliers, to approach the Commission if they would like to settle their fate by agreement.
      Mr. Davies: Will the terms of agreement be submitted to the Arbitration Tribunal before they are accepted?
      Mr. Barnes: No, Sir, certainly not. If the concerns are acquired by agreement, there is no need to avail ourselves of the services of the Arbitration Tribunal.

      Road Transport Executive (Appointments)
      Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport the salaries to be paid to the chairman, full-time and part-time members of the Roads Executive, respectively; and the duration of their appointments.
      Mr. Barnes: The authorised salaries for the chairman, full-time members and part-time members of the Road Transport Executive are £5,000, £3,500 and £750 per annum respectively. The present term of office of the chairman and the other full-time members will expire on 30th September, 1952, and of the part-time members on 30th September, 1950.
      Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if any expenses are payable to these gentlemen in addition to their salaries?
      Mr. Barnes: The procedure generally is to agree upon an aggregate sum for expenses to cover all the members of any particular Executive.
      Mr. Keeling: Is there no saving clause in the agreement to say that the appointment shall come to an end before 1952 if the Roads Executive comes to an end before 1952?
      Lieut.—Colonel Bromley—Davenport: How much will those expenses be?
      Mr. Barnes: I cannot say at the moment. They are to be negotiated with the various Executives.
      Captain Crookshank: Negotiated?

      FERRY SERVICES (REPORT)
      Mr. Willisasked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received the Report of the Committee on Ferry Services in Great Britain.
      Mr. Barnes: Yes, Sir. I am considering the question of its publication. Meanwhile, I am placing a copy in the Library of the House.
      Mr. Willis: In view of the importance of this service to the economic and social life of Scotland will my right hon. Friend give it his urgent consideration?
      Mr. Barnes: Certainly.
      Mr. Erroll: Will the Minister consider referring this Report to the British Transport Commission?

    MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

      Tractors (Oil Storage Tanks)
      Mr. David Rentonasked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware of the shortage of tanks required to hold vapourising paraffin for new tractors; and whether he will ensure that sufficient steel is allocated to enable such tanks to be supplied.
      The Minister of Supply (Mr. G. R. Strauss): I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture about the demand for these tanks and will write to the hon. Member later.

      Peplow Air Station, Shropshire
      Mr. Oliver Pooleasked the Minister of Supply if he will define his responsibility for Peplow Air Station, Shropshire.
      Mr. G. R. Strauss: I have no responsibility for this station.
      Mr. Poole: If the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry does not own the huts, who does?
      Mr. W. J. Brown: The Transport Commission.
      Mr. Strauss: My Ministry certainly does not. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has a Question down to the Air Ministry on this matter.

      Garden Forks and Spades
      Mr. Joynson-Hicksasked the Minister of Supply if he is aware that garden forks and spades are virtually unobtainable in the shops of West Sussex; and what steps he is taking to enable allotment holders and gardeners to prepare their ground for food production.
      Mr. Lambertasked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that manure forks are practically unobtainable in Devonshire; and what steps he has taken to make these forks available.
      Mr. G. R. Strauss: There has been some difficulty in obtaining these tools, but arrangements have now been made with the trade to increase the total supplies available. If, on investigation, it is found that there is a special shortage in West Sussex and Devon, we will ask the trade to send further supplies there.
      Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an acute shortage in West Sussex, and will he state whether this is the result of the Government giving the highest priority to agriculture products?
      Mr. Strauss: I was not aware that there was a shortage in West Sussex, but I am investigating it immediately.
      Brigadier Peto: Could not the right hon. Gentleman answer Question No. 72 on the Paper at the same time?

      Electrical and Mechanical Department (Inspectorate Staff)
      Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Minister of Supply to state the circumstances which necessitated the issue of a notice to all members of the staff of the Chief Inspectorate Electrical and Mechanical Department, Walsingham, Chislehurst, and signed by Mr. F. H. Maclennan on the 14th January; how much Government time and labour have been lost to date and what is the estimated loss to the taxpayer.
      Mr. G. R. Strauss: The notice was issued because of the discovery that a certain amount of private work had been carried out at "Foxbury," Chislehurst. The time spent on the work was about 90 hours, and the estimated loss in labour and material was £13.
      Sir W. Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this notice, a copy of which I hold in my hand, was issued to the members of the staff because of my previous representations? Is he aware that the proceedings of this case are a local scandal and a typical instance of waste of time and public money?
      Mr. Strauss: No, Sir.
      Sir W. Smithers: Well, the right hon. Gentleman ought to be.

      R.A.O.C. Depot, Melmerby
      Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Supply how many men and how many women are now being employed at the R.A.O.C. depot, Melmerby; what is the weekly cost of keeping the depot open; and what amount of traffic is dealt with per week through the private railway siding.
      Mr. G. R. Strauss: Thirty-seven men and six women are employed at the Depot, which costs £233 a week to run. The amount of traffic' received and despatched averages 90 tons a week.
      Mr. Turton: Will the Minister look into this and see whether the time has come when the great waste of manpower and womanpower, as well as of public money, involved at this Depot should be discontinued?
      Mr. Strauss: I have looked into this and, in view of the special nature of this case, I am satisfied that the manpower involved is really necessary.

      Ministerial Statements (News Conferences)
      Mr. De la Bèreasked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that there will be a diminution of the practice of Ministers of the Crown holding news conferences and making public announcements through the Press and other quarters; and more opportunity afforded for the pronouncements to be made to the House of Commons in accordance with the customary Parliamentary practice.
      The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Both methods of public announcement are appropriate according to the circumstances and to the nature of the statement, and the Government must reserve a reasonable measure of discretion as to which method is employed. The House may be assured, however, that the Government have every wish and intention to recognise to the full their constitutional responsibilities to the House of Commons, and on all appropriate occasions, statements will be made in this House.
      Mr. De la Bère: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is no reflection of any sort on our faithful and energetic Press, and can he give a specific assurance that what took place just before the House reassembled—a broadcast by the Minister of Fuel and Power on basic petrol—will not be repeated in view of the importance of this matter and of the fact that this House was being by-passed?
      The Prime Minister: I would like to have any specific point brought to my notice.

      ECONOMIC SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY
      Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to make his promised statement on the creation of the office of Economic Secretary to the Treasury.
      The Prime Minister: My right hone Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in addition to his traditional responsibility for financial policy, is now responsible also for those functions with which lie was previously charged as Minister for Economic Affairs in the general co-ordination of the economic policy of the Government. He is assisted by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in his normal departmental functions connected with financial policy, administration and procedure, including Parliamentary financial procedure, financial control of Supply services and establishments, and revenue and exchange control administration.
      In his new functions the Chancellor is assisted by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who is thus concerned with the general economic policy and planning, including the economic aspects of Treasury supply work, overseas financial negotiations and internal financial planning. Both the Financial Secretary

      1467
      and the Economic Secretary, therefore, play a part, under the Chancellor, in the formation of general financial and taxation policy.
      The Central Planning Staff under Sir Edwin Plowden, and the staff of the former office of the Minister for Economic Affairs, retain their identity, but now form part of the Treasury organisation, and discharge their general co-ordinating functions under the direction of the Chancellor. They maintain close touch with the Economic Section of the Cabinet Office which, however, will remain part of the Cabinet Office and will continue to provide a service for Ministers generally.
      My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer continues to be responsible, as he was when Minister for Economic Affairs, for the National Production Advisory Council on Industry, and the regional boards for industry.
      The Economic Information Unit retains its previous title and functions but is now incorporated in the Treasury and, like the planning staff, provides its interdepartmental services under the Chancellor's direction. In addition to providing a general economic information service, it now provides information on financial subjects previously dealt with by the Treasury public relations officer. This title has been abolished. Its holder will, however, continue to provide information do Civil Service subjects as a member of the Treasury General Establishments Division, and will work in close conjunction with the Economic Information Unit.
      Major Legge-Bourke: While thanking the Prime Minister for the fullness of his answer, may I ask whether he can give an assurance that, as a result of the creation of the office mentioned in the Question, there is no conflict with the decision taken in 1944 to separate the Foreign Service from the rest of the Civil Service, with particular reference to the Economic Section of the Foreign Office?
      The Prime Minister: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will see, if he studies my answer, that the Foreign Office does not come into it at all.
      Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the statement which we have just heard from my right hon. Friend the statement which he
      1468
      promised to make in reply to a Question by me on 15th December last about the general economic planning arrangements of the Government?
      The Prime Minister: It is in reply to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke).

      WELSH AFFAIRS
      Mr. S. O. Daviesasked the Prime Minister, in view of the excessive burden of work now imposed on Parliament, resulting increasingly in the delegation of powers to outside unrepresentative persons and bodies, if he will take immediate steps to devolve upon the people of Wales such powers as shall permit them the control and management of their own domestic affairs, and to establish the necessary machinery for that purpose.
      The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The Government are satisfied that the special problems of the Welsh people can best be dealt with within the existing Parliamentary framework.
      Mr. Davies: I would ask the Prime Minister most seriously whether he does not realise that the reply which he has just given will be regarded as a calculated affront by the Welsh people?
      The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend underestimates the understanding of the Welsh people of the problems involved in devolution.
      Mr. Davies: Will the Prime Minister answer this question? When, at any time, has he revealed even an average understanding of the people of Wales?
      Mr. Emrys Robertsasked the Prime Minister whether the Government will convene a Welsh Economic Conference for the regular exchange of information and trends in Welsh economic affairs and to confer with a responsible Minister on questions of economic importance in Wales; and whether he will set up a committee of inquiry into Welsh affairs generally.
      The Prime Minister: I assume that the Question has been prompted by the Scottish arrangements outlined in the recent White Paper. Hon. Members will appreciate, I am sure, that there are considerable differences between the circumstances of Scotland and Wales, but the

      1469
      Government will be prepared to examine, with appropriate consultations, whether, and if so to what extent, the administrative proposals in the Scottish White Paper could usefully be applied to Wales. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.
      Mr. Roberts: Is the Prime Minister aware that his assumption is correct and that there is widespread dissatisfaction in Wales at what appears to be more satisfactory treatment for Scotland, in that she is given greater control of her own affairs? Can he indicate when the examination of the problem will take place which he has promised in his reply to my Question?
      The Prime Minister: As soon as we can get down to it. I cannot give the day or the week, but I am promising these consultations. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that there is a difference between the Scottish and the Welsh position, owing to the different code of law obtaining in Scotland.
      Mr. Roberts: Will the Prime Minister promise to examine the problem during his next holiday in North Wales?
      Mr. Kirkwood: Is the hon. Member aware that Scotland is a nation and that Wales is only a Principality?

      STEEL PRIORITY SCHEME (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
      Mr. Errollasked the Prime Minister which Minister is responsible for the Steel Priority Scheme.
      The Prime Minister: General questions connected with the arrangements for the limited use of priority symbols to implement steel allocations, which were announced by the Paymaster-General on 20th November, should be addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, under whose supervision the inter-departmental machinery for the allocation of steel supplies operates. Individual authorisations for the use of the priority symbol in accordance with these arrangements are the responsibility of the various Departments concerned.
      Mr. Erroll: Does the Prime Minister think that this form of divided control is likely to be effective?
      The Prime Minister: I do not think that there is a divided control.
      Mr. Manningham-Buller: Are we to understand from the Prime Minister's answer that the promise made by the Lord President of the Council in August of last year about priority of steel for agriculture will now commence to be honoured?
      The Prime Minister: It has been honoured for some time.

      CABINET MINISTERS (AIR TRAVEL)
      Mr. Gammansasked the Prime Minister for what reason a special aircraft is being ordered for his use and that of the Cabinet; what is the estimated capital cost and the annual operating cost; and why it is not possible for members of the Cabinet either to travel by B.E.A.C., B.E.A.C. or a charter company.
      The Prime Minister: As stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) on 6th February, 1947, two Tudor III's have been ordered, not for the exclusive use of myself and the Cabinet, but also for other important persons, delegations and their staffs, trade missions, etc., travelling by air in order to enable them to fulfil their official duties. The revised estimate of the capital cost is £155,000 per aircraft. The annual cost will depend on the extent of their use, but it is expected to be less than the expenditure involved by chartering special aircraft, either from the Corporations or from charter companies.
      As regards the last part of the Question, the Corporations' services are used, as far as possible, within the limitation of the routes operated by them, but for reasons of security and speed in the despatch of public business, as well as the convenience of ordinary passengers on the commercial aircraft, it is impossible to rely only upon aircraft provided at present by the Corporations or charter companies.
      Mr. Gammans: Before incurring this very large capital expenditure and these indefinite running expenses did the Government ask charter companies to tender a price, or was any attempt whatsoever

      1471
      made to find an alternative way of doing what might be very necessary work more cheaply?
      The Prime Minister: I should like to see that question on the Paper.
      Mr. Hale: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very great pleasure his announcement will give in Oldham where these aeroplanes are made, and that its value to the British aircraft industry is incalculable compared with the very small cost involved?
      Wing-Commander Hulbert: Did the Cabinet take this decision upon the advice of the Minister of Civil Aviation?
      The Prime Minister: The Minister of Civil Aviation was fully consulted.

      LAW OF LIBEL (COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
      Mr. Eric Fletcherasked the Attorney-General when the Committee on the Law of Libel is likely to present its Report.
      Mr. Wilson Harrisasked the Attorney-General when the Report of Lord Porter's committee on the law of defamation, appointed in 1939, is likely to he issued.
      The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): The preparation of this Report has been unavoidably delayed; however, the draft is now almost complete and will, I understand, be presented before long.
      Mr. Harris: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that this is a quite elephantine period of gestation? Can it be accounted for in any way?
      The Attorney-General: Yes, there has been a concatenation of circumstances for which nobody is to blame, and for which the Government are in no way responsible, and which unfortunately have delayed the final adoption of the Report; but I am told it will not now be long.
      Mr. Harris: Is it likely to arrive in the course of the next decade?
      Mr. Driberg: As soon as the Report is received, will the Government proceed to consider the changes in the law made necessary by the result of the Gaunt case?
      The Attorney-General: We shall have to consider the Report.

      MISSING TUDOR IV AIRCRAFT (INQUIRY)
      Air-Commodore Harvey(by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will make a statement regarding the missing Tudor aircraft of British South American Airways Corporation.
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): I regret to inform the House of the loss of the British South American Airways Corporation's Tudor IV aircraft G—AHNP on a flight from the Azores to Bermuda on the morning of Friday last, 30th January. The machine carried 25 passengers and 6 crew.
      I am sure I am expressing the feelings of the whole House when, on behalf of my noble Friend and myself, I extend profound sympathy to the families of the passengers and crew of the aircraft.
      A preliminary investigation has already begun, and an Inspector of Accidents left for the Azores immediately. A Public Inquiry will be held into the loss of this aircraft. My noble Friend is seeking the technical advice of the Air Registration Board in the light of such information as may he available. Meanwhile, the Tudor IV aircraft will not be used for the scheduled service due to leave along this route tomorrow.
      Air-Commodore Harvey: In joining the Minister in his message of sympathy, and not wishing to detract anything from the possible merits of this aircraft, may I ask him two questions? The first is, were or were not proving flights carried out on the route before passengers were carried? Secondly, has he satisfied himself that the aircraft carried sufficient fuel in case of emergency to reach another base?
      Mr. Lindgren: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member will agree that those are two questions vital to an inquiry, and I think it would be wrong for me to give an expression of opinion—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—pending that inquiry taking place.
      Mr. George Ward: Can the Minister say whether all hope has now been abandoned of finding this aircraft?
      Mr. Lindgren: I am afraid that hope Ls very slight indeed. I would like to express appreciation of the willing help given by everyone to try and trace what can be traced of the aircraft.
      Mr. Gammans: But surely the Minister can answer that first supplementary question—had proving flights taken place over that route or not?
      Mr. Lindgren: Those, surely, are questions for the inquiry.
      Hon. Members: No.
      Commander Noble: But could not the Minister answer the second supplementary question from my hon. and gallant Friend?
      Mr. Teeling: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that no further flights in the same type of aircraft will take place until something—
      Hon. Members: He has said so.
      Mr. Lindgren: I have already indicated that, pending the advice of the Air Registration Board, the aircraft due to fly tomorrow has been withdrawn from service.
      Mr. Erroll: But can the Minister say how the question of proving flights having been carried out, or not, can affect an inquiry into an individual accident?
      Mr. Lindgren: A contributory cause of an accident may be insufficient crew training and it may be that the aircraft was not sufficiently tried before being put into service. Answers to such questions as the hon. and gallant Member put would give some indication of an expression of opinion—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and that surely, is a matter for an inquiry—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and an establishment of fact.
      Brigadier Head: Would the Minister say if it is the policy of the Ministry to open up airlines without carrying out proving flights?
      Mr. Lindgren: The Ministry does not run scheduled services. The running of scheduled services has, by Parliament, been delegated under the Civil Aviation Act to the three Corporations responsible. The general standard of training and the aircraft flown are matters for the Boards of those Corporations.
      Mr. De la Bère: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that there are 20 Questions down for the Minister of Agriculture, and none of them have been reached, would it be possible to give a tiny extension of time in view of the great importance of agriculture?
      Mr. Speaker: I am afraid not. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
Division No. 66.]

AYES.

[10.56 p.m.

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

Erroll, F. J.

Odey, G. W.

Baldwin, A. E.

Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Hurd, A.

Prior-Palmer, Brig O.

Bossom, A. C.

Keeling, E. H.

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

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

Studholme, H. G.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Low, A R W

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

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Turton, R. H.

Crowder, Capt John E.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Vane, W. M. F.

Darling, Sir W Y

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Drewe, C.

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Neven-Spence, Sir B

Colonel Crosthwalte-Eyre and

Sir John Mellor.

NOES.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Fairhurst, F.

Levy, B. W.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

Farthing, W. J.

Lindgren, G. S.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Fernyhough, E.

Longden, F.

Alpass, J. H.

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

McAdam, W.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

McGhee, H. G.

Austin, H. Lewis

Gibson, C. W.

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

Balfour, A.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Barstow, P. G.

Gooch, E. G.

Mikardo, Ian

Barton, C.

Grenfell, D. R.

Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

Battley, J. R.

Grey, C. F.

Moody, A. S.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Grierson, E.

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Blyton, W. R.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

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

Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

Guy, W. H.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

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

Hale, Leslie

Moyle, A.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Murray, J. D.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

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

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Hardy, E. A.

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Oliver, G. H.

Chamberlain, R. A.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Orbach, M.

Champion, A. J.

Herbison, Miss M.

Paget, R. T.

Cobb, F. A.

Hobson, C. R.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Cocks, F. S.

Holman, P.

Pargiter, G. A.

Collindridge, F.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Parker, J.

Collins, V. J.

Hoy, J.

Parkin, B. T.

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

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

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Corlett, Dr. J.

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

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Daggar, G.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Pearson, A.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Davies, Harold (Leak)

Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Janner, B.

Price, M. Philips

Deer, G.

Jay, D. P. T.

Pritt, D. N.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Proctor, W. T.

Diamond, J.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Pursey, Cmdr H.

Dodds, N. N.

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Randall, H. E.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Ranger, J.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Keenan, W.

Reeves, J.

Dye, S.

Kenyon, C.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

King, E. M.

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Evans, A. (Islington, W.)

Kinley, J.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Lang, G.

Royle, C.

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Sargood, R.

Ewart. R.

Leonard. W.

Scott-Elliot, W.

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Simmons, C. J.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Skeffington, A. M.

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Willis, E.

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Ungoed-Thomas, L.

Wilmot, Rt. Hon J.

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

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.

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

Viant, S. P.

Yates, V. F.

Snow, J. W.

Walker, G. H.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Sparks. J. A.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Zilliacus, K.

Stamford, W.

Warbey, W. N.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Sylvester, G. O.

West, D. G.

Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Wilkins

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.28 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The principal object of this Bill is to amend the law relating to the practice of collecting premiums for insurance against funeral expenses. This practice is, of course, a very old one and now a very extensive one. It is, I suppose, rooted in the fear which has overshadowed the lives of the poor for many generations that unless some sort of provision of this kind is made, they may be buried by the parish, which to thousands of people is the last and unforgivable disgrace. For many years, therefore, in fact for over a century, this kind of assurance, known as industrial assurance, has been carried on partly by companies and partly by friendly societies. I have here a few figures which show its extent. They are not, I am afraid, up-to-date figures but they are sufficiently up-to-date to give the House some idea of the size of the things with which this Bill deals.
  In 1939 there were 103 million policies of industrial assurance in force—more than 2¼ policies for every man, woman and child in Britain. The sums assured amounted to £1,668 million and the assurance funds to £455 million. The amount paid in claims on death was £24 million, and the amount paid in claims on maturity was nearly £11½ million. The premiums received—and I would like the House to note this—were over £74 million, and this £74 million was built up of pennies, sixpences and shillings collected, for the most part, week by week from a large proportion of the households in Britain. The magnitude of this type of business, therefore, should not be underestimated.
  Before I go any further, I should perhaps explain that what we mean by industrial assurance, as distinct from ordinary assurance, is that form of assurance in which the premiums are collected at intervals of less than two months.
  1476
  Normally they are collected weekly and often the amount that passes is little more than a few pence. It will be readily realised that freedom for any individual to insure another in this direction has its dangers, especially where the life covered is that of a small child. Parliament has therefore thought it necessary from time to time to regulate the work of those engaged in this type of activity, and the regulations are embodied in a number of Acts of Parliament. Some think that this regulation has not gone far enough, as those of us who were in the House with the late Sir Arnold Wilson and remember some of his speeches, or writings, will remember. He and others were stern critics of some of the methods employed by certain organisations engaged in this form of activity.
  Be that as it may, I must make it clear that the main purpose of this Measure is not to meet the criticisms which have been made, although, incidentally, some of them, I hope, will be dealt with by some of the provisions of this Bill. Its chief object is to bring certain kinds of industrial assurance into line with the provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1946. Under that Measure, a death grant is among the benefits which will be paid to those who satisfy the necessary contribution conditions. That Act will not come into full operation yet. Some of its provisions will come into operation on 5th July next, and others, the payment of the death grant in particular, will not do so until a year later. The death benefit is a grant to meet funeral expenses, and the rules under which it can be paid are laid down in Section 22 of the Act.
  In ordinary life assurance a man is not normally regarded as having an insurable interest in anyone but his own wife and, of course, himself. In industrial assurance, on the other hand, it is lawful to insure the funeral expenses of a parent, grandparent, child, or grandchild, or even a brother or sister. Offices concerned have construed this power as enabling them to insure any of those categories for an amount that would be reasonable to cover funeral expenses, and to pay that sum to the policyholder on proof of death of the life assured, without further inquiry as to whether the amount handed over would or would not be expended on funeral expenses. I am sure the, right hon. and learned Member for

  1477
  West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) will know that there are weighty grounds for doubting whether the offices in so proceeding are not exceeding their powers. Perhaps, unfortunately, the matter has never been tested in the courts, and it would not be profitable for me to go into the legal arguments for and against, upon which this doubt is based. I hope that it is sufficient for me to say that it exists, and has never been resolved. What is important is that, if the doubt does exist now, it will increase to a greater degree when the National Insurance Act, 1946, takes effect. It is time that Parliament took cognisance of this matter and put it right.
  The second reason for legislation is to maintain the limits on the sums payable on the death of children under the age of 10. These amounts, for obvious reasons, have been strictly limited up to now, whether the insurance was taken out by a parent, or in the name of the child insured. The limits at present are £6 payable on the death of a child up to three, £10 on a child dying under the age of six, and £15 when a child dies under the age of TO. These ages and amounts are embodied in the Act of 1946. From 5th July, 1949, death grants up to those amounts will be payable under the Act, subject of course to the conditions governing the contributions, and they will be paid on the death of children born on or after 5th July this year. Consequently, there will no longer be room for a voluntary insurance in these cases, unless it is the will of Parliament that insurance of this kind should be allowed on a voluntary basis in order to bring in a higher amount than the maximum that Parliament has in the past thought allowable.
  As to the form of approach which the Bill makes to this matter, Clause r terminates all existing powers of industrial assurance offices and friendly societies to insure for funeral expenses. We have wiped the slate clean in Clause r. The date when these powers cease will be 5th July, 1949. The cessation of these powers will not prejudice in any way any insurances effected while the powers are in force. Having wiped the slate clean, the question arises what powers, if any, should we give to friendly societies and offices engaged in this type of assurance for the future? What relatives, for example, should be insur-
  1478
  able, and for how much? The Government think that as only one death grant will be payable on a death, and as more than one person in a family may be involved in expenses connected with the funeral, it is reasonable that a limited amount of extra voluntary insurance shall be permissible. For example, although I am glad to think that mourning clothes as such are gradually going out of fashion, nevertheless, some people still desire to wear them, and even if they do not go into mourning in the old fashioned way, other expenses are incurred, such as travelling to the funeral, loss of wages for attending the funeral, and so on.
  Therefore the Government feel that a certain amount of voluntary insurance should be allowed in addition to the one death grant, which is payable when a death occurs. That being so, it would be logical to restrict these insurances to the contingency of the policyholder surviving the life assured, but I am told that, if we tried to enact such a provision there would be considerable difficulties in carrying it out. We have cast about to see how we can achieve much the same effect in some other way. We hope to achieve the same result by restricting the "life of another" insurance, apart from that of husband and wife, to the relationships where the life assured belongs to an older generation than that of the proposer. We therefore propose that these policies should be confined to the insurance of parents, step-parents and grandparents. That wipes out the right which now exists to insure children, or brothers and sisters.
  We also propose to limit the amount receivable under such insurance to £15 exclusive of bonuses, except, of course, of guaranteed bonuses. In order that there shall be no misunderstanding, I will give an example of what the Bill seeks to do—
  Mr. Bowles: My right hon. Friend mentions step-parents. I do not see it clearly stated in the Clause. Is there some definition of a parent, including a step-parent?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I understand that the Bill does include step-parents. That is a Committee point, and we will look into it again, but when we were discussing the measure in the Department I was

  1479
  given to understand that parent included step-parent.
  May I give an example of how this will work? Supposing there are two brothers A and B, who have a father C. if A insures in two different offices the life of his father for £10 in each case, he would clearly be going outside the scope of this Bill. His total insurance money, which he would receive on the death of his father, would be £20, whereas we propose £15 as a limit. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent, and we do not propose to prevent, brother B from also insuring his father so long as neither of them insures above the limit of £15 which is laid down.
  These policies are not to be assigned, but we make one proviso in that direction. It is possible that a man may take out a policy on the life of his parent and find that, through falling out of work or for some other reason, he cannot keep up the premiums. If he cannot do that and no provision is made to assist him, he will lose the premiums which he has already paid. Therefore we provide in the Bill that where a case of that kind occurs, although the policy may not be generally assignable, it shall be lawful for it to be assignable up to the limit of any premiums which have been paid by someone else on behalf of the policy holder.
  In wiping the slate clean in Clause r, we also destroy the rights of a friendly society to insure a member's husband or wife for funeral expenses, but we have no desire to do that. Therefore, in Clause 3 we put this power back without limit, other than that applying generally to insurances by friendly societies. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was pressed to increase the gross sum for which a registered friendly society might insure. He then indicated that in his view a case had been made out, and that he would see what could be done. He thought, and I think the House will agree, that this was a reasonable request. The £300 which is now the limit was laid down in 1908, when the value of money was different from what it is now. It did appear to him, therefore, and I hope it will be agreed by the House, that some higher limit is desirable.
  Sir Arthur Salter: Does that change have any effect on the
  1480
  Income Tax liabilities of the societies in question?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: If the right hon. Gentleman had waited, I should have reached that point in a few minutes. The query is pertinent and I will deal with it. I was, about to say that the £300 limit has been increased to £500 in Clause 5 of the Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, this change has its repercussions. A friendly society must be debarred, either by statute or by its own rules, from insuring for more than £300 if it desires to have exemption from Income Tax. Clause 5 of the Bill as drafted does nothing to increase the limit of that exemption. This has caused some misunderstanding, and I believe that circular letters have been sent to every Member of Parliament on the matter. It has been argued in that circular letter that the Government intend to rob friendly societies of the rights of exemption which they now enjoy. This, of course, is not true. The reason why the exemption has not been raised in this Bill is that this is not the place to do it. It has to be done in a Finance Bill. It has all along been the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the next Finance Bill is put before the House, to include therein a provision to grant exemption from Income Tax up to the new limit of £500. Meanwhile, to set all doubts at rest I propose, when we reach the Committee stage of this Bill, to move an Amendment on behalf of the Government declaring that Clause 5 and the increase in the limits there set forth, shall not come into operation until the next Finance Bill containing the new limits also begins to operate.
  Another provision of the Bill which has aroused some criticism is that which prevents the right of registered societies to invest with the National Debt Commissioners at 2¾ per cent., and provides for the repayment of the money so invested. Here again I believe that Members of Parliament have been circularised by certain organisations on the grounds that this is an unfair provision and one which will hit friendly societies very hard. The continuance of this right for money to be at call would be inconsistent with the cheap money policy of the Government. We had no desire whatever to injure friendly societies when we made this pro

  1481
  vision. As a matter of fact, the amount of money deposited in this way with the National Debt Commissioners is a relatively small sum. It amounts to little more than £7 million, and 90 per cent. of that is owned by one friendly society. As for the provision that this money will be repaid, the Government have no intention of being at all stringent or unreasonable, and the money will be repaid over a period of 3½ years. At the present moment those who have this money at call can withdraw it at very short notice, at the most three or four days. At 2¾ per cent. that represents an advantage to those who have invested their money in this way. There is no reason why the burden and expense of this should continue to be borne by the taxpayer at large.
  The Bill also makes a number of minor changes which, with the permission of the House, I will not elaborate now. Some of them will undoubtedly be dealt with in the Committee, and also in the present Debate. If any of them are raised, the Attorney-General will be happy to deal with them. Power is taken in this Bill to regulate the form and use of premium receipt books, about which there has been, in the minds of some agents, a great deal of misunderstanding, much of it quite unfounded. The delivery of policies and rules by registered societies, the audit of accounts and the manner in which that should take place, the preservation of the rights of members who go into the Services, and warranties as to statements made in good faith about the health of the life proposed and other matters are dealt with in the Bill. No doubt they will be touched upon during the Debate. We think that our suggestions are reasonable. Some of them are long overdue and none of them is oppressive. I hope that they will commend themselves to the House.
  4.0 p.m.
  Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: I am sure that everyone in the House is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his lucid explanation of this Measure. Although at first sight the subject does not appear to be one of primary political importance, I think that those of us who are here realise how important it is in the day to day life of a large section of the community. Speaking on this point for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General
  1482
  as well as for myself, I would say that it is particularly interesting to those who spent their early working years in Liverpool where these forms of insurance are very popular. We have a great personal interest not only in the people who are insured but in those who carry on from day to day the work of making this great system run. I myself, if I may admit it, have the additional personal sympathy in that I am one of those distressful people who find it very difficult to save unless they put themselves under some form of compulsion. Therefore, I feel the importance it has for those who share my state of mind.
  I should like to take up one or two of the points which the right hon. Gentleman has shown to he of importance and on which there may be some conflict of view. The first point I ask the House to consider is the exclusion of brothers and sisters from the provisions of insurance. I hope that hon. Members will not think that I am treating the matter at too great length if I indicate very shortly the background as I see it, because it seems relevant in considering this point. As the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, it was in 1909 that the right to issue policies of insurance for the purpose of ensuring money to be paid in funeral expenses was first given a legal basis by Section 36 of the Assurance Company Act of that year. Of course, it was well known—I think that it has been stated several times in this House—that before that time there were in force a large number of policies which were in fact "life of another" policies. But the provision of that Act was that the policy was not to be deemed void by reason only of the fact that the person effecting it had not an insurable interest in the life of the person assured.
  I think that the Attorney-General would agree with me that in this context "insurable interest" is simply the happening of the event which will cause the person insured to incur liability. That is the material aspect of "insurance interest" which comes into this problem. I should like the Attorney-General to note and to remember the effective conditions of legislation under the Act of 1909. There were two. First, there was the existence of a bona fide expectation that he would incur expenses in connection with the death or funeral of the assured. Second, there was the fact that the sum assured should not be unreasonable for

  1483
  the purpose of meeting those expenses. These conditions were kept in the further statutory provisions of 1923 and 1929.
  My information about how it worked in practice, like the right hon. Gentleman's, is not quite up to date, but it is current information. It is that most of the companies made the limit of £25 for parents, sons and daughters, and £15 for other permitted relatives, and that the average amount paid was £17 where the policy holder was a parent, son or daughter, and £10 for other relatives. Those are the individual amounts. The further figure which ought to be remembered is that the average total amount for each death was in the region of £30 to £35. I do not think that there will be any serious dispute that that is the range of figures with which we are dealing.
  I am sure that everyone perceives that, when the State is paying £20 as death benefit, there will not be the same burden in connection with the payment for the funeral. But, of course, there will be the expenses which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned—apart from mourning—of travelling and the loss of earnings which undoubtedly are occasioned in many cases by going to the funeral. The difficulty I see is in making any distinction between these expenses, and their rightness, in the case of the death of a brother or sister, and expenses in the case of the death of somebody of an anterior generation, such as a parent or grandparent. I ask the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues if they will consider that point. I am trying to approach the matter dispassionately bearing in mind the history of how this legislation came into being. If we are to consider the realities of the matter—that is that people who can ill afford it are put to a certain amount of expense on these sorrowful occasions—then it seems to be right that there is a sound case for keeping in brothers and sisters.
  I would like the Attorney-General to let us know the views which the Government have formed about how these limitations will work out in practice. One must try to envisage what will actually happen and what will be the circumstances of the people who are ex hypothesi not well off when they have to deal with this drawing of the amount limited to £15. If
  1484
  they have more than one policy in operation, which, as I understand it would take them over the £15, they would get their premiums back in respect of the other policies. That, of course, will require some machinery. What I am anxious about is that if—as I am sure they will—the offices found some clearing house machinery or some method of that kind for dealing with it, that will not be reflected on the insured in higher premiums, and equally that the insurer will not be met by delays. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that there is nothing which is so worrying or so bad as people being met with delays just after a death in the house. They are mentally less fitted to deal with the matter at that time than they are at any other.
  Therefore, I hoped that the Government might, by discussion with those administering this form of insurance, have found some system, like the death certificate system, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is operated in the case of the limited child's policy which he put before us so clearly. Prior to that, the registrar put on the certificate the name of the company and the amount. I hoped something of that kind might be introduced in this case so that all that would happen is that the insured person would have to pay for the copy of the death certificate. It would then be very easy to work it out and prevent the very small number of cases—do not let us get them out of proportion, because it is a small number—where there is a possibility of fraud. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman may be able either to give us some guidance as to what would happen, or, at any rate, promise the House that that very practical point will receive consideration.
  I hope that hon. Members will not consider my next point a Committee point, but it is one that has given me some worry. It is the question of the regulations under Clause 7, because there is power to make regulations. I hope again that the right hon. and learned Gentleman may be able to tell us either that these regulations will not apply, or that special provisions will be made to soften their application to existing policies. Otherwise, they may well provide very onerous, difficult and expensive administrative tasks for the

  1485
  offices, without any compensating advantage to the policy holder in the case of existing policies. In many cases they are working extremely well, and I view with certain apprehension the fact that they should not only be placed under statutory obligation, but be made criminally liable of creating an offence under Clause 13 (2) unless great alterations are made.
  There is one other point which is complementary to the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has given, and I am sure he may like them to be before the House. He gave figures as to the quantity of insurance. My information, which is fairly recent, is that there has been a great reduction in the lapsing of policies during the last few years. In 1935 the percentage was 8.6; in 1940 that had come down to 5.2, and in 1945 to 2.4 I think that shows that one of the complaints which Sir William Beveridge and others have made with regard to this form of insurance has been met.
  Mrs. Braddock: People are better off now financially.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfc: Obviously the hon. Lady has dealt with one aspect of it, but she will see that the figures I have given show a clear improvement from 1935. There is a clear improvement over a period of 10 years. In addition to the aspect which the hon. Lady mentioned, there is also the aspect that this form of insurance cannot now be said to be over-pushed at people, if the fact is taken into account that the lapsing is as low as 2.4 per cent.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: In order to help us, could the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether the figures he gave cover the whole of this field, or only the policies issued by the friendly societies?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I understood the whole of the field. I will check that for the right hon. Gentleman, but that is my recollection.
  Mr. Mack: The observation made by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) was perfectly true. There has been an improvement, What I take it that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to emphasise is that, over and above that, as a result of the efforts of all the offices to put their house in order, they
  1486
  have helped materially still further to reduce the lapses.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That was the point, and I think it is a fair one. Criticism of this form of insurance has been the number of lapses. It is when one finds a steady improvement in the number of lapses over a period of 10 years that one may fairly say that that particular criticism is much less well founded than it ever was. The other point which I think should, in fairness to those who conduct this form of insurance be placed before the House, is the question of the expense ratio. In 1920 it was 44.6 per cent.; in 1935, 33.2 per cent., and in 1945, 29.3 per cent. That is not taking into account the point which has so often been made that that is a very strict expense ratio in that it takes in Income Tax and dividends on the one side and does not take in the gross interest and add to it the premiums on the other side. That is the standard answer to it. Despite the fact of the greater service, we can see a very considerable and general reduction in the expense ratio.
  Mr. Daines: The right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted the figure of 29.3 per cent. Is that for the whole of the industrial offices for expenses in 1945?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It is for a fair range of them. I am not sure it is every one, but it is at the same range in each case, and I think it is a pretty fair range. I will check that point and inform the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Mack: That figure may roughly be taken to be the true figure for all the principal offices and friendly societies, that is, the companies and friendly societies?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is my recollection. It may be taken as general. If it is not the absolute total, it is representative of the complete position.
  With regard to the friendly societies, the main points which are for the consideration of the House are the increase in the benefit allowed to be paid on the death of a member, and the question of the investment. The right hon. Gentleman gave the friendly societies rather a fright by the original form of the Bill, because the fear was expressed, as he

  1487
  knows, that they were not going to apply Section 39 (1) of the Income Tax Act to the increased amount, but the Amendment which I see on the Order Paper deals with that position, and I am very glad to feel that the difficulty has been rectified. May I say this to the right hon. Gentleman? His former colleague, I understand, appreciated this problem and expressed his conversion to that view after lunching with one of the great societies which come from my part of the world, and the right hon. Gentleman was with him. May I only say that I hope that he, in turn, will lunch frequently and well, and that, every time he does so, there will be some improved result on the statute book?
  Mr. Daises: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us the expense ratio of this particular office?
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I could not tell the hon. Member that; I do not know how much it is, but I assure him that I was not suggesting that the lunch which the right hon. Gentleman obtained swelled the expense ratio so much that it brought it out of line.
  The other point which I am afraid is not so satisfactory concerns Clause 16 and the question of the investments. I think it is only proper that the right hon. Gentleman should have this in mind. It is now a period of 52 years since this right was put in operation. Section 44 of the Act of 1896 gave them that right, and, as the Bill stands, it is possible for the National Debt Commissioners to force the friendly societies to withdraw at Short notice the £7 million which they have. There is also the position of the larger sums which they have with the Post Office and Trustee Saving Banks. The right hon. Gentleman has disclaimed any desire to hurt the friendly societies or to force them to any particular form of investment; at any rate, so I construe the speech which he has just delivered. In these circumstances, I have great difficulty in appreciating his argument why this right should be taken away. I could understand the argument—although, even put that way, I would not agree with it—that friendly societies should not be given the right to invest on a short-term basis at 2¼ per cent., or whatever it may be, when the
  1488
  Government can borrow elsewhere at a lesser amount, but I do not think that that is really the whole of the story.
  These societies have been going for a number of years and have provided special encouragement to people to save and to let their thrift grow in this particular way. Therefore, even if it stood alone, the fact that they were on rare occasions given the chance to get 2¼ per cent. on short-term loans would not, in my view, be a matter which would worry me very much. As I understand the position, however, and it is certainly put quite clearly in the circular to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, the National Debt Commissioners are protected as regards withdrawals by societies, for, under Section 52 (6) of the Act of 1896, any society which withdraws money can be refused further investments by the Commissioners. In that case, it seems to me that the position of the National Debt Commissioners is secured, and the position is made quite clear that this cannot be utilised as a recurring practice.
  I hope the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and learned Friend who is to reply will consider this matter again. The whole House appreciates that the case has been stated today with moderation, but, of course, it so very often happens that the case for a Bill is stated with moderation but the terms remain capable of immoderate use, and, therefore, I do not think we are being unreasonable if we ask for a reconsideration of that point. Generally, I am very glad that the position of the friendly societies has been dealt with, and that, on the Whole, subject to the point which I have made, their position has been maintained. When we look back into their history, we find that they are a unique institution in the world—unique to our own country. They have been copied in the Dominions, but, generally, it is our friendly societies which have shown this way to mutual assistance to many people with little money, and I believe that, looking back over their records, it is one of which they and the country can be proud.
  I myself have never had the misgivings which some people have expressed with regard to this form of insurance, so long as there are these reasonable rules under which it operates. I have, all my life, known the agents who work it, both in my professional career, when I have sometimes acted for them and sometimes

  1489
  against them, and in the daily life of Liverpool, and I think they have done a good job over a long period. In saying that I shall advise my hon. Friends not to oppose this Bill. I would also like to send a message of good will to them and of good luck in their work.
  4.27 p.m.
  Mr. Mack: It is quite a pleasure to follow two such moderate and closely-reasoned speeches, even though the two right hon. Gentlemen in question have not themselves the advantage of haying had practical personal experience of the business. As the House may know, I have been an insurance agent, as, indeed, have one or two of my hon. Friends, for a number of years, but, what is perhaps more pertinent, I speak now as the official representative of a considerable number of organised workers in the industry, and, I am sure, the House will be very anxious to know the reactions of the workers interested in this Bill.
  While it is very difficult to give the exact number, there are about 65,000 of these workers, which is a fairly formidable figure, and my particular organisation, the National Amalgamated Union of Insurance Workers, has earned the reputation of being, perhaps, rather Left in its political attitude and somewhat vigorous in advocating for years the nationalisation of this business. I realise that this is not the subject under discussion now, but I want to say, in passing, to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, greatly as I respect him—and he knows a great deal about this matter—that I will not be satisfied, nor will a great many people in this country be satisfied, unless and until the Government take over what is, after all, a very large business intimately affecting the whole population of this country.
  Mr. Oliver Poole: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman on that point? He has claimed that there are 65,000 workers engaged in the industry, and he has claimed to represent a proportion of them. Would it not be right for him to make clear what is the approximate number of the 65,000 which he claims to represent?
  Mr. Mack: I do not think that would have very much effect upon my argument,
  1490
  and I ought to say in answer to it that, unfortunately, the organised workers of this industry have been divided into quite a number of organisations, some of which, I regret to say, have been buttressed by the companies, and have been in the nature of house unions, but, from a strictly trade union point of view, I can claim to represent a fairly considerable proportion. I can even go further and say that, as far as my own sentiments in regard to this Bill are concerned, I represent a good number of those not actually in my own union, but who are in kindred organisations in the business.
  I remember at one Labour Party Conference—I mention this because it shows that the party have never given much attention to this matter; they have been dismally and abysmally ignorant of its many aspects—a certain lady, the late Miss Mary Carlin, was asked to answer a case on behalf of the Executive. In a private conversation with that dear lady—and I hope I am saying nothing ungenerous or discourteous—she confessed to me that she knew very little about the subject. I took the opportunity to give her some advice, and offered to reconstruct her case, an offer which she readily accepted. Apparently, this alarming information got to the ears of other members of the Executive, and when I went into the conference chamber the following morning expecting to hear her make a case along the lines I had suggested, I found a very different point of view put up by the Labour Party. That showed that they were confused and divided on the subject.
  What is the effect of this Bill on the organised worker? First, as my right hon. Friend said in his opening speech, it reduces the amount by which a child can insure a parent or a grandparent to £15. It prevents the insurance of children under 10. Of course, that is covered by the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance. It prevents the insurance of the brother by the sister, and vice versa. It takes away the right of the parent to insure the child, in the case of a child over 10, and the grandchild can no longer insure the grandparent. The agents in this business are already losing between 5s. and 20s. a week of the income they earn, as the result of operating the National Health part of the business. That is a very con-

  1491
  siderable loss to the agents, and for which they are to receive no compensation whatever.
  Not only that; they have also to face the fact that when the Minister of National Insurance comes along in the middle of this year and asks for 4s., 5s., or 6s. a week from the average individual as a contribution to the great scheme which he is putting before the nation, that will reduce the amount that people would normally have available in tile ordinary way for additional insurance purposes, and will unfavourably affect the earnings of the agents. It is true that, in the case of the societies, the figure has been raised from £300 to £500, but, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite will be aware, the real value of money today is so reduced that the purchasing power of £500 would be scarcely any more than that of the £300 before the war. After all, that is a very vital and important factor.
  On the question of the insurance of the life of another, which is a very important part of this business, it is very difficult to say what proportion of an agent's earnings is accounted for by policies of that description. I have some very interesting figures here which were culled from page 267 of the Beveridge Report, in which a table is given showing the figures for 19 offices, excluding the Prudential and the Co-operative Insurance Society, in March, 1942. A child assuring a parent was discovered to account for 44 per cent. of all the new policies taken out at that time. A parent assuring a child was found to account for 5 per cent., a brother assuring a sister and a sister assuring a brother, taken together, 5½ per cent., and a grandchild assuring a grandparent, 2 per cent., making, in all, a total of over half the new third-party policies issued.
  It is quite true that, under Clause 2 of this Bill, one is entitled to assure a parent up to a sum not exceeding £15, but a considerable amount of that 44 per cent. of policies, where the child assures a parent, would obviously have been for a sum exceeding £15. I have estimated, at a very rough computation—and here again it is very difficult to give the exact number of policies under this head—that possibly from 25 to 35 per cent. are "life of another" policies, and, to that extent, it
  1492
  would mean a considerable reduction in the earnings of the agents.
  The field staff has also to consider another great loss—the question of book interest. I admit that is an intangible factor, but it is a matter of very great concern to the agents because in many cases they have expended the whole of their life savings in order to acquire a book. If the value of those books falls, the agents will be Very hard hit financially, and, without doubt, grave distress will be occasioned. I am sorry to say that I regard this Bill as one which prods, probes and pinpricks the agents. The Government seem to be willing to wound and yet afraid to strike, and they would appear from the words of my right hon. Friend, to be trying to patch up some of the anomalies and incongruities which evidently still exist in industrial assurance.
  I would say that it is a pettifogging, pernickety and puerile Measure of peevish legislation which is not worthy of the Government, and I hope that, on the Committee stage, some of my hon. Friends on this side, and even some hon. Members opposite, will take the opportunity of going more fully into it. If the Government wish to avoid, as I am sure is their intention, the gambling spirit which is alleged to be inherent in insurance, then all I want to say is that they might have taken a more consistent attitude when dealing with social problems like pools, dog-racing and betting, which involve far more money as far as gambling is concerned, and which are far more open to criticism on ethical and moral grounds.
  I suggest that under Clause 2, the limit of £15 should be increased to, say £25. In these days, £15 is a very small amount of money; it might purchase what £8 or £9 did before the war. If reasonable expenses—and that is the term used,—are to be taken into consideration—or to use another phrase, "expenses of an appreciable amount," which, I think, appeared in one of the Acts, at any rate—there are very many factors to be considered. For example, there has been a wide dispersal of the population. When the father or the mother dies, the son or daughter could be 200 or 300 miles away and might have to travel a considerable distance to the funeral. There is not only travelling, but also the cost of purchasing mourning, a matter which has already

  1493
  been referred to. Of course, it would not necessarily mean purchasing all new clothing, but one or two articles of apparel which, perhaps, people have not been able to purchase in the ordinary way, and which they feel ought to be renewed at a time of distress and sorrow. Again, many people contribute to a memorial stone, and very often it is the fashion for the members of a family to pool their limited resources in order to pay for some permanent erection of that kind.
  Then there are floral bequests. That is also an item which must be taken into consideration. If it is a proper thing for hon. Members to present floral tributes to their sweethearts in their courting days or to prima donnas in the later stages of their life, surely no criticism can be made when one presents flowers as a token of respect to someone who is very dear and near and who has just passed away. Another factor is loss of remuneration, which can be very serious to a man who has to spend two or three days in attending a funeral. Although I realise that insurance is not primarily for that object, nevertheless it is a factor which poor people have to bear very much in mind. There is also the lower purchasing power of the pound, which means that in any case these figures should be subject to revision.
  I wish to administer a stricture to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, for whom I have a fond affection. He reminds me of Coleridge's "Ancient Mariner" who fixed somebody with his glittering eye. The language of this Bill should be lucid, apparent and clear to I he average policy-holder. If the average policy-holder, the average industrial insurance agent and the offices are to be subject to penalties, they are entitled to know what the Bill means. I think there is a conspiracy on the part of lawyers to use obscure language. I will read a passage from the Bill, and if any hon. Member in any part of this House can explain it to me in simple language I will lower my head before him in obeisance. In Clause 8 these words appear:
  "Provided that the preceding provisions of this Section shall not apply to exception on any such ground if the society or company is excepted from liability on that ground apart from those provisions, or to reduction of liability on any such ground so far as liability is reduced on that ground apart from
  1494
  those provisions, in a case in which the proposer, when making the proposal or at any time thereafter and before the making of the contract, made to the society or company …"
  tra-la-la—tra-la-la—tra-la—and so it goes on. It is only because I have spent a lifetime in this business that I am able to disentangle this obfuscated verbiage. I think there is a conspiracy on the part of overpaid lawyers to puzzle hon. Members with these jangled and archaic words so that we shall give up the struggle and let the Government get away with it.
  Mr. Daines: Perhaps my hon. Friend will now explain to us what those words really mean.
  Mr. Mack: What they mean is that if the proposer or the agent fails to disclose the fact that the proposed is in an indifferent state of health, or any other such factor, they are liable to some penalty. I rather gather that is the gist of what it means. Heaven forfend that I should endeavour to be more explicit than that, in case I should find myself still further enmeshed. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who is known to be a very unconventional gentleman in many respects and who has revolutionsed neckwear, among other things, might well revolutionise the language of this and other Bills. He would earn imperishable and immemorial fame. He would go down in history as the one man who made the jargon in Government Bills clear and understood by the common people, and, although he might be contemned and despised by many of his learned colleagues, he would earn the eternal blessings of the more simple and honest members of the community.
  I wish to deal with Clause 7, which was stated by my right hon. Friend to be a Clause of lesser importance. It is nothing of the sort. It refers to premium receipt books. These books are very important to an agent who has got to do the doorstep work. Many of the new houses do not have nice porticos and a collector often has to stand in the rain to make an entry into his premium book and mark collectively one payment for perhaps half a dozen policies. If he has to take out six premium books and make six entries, it will throw a considerable amount of additional work on him. Apart from that, there is the enormously increased cost of printing paper. I would much sooner see

  1495
  books of lore and learning printed with the limited available paper than a multiplicity of premium books.
  What induced my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to insert a Clause like that? Did he have some private conversation with the associated offices? I have never been consulted on, this matter—a fact which may be due to ignorance, or, in the case of my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance, forgetfulness. I have been completely ignored in this matter, not that it has necessarily made much difference to the final outcome of the Bill; but, at least, I could have expressed the point of view of thousands of outside workers. I knew nothing about it until the Bill was produced. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, the midwife who has evidently assisted in the Bill's birth, is responsible for the legal language. Perhaps he could tell me where he or the Financial Secretary got the inspiration to insert this petty little regulation. On page 5 there is another phrase in which these words appear:
  "A book used for any policy shall contain a conspicuous statement of the identity of the person who made the proposal for the policy."
  I would like to know the meaning of "conspicuous" in this connection. Does it refer to the size of the signature, and in what part of the book is it to be written? If that provision is not obeyed, certain dire penalties may be visited upon the offender. The average agent has far too much work already, without having this kind of stuff added to his worries. He has mental as well as physical anxieties. At the moment he is anxious because the business is in a transitional stage, and he does not know where his future bread and butter are coming from. I know it is fashionable to jeer at insurance men. They are the subject of music-hall mirth, but the fact remains that insurance agents represent a very considerable proportion of the workers in this country, and some of the best elements of the working class have come from their ranks.
  Clause 13 relates to offences which may be committed, and says:
  "Any registered society not being a collecting society which contravenes or fails to comply with any of the provisions of this Act … shall be guilty of an offence,"
  and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding
  1496
  £50. I am particularly concerned with Subsection (3) which says that any collector of a collecting society or industrial assurance company who contravenes or fails to comply with any of the provisions in this Bill, is guilty of an offence under the Act of 1923, and shall again be liable to a fine not exceeding £50. farther on, in line 41, reference is made to the Act of 1896, under which Act proceedings may be commenced as late as three years after the commission of the offence, and the alleged culprit may be in danger of having these penalties visited upon him. I wish that could be made a little clearer.
  I am glad that the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) paid a tribute to the collectors. My hon. Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) knows much about the sufferings of the workers in Liverpool and of the difficulties of these agents there, too, and I am sure that we can all find common ground and speak sympathetically on behalf of the workers in this business. There will be opportunities to deal more closely with the Bill in the Committee stage. I hope then we may be able to get some compromise on the Bill. While the Bill does give an increase, in the case of the societies, from £300 to £500, and while the agents as an organised body would not wish to quarrel with the Government, nevertheless, I do say that the Bill fails to deal adequately with this business. I hope, therefore, that we may be able at a subsequent stage to make some adjustments, as a result of Amendments, which will be put down, to ameliorate the situation.
  I cannot pay too high a tribute to the industrial insurance agents. All along, in many directions, they have faced great uncertainty, but because of their anxiety to see the Government proceed with their great all-embracing insurance scheme, and because they have great confidence in the Minister of National Insurance, and particular regard for his work, they have submerged their own personal interests and, to a large extent, been prepared to make many sacrifices. I hope that this Bill will not call upon them to make further inordinate sacrifices, and that the attitude of the Ministers responsible for it towards the agents will be one of proper humanity, deeper understanding, and a spirit of sweet reasonableness.
  4.52 p.m.
  Mr. Molson: I am sure the insurance agents throughout the country will have an opportunity of reading the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack), and they will be most grateful to him for the tribute which he has paid to them. One is naturally glad to think that one who expresses their point of view in the House and is associated with them should have this warm feeling of admiration for them, and I do not doubt that the admiration is mutual. So far as the House is concerned, I think the hon. Gentleman did well to declare at the beginning that he has a special interest in this matter. If I do not in most matters follow his speech in any detail it will be rather because I feel that, in matters of this kind, the interests of the industrial population as a whole should be considered, and not that primarily of the agents.
  Mr. Mack: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Molson: I was grateful to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for the reference he made to the late Sir Arnold Wilson, and to the great work that he did to ascertain the facts about industrial assurance, and to work for an improvement in this matter. The Financial Secretary has already produced figures to show how immensely great is the premium burden on the wage earners of this country and how great are the sums which they derive from industrial insurance benefits. The book inspired by Sir Arnold Wilson, and written by him and Professor Hermann Levy had, I think, a great deal to do with awakening the public conscience to the importance of this matter. I was reading it again this morning. I regret that Sir Arnold Wilson should have been killed in action during the last war and should not have lived to see come true so much of what he regarded as being the objective of sound social policy. He writes in the foreword:
  "These and other considerations … have brought us to the conclusion that the present system cannot be mended, but should be ended by being merged with the National Health Insurance system operating for the present through Approved Societies, though these in their turn must one day be reorganised on a national and regional basis by counties and county boroughs, with far greater uniformity of benefits than at present, as part of a genuinely national system of public health."
  1498
  That was written by Sir Arnold Wilson long before the Beveridge Committee was appointed or had been thought of. He was one of the pioneers who did something to bring about the series of reforms which have been the work of the last Government and of this Government and of the last and of the present Parliaments.
  This Bill I regard as belated, necessary, and modest. It is belated because, as the Financial Secretary said in his very lucid and concise introductory speech, ever since the Act of 1909 the practice of industrial assurance has, in fact, largely ignored the rules laid down by Parliament to be observed. Both on the Adjournment once in the last Parliament and again on the Second Reading of the National Insurance Act, I have drawn attention to this matter, and I have urged that something should be done to bring to an end the state of affairs in which Parliament has twice legislated quite plainly on this matter—in the 1909 Act, re-enacted in the Act of 1923—and in which, as was said by the Industrial Commissioner in his evidence before the Cohen Committee, in point of fact, the law was not being observed.
  I regard this Bill also as urgently necessary at the present time. As soon as the death grant, which is provided in the National Insurance Act, comes into operation, one half of the sole justification for the insurance of the life of another in the form of industrial assurance will come to an end. It was in 1774 that Parliament in its wisdom decided that there should be no assurance of the life of another in the absence of an insurable interest; and it was in order to meet the special social problem of providing for funeral expenses, in the case of those who had not the financial resources to provide the cost of a funeral at any particular, unforeseen moment, that this wide exception was made in a rule which, for nearly 200 years now, has in the general law of insurance been consistently observed—and, indeed, strengthened by successive Parliaments.
  Therefore, this Bill is necessary before, the coming into operation of the death grant. I long doubted whether insurance on the life of another for expenses in connection with a funeral was desirable; but I have again studied the evidence given before the Cohen Committee—who came to the conclusion that there was a

  1499
  genuine and widespread demand for a facility of that kind—and provided that it is kept within strict limits, as regards both the life that may be assured and the amount that may be spent, I believe it will be a socially beneficial reform.
  In the third place, this is an extremely modest Measure. I am inclined to think it is still too modest, for it will cut out only approximately 10 per cent. of the life-of-another assurance policies at present being contracted. It is a rough and ready system. It lays down that, generally speaking, the younger person may assure the life of an older person, but not vice versa; and, subject to the £15 limit, on the whole that will be beneficial.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) referred to Clause 2—which, in the case of each individual descendant, limits the amount assurable upon the life of a particular ascendant to £15—and he raised the very important question, with which I hope the Attorney-General will deal in reply, of having some machinery which will make its effectiveness certain. When we reflect that this Bill is intended to bring to an end a state of affairs in which, for 37 years now, the express and deliberate intention of Parliament has been so widely ignored, it would indeed be disastrous were the new Bill to create a new category of illegal policies. It is right that not mare than £15 should be assured upon the life of one single ascendant. Whether that be so or not, and whether the criticism of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme be accepted or not, there surely will be complete agreement in all parts of the House that it would be extremely undesirable to have a number of insurance policies which, in the event of sudden death, were discovered to be illegal.
  Firstly, it would be undesirable that either the proposer or the agent should have that opportunity for fraud. Secondly, it would be undesirable from the point of view of the person taking out the assurance if it came to light that the individual had insured more than £15 upon the particular life, for then one or other, or a part of those insurances would be found to be illegal. From the point of view of the life offices and friendly societies themselves it is, surely, important that there should be effective
  1500
  machinery in order that they may not be involved unintentionally in the issue of illegal assurances. Therefore, during Committee I intend to put down an Amendment designed to ensure provisions to give effect to the policy of Clause 2.
  In Clause 6, there is laid down the principle that, while parents may take out life assurance policies on behalf of their infant children, they shall not be able to draw the insurance money in the event of death under the age of 10. In the long history of industrial assurance legislation, social reformers concentrated very largely upon child assurance. As recently as 1931, when the late Lord Snowden appointed the Cohen Committee to investigate the whole question of industrial assurance, the aspect of child assurance was dealt with in a special provision of the minute of appointment; and approximately one-third of the Cohen Committee's report deals with that matter, for they made rather detailed recommendations in order to prevent abuses. I believe the Government have been right and wise to cut right through those recommendations, and to provide that no money shall be paid in the case of a child dying under the age of 10. No hardship is involved, because the parent is able to take out an assurance on behalf of the child, thereby gaining benefit for a life assurance taken out at an early age.
  In all those matters I believe the Bill to be wise and necessary, but at the same time only modest. It is modest because a number of recommendations made by the Cohen Committee are not dealt with in the Bill. In the course of this Debate, it has already become plain that at the present time we lack the information which we ought to have about industrial assurance. Down to 1938 there was an annual report upon this matter; but, as a measure of wartime and postwar economy, the Industrial Assurance Commissioner is not now allowed to produce a report. I fully recognise the importance of paper economy, but I hope that the Financial Secretary will consider the possibility of allowing the issue in Roneo form of a report which could be made available to those connected with industrial assurance who are anxious to have up-to-date information upon the subject. During the war, statistical summaries were issued, but they did not get as far as the House of Commons Library, unless

  1501
  they have done so this afternoon. When trying to arrive at the recent figures upon the subject I found they were not available, so I am in the same position as the Financial Secretary in regard to any figures I quote upon the subject—not having the advantages of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme—in having to turn to the Beveridge Report and its appendix.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby was right in referring to two matters, to which the Cohen Committee gave a good deal of attention—although, in the absence of figures, I am not entirely certain that he necessarily drew the right conclusions. We ought to have the figures for which I have asked in order that we may know more about the expenses of management. I do not doubt it is true that, whereas at the time of the Parmoor Committee, who investigated the matter for the years 1912 to 1917, the cost of administration of this form of assurance was 41 per cent. of the premiums paid, by the time the Cohen Committee was investigating the matter in 1930, that had been brought down to 34 per cent. Even at the present time, there is an immense difference between the cost of administration of different offices, and especially of the collecting societies.
  I regard it as a serious omission that nothing is being done to bring the very high expenses of these life offices, and especially the collecting societies, down more nearly to the level of those who, by means of the block system and rationalisation of their administration, are able to give a very much better service to the people.
  Mr. Mack: In making that general statement, will the hon. Member have regard to the fact that, while I am not condoning the relatively high expense ratio, the societies have usually treated their servants and workers better than the companies with the lower expense ratio. In other words, the companies have reduced the ratio at the expense of the agents.
  Mr. Molson: It is apparent from the speech of the hon. Member that he is one of those who regard industrial assurance as being conducted primarily for the benefit of the agents.
  Mr. Mack: No.
  Mr. Molson: I am much more concerned with the interests of those who
  1502
  pay their humble pence each week. It is the case that some of the collecting societies with the highest ratio of expenses are those where, by means of book interest and so on, the collectors run the whole show. I regard it as one of the most serious abuses in industrial assurance that, in spite of the fact that an agent is not allowed under law to hold a responsible position in running a society, the control of many of the societies is, in fact, in the hands of the agents.
  Mr. Mack: I must object to that. The hon. Member is probably speaking in all good faith, but in fact the control of a collecting society is very often operated by the delegate system, that is, by the direct representatives of the policy holders and not by the agents. Surely, the hon. Member is not going to argue that a society is controlled and governed by the agents. That would be most unconstitutional, and it would be unfair to the agents as well as to the other people.
  Mr. Molson: It is most unconstitutional, but if the hon. Member will look up some of the evidence given before the Cohen Committee he will find that, broadly speaking, these are the facts.
  There has undoubtedly been a very great decrease in the number of lapses, but the fact remains that down to the present time there is no power resting in the Industrial Assurance Commissioner to obtain from the industrial life offices, in contrast with the collecting societies, statistics dealing with this matter. I hope that during the passage of this Bill power will be taken for the Treasury to make rules requiring full disclosure of such facts and figures as they consider to be desirable, in the same way as can be done in the case of the collecting society at the present time. That was one of the recommendations of the Cohen Committee, and this seems to me to be an opportunity to give effect to that recommendation.
  Another matter which requires consideration is the distribution of profits. There is a wide difference in practice among different offices in this matter. In the case of the Prudential it was shown in evidence that approximately 75 per cent. of the profits go to the policy holders, 12½ per cent. to the shareholders, and 12½ per cent. to the outdoor staff. I

  1503
  think I am right in saying that there is no power at the present time to obtain the information, it the life office refuses to give it. In the case of all the committees that have been set up, the companies have always been most frank in giving information, in so far as it was available, but the figures ought to appear in the annual report of the Industrial Assurance Commissioner, and then, if there is need at some later date to legislate, there will be a clear picture of the way in which the business is conducted.
  I now come to my last point. Is industrial assurance a good thing? The effect of the State death grant will be to change the whole character of it. I believe that there is, as Sir William Beveridge thought, an immense scope for voluntary assurance in supplementation of the flat-rate benefit given under the compulsory scheme. I see the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) and the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) sitting opposite. I paid a visit with them to France last autumn to investigate the French insurance system. In France, both the contributions and the benefits are in proportion to the ordinary weekly earnings, and therefore to the standard of living of the worker. There are many advantages and disadvantages in the British system. One of the disadvantages of the flat-rate benefit under the compulsory system arises in the case of highly paid workers. In the case of those who are accustomed to higher earnings, there is obviously very great scope for voluntary assurance, so that when death, sickness or some other disaster comes it will not bring about an immense fall in the standard of living, from the relatively high weekly earnings to the relatively low rate of payments under the compulsory National Insurance scheme.
  I believe it is possible for industrial assurance to develop into a valuable form of thrift in order to make additional provision for sickness, old age and education. It will be necessary for this House to keep a watchful eye upon industrial assurance in order to see that administration expenses are not too high, that pressure is not being exerted on agents perpetually to be increasing unreasonably the amount of insurance people hold, and that the profits made shall be fairly and
  1504
  equitably distributed. Lastly, it is desirable to consider very carefully whether book interest should not be abolished.
  The immediate effect of this Bill will be greatly to add to the danger of inflation of funeral expenses. I have spoken on this matter several times, and I do not wish to repeat myself in a way that might be wearisome to the House. On the Second Reading of the National Insurance Bill, however, the Prime Minister was good enough, in reply to my observations upon this subject, to say:
  "I noted his condemnation"—
  my condemnation—
  "of some of the abuses connected with the burial of the dead. … I would only say it is our purpose to see that this money is not squandered and wasted in that manner."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1946: Vol. 418, c. 1897–8.]
  The Minister of National Insurance, on the Third Reading of the Bill, after I had raised the subject again, said:
  "… the matter is engaging the attention of the President of the Board of Trade. … The Central Price Regulation Committee have given consideration to this, and have presented reports to the President. They are, I understand, being asked to reconsider it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May, 1946: Vol. 423. c. 1461.]
  Well, a good many months have elapsed since then, and we have heard nothing more about that matter. I believe that this Bill will make that a still more pressing and urgent need, and I hope the Government will again give attention to it. I welcome this Bill for what it does, and I believe that in the Committee stage it can be greatly improved. I hope the Government will keep an open mind on it, and will be sympathetic to Amendments if they are moved by some of us who are anxious to see incorporated in the law of industrial assurance some of the recommendations of the Cohen Committee, and to make certain that some of the abuses to which the late Sir Arnold Wilson drew attention are eliminated from the practice and ways of this country.
  5.22 p.m.
  Mr. Daines: We have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for the High Peak (Mr. Molson). I do not think there is much room for controversy about this Bill, but I am quite certain that when Members read his speech tomorrow, and the speech of the right hon.

  1505
  and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), they will find some essential points of difference between them. The hon. Member for the High Peak referred to France, and all I wish to say on that is that the delegation which went to that country found many points of interest. France has so many attractions. Perhaps that is all I had better say on that point.
  This Bill is a modest Measure, and is the inevitable consequence of the National Insurance Act. Underlying the great and mighty business of industrial assurance, with its huge accumulation of funds, is something which is peculiarly English, but which is also of great economic importance. I think it would be very interesting indeed if the Government were to set up another committee of inquiry with real powers, not only to consider the day to day operation of this business, but also the vast financial power that is wielded by this country's great industrial assurance offices. This business has been built up on the fear of a pauper's funeral. I am of the working class; I know their mind instinctively. I believe that one has to be of the working class to be able really to understand them. The fear that when the old gentleman or the old lady dies, his or her funeral will not be conducted with decorum and dignity, has been traded on by the great corporations which have come into existence to carry out industrial assurance. It is our job, as Members of Parliament—and it is the Government's job—to show the people, by means of publicity behind the National Insurance Act, that a death grant has been provided for under that Act, and that the bogy of a pauper's funeral need no longer he feared.
  The Government—and I say this with a sense of personal pride—in response to an Amendment I moved on the Committee stage of the National Insurance Bill, agreed that where a person was an inmate of a public institution, and died, benefit should be paid, so that the funeral could be conducted without any taint of pauperism being attached to it. In July, the people of this country will have to meet a substantial increase in compulsory contributions, and it is, therefore, the Government's duty thoroughly to publicise their own scheme so that people will be aware of it, and can arrange their business accordingly. When talking
  1506
  about this Bill it is a great temptation to say that the solution of this problem, however much we may wish to dodge it, is contained in the Report of the Beveridge Committee. I believe that, ultimately, we shall have to come to that solution.
  What surprised me, listening to the speeches made so far, is that no hon. Member has said that the root cause of the over-selling that occurs in insurance is the method of payment. Anyone who understands the business knows that there is over-selling. It is humbug to deny it. Take the average insurance agent. I do not deny that he is an honest and respectable citizen. He can insure, for example, a life at 60 or 70. Suppose he insures a life at 70 for 1s. a week—and premiums of this sort are quite common—immediately he does that, and receives the first is he earns for himself a procuration fee of 12 to 18 times that amount. The very system of payment is part of the extra pressure put upon him to obtain business. I can imagine one of the advocates of the large offices in this country pointing to the fact that the Prudential have reduced the amount that is paid out in procuration fees. They changed the system, and there were two consequences. One was that their expense ratio fell, and when that happened other offices, which maintained a higher procuration fee, with inferior tables and benefits, actually had a substantially higher increase, in proportion to their debit, than did the Prudential. That shows, quite clearly, that the pressure of the system itself is bound to be the most serious factor in this question of overselling.
  Clause 2 is the most important Clause in the Bill. Despite previous attempts by Parliament it legalises, for the first time, what has been an extremely doubtful legal position. From that standpoint it must be welcomed, but I suggest to the Government that the figure of £15 is somewhat too tight, and that there is a case for reconsideration on Committee, particularly in regard to the older lives which will not come under insurance when the Clause begins to operate 12 months from next July. On the appointed day, men over 65, and woman over 60, will be outside the death grant, and for men between 55 and 65, and women between 50 and 60, only the reduced benefit of £10 will be payable. I suggest that on this aspect of the benefit some easement

  1507
  should be given. I am not concerned about the loss of brother and sister insurance. The actual figure is between 4 and 2½ per cent. according to the different types of office. There is not much to object to in the disappearance of that form of insurance, for only in exceptional cases has it ever fulfilled any real purpose.
  When we come to the question of assignment, I get rather worried. I think that where a policy holder, through unemployment, for example, wishes to give up a policy, there should be no legal objection to the policy being assigned to the brother or sister, provided that the total amount held by them is not exceeded. There is a Clause in the Bill relating to alienation. I would ask the Attorney-General to give some definition of that when he replies. The Bill specifically prevents brothers and sisters from assigning their policies either to themselves or to other people, but there is nothing in the Bill—and I cannot find anything in previous Insurance Acts—which would debar a person taking on an "own life" policy and then assigning it. This is dealt with very exhaustively by the Cohen Committee. I think that the risk of illegal policies is considerably higher under that head. I should like the Attorney-General to clarify the position, as emphasis is laid on alienation in the Bill, as to what happens to a policy in the event of the policy owner's death. Does it go into the deceased's estate or does it revert to the insurance company?
  May I say a word or two from the agent's standpoint? I have dealt with the aspect of the business so far as pressure for increase is concerned. I exempt the Co-operative Insurance Society, the Prudential, the Pearl and some of the other companies from what I am about to say. I may rather shock some hon. Members who have interested themselves in this question when I say, quite bluntly, that many of the large collecting societies in this country, apart from the policies, have no real record of what is actually happening so far as their industrial life business is concerned. It is perfectly true that there is a collecting book. The collecting book is transferred to a fresh collecting book at six monthly periods. I can well imagine when the transfer has taken place some 10 or 12 times that, other than the premium which is checked from book to book, there
  1508
  is no real record. The amount of error after that number of unchecked transfers is bound to be very high.
  In many of these large collecting societies, districts overlap—it is quite possible in a street of 100 houses in London to have agents working for the same insurance office coming from 10 different district offices. It is equally common to find two or three agents representing the same office collecting in the same house. Where we get the efficient office in terms of records there is a valuable safeguard for the agent. He submits his proposal and it is checked with the record, and if it is over the legally prescribed amount, the proposal is rejected. If the House will recall what I said on pressure the other way, one can see that every check that is installed, arising from efficient records, is extremely valuable so far as the agent is concerned. I do not think that legislation alone will make this business really efficient. I believe that the Industrial Insurance Commissioner has to he given far greater powers than he has now to effect reforms that are really necessary. When we come to the question of penalties, the agent who commits an offence has to face the same penalty as his office, that is, a fine on the first offence up to £50. Taking into consideration the difficulties under which agents are working, I submit that the penalty is far too heavy.
  I now come to the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for West Derby and also that of the hon. Member for The High Peak. I am quite certain that this Clause will mean, unless something else is put behind it, that a vast number of illegal policies are certain to continue. The hon. and learned Member for West Derby made the only proposal which I think would really safeguard the agents as well as the other persons concerned. That is that we have to try to devise some form of death certificate that will effect the same purpose as in the case of children under 10. As a practical insurance man of over 20 years' experience—I have not been one since I came to this House—I am certain that there is no other way in which it can be made effective.
  When the agent knows and the policy holder knows that only on a specific form of death certificate will benefit be paid, we shall have the only safeguard that can be really effective. I can imagine the Attorney-General saying "That is all very

  1509
  well; you tell me how to do it." Frankly I cannot. During the week-end, I thought round this problem time and again to see what effective practical method could be adopted, when there are a number of insurances in a family, of employing the death certificate check. I do not say that this problem is insoluble, but I confess that I am quite beaten by it.
  The provisions of Clause 7 are largely those contained in the Cohen Committee's Report, where a specific recommendation was made that there should be a separate premium book for each policy. The Beveridge Committee showed that the number of policies in 1939 was 103 million; that is, for every member of the population there are 2.25 industrial policies. As an aside, I might add there is no use anyone trying to say after that, that the business is not oversold. If a deduction is made for the number of families who have no industrial assurance and we allow for the fantastic increase in this business during the last two years, we can assess that the number of policies to each house will be around about a dozen. One can well imagine a poor insurance agent having to sign twelve books on every doorstep. That is quite absurd and impracticable. I know the reply from the Government Front Bench will be that the Government will not employ this regulation until paper is freer. Nevertheless, it is absurd from the standpoint of the agent and of the policy holder. I suggest that we confine ourselves to one book for the weekly business, one book for the monthly business and one for the policy holder. There will be full and adequate safeguards if we do that.
  My final point is in regard to Clause 9 on policies. I do not see how we can frame an Amendment which will give us what we want. What we really want to see is something simple and direct. The bulk of the people of this country just do not understand what is contained in their industrial insurance policies. I will go further. I would say that the archaic wording of many of the industrial policies is deliberately maintained by some of our offices so that it cannot be understood by ordinary people. There is no earthly reason why legal safeguards for the policy holder should not be in simple, direct English and I plead with the Government to get simple language into policies by some form or another.
  Mr. Mack: And into the Bill.
  Mr. Daines: That, of course, is my last point. The point has already been said but I want to re-emphasise it. When I make this plea for simple insurance policy language, I am certain that the offices are going to reply, "What about your own Bill?" Here I want solemnly and sincerely to register a protest at the excessive verbiage that keeps on showing up in all our Bills. I must confess when I read over the Acts of 1923 and 1929 with their simple, clear English, and then I came to the present Bill, it was almost like a speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme as compared with a speech from someone I cannot mention. In re-emphasising this plea for clear, simple English in Bills, I want to say it is time all hon. Members of this House irrespective of party said to the responsible officers of the Government, "There is no reason at all why we should have to read and re-read Clause after Clause of a Bill in order to get a simple explanation out of it." I want to make my protest against the excessive verbiage we have in this Bill and to plead again for a simple direct language. I support the Bill.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Roberts: Speakers who have preceded me have covered a very wide field, and I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes. However, it has struck me as I listened to this Debate that there is widespread concern in this House about the position of industrial assurance and it is quite right that we should spend some time on it. It is noteworthy that there have been successive inquiries since 1889 into the operation of industrial assurance and it is rather striking that when figures of industrial assurance were given here today they were those in the Beveridge Report on Social Insurance, because no later official figures are available.
  It is worth while looking again for a moment at the figures which show the extent of the industrial assurance business that is being carried on in this country. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that in 1939 there were 103 million policies in force—that represents 2½ policies, on the average, for each man, woman and child in Britain; that 65,000

  1511
  persons were employed as full-time collectors; that premiums amount to £74 million a year—I do not think that figure was quoted—and the actual expenses of the industrial assurance companies are another £24 million a year.
  There seemed to be two points at the back of the mind of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe): first, possible charges against industrial assurance undertakings on the grounds of the high cost ratio; and, secondly, the high number of lapsed policies. It has been said that the proportion of policies that have lapsed has fallen substantially in the last few years, particularly since 1941. It is a very interesting fact that from 1864—the earliest date for which I have seen any figures—right up to 1929 and 1939, the proportion of policies that have lapsed did not decrease at all. The proportion of policies which have lapsed fell, however, during the war years. I do not think there has been any official figures quoted since 1941, and the figures which the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted were the figures for 1945, also a war year.
  It has to be remembered that a large number of people who effected industrial insurance before the war were serving in the Forces during the war and the Government undertook to be responsible for all insurance liabilities of persons in the Forces Therefore, I suggest that because of that the figures for the years 1941 to 1945 are not an indication of an improvement in the matter of lapsed policies. The figures in 1939 were formidable indeed. In each of the three years before the war, about 10 million policies were issued by industrial assurance companies, and in each year six and three-quarter million policies lapsed because the people who had taken out the policies for some reason or another could not keep up the payments on the premiums.
  It does show that there was a feverish rush for new business and an excessive pushing of policies on to people who could not afford to take them out, especially among the poorer classes of the community. As the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) pointed out, it is the poorer section of the community which is subject to that kind of pressure primarily because of the fear of not being able to afford a decent funeral. They are
  1512
  afraid of a pauper's funeral and the primary purpose of industrial assurance is to provide funeral benefit. The power to insure for funeral expenses is to be swept away by Clause 1 of the Bill.
  In his Report, Sir William Beveridge made, with great emphasis, a suggestion for dealing with the problem of industrial assurance, namely, in the words of that report, that
  "it should be converted from being a private seller's business to being a monopoly consumer service."
  I do not think that any further committee of inquiry is necessary. This business cannot be controlled by the kind of supervising power which the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) suggested. The words used in the report are convincing. I will quote the words used in Appendix D of the Beveridge Report:
  "The proposal that life assurance among persons of limited means should be a public service rather than a competitive, private business, is based on the special character of industrial assurance, as a business in which competition leads to over-selling, and as a business in which the seller's interest represents a special danger to the community. Life assurance is not like other commodities, because those who insure make their choice once and for all when they take out a policy."
  The Attorney-General will, I hope, give an assurance that, in addition to earning a bow from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack), the Government have not closed their minds to the possibility of setting up an Industrial Assurance Board to deal with industrial assurance as suggested in the Beveridge Report.
  5.53 p.m.
  Mrs. Braddock: I support this very moderate Bill because it makes improvements in the position, but I had hoped that when a Pill of this kind was presented, it would contain many more safeguards for the ordinary working class person in relation to payments for industrial assurance.
  I have had a long experience of this matter. I have spent weeks, one after the other, tramping from the bottom of fivestorey tenements up to the top, collecting insurance premiums, when my husband was unable, through illness, to do so. I have been staggered many times at the efforts that have been made by the poorest sections of the people of this country to continue to pay amounts weekly for insur-

  1513
  ance. When they could not pay, there was no return for the weekly amounts they had already paid, and the business lapsed, after non-payment for six or eight weeks. The family would then commence to worry about what might happen if one of them should die while out of benefit. Then would come a recommencement of the payment of weekly premiums, at a lower rate of death benefit. I know for a fact that that process has gone on in families where the premium could be paid for about f o months while the man was working in temporary employment, or in some better work. After the business had lapsed, with no compulsion upon the company to return the premiums that had been paid, there has been re-insurance in he same company within a year. This process has gone on year after year.
  I have wondered why, when premiums have not been paid for about 12 months because the family had got into difficulties, there was not some power to insist upon the return of some of the contributions that had been made. There is no alteration in that respect in the Bill. I intervened when the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) was speaking, to say that people do not lapse on their policies now so often as they used to do, because their weekly financial position is very much better than it has been for the past 25 years. The only reason they allow their policies to lapse is financial inability to continue to make the contribution.
  There is a terrific struggle in the insurance world at the moment, an almost fanatical struggle, to secure industrial insurance business. Agents are being pressed by their companies, and business is being put on at a rate which has never been equalled before. The Attorney-General ought to give us some indication of what is likely to happen, after the appointed day under the National Insurance Scheme, to the new premiums now being collected. Industrial workers will have to pay 4s. 11d. weekly to the State after the appointed day, and probably they will find that their payments for industrial assurance, amounting to 3s. or 4s. per week for a family of a man, wife and six or seven children, are impossible, on top of the National Insurance contribution. Is there any possibility of introducing into the Bill in Committee a provision to secure a return of premiums which people are now commencing to pay,
  1514
  if they subsequently find they are incapable of paying them, in addition to the new insurance payments?
  All insurance companies pay death benefits out of their current yearly receipts of contributions. I know that to be a fact. Never at any time, for a number of years, have they had to draw upon their reserves. The profit that is being made at the expense of weekly collections of industrial assurance contributions is perhaps the highest that we can possibly imagine in any form of business. Short of nationalising this section of industry, the Government ought to look at the matter very carefully to see whether it is possible to regulate the amounts that people pay.
  Mr. Emrys Roberts: Why not nationalise it?
  Mrs. Braddock: I am in favour of nationalising it. I thought hon. Members opposite were not in favour of it. Clause 7 contains the suggestion that there should be a separate collecting book for each member of the family. Having had some experience, I can say that that would be a terrific waste of energy, paper and books. A workingclass woman is not always able to put her hand on all the books she requires at a given time. If this comes into operation, I can visualise the number of times an agent will have to supply a new book for a member of a family because the old book has been lost. It is bad enough at the moment. At the moment, often a woman cannot find the book containing the names of all the insured people in the family. It the agent has to provide a new book every time the person paying the insurance cannot produce the books for each individual in the family, I can imagine the muddle the agent will be in and the penalties there will be when people have not got individual books. That point ought to be looked into during the Committee stage. It should be sufficient to have in one book the names of all the members of the family who are insured.
  I hope the Attorney-General and the Government will see whether it is possible to compel insurance companies to return at any rate part of the premiums if a policy lapses through a person's financial inability to carry on the insurance for the 12 months which are at present

  1515
  allowed by the insurance companies for a free paid-up policy. The points I have made are important and I hope some consideration will be given to them.
  6.3 p.m.
  Sir Patrick Hannon: I ought to disclose to the House the fact that I am associated with a friendly society, whose functions are widespread in the Midlands and which carries on its business with, I hope, a full sense of its responsibility for careful administration. I will not follow the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), who made an interesting speech, but will submit to the Attorney-General that some of the things she said are, from the point of view of efficiently treating the collection of insurance in the interests of the country, very well worthy of his careful attention. I need hardly say that I do not agree with the suggestion that came from the Liberal benches that we should nationalise industrial assurance. With that part of the hon. Lady's speech and the wisdom we got from the Liberal Benches, I do not identify myself.
  I was struck by the clear and concise speech made by the Financial Secretary. I wish he could convey to those responsible for the drafting of Bills in this House some of that facility of expression with which he places before the House from time to time explanations of the matters with which he is called upon to deal. I look again and again at Clause 8. I put it to the Attorney-General whether in common sense and in practice any ordinary person could make head or tail of it without giving it most careful study. The Attorney-General will find a series of Subsections in Clause 11 couched in language of which the ordinary man in the street and, above all, the agent of an industrial assurance society and the people to whom such assurance applies, will have difficulty in getting the real sense and meaning.
  I should like to associate myself with what has been said by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) in the tribute he paid to the work of the industrial assurance in this country. Since the days of Robert Owen to the days in which we live, industrial assurance and the work of the friendly societies have benefited the lives of the poorest people of the land and have
  1516
  had an important place in our social structure. We can never be too grateful to Lord Beveridge for the Report he prepared and to the Minister of National Insurance for the way in which he has conducted one of the greatest Measures of social reform that has been put before this House since I came here 28 years ago. Leaving apart the substance of the Measure itself, we appreciate the manner in which the Minister has conducted the Measure through the House—he has been conciliatory and has received deputations who have made suggestions—except in one respect, that is that my poor approved societies have been wiped off. I hope the day will not come when the Minister of National Insurance will regret the action he has taken in that respect.
  We ought to be grateful for the introduction of this Bill. Small Bills dealing with subjects affecting the very poorest in the land come into this House from time to time. This Bill, which safeguards the rights and privileges of people assured under industrial assurance, is one of those Measures which are not much talked about outside and do not get headlines in the newspapers; nevertheless, it will have a widespread beneficent effect on large masses of the people of the country, and I congratulate the Government on the introduction of the Bill.
  I should not like to press the point of the separate premiums receipt book. That seems to be introducing into this Bill a new burden upon the agents of industrial assurance societies. As the hon. Lady pointed out, the work that falls on industrial assurance agents in these days is extremely heavy. I can imagine an agent coming to the door of a house in one of the back streets of Birmingham and a poor woman having to sign 12 books. That is a burden which ought not to be imposed on people already burdened with housework and the responsibilities of a family. I am sure that during the Committee stage improvements will be introduced by hon. Members who have had practical experience of industrial assurance over many years.
  The Government are to be commended upon the attitude they have adopted in safeguarding the interests of a very large section of the population who come within the scope of industrial assurance. As a final word for the consideration of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme

  1517
  (Mr. Mack), may I say I believe the agents are a very fine body of men. On the whole, they have done their job uncommonly well, for they have had a difficult pant to play in the maintenance of the great social system of industrial assurance. I should be glad if the Attorney-General would tell me that something will be done to simplify the drafting of Bills.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. Goodrich: I wish to join with those who have given a hearty welcome to this Bill, and I appreciate very much what was said by the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) about the friendly society movement. This movement welcomes the raising of the £300 limit to £500 although, naturally, a higher figure would have been more welcome. We all know why the £300 limit was imposed in 1896, but there is a great difference between those days and the present, and £500 today is nothing like what £300 was then. With the passage of time, a great alteration has taken place.
  As I say, the friendly society movement would have welcomed a higher figure if only for one reason. Friendly society members are the thrifty section of the population. It is their desire in many cases to purchase their own house, and they seek the aid of the friendly societies first for their own benefit and secondly, for good security for their money. However, in these days, when the price of houses is extraordinarily high, they take out a policy to cover the mortgage on their property and to cover the contingency of dying before the mortgage is redeemed. In order to get full cover, the friendly societies must of necessity under the present Act, farm out that insurance policy to an industrial company as they will do under the Bill.
  There was a great fear that the Treasury might make some alteration to the Finance Act, 1918, by stopping the Income Tax benefit enjoyed by the friendly society movement. I am pleased to know that my right hon. Friend is prepared to submit an Amendment to ensure that there is no alteration in respect of the payment of Income Tax by friendly societies, but I would like an assurance that this will be operated as soon as possible after the passing of the Bill.
  For some unknown reason, my right hon. Friend has made no alteration in the
  1518
  ceiling of annuities above £52. I wish to make a point on behalf of those people who are employed where superannuation schemes cannot be adopted. In order to get the benefit which those employed by big corporations, civil servants, and so on, are able to get on retirement at 60 or 65, it is necessary for that section of the population to provide it for themselves. The be means of doing so is to take out a policy for an annuity, a very wise proposition. However they can only receive £1 a week. While appreciating that the Minister's scheme provides 26s. or perhaps 42s. a week by way of old age pension, that sum is absolutely inadequate, and a large section of the population would seek to augment their old age pensions if they could have £2, for they would then have not much below the wages that most of them were earning at the time of their retirement. So I regret that the Minister has been unable to raise the ceiling of the annuities.
  It would appear to prominent members of the friendly societies that Clause 16 must be tightened in the interests of the societies and of the Government. I may find it necessary later to put down Amendments to meet the case which it will not: be too difficult for the Government to concede. I thank the Minister for his concession, but I would ask him to look into the matter of the annuities again to see if something cannot be done. I am not asking him to raise the ceiling above £500, and I will refer again to Clause it in due course. I have great pleasure in supporting the welcome accorded to this Bill.
  6.19 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Roberts: Like my old friend the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon), I ought to avow an interest, though it is only that of a humble vice-president of the friendly society of which he is so distinguished a president. I wish also to join in the congratulations to the Financial Secretary on the clarity and brevity of his exposition. The Debate has been an interesting one, but I confess that the speech I personally most enjoyed was that delivered by, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack). It is an exhilarating thing for a member of the lower branch of the legal profession to listen to the present and the late heads of the English Bar being publicly ad-

  1519
  monished; and in particular the present head being exhorted to clarify that involved draftsmanship which the laity always seem to think is necessarily the work of lawyers. I would not try to controvert that allegation in toto, but I submit that it is not the work of solicitors. It is the work of Parliamentary draftsmen who are members of the Bar and who are, I am very much afraid, aided and abetted by Law Officers. I do not know the remedy but I speak as a member of a suffering branch which has to advise on the explanation of Statutes, and I wish to make it plain that it is not our fault.
  Speeches have related to industrial insurance, to possible further amendments, and even to nationalisation, but one only, I believe, has referred particularly to the question of friendly societies. All hon Members have had a memorandum on the subject, and that was alluded to by the Financial Secretary in his opening speech. In some of its sentiments it may have been perhaps a little extreme, but I do not think it can be disposed of so lightly as the Financial Secretary saying that there appears to be some misunderstanding. The 1918 Act gives exemption from taxation to societies transacting business up to a £300 limit. This Bill raises the limit to £500 and I think without doubt sweeps the exemption away. I shall not be impressed by any argument that those who wished to do it could do so on the £300 limit and maintain their exemption, because it is common ground that they could not do so, and the value of £300 in 1896 would be as great as Loci now. A Clause could have been inserted in the Bill, as was pointed out by the memorialists, deferring the operation until the passage of a new Finance Act. That was not done possibly because the Bill was not prepared under the supervision of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. It is quite idle to say that there was a misunderstanding and misapprehension and then put in the Clause, which plainly shows there was no misapprehension but that the matter was, let us say, politely overlooked. It is better late than never.
  As to the position in regard to investment by friendly societies, it appears to me that from 1896 onwards they have had an unlimited power of investment with the National Debt Commissioners
  1520
  and, until a certain Statutory Rule and Order, to invest in the Post Office Savings Bank. Those powers are now sought to be cut down, and the slight explanation given by the Financial Secretary that they are not in line with the cheap money policy of the Government appears to me to be totally unsatisfactory. They were conferred in the year 1896 when 2¾ per cent. Consols, which were already known to be due for reduction to 2½ per cent., stood round about 114, and there was a serious question whether the Post Office Savings Bank could permanently continue to pay 2½ per cent. interest. Newspapers were expressing the hope that they would do so, even at a loss, and that has continued since. Can it now be said that money is cheaper than at that time? I should imagine that all long-dated Government securities could be bought now on a 2¾ per cent, basis.
  I quite understand that this particular money might be called short money, readily realised money. But what of it? I cannot be expected to know what was the rate of short money 50 years ago, but it was certainly very much less than the figure at which long-dated debt stood. Short-dated money has always been very much cheaper, and it is straining one's credulity to ask one to believe that a Measure which was introduced in a time when money was as cheap as now and which has worked well over 50 years, must now be done away with because it does not suit the cheap money policy of the Government. If the cheap money policy of the Government has to be bolstered up by the withdrawal of this small privilege, it is in a very bad way. Today is not the time to stifle or thwart these attempts at mutual thrift, or to do anything to damp down or discourage the friendly society movement. I sincerely hope that the unwise counsels which are shown in this part of the Bill may be moderated, or totally removed, in Committee.
  6.27 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shaweross): We have had an interesting Debate on this matter which, inevitably, I think, has ranged over a wide field and has dealt largely with matters of detail rather than of principle. With some of those matters I will attempt to deal. Some of them, of course, will require careful consideration in Committee.

  1521
  From the hon. Member for the High Peak (Mr. Molson), who was followed in this respect by the hon. Member for East Ham North (Mr. Daines) and the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock), we had a thoughtful and informed speech upon the subject of industrial insurance, which raises certain general questions of principle as to the utility of the existing system. I cannot attempt to follow him, nor perhaps would this be the appropriate moment, in a discussion of those general principles, except perhaps to say that one can well understand the anxiety which some hon. Members have expressed that this form of insurance, still increasing beyond the figures given in the Beveridge Report, still the subject of an astonishing number of lapsed policies—I think the proportion of lapses in the case of new policies is something of the order of 60 per cent.—and still the subject of what is undoubtedly a very high cost ratio, should be made the subject of some form of public administration and control.
  That indeed was the recommendation of Sir William Beveridge, but hon. Members will recall that his recommendation in regard to this matter was a bracketed one, which he did not consider essential to the operation of the general National Health Insurance Scheme. That is the view which the present advisers of the Government have taken. We have by no means shut our eyes to the possibility of making industrial insurance a national service. We have by no means closed our minds to it. We were forced to introduce this admittedly somewhat stop-gap measure because of the introduction of the death grant under the National Health Insurance Scheme and the repercussions it will have both in regard to legality of existing insurance and of payments in respect of the death of children under 10. In introducing this Bill as a stop-gap Measure we have not for a moment forgotten the possibility of a wider measure dealing with the whole subject. This is perhaps a step.
  At the moment the Department concerned with National Insurance has a heavy administrative task in bringing the national scheme into being. It was thought that it would not be wise to overload the machine by adding to that task at this stage the further heavy and compli-
  1522
  cated task of dealing with the question of industrial insurance. I am able to assure the House that this Measure is introduced entirely without prejudice to the possibility that later we might have some further and wider measure, dealing in a more comprehensive scheme with the whole of this interesting and complicated social problem.
  Having said that about the matter of general principle, I come to more detailed points. The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir E. Maxwell Fyfe) raised first a point in regard to the exclusion of policies on the lives of brothers and sisters. As a rule brothers and sisters are not under any legal liability to incur funeral expenses in respect of each other's death. Indeed, of the total premium income of those who undertake the business of industrial insurance the proportion which is attributable to this particular form of insurance between brothers and sisters is given in the Beveridge Report as something under 5 per cent., a figure which seems to show that there is no wide demand for this particular kind of cover. That figure was ascertained when the liability might be for the whole funeral expenses, as opposed to the indirect expenses consequent upon the death. That is not so now, because under the national scheme there will be a death grant of £20.
  It may be that in exceptional cases a brother or sister may wish to insure against the risk of incurring expenses—travelling expenses, possibly, though less probably now, mourning, the loss of a day's pay, the cost of a wreath and matters of that kind, in the event of the brother or sister dying. The risk of their having to incur that kind of expense is small, however, and experience has shown that very few want to insure against it. There may be exceptional cases, but just in the same way there may be exceptional cases, say, in respect of a nephew or niece who wishes to insure against expenses of this kind in respect of an uncle or aunt. We have had to draw the line somewhere, and as the hon. Member for the High Peak said, we have had to do it in a rough and ready way. This seemed the appropriate line at which to draw it, and to provide that these insurances should in future only be taken out in respect of people for whom there was likely to be a

  1523
  legal liability—the parents and grandparents.
  Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for The High Peak and one or two other Members raised the troublesome problem of proof of death so as to ensure that not more than £15 was paid to any one person and, one might add, to ensure also that not more than £15 was insured to any one person. This is a matter which presents considerable administrative difficulty, and we want to find some solution of it, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested, which would not cause inconvenience at a time of distress to the people who have taken out policies of this kind. We have been thinking rather on the lines suggested by the right hon. and learned Member about the possibility of a special form of death certificate upon which the payment made would have to be endorsed. That is a matter which we shall have to explore further in Committee. We shall welcome any suggestion which the right hon. and learned Gentleman or any other hon. Member may be able to make to assist us in finding some proper solution for a problem which everyone regards as troublesome.
  I turn to the point raised by a number of hon. Members about the provisions of Clause 16, which abolish certain powers which are at present enjoyed to invest funds with the National Debt Commissioners. The suggestion which was made by one hon. Member and repeated by another hon. Member that this new proposal is in some way damaging to the Savings Movement, or is in some way inimical to mutual thrift, is really quite misconceived. The fact that this particular form of investment is no longer to be available to the friendly societies will not result in any individual members of the societies allowing their policies to lapse or ceasing to pay the premiums as they fall due. Those payments, which are the real form of saving and thrift by the community, will still continue, and the insurance fund resulting from them will continue to be invented in one form or another. The fact that they will no longer be capable of investment in this particular fund, a fund which has never been included in the total figures of National Savings published from time to time, does not make these premiums any
  1524
  the less savings or any the less a form of thrift on the part of the people who pay them.
  The position with regard to investment in this fund is simply that the Government really cannot continue a policy of borrowing money at call on the terms which have hitherto obtained. It is in practice money at call, for although there is a right to refuse to allow a fresh deposit to be made once that deposit has been withdrawn, that right has been exercised only twice in the whole history of this investment, and only in the case where the whole deposit has been withdrawn. It has, in practice, been found impossible to exercise that right, when only part of the deposit is withdrawn. In fact, the fund has to be kept fluid and the money is at call.
  The Government find it quite impossible to continue a policy of borrowing money a t call at a rate which may well have been economic—I have no idea whether it was or not—50 years ago, but it is certainly uneconomic at the present time, and it is quite inconsistent with the Government's cheap money policy. I do not want to get involved in any discussion about the Government's cheap money policy, about which I could hardly know less than I do, but my advice is that the Government can borrow money for considerably less, and that this money in the hands of the Government does not, therefore, earn the rate of interest which the Government are compelled to pay upon it. In these circumstances we cannot feel that it is right to continue what is in fact a scarcely veiled form of hidden subsidy to the societies. I would only add this in regard to it, that it is impossible to feel that the abolition of this form of investment will greatly inconvenience those who conduct the business of industrial assurance. The total industrial assurance fund stands somewhere in the neighbourhood of £700 million. About one hundredth of that amount happens to be invested with the National Debt Commissioners. We propose to make repayment in an orderly and convenient way over the next three and a half years.
  The other part of Clause 15 contains a provision in regard to deposits with the Post Office Savings Bank. It is intended merely to clarify the existing law. In our view the existing law is not that there is any right of unlimited deposit with

  1525
  the Post Office Savings Bank. The provision of the statute which enables trustees to invest any amount in the Post Office Savings Bank does not impose any obligation on the Postmaster-General to accept large deposits. The matter is now one which we wish to make abundantly clear, and beyond the possibility of legal doubt, by having included in this Bill an express provision in regard to it.
  The point was raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack), who was followed in this matter by one of the hon. Members who spoke after him. He attacked on two grounds the £15 limit, which will, in future, be placed upon this form of insurance. The first was perhaps hardly a ground which could assist the House in deciding whether the amount is sufficient in itself to cover the expenses for which it is to be provided. The hon. Member suggested a larger sum would to some extent compensate for the loss—whatever it may be—that societies, companies and agents will suffer from the restriction of the Clause in respect of whom these policies may be issued.
  Although the exact figures are not available to date, it seems quite clear that the inclusion of the insurance of brothers and sisters—as mentioned in dealing with the points raised by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby—will effect only a very small reduction in the premium income. Quite clearly, we could not raise the limit of the amount payable on death simply to bring about the result that insurance companies and friendly societies and agents should not lose quite as much as they might otherwise do from the provisions in this Bill.
  The main consideration is whether £15 is enough. Is that a reasonable provision for the loss insured against? When it is appreciated that the object of these policies is simply to indemnify those classes of relatives who are covered by the Bill against reasonable expenses in connection with the death of their relative, there can, in my submission to the House, be little doubt that the sum of £15 is sufficient. Take first the person who has to bear the funeral expenses. He will get £20 national death grant, plus £15. That is the amount recommended by Sir William Beveridge. We understand—and I think we have been told so in this Debate—that the average amount paid under policies, is somewhere between £20
  1526
  and £30. That person is, therefore, at least as well off as he was before. Probably he is better off. Certainly he is £15 better off than the Cohen Committee thought proper. That Committee, as hon. Members will recall, recommended the figure of £20 without any national death grant. So the person on whom the actual cost of the funeral falls, is in our view, amply provided for. The rest of the relatives may be put to expenses of travelling, mourning, flowers, the loss of pay and so on.
  We have formed the view that, in allowing £15, we have allowed a sum reasonable in all the circumstances. Although it is very natural that people should wish to incur expenditure on these unhappy occasions it is better, perhaps from a social viewpoint, not to encourage anything more than is vitally necessary. There is not much doubt that the more that is made available by the way of grant or insurance, the greater is the risk that the cost of funerals and all the attendant matters—already greatly inflated as many people think—will become even higher than at present. On the whole, we think, with Sir William Beveridge, that £15 is a reasonable amount for which to provide.
  I come now to the rather difficult question of the premium receipt book. I do not think that any hon. Member will doubt that the present position is neither satisfactory nor convenient. There may be many members in a family each having a number of policies all of which are mixed up, higgledy-piggledy, in a single premium book. What is provided for by Clause 7 of the Bill, as at present drafted, is first, that a premium receipt book shall be provided. That is doing no more than giving legal effect to what, I understand, is normally the usual practice nowadays. The second thing, and it is about this object that complaints are map, is that we take power to provide by regulations for the form which these receipt books should take.
  It does not follow that those regulations would prescribe a separate book in respect of each separate policy, although I believe that was in the recommendations which the Cohen Committee made in this matter. It may be that we should take the view that there ought to be one book for each policy holder, so that when he left a particular house and went to live

  1527
  elsewhere, and became separated from his family, he could take his premium receipt book with him. I can assure hon. Members who have raised this matter that we appreciate the difficulties, and will give them most careful consideration. When this Bill has been passed into law we shall not draft the final regulations without taking into account all that has been said, and any other representations which may be made.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme asked what was the main point of the provision that there should be a conspicuous statement as to the proposer of the policy, and that it should form part of the policy itself. As hon. Members will be aware, great difficulties have arisen as to the ownership of particular policies in the administration of this form of insurance. There is really no particular difficulty in asking that the name of the proposer—and the name of the proposer may be the key to the actual ownership at any given time—should be inserted in the policy. Not in the microscopic print one is usually accustomed to find in insurance policies—microscopic perhaps because it is hoped that nobody will take the trouble to read it—but in a clear manner, which anyone can see. That is the purpose of this particular provision, which I hope will not impose undue burdens on the companies, societies or agents.
  The hon. Member for East Ham, North, asked me about the position in regard to assignability. The possibility of assigning this form of policy obviously could raise not only considerable administrative difficulty, but serious dangers of a social kind. If unrestricted assignment is permitted the effect of the restrictions on whom policies of this kind can be taken out is destroyed. Indeed, as the hon. Member himself pointed out, it is a way of effecting policies by persons who have no insurable interest, statutory or otherwise, but who are able to take over by assignment a policy taken out in the name of one who initially had such an interest. Therefore we do not want to do anything to permit general assignment. If someone, in fact, pays the premiums of a policy,
  1528
  we have provided that the amount that he has paid—and no more—may form a charge on the sum which eventually becomes payable under the policy itself.
  I come finally to the point raised by the hon. Member for East Ham, North, and the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon). I confess that it is a matter with which I personally have the very greatest sympathy. I refer to the point that the language of Statutes ought to be more simple. I am bound to say that I am very much in favour of simplicity in the drafting of Bills. It is very much easier in my experience to say that a Bill ought to be simple than to draft the simple Bill. I read the proviso to Clause 8 eight times before I really understood what it did. I cannot assure the House with any confidence that I understand now; but when I tried to draft the same purpose in different wording I found that it was not so easy as I thought it must be at first sight.
  Parliamentary draftsmen, who are responsible for drafting these Measures, have a very heavy task in framing the Bills which come before the House. Very frequently their hands are fettered by the language of previous enactments which they are modifying, adding to, or amending, and sometimes also by the language of judicial decisions. It certainly is not an easy matter, as many people think it is, to draft Parliamentary Measures. However, we will gladly consider in Committee any proposed redraft of the proviso to Clause 8 which the hon. Member for Moseley or anyone else may be able to submit.
  I cannot attempt now to deal with the other detailed points which have been raised We will go through the OFFICIAL REPORT carefully and give consideration to each point in order that they may be dealt with when we reach them during the Committee stage. I hope that the House will now feel prepared to give a unanimous Second Reading to this Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

  SUTTON'S HOSPITAL IN CHARTERHOUSE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  6.53 p.m.
  Mr. M. Philips Price (Charity Commissioner): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  As a rule, it is not necessary for the Charity Commissioners to trouble this House with a matter concerning the variation of a trust. However, in this case it is thought to be necessary because Sutton's Hospital in Charterhouse is a rather exceptional case. The view is taken that this trust cannot be altered without the consent of Parliament, because it was set up under Statute. In 1611 a Royal Charter provided funds for an almshouse and a free school for poor persons. I should like to make it clear that the well known school at Charterhouse is not directly affected by this alteration in the trust, though, of course, originally it comes from the same foundation.
  The Charter of 1611 was confirmed by Act of Parliament in the reign of Charles I, in 1627. That is the reason it is felt that any alteration of the trust must have the consent of Parliament. Under the original Charter, a preacher was provided to preach and teach the word of God to the inmates. This provision was confirmed by the Act of 1627. A house was provided, and a sum of £350 a year. In addition, there was appointed a master for general administrative purposes. Under the terms of the trust the master must he a clergyman of the Church of England able to assist the preacher in divine service.
  In 1941 the buildings of Charterhouse in London suffered serious war damage. Some very fine old buildings were destroyed. The governors consider it desirable to set by funds for the purpose of assisting in the restoration of these buildings. In addition, it is expected that insurance money will be available. The Charity Commissioners gave permission in 1929 for the trust to dispense with a preacher when it was found that economies were necessary. That decision was later confirmed. In 1941, after the bomb damage, the Charity Commissioners gave permission for the sum of money set by for the preacher to be set by in future for restoration work.
  1530
  It is generally felt, and the governors agree, that it is unnecessary to nave both a master and a preacher, because both are members of the Church of England and both are able to conduct divine service. What the governors want is that the office of preacher shall be dispensed with and that of master retained. The Charity Commissioners agree with this suggestion, which will save a sum of money. Among the governors is the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Bill consists of two Clauses, the first of which confirms the scheme approved by the Commission in 1929, and again in 1940, to dispense with a preacher. Clause 2 cites the short Title of the Bill. There is a somewhat lengthy Schedule which sets forth in detail the scheme of the Charity Commissioners in 1929 and the variations suggested in 1940 and 1942.
  7.0 p.m.
  Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: On behalf of hon. Members on these benches, I would like to say that we offer no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill. In fact, the principle that there should be recourse to this House after the comparatively short interval of 321 years is one which commends itself to us highly. With regard to the trust and its religious aspect, the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House has shown that not only are the religious aspects to be well regarded, but that the Archbishop is a trustee and will be able to have it under his hand. For all these reasons, we are prepared to support the Bill.
  7.2 p.m.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: I do not desire to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, which has been so felicitously moved by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Philips Price), but I think it is an occasion when we should have a full knowledge of the circumstances, and I am impressed by the paucity of the details which have been given us by the hon. Gentleman. He gave us so little information that I should like to impart some' myself, and also, I hope, elicit a little more from him.
  The hon. Gentleman began his story in 1611, but, of course, it began in 1349, the year of the Black Death, when Sir Walter Manny, who I have no doubt was

  1531
  a lineal "ancestor" of the present Secretary of State for War—purchased six acres of ground at Smithfield in order to bury the victims of the plague, and it continued to be used for that purpose until 50,000 had been interred there. After that, he took the slightly insanitary step of building a monastery on top of them. That monastery, in spite of its inauspicious start, existed and prospered for many years until King Henry VIII came to the Throne. It was then dissolved, and its prior was beheaded in accordance with the practice then prevalent, to which I take no exception at all.
  To take the position of Mr. Thomas Sutton, although he is embedded in the Schedule to this Bill my hon. Friend made no reference whatever to it. It is extremely important to know who he was, and whether his activities were such as would commend themselves to this House. I am glad to be able to assure the House that they were. Sutton made a large fortune out of coalmining, which deserving persons, unhappily, are no longer able to do; we prefer the Coal Board which loses money rather than makes it. With this money, Sutton founded this institution of Charterhouse in the year 1611, when a number of other eminent persons were engaged, for better or worse, in translating the Authorised Version of the Scriptures. He also contributed money for fighting the Spaniards in the Armada, and equipped a vessel which distinguished itself considerably in that engagement.
  Let us turn for a moment to the Schedule to this Bill, to which my hon. Friend paid so little attention. I see there a most disturbing statement. In spite of the various provisions in the preceding Measure, the establishment of the hospital will henceforth cease to include a preacher. If we are to start on that road, we shall find before long that this House will cease to include a Chaplain, and from that it is only a step, if I may say so with all reverence, to ceasing to include a Speaker.
  In this matter of the preacher, my hon. Friend gave us a little further information, because he said that the duties which properly attached to the chaplain are to be discharged by the Master, but I should like to ask him whether he has received any representations, from the "National Union of Chaplains" on this matter,
  1532
  because it seems to me to be a piece of blackmail into which we ought to look further. We were not told what happened to Charterhouse during the Great Fire of London in 1666. Perhaps my hon. Friend did not tell us because, in fact, nothing happened to it, since it was outside the zone of that conflagration. But he might have referred to the fact that Colonel Newcome, who attained such mastery over the Latin language, made historic use of the term "Adsum" as an inmate of Charterhouse. Having made these further points clear, I am content to leave the Bill in the hands of my hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean.
  7.6 p.m.
  Mr. Walter Fletcher: I have heard with horror that I am a product of a plague pit. I believe I am one of the few hon. Members of this House who are old Carthusians, having been educated at Charterhouse. I do not know whether any of them will wish to address the House, but I would like to call attention to Thomas Sutton and to the Founder's Prayer which I heard for about four years nearly every day of my life at term time.
  Mr. Vane: Quarter.
  Mr. Fletcher: It went like this:
  "Thomas Sutton, our municifent benefactor, by whose great benefit we are here maintained for the promotion of piety and good literature."
  I think it is only education like that"—piety and good literature"—which has produced the result that all four old boys of that school are sitting on this side of the House. The piety has been referred to as being preserved, although we are getting d of the preacher, since the master will carry on that duty. But what about good literature? I should like to be assured that the action now being taken will not diminish the opportunities for the study of good literature by those who have the advantage of being educated at this school. These old institutions are so easily swept away, and the economic reasons that are put forward sound so very forcible that, no doubt, nobody would presume to vote against them.
  I feel that we want a little more reassurance from somebody, and I hope that, hi the face of this very old and splendid institution, we shall not pass this Bill very lightly. I do not know whether any other voices of old Carthusians will

  1533
  be raised in support of this theory that piety and good literature should be advanced and may be just as useful in helping one in a Parliamentary career as in any other. Perhaps the tour of us shine with a peculiar light, and that is no doubt due to the fact that we were educated under that principle.
  7.8 p.m.
  Mr. Vane: May I who received such education as I may have thanks to the generosity of Thomas Sutton, say that I do not think hon. Members need have any fear that the founders' objects of piety and good literature will be seriously damaged by the provisions of this Bill. When that particular hospital was founded, there were two institutions side by side in London, and now there are only 60 old gentlemen and the Master considers that he can cater for their needs himself without the aid of a preacher. There is, however, one question which ought to be of great interest to this House, because, after all, this is a hospital not far away from where we are now, a place of pleasant architecture designed for old gentlemen who may have fallen on not too good times. We do not know whether, before very long, we ourselves may not have need to apply to spend our remaining days in this admirable institution, where the same sort of gossip as we indulge in in the smoking room can be continued indefinitely. One other point which was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman who spoke before me, was that many distinguished people had been educated there. There was even one Prime Minister who was, we were told, among the least distinguished but now I am afraid that record has been lost to Haileybury.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: I gather that this refers to the hospital buildings. It has not been made quite clear whether the old gentlemen are to be Old Carthusians. If they are, it would appear to me to have been slightly improper that so many Old Carthusians should have spoken without declaring their interest. Perhaps the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean will make that clear.
  Mr. Philips Price: I understand that there is no provision in the trust that they must be only Old Carthusians; it is open to all. There is an additional reason, of course, why this House should vote for this abolition, because, as the
  1534
  hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) informed us, we might all find ourselves in that position some day. It may be that I, being an Old Harrovian, would not have quite the same chance as an Old Carthusian of getting in, but I know that, in fact, there is no actual privilege for any one class of the community, from whatever source they may have come. It is open to all.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second Time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for Tomorrow.—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]

  ANIMALS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.12 p.m.
  The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I beg to move, "That this Bill be now read a Second time."
  This small Bill, which has rather a comprehensive Title, sets out two things. First, it provides for an extension of the period during which payment may be made to farmers for eradicating bovine tuberculosis from their herds, and, secondly, it amends the Horse Breeding Act, 1918, in regard to the licensing of stallions. These two matters are included in one small Bill for the purpose of convenience. They are, of course, separate matters, and, in commending the Bill to the House, I propose to deal with them very briefly as separate matters.
  The provision dealing with bovine tuberculosis, contained in Clause r, forms Part r of the Bill, and, if hon. Members will compare this Clause with earlier legislation on the subject, they will see that there is no new issue of policy in it at all. The purpose of Clause 1 is simply to extend the authority to make payments, which was given under earlier Acts of Parliament, and which, if not renewed, would expire on 30th September, 1948. I do not intend to take up the time of the House in going into details about previous legislation, but there are, of course, two landmarks that ought to be mentioned. Payment of a bonus on milk from attested herds was first authorised in the Milk Act of 1934, for a period of four years. However, Section 20 of the Agriculture Act, 1937, extended the period and broadened the basis of

  1535
  the payments that might be made. It empowered the Minister of Agriculture—and here I quote from the Act—to:
  "pay to the owner of any herd of cattle in Great Britain such sums as the Minister thinks fit to expend for the purpose of securing so far as practicable that the herd will be free from tuberculosis."
  This enabled the Tuberculosis (Attested Herd) Scheme of 1938, which replaced the earlier scheme, not merely to continue bonus payments of 1d. per gallon and some financial assistance towards qualifying tests, but also to provide, as an alternative to the milk bonus, payments on a "per head of cattle" basis for the benefit of owners of beef herds and other herds from which little or no milk at all was sold. Section 20 of the 1937 Act thus represented a definite change in objective, and encouragement of voluntary eradication of tuberculosis was no longer restricted to dairy herds merely to assure a pure milk supply, but was extended to all herds with the object of eliminating one of the worst forms of wastage in agriculture and increasing the productivity of cattle.
  The payment in the form of the milk bonus was continued simply for its convenience. But it should be noted that the purpose of these payments was quite distinct from that of the quality milk premiums payable, originally, under the milk marketing scheme, and since continued by the Ministry of Food. The period for making payments under the 1937 Act was extended by the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) (No. 2) Act, 1940, until 30th September, 1948. I should mention that the decision to extend the period was actually taken in respect of each herd before the outbreak of war in 1939. It had been hoped in 1939 that, by 1948, the attested herd scheme would be so firmly established as to be able to run on its own impetus. Unfortunately, this hope was frustrated by the war. The scheme was rapidly expanding, but it had to be closed to new entrants, except those holding licences to produce tuberculin tested milk and who wished to proceed to the attestation stage.
  Therefore, practically no further progress could be, or, in fact, was made until the middle of 1944, when the restriction on entry was actually removed. However, the increase in 1943 of the quality premium for tuberculin tested
  1536
  milk, from 2½d. to 4d. a gallon, acted as an indirect incentive to attestation, and there has been a continuous flow of new entrants ever since. Since the middle of 1944—approximately three and a hall years—the number of attested herds in Great Britain has increased by not less than 87 per cent.—from 16,000 to 30,000 herds—while the number of attested cattle has increased by not less than 84 per cent. That, I think, is an achievement carried out by farmers in most difficult times of which they may well feel proud.
  Mr. Alpass: Would my right hon. Friend say what that 84 per cent. represents? Does it represent the total of dairy cattle in the country?
  Mr. Williams: No, Sir, the increase of 84 per cent. was the increase in the number of the cattle in attested herds in the period from the middle of 1944 down to December, 1947.
  Mr. Alpass: Has my right hon. Friend the figure which that percentage represents?
  Mr. Williams: I think I shall be able to give my hon. Friend the figure he asks for in a moment. There are now nearly 1,200,000 attested cattle in Great Britain, or more than one-eighth of the total cattle population. I think we must give Scotland all the medals for making much more progress than was made in Wales or England, although, in three counties in Wales at all events—Pembroke, Cardiganshire and Carmarthen—they have done magnificently. England, unfortunately, lags hopelessly behind.
  I said earlier that the 1937 Act represented a change of objectives. It provided means for initiating large-scale plans for the eradication of animal diseases, and, as I understood then and understand still, the intention was to concentrate, first of all, on the reduction of bovine tuberculosis. But the war intervened and we are now, in 1948, called upon to make another start. Preliminary discussions have already taken place on a long-term plan for the reduction of tuberculosis, area by area. An essential feature of any such plan must be the active encouragement of voluntary attestation to secure the maximum voluntary response in prospective eradication areas before compulsory measures are finally applied.

  1537
  For this purpose it is necessary, therefore, to reintroduce the attested bonus scheme for all types of herd. Clause will continue the power to make such payments. The rate and duration of the payments—and this, of course, is important—will be determined by a scheme requiring the approval of the Treasury and which must be laid before Parliament. It is difficult to say how long it might take to clear the whole of the country of bovine tuberculosis. This will obviously be determined by a number of factors, including the extent to which we can provide ourselves with the necessary veterinary manpower and also with the supply of attested cattle for replacements in those areas. Therefore, it is generally agreed by those who have tried to examine the problem that it cannot take less than 10 or 15 years, or even more, and it would be undesirable, therefore, to place too short a time limit on the authorities to make these payments.
  Accordingly, Clause 1 extends for 10 years—that is to say, until September, 1958—the limit of time for making payments, with power to extend for three successive periods of five years, after approval by the Treasury and confirmation by both Houses of Parliament. Personally I think this is a sound, solid, national investment, and any hon. Member who reads the Hopkins Report, 1944, will also agree that any Government has a moral obligation and responsibility to try to cope with animal diseases in this country.
  Mr. Hurd: Could the Minister say whether under Clause r payments can be made to store rearing farms and beef farms?
  Mr. Williams: The scheme as outlined in Clause r will cover all herds, whether they are pure dairy herds, beef herds or herds from which little or no milk is obtained.
  Part II of the Bill has been agreed by the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself, since the Secretary of State will be responsible for administering Part II in Scotland. This Part provides for an extension of the provision of the Horse Breeding Act, 1918, following recommendations made by the Ministry's Livestock Improvement Committee which is a non-statutory advisory body including both genetical scientists and practical breeders. Under the Horse Breeding Act, 1918, a
  1538
  licence was required for stallions which were travelled or exhibited for service away from home, and licences are only granted for stallions which attain a certain satisfactory standard of health, prolificacy conformation and physique. The Act was designed to restrict breeding from unfit or unsuitable stallions and generally to improve the quality of British horses, and I think it will be generally agreed that it has achieved considerable success.
  There is, however, a serious gap. There is no control over horses standing at home for stud purposes for service either of the owner's mares or for visiting mares, and no matter how unhealthy, unsuitable or how low the standard may be, they can still be used without a licence. The Government have decided, therefore, to accept the recommendations of the Livestock Improvement Committee and to extend the licensing system to all stallions, subject to certain exceptions which are provided for in Clause 2 (2), which brings it into line with the system already in force for bulls and boars under the provisions of the Improvement of Livestock (Licensing of Bulls) Act, 1931, and Section 6 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1944, respectively. Under Clause 2 (1) it will in future be necessary to have a licence or permit for the keeping of any stallion over the prescribed age—two years at present—even if it remains or the owner's premises. Certain exceptions are provided in Subsection (2) for stallions which have attained the prescribed age before the Bill comes into force, and for thoroughbreds and prescribed breeds of ponies.
  The first exception is designed to avoid too sudden a break. It may be perhaps that we are unnecessarily generous. With regard to thoroughbreds standing at home, I think the stringent conditions governing entry into the General Stud Book are ample for this particular purpose; hence their exclusion from the Bill. It is proposed that the exempted breeds shall include hill, forest and moorland breeds of ponies which live in a semi-wild state, where breeding could not by any manner of means be controlled. In considering applications for licences we shall, of course, apply exactly the same standards that are applied to travelling stallions.
  The Bill will cover, therefore, broadly all stallions over the prescribed age, with

  1539
  the exceptions mentioned, including some which do not reach the required standard but which there may be a good reason for keeping entire, for some specialised breeding purpose; we may have some exotic type in a zoological garden which might properly be allowed to mate with its own kind but as to which there is no possible question of it being used for general breeding purposes. If may be that there are other stallions unsuitable for breeding but which their owners, perhaps for sentimental reasons, may wish to keep entire. Then, for instance, there is the type of horse associated with the circus. There is also the type of stallion used for funerals. I understand that this bit of pageantry on the "last trail" gives a good deal of pleasure to mourners in some parts of the country, and that is why they always prefer to have stallions for that kind of work.
  To cover such cases, Clause 4 provides for permits, as distinct from licences under Clause 2. The 1918 Act was very simple and easy to administer in order to license stallions which were travelled or exhibited for service. The task of policing premises where stallions are used, however, will be much more difficult. Hence the power which we seek in Clause 6 for the castration or slaughter of those for which a licence or permit is refused. The powers here correspond closely to those already granted by Parliament in Section 6 of the Improvement of Live Stock (Licensing of Bulls) Act, 1931. I should point out to those who feel that there may be hardship here that the power under Clause 6 is to order slaughter or castration, the owner being able to decide which shall happen. I think it will be generally appreciated that when a stallion on a farm is not required for breeding purposes, almost invariably it is castrated at an early age. If it is desired to postpone the castration to avoid interference with the work on any farm for a short period, this can be done by the granting of a permit under Clause 4. In any case, there is no desire to use Clause 5 or Clause 6 in a vexatious manner; but we must have the power as an ultimate sanction in what may be bad cases.
  Licences granted under existing legislation are for one travelling season only—that is, each year. It does not seem to me reasonable that owners of stallions,
  1540
  whether they travel or not, should have to pay for a licence each year. Therefore, the Bill provides that licences should be granted without limit of time, but subject to revocation at any time. It is intended that the annual inspection should continue, and this arrangement, coupled with the number of stallions concerned, will entail greater expenditure from public funds; but we are satisfied that the upper limit of £20,000 allowed for in the Act of 1918 will be more than sufficient to meet the purpose. As hon. Members will appreciate, the lack of control over the quality and fitness of non-travelling stallions has hindered the improvement and affected the quality of our horses. We feel that that gap ought to be bridged. At the same time, the number of stallions in use for service seems to have fallen to a record low level. I understand that at the moment there are only about 1,500 of them, and of those one fifth are in Scotland.
  This seems, therefore, the right moment for this legislation, which has the support of all the National Farmers' Unions and Breed Societies in England, Scotland and Wales. Experience of the benefits of similar legislation as applied to bulls and boars should make acceptable the general principles of this Bill. I, therefore, commend it to the House. I apologise for not having gone closer into the details, but I shall be ready and willing to listen to any observations made by hon. Members in any part of the House; and if at a later stage it is found possible to improve upon our first effort I shall be very glad to respond to the right kind of overtures from hon. Members.
  7.33 p.m.
  Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman need apologise to the House for the way he has introduced this Bill. It would appear he has done what the House would require; he has given us a clear picture of what he proposes to do by his Measure, and it will be possible at a later stage to discuss any detailed points. As the Minister said, this Bill is divided into two very distinct parts which cannot in any way be connected. In my view, and the view of my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House, the first part is of great importance to the future of our agriculture.

  1541
  The Minister explained that the first part of the Bill seeks to amend Sections 20 and 21 of the Agriculture Act, 1937, extended by Section 4 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940. The object of those Sections in the principal Act was the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. Although the Minister did not give us any indication as to the period in which he thought this particular disease could be cleaned from the country, I think we can assume that, as he has taken powers to extend the principal Act for, in all, 25 years—that is, 10 years by Statute and three further periods of five consecutive years by order—he hopes it will be possible to clear the country of bovine tuberculosis in 25 years. My hon. and right hon. Friends approve the action of the Government in introducing legislation for this purpose.
  Before asking the Minister one or two questions, I must refer to the Tuberculosis (Attested Herds) Scheme of 1938, to which the Minister referred. I am the owner of a small attested herd, of dairy Shorthorns, and I think it is right that I should inform the House of the fact. That important scheme started with very successful results. On that, I think, we are all in agreement. I think we are also in agreement that there was bound to be, through the war years, a setback in the progress that was made between 1938 and 1939. I cannot, however, agree with the Minister that we should be satisfied with the present position. I agree that since the T.T. premium subsidy was increased in 1943, the numbers in the attested herds have risen from 16,000 to 30,000, which represents, in a cattle population of 1,200,000 approximately one eighth of the cattle population. So far so good. But it is difficult, going round the countryside today, to perceive any sense of urgency as to the importance of making more rapid progress in the matter. After making every allowance for the inevitable setbacks due to the war, to have one-eighth of the cattle population cleaned in 10 years is, in my view, a very small percentage. I urge the Minister to press forward his plans.
  I would like now to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two specific questions. Is he satisfied that there are today sufficient veterinary surgeons available for T.T. inspection purposes? I should be in entire agreement that it is of no value to the nation to press forward with this
  1542
  long-term scheme, which is to divide the country up into areas, unless there are sufficient qualified veterinary surgeons to do the job satisfactorily. The Minister has told us that discussions are taking place in the industry to stimulate voluntary attestation, and that he hopes to introduce his eradication scheme. I do not think it would be right to ask where he proposes to introduce it, but I think it is proper to ask him when he proposes to introduce it, if his plans go according, to the timetable of the Bill. When does he propose to reintroduce payments for attested cattle? If he introduced bonus payments for ca le and attested herds, would he take any action to deal with the present premium on T.T. milk? Or would he leave that as it was? Or would he alter the premium on T.T. milk so as to encourage more herds to become attested? These are specific questions of importance.
  My final question on this part of the Bill really refers to a subject which it is not within the power of the right hon. Gentleman's Department to put right; on the other hand, it will be of great importance if this long-term scheme is to be a success. I refer to the disposal of milk from attested herds. I cannot vouch that all my facts are accurate in this regard, but there is a widespread belief—if I am wrong I hope the Minister will correct me—that in many instances this milk is added to the common pool and mixed with unclean milk. Surely, that makes nonsense of the whole thing, from the point of view of encouraging people voluntarily to enter a long-term scheme.
  I admit there are great problems in this connection; but how can producers in all parts of the country, far removed from Westminster and the problems of the centre, believe that the Minister and the Government are in earnest when they find their neighbours taking great trouble, very often at great expense, to produce clean milk and become attested—and even when attestation is achieved, it is difficult to remain attested—only to see the milk put into the common pool with milk which may or may not be clean, from other parts of the country? I ask the Minister to see whether some action can be taken so that this glaring defect may be remedied in any long-term scheme which it is proposed to initiate to obtain voluntary entrants into an attested herd scheme.

  1543
  Although my hon. and right hon. Friends have no objection to the principles in Part II of the Bill, we are not yet fully convinced that there is any necessity for it. The Minister explained the reasons why the Government think it necessary to extend the scope of the 1918 Act, and we agree there may have been a gap; but we are not certain that legislation is necessary to achieve the result the Minister desires. I have studied the 1918 Act, and the diseases which became set out are not actually specified; but I understand that, under common form in that Act, they are recognised as diseases constituting grounds for the refusal of a licence. Is the Minister satisfied that the diseases are all hereditary? Scientific evidence on this point is extremely slender, and is certainly contradictory, and before we pass any new Measure dealing with the licensing of stallions that aspect requires careful examination.
  Mr. Paget: Would the hon. and gallant Member tell us which diseases he has in mind?
  Sir T. Dugdale: No, I would not, because I am not a scientific expert. However, I know there is a dispute, and there are various points of view on what is hereditary and what is not.
  Mr. Paget: I was merely asking whether the hon. and gallant Member could tell us about which diseases there was dispute.
  Sir T. Dugdale: I am not prepared to do that this evening, because I think I should be wrong so to do in that it would draw attention to one particular disease. It would not be right in the House to mention any particular disease. It is a point worth examining, and I ask the Government to do so.
  The Minister is wise in his exemptions, but I suggest that horses which have already reached the prescribed age—which I understand is over two years—should not be entirely exempted from the provisions of the Bill. In other words—is the Bill really necessary? If the Bill is necessary, and if horses of two years plus are exempted, the operation does not become effective for about To years, as I understand the position. I should have thought some figure such as five years or six years would have been better. I would certainly put a figure into the Bill. No doubt that is something we might con
  1544
  sider during Committee. The Minister is right, too, in exempting thoroughbreds other than those travelling for purposes of breeding; but there is doubt whether the drafting of the Bill adequately performs what the Minister has in mind, and there seems to be some confusion.
  Referring to the descriptions "the owner of a horse" and "the keeper of a horse," as I read the Bill the owner of a stallion might use it on his own premises, without a licence, allow mares belonging to the public to visit the stallion, and still be within the law. However, if the stallion were on a neighbouring owner's premises—as thoroughbred stallions often are—and performed exactly the same function in respect of exactly the same mares, the owner would be contravening the law. That is a small point, and one which we might consider in Committee. I believe it is meant to be covered, but as I read the Bill T am not happy that it is.
  A more important matter in regard to thoroughbreds, which certainly ought to be cleared up before the Bill finally receives the Royal Assent, is the question of syndicated stallions. That is an entirely new departure in recent years. Many f these stallions have been bought overseas for very large sums; they do not belong to one owner, but are syndicated. Quite obviously, the Minister does not intend that they should be included within the operation of the Bill, and we must ensure such wording in the Bill as will leave no doubt when it becomes law. Such stallions are syndicated, probably kept at a well-known stud, and anybody wishing to have their services communicates with the manager of the stud. That point is not very clear, and is certainly worth scrutiny.
  The Minister referred to what he had in mind in the passage "a pony of a prescribed breed"—namely, the various moorland and similar breeds which are kept in a wild state. Here, the Bill appears to be quite ridiculous—if I may use that expression—because apparently a pony stallion could walk along the road unaccompanied and the owner would be perfectly within the law, even without a licence. However, if somebody took hold of the stallion and, for safety's sake, walked it along the road, the owner would need a licence, or else be deemed to contravene the law. On my reading

  1545
  of the law, I believe that to be the case, and I suggest that between now and the further stages of the Bill the Minister might consult the breed societies concerned to arrive at a better formula for inclusion in the Bill. It would seem curious that the owner would be within the law were the stallion loose, but would be contravening the law were it led.
  I wish now to say a word about confirmation. There is much feeling in regard to who should be the judge of confirmation. It is perfectly right, as far as disease is concerned, that the veterinary surgeon should be the authority. I hope that when the Minister sets up his panel, confirmation will not be left entirely to the veterinary surgeons, but will be dealt with by experts on breeding, and preferably by nominees of the breeding societies. The Minister explained what he has in mind under Clause 4, which deals with permits. It would appear to deal with a very varied range of horses, from funeral horses to circus horses and sentimental horses. I have no doubt that the provisions will be used sparingly, but why, in this agreed Measure, should we have this tremendous dictatorship Subsection, providing that:
  "(2) The Minister may refuse to grant a permit, or may revoke a permit, on any grounds which appear to him sufficient, and may grant a permit subject to any conditions which he may think fit to impose?"
  We have had many arguments with the Minister on previous Bills about this matter, and we have always said that, providing he makes the decision himself, we are satisfied. This Subsection, however, gives tremendous powers to anyone who is acting on his behalf. Is it really necessary to have these powers? We do not think it is. The remaining Clauses follow very closely the Improvement of Live Stock (Licensing of Bulls) Act, 1937, and are for the most part machinery Clauses and I do not think that any comments are necessary upon them. No doubt, many of the points I have raised can be discussed during the further stages of this Measure, but the principles of both Part I and Part II, namely, to clean up the dairy herds and safeguard the wellbeing of our horse population, are, I am sure, in accordance with the wishes of every hon. Member. For that reason, we are prepared to wish the Bill well,
  1546
  and to give it an unopposed Second Reading.
  7.53 p.m.
  Mr. Alpass: I welcome this Bill, which is designed to continue the grants with the object of eliminating tuberculosis among our cattle. I am disappointed at the rate of progress which has already been made. I do not think anyone can contemplate with any degree of complacency the fact that unless much greater progress is made in the future, it will take 25 years before our herds are clear of this disease. Much stronger and more vigorous measures will have to be taken before we can achieve the desired result. I favour the establishment of a State veterinary service. I believe that there will have to be some degree of compulsion before we are able to achieve the progress we all desire. I am aware that this would mean a very large increase in the number of veterinary surgeons, but in this connection I am glad to note that the Minister has already taken steps to increase the number.
  I hope that the number of veterinary surgeons will be increased as rapidly as possible, because statistics prove, without any doubt, that there is a very close connection between the incidence of disease among cattle and the proportion of veterinary surgeons to the number of cattle. I have seen figures showing that, with the exception of France, this country has a smaller number of veterinary surgeons than any other country with dairy herds. It is curious to note that this country has, with the exception of France, the greatest amount of preventible diseases.
  I was discussing this matter yesterday with perhaps the greatest expert on this question in the country, Professor Bourtflower, who is head of the Royal Agricultural College at Cirencester. He suggested that one step which would have an important effect would be to prohibit any person starting dairy farming unless he held a certificate to the effect that his cattle were clean of disease. I think that much greater progress could be made, if we attempted to deal with this disease district by district and county by county. I believe that that has been done very successfully in the United States, and, as the Minister has said, in certain parts of Wales.
  My second suggestion is that owners of known reactors should be prevented from

  1547
  selling them to other farmers. Owners of cattle known to be affected have sent the cattle to the market without disclosing this information, with the result that disease has sometimes been spread to an alarming extent. I suggest that as soon as possible something should be done by regulation and order to prevent this practice. I regard this Bill as an instalment and only an instalment, of a broad and comprehensive Measure which has for its object the cleaning of all herds in this country of this disease, and ensuring the provision of pure milk to our people.
  7.59 p.m.
  Mr. Hurd: I also wish to welcome this little Bill. Although it is a little Bill, it can lead to great things if the Minister will give dairy farmers and the veterinary service their head in clearing the country of bovine tuberculosis. The present Minister is always cautious. By this Bill he is continuing what has proved to be a good line, and that is giving grants to individual herd owners who can establish a clean bill of health. Some progress has been made, but it is only small. The Minister was good enough to give me some information, in reply to a Question today, on how the different counties are getting on with building up herds of attested cattle.
  Under the Agriculture Act, 1937, which we are now extending by this Bill, we have spent £3,500,000. There are 13.9 per cent. of our cattle in Great Britain in the attested scheme. England has not come out too well in the picture, although I was delighted to see that my own county, Berkshire, and the counties of Surrey and Westmorland had topped 20 per cent. in the number of attested cattle in proportion to the total number of cattle in English counties. Scotland comes out much better, with some county figures of 79 per cent., 84 per cent., and, in Zetland, 99 per cent. That is a good beginning towards what the hon. Member for Thorn-bury (Mr. Alpass) and I want to see—a clean area. Wales has a good record—Cardigan and Carmarthen both running well over 60 per cent., but for the country as a whole the figure of 13.9 per cent. is not good going. I, personally, feel that the time has come for the Minister to give a much more vigorous lead in this matter. I am thinking not solely from the farmers' point of view, but of children who are still
  1548
  being attacked by bovine tuberculosis. This is something which we should tolerate not a day longer than is necessary. We are only tinkering with this problem if we proceed by the cautious stages which the Minister promises us by this Bill.
  We need more veterinary practitioners. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Thornbury about the desirability of a State veterinary service. Let us, first of all, see how we get on with the State human medical service before we apply a State service to animals. It is quite clear that we need not only more veterinary practitioners, which means more accommodation in the veterinary schools and better professional prospects. We must now face, too, the problem of providing some compensation for those farmers who are in an area where the majority have clean herds, but who themselves have not managed to get their own herds clean. I know of one case where a man is very keen, but he has met with some bad luck, and it looks as though it will be beyond his financial resources to catch up with his neighbours. There are some areas in Berkshire and Wiltshire, where local farmers would support the Minister wholeheartedly if he said that in a year's time, or two years', he would make a certain area, say, five miles by 10 miles, or whatever size he thought fit, into a clean area. That would be making a start, and the snowball would grow until the whole county, and then a group, would have been cleared.
  I am a member of the Council of the Royal Agricultural Society, and from next year we intend to limit entries of cattle at the Royal Show to those from attested herds. There is the backing of the premier of the Agricultural Society in England. I should have thought that the Ministry of Agriculture would be in the van. We shall not have any clean areas by 1949, although the Royal Show will be clean. The Society have now sponsored a trophy to be given each year to the county which makes most progress under the attested herds scheme. I am sure that they would gladly alter the terms of the gift to enable the trophy to be given to the first area that becomes completely clean.
  When the Minister was speaking, I asked him whether this new provision for attested farms would cover the upland

  1549
  farms, where calves are reared not only for dairy herds but for beef herds. I was glad to hear him say that it would, because in my view it is vital, if dairy farms are to become clean, and keep clean, to have reservoirs in the uplands from which they can draw attested young stock which they know are clean and sound. I hope the Minister will give every encouragement to the rearing of more high quality dairy and beef calves under the attested scheme on upland farms. This applies particularly to Wales, as well as to the downland of the South of England.
  I would like to say a few words about the second part of the Bill, which deals with heavy horse breeding. We are asked to approve further expenses under the Horse Breeding Act, 1918. We are to bring in licensing provisions to cover stallions that do not travel. The Minister said that this part of the Bill had the support of the farmers' unions and the horse breeding societies. I maintain, however, that the problem of licensing is not the most vital matter today. Horse breeding societies are passing through extremely bleak times, and I doubt whether the expenditure of effort, as well as money, on tinkering with the licensing provisions will really help them. I would like to read a paragraph from a letter which came to me front the secretary of the Tyneside Agricultural Society, which is in Mr. Speaker's Division—Hexham, Northumberland. It states:
  "In common with other societies who travel stallions my committee is now faced with a difficult position. Owners of stallions whom we have approached inform us that they cannot see their way to let horses to the society unless there is a guaranteed adequate return. It will readily he appreciated that with the present grants made by the Ministry, of £30 up to 60 mares, and an additional £10 afterwards, it is impossible to guarantee an adequate return to the owners."
  This society wrote to the Minister on 4th November, urging him to revise the system of grants to enable them to carry on at the higher costs prevailing today. I have had a similar letter from a member of the Percheron Society, which is very anxious to get good stallions at work, and keep them at work. Horse breeding is on the decline through being unable to put out enough high quality stallions under the terms of the Ministry's grants. The Minister told me today that he was looking at this again, and I hope he will find means of modifying
  1550
  his grant system to enable these societies to carry on their good work.
  Some may think that with the advance of mechanisation heavy horses will not be needed. I may be old-fashioned, and a little cautious in my farming policy, but I still like one or two horses about the farm. I think they earn their keep. If we are to have horses, as I think we shall have for many years to come, let us see that they are good horses, and encourage the work of the horse breeding societies. The Minister was asked about this matter of grants back in November by the Tvueside Agricultural Society. It is now February, and the terms of the grants have not yet been adjusted to meet the needs of these societies. I hope that the necessary steps will now be taken to this end.
  I welcome the Bill, and I hope that the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary will give us, in more definite terms, an undertaking that it will be used as a real opportunity to inspire the farming community to get rid of bovine tuberculosis. We can do this in a much shorter time than 25 years, but it will need a more vigorous lead from the Ministry than we are getting at the moment.
  8.10 p.m.
  Mr. M. Philips Price: It is extremely important that this Bill should continue the good work of the 1937 Act. Like other speakers in this Debate, I am very disturbed that it will take 25 years, at the present rate of progress, before we can clean up the herds of this country. The figure of one-eighth for clean herds for the whole of the country is far too low. It is, of course, not easy to see how a speed up can take place. Suggestions have been made, and I think that the Minister must think out, as soon as possible, how to speed up the rate of progress. I feel that I ought to disclose to the House that I am the owner of a tuberculin-tested herd, and, therefore, I have a personal interest in this matter. I have watched the growth of this slow process of cleaning up our herds for many years. Several false starts have been made. I remember that when we were starting this voluntary scheme a good many years ago we did not have the right serum, and I think that for a time we extended the disease instead of stopping it. We have now the right serum, and there is nothing to prevent us from going ahead.
  Mr. Hurd: We think so.
  Mr. Price: The trouble is that certain areas seem to be better favoured than others, but I do not think that that is necessarily because the farmers in the cleaner areas are better farmers than those in areas that are not so good. I am afraid that my own county of Gloucester is not very high up in the list.
  Mr. Hurd: It is 8.6.
  Mr. Price: Wales and Scotland are very good. I think that conditions are better in the mountainous and sparsely populated regions. In the low-lying heavily populated counties of England, with big markets and considerable turnovers of store stock, the contact is very much greater than in the areas where there is less tuberculosis. This evidence inclines one to think that climatic and geographical conditions, are a factor in this case. If that is so, we have to look for a remedy. I know small farmers in Gloucestershire Who have excellent herds with fine milking records, but they dare not go into the scheme because 30 per cent. of their herds would react, and they could not afford to do so. The big farmers are in a different position, and can much more easily stand the burden.
  I am wondering whether we shall not have to consider some form of compensation in those areas where conditions are bad. I do not say that it should be on the same basis as that for foot and mouth disease, but that a certain percentage of the value of the animals should be paid to the owners especially of small herds to encourage them to come into the scheme. I do not know if that is workable, but I do not see why it should not be. Something like that would give a fillip, which is so necessary in some areas.
  Then there is the important question of the dispersal of reacting herds. The hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) said that we ought to tackle this, and I agree with him. But I do not agree with him when he said that we ought to prevent the owner of a reacting herd from selling. He must get rid of his animals. I think there should be a scheme whereby these reactors should be taken over and disposed of for meat. Do not let us forget that a reactor may be a perfectly good animal
  1552
  for the butcher. She may not even be giving tubercular milk. She may have tubercular adhesions causing reaction, but may otherwise be a perfectly sound economic animal. There should be some way by which that animal can be put into a pool and sold for meat after inspection. The present situation is most unsatisfactory. The disease is being spread by reactors being flung on the market where anyone can buy them, and they go into herds and increase the disease still further.
  Mr. Alpass: Owners of known reactors should not be allowed to sell them to other farmers.
  Mr. Price: If they are put on the market, farmers will get them all the same, and they will go about continuing to spread disease. But, I think that some method of pooling will have to be gone into if we are to have a stepping up of this scheme. I hope that the Minister will give this matter serious consideration so that we may get rid of this trouble much more speedily.
  As regards Part II of the Bill, I agree with the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) that we still have need for horses in agriculture. A farmer must have up-to-date machinery, but he cannot do without one or two horses. There are all sorts of odd jobs for which it is cheaper to use horses than machinery. Moreover, the English thoroughbred still has its value, and is likely to have it overseas. There may well be a possibility of earning dollars or other hard currencies by the export of thoroughbred horses, and I know that breed societies are much concerned about some owners of stallions who keep them at home. Some may have disease, and disease is being spread about the country because of this so-called "pirate" stallion system. If it is possible to get stallions licensed, it will be a step in the right direction, and I am glad that the Minister has included that in the Bill.
  8.20 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Bury St. Edmunds): I should very much like to continue the argument which has been joined in by Members on both sides of the House. The point which I should first like to make is that, in my opinion, we are going much too slowly in getting anywhere. I want to speak particularly on Part II of the Bill. I am afraid I cannot agree with my

  1553
  hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) that this Bill is a step in the direction of progress. It is the other way round, for it is a step backward. It is not only another control on the wretched private owner but, as the Minister has told us, it represents an increased cost to the taxpayer. Not only is the Bill clumsy, but it is extremely untidy and absurd in places.
  In the first place, I want to look at the position of our horse population. At the present moment, according to last June's returns, there are 597,000 horses; in 1918 on agricultural holdings alone we had 1,585,000. That is a very nasty outlook. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), I want to see a few more horses back on the farms, but this Bill is not going to help us to get them. We have today very highly organised breed societies, which did not exist in 1918. We have not got nowadays to provide a large number of troopers and light draughts as we had to then. If we are going to make it more difficult now for the owners of stallions we shall reduce the horse population rather than increase it. That confirms my view that by this Bill we are inclined to waste money. The Minister said it is going to cost us more than it has done since 1918. How can it when we had one and a half million horses then and have only half a million now? Surely there should be less work even if there are extra rules.
  As regards the clumsy and untidy part of the Bill, I am glad to see that the thoroughbred stallion standing at home is to be excluded. We all know that a thoroughbred has to go through a severe test on the racecourse to prove its worth before it stands in the stud. Why is it necessary to put in the proviso in Clause 2 (2) laying down that if a thoroughbred stallion leaves its owner's premises it has to have a licence? That means that if an owner takes a stallion across the road into a neighbour's yard he has to have a licence for that stallion although it would serve exactly the same number of mares. Do not let us forget that often it is the mare which goes to the stallion rather than the stallion which goes to the mare. Mechanisation enables mares to be brought to where the stallion is standing rather than the stallion travelling round the countryside. At the same time, many stallions do not actually stand on their own premises.
  1554
  Often they stand at someone else's yard, which is generally nearby, but, as I read the Bill, that cannot be done in future without a licence for the stallion. It seems to me that it is rather a slipshod way of tackling the matter.
  The next question I want to ask is, who exactly is in charge of a stallion, the owner or controller? Where there is a thoroughbred stallion standing out is it fair that the stud groom or the small man who is actually looking after that horse should be considered the owner? The horse might be worth something like 50,000 and the stud groom or the small man has to stand all the racket because some particular form is not filled up or because the horse is not licensed. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond said, what about a syndicate owner or management committees that sometimes are employed by these syndicate owners? Generally there are several gentlemen on these management committees. Do they all get fined if something goes wrong? It is a nice way for the Government to make an easy bit of money, but it is not very fair.
  The next matter I should like to raise is more of a Committee point but in a genral way it dos arise on the Second Reading. It arises on Clause 4 where it is left in the hands of the Minister to grant or not to grant permits or licences. We all know that the Minister has to take the advice of the man on the spot. It is not the Minister's advice, but advice which is given to him by somebody. Where a thoroughbred is being dealt with a very large sum of money might very well be involved. Is it fair to leave that in the hands of one individual who is a servant of the Minister? Apparently the Parliamentary Secretary does not like what I am saying.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): I am wondering if the hon. and gallant Gentleman has got it right. The granting of a permit is not the same as the granting of a licence. The granting of a licence is under quite different conditions to the giving of a permit. A permit will not refer to a thoroughbred, standing or travelling.
  Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: From the reading of the Bill I thought that was so and if I am wrong, I apologise. The next

  1555
  point is in regard to the paragraph which says that where a notice is served it will be taken that whoever gets it will be responsible for notifying the owner. It may be given to a wretched fellow who has nothing to do with the horse itself, and if that is so why should he be responsible for a fault of the Ministry? This seems to me to be the most extraordinary pargaraph I have ever read. I hope to get those few points which I have raised talked about in Committee. I still feel that this part of the Bill is quite unnecessary at the present time when our horse population has dropped to such an appalling extent, and that it would be very much better to leave the matter in the hands of the breeding societies who are now working extremely well, have good stallions and have a reliable check on them.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: I have been interested in this subject for the last three years. Like the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Philips Price), I am an interested party. I am delighted that the Minister of Agriculture is continuing the scheme, but one took that for granted. I was sorry that the Minister did not tell us more about his real plans for speeding up the process. Though we may be quite pleased with the progress made since the end of the war, we still have a long way to go, and we ought to be considering how the progress can be increased. Those who have gone into the scheme are the most enterprising people, but as the scheme goes on there will come a time when it will be more difficult to make progress. Because farmers have nearly doubled the number of attested herds during the last three and a half years, it does not necessarily follow that they will double them again in a similar period. There are natural advantages and difficulties affecting different areas.
  I come from Cumberland, between two areas which are remarkably free from tuberculosis. One is Westmorland, where 31 per cent. of the livestock are now free. The other is Ayrshire, where 79 per cent. are free. The reasons why they have done so well differ. There is a natural freedom from tuberculosis in Westmorland. We think it is because of the
  1556
  limestone. It is certainly not because of good housing for cattle in that district. They do not have good housing. In Ayrshire, the Scots got up early in the morning and started this kind of thing before England was awake. In many ways they have improved their Ayrshire cattle very considerably. Long before we had a scheme there were breeders of pedigree Ayrshire cattle who were using the tuberculin test, and long before we had any scheme of attestation there was an area in Ayrshire which was quite free of tuberculosis.
  Mr. Philips Price: Can the hon. Member give me the figures for Cumberland?
  Mr. Roberts: I am coming to those. I shall not miss them. In many ways we can claim to be the top county in England. Though we have not got the highest percentage of attested cattle—the percentage is only 17.7—we have the greatest number of clean herds of any county. We have 783 farmers who have cleaned their herds, whereas Westmorland comes next with 616. The two counties together stand very well. Another reason why we do not get on faster in Cumberland is that the scheme applies effectively only to dairy cattle. I would like to know the percentage of dairy herds in the scheme in eaeh county. The information might be obtained from the Milk Marketing Board, which pays out the bonuses, and should know the total number of herds supplying them and the total number of herds which are drawing the T.T. or the attested bonus. I should have thought that the percentage of dairy herds declared must be considerably higher than the percentage of the total cattle in the country, because if we look at the list of counties we see that in the essentially arable counties, where the stock is mainly store stock for fattening, the percentage is very low because nobody bothers with the testing of their store stock.
  That is a difficulty we have in Cumberland, a county where not only is dairying carried on but livestock are reared for stores and a certain amount of fattening goes on, and it is quite impossible to find any regular supply of store stock to bring on to an attested farm. Therefore, if one has an attested dairy one cannot within the attested boundary also trade in store stock. There ought to be some greater inducement to those who

  1557
  rear and deal in store stock to have them tested and to provide a reservoir of attested tuberculosis-free stores so that dairy farmers who are not solely dairy farmers but also go in for fattening can keep their attested dairy stock and yet buy attested stores. That would help to increase the total number of cattle which are free and bring in more farmers who hesitate to come in now because they need to buy stores at some times of the year.
  My chief feeling about this Bill is that it still leaves our greatest difficulty untackled. It does not show any real determination on the part of the Ministry to hurry the cleaning of our stock. However, the greatest difficulty and the greatest obstacle in the way of further progress is an administrative one, the multiplicity of authorities which have to deal with all matters concerning dairies. Hardly an authority in the country does not come into it at some point. Suppose one wants to clean one's herd of tuberculosis. One goes to the Ministry of Agriculture and its vets. When one has done that, one wants to qualify for the higher bonus for T.T. milk which comes ultimately under the Ministry of Health. One gets only 1d. per gallon for having one's cattle free from tuberculosis and one gets another 3d. if one complies with the Ministry of Health's ideas about clean milk.
  One therefore goes to the Ministry of Health and then to one's local authority. It is the county council which grants the licence, hut it is the rural district council which looks at one's buildings. If the rural district council says that one must improve one's buildings, off one goes to the town and country planning people to get approval for the alteration of one's building and to the Ministry of Supply for permits to get one's licences for the building. If I strayed into that any further, I should be outside the scope of this Bill, but it is relevant to point out that in the chain of procedure for cleaning up the dairy herds and providing a disease-free supply of milk, the wretched farmer has to deal with half a dozen or more different authorities and Ministries.
  I am disappointed that when this opportunity for renewing this admirable Act arose, the Ministry, who have been in consultation with everybody concerned for the last two years or more, could not pro?
  1558
  duce a much more comprehensive scheme to cover these difficulties, to cover the question of the eradication areas, and to point to the time, which has arrived in some areas, when the eradication areas, where a few people may stand in the way, perhaps not because of their fault but because of special difficulties, might be declared.
  This Bill is generally an uninteresting repetition of what has been done before. It produces nothing new as far as tuberculosis is concerned, and it is exceedingly disappointing that now, when the agricultural community is on its toes and is showing, by getting results under the old procedure, that it is ready to do this, the Government have not given a greater lead. I believe there is an opportunity to make a great step forward now, and I hope that, in replying, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to show that something is going on. Maybe agreement has not been reached, maybe it requires more money than the Treasury want to give at present, but we would like to have some indication that consideration is being given to greater output. If the shortage is of vets, what is being done about providing more of them? Let us be assured that the Government are not quietly sitting back and, having taken power to renew a prewar Act, expecting that this job will take a quarter of a century.
  8.42 p.m.
  Mr. Dye: May I follow the line of argument of the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) in dealing with the first part of this Bill as it applies to dairy herds and the eradication of tuberculosis? Could we not expect the Ministry to gather together all those responsible for the administration of this Measure to see if they cannot find a way to hurry up its progress? As has been said already, the county councils come in through their medical officers of health, the rural district councils come in through their sanitary inspectors, the war agricultural committee comes in, and also the Ministry's veterinary inspectors and the Milk Marketing Board. When the Government come along at this time of day only to continue what has been done in the past, and one realises that they have covered only one-eighth of the dairy herd population of the country, it is a disappointment to hon. Members on this side of the House.

  1559
  Certain parts of the country are almost free from tuberculosis, some have made good progress, others have made very little. What is the reason? Surely the Ministry ought to find out why some areas lag behind? It is true that those lagging behind are areas with a greater density of cattle population, but that is an added reason why those areas should be dealt with much more speedily than at present. Although this Bill deals only with the cattle population, tuberculosis is present also in pigs and poultry, and if the main purpose of the Bill is to eradicate tuberculosis from all animals to prevent it spreading to human beings, we must give attention to all livestock on the farms.
  We are told the main reason for the present rate of progress is the limited number of veterinary surgeons available to operate the scheme. I may be somewhat unorthodox to suggest it, but surely it would be possible to train other people, not as veterinary surgeons, but as assistants, who could help carry out the work under the supervision of veterinary surgeons? It does not require a fully trained veterinary surgeon to carry out all the work in connection with the testing of cattle.
  I urge the Minister to see if his agricultural executive committees cannot take a more progressive view, at least in some counties of this aspect of their work. Recently, I have drawn the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture to a case in my division of a farmer who has taken over some rather backward pasture land, thoroughly drained it, and cleaned it up, and now wishes to proceed with a dairy herd free from tuberculosis. He asked the committee whether they would give their support to the necessary buildings and cottages, so that a modern dairy farm could now take the place of what in the past has been semi-derelict land; but the committee have stated that they would not give their support to such a venture.
  Surely this aspect of dairy farming, and the improvement of dairy herds, should find in the committees and their officers people who are enthusiastic and willing to support every farmer who wants to make progress. I ask the Minister to see if he cannot get the agricultural executive committees and all
  1560
  other authorities administering the present scheme to devise ways and means of speeding up its operation so that we can have our dairy herds and all cattle clean and free from tuberculosis, and attention can be given to other animals on the farm, as well.
  Probably my views on Part II of the Bill differ from those of other hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate. So far as I can see, the decrease in the number of horses on the farms is going on so rapidly that in 10 or 20 years there will be very few draught animals left, or needed, on the farms of this country. There will always be fanciers who want to see a lovely horse, to stroke its mane and ride it occasionally. But, if we wish to increase food production in this country, we should get some experienced people from the engineering industry with tractors and other implements, for those are the means by which we shall increase the production of food from the arable areas and maintain the agricultural population. I do not think the Government are putting their money on the right horse in Part II of the Bill. I would very much rather they backed the steel horse and saw that those who are manufacturing tractors and other implements for agricultural purposes have all the steel they require, and get them on to the farms to enable the farmers to produce a greater quantity of food.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. Gerald Williams: I wish to enlarge on some of the remarks made on Part II of the Bill. I agree with the Minister this is the right time to bring in a Bill, because during the war we have got rid of a great many scrub stallions, and we can now start afresh. The Bill as at present drafted, however, is scarcely worth putting before Parliament. I can see a good many flaws in it, and although the Minister says that breed societies have agreed to it—I know they have been consulted—they have not had any time to call meetings and really give it their considered opinion. I was indeed glad to hear the Minister say that he was open to every kind of suggestion that would improve the Bill, and that he would do what he could to include our suggestions. Accordingly, I shall make some.
  One of my hon. Friends has asked why only the young stallions are to be licensed.

  1561
  It seems quite illogical to license the young stallions which will reach the age of two in the future and not all that already exist in the country. No reason has been convincingly given for doing that. The old stallions may go on for 10, 12, it may he 15 years, producing progeny when they themselves are quite unsound. There may be great difficulties in covering the whole of the country. It may even make one or two people bankrupt and cause trouble and concern, but the Minister did not tell us that. Unless he can put forward some weightier reasons, I consider that all animals should be covered by the Bill.
  The next weakness is that thoroughbreds are exempt. Thoroughbreds are an important export, and the credit of this country should be upheld by the soundness of its thoroughbreds. Why are thoroughbreds exempt? The temptation to keep an unsound thoroughbred is far greater than the temptation to keep a minor class of stallion because the fees which a thoroughbred can command are much higher. Therefore, the temptation is much greater. One might find a case of a little man in a country village who keeps a half-bred stallion, and who is subject to the requirement of having to license his stallion, whereas his competitor across the road who has a thoroughbred, which may be a roarer, blind in one eye, have spavin and ringbone, does not require to have any licence. Why is that? A thoroughbred which is unsound can cause as much trouble, can do as much harm as any horse or pony in the country.
  There is another anomaly about exempting thoroughbreds. Arab horses are entered partly in the Arab stud book and partly in the appendix to the general stud book. That means that the Arabs in the general stud book are to be exempt and the Arabs in their own stud book will require to have a licence. If that is so it seems that something should be done to put the Bill straight. The third weakness is that prescribed breeds are exempt. The reason for that is that it is difficult to catch ponies that are running on the moor and give them a licence, but I wonder if it is impossible? The rams on the Welsh hills are all rounded up each year and are under control, and members of a Welsh breed society think it would be possible to control the stallions there. There are many
  1562
  scrub stallions quite unsuitable for breeding running over the hills. It would be much better to take them away and vastly improve the breed. The Minister should talk this over carefully with the societies or with anyone who knows the possibilities of controlling these animals. If he thinks it could be done he should bring such a provision into the Bill at a later stage.
  If this is not possible, the Bill proposes to prescribe certain breeds which are to be exempted. We understand that those are the mountain and moorland breeds—Dartmoor, Exmoor, Welsh, Shetlands, and so on. Would it not, therefore, be better, instead of prescribing certain breeds by name, to state in the Bill that those animals running wild in their native surroundings should be exempted? There is no reason why, because a man living in the North of England, or near London, keeps a Dartmoor stallion in his stud that it should be exempted from having a permit, any more than any other breed of horse.
  The other weakness in the Bill is that licences are to become permanent. At present they are issued annually. A horse very seldom develops a scheduled disease when it is two years old. It is when it becomes an old horse that it goes wrong in its heart, its wind, or eye, or whatever it may be. Once the permit has been given, the Minister has told us that the animal is open to an annual inspection. That is not in the Bill. It merely states that a great deal of money is going to be saved because licences are made permanent, instead of annual. The Minister gave us his assurance that an annual inspection will be made, but that is not enough. Why not put it in the Bill? We should then be satisfied that the licensing system was thorough and the Bill worth while.
  The last weakness concerns the list of diseases. The Minister said there was no need to change the list. I am not going to suggest any other diseases which should be included, but I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the next paragraph of these regulations, which says that any horse that "goes in the wind" after it is nine years old is all right, and can have a licence. Because a horse "goes in the wind" when it is nine years old, a licence can be granted, but if it "goes in the wind" when it is eight

  1563
  years old a licence cannot be granted. I do not know why. It does not make sense.
  A great deal depends on the veterinary surgeons who are going to give these licences. I hope the Minister will choose the right men and pay them well in order to encourage the best types to come forward to get on the Minister's rota. I welcome the Bill, if my suggested improvements are included. It is essential that thoroughbreds should be included. It should also be stated in the Bill that there is to be an annual inspection. I hope the Minister will reconsider including all existing stallions, or else give a valid reason for not doing so, and that he will consider what I have said about the mountain and moorland breeds.
  8.59 p.m.
  Mr. Scott-Elliot: I wish Ito confine myself entirely to Part I of this Bill. Like the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk (Mr. Dye), I suffer from a certain degree of disquiet at the slow progress which has been made in the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. There have been all kinds of difficulties on account of the war, but nevertheless progress has been very slow indeed.
  I do not want to say anything contentious about this, but we in Scotland have a slightly better record than exists in England. Nevertheless, I want to give a practical example of the state of affairs in my own county. Recently I had occasion to be present at the examination of 40 heifers. Many of them were shepherd-bred heifers from the hills, not a bit likely to be suffering from bovine tuberculosis. However, of those 40, only 25 passed the veterinary surgeon, eight were declared to be reactors and seven were described as being doubtful. It is probable that the seven doubtfuls were unlikely to pass, from what I heard the surgeon say. Therefore, it may be said that 15 of the 40 failed in the test. That was in an area which is supposed to be one of the best in the country.
  That is only the beginning of the story. A heifer when young is far less likely to be a reactor. When she is older she is more likely to be suffering from tuberculosis and to give milk unfit for human consumption. How are we to get rid of this state of affairs? Of course, we have
  1564
  the system of the attested herd, but we must go beyond that. We must build up a system of attested areas into which no one will be allowed to bring cattle which are non-attested. I know that there are great difficulties in that respect. Probably it would be easier to do that in counties like Dumfriesshire, Kirkcudbrightshire, and the Lowlands of Scotland, than elsewhere. In those parts of Scotland we have a large number of beef-type cattle—black Galloways—which are not normally subject to tuberculosis. Indeed it is very rare for a Galloway cow to be found to be a reactor.
  We must try to build up in one part of the country an attested area which will be an example to the rest of the country. We must do that by means of a price differential in respect of attested material. I think that ultimately we ought to put such a premium on the production of attested milk that it will be made worth while to produce it. Next, it must be done with the assistance of the money which it is proposed to spend under this Bill. Finally, it must be brought about by the system of scheduling certain attested areas which we hope will henceforth be free from tuberculosis.
  My final point is that it may be that we have been trying to produce in this country cattle which produce too much milk. I believe that that is so. We have been trying to force nature too much. I know that in certain cases it has undoubtedly caused diseases, such as mastitis, when farmers have attempted to make cattle produce more milk than nature meant them to give. May it not be that that suggestion is equally applicable in the case of tuberculosis? What we want to produce is healthier cattle which will not have to be destroyed at the end of two, three or four years. We want to produce cattle which will continue to be useful and which will not be a loss to the farmer. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary would do very well to bear that in mind.
  9.4 p.m.
  Major Legge-Bourke: I wish to speak about Part I of the Bill. There is one consideration which should be borne in mind in regard to attested herds. This affects particularly the Jersey and Guernsey breeds. I am interested in the Jersey breed. As far as I know, in the island of Jersey bovine tuberculosis

  1565
  has been eradicated completely. I am not certain about the position in Guernsey. I have been in touch with people in Jersey who have confirmed that animals which come from a perfectly clean island sometimes react when they get to this country. I believe that climate is in some way connected with this position. I suggest that the Minister might have gone a little further in dealing with this point.
  The time is approaching when we must consider the possibility that animals coming into this country from outside should be held for a time in a pool area. Especially will that be true when the Minister establishes his free area, as it will be most essential that he should form an area, where imported cattle can go for a period which I think should be 60 days. I hope he will give that matter consideration, because I believe that it is not always the fault of the farmer when a cow which has come from the islands reacts. It may sometimes be, but more often than not it is the case, when cows react, that it is because the germs have been dormant and have only come out when the cow becomes subject to certain climatic changes. I hope the Minister will bear that point in mind.
  There is, of course, no doubt that, however estimable the continuation of Part I of this Bill may be, nevertheless there are other things which are of equal importance in eradicating bovine tuberculosis. I suggest that the Minister should visit some of the attested sales, because, although the rules for running an attested herd may be obeyed in the herd, I do not believe that they are always obeyed at sales. So far as the cleanliness of cattle is concerned, it is most noticeable sometimes that there are, in the sale yard, attested cattle, supposed to have come from an attested herd, in a condition which can only be described as filthy. That is contrary to all the rules and regulations laid down for the production of T.T. milk. One wonders whether, in such cases, the supervision is always as good as it should be.
  I hope the Minister will realise the difficulty which confronts the farmer trying to run an attested herd. If he has a large number of cows and is milking them three times a day, and if his labour is short, he will skimp the various things that should be done from the point of view of the production of clean milk. There
  1566
  is no one factor which would more assist the production of clean milk in this country than an increase in the labour force. There is no doubt that the Women's Land Army has played a very great part in this direction, and I am glad that the Minister is going to continue them. I hope he will realise that manpower is the fundamental problem in this question, and that, however necessary Part I of this Bill may be, it will not achieve its purpose unless the men are there to see that the various rules and regulations are carried out.
  So far as the Second Part of the Bill is concerned, I think that every horse in the nation has been covered, except Pegasus on the arms of the Airborn Division and the horses of the Household Cavalry. I believe that the Minister might have paid rather more tribute to the breeding societies than he has done, because I believe they have done very good work. I know that, in my own constituency, they have achieved results which are outstanding in quality. I thought that the Minister's opening remarks tonight rather seemed to imply that these breeding societies have not been able to carry out their job properly in regard to purifying the various breeds. I hope he does not mean that, and that if he does not, the Parliamentary Secretary will clear up the matter when he replies.
  I believe that it is right that stallions should be treated equally, whether they serve at home or go out, but all these licences are new forms of control—and I think the right hon. Gentleman has a perfectly good idea of what I think of controls. It is a poor reward for these societies who have shown that private individuals can get together and can purify the breed themselves, without the Minister forcing it down their throats and without compulsion of any sort being used. I resent every increase in compulsion which this Government introduce, and I believe that, in this particular case, it is only equity to bring all stallions under the same ruling. Perhaps, as right hon. Gentlemen opposite so often say, this is a tidier way of doing things. Personally, I believe we shall never make agriculture really tidy, and I am not sure that we shall ever make horse-breeding really tidy. I hope the Minister will realise that the more these societies improve their breeds, the less need there is for any of this. Let us hope the day will come when it will he possible

  1567
  to lift all these horrible restrictions because of the fact that the societies will be doing their job without any Ministerial threats.
  9.11 p.m.
  Mr. Boyle: In a very few words, I wish to make some comments on Part I of the Bill from a different point of view from any that has already been expressed. I shall not refer to Part II of the Bill because, frankly, I know nothing about it.
  With regard to tuberculosis in animals, I have to plead guilty, like others before me, of being an interested party. In my case, however, I am at the receiving end, and not the producing end. I am concerned because in the Debate tonight not sufficient stress has been laid on the beef side. I entirely agree that the milk side is a very important one indeed, but I do not think we stress often enough how tubercular cattle affect our beef production and our production wastage. I have had some experience of standing in large abattoirs in this country, and seeing, day after day, bodies of beef hanging there raked from end to end because for generations we have failed to tackle this problem as strongly as we ought to have done.
  In the Manchester abattoir, of which I have the greatest experience, hundreds of tons of beef are destroyed every year as the result of the ravages of tuberculosis. This causes great concern, not only to people interested in the sale of beef, but also to the general public who, month by month, read reports in local newspapers of the amount of meat which has been condemned by local authorities. Very often they get the wrong impression because of the colossal figures given in the Press. During the time of control, this has been more evident than it ever was before, because we find that individuals are going round the country buying up cows from the farmers which, in normal times, would only have found their way to the knacker's yard. These dealers are prepared to take the gamble of bringing that type of animal to our abattoirs because of the price being paid by the Ministry. Therefore, people are liable to get the wrong impression as to the amount of meat which is being used today in that regard compared with prewar days.
  I am concerned with the pessimism which the Ministry of Agriculture have
  1568
  expressed in this Bill. When it is contemplated that we may not eradicate this menace for another 25 years, I am astounded. For very many years now we have had what I would call the battle of the scrub bull." This problem has been before the Ministry of Agriculture for a long time, but we are still talking about the probability of wiping it out in 25 years from now. I hope the Ministry will take stronger measures for the reduction of the evil, because I am quite certain that it can be done in much less time than 25 years. I wish to stress that not only is there a great danger from the milk aspect, but that every year hundreds of tons of good beef are being wasted because this problem has not been tackled as energetically as it should have been. My experience has shown me that week by week there are coming into the abattoirs of Britain cattle raked from end to end with disease, which a few hours before were giving milk. I welcome the Bill and I am glad to see this legislation going through, but I hope we shall be able to eradicate the trouble in much less time than is provided for in the Bill.
  9.16 p.m.
  Mr. Baldwin: I speak at some disadvantage. Unfortunately, my train was late, and I have not been able to gather the gist of the arguments which have been advanced in the Debate. However, I gather that the main criticism from both sides of the House has been that we are not getting on fast enough with the eradication of tuberculosis. I entirely agree with that criticism. The hon. Member for West Salford (Mr. Royle), who spoke about beef which was raked with disease, will agree, I think, that the beef of which he spoke was probably from old much cows which had been made into beef, and not the beef breed of cattle.
  Mr. Boyle: Sometimes they are heifers.
  Mr. Baldwin: I agree they sometimes are, but usually the beef breeds of cattle are entirely free from tuberculosis.
  The Minister must not mark time in his endeavours to eradicate the disease. If he does so, those farmers with T.T. cattle surrounded by other cattle which are not tuberculin tested will gradually give up the battle and go out of the job altogether. I ask the Minister to hasten the eradication of this disease. I know

  1569
  that one of the difficulties is the great shortage of the necessary veterinary personnel. I hope that difficulty will be overcome in a short time, so that steps will be taken to clear areas. I know that the job cannot be done in a hurry. If we tried to deal with all the milk herds in a period of two or three years, and condemned, the reactors to be sold ac, beef, there would be a great shortage el milk. The position at the moment is rather farcical. It seems wrong that a farmer with a T.T. herd may take his reactors to market and sell them to his neighbour for the purpose of producing milk, but that must be the case anal we can get a sufficient number of T.T. cattle in existence.
  Another state of affairs which is rather farcical is that of the farmer with the T.T. herd surrounded by seven or eight neighbours whose herds are not T.T. I know the rule is that the hedges should be double banked, but it is no good double banking the hedges if there is a footpath or a bridle way running through the field with a stile, because if the cattle from the clean herd want to say nice things to the cattle on the other side of the hedge they can easily do so over the stile, and there is no use in having a double fence round the field. If there is a right of way, a cart track or a bridle road through the field, it is rather difficult to put up two gates. I hope the Minister will take account of that matter.
  Another matter which requires attention—I do not know whether it has been mentioned in this Debate—concerns the men who milk the cattle. If I were offered milk from a T.B. cow which was milked by a T.B.-free man, I would much rather have that milk than milk from a T.T. cow milked by a T.B. man. If the cattle are to be cleaned up we must see that the men who milk them are free from T.B. as well. I just wanted to say those few words to support those who have urged the necessity for speeding up this job and getting some areas, at any rate, cleared as quickly as possible.
  It seems that the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk (Mr. Dye) rather wanted to encourage the Minister to get on with the production of more steel for motor tractors so that horses could be done away with altogether. I hope that doctrine will not be preached. It is entirely wrong to use a great tractor
  1570
  to draw a light lorry with a hundredweight of hay in it. That is a job that ought to be done with a horse. It is uneconomic to use a tractor for it. I hope the Minister will not discourage the keeping of horses on the farms. I know our young men do not like to put in extra time to look after the horses, and that farmers are consequently driven to give up the use of horses—unless they look after their horses themselves. Some of our young men are becoming too mechanically minded—so much so that I have sometimes told my friends that we shall see them using tractors to take themselves to bed.
  9.21 p.m.
  Sir William Darling: I understand that no one from Scotland has taken part yet in this Debate, and I am induced to enter it only because of some observations made by the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk (Mr. Dye). The Bill deals with two aspects of agriculture, the first of which is the expenditure of some £2,500,000 on the improvement of our dairy herds. Although I myself have recently entered the field of agriculture, it is not on that subject I want to speak. I notice that the second part of the Bill deals with the subject of horses. Some £2,000 rising to £5,000 a year is to be spent by this great country of ours in improving our horses, and that is in addition to the £20,000 which is spent under the Horse Breeding Act, 1918.
  The hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk has brought me to my feet because he does not seem to share his fellow countrymen's great love of horses. When once before, one spoke disparagingly of Scotland and flatteringly of horses, referring to the fact that in Scotland oats are fed to people, but that in England they feed them to horses, the reply was: "What men, and what horses!" This old-fashioned regard for the horse, which I thought was characteristic of every Englishman, seems not to exist in the mind of the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk. He commends the urbanisation of our countryside. He sees a picture, not of horsemen looking after their animals, but a picture of industrial workers from the towns. What he wants to see in England's green and pleasant land is the tractor. While that may he attractive to those who are seeking to

  1571
  organise industry on trade union lines, it is quite foreign even to my simple conception of rural life.
  I put it to the hon. Member—who seems to have left the House—and to the House generally, that there is something more important involved here even than the Englishman's love of horses, more even than our desire to improve and to maintain the use of our horses in this country. If agriculture is, as we believe it to be, the permanent mainstay of our life, our sure anchor in every circumstance, are we to bind our agriculture to imported petrol? If we cannot even obtain basic petrol for our citizens in peace time are we to tie our agriculture to imported petrol? Horses eat no imported food. Are we to substitute in the place of the horse the mechanical tractor that consumes imported petrol? I submit that if there is difficulty—and there is, admittedly, great difficulty in finding petrol in a normal year of peace at least two and a half years after the war is over, there is hound to be difficulty in finding petrol—
  Mr. Speaker: I do not know what the Bill has to do with petrol.
  Sir W. Darling: A little earlier, reference, was made to the fact that we should discard the proposals of the Bill, which favour the extension and improvement of horse-breeding in this country, and substitute petrol-driven machinery. It was that argument, Sir, which I sought to rebut, but if you disapprove I will not pursue that line of argument, but will deal more closely with the Bill. The interest of the Government in this subject is valuable, and is appreciated. My own complaint would be that the sum of £2,000 to £5,000 a year is perhaps too little to maintain and improve the stock of what has been a typical and traditional British animal—an animal associated with our country for many generations, which will, I believe, inevitably and continuously be associated with us as long as we desire a stable, sound and characteristic agricultural industry.
  9.26 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): We have had a very interesting Debate—not least interesting in its last few minutes. However, the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling)
  1572
  seemed to have his figures, like his petrol, rather mixed up. In Part I of the Bill we provide for an ultimate expenditure, when all our discussions are concluded, of a sum many times that which he mentioned. The figure he had in mind was one which might be involved under Part II. It is not £2,000 or £5,000 in addition to the £20,000 provided in the a 918 Act, as I understood him to say, but only within the limits of the provisions of the 1918 Act. We expect the expenditure to be something of the order of £5,000. However, that is dealt with purely in Part II and has nothing to do with the keeping of cows, which comes under Part I.
  Sir W. Darling: It was perfectly obvious to me that the sum under Part I, of £2½ million, is connected with bovine tuberculosis, and that the sum of £2,000 or £5,000 dealt with the balance.
  Mr. Brown: I am glad to have given the hon. Member the opportunity to make himself clear.
  We are pleased that this modest Bill has achieved such a wide measure of support in the House. Apart from the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown), who seemed to take a not too high view of some parts of the Bill, it has received general support. However, there has been a tendency to speak as though the Government are lacking in that revolutionary ardour which now characterises the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), or are pessimistic as the hon. Member for West Salford (Mr. Royle) said, because the provisions in Part I merely seek to keep alive powers which would otherwise die later this year. There is no ground for assuming that in regard to bovine tuberculosis the Government are in any way lagging behind other quarters of the House in their sense of urgency. There is a great deal of difference between saying that a lot of revolutionary, exciting and dramatic things ought to be done—and I was glad the lion. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) dealt with one just now—and getting down to practical means of getting rid of reactors, and getting the areas clean. The Government recognise that a good deal of work has to be done and are busily engaged on it.
  As the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) mentioned, the theme song generally has been: What are

  1573
  the limiting factors? Is there any obstacle to going on faster than we seem to be doing under this Bill? Well, there are limiting factors. One is, unquestionably, the supply of veterinary surgeons. A great deal of discussion has taken place between the Government and various responsible bodies to see what can be done to increase the potential supply of veterinary surgeons and folk entering this field, in order to remove that bottleneck. At a later stage we shall hope to be able to present something to the House in that regard. We shall press on with it. Recently, we have introduced a modification of the old testing arrangement, under which, as I understand it, veterinary surgeons had to visit a herd three times in order to take two tests. We have now modified that, so that only one test is required, with only two visits to the herd. That will also help us to push on a bit faster. The supply of veterinary surgenos is unquestionably a limiting factor.
  On the other hand, the progress has not been so slow as some have been inclined to suggest. We began the attested scheme in 1935, but in fact it had a clear run only until 1939 It was then in cold storage until 1944. Therefore, it has run for about seven years. In that time, we have gone from 1,400 attested herds in 1935, to well over 30,000 in 1947. We are apt to forget the gap which the war years imposed on us. Therefore, we have made very considerable progress. We agree that we want to make faster progress and we are having discussions in the industry with the farmers' unions and all the bodies involved as to the next steps. We believe that progress with the voluntary scheme, that is the individual herd being attested, is essential. No compulsory scheme could be effective until we have made more progress with the voluntary scheme. We believe that we need the powers in this Bill to stimulate greater progress with the voluntary scheme.
  We are discussing with the industry a much bigger scheme—the freeing of areas and the compulsory measures that may be involved. We shall press on just as quickly as we can to get an agreement, and to get rid of these various limiting factors. The point was made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale), which was taken up by other Members, that it would take 25 years to complete this task. Upon
  1574
  that point hung a good deal of the comments which have been made about slowness. In taking these powers, in the first case for 10 years, and then for three consecutive five-year periods by Resolution of the two Houses, we do not imply that it will take 25 years. On the other hand, we think it is right that we should take the powers for this period. Just how long it will take will depend upon the things I have mentioned.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman also asked when area schemes would be introduced. It is impossible to say in advance of a successful conclusion of our discussions and of the progress we make with the voluntary scheme. I was also asked whether the quality premium on T.T. milk will be reduced. It is our hope and intention, when we introduce regulations providing for attested bonus payments, to make some modifications in the quality premiums paid in respect of T.T. milk by the Minister of Food. This is one of the things we shall have to discuss, and we must bear in mind the balance of the need for stimulation as against any unreasonable State expenditure. As to the disposal of T.T. milk, that is a matter for the Minister of Food. I understand that it is largely a question of transport. It is a matter in which we are very much in agreement with the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman also raised the question of the diseases set out in the regulations made under the Horse Breeding Act, 1918. He asked whether we were satisfied with these. As I am advised, that list of diseases was drawn up on very good veterinary advice, and our experts tell us that we have had no complaints about it. If, however, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will let me have any complaints showing that something is wrong, we shall be glad to look into the matter. As it is, we believe that it commands general assent within the industry.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, and another of his hon. Friends, raised the question of the exemption of the stallion which is aged two years plus at the date of the Bill. We have been told that if we are to make the Bill properly effective we ought to provide for an age of five or six years. On this matter, we shall be very much guided by the view of the House and the Committee on the

  1575
  Bill. We feel that there is a balanced argument here—on the one side, not to ride roughshod over the people who are involved and, on the other, to be guided by the feeling of Members on the later stages of, the Bill.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Richmond also asked about the syndicated imported stallion. The stallion which is not in the General Stud Book will require a licence. He already requires a licence if he travels for service; if he is not in stud book he will require a licence at home. Into the harmony of the general support for this Bill one or two discordant notes were thrown, particularly by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Richmond, who talked about a "dictatorship" arising under Clause 4 (2). He said that the Minister was taking power, in cases where a licence would not be permitted—perhaps because of something being wrong with the animal—to issue a permit rather than to require the owner to castrate or shoot the animal.
  We thought we were trying to be rather more than usually friendly, that we were not being awkward or dictatorial, and I was therefore sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed rather to bite the hand which, though perhaps not quite feeding him, was helping him along the way. The grounds on which a permit will be granted are not those on which a licence will be granted. This is very much an administrative matter. It is difficult to put grounds into the Bill. The animal may be an exotic zoological specimen, the last of its strain, or may be liked sentimentally by its owner. We feel that this kind of thing must be left to the administrative discretion of the Minister.
  I was interested to hear the argument, begun by my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass), and taken up by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), about a national veterinary service. My hon. Friend seemed to think that we ought to have a national service, but the hon. Member for Newbury said that we should not have such a service until we had seen how the national medical service had worked in respect of human beings. Do they realise that we have had a form of national veterinary service for the last II years? My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury, who is usually so far in front in these matters,
  1576
  and the hon. Member for Newbury, who usually knows the pros and cons, although he may perhaps sometimes fall on the wrong side, did not realise, when they began their little argument, that we have had a national veterinary service for some time—
  Mr. Hurd: The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) was that we should have a complete State veterinary service, to which I objected.
  Mr. Brown: We have had a State veterinary service since 1937, composed of some 300 members, who are doing valuable work. I pay a great tribute to the Socialist foresight of the Conservative Government of that day, which set up that service and which we ought not to disown now. The point made about the selling of reactors; their culling or their slaughter is important, but it would be very difficult to deal with it in the cavalier way which was suggested. There would be a catastrophic drop in milk production and in cattle generally if that were done. It must be done as a process.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown) suggested that Part II of the Bill was another control on the "wretched private owner." He seemed to be in splendid isolation, because I gather that the only regret of other hon. Members opposite was that the control is not enough. The cost which we envisage will still be within the limit of the 1918 Act—the £20,000 limit under the Horse Breeding Act—and any loss will be because we are relieving the "wretched owner," as he put it, from having to apply for a licence every year. We are giving him one licence, and I think that the hon. Member will probably thank us for that, because we are helping the people for whom he was so concerned.
  With regard to the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), it was by no means the intention of my right hon. Friend to imply that the breeding societies had not done their job. We believe that they have, and we have had the greatest help from them in working out these proposals. I understand that they welcome the provisions of the Bill from the point of view of improving their livestock. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to think that a new liability was being imposed with regard to thoroughbreds which travel. Thoroughbreds which travel have

  1577
  always had to have a licence under the 1918 Act, and this Bill imposes no fresh liability.
  The hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) referred to beef herds, and the powers under the 1937 Act, Section 20, extended by this Bill to make a capitation payment for beef herds if the producer wishes to take it in that form. In general, dairy herds are in the majority in the attested scheme, but there are beef herds in the scheme, and we hope to give a general incentive in that way. The hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk (Mr. Dye) accused us of "backing the wrong horse" and said that we ought to put our money on tractors. Whatever the argument about that, there will be horses for some time yet, and we ought not to exclude any opportunity of making sure that we are getting a better standard of horse as of other animals. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with me on that.
  That brings me to the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) who said that there were flaws in the Bill, and that the breed societies would be having meetings with hon. Members when they would be able to point out the flaws from which I gathered that the hon. Member himself would in later stages of the Bill refer to some of those flaws. I should like to repeat what I said at the beginning and what was said by my right hon. Friend the Minister in introducing the Bill, that we shall be very willing to receive representations from any quarter about this Bill. What we are aiming at is to get the best we can for the industry and for the health of the nation. In achieving those ideals it would be silly to be starchy and hidebound. We shall listen carefully to anything any hon. Member has to say and to consider suggestions which they or anyone else may make for the Bill's improvement. I do not think there were any other points of substance raised during the Debate. A large number of points which I have not covered have been carefully noted and will be considered. They will also be dealt with during later stages of the Bill. With these words I cordially commend the Second Reading to the House.
  9.47 p.m.
  Mr. Orr-Ewing: May I draw attention to what must appear to many hon. Members to be a serious
  1578
  matter of drafting in this Bill, namely, the enormous amount of legislation by reference in it? Although I have no intention of opposing the Bill I cannot help saying that it appears to be one of the worst examples we have ever had of the complicated process of legislation by reference. If we are to understand these things in the way we should, it is absolutely essential that legislation should be made clear when dealing with any branch of agriculture. I seriously ask the Minister to consider whether he cannot do something to present Bills such as this in a much clearer way.
  I will quote one or two examples of the sort of thing I mean. In Clause 1, (4), we read:
  "Any increase attributable to this Part of this Act in the sum required by sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 1 of the Third Schedule to the Local Government Act, 1929, as amended by Subsection (4) of Section twenty-seven of the Agriculture Act, 1937, to be paid out of moneys.provided by Parliament …"
  and so on. There are other examples which one could find, as for instance in Clause 8, (2),
  "The preceding Subsection shall apply in relation to a contravention of Subsection (2) of Section two of this Act with the omission of the references to a permit."
  One could traverse every page of the Bill, and practically every Clause, and find a glaring example of this sort of thing. I do not want to delay the House by putting forward any more examples, but I say that in relation to all Bills dealing with any stage of agriculture it is necessary that there should be much more clarity. After watching some of these Bills for some years now, it appears to me that they are becoming more and more complicated. I do not blame any particular individuals in this connection; but it is time a start was made to clear up legislation dealing with agriculture. It must be made clear and clean so that everybody engaged in agriculture can know the law without trouble, for it is quite easy to make a slip if one does not understand what the law is. I ask the Minister to do his best to make the law as clear as possible.
  9.50 p.m.
  Sir Basil Neven-Spence: I am not so much concerned about the wording of the Bill, as about what is in the Bill, and I should like to say a word or two in its favour. As hon. Members know, tuberculosis is the greatest

  1579
  scourge from which the human race suffers, and in so far as this Bill attempts to deal with that disease along one particular line, it is bound to have the support of myself and of every hon. Member in the House. Although medical science has placed at the disposal of the community the knowledge required to eradicate this disease, and although the cause has long been known and the cure—as far as the disease can be cured—is also known, it is tragic that this disease should be as rampant in this country as it is now. That fact is a disgrace to our civilisation.
  One of the lines along which the disease can be tackled is to deal with bovine tuberculosis. On Friday of last week, I received an invitation to go to Shetland where the farmers were celebrating the fact that their cattle had been officially declared 100 per cent. tuberculin tested. It is remarkable that it should be left to the people in those remote islands to lead the van of progress in a matter of this sort, and I take the opportunity of paying the farmers and the crofters there a warm tribute for the wholehearted way in which they have co-operated in achieving that very remarkable result. I also pay an equally warm tribute to the veterinary officers of the Ministry, who have worked hard and long in difficult weather conditions. It must be a cause of great pride to them that their methods have met with 100 per cent. success. I am glad the Bill is before the House and I hope that the results which the Minister has in view will be achieved long before the date provided in the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

  ANIMALS [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.—(King's Recommendation signified.)
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]
  Resolved:
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the period during which payments may be made under the Agriculture Act, 1937, in connection with the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, and to amend the Horse Breeding Act, 1918, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of
  1580
  moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in—

  (a) the sums to be paid thereout into the Diseases of Animals Account to defray expenses under Section twenty of the Agriculture Act, 1937; and

  (b) the sums to be paid thereout to defray expenses of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the Horse Breeding Act, 1918. "—[Mr. T. Williams.]

  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

  EXCHANGE CONTROL (PAYMENTS, U.S.S.R.)
  9.55 p.m.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I beg to move:
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 13th January, 1948, entitled the Exchange Control (Payments) (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) Order, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 17), a copy of which was presented on 20th January, be annulled."
  With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make two things clear before I come to what I wish to say. The first is that there is nothing political in the moving of this Motion, and that whether it had been the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States, the Argentine, or any other country, my hon. Friends and I would have moved this Motion. Secondly, it is no intention of ours to raise any question about the trade portions of the Agreement against the financial arrangements of which we are now praying, but we think that it is essential, if this House is to understand the order, that some reference should be made to what has gone before in the financial arrangements between ourselves and Soviet Russia.
  In 1941, in the heat of the war, we had an Agreement whereby 40 per cent. of the money that they borrowed from us should be repayable in gold and dollars and 60 per cent. in sterling lent by ourselves. For some reason—it is not ours to argue it tonight—that Agreement broke down and it was found necessary in the latter part of last year to form a new agreement. Articles 3 and 5 of that new Agreement govern the order we are discussing tonight.
  It would be as well for the House to realise from the start the sacrifices we have made under these Clauses. In the first

  1581
  place, we were told by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury that he could not disclose what sums we had waived, but from an answer given by his master it was quite apparent that we had surrendered at least £60 million and wiped that off, that a further £160 million had been funded at some ½ per cent. and equally that we had waived £27 million under Lend-Lease. What we are asked to agree to now is a new arrangement which, despite the sacrifices that we have made, imposes still further liabilities upon us. If hon. Members will look at paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present order, they will see that it is perfectly possible for any sterling surplus received by the Russians to be used for payments within the Third and Fourth Schedules of the main Exchange Control Order, whereas if they will refer to paragraph 3 of the present order they will see that while sterling owned by Russia to ourselves may be paid in sterling, any such sterling required by Russia has to be made available by ourselves.
  I ask the House to consider for a moment just what that lands us into. In the first case, it is quite apparent that during the next 12 months we shall have a credit balance with Russia. They are delivering a large number of goods to us and we shall have to pay for them. The money which they receive under Article 2 of this Agreement is made payable within al countries in the Third and Fourth Schedules to the main Control Exchange Order, and that can only mean that these sums can be used by Russia to secure goods from such countries as the Argentine Republic, Brazil, Egypt and Iran, to take four examples, from all of which countries we have the greatest difficulty in getting the goods we ourselves need. It must equally mean that in so far as this credit surplus is used by Russia to this end, so must our own power to use sterling in those areas be diminished.
  Let us take one example. Suppose, for the purpose of argument, the Argentine are willing to hold £10 million of sterling; and suppose the Russians use their temporary surplus credit to the extent of £2 million in order to buy goods from the Argentine, and to use Article 2 for payment of that sum, that can only mean that our credit in the Argentine is reduced from £10 million to £8 million and that we shall be the immediate sufferers. In fact, if one were to pursue
  1582
  it one stage further, and take the case of Egypt which is also included in the Schedule, I would ask the Financial Secretary this direct question: in so far as the Russians may use that temporary surplus of sterling within Egypt, how far do we not have to make sterling available from blocked sterling balances in order to meet that deficit? I believe that if the Financial Secretary will look into this, he will find that by every single penny we make available to the Russians under this Agreement, we shall have to fund that to the advantage of the Egyptians from No. 2 account to No. 1.
  Coming to Article 3 of this Agreement, it is obvious that within, say, two years the Russians will owe us a lot of money. It may be said that just as the Russians are able to sell their sterling within Schedules 3 and 4 of the main Exchange Control Order, so will they now buy it back and, therefore, there is reciprocity; but the Economic Secretary knows that is wrong, because there is only one authority in Soviet Russia which is allowed to own foreign exchange, and that is the government, and when this order talks about sterling from an account of a person resident in Russia, that is some parrot phrase for the government itself, and should the government not wish to have sterling available, or not wish to purchase sterling, then under Article 5 of the Trade Agreement we have to provide the sterling from the Bank of England and pay it into the Soviet account in order that they may pay us.
  In this House I have often challenged the Government about unrequited exports, but no more perfect example of unrequited exports could be found than this, that we solemnly, in a payments agreement, say that we will provide sterling to another country in order that they may pay us for their goods, and not only provide the sterling, but provide it, leave it there for four years, and then accept repayment of the capital over 10 further years charging only ½ per cent. interest. If that is not financial lunacy, I cannot imagine what is. I recall to the Government what was suggested the other day by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), if I may remind the President of the Board of Trade of it:
  "I beg the new President of the Board of Trade, also in no carping spirit, not to get negotiator's fever, it he has not already con-

  1583
  tracted the disease. No one on this side of the House will give any credit to anyone for coming to an agreement about anything."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January. 1948; Vol. 446, c. 1240.]
  This Agreement shows what can happen when negotiator's fever takes the place of common sense. I would say further that if any hon. Member will read the Anglo-Russian Trade Agreement, and will then read what is set down in this order, he must come to the conclusion that His Majesty's Government have been absolutely dishonest in what they have put in the White Paper because, while they have stated in that White Paper, first, that it was a triumph for bilateral agreement, and, secondly, that there was no cost incurred to this country, the fact is that whatever money Soviet Russia may earn from that Agreement is transferable to a great number of hard currency countries, and that any deficit has to be paid by this country in order to enable the Russians to pay us. Therefore, I say either that the White Paper, and particularly Clause 5, is dishonest or, alternatively, that secret agreements were reached by His Majesty's Government which have not been disclosed to this House.
  The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I am sure the hon. and gallant Member will not mind me interrupting. I would like to make clear once again that there were no secret agreements at any stage. Everything was published, and if the hon. and gallant Member finds it incomprehensible, the fault lies with him.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Of course, I accept the assurance of the President of the Board of Trade that there is not any secret, but in that case I leave it to the House to decide. The White Paper, in Article 5, states the reason for the order this evening. I quoted the article correctly, and perhaps the President of the Board of Trade, having interrupted me, will now interrupt me again and say whether this order can be related to what the White Paper said because—[Interruption.] He palms it off on to someone else. The President of the Board of Trade challenged me, and I gave way, and I have asked him a question but he prefers someone else to answer.
  1584
  Hon. Members opposite and on this side of the House have continually stated that if we are to pursue our present policy, and if we are to try to balance our trade, then exports must not be unrequited, and wherever we make an agreement we must regain some service for it. If my interpretation is correct, this order denies both those principles. I suggest to the House that if hon. Members have been sincere in the many economic Debates held in this House one thing they cannot do is to allow this order to stand now.
  10.7 p.m.
  Sir John Mellor: I beg to second the Motion.
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite Eyre) has performed a service in the readiness he has shown to challenge any arrangement which appeared to involve unrequited exports from this country. It was a misfortune that, shortly before Christmas, when we raised a similar matter, we were prevented from hearing a reply from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as the House was counted out. This afternoon the right hon. Gentleman received many bouquets for the lucidity with which he introduced the Second Reading of the Industrial Assurance and Friendly Societies Bill. We hope very much to hear similar lucidity from him tonight. I see he indicates that his hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is to reply.
  Many of us have thought that the financial provisions of the Trade and Payments Agreement by which the provisions of the 1941 agreement were modified were too generous to Russia; but the point with which my hon. and gallant Friend has mainly concerned himself tonight, and the only point on which I shall touch, is the aspect of current transactions. It seems to us that in the earlier stages there will arise a surplus of sterling in favour of Soviet Russia. As my hon. and gallant Friend has argued, Soviet Russia will be free to spend that sterling in any of those countries named in the Fourth Schedule to the Payments Order. We assume that later the balance of trade will change in favour of the United Kingdom. When that happens the Soviet will have to produce sterling, but if she has spent the sterling surplus which arose in favour of

  1585
  Soviet Russia during the earlier stages, she will only be able to get fresh sterling by borrowing more sterling from us.
  That is a most unfortunate prospect from the point of view of the United Kingdom. Already we have agreed to modify the terms of repayment and the rate of interest on the sterling already owed to the United Kingdom under the 1941 Agreement. Soviet Russia still has to make repayment of that, spread over a long period of time, but in reduced amounts and carrying much reduced rates of interest. But that has got to be found. She will also presumably still be importing goods from the United Kingdom, but if she has spent her sterling surplus which arises from the earlier transactions, where is Soviet Russia to
  Obtain the sterling required to provide for the service of the funded debt, and also to provide for the purchase of fresh goods from this country? There is only one way in which that sterling can be found by Soviet Russia—it is by further borrowing from this country.
  That is the burden of our contention tonight. If the hon. Gentleman who is to reply proves it to be wrong, no one will be better pleased than my hon. and gallant Friend and myself. That appears to us to be the position, and it does not seem to us that we are getting value from this Agreement or from the way in which this order proposes to implement the terms of the Agreement. This country is, I feel, being bled white by transactions involving unrequited exports. It seems to me that the transaction involved in this Agreement, and furthered by this Order, is a transaction which, unless we receive assurances from the hon. Gentleman that our calculations are incorrect, we ought to ask the House to annul tonight.
  10.14 p.m.
  Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade to explain one point about this Trade Agreement, about which I am not at all clear. He will no doubt recollect the original announcement on the subject of the Anglo-Soviet trade talks made in the House by his predecessor. The then President of the Board of Trade, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, explained to the House that the original negotiations broke down over the terms
  1586
  of the repayment of the 1941 credit. He said:
  "—we could not go the whole way the Soviet Government demanded as a condition of an agreement."
  He went on to say:
  "The concessions we were prepared to make involved us in a heavy loss in the next three or four years, and in view of our serious overseas financial position, we could not meet what the Soviet Government, after moving some way to meet us, stated were their minimum terms."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1947; Vol. 441, c. 37.]
  When the right hon. Gentleman made his last announcement to the House, on his return from what was described as a successful conclusion of the negotiations, he said:
  "Agreement was reached in principle also on the terms of repayment of the credit advanced under the Civil Supplies Agreement of 1941 and on other financial questions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1947; Vol. 445, c. 1208.]
  If, in July, 1947, our overseas financial position was such that it was considered impossible to make any further concessions towards the Soviet minimum demands, in what way was this position altered by last December? Had our overseas financial position improved so much that we felt able to abandon the position we had taken up?
  Mr. Speaker: I think that goes beyond the scope of this order. After all, this order deals with facts which are part of the Agreement, and the Agreement itself cannot be discussed. These are methods of payment—financial methods—and to discuss the whole Agreement in relation to Russia is quite outside this order.
  Mr. Mott-Radcyffe: I apologise if I am out of Order. I thought the methods of payment we are discussing tonight hung to some extent on the original arrangements under the 1941 Agreement.
  Mr. Speaker: The mover of the Motion merely gave it as a background. We cannot discuss the background now that we have arrived at the foreground.
  Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I apologise for digressing. It was unintentional, merely wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman to assure the House that he had, in fact, not made concessions too great in respect of this Agreement, and that what was called the successful conclusion was not wholly successful on one side and wholly unsuccessful on the other.
  10.17 p.m.
  Mr. Drayton: I dislike this Order as much as many others which have been introduced by this Government, but as it is connected with a trade agreement which provides for this country three-quarters of a million tons of course grain, which the farmers in my constituency are most anxious to receive, I am awaiting the Minister's reply with great interest. If the supply of this grain is contingent upon this order being approved, it may well be that there are some merits in it. It is difficult to assess precisely what the merits are, as we have not yet had the opportunity of discussing fully the terms of the trade agreement under which it arises. It appears to me that we are going to receive in this country feedingstuffs to the value of approximately—
  Mr. Speaker: It does not deal with feedingstuffs; it deals with a monetary arrangement and payment.
  Mr. Drayson: I will confine myself to the actual sum of money which I consider, according to my rough calculations, is involved in this order. I have estimated that it will amount to something between £25 million and £30 million. Those credits are to be built up by the Soviet Union as a result of their supplying certain commodities to this country. What we are discussing is how the position will be dealt with when those credits have been accumulated. We understand that certain capital goods are to be supplied by this country at a future date. It may be that the total sum involved does not equal the value of the goods to be supplied. Therefore, the Soviet Government—perhaps not having confidence in this country being able to supply them with goods from our current production—sought for permission to be able to expend this sterling throughout the sterling area. This order adds the U.S.S.R. to the various Schedules dealing with sterling in the Exchange Control Act of 1947.
  I welcome any move which tends to make sterling into a more desirable currency, and to give it greater flexibility amongst those who acquire it. I suggest that the Soviet Government, in requiring this provision in the trade Agreement, have called the bluff of His Majesty's Government to see exactly what sterling will buy in the sterling areas throughout the world. When he was Chancellor of
  1588
  the Exchequer the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) was unfortunate when he agreed to the convertibility of sterling balances into dollars. Let us see what will happen to this sterling which we are allowing the Soviet Government to place on their transferable account. Let us see what they will get for it.
  I would like to think that this new Order opens up a vast field of expanding trade with the Soviet Union. If we could get together on the basis of trade and not of politics, it would be far better for the peace of the world. I am glad that the President of the Board of Trade has succeeded with that country where the Foreign Secretary has utterly failed during the last two years. It would be interesting to hear what complaints, if any, have been received from other members of the sterling area or from the countries involved in the Schedules mentioned in the order. I would like to know whether any of the countries concerned have objected to this Agreement with the Soviet Union. On the question of unrequited sterling balances, the House and the country are well aware that there are a large number of things that are unrequited. The possible merits of the Agreement are that we will get into this country certain articles which are desirable; but I shall believe that they are coming when I see them.
  10.25 p.m.
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): The hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) asked me whether the supply of 750,000 tons of feedingstuffs to this country was contingent on the making of this order. The answer is, "Yes," and I can add that it was just because we made this order that the first shipment of that grain actually left Russian ports for this country on Thursday of last week. The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) who initiated this Debate, accused the Government, if I understood him right, of being dishonest, because the order made did not proceed from the White Paper on the Russian Trade Agreement which was recently laid before the House. Really, there is no dishonesty about it, because, if the hon. and gallant Member will look at pages 8 and 9 of the White Paper, which set out the payments agreement between the two Governments, he will find that the order

  1589
  not merely flows automatically from that but is merely the necessary machinery for carrying that Agreement into effect.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Does the mean, minister in his last statement, that, instead of reading "Agreement signed by the two Governments," one should read, "Exchange of letters"?
  Mr. Jay: It is part of the general Agreement—
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Absolute nonsense.
  Mr. Jay: If the hon. and gallant Member will allow me, what he will read on page 8 of the White Paper is, "Payments Agreement between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics," which is the same thing as an Agreement between the two Governments. There is nothing dishonest about it, and nothing to get heated about at all.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether this exchange of letters, which constitutes an Appendix to the White Paper, has the same value as Article 5, which was signed officially by the Government?
  Mr. Jay: They are both of equal value and validity. The point which the hon. and gallant Member does not appreciate is that the order we are discussing tonight has nothing whatever to do with Article 5, which relates only to the civil supplies agreement of 1941, as it proceeds entirely on the payments arrangements to be found on pages 8 and 9 of the White Paper.
  The hon. and gallant Member also asked me, if I understood him correctly, whether it was true that, under the Agreement, Great Britain is involved, for instance, in making available to Russia, for the purpose of buying goods in Egypt, Egyptian blocked sterling. The specific answer is "No." It is only sterling in transferable accounts, and not blocked sterling, which is available for that purpose. What we are really discussing tonight is a method of payment between the two countries in respect of goods we are getting from Russia and manufactured goods we are sending to Russia, and it seems to me that the two most important
  1590
  facts in the background of the Financial Agreement have not been mentioned at all.
  The first essential fact, surely, is that the negotiations between this country and Russia were conducted on the assumption that we should have to pay in convertible sterling—gold or dollars—for any grain we might get. In December, however, the Russians agreed to sell very large quantities of feedingstuffs for non-convertible sterling. That was a very fine concession, and that is the answer to the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. MottRadclyffe), who asked what the difference was. The other most important fact about the financial background is that, by this Agreement, we shall, in the early stages, that is, in the coming months, obtain a much larger supply of goods from Russia in value than we shall be sending to Russia. That means that unrequited exports will be the other way round. Russia will be sending unrequited exports to us, and Russia will, in fact, as she is doing at present, be tending to increase her holdings of sterling. That means that, to that extent, Russia is making a short-term credit to us and is incidentally showing her confidence in sterling, which I am sure will be gratifying to all parties in the House.
  The hon. Member for Sutton Goldfield (Sir J. Mellor) asked how Russia, if she had expended all her sterling, which she may have done, will he able in future to buy additional goods. Obviously her ability to buy them will depend on whether she can sell us more goods. As negotiations are to be resumed later in the year it may be that is how the matter will turn out.
  Perhaps I may say a word briefly on the specific purposes of this order. The purpose of this order is to include Russia in what is called the "transferable account" group of countries. I may perhaps add that if the House were to annul this order tonight, the Government would still have all the powers to do the things they want to do under this order. Hon. Members may well ask why it is we need to have the order at all. The answer to that is that the order enables us to do these things in a much more rapid, expeditious and efficient way. It enables the necessary measures to be taken without so many of those bureaucratic interferences and delays and' expenditure of

  1591
  manpower and paper, and so on, that hon. Members opposite so much dislike. I cannot really believe the Opposition would want to press this Prayer tonight since the effect of annulling the order would be not merely to increase the tightness of our exchange control generally, which I remember the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) deprecating when we were discussing the Exchange Control Bill, but greatly to increase the administrative work necessary to carry out this very valuable trade agreement.
  The crux of the order is in paragraph 2, which very briefly places Russia in what I have called the "transferable account" group of countries. I would like to explain what that group involves, and here, perhaps, I might refer the hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch to an article in the "Economist" of 24th January, because he might pay more respect to the words of the "Economist" than to mine. In effect, it expressed the hope that that group of "transferable account" countries might be expanded and that, of course, is exactly what we are doing by admitting Russia to membership by this order.
  The essence of the "transferable account" system is this: it enables a resident in any country in the group to pay in sterling for goods from any member of the sterling area or any other member of the "transferable accounts" group, and enables him to accept payment in sterling for exports to any member of the group or of the sterling area. That is to say, in effect, that it encourages trade within the group and between the group and the sterling area and, incidentally, encourages the holding of sterling by member countries which is beneficial to us and enhances confidence in sterling generally. I remember the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) last week advising the Government to take steps to increase confidence in sterling, and this is another object to which this order contributes.
  Perhaps I may also mention two things which membership of the "transferable account" group does not permit. It does not permit a member to take capital transfers to other countries in the group: it merely permits transfers on current
  1592
  account. It does not enable the country concerned to extract any gold or dollars from Great Britain. Therefore, there is nothing in this order which will cost Great Britain any gold or dollars.
  I would like to emphasise finally that there have been two very good reasons for making the financial arrangements included in this Agreement and making them in such a way as to facilitate Russian trade. The first point, surely, is that there is the Civil Supplies Agreement, but that is an old debt, and ordinary commercial considerations cannot be applied to it; that was the reason for making some of the concessions here. Secondly, this is merely an Agreement by which Russia accepts payment for grains in non-convertible sterling, and that is more favourable to us, and less favourable to the Russians than the scheme discussed last summer. I submit that nothing useful whatever would be achieved by annulling an order such as this, the purpose of which is simply to bring Russia into the transferable account group of countries. Furthermore, I would also point out that it provides financial machinery for a general Agreement of value to Great Britain, and to British agriculture above all.
  10.36 p.m.
  Mr. Assheton: would like to intervene now because, at this stage, I have an opportunity to say that I am glad that the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Jay) has had the chance to make his maiden speech as a junior Minister on this occasion. I worked with the hon. Member during the war and I know of the intelligence and industry which he brought to bear on his work in those days, and which, I am sure he employs in his new appointment. But I am sorry that on this particular occasion he does not take the same view of this matter as I and my hon. colleagues sitting behind me. This is, admittedly, a rather difficult order to understand, but I observe that most hon. Members opposite—and some, probably, on this side—seem able to discuss this complex matter without having a copy of the order to hand. Some of its technicalities are quite considerable, and I must congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel CrosthwaiteEyre) on the clear way in which he puts his case.

  1593
  I do not know whether the House feels that the case made out was a good one, but in answer to the Economic Secretary I would say he tried, so it seemed to me, to convince the House that the sterling which the Russians would have available as a result of the particular agreement under this order itself, would not have a deleterious effect on our gold and dollar reserves. I agree that, in a limited technical sense, that is true, but, at the same time, I suggest that in the broader sense it is certainly not so. I say that because what will happen under the payments agreement is that the Russians will have a certain amount of sterling which they will be able to use in those countries such as Egypt, the Argentine, Brazil, and Iran which are those that have been mentioned, and that will have exactly the same effect. The Government clearly think that the whole transaction is all very fine for this country, but I find it very difficult to take that view.
  The price paid for this agreement is a very heavy one. I fully realise the difficulties which confronted the President of the Board of Trade when he started his negotiations, and I have every sympathy for him, but now that he has come home, we cannot allow that sympathy to delude us into thinking that he has made a good bargain. Mr. Speaker has made it clear to us that we cannot go into the whole agreement, and I am in some difficulty in answering the question I have put myself. Broadly, I think—and this is as far as I shall be permitted to go—we have got less than we have given. So far as this purely financial order is concerned, the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend is, I think, that we have put the Russians into the position of getting an advantage which, over the period of, say, two or three years, will be very much to our detriment. I agree that if the Russians send over shiploads of coarse grain in the next month or so, and we have sent nothing to them in return, that would not, in itself, make the case of unrequited exports which he has made. But take it for a longer period—for six months or a year ahead—and then the thing is reversed.
  What we are sending to the Russians, without any doubt, is something equivalent to the hardest possible currency. We are sending them machinery which may he sold for hard currency in a great
  1594
  many countries which are paying in really hard currency. So that when my hon. Friend speaks of unrequited exports he is right over a period of months, and certainly over a period of years. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) when he talked of our being bled white by transactions involving unrequited exports, was quite right. It is difficult to form an opinion on such a technical matter as this order. I see the difficulty in which hon. Members must be when they try to cope with it. Those of us who have spent considerable time studying these things find that we have difficulty. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, with all his experience of economic affairs, has not had a great deal of experience yet with the technicalities of this Exchange Control business. I think we must support the view of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch that this is definitely a disadvantageous order from the point of view of sterling. Hon. Members opposite talk about Russia coming into the sterling area. But that is not the position at all. The Russians have said they are not going to demand non-convertible sterling, but in fact they are going to sell for sterling which can be converted into currencies which are very scarce. I feel bound to support the point of view put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch.
  10.43 p.m.
  Mr. Erroll: The Prime Minister is paying an unconscious tribute to the Opposition in being present while this Prayer is being moved tonight. H graced the House with his presence when another order was discussed only a few days ago, and we are glad that he is here to-night to listen to a Debate on a matter of even greater importance. Immediately after the conclusion of the Trade Agreement, the President of the Board of Trade came to my constituency and discussed the matter with a meeting of my constituents. In joining in the protest against this order I do not want the President of the Board of Trade to think that I am wholly against the purport of this Agreement. However, there is a number of points relating to the speech of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury about which I have some doubts.
  The first shipment of grain from Russia, he said, took place last Thursday. It is

  1595
  a pity that he did not say whether it was in British or Russian ships. It is true, as he said, that the negotiations which were successfully concluded in November and December represented an improvement on the summer negotiations; but they nevertheless represent an extremely hard bargain. It is true that we no longer have to pay in convertible currency, but to suggest that we were likely to accumulate a large credit during the summer due to the Russian shipments of grain to this country is only half the case; because an important point is that unless successful contracts are made by Russian company agents in this country, the Russians reserve the right to withhold a large part of the grain during the current shipping period. That is clearly stated in Subsection C of Article 3 and I would like to draw the attention of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to that very point. It is not, therefore, the good bargain which the Economic Secretary to the Treasury suggested it was. It is a hard bargain and with a bit of luck we shall be able to keep to it. But it must be remembered that the machinery which the Russians hope to obtain—a certain proportion of it will come from engineering firms in my constituency—might well be sent to hard currency countries.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is going right outside this order. I think that one must be very careful of that.
  Mr. Erroll: I quite agree, Mr. Speaker, how careful one must be, particularly as transferable currency may be involved as a result of the bargain just concluded. As we are sending machinery to Russia as a result of this agreement, and we have to consider the matter of hard currency, whether it be roubles, francs or dollars, you will appreciate how difficult it is.
  Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that, but I do not think that one can use a monetary or financial arrangement as a peg on which to hang a discussion on the Trade Agreement itself. I do not think that one can put the hen before the egg or the egg before the hen in that way.
  Mr. Erroll: We are likely to export machinery before we get satisfaction, Mr. Speaker, and it is on that that we feel considerable concern on this side of the House. As regards the details of the order, we appreciate that it represents an ad
  1596
  vance on the summer arrangement that it should be a transferable account in con vertible currency. We have witnessed in the last few years considerable and serious leakage in one kind of account and another, and it is by no means certain that transactions on transferable account, within the transferable club, as it has been called, as has been suggested by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, will in fact prevent a certain amount of leakage into other types of accounts. We are very disappointed on this side of the House that there have been no assurances given that transferable account will be utterly watertight, or utterly currency tight, or that there will be no leakages. It was rightly pointed out by the Secretary to the Treasury that the Government have all the powers, and that they need not bother with this order, except as a matter of administrative convenience. It may be that is the case, but members of the Opposition, and the country in general, are not reassured by statements of that kind. There is very great need for fuller information on the whole complex question of this type of currency transaction and if this Prayer yields nothing else, it will help, I hope, all of us and the country to see the complexity of our present difficulties.
  10.54 p.m.
  Colonel Crosthwaite—Eyre: The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in his reply, touched on a number of issues, and the first one was that the sacrifices made by this country were well worth while in achieving a broader sphere of exchange of trade. That seems to me to come very curiously from the Government which have brushed aside the fact that we have given up £187 million and agreed to receive one-sixth of the interest on the balance, and yet, at the same time, are unwilling to press with any of the other countries mentioned in the schedule to achieve any reduction in the debt that we owe to them. It seems to be just a one-way bargain. If one looks at this one will find the Government's answer, is that unrequited exports are not incurred, but as the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said, in the first 12 months, the Russians are going to have a surplus of currency. He went on to say that the unrequited exports would be in our favour and not in theirs, but that is just what does not happen under the order,

  1597
  because the Russians are wholly entitled to use their actual sterling surplus for purchases in the 16 countries mentioned in the Third and Fourth Schedules to the main Exchange Control Order, and there is nothing to stop the Russians using whatever sterling they may thus have from competing against us in such countries as Brazil, the Argentine and Egypt for goods which we ourselves badly need.
  I would suggest to the House—and my contention has not been answered—that any of these countries is willing only to hold a certain amount of sterling and by that amount which the Russians place in these markets, by so much will our own imports be reduced. Under this order too, we grant the Russians unrestricted credits from this country in order to pay for that which they buy from us.
  Mr. Jay: Does not the hon. and gallant Member realise that this order puts Russia into exactly the same position as any other country in the transferable accounts group. If he has no political bias in the matter, why does he object to Russia being a member and not all the other countries?
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I have no political bias. My objection is that Russia is granted credits in order to pay for our exports. This part of my argument is not addressed to transferability. I would call the attention of the Economic Secretary to Article 5 of the financial arrangements of the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement. There he will read under subsection B:
  "Any debit balance shall be discharged in sterling to he paid to the account by the Government of the U.K by way of advances to the Government of the U.S.S.R."—
  That can only mean one thing—that if at any stage the Russians owe us money, we then put money into the account in order to balance it. If there is any other interpretation I should be glad to hear it: certainly none has been advanced tonight.
  My last point is that the Economic Secretary says we are not to suffer from the loss of gold and dollars. He has forgotten one thing. Of these countries in the "transfer club"—a most unpleasant club, because every member uses the opportunity of hitting every other member over the head with the longest possible club—every member has taken precautions with regard to sterling. They say, "No more hardships for us, let us take advantage of the weakness of sterling." If we allow unrequited sterling to come into the "club" so we will increase our difficulties and ensure that, in the case, for example, of the Argentine, more dollars and more gold will have to be spent by us in order to cover the surplus sterling. Equally in the case of Egypt this unrequited sterling will mean that more has to be transferred from the No. 2 Accounts to the No. 1 Accounts in order to guarantee the amount of convertibility that the Egyptians want. The Economic Secretary was very smooth and suave in his attitude. He is the ideal club secretary who insures that the members remain members as long as possible even if they pay only half their entrance fee. What we ask the Government to do is to take back this agreement as it stands, for it means unrequited exports to us and a further burden on sterling and our gold reserve. Let them consider it anew, because under it we in this country instead of using our best endeavours to restore a fundamental disequilibrium are simply signing our names to a document to secure a political victory for His Majesty's Government.
  Question put,
  "That an humble Address he presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 13th January, 1948, entitled the Exchange Control (Payments) (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) Order, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 17), a copy of which was presented on 10th January, be annulled."
  The House divided: Ayes, 30; Noes, 170.

ARMED FORCES (DESERTERS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]
11.4 p.m.
Air-Commodore Harvey: I should like to apologise to the House for not taking advantage of the Adjournment Motion when I ballotted for it last December. The fact was that I was going into hospital on the following day and I went out of the Chamber for an hour, end in the meantime the House adjourned and Members got a holiday.
1600
I wish to raise the question of the large number of deserters because it is a running sore in some respects. In the autumn of last year there were approximately 21,000 deserters in the United Kingdom. On 22nd January, 1947, the Minister of Defence said the number of deserters was then nearly 20,000, and I am concerned that the figures seem to have increased in the months of 1947. I am not certain how that figure is arrived at, but an explanation would be very welcome. When the Minister of Defence made that statement, he said that those who were deserters were strongly recommended to surrender at once. Those who surrendered

1601
voluntarily by 31st March would have that fact and any other mitigating circumstance taken into account when their cases were determined. The response was fairly good, and quite a number came in. I think about 1,615 responded to the Minister's invitation to surrender.
Going back to 1946, on 7th March, before we had a Minister of Defence, the Home Secretary said that the number of deserters was 18,753. On 19th November, 1946, the then Secretary of State for War, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), said it was 15,000 odd. I find it very difficult to reconcile these varying figures in such a short space of time. I asked the Minister of Defence last November how many deserters from the three Services, who had deserted before VJ Day, were still at large_ and how many had deserted since and were still at large. I felt that it was very necessary to differentiate between those who deserted during the war, and those who deserted since the end of the war. If the number has gone up since the end of the war, it opens up the question of discipline, and points to something being wrong in that respect. This is a situation which ought not to be allowed to continue. I can understand that there were a large number of deserters before the war; but before the war they could not do very much harm. There was plenty of food and of most other things, but now with so much scarcity, there is much more scope for the deserters. These men are living without identity cards, ration cards, or clothing coupons, and this in itself, makes the identity card for the rest of us completely valueless when one gets 22,000 people without cards at all. Many must be living on crime. There is no doubt about that. There was an article in "The Times" two weeks ago stating that 9 per cent. of the crime in London in 1946 was attributable to deserters. I do not know how "The Times" obtained these figures, but I believe most of the figures in "The Times," and that was what they gave.
I know one deserter who has been in crime for about a year, and is reputed to have had about 4'250,000 in precious stones. He does not go in for any other articles, such as furs, for instance. He was arrested in Berkshire, and the only charge preferred against him was for having a false identity card, in respect of which he
1602
received one month's imprisonment. He was living next door to a police inspector in Hendon, and his children played with the inspector's children for over 12 months. Only yesterday or the day before another deserter confessed to having beaten up a schoolmistress at Roedean.
I am dead against a general amnesty. I do not believe that one can do that, because there are millions who have served their country faithfully, and it would be wrong to let those off completely who have deserted. We are, as time goes on, more lenient with the Germans, and because of that we have to review the problem in the light of the present situation. I would like to offer to the Minister of Defence one or two suggestions. In the first place, I imagine a great number of deserters came from Eire, and I believe several thousands have already gone back. They are a dead loss anyhow. They will not come back. They should be formally discharged without any claim to their gratuity at a future date. By law, the deserter must, in the ordinary way, be dealt with by court martial, except in the Royal Navy, where the captain of a ship, destroyer, or cruiser, has powers to award 90 days' detention to the deserter, subject to confirmation by warrant by the Admiralty. As far as the R.A.F. is concerned, I should like to see Section 12 of the Air Force Act, which deals with deserters, and Paragraph 1129 of King's Regulations, modified to permit—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not permitted to deal with legislation.>
Air-Commodore Harvey: I quite appreciate that, Sir, and was not intending to pursue the point further. I mention it because I think there is an argument for increasing the powers of commanding officers to deal with cases. A station commander in the R.A.F. now has powers to allot up to 28 days' detention. In many cases such punishment would be enough. If it is not enough, however, the case can go to the Air Officer Commanding the Group, who has larger powers to deal with cases summarily; usually such an officer is of the rank of Air Vice-Marshal. In compassionate cases, it may not be necessary even to award 28 days' detention. When there are no extenuating circumstances at all, the case should be remanded to a court martial. A directive should go out from the Air Ministry, the

1603
War Office and the Admiralty to ensure uniformity of punishment for deserters, no matter to which Service they belong, so that they may be treated fairly.
When a deserter surrenders voluntarily, as the result of an appeal the Minister has made or may make, I suggest he should be discharged after undergoing his punishment. He is no good to the Service; he is a "bad hat" with a cloud over him, and the Service would be well shut of him. His gratuity should be paid or withheld at the discretion of the authorities, and be dependent on the merits of the case. The longer the time of desertion, the more crimes the man has probably committed, but in the case of a man who surrenders voluntarily the petty crimes of having lived without an identity card or without a ration book ought to be brushed aside. A man will be the more deterred from surrendering if he knows he must be tried by court martial for some things and for petty offences by a civil court.
Many desc ters Wave strong reasons for having deserted; not great numbers of them, but a number. These reasons may have been family troubles, for instance. I have a letter—it is anonymous, of course—from a deserter. I shall not bore the House by reading the whole of it, but I propose to read a paragraph to show how a man may have what seems to him to be a good reason—as distinct, that is, from a criminal one—for deserting. The writer says:
"I am a deserter. I am quite willing to go into the coal mines or to any other job the Government would like to send me to, if they will dishonourably discharge me from the Forces. I have been a deserter for several years, not because I want to be a deserter, but because I have no other way out. I was forced to desert through the medical men. Before the war my complaint got serious. I had to wear special irons and boots. My complaint is deformity of both feet."
He goes on to talk of conscientious objectors being given special treatment, and so on. There is a case of a man who probably had reasons for deserting the Forces. They are not all "bad hats."
If the Minister were to stretch a little more the appeal he made last year he might pull in 3,000 or 4,000 more of these men, who are roaming the countryside, getting themselves into trouble, and making themselves a great nuisance to the community. I know the Minister has a very kind heart, and that he would
1604
like to get some more of these men to surrender. I hope, therefore, that he will review the position, while at the same time maintaining discipline in the Services.
11.15 p.m.
Mr. Austin: I am glad that the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) has raised this matter. I have enumerated various arguments over the past year, and have initiated two Debates, and have asked many Questions on the subject, without, I regret to say, receiving any satisfaction from the Minister. I hope that, whereas he has hardened his heart to a Member on the back benches on his own side, he may be magnanimous towards one on the Opposition benches.
I will not weary the House by repeating the argument I have used previously, but it is obvious from what has been said that the number of deserters is increasing, and if that is a fact it means in effect that the treatment so far meted out is not succeeding. It is my contention that if the Minister wants to deal fairly with this matter, he must accord treatment that will achieve some sort of solution, and that is not happening at the moment. I welcome the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the discretion be left with the Commanding Officer either to punish the man or to forgive him for the offence. There seems to be some doubt whether the Commanding Officer has the discretion, but if I may refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the Debate I last initiated on this count, I referred then to the King's Regulations which provide for the C.O.'s competence in this matter. I do think that is the most reasonable solution. Indeed, after the last war, somewhere about 1924, the then Secretary of State for War, Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, had to fall back on this solution of allowing the matter to be left to the Commanding Officer. It seems to me that if we are not to see an increase in crime—and we have had about 9 per cent. of indictable crime laid to the door of deserters in the Metropolitan Area alone—something of this kind ought to be done. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite quoted a letter. I could show the Minister a file of letters of the most heartrending character from men and their relatives who have written to me in the past.

1605
I have appealed to the Minister from almost every conceivable aspect. I have pointed out that an amnesty or partial amnesty—and I am only asking for a partial amnesty—has been granted in various other countries in the world. I have appealed to him on grounds of military efficiency, on grounds of discipline, and of reason and common sense and on grounds of sentiment. I hope tonight he will have some message of hope for those men who are deserters, very often through no fault of their own. Without taking up any more time, I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the whole question. If his brief is already prepared and he will not give way, I appeal to him to think it over. The question is a running sore and something will have to be done if we are to arrive at a reasonable solution.
11.18 p.m.
The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): am glad to have the opportunity of clearing up some of the points which have been referred to from time to tune in these Debates and in Questions with regard to deserters. It is an unfortunate and distressing business to have this number of deserters, but I want to say at once that the figures which have had to be given from time to time can easily be quite misleading in the minds of the public as to what is the true volume of the trouble. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) quoted figures given in the early part of last year and compared them with the figures of deserters outstanding in October last. The fact is that the figures given in January related entirely to men who had deserted in this country. When we came to deal with further Questions during the course of the year, we felt it right to give the total for the whole world.
It is not true, if I may say so to my hon. Friend on this side, that the net figures of deserters are increasing. They are certainly not decreasing at the rate I would like them to decrease, but nevertheless, broadly speaking, they are decreasing. The figure for deserters throughout the world was 23,000 in January, 1947, and at 31st December, 1947, was just over 20,100, so that there has been a decrease over the year of round about 3,000. It is true, of course, that during the first quarter of 1947, because of the offer of
1606
leniency we got a considerable increase above the normal flow of surrenders over the period of ten weeks during the currency of the Government's special appeal. But I would say to the hon. and gallant Member who raised this subject tonight, that we got nearly 2,500 during that period altogether, and there was a net reduction in the total of deserters of about 3,000 over the year.
It is obvious that while we have the continuing problem of desertion from the Forces—and large numbers of these men return only a comparatively short time after they have been put off the absence-without-leave list, and posted as deserters—one of the reasons why I cannot yield to the "sweet reasonableness" of the hon. Member who has just spoken is because of the effect on discipline. One has to remember that in the present circumstances under which we have to continue National Service, we cannot appear so lenient as some countries, who have no continuing National Service army. In the case of the United States—apart from special treatment for conscientious objectors—the general principle that has been followed there is the same as we are following here.
We are often pressed about this question of numbers, and, in that connection, I would add one other point. It is almost impossible to have constant dissection of figures in order to discuss particular aspects of the problem of deserters. The numbers may actually be much less than the figures which we return. Every month now, the Army alone deal with about 60 cases of men who have deserted, but who have enlisted again in another unit, sometimes twice, or even on three occasions. There are also the men who join another arm of the Services. I recall the case brought to my notice recently of a man who had joined six units under six different names, having deserted each time. So it will be seen that the recorded total over the whole of the units may very easily be much larger than is actually the case. I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member opposite for having reminded us that, in the case of Southern Ireland, there is a large block of men who have returned to Eire; and it has to be remembered that we have no further jurisdiction over them. It is considered by some that it would be possible for us to write them off altogether, so that they

1607
would have no further claim upon us, with no rights in future to gratuity. But the Service Departments have to consider how that affects everyone else in the deserters' list—men who have not the same cover of domicile as applies to those whose homes are in that particular area. That is the difficulty, and while I do not say that I would not accept such a scheme, I have some doubt whether it could be made effective.
I was asked about the possibility of greater latitude being accorded in the summary treatment of offenders who surrender, more on the lines allowed in the Royal Navy. The code of discipline of the Royal Navy has always been somewhat different from that of the Army and the Royal Air Force, and for reasons which have grown up with the respective Services. There is the obvious difference of the practicability of making arrangements sufficiently frequently for general courts martial. There is moreover always the argument to be made that a single code of discipline should, so far as is possible, be applied in each of the three Services. It is true, as the hon. and gallant Member has pointed out, that there is something of the same kind in regard to summary jurisdiction in the Army and the R.A.F. But the station officer and the Commanding Officer in those two Services have less latitude in regard to the extent to which they can punish. From the inquiries I have made—and I have made inquiries about it specifically—I am afraid that this proposal is not looked upon very favourably. It would give rise to a number of difficulties. And I am bound to say—though I hope it will not be out of order for me to do so on an Adjournment Motion—that to put his proposal into effect would require legislation. It would not be possible to get over Section 46 (2) of the Army and Air Force Acts, without amending legislation; and I am not certain that all hon. Members would be willing to increase the powers of Commanding Officers in the Army and the Royal Air Force.
Air—Commodore Harvey: May I say that I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has appreciated that if the cases were dealt with summarily, the men involved would be freed from being kept under close arrest,
1608
probably in cells, for three or perhaps six months.
Mr. Alexander: I agree that that is a point of substance, but there are two matters which I would mention. One is that those who surrender, except in some very few cases in which, perhaps, papers had to be brought from long distances, and cases coming from widely scattered areas, have had their cases dealt with in very quick time. In the great majority of cases, these men have not been under detention, and their family and dependants' allowances were immediately restored on their surrender. They were put under open arrest and dealt with as quickly as possible. But I do not rule out entirely consideration of the suggestion which has been put forward, and there is no reason why any hon. Member should not raise this question of summary jurisdiction when we are dealing with the annual Estimates of the Army and Royal Air Force. But I cannot be forthcoming tonight and say that this point is one which I think the Service Departments will look upon with favour.
Let me say, with regard to leniency, that, generally speaking, there is an amazing amount for which we have never been given sufficient credit; but I am anxious that the sympathy which hon. Members show for deserters should not be used so as to deter their surrender. The fact is that a great number of men who have surrendered and have been sentenced have not served any of their sentence. The sentence has been immediately suspended. A great many others have been sentenced more heavily on the ground of the circumstances involved in individual cases. It may have been that there were less grounds for compassion. But of the 2,500 who surrendered in response to my appeal, a comparatively small number have served as much as six months; and even those sentences have been under constant review, with the possibility of their being suspended altogether. When I look at what has been done in that connection, I say that it would be unfair to those who have served their sentences after surrender, or who are rehabilitating themselves after surrender, to go further in the direction of leniency. It would have a deleterious effect on the discipline of the serving Forces. I am sure the Govern

1609
ment would not adopt the suggestion that we should encourage any further leniency in that connection, and I could not recommend such a course to the Government.
I would point out, however, one special thing on the point that some deserters have stated that they did not want to come back as it meant going on serving a long time after. From about August we did not insist upon a man serving in the Army for twelve months after he had surrendered. A deserter used to be required to serve 12 months' good conduct before he had his previous time restored to him in settling what should be his age and service group for release. That concession has been made to induce them to come back. I hope that many will take advantage of that.
I hope that members will not be misled by the kind of reports one gets in the papers given by individual cases which suggest that deserters generally were being very badly and harshly dealt with. All these cases, which are examined by the District Commanding Officer, are immediately dealt with sympathetically if they are compassionate cases. I hope very much that regard will be paid to the facts I have put before the House tonight. If any man who is now a deserter really wants to make good and have his conscience clear, and without any chance of interference in future in his civilian life, he can come back and be
1610
leniently treated and come out again and face life, as he ought to face it, as a good and decent citizen.
The extent to which these men engage in crime is overestimated. I have had the figures looked up so far as one can measure them from the Metropolitan returns. In the Metropolitan Police District, of the total number of persons arrested for indictable crimes, in 1944, deserters accounted for only 7 per cent. and in 1945 for 5.7 per cent. While precisely parallel statistics are not available for 1946, I am informed that of those convicted—and therefore I agree that it is not as comprehensive as the case of those arrested—only 4.7 per cent. were deserters. We cannot compare the general population with the kind of population we have in the Armed Forces, knowing that we had to call up during the War all classes of citizens, including some who were criminals already or who had criminal tendencies. When hon. Members take account of that they will find that there is nothing like so serious a contribution to crime by the deserter as has been suggested.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Twenty-six Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.

SHIPPING
  Atlantic Service (Scotland)
  Atlantic Service (Scotland)
  Dock Facilities
  Dock Facilities
  LONDON TRANSPORT EXECUTIVE (COMMITTEES)
  LONDON TRANSPORT EXECUTIVE (COMMITTEES)
ROADS
  Private Hire Vehicles (Petrol)
  Private Hire Vehicles (Petrol)
  Car Parking, Metropolitan Area
  Car Parking, Metropolitan Area
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Steel Scrap
  Steel Scrap
  Steel Wire
  Steel Wire
  Engineering Industries (New Entrants)
  Engineering Industries (New Entrants)
  Unwrought Zinc (Purchases)
  Unwrought Zinc (Purchases)
AGRICULTURE
  New Town, Crawley (Drainage Plan)
  New Town, Crawley (Drainage Plan)
  Acreage Production
  Acreage Production
  Machinery
  Machinery
  Poultry Rations (Allocation)
  Poultry Rations (Allocation)
  Ploughshares, East Riding
  Ploughshares, East Riding
  Field Drainage, Bridport
  Field Drainage, Bridport
  Wool Clip (Price)
  Wool Clip (Price)
  Water Supply Schemes
  Water Supply Schemes
  County Committees (Constitution)
  County Committees (Constitution)
  Farm Tenancy, East Sussex
  Farm Tenancy, East Sussex
  Flooding, Severn Valley
  Flooding, Severn Valley
  Prisoners of War
  Prisoners of War
  Dispossessed Farmers
  Dispossessed Farmers
  Allotments and Gardens
  Allotments and Gardens
  Anti-Abortion Vaccine
  Anti-Abortion Vaccine
  Hill Cattle Subsidy (Rates)
  Hill Cattle Subsidy (Rates)
  Dung Forks
  Dung Forks
  Attested Cattle
  Attested Cattle
  Grass-Drying Centres (Grants and Loans)
  Grass-Drying Centres (Grants and Loans)
  Petrol (County Committees)
  Petrol (County Committees)
  Tractors and Ploughs
  Tractors and Ploughs
  TROUT AND SALMON FISHERIES (OTTERS)
  TROUT AND SALMON FISHERIES (OTTERS)
  ORDNANCE SURVEY MAPS (SALES, SCOTLAND)
  ORDNANCE SURVEY MAPS (SALES, SCOTLAND)
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Essex Institute of Agriculture
  Essex Institute of Agriculture
  Building Licences, Stoke
  Building Licences, Stoke
  Huts, Peplow Airfield
  Huts, Peplow Airfield
  Farm Building Work
  Farm Building Work
  Glass and Plaster Supplies
  Glass and Plaster Supplies
  Prosecution, North Walsham
  Prosecution, North Walsham
GERMANY AND AUSTRIA
  British Husbands (Entry Permits)
  British Husbands (Entry Permits)
  People's Congress
  People's Congress
  Heavy Industries (Socialisation)
  Heavy Industries (Socialisation)
  Refugees (Legal Protection)
  Refugees (Legal Protection)
  Prime Minister of Lower Saxony
  Prime Minister of Lower Saxony
  Displaced Persons Camps
  Displaced Persons Camps
  PRISONERS OF WAR (REVIEWED CASES)
  PRISONERS OF WAR (REVIEWED CASES)
  MAINTENANCE ORDERS (INTERNATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS)
  MAINTENANCE ORDERS (INTERNATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS)
  FOREIGN SERVICE (PAY DEDUCTION)
  FOREIGN SERVICE (PAY DEDUCTION)
CHINA
  British Subjects, Shanghai (Claims)
  British Subjects, Shanghai (Claims)
  Kowloon (White Paper)
  Kowloon (White Paper)
  ORIENTAL STUDIES (COMMISSION'S REPORT)
  ORIENTAL STUDIES (COMMISSION'S REPORT)
  EASTERN EUROPE (PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION)
  EASTERN EUROPE (PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Fruit and Vegetables (Up-Grading Application)
  Fruit and Vegetables (Up-Grading Application)
  Imported Fruit (Manchester Committee)
  Imported Fruit (Manchester Committee)
  Danish Carrots
  Danish Carrots
  Argentine Maize and Meat
  Argentine Maize and Meat
  Italian Cauliflower Imports
  Italian Cauliflower Imports
  Meat and Fish Price Schedules
  Meat and Fish Price Schedules
  Seed Potatoes (Purchase)
  Seed Potatoes (Purchase)
  Sugar (Transport)
  Sugar (Transport)
  Meat (Wholesale Distribution)
  Meat (Wholesale Distribution)
  New Zealand Gifts
  New Zealand Gifts
  Condemned Meat, Wallsend
  Condemned Meat, Wallsend
  Carrots (Profit Margin)
  Carrots (Profit Margin)
  Hospital Patients (Meat Ration)
  Hospital Patients (Meat Ration)
  Chocolate and Sweet Trade (New Entrants)
  Chocolate and Sweet Trade (New Entrants)
  Milk Consumption, Birkenhead
  Milk Consumption, Birkenhead
  Biscuits and Puddings (Returned Consignments)
  Biscuits and Puddings (Returned Consignments)
  Animal Feedingstuffs
  Animal Feedingstuffs
  Apple Prices
  Apple Prices
  Demonstration Vans
  Demonstration Vans
  SOAP SUBSTITUTES (PRICES)
  SOAP SUBSTITUTES (PRICES)
  PARCELS (DESPATCH TO CONTINENT)
  PARCELS (DESPATCH TO CONTINENT)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Factory, Blackpool (Use)
  Factory, Blackpool (Use)
  Anti-Social Trusts and Combines
  Anti-Social Trusts and Combines
  DOCUMENTS (ASSESSMENTS OF DUTY)
  DOCUMENTS (ASSESSMENTS OF DUTY)
  HOUSING (FARM WORKERS)
  HOUSING (FARM WORKERS)
  CIVIL SERVICE (HIGHER POSTS, REMUNERATION)
  CIVIL SERVICE (HIGHER POSTS, REMUNERATION)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (PERSONAL CASE)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (PERSONAL CASE)
  EAST AND WEST AFRICA (FISHERY RESEARCH)
  EAST AND WEST AFRICA (FISHERY RESEARCH)
  PAMPHLET (IMPRINT)
  PAMPHLET (IMPRINT)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
The Lord Stamp—Oath.
The Lord Mottistone—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Prayers.

  PARLIAMENT BILL.
  2.35 p.m.
  Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Amendment moved by the Marquess of Salisbury on Tuesday last, to Viscount Addison's Motion that the Bill be now read a second time. The Amendment was as follows: Leave out all words after "That" and insert:
  "this House,
  While re-emphasizing its oft expressed readiness to consider proposals for modifying the basis of its membership which may conduce to the more effective performance of its constitutional duties, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill
  which would effect no change in this respect;
  for which the nation has expressed no desire;
  which would go far to expose the country to the dangers of a system of single chamber Government; and
  which can only serve to distract the attention of the country from the economic crisis and from the united effort towards recovery which is so vital at this time."
  The Marquess of SALISBURY: My Lords, by leave of the House and for the convenience of your Lordships, I rise to ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House whether he has now any statement to make on behalf of the Government in answer to the appeal which was made to him last week by myself and by the noble Viscount who leads the Liberal Party here.
  The Lord PRIVY SEAL (Viscount Addison):My Lords, the Government have given careful consideration to the representations made by the noble
  742
  Marquess and by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. The Government are willing to enter into conference on the issues raised, without prejudice on either side, on the understanding that:

  1. So far as discussions of the powers of the Second Chamber are concerned, they should be limited to ensuring reasonable time for the consideration of measures by the Lords, and for the discussion of differences between the two Houses.

  2. The Bill now before the House should either be passed with or without agreed amendment, or rejected by this House, before the end of the present Session.

  3. So far as the composition of the House of Lords is concerned:—

  (a) there would be preliminary conversations on the possibility of there being established a basis for further discussion;.

  (b) in the event of such a basis for discussion being provisionally agreed, the different Parties should examine the same with their own members, before the discussions were renewed; and

  (c) the preliminary discussions should be private and confined to a small number of the leading members of the Parties concerned.

  4. The different Parties should also examine with their own members any suggestions emerging from the discussions relating to the Parliament Bill contemplated under paragraph I.

  The Marquess of SALISBURY: My Lords, your Lordships will, I am sure, have listened with deep interest to the statement which has just been made by the Leader of the House, a copy of which he was good enough to send me. I have read it very carefully. No doubt the noble Viscount would claim that it represents an advance on the part of the Government, and that the present proposal which they have put: before your Lordships indicates a different attitude from that which they held during the debate last week; and no doubt in some respects there has been an advance. At the same time, the words which have been spoken by the noble Viscount to-day appear to me at any rate still to impose a vital limitation upon the scope of the discussions which are now proposed.

  743
  Under paragraph I he says that the discussions as to the powers must be limited—I will quote his actual words:
  "to ensuring reasonable time for the consideration of measures by the Lords, and for the discussion of differences between the two Houses."
  As I understand that statement—and I have read it very carefully—it entirely eliminates from the scope of these discussions the power of delay, after a difference between the two Houses has arisen, to enable public opinion to become informed and to crystallize. To this power to delay, whatever its length may be, as I explained to your Lordships last Tuesday, we on this side of the House attach cardinal importance. To us it is an essential safeguard to the Constitution. Were we to enter into discussions on the basis of these words, as we understand them, our whole position, I am afraid, would be fatally prejudiced, even before the conversations had begun at all.
  As I think is now generally recognized, we in this House are not asking for any powers wider than those we already have. That is not our case. But if, in the discussions which are now envisaged, the Government are not to be committed in any way on the question of the modification of existing powers, I think we may fairly claim that we should not be asked to abandon in advance what we regard as a cardinal principle. If the Government were willing to discuss the whole question of the existing powers, without prejudice on either side, I would make it clear that we should be very ready to co-operate in those discussions. But if my interpretation is right, and the words used by the noble Viscount are the Government's last words, then I am afraid we have no option but to proceed with the Amendment which is now under discussion.
  2.46 p.m.
  Viscount SAMUEL: My Lords, viewing this matter as a whole, it seems to me that very considerable progress has been made, in this statement and in the discussions last week, towards agreement. In the first place, with regard to the composition of the House, the Government now say that they are prepared to enter into a conference, the preliminaries being in two stages. First, there is to be a small private preliminary conference among the leaders of the Parties to ascertain whether a basis for further discussion exists. If
  744
  that preliminary talk results affirmatively, the leaders will be at liberty to consult members of their Parties, and, if those consultations go well, then a full conference will be held to consider the whole matter.
  With regard to powers, as the noble Marquess has said, a difficulty arises upon the wording of paragraph 1 of this statement. The words to which the noble Marquess has just drawn attention seem to imply that the suspensory period under the Parliament Act must be shortened—not "may be shortened," but "must be shortened"—to cover only what might be a reasonable period for the debates in the two Houses and for conferences between them, and that if the proceedings in Parliament on the Bill end in disagreement between the two Houses, then, after the formal ending of the Session, the beginning of a new one and the passing of the Bill a second time by the House of Commons, the Bill should be put upon the Statute Book immediately. On the wording of this paragraph which, no doubt, noble Lords will before long be able to consider on paper, that would seem to be the interpretation. I do not believe, however, that that is the desire or the intention of the Government. They have repeatedly said that they do not propose to establish what would be, in effect, single Chamber Government, although they think there ought to be a reasonable and proper interval for the working of this constitutional arrangement under which Bills can be considered.
  What should be the length of that interval is a matter for consideration. I threw out a suggestion on the last occasion, but I am not tied to that; I am perfectly willing to consider any alternative. The wording of this paragraph would seem to allow, if not to require, that the interval should be even less than that provided for in the Bill now before the House. That, I am sure, must be a misunderstanding, and this point is now reduced to a question of drafting rather than of substance. The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition has said that they do not propose to ask for any additional powers for a reformed House of Lords. Hitherto, it has always been suggested that if the House of Lords were put on a more rational basis it ought to be entrusted with larger powers, and that the Parliament Act should be amended

  745
  in that sense. That is not now urged in any quarter.
  No one is now asking, in any circumstances, for larger powers for the new House than would be given to the present House of Lords, provided that provision is made for a full period of a year to elapse. In general, there is no question of reopening the Parliament Act settlement with regard to powers. That is not suggested in any quarter, so the Government need not fear that the conference would be asked to come to any conclusion which would prejudice the substance of this measure. The Bill, however, reduces the period to a matter of three months, and that, surely, is a point to be debated by the conference. For my own part, if I were asked whether I would be prepared to enter into a conference on the basis of. this statement, I would say, "Certainly; most gladly—provided it is understood that the suspensory period under the Parliament Act is not to be cut clown to nothing; that you will not limit the period, once a Bill has been dealt with in one Session of Parliament, to merely a few weeks or, conceivably a few clays." I think we felt last week that it was the general sense in all Parties that we should not necessarily be tied to the letter of this Bill, provided that we achieved its purpose. On that understanding, if I am. correct in it, I would be very willing to enter into this Conference.
  Viscount ADDISON: My Lords, I am sure that it would not be your Lordships' wish to have a debate now on the interpretation of this phrase, which you see for the first time. But I would like to say, in reply to the noble Viscount who has just spoken, that it never entered anybody's head, so far as I have heard, to reduce the period below one year. That was not the point at all. This statement is put forward in an entirely reasonable way to see whether we can discuss, in a friendly and constructive manner, the criticisms which emerged on the point of view of time. The Parliament Act relates to time and lays down a period of two years. The Bill before the House proposes to reduce the delaying period from two years to one year. We are dealing with certain difficulties which might arise if a Bill were not sent to this Chamber until very late in the Session, when there might not be sufficient and fair bona fide opportunity for discussing
  746
  the measure. This is entirely a friendly effort to try and provide for the discussion in a friendly way 0? those particular issues. There is no sinister intention behind it at all and it has been completely misinterpreted.
  I am glad at all events that the noble Viscount paid some tribute to the very considerable recognition which the Government have made of the desire of your Lordships for a discussion of other matters besides powers-—a very important departure from what was previously understood. I should like your Lordships to note that paragraph 3 (a) of the statement I made earlier this afternoon—and I think it is quite right—says that any preliminary discussion on these matters should be regarded as purely of that character, aiming at seeing whether a basis for further discussion can be arrived at. Then it is proposed that the matter should be discussed with the members of the political Parties concerned, before any further proceedings are taken, so that everybody will be taken fully into our confidence. I confess that I think paragraph 1 of my statement is a reasonable and fair attempt to meet the criticism that in some cases one year might not be enough and to try to arrive, if a case is made out, at some adjustment where dispute arises. I hope that during the debate which will now take place your Lordships will give friendly consideration to this very important Government statement. I am sure that if you do, you will recognize that we have made, if I may be allowed to say so, a very generous and fair-minded attempt to meet the criticisms raised last week.
  The Marquess of SALISBURY: My Lords, I certainly do not wish to continue this debate, but one rather important point was made by the Leader of the House. He said that in one respect I have misinterpreted him. I shall be very glad to be told how.
  Viscount ADDISON: I was referring to the fact that the noble Marquess made rather grudging recognition of the advances which the Government have made. It was to that, I think, that I was referring.
  The Marquess of SALISBURY: The noble Viscount has given a definition of the purpose of paragraph I which seems to be identical with mine.
  Viscount SAMUEL: If that is so, all is well. My Lords, if I may be permitted to make one additional observation, I should like to say that very great approximations have come from both sides. Both sides have made considerable concessions and the only point now to be made clear is the terms of the discussion of differences between the two Houses. If that means only conferences between the House of Lords and the House of Commons to try to resolve any difficulty, it would not be adequate, but if "discussion" means general discussion, then our objections, which have been objections largely of wording, would be met.
  Viscount ADDISON: I cannot be expected, and I am sure the House would not except me, to give any further interpretation of the words of the statement. I think they are a fair presentation of the case and any further discussion would perhaps be more advantageous if the debate now proceeded.
  2.58 p.m.
  Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, I feel that the position to-day is just about as difficult as it was when I rose from this place last week. I do not really know whether we are going to discuss the Amendment of my noble friend, and incidentally the Bill, or whether we are to discuss the statement of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, which I think is quite impossible at such short notice. I take it, therefore, that I shall be in order in discussing the Amendment of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, and, incidentally, the Bill. I do not see in the circumstances how I can do anything else, and I hope 'that anything I say will not interfere in any way with the situation as I see it—although I am going to deal with facts that are sometimes rather unpleasant, so far as noble Lords opposite are concerned.
  Like all other members of your Lordships' House, no doubt, I have tried to consider this matter with an open mind. It is an extremely important period of our history and I have tried to take out of my mind altogether any political prejudices which I may have and to look upon this as a subject for very serious consideration. In doing that, I have asked myself, in view of the difficult situation in which our country now finds itself: Is there anything in this Bill which will bring more raw materials to our industries? Is there anything in this Bill to
  748
  bring more food to our people, more dollars, more prestige to our country in the world, more friendly relations with foreign countries? And I am bound to say that I can find nothing in this Bill that will achieve any of these things. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House referred to 1911 and to the present time. Surely there is no comparison there at all. In 1911, as your Lordships well know, the Budget was thrown out by your Lordships' House. From 1918 to 1945 no legislation was passed of which your Lordships' House did not approve. This, quite obviously, has not been the case since 1945. Yet no single Bill has been rejected by this House—although some legislation, I have no doubt, would have made some of the ancestors of your Lordships turn in their graves—thereby proving that this House is quite as able as the other place to move with the times. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House referred to the September sitting of your Lordships' House. He said that there was just as great a crisis in 1932, when there were 2,900,000 unemployed, as there is to-day. I want to be as little controversial as possible, but the noble Viscount said that, and he seemed to me to indicate that that was the fault of the Tory Party and, no doubt, the Liberal Party of the day. May I remind him that when the Labour Party went into office in 1929 there were 1,116,000 unemployed, and by 1931, when they were still in office, there were 2,762,000 unemployed. I want the noble Viscount to realize that we are not going to accept the responsibility for 2,900,000 unemployed, as he seemed to me to suggest. I do not, of course, want to misjudge him. As is well known, after the Labour Government went out of office, although unemployment rose for a short time, it then gradually dropped away until it was reduced by one half of the legacy which they had left. I would suggest that we do away with any talk of that sort, because I think the noble Viscount will realize that it is not very reasonable.
  It looks to me, therefore, as if the position that arose when your Lordships asked for a sitting in September of last year, when the Government had just taken totalitarian powers which practically ruled out Parliamentary government altogether, is in no way analogous to the position in 1932. Where does the "will of the people" come in when you

  749
  have Orders in Council which can be implemented without discussion in either House? This House was quite justified in being anxious in regard to what was going to happen during the three months recess, when any legislation could have been implemented without the knowledge of either Chamber. I consider that your Lordships would have been wanting in your duty had you not met. I ask myself: Is not this Bill another attempt to override still further government by traditional constitutional methods in this country, and to continue the drive to totalitarianism, which would wreck democracy by the removal of the last barrier between the Government and total power? I ally myself emphatically with my noble friend the Marquess of Salisbury in asking what measure or measures are contemplated to justify this arbitrary change which is suggested if this Bill has nothing to do with the nationalization of iron and steel, as we have been assured by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. I think the country and this House have the right to know, particularly in view of the statement made in another place by the Lord President of the Council on December 10th last. He said:
  "This Bill"—
  that is to say, the Bill which we are now discussing—
  "may be related to a whole series of measures before this Parliament is done…. The Opposition do not know what is coming to them."
  Does the noble Viscount the Leader of the House know what these measures are to be? It would appear from what the noble Viscount has said that no mandate is now necessary. What is the motive justifying this Bill? If the Government in the last year of power before the General Election find any measure rejected by your Lordships, what is their worry? Do they anticipate defeat at the General Election? If they do, I can quite understand why this Bill is brought in. But is if quite fair if they do anticipate defeat, that they should shoulder the next Government with legislation which they would on no account pursue if they had their own way? It seems to me that these questions must be considered now; it is no use waiting until after this Bill has had. a Second Reading.
  That leads me to another subject. I am going to quote from another distinguished
  750
  Minister of the Government, Sir Hartley Shawcross. He said in another place: "We are the masters now." We nave been led to believe—and I have always thought it—that the Government of the country were the servants of the people. According to that remark, the boot is on the other foot. If there is to be a Second Chamber at all, why alter the present powers? I do not see that under this Bill we shall have sufficient powers for the purposes of a Second Chamber. I thought this was well demonstrated by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Liberal Party in this House last week. I would, however, like to refresh Lord Samuel's memory. On two or three occasions he referred to the three Parties in this House. I would like him to remember that there is a fourth Party—the Party to which I belong; and that that Party has in the other place a larger representation than the Liberal Party. I would urge the noble Viscount to remember that, so that in any future discussions which take place my Party should be fully remembered, as no doubt will be the Liberal Party.
  Viscount SAMUEL: I will tie a knot in my handkerchief.
  Lord TEVIOT: I am delighted to hear that, and I hope the noble Viscount, when referring to the number of Parties in your Lordships' House, will use the word "four" instead of "three."
  As I have said, I wholeheartedly support the Amendment of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition. The question of reform must take precedence over any curtailment of powers. I do not for one moment believe that if the situation were reversed noble Lords opposite would allow this Bill through in its present form. This country is in a perilous position to-day. It is no laughing matter; we have heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what a serious state we are in, and I would remind the Lord Chancellor that I have been superseded as a man of gloom. We: are getting the real facts of the situation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am very glad he is putting all this before us. That is all I have to say on this subject, apart from a final appeal, which is this. As has been said this afternoon in every part of the House, your Lordships want an efficient and powerful Second Chamber. If that be so, surely the noble

  751
  Viscount who leads this House—and docs it, if I may say so, with great charm and in a manner which makes one feel: "I only wish to goodness I could agree with him"—must see, before this debate is over, that the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition has suggested the right line to take. For those reasons, I shall most whole-heartedly support the Amendment on the Paper.
  3.13 p.m
  The Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY: My Lords, like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I have a considered speech in my hand about the Motion and the Amendment, but I do not propose to deliver it. It seems to me it would be a disaster if, at this time, noble Lords were to spend three days on end, delivering their opinions upon the general constitutional question of the relationship between the two Houses, the past history of the House of Lords and the present contents of the Bill before us. Such topics would seem to me to detract from the real situation in which we now stand and to be unreal, distasteful and harmful. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and, indeed, the noble Marquess the Leader of the Conservative Party here held up before our eyes on Tuesday the vision of a real opportunity by which, after many years, a sore and vexing constitutional question might be faced and solved. The noble Viscount ended with a peroration which I should be glad if every member of this House would take away and read again. There is the real question before us: can this House now seize that opportunity and rise to a great occasion?
  This Government, during their history, have done some things requiring great courage and great imagination. Here is an opportunity in which the Government, with the consent of all other Parties, are on the verge of another great imaginative action which would be of untold value to the nation as a whole. The offer was made. The Government have replied. May I say that I am sorry myself that it has been tied up in such a number of words; I still have not discovered what they all mean. They are obscure, and it seems to me that it was unnecessary for the Government to be obscure or to go into verbiage at this stage. Their situation is absolutely secure. Whatever this House may do, the Government can have their Bill in—I think the noble Marquess
  752
  said—November, 1949. Their position is absolutely secure. If I may say so, I think they might have been generous and said in reply to the challenge the simple words: "Yes, we are ready to enter into conference." As I say, I am sorry that they did not make that perfectly simple, generous reply, instead of tying it up in a number of words.
  Having said that, let me agree that the Government have made a very real advance, as the noble Viscount pointed out. There is now hardly anything between the Government and the Opposition. It has been narrowed to such a point that it really would be disastrous if the whole matter were now to be dropped and we were to go back again to a long debate upon this Amendment and upon the Second Reading of the Bill. The small difference is on the matter of powers. May I say that, small though the difference is, the subject is of immense importance? You cannot properly separate the composition of this House from the powers of this House. I do, however, bear in mind that so far as the powers are concerned, that matter could be fought out and, if necessary, the Bill be rejected on the Third Reading. The Bill is concerned with powers and their operation. There can be a free fight upon the Bill in Committee, and the majority of the House can determine what it likes as to powers in amending the Bill, but the fact remains that whatever we do will be perfectly ineffective if it is rejected by the other House, because the Bill will be passed over our heads. However, in the debate on the Bill there is still an opportunity for discussing powers. I am inclined to think that if this all-Party conference met, they would, as the noble Viscount has said, find themselves peaceably discussing the real matters of dispute as to the powers of this House.
  However that may be, one thing about which I am deeply concerned is that this moment shall not he lost for an all-Party conference. I implore those who are responsible for the conduct of affairs in this House to see that, instead of relapsing into a long series of debates, which will only exacerbate feeling and make agreement over differences less likely, we get back to the real question, which is how we are to establish straight away the beginnings of an all-Party conference. I feel profoundly that a long debate now can do no good whatsoever. I think it

  753
  can do only harm, and can only injure the vision which is held up before us. I am bound to say that I feel that the Amendment, if it were carried, could do no good whatsoever. I agree with almost everything that is in that Amendment, and if I had nothing else to consider I would vote for it, but I cannot see what good it will do. It will not mean the end of this Bill and of its subsequent enactment under the processes of the present Parliament Act. It will not stop anything and it will not help anything. Finally, what I should like would be for the debate to be now adjourned, so that without further delay conversations on the proposals put forward by the Government, all but accepted by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Conservative Party, and accepted by the Leader of the Liberal Party, could begin. If that cannot be, and if the debate must continue and the Amendment be put, then, for myself, I can only say that I hope the Amendment will be lost and that the Bill will be given a Second Reading. I say that for this reason: that if the Bill gets its Second Reading something can be done with it that otherwise cannot be done. If it is not given a Second Reading it will pass into law in its present form. I should devoutly deplore that, because it is a bad Bill. Let it be given a Second Reading and let it be amended. There will then at least be a chance that, when it passes into law—and no one can stop it doing that—it will be in a better form than that in which it now is.
  The Marquess of SALISBURY: I very much dislike interrupting the most reverend Primate, but he said that I was all but in agreement with the Government's present position. I am not. I think this one paragraph in their statement vitiates the whole statement. The most reverend Primate said that the question of powers would be discussed in the debates on the present Bill. But if we go into a conference under the terms of this statement, we have to accept the Government's definition of our powers before we commence discussion. This statement does not make that position clear. I should not like it to go out that I was in agreement with that.
  The Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY: I had No intention of misrepresenting the noble Marquess. What I meant was that the difference of opinion was so small as to be unimportant. I hope that if the conference
  754
  begins it will be found that there is no fundamental difference. The second paragraph mentions the question of limiting powers. Your Lordships' House has power to insert a provision in that regard in the Bill. However, I do not wish to keep your Lordships any longer. I think everybody will have realized that we are dealing with a number of obscurities. I have already suggested that the Government could simply say "Yes," and leave it at that. But, speaking for myself, I devoutly hope, for the reasons I have indicated, that if we have to go to a Division the Second Reading will be carried, so that your Lordships' House may control the Bill and see that it is made a better measure. I hope, secondly, that rather than continue what may be an ineffective debate, we shall do everything possible to see that the fullest advantage is taken of this opportunity and that it is not lost.
  3.23 p.m.
  Viscount SIMON: My Lords, may I venture to ask a single question in order to clear away confusion? The whole House is anxious to be clear on what I really think is very far from clear at present. I therefore venture to ask this question: Can the Government say that they will confer on powers—that is. as between one year and two years, and as to the date from which the time is to count—as well as on composition? It is no use for anybody to go on using language that I must say leaves me completely unable to interpret its meaning. One is loath to believe that the Government have made the statement deliberately incomprehensible, and I would venture most respectfully to inquire what is the answer to the question I have put.
  Viscount ADDISON: What is the question?
  Viscount SIMON: The question is, as I have stated: Can the Government say they will confer on powers—that is as between one year and two years and as to the date from which the time is to count—as well as confer on composition? If they will say so, then we have the basis for a discussion: but if they will not say so, then it is manifest that there is a difference between us which I think at least excuses the anxieties which we feel on this side. Personally I find this paragraph quite incomprehensible.
  3.26 p.m.
  Viscount ADDISON: My Lords, it is interesting to know that a sentence anywhere is incomprehensible to the noble and learned Viscount. I must say it interests me exceedingly that anyone could construct a sentence which is incomprehensible to him. Now this statement, notwithstanding the animadversions of the most reverend Primate, is an exceedingly clear statement. That is my view. I am now replying to the noble and learned Viscount. We are prepared to discuss both subjects. It says so in the statement. Then with regard to discussion of powers, we say there what it is we think we should discuss. That is in paragraph 1. With regard to the composition of the House, we say how we should proceed with the discussion. That surely means that we are willing to discuss. And we also say that we propose to proceed by seeing whether there is a basis for further discussion, and, if there is, we are then to report that to our friends before we go on any further. That is a perfectly clear statement and it means that we are prepared to discuss. Now so far as interpretation goes, I am most willing to discuss these things in a friendly way. The Bill before the House deals with time and it deals with Parliamentary proceedings. It alters the Act and it substitutes one year for two. It relates to time. Those are questions which we are prepared to discuss with good will, and we say so. I cannot pretend to interpret it any better than that.
  The Marquess of SALISBURY: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for what he has said, but he has not made the matter any clearer. With great respect to the most reverend Primate, I think it would be better if we were to get on with the debate and allow everyone to say what he has to say.
  Lord TEVIOT: I want to ask the noble Lord this question: does any discussion as suggested by him mean ipso facto that he has the Bill?
  Viscount ADDISON: The' most reverend Primate stated so; if the Bill is rejected on Second Reading, it will not, in fact, make any difference, because the Bill will be passed, only we shall not have the advantages of any Amendment which we should otherwise have; that is all.
  3.31 p.m.
  Viscount CECIL of CHELWOOD: My Lords, these attempts to make things quite clear by conversation across the table in your Lordships' House very seldom succeed. I think the real difficulty we are in is that, contrary to the opinion of the most reverend Primate, we are not at all near agreement. We could not be near agreement unless we were prepared to assent to Government policy as a whole. I feel that this is not a small matter of whether we shall have three months, six months or nine months or any of these various times that have been mentioned; that is not the issue at all. The question is much bigger than that. In my view, it is not a question of dates or of the exact length of the delay which this House should be entitled to impose upon legislation. It seems to me to be quite simply a question of whether the House of Commons, without reference to the electorate, can pass any legislation it chooses, including any alteration in the constitutional powers of itself or of this House or, indeed, of any other section of the Constitution.
  That is the Teal question. No doubt, that is more obvious in some parts of this Bill than in others. The curious mass of nebulous verbiage contained in the concluding part of Clause 1 of the Bill goes, perhaps, rather further than other parts of the Bill, but in principle it is merely as I have stated. The proposition that it should have a retrospective effect as well as a prospective effect really illustrates what seems to me the vice of the whole system, the contention that the House of Commons is apparently absolutely sub-sovereign and supreme in this country. That is the proposition, in my view, which is established in this Bill. It is quite true that, if we passed a Bill entirely depriving this House of all its powers, your Lordships might still continue sitting in this Chamber, with the Lord Chancellor presiding with his usual dignity; but it would be a revolution in this House and a revolution in the country. So far as I can see, if this procedure of the Government is sanctioned by public opinion—because, after all, it will have to go before public opinion sooner or later, whatever devices the Government may adopt—there is really no control at all over any House of Commons that may be elected in the future. It means that at any time, to meet any Party

  757
  object or other object, all supervisory powers which are left to this House can be set aside.
  Whether it is one year or two years makes very little difference. At the end of a Parliament, when it has become obvious, as it often has become obvious in our history, that the actual Government have lost all power in the country and have lost all support, it will still be possible for the Government to force through, in the way that they are now proposing to force through this Bill, any other Bill which may be produced. That seems to me to be the serious matter that we have here to consider. It is not a question whether there should be one month, two months or six months, or anything else. It is a question of this procedure that, without any reference to the country or without any reference to anybody else, one is prepared to say that a Resolution of the House of Commons is sufficient to carry any change in the law, without any recourse to anybody else.
  Your Lordships may say that I am putting the matter too high, hut I have read, with what care I could, all the debates that have taken place on this question in another place, and I observe that a section of the: supporters of the Government there said, quite plainly and openly and definitely, that they saw no use whatever in a Second Chamber; that they wished to see it abolished. They were even rather angry with the Government that they had not abolished it straight off. That is the section which this Bill has been brought in to appease. It is a Bill that was forced upon some members of the Cabinet by the extreme Left section of the Cabinet. Of course, I was not there, so in a sense I am only guessing, but I do not suppose anybody doubts that in practice that is what happened. It is not only the enthusiasts in another place who have used language of this kind. There have been certain passages in certain speeches made by Ministers which seem to indicate that they have rather welcomed such talk about the abolition of the Second Chamber, as a warning to this House not to do anything to hamper whatever the Government of the day might choose to do. They thought it would be a useful warning to (his House. What does that mean? It means that they are prepared to use this procedure which they have adopted in this case for any other measure which they
  758
  may desire to promote in order to diminish the powers of this House.
  To my mind, this is a most violent procedure. As for the excuse that has been made for the violence of that procedure, I do not need to say anything very much, because it has already been amply discussed and, no doubt, will be discussed by other speakers in this debate. But, in point of fact, the only suggestion that I have seen—I do not think the Leader of the House quite agreed that that suggestion was valid—is that this violent procedure is necessary in order to secure the passage of some Bill connected with the steel industry. Of course, that is not so at all. That cannot be true, because the worst that this House could do would be to reject the Steel Bill, and the only effect of that would be that it would have to be passed in the first Session of the new Parliament. That would be the only effect, and if the constituencies agreed to support that measure it would be passed as a matter of course. If they did not approve it it would certainly be right that it should be rejected; nobody can doubt that.
  If your Lordships accept the view, as I am going to urge, that the sovereign power in our Constitution is in the people and in the electorate, and not in the House of Commons or in this House, or anywhere else, any attempt to substitute for the people any body or person is a vital breach of our Constitution. The only effect on the Steel Bill of passing this Bill, if that is the excuse for this Bill—even supposing we took full advantage of our existing rights—would be to delay the Steel Bill for one year, unless the constituencies rejected it when the General Election took place. To tell me that the effect of one year on the Steel Bill is a sufficient excuse for a measure of this kind is something which I am quite unable to believe. What seems to be at the bottom of the minds of those who use that argument is that there is something degrading to the House of Commons in allowing the electorate to review any decision to which they may come. They regard it as putting the House of Commons under the subjection of the electorate. That is the fundamental error which I think underlies the whole of this legislation.
  I hold most strongly—and I hope 'he House will support me in so holding—that it is the people who are the sovereign

  759
  power and that any attempt to substitute for the people any body or person is a vital breach of our Constitution. The advocates of this Bill seem to hold that the House of Commons is itself a sovereign body. That is not so. We live, as I see it, under the most complete form of democracy that has ever been established in any country. I do not regret that; on the contrary, I believe it is the best and safest form of Constitution for us, and the essential point of it is that the sovereignty lies with the electorate—that is, the people—and not with the House of Commons or any other body. In the discussions which took place on this Bill elsewhere there was a certain amount of talk about the iniquity of overruling the decisions of the House of Commons. I venture to submit strongly that the House of Commons has no authority whatever other than that which is given to it by the votes of the people. That is the source of the authority; they own no authority independently of that. To set it up as having a right in itself to legislate in this country in defiance of the wishes of the country is, in my view, a very dangerous position to take up.
  I think something might usefully be said about the present position of the House of Commons. One thing that strikes me, at the close of a fairly long political experience, is the immense diminution in the position of the House of Commons that has taken place in that period. The old doctrine of Burke and others that the House of Commons, once elected, should exercise its powers without being overruled by the Government, or even by the electors who elected it, has almost disappeared. Your Lordships will probably recollect a scene in one of Dickens's novels, in which a Member of Parliament is depicted as receiving a deputation from his constituency, who complain bitterly that he has acted entirely on the orders of the Government of the day. They are described as regarding that as a gross infringement of his constitutional duty, which was to decide every question on the grounds of what he thought would be most in the interests of the country, irrespective of the pressure of Ministers. The whole of that conception has absolutely perished. If a Member of the House of Commons dares to think for himself and to vote accordingly,
  760
  he must be ready not only to fight individuals in his constituency, not only to expose himself to the frowns of his Party leaders, but to be told that unless he is content to vote as his leaders tell him, his chance of surviving the next General Election is very small. The Party organization will run a' candidate against him, and the Party organization is controlled by the Government.
  Even when I was in the House of Commons that doctrine was growing, but there was still some degree of personal independence left to its Members. Now that has been almost entirely swept away; and that is the case at least as much on the Left as on the Right. The independence of a Member of Parliament on the Left wing of the House of Commons is certainly no greater than the independence of a Member on the Right. The majority of the House of Commons now consists—and let us remember this, because it is the real fact—of the obedient servants of the Cabinet of the day. The truth is that in the last half century the independence of the House of Commons as such has greatly declined, and the powers of the Cabinet have very greatly increased. We are indeed approaching the plebiscitary conception of Government, whereby, when once a government has been put in office by a plebiscitary vote, it becomes all-powerful. We have seen this happen to some extent in this country, and very completely in other countries of Europe. The best instance I can give, of course, is the case of Hitler who, once having got control of governmental machinery, used it in order to establish a complete tyranny by himself and his immediate assistants; and, as is well known, the same thing has happened in other countries on the Continent.
  That is a very serious matter for our consideration, for there is no worse tyranny than the tyranny of a bureaucracy. I do not deny that the danger is not very obvious or perhaps imminent in this country, but if I read history rightly, Europe has always moved more or less together. The political tendencies on the Continent have always had repercussions in this country, and I doubt not that that is true to-day. What happened in Berlin yesterday and in Moscow to-day may well happen in London to-morrow. Let me mention one other symptom which seems to me very ominous. In the last half

  761
  century the leaders of the House of Commons, have come to insist that almost every phrase in a Government Bill is officially inspired. No change in it is to be permitted. It is quite true that sometimes influences outside induce the Government to modify their proposals, but the normal course is to treat every clause as a question of confidence in the Government. Indeed, in that particular, the power of the Cabinet has been carried further in this country than in any other country.
  All this leads me to the conclusion that if it were to happen that an extreme Government were placed in power by some wave of popular feeling, we could have no sufficient security in the House of Commons. It might well be unwilling or unable to stand up for liberty or justice. It may be said, perhaps, that there is no danger, since the majority of this country have never been in favour of tyranny. I am certainly of that opinion as to the country, but we must remember that revolutions do not usually come from majorities; they more often have been the work of minorities. I remember reading in a work by a French historian that the great French Revolution was the work of a small minority of the French people—I think he put it at something like one-fifteenth or one-sixteenth. It is often said that our revolution of 1688 was accomplished by a minority of the people of this country. Remember, too—and this I venture to say for the benefit of my friends on the Left—that revolution is not always to the Left, but might equally be to the Right. Hitler, I believe, was technically on the Right. Communism is, no doubt, a possible danger, but the domination by a great accumulation of capital is also a risk which I, for one, certainly do not despise.
  It may be said that the people of this country are not at all likely to accept Communism or extreme Capitalism. I agree. But the whole question is whether, under the Constitution as it is proposed to be established by this Bill, and the procedure by which this Bill has been promoted, the people will be consulted at all. I accept, most profoundly, the slogan, "We must trust the people," and for that purpose we must take care that our Constitution makes proper provision for their consultation; and that is one more reason why a Second Chamber is
  762
  essential. I believe, myself, that, apart from a few extremists, the vast majority of the people of this country are agreed, first, that they want a Second Chamber for the kind of reasons which I have tried to develop, and, secondly, that they do not want that Chamber to be all-powerful.
  At this point it is right for me to say a few words about the functions of this House. They are two-fold. In the first place, we give much of our time to the discussion or consideration of various public questions, like Palestine, or Civil Aviation—I cite the subjects of one or two debates which have recently taken place—Foreign Affairs and many others. Sometimes our debates lead to a Resolution, but not always They may raise questions of Party politics but not often. In any case, this House has no power by Resolution to compel a Government to alter its policy, because it has no power as the other House has, to call for a change of Government. Its function in this respect—and a very important function it is—is to advise and discuss, even though it cannot enforce its opinion. I venture to think that to carry out this part of its duties—I hope I shall no: be regarded as impertinent in saying this—this House is exceedingly well constituted, and, if I may be allowed to say so, does excellent work. It consists, as your Lordships have been reminded, o £a certain number of highly qualified experts—political, agricultural, legal, ecclesiastical, administrative, diplomatic, economic, military, naval, aerial, scientific, medical and literary. And, besides these, there is. a body of persons of various callings and professions who may be described—again I apologize if I may be thought to be over-familiar—as normal citizens. In any discussion, the experts on that subject are listened to with courtesy. There is no custom, as there is elsewhere, for the House to empty except for some specially interesting or exciting episode. But the experts—and it is to this that I wish to draw your Lordships' attention—if they are to influence their audience, must talk common sense. The result is often admirable—a well-informed debate conducted in intelligible language. I would venture to remind your Lordships that we have somewhat the same plan in our Courts of Justice. We have juries who represent the common people,

  763
  and a Judge—a legal expert who, if he is to have any influence with these juries, must talk common sense. That plan answers very well for criminal justice, and I think it answers equally well for advisory discussion.
  Besides the actual constitution of the House, it has 'behind it—and of this I am not afraid to remind your Lordships—a great tradition, going back to the earliest times of our history, in which it has, no doubt, made mistakes (who have not?) and perhaps in its advice has sometimes been wrong. But I believe in old days, and certainly during my lifetime, it has been moved by high public spirit and patriotism which would shrink from no sacrifice necessary for the country. It is said, as a matter of great reproach, that many of its members sit by hereditary right. My Lords, the human race all over the world—far more in the East than in the West, far more in the Highlands than in the Lowlands—has attributed great importance to the hereditary principle. I suppose it has been thought that when you are choosing someone to discharge particular duties, the fact that he and his father before him lived in an atmosphere where those duties were recognized to involve serious responsibility, is some recommendation, and perhaps as much as the power to make an ad captandum oration from the hustings. However that may be, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I venture to submit that, for an advisory and consultative body, the hereditary principle, so far as it has been applied, has produced excellent results. It seems to me doubtful, therefore, whether, from that point of view and in this respect, any change in the composition of the House is really needed, except to provide for some Life Peers for various reasons and, perhaps, for the release from their duties of those Peers who have shown that those duties do not interest them. These were two proposals made by my father when he was Prime Minister in 1888.
  I now come to the legislative functions of the House, because you must distinguish between the two. Here, different considerations arise. Our Constitution is based on the Parliamentary system, and its legislation is directed largely by Party principles. The Second Chamber has, therefore, in determining its legislative
  764
  action, to be guided by consideration of its effect on Parties, and, if that action is to be impartial, its Party complexion—that is, the Party complexion of the Second Chamber—cannot be ignored. In the present House, the large and permanent Conservative majority makes it certain that Liberal or Socialist measures will be regarded with less favour than those which are labelled Conservative. That cannot be regarded as satisfactory, nor will the difficulties be cured unless the Party aspect is safeguarded. I am not going to trouble your Lordships by any attempt to analyze the various proposals for reform that have been made in this respect. I venture to say that you must consider what your object is, and your object is to restore the impartiality, the Party impartiality, of this House.
  To my mind, the only satisfactory solution is one which would ensure that legislative decisions in this House are in accord with the considered views of the electorate. I say "considered," because if the opinion of the electorate is to be determined solely by the voting at the last General Election, it would mean, of course, that the Second Chamber would always give the same decision as the First, and that would make it useless. I suggest, therefore, that, keeping the present House as it is, with full powers of discussion and recommendation, the legislative duties should be entrusted to a section of it who should be chosen with regard to the political opinion shown in the last two General Elections. The easiest way of doing that would be to entrust each new House of Commons with the right to nominate, by Proportional Representation, one half of the Legislative Peers, who should hold that office for two Parliaments. Therefore, assuming that the Legislative Peers were two hundred in number, one hundred of them would be chosen in each House of Commons when elected. On the Right, the Legislative Peers would no doubt be mainly chosen from the existing Peers. On the Left, some who are not now Peers would have to be added.
  So, under this system, the House of Lords would consist, first, of existing Peers who would have the right to sit, speak and vote as now, except that they could not vote on matters of legislation; and secondly, of a certain number of Legislative Peers, chosen as I have described.

  765
  The plan involves the separation of the advisory from the legislative function of the Peers, but otherwise makes as little change as possible in the House as we know it. In any case, I feel strongly two things. I think it is a grave mistake in the present economic and international position to ask the people of this country to address themselves to a complicated and difficult controversy. If we were actually at war, no one would have suggested such a thing. We know that in wartime all contentious legislation was laid aside. The present position of our country seems to me hardly less anxious than then. In the second place, I most certainly agree with the most reverend Primate that, as the question has been raised, it ought to be given a permanent and, if possible, an agreed solution, and not be dealt with in defiance of all precedent, as Party fanatics in the other House have boasted, by proposals dictated by Party exigencies of the moment.
  The right course therefore seems to me to refer the reform of the House to some Committee representative of all views—and I think there is general agreement that something of that kind should be done. In the meantime, I venture to take up a suggestion which fell from the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition, on the last occasion we debated this matter—namely, that we should adjourn sine die the consideration of the Bill after we have had our debate. I understand that the existing Parliament Act says that when any particular measure has not been passed by this House—it does not matter whether it has been adjourned or not; the crucial thing is that it has not been passed—that sets up the Parliament Act machinery. I think it would be much better to adopt the suggestion made. I do not know what the noble Viscount thinks of it, but as he suggested it, I venture to press my argument, which if I rightly understand, is also the argument of the most reverend Primate.
  With all respect to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, I cannot agree that we ought to accept the Second Reading of this Bill. I cannot think that would be right. It seems to me a bad Bill. The noble Viscount himself said that it was a bad Bill, and, for the reasons I have very haltingly tried to suggest to your Lordships, I strongly think it has been improperly proposed. It is an unconscionable political manoeuvre!—there are no other
  766
  words to describe it. If the Government choose to force it through, then no doubt they have whatever powers the Parliament Act gives them. Let them take that course, and they must take the undivided responsibility for the result.
  4.4 p.m.
  Lord ALTRINCHAM: My Lords, the noble Viscount who has just addressed the House always speaks with great acceptance and I have never heard him make a more cogent or illuminating speech than he made this afternoon. So far as I am concerned I most profoundly agree with all that part of it which dealt with constitutional doctrine. I am sure that even those who might not agree to the full must have been impressed by the arguments he put. The noble Viscount is not a Party man; throughout his life he has been a pioneer in progressive causes, and nobody can say that there is about him any suspicion of reactionary prejudice. Therefore, I think the House is bound to respect the argument which he has addressed to it—even those quarters which may not be disposed at first to lend it very much weight. What particularly impressed mo was the way in which he brought out the increase in the power of the Executive and the decrease in the authority of the House of Commons. That is an incontestable fact, which makes the powers and the composition of the Second Chamber both matters of first-rate importance at the present time. I was delighted to hear him state that argument with such force.
  I was very glad also to hear his defence of the principle of heredity. It is difficult, I think, to deny all virtue to the principle of heredity when one thinks of the services rendered by three recent generations of his own family to the country, the Commonwealth and the cause of international peace. Whether there should be two categories of Peers, as he suggested, one for Lords of Parliament and another for Peers with a voice but no vote, is, after all, a matter which requires a good deal of study and thought; but the great thing is to retain the hereditary principle. That is, I am quite convinced, the right thing to do, not only because of its value in itself, but because there is no other principle which will not' make the Second Chamber overshadow the First. I hope, therefore, in any discussions which may

  767
  take place, that that consideration will bear weight.
  I am sure that noble Lords opposite who may have criticisms to make of this House are not really critical of those who give their time to its debates. I believe they will agree, too, that an increasingly whole-time Parliament, in which members have to deal with a vast range of questions, a Parliament whose Lower House Members have, in recent years, lost a great deal of their independence, can ill afford to lose the services of independent and public-spirited specialists. To-day, however, the issue is not the composition of the House: it is the powers of the House. And if I may put it to the most reverend Primate, it is a more fundamental issue than he seems to think.
  The Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I did not say that it was not fundamental. I said that the powers and composition of the House could never properly be separated. I said that quite distinctly. I said that in my opinion it was a bad Bill. I did suggest that under the terms put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, it seemed to me that powers as well as composition could be discussed.
  Lord ALTRINCHAM: I am very glad to draw that further explanation from the most reverend Primate, but I think the difficulty between this side of the House and His Majesty's Government is more profound than he thinks, because what we are really being asked to do in the first place, unless we have completely misinterpreted the proposals that are being made, is to concede the point of principle. I am delighted to see that the noble Viscount opposite shakes his head, but no explanation he has given has removed that impression. Can we be assured that we are not going into a conference committed in any way to passing the Second Reading of this Bill before the conference takes place? That is the acid test. If we are being asked to give the Bill a Second Reading first, then we are being asked to concede in principle what we will never concede of our own free will, and the issue turns on that.
  The Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY: I cannot agree, and once again I ask for clarification of this question. I certainly assumed, when I spoke,
  768
  that there would be no need to commit ourselves to the Second Reading of the Bill before the conference takes place.
  Viscount ADDISON: There is no reference whatever in the Government statement to the Second Reading.
  Lord ALTRINCHAM: I am glad to have drawn that much from the noble Viscount. If it is quite clear this is to be a conference without commitments on both sides—
  The Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY: It is to be.
  Lord ALTRINCHAM: It is to be a conference without commitments on either side?
  Viscount ADDISON: If you read the first sentence, you will see that.
  Lord ALTRINCHAM: I am bound to say that I am not clear. The new statement seemed to impose conditions in advance, and nothing the noble Viscount has said has removed that impression from our minds.
  Lord CROMWELL: What is the meaning of paragraph 2 if in fact no reference is made to the Second Reading of this Bill?
  Viscount ADDISON: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, but the words "without prejudice" are in the very first sentence. On the other point, the words are "before the end of the Session."
  Lord ALTRINCHAM: I am still not clear. If the answer which the noble Viscount has given means that the Government are prepared to enter a conference with the noble Lords beside me, and with the noble Lords who sit on the Bench below, why cannot they simply say "Yes," instead of producing a statement which nobody understands, and which appears to impose conditions upon us? The word "Yes" is a very simple word, and everybody understands it. But here is a whole page of what are apparently conditions, which are not at all clear to our minds.
  I would suggest to the noble Viscount that precedents which he himself quoted in the debate last week hardly support the case which he made. All the precedents—particularly those of the period to which he referred. when the present Parliament

  769
  Act and the Government of Ireland Bill of that period were before Parliament—support our argument for unconditional inter-Party conference. No conditions were laid down at that time. The noble Viscount's historical summary, which imputed mistake to this House in not passing the Government of Ireland Bill, seemed to me to miss the true moral of events. In 1910 and onwards the Home Rule issue was inseparable from other issues of the greatest gravity. The European situation was already becoming very dark—perhaps not so dark as it is at the present moment, but still very dark. In 1909 there had been the crisis of Bosnia, and the controversy over the eight dreadnoughts, when, as I think my present Leader, Mr. Churchill, said, the Government proposed four, came to six and 'finally compromised on eight.
  The year 1910 itself was a year of the most serious international friction, and quite early in the following year there was the third crisis of Agadir, which led up to the First World War. The Liberal Government of the day were bound to the Irish Nationalists because the Budget of 1909 could not be passed except with the Irish vote. Nevertheless, they suggested an inter-Party conference on the main constitutional issue, without any conditions on either side, and without asking that either the Parliament Bill or the Home Rule Bill should first have a Second Reading. That conference was persevered with for five months, and when it broke down it was not on the constitutional issue, except: in one respect. I believe the Parties were agreed—and I have refreshed my memory by looking at the official biographies of Lord Asquith and Lord Balfour. The conference broke down merely on the question whether the safeguards for any change in the organic law of the Constitution should or should not include Home Rule for Ireland. Home Rule was passed under the powers of the Parliament Act, but: it had to be suspended almost at once, and its future application was immediately made subject to the promise of an Amending Act. That was little consolation to the Unionists at the period.
  In face of the imminent danger of war in Europe, the nation was profoundly divided; and in 1914, as everybody knows, it had reached the edge of civil war. Who is going to maintain that the
  770
  bitter state of faction in this country, which arose from the failure of that conference, did not prove the final temptation to the German General Staff in 1914? Who is going to assert that the First World War might not have been averted by inter-Party agreement on the constitutional issue in 1910. Liberal Ministers went a very long way at that time. I remember Mr. Lloyd George making special proposals to Lord Balfour on the question of the international situation. It was a tragedy that inter-Party agreement at that period broke down. I beg noble Lords opposite, if they are going to quote precedents from the past, not merely to try and find snippets, from individual speeches which support some part of the case, but to look at the broad sweep and the whole complex of events; if that is not done, history, like statistics, can prove almost anything.
  On this point I feel bound to refer, if only in passing, to what I thought was a remarkable passage in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, last week. Hitherto we had been led to believe that the doctrine of the mandate is sacred in the eyes of Ministers and of the whole Government. It was the Holy of Holies, the Ark of the Covenant. Whatever sacrifice it demanded, even if it meant throwing out of the window considerations of practical expedience, or even national safety and prosperity, Ministers have told us in this House, again and again, that they must not deviate from the mandate or they would be dishonoured by the act. But suddenly, last week, the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, dropped the doctrine of the mandate, and offered the Ark of the Covenant, for sale to anybody as so much old junk. "Mandate?", he said; "a mandate required for modifying the fundamental institutions of the British state? Whoever heard of such an argument?" He really said that. I wondered what could be in store for us, apart from the Parliament Bill. We have heard since then the announcement that university representation is to be abolished. There is certainly no mandate for that, and no doubt a strong case will be made out when the subject comes to be discussed. But this abandonment of the doctrine of the mandate does seem to me to be an extraordinary change of front by the present Government.

  771
  What then is the difference between us? The precedents are all in favour of inter-Party conference without condition; inter-Party conference which can be arranged at once, if the Government will only use the simple word "Yes." Otherwise, on grounds of principle, we cannot agree to give this Bill a Second Reading. We cannot give our consent to the principle which is implicit in the Bill—that no Second Chamber should have the power for more than a short summer recess of delaying the First Chamber's assertion of its will, however suddenly formed, and however gravely the balance of the Constitution may be upset. To accept that would mean that the First Chamber would be entitled to enact, as the noble Viscount who preceded me said, of its own supreme volition, any constitutional change. I am taking an extreme case, but who knows what a minority Government might do in the times to come whatever the will of the electorate? They could alter the whole of our judicial system; they could establish new political offences, and a political court.
  Any of these things could be done. We would be accepting the principle that the First Chamber, of its own volition, should be able to introduce any constitutional change, however fundamental and however little its merits and demerits might have been discussed before the electorate. The Dominions, the United States of America and other countries have written Constitutions and organic laws. Our only safeguard in this country against extremism, against the tyranny of what might be a small minority in this country which had seized the levers of power, is a Second Chamber; and to give this Bill a Second Reading would mean accepting something so near single-Chamber Government that the balance of our Constitution would be permanently destroyed.
  So much for the principle at stake. If we are forced to a Division on Wednesday—and I still hope that the Government may see the wisdom of conferring, without condition, before that takes place—I shall vote for my noble friend's Amendment with an absolute conviction that the course we follow is right. I hope that Ministers will reconsider, and in expressing that very earnest hope I should like, before sitting down, to add this. It would be disingenuous to pretend that all
  772
  Parties are not in some measure responsible for the deadlock which we have now reached. The heart of the problem with which we are faced is this. Parliament is suffering, and has for some time been suffering, from a kind of constitutional malaise. The reason is that the First Chamber has come to express unlimited democracy, though under the control of a very much stronger Executive, while no corresponding or complementary adjustment has been made in the Upper House. It is obvious that Lord Salisbury—I mean the grandfather of the present Leader of the Opposition—felt that, even eighty years ago. I came across a quotation from him in Lord Crewe's "Life of Lord Salisbury." I do not know whether it occurred in a speech in this House or where it was said, but Lord Crewe is sufficient authority for it. In 1869, nearly eighty years ago, Lord Salisbury said:
  "The Peers are too much of one class, and therefore of one mind; they want more representation of diverse views and more antagonism."
  Viscount SWINTON: It was said in this House.
  Lord ALTRINCHAM: If that could be said of this House in 1869, just after Disraeli's modest reform of the franchise in 1867, how much truer it is since universal suffrage was introduced! The result is that Governments of the Left, with large majorities in the House of Commons, have always had a sense of inhibition and possible frustration because of the Conservative majority, overwhelming and potentially adverse, which dominated this House. That this has nourished a sense of impending frustration in other Parties is easily understood. It has given them a grievance and has poisoned their minds. That, I think, is particularly true of the Socialist Party. So great has been their vexation at what might possibly occur, however well the House of Lords might be behaving at the time, that they have developed an irrational prejudice against this House. That is the atmosphere in which we are trying to deal with this question in which the whole future of the country is at stake.
  Noble Lords opposite, and honourable Members of their Party in another place, feel that however moderate the conduct of this House, they must somehow, to use a colloquialism, "get back

  773
  on it and put it in its place." I hope noble Lords behind me will forgive me if I add that the responsibility on our side is far from light. Perhaps the Liberals are excepted from this because they have been out of power so long in the recent past, but neither the Party opposite nor the Party on these Benches can afford to be self-righteous on this question—neither the Conservatives, who neglected the problem because it caused them No 1nconvenience, nor the Socialists who have allowed Party resentment and prejudice to submerge their constitutional sense. Some might even prefer a Chamber which they can honestly abuse than a Chamber which they could not. If we are candid with ourselves about this on both sides—candid, and ready to confess ourselves—I believe that we shall not find ourselves so far apart. But I am sure that the conference must be unconditional. I trust, therefore, that Ministers, at the cost of a little pride, may even now enable us, without sacrifice of principle, to consider with them how to remedy a constitutional maladjustment which all of us here are anxious to correct.
  Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH: My Lords, before the next noble Lord speaks, will the House permit me once more to try to find out what we are talking about? The difference is quite simple. In the statement made by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, the last sentence in the limiting condition about powers reads:
  "… and for the discussion of differences between the two Houses."
  That means one of two things. It means either discussion between the two Houses of differences, or discussion in the country of differences between the two Houses. There is a very great difference between the two.
  Viscount ADDISON: The phrase clearly relates to the procedures which are dealt with under the Parliament Act, under which a period of two years is allowed for proceedings, which period it is now proposed should be reduced to one year. We are told in certain quarters that in certain circumstances one year is insufficient. This statement means that we are prepared to enter into discussion of those differences.
  Viscount SWINTON: I am very much obliged to the Leader of the House for elucidating it a little further, but I do not
  774
  think he has yet made it clear, and it is really vital that we should understand where we are. The period of delay may be a period of two kinds. First, there is the period which it takes a Bill to pass through the House of Commons and through this House and back to the House of Commons, when there is either agreement or disagreement. As my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition said, that is the way we read it, and it seems to me there is no other way of reading it You must: read the previous words:
  "… limited to ensuring reasonable time for' the consideration of measures by the House of Lords, and for the discussion of differences between the two Houses."
  But that is not the period of delay which we have had in mind. That period must take place in any bi-cameral Parliament, because the Bill has not been either passed or rejected until discussion by both Houses has taken place. The whole point is this: Is it limited—and this is a commitment we are asked to make before we go into discussions—to that period of Parliamentary time and Parliamentary discussion, or is it intended to cover what is to us, as the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said, the cardinal principle, the time for consideration by the country after the issue has arisen in a definite form between the two Houses?
  Viscount ADDISON: May I answer that straight away? It is completely impossible to put into any form of words what time would be required for he discussion by the country of a particular thing. Someone might claim that it was a month; someone else might claim that it was a year. What we are prepared to discuss is the time required for the proper and decent consideration of these differences between the two Houses of Parliament. We are told that one year is not enough, and we are prepared to enter into discussions. No one can say—the noble Viscount could not say—how long would be required for some imaginary public discussion.
  The Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY: I have had some discussion with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, and others on. this matter. If discussions took place without prejudice and with complete liberty to resume freedom of action at any moment, it would not mean giving away anything.

  775
  On the other hand, the Government make it perfectly clear that in their opinion the present period of delay under the Parliament Act is too long, and that they will not keep it as long as it is now. They make that perfectly clear.
  Viscount SWINTON: My Lords, with great respect, may I point out that the most reverend Primate has not appreciated the difficulty which we have encountered, or the limitations which we understand would be put upon us if we go into these discussions. The vital words are:
  "Without prejudice on either side, on the understanding that"—
  That means that it has to be a mutual understanding between us. It does not say:
  "On the understanding that the subject to be considered is not some new power which we do not already possess under the Parliament Act but the power of delay which we do possess under the Parliament Act."
  We are asked to go much further, and to say that we will agree to raise only any matter which (as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has just said) is concerned with reasonable time for Parliamentary discussion. To us that is quite impossible. It is vital to us that there should be a time for consideration in the country after the issue between the Houses has been made plain. I should not have the least difficulty, if I entered into discussion, in putting in the Bill some safeguard which would ensure that the country had that time for consideration. The period of two years under the Parliament Act was inserted not merely to give time for Parliamentary discussion, but to give time for consideration in the country after the Parliamentary discussion had come to an end.
  4.33 p.m.
  Viscount STANSGATE: My Lords, the first debate I ever heard on this subject was forty years ago. I heard the noble Viscount then, and if I may say so, I never fail to grow in admiration for his contribution to the public weal though I disagree with what he says. Let us give credit to those who stand for the supremacy of the people through their elected representatives. That was what we fought for. All these demands were made before. I should like to know what we are discuss-
  776
  ing. I do not know. Are the Opposition going to vote for the Bill or against it? Are they going to suspend the Bill? I myself should think that a little Jesuitical. By far the best thing is for honest men to thresh out honestly honest differences. I make no apology for being what is called a Party politician, because my politics, such as they are, offer just a little light to allow me to go by. I believe most men work in that way. Therefore, all I want is a discussion of the realities of the situation.
  There is this question of time—six months or twelve months—or whatever it may be. Forty years ago with the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, when I was a Back Bencher and he was a rising Under-Secretary, he made a very eloquent speech on behalf of a six months period. If he will look up Mr. Spender's Life of Campbell Bannerman he will find that the Liberal Cabinet of that day had prepared an elaborate scheme and that the Prime Minister tore it up and moved his own Resolution, which was exactly what the Government say in the statement to-day—that in the life of one Parliament the will of the people should prevail.
  Viscount SAMUEL: That is not the same thing as I urged. Would the noble Viscount say that a Bill introduced by the present Government, in the fifth year of their term of office, should necessarily go through so long as it was in the same Parliament—
  Viscount STANSGATE: The noble Viscount supported Campbell-Banner-man's Resolution which provided for a six months' period. I will examine the reference; in the meantime, I should be glad if he could help me by explaining what has happened to cause him to change his view.
  Viscount SAMUEL: The noble Viscount has made this point in a recent article. The noble Viscount is putting his own gloss on it.
  Viscount STANSGATE: I should be very loth to do the noble Viscount an injustice. It is clearly stated in Mr. Spender's book that he spoke in favour of a six months' delay. The noble Viscount has altered his mind. Of course, he is entitled to do so; but he will forgive me if I adhere to the faith in which I was brought up.
  Viscount SAMUEL: I have altered the views which the noble Viscount attributes to me, but which I never held!
  Viscount STANSGATE: What is the situation now? Two years is the standing period at this moment. In any case, under the Parliament Act, this Parliament will terminate in the autumn of 1950. Allow for a month or two at the end of a Parliament, for no Parliament ever exists for its full quinquennium, and you will see that about the early summer of this year the Parliament Act will cease to shelter the Government. That means to say that the Opposition are asking that in the course of four or five weeks the power to decide the Government of this country shall be passed from the Cabinet and the House of Commons to reside in the Opposition of the House of Lords. That is an intolerable position; that is single-Chamber Government.
  The noble Marquess opposite said that he planted his standard in 1689. I thought that he might have said a word in praise of the Reform Act, but perhaps that was asking too much. 1609 was the period. Of course, 1609 inaugurated a century in which the House of Lords completely dominated the Parliamentary machine. We do not know exactly what is the position of the various Parties at this moment. No one is against a conference, but I am deadly afraid of a conference in which we do not enter with honest opinions and with honest understandings. That is the dangerous thing. It is much better that honest people should argue and disagree than that we should rely on a benevolent yearning which means nothing at all.
  Let us assume there is to be a conclave. The noble Viscount and others are to enter with a few selected people. Once they are in, we have all to wait outside and wait for the smoke to come from the chimney. When they confer, they must have an agenda. Are they going to take powers or composition first? I hold firmly—and this was the view of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman—that you must put powers first and not composition. Composition is easy. I should have said that composition does not present so much difficulty as powers, but I do not know. I was amazed to-day—someone will correct me if I am wrong—by what the
  778
  noble Marquess the Leader of the Conservative Party said, that he accepts both subsections of Section 1 of the Parliament Act, 1911; that is to say, not only that a Money Bill should enjoy the immunities of that Act but that the definition of a Money Bill should remain in the hands of the Speaker and his advisers. Is that generally accepted? I did not gather that the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, accepted that.
  Viscount CECIL of CHELWOOD: I do.
  Viscount STANSGATE: In the Parliament Act as it stands?
  Viscount CECIL of CHELWOOD: I thought it was quite well understood that the question of jurisdiction over a Money Bill was never accepted until the Second Chamber chose to throw out the Budget of 1909. I personally was violently opposed to the action of the Second Chamber in doing that, but I was overruled and they did it; that was a mistake. But the question of Money Bills has always been treated as quite separate from that of ordinary Bills.
  Viscount STANSGATE: I have never seen a scheme of reform proposed—and schemes have been proposed by many eminent statesmen—which did not propose to make some alteration in the definition of a Money Bill, and to take it out of the hands of the Speaker and put it in the hands of a Joint Committee. If that idea is abandoned, that is splendid. Then we come to this question which is entirely a question of time, and involves the claim that this House is in some way specially endowed to ascertain when the public must be consulted. That really is the crux of the whole issue.
  Viscount ADDISON: That is it.
  Viscount STANSGATE: Mr. Asquith, in a passage of magnificent Parliamentary satire which has been read by my noble friend below, made a point on that matter. I would like to ask noble Lords opposite what exactly they mean. In the early days of the Parliament Act dispute, an earlier attitude existed. Lord Halsbury and his friends held that this House was an estate of the Realm and was perfectly entitled to express its opinion in opposition to the Lower House. They claimed that they could do that of their own opinion, because they were one of the

  779
  Houses of Parliament. That view was defeated in 1911 and a new view took its place. Now we have a new situation, which is not that this House should interpret what the people wish, but that we should interpret when the people ought to be consulted. I hope that someone will explain how this interpretation is to be made and where the information is obtained. Members of the House of Commons go down every week to meet their constituents. Surely they are better equipped than noble Lords to ascertain what is the movement of public opinion?
  Take a simple case. Here is the Parliament Bill. Noble Lords are of opinion that it is necessary to oppose it. They wish it to be submitted to the electorate, because they think the electorate should be consulted as this is a very important constitutional change. What evidence have they? The Bill was introduced in November in the House of Commons. There were four by-elections before Christmas. The Conservative Party increased their vote in one, but the significant by-election was immediately after the introduction of this Bill. The Government was in sore distress about Gravesend, and the significant victory at the Gravesend by-election came immediately following upon the introduction of this Bill. Since then, of course, there has been—if I may be forgiven for using the words of Cromwell—"the crowning mercy" of Camlachie. The Conservative Party have been heartened by a victory, but 400 voters who supported them in 1945 were absent.
  How can you say, on slender grounds like that, that you are specially endowed with power to ascertain when the public should be consulted? Is it not much more likely that what you are really saying is: "We do not like the Bill; we think we will send it back to the country. There is just a chance that the Government may be defeated. In other words, we will take a chance, because nothing can happen to us but something may happen to a Government which we dislike?" I believe that is the real interpretation of the matter. It is quite idle to say that we can all agree on this one great question. It has to be threshed out and it has to be decided. It is approached, but it is not dealt with absolutely, by this Bill of the Govern-
  780
  ment. It is for that reason that I hope that the Leader of the House will persevere on the course that he has announced and ask for the Second Reading of this Bill. Once you get a decision on what are the powers of this House, you have something on which you can stand.
  The question of composition is not really very difficult. I am a new member of this House and I apologize for even venturing to speculate upon these affairs, but I am hopeful that old walls will go down and that women will be admitted to your Lordships' House. The most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of York, made a very liberal speech in which he said he would like to see Free Churchmen (and, I would hope, the Chief Rabbi) on the Episcopal Benches. Then, of course, we would have Life Peerages, which would introduce all sorts of new elements. That is a very worthy suggestion. We already have the nucleus of the finest critical body in the whole world, but it must not attempt to usurp the functions of the electorate. Therefore, if indeed such a Chamber were constituted and it was clearly understood that the functions of the House were as defined in paragraph 1 of this document—namely, revision, criticism and delay, so that the public should have the benefit of searching cross-examination on whatever was happening by critics of eminence—then I think the House would certainly gain in usefulness and in public esteem.
  I do not know whether this will find any favour at all, but I would like to add a suggestion that has often been made, that this House should have the right to ask Ministers from the other place to come here and defend their policy. I would not have asked for that had it not been that, in reading the old debates, I noticed the idea received the support of very eminent statesmen such as Lord Haldane, Lord Buckmastcr, Lord Birkenhead, Mr. Churchill and, I think, Lord Cecil. Then indeed the House would get the Ministers replying to points raised. I do not mean any disrespect to my noble friends; they would go to the other place to answer criticisms. If this proposal were adopted there would be established a critical House, critically examining Government policy, which would be very much to public advantage.

  781
  But what one has to ask is: What will really occur? What is likely to occur? Are all these things that are being talked about likely to result in agreement? I do not think so. Perhaps there is a change now—I do not know—but these schemes for reform have been promoted for many years by the most eminent statesmen—Lord Salisbury, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Clarendon, Lord FitzAlan, and, of course, the late Lord Salisbury—and powerful Governments like the Government of Mr. Lloyd George and the Coalition of Mr. Baldwin have not been able to satisfy the reformers because they were asking for more than the Government thought they could, in the public view, afford to give. If these things could not: be extracted from Prime Ministers of that standing, with that comprehensive support, how can we suppose that they were likely to be obtained from a Labour Prime Minister? However, if people are in a mood to agree, I am all in favour.
  There is a case for leaving the matter alone. I was very much moved by the words the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, used about the history of this House. I am a new member. I am a House of Commons man, and I have always stood and will always stand by the House of Commons. I entered this House knowing that the two Houses are linked together in the history of our land, that all the main figures in that history have marched on this stage, and that it is a privilege to be here at all. Why not leave it alone? Is it really necessary that it should be handed over to the planners? You can have something which is too symmetrical. There was a rumour that when the troops were advancing in Italy in 1944, it was only in the nick of time that somebody prevented the American sappers from straightening up the Tower of Pisa!
  You may say: "Yes, but think of the danger." That is quite true. Think of the immense powers that are in the hands of this House. But the greatness of those powers is also the measure of the weakness of this House. If those powers were abused, it would be the end. I support this Bill because in a way it relieves that danger and helps to prevent the abuse of the powers of this House. That is why I support it, and would call it in a way "The House of Lords Protection Bill." It is especially a Bill for the protection of the leaders of the Conservative Party. Noble Lords, remembering what happened
  782
  in 1911, may feel that this Bill can protect them from the storm of obloquy and even ostracism that swept over Lord Lansdowne and Mr. Balfour. There is a case for saying that if the Government and everyone else wish to try and agree, why should we prevent it, whatever our feelings or hopes may be. There is a case for leaving the Parliament Act as it is, with the amendment proposed by this Bill, which would, at any rate, prevent an abuse which might bring about a disaster.
  4.57 p.m.
  Lord LLOYD: My Lords, I am one of those to whom the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, would, I think, have referred as the ordinary man in your Lordships' House. I dare say, therefore, that your Lordships will forgive me if I frankly say that the statement of the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, might have been written in Amharic for all that I could understand of it. Therefore I find myself, together with other noble Lords, in a little difficulty, in that I do not know where we stand in regard to this Bill at the present time and, despite all the explanations, I am still pretty well fogged. One effect of this Bill, if it is passed, seems to be absolutely clear. The important point is that this House will be reduced to the status of a debating society and that, in effect, for the first time since Cromwell, there will be established what amounts to a single-Chamber Government in this country.
  If that is the effect of the Bill—and that is what I think it is—presumably it; is the policy of His Majesty's Government, and, if it is the policy of His Majesty's Government, I suggest that it might have been better if they had said so in the General Election of 1945. So far as I know, they have no mandate for this Bill at the present time, and if they made it clear that we were to have single-Chamber government, and it were put to the electorate to-day, I do not believe the people would vote for it. The Government's case seems to be based upon two propositions. The first is that a new situation has teen created by the advent of a Socialist majority in another place without a corresponding Socialist majority in your Lordships' House. That is a situation from which I do not dissent; indeed, I think it is true. But it is a situation that has been foreseen for a great many years by a number of noble Lords, such as the

  783
  late Lord Salisbury and the late Lord Birkenhead. Lord Birkenhead said in 1925:
  "I, for my part, am of opinion that if there were no other reasons for entering at once upon the task of the reform of this House, an imperative reason would lie in the fact that if and when a Socialist Party is again returned to power in this country, we must at least have a Second Chamber in which they can press upon those Benches men who really share their views and are really authoritative in their counsels and some measure of support in the Benches behind them. If you do not secure that, by the very change which events will have made in the character and contribution which it is in its power to offer, you will yourselves have destroyed the House of Lords because you will have acquiesced in circumstances which necessarily resolve its destruction."
  I believe that was wise advice on the part of the late Lord Birkenhead, and I, for one, deplore that that policy was not adopted many years ago. It is of interest, incidentally, to note that the most vociferous of those who abused that policy in the year 1925 were the late Lord Haldane and his friends who belonged to the same political persuasion as noble Lords opposite.
  The second proposal, which seems to have been advanced by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate—and it is one which has always caused me a certain amount of astonishment—is that your Lordships have no right to be (I think I am quoting correctly what the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, said last week) "final arbiters of what is or is not the opinion of the people." That would be an extremely interesting argument and I daresay it might prove very powerful—if your Lordships had ever claimed such a right. But you never have done so. All you have claimed, as I understand it, is the right to adhere to the not illogical view that the people themselves know better at any given moment what they require than either your Lordships or even their representatives in another place.
  Therefore, your Lordships have never claimed the right to decide the opinion of the electorate. All you have declared is the right to refer matters back to them in certain cases—and such cases are bound to arise—where there is great dispute. As the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, pointed out, there are inevitably matters which it is impossible to present to the electorate at a General Election. In the majority of cases, the opinion of the
  784
  people at any time is obvious. Alternatively, there may be no strong feeling. But there will always arise, from time to time, cases in which there is widespread controversy, and in which it is desirable that the matter should be referred back to the people. Again, just because the electorate voted for a certain programme in 1945, it does not necessarily follow that they will be of the same opinion in 1949. After all, it is not a crime for people to change their minds. Indeed, since the majority of the people can no longer change their jobs or their clothes, or practically anything else, their minds are about all that they have left to change.
  Even such exalted beings as Ministers of the Crown have been known to change their minds. In the many crises with which, I am sure, their names will be forever associated in history, the late Minister of Fuel and Power, Mr. Shinwell, and the Minister of Food, Mr. Strachey, have been almost household words in that respect. Even that eminent Statesman, the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack (I am sorry he is not here at the moment), if my memory serves me aright, changed not only his mind but his political orientation some time ago. It is no crime; people are allowed to change their minds, and surely they are all the more entitled to do so when asked to vote, as they were at the last General Election, for a programme which even the authors admitted was largely in the nature of an experiment. I do not believe that even the Government themselves could foresee what the precise result of their nationalization schemes would be. Indeed, I think that if they had done so we might have had fewer of those schemes. Therefore, is it too much to ask that the people of this country should be allowed to change their minds if they wish, and that machinery should be provided to enable them to do so? Or are noble Lords opposite suggesting that this should in future be the privilege of Socialist Ministers alone?
  Again, if people change their minds, is it suggested that they have to continue to have thrust upon them Socialist-sponsored legislation which they no longer require or desire, because there is no machinery set up for reference back to them? As I understand it, that, apparently, is the doctrine of the Government. Certainly, it is the effect of this

  785
  Bill. Since the Government have removed the machinery, or have proposed to remove the machinery, for referring back legislation to the electorate, I am driven to the conclusion that the Government do not wish to consult the electorate. One cannot help wondering about this. I thought the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, was rather reticent on the point, and I have had to use my own conjectures upon the matter. It seems to me that there are only two possible reasons. The first possibility—which is a reason that is entirely creditable to noble Lords opposite—is that they are anxious lest legislation which is urgent and pressing for the recovery of the country should be delayed by your Lordships. I think that is most creditable—if indeed that is the belief of noble Lords opposite. But I cannot help feeling that such anxiety, if it indeed exists, is ill-founded. There has never been any suggestion of procrastination or lack of responsibility on the part of this House. Bill after Bill has been passed by your Lordships, who have been almost over-anxious not to embarrass the Government at a time of crisis.
  In any event, if this were the cause of the Government's anxiety, surely the fault lies in the composition of your Lordships' House and not in its powers. As the Government do not propose to reform the composition of your Lordships' House, I can only conclude that this is not the cause of their anxiety. The only other possible reason for the Bill must be that the Government are uncertain of the approval of the electorate for various measures which they intend to introduce during the next two years—legislation which may be in no way connected with the present problems of national recovery. The most obvious of these is the Bill for the nationalization of the iron and steel industry. If noble Lords opposite object to this explanation I am very sorry, but it seems to me the only one that they have left to us, the only remaining explanation which fits the facts.
  Finally, I do not think that this Bill can be considered in isolation. It must be considered as part of a, pattern that His Majesty's Government have woven since they came into power. It is an intricate pattern and it has one or two well-defined characteristics. The first is the steady concentration of power in the hands of the Government. The second is
  786
  the steady encroachment on the liberties of the people. It seems to me that this is yet one more step down the same road, and I do not believe that it is a road that leads to either liberty or democracy. I sincerely hope that the Government may be able to reconsider their last offer, or at any rate to make it intelligible to us. I hope very much that we may, even at this late moment, be able to compromise and to have the discussions which have so very reasonably been proposed by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and that we may still take the opportunity which exists to-day, as it has never existed before, to resolve this question once and for all. I do not believe we can do that unless the Government are prepared to play fair with us, as we are prepared to play with them. To do that, we must all go into any discussions with our hands free.
  5.8 p.m.
  Viscount LAMBERT: My Lords, few survive who listened to the last speech of Mr. Gladstone in the House of Commons. The question then was of controversy between the two Houses. I remember that he spoke, summing up the situation, with matchless eloquence. He uttered no threats. He said that he would use no hard words, that he would impute no motives, that he would make no allegations or imputations. But, he continued, with prophetic insight, the controversy was one which, once raised, must go forward to the final issue. The issue was not joined until 1910—that was sixteen years later. Then we had a series of elections. Your Lordships mutilated, mauled and defeated Liberal measures—Home Rule and the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church—and, in the last resort (which I think was a great mistake) rejected the Budget of 1910. That Budget was passed after an Election. Then the Parliament Bill was introduced and it was passed. I remember full well the excitement of members of both Houses when the Third Reading of the Parliament Bill was passed in another place. If this Bill is rejected, as I hope it will be, without any flummery of this statement, not a dog will bark.
  It has been brought in by the noble Viscount in a most reasonable fashion. I remember the noble Viscount the Leader of the House coming to the House of Commons with a very distinguished medical

  787
  record—he helped Mr. Lloyd George with his Insurance Bill—and judging from his manner last Tuesday and to-day, he has not lost his bedside manner. This might have been an ordinary little Bill. He did call it "a very modest and very reasonable Bill." He cited in its support the recent series of by-elections. I am an old hand at Parliamentary elections, and I may say that it is a remarkable thing that a Government should have gone on for two years without losing a by-election. There was the one at Glasgow, but had it not been for a split vote the Government would have kept it, so there was not much in that.
  I want your Lordships to understand that there is an imponderable element today in the electorate. There is a £400,000,000 a year subsidy for food, and I can quite understand that any Government candidate would say, "What controls are you going to take off?" If controls were removed it would mean that the cost of living would rise; and I know how sensitive all the housewives are to the cost of living. The noble Viscount went on to say that Prime Ministers and the Houses of Parliament are sensible of public opinion. He instanced the Hoare-Laval pact. Mr. Baldwin was pliant, but there may be other Prime Ministers. Suppose that the Minister of Health were now Prime Minister; he is not so very pliant in his dealings with the doctors today; and I have doubts that he would be just the same as Mr. Baldwin. We are told in the Labour manifesto that the "people's will" must be carried out. I have here the words, in Let us Face the Future;
  "We give clear notice that we will not tolerate obstruction of the people's will by the House of Lords."
  I do not know that it had been obstructed. Your Lordships have passed—I am sure with misgiving—several nationalization Bills.
  Again, I have something to do with the "people's will." Let us take events from the time of the extended franchise. In 1918 Mr. Lloyd George was returned with an immense majority. It was a war Election. The Government lasted only four years. That may be an omen, because the last Election was not inseparable from the war. Mr. Baldwin, after some fumbling, won the Election in 1924. Then we had the great collapse of 1931.
  788
  Fewer than sixty Socialist Members of Parliament were returned to the House of Commons. Was that the "people's will"? We had an Election in 1945. There was a wearied, tired electorate, torn with the agonies of war, bedazzled with all sorts of promises, and an immense majority was accorded to the Socialist Government. That will not be permanent. But according to this Bill any measure passed by the House of Commons, by all-night Sittings or by the guillotine, becomes sacrosant. It must become the law of the land, assuming this Bill is passed, within four months.
  I decline, with considerable experience, to believe that a new Moses, in the shape of the Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison), has arisen, or that we may assume that Vox Attlee is Vox Dei. I do not believe it. I think these things will change and that a little delay might be good. But (and here I speak as an old Parliamentarian) we are delving into fields that Parliament never entered before. We are delving into industry; and that, to my mind, is dangerous. Politics and industry do not go together. I take the question of food. Food is the most vital of our requirements. Figures were given on January 28 in the other House about the amount of home-produced food. Before the war home-produced food was only about 30 per cent. It went up in 1944 to 42 per cent., but came down in 1946 to 39 per cent. We ourselves produce only 40 per cent. of our food requirements. How can we get food from abroad? Only by exports. What did one Minister say in the House of Commons about three years ago:
  "Increased exports are demanded. There never was a greater fallacy offered to this or any other assembly. You might imagine that if you fail to increase exports this country's standard of living will diminish."
  I cannot imagine such a statement being made by any responsible Minister, but this statement was made.
  Who is the Minister responsible for one of the greatest industrial revolutions in the country? He is the late Minister of Fuel and Power, Mr. Shinwell. He introduced a measure into Parliament which has entirely dislocated the management of the coal industry, and the coal industry is second in importance only to agriculture. What had been the result? In another place they talk of coal,

  789
  There is a gentleman there, Colonel Lancaster, who knows something about coal, and when he speaks one ought to listen. He has just been telling the country that, whereas private owners made 2S. o, d. a ton profit, the loss made by the Coal Board is 3s. 3d. a ton. That is gravely serious; do not let there be any mistake about that. I observed that the trawler owners, when the Coal Board fired a broadside of dearer coal at them, simply adopted the policy of non-violence and the trawlers did not go to sea. In effect, they said: "Dear coal, no food." There it was, as clear as crystal.
  Are we to give a Second Reading to this Bill which is avowedly to promote more nationalization? I am sure your Lordships must have had some qualms about the nationalization of the railways. Then there is the airways system. B.O.A.C. lost £10,000,000 last year. That Corporation is managed by a very successful solicitor and an extremely able (and I must say, far-sighted) politician, because he quit the Liberal Party just in time. The Minister of Transport is a very estimable Member of Parliament, and I have not a word to say against him. He is listed in Who's Who as a designer by trade, and Chairman of the Co-operative Society. I do not suppose that he will be even as good as the Minister of Civil Aviation at gathering in the shekels; and if he loses more, what will become of the country? There is another institution which has been nationalized—the Bank of England. That is a branch of the Civil Service, and it issues our pound notes. Can the noble Lord behind me tell me what is the real value of a pound note to-day? We used to say: "As safe as the Bank of England." We may say now: "Erratic as the value of a Bank of England note." I regard as one of the most amazing financial transactions that one has ever known the fact that the Treasury, with all its resources, and with the great respect which it enjoys, issued at the latter end of 1946 2½ per cent. Bonds. They were issued at 100; to-day they are 80. What must the little investors, who bought at 100, think now that the Bonds have fallen to 80? If the late Chancellor of the Exchequer went on speculating on the Stock Exchange like that he would soon qualify for a Member of Parliament's pension.
  790
  I ask your Lordships: Is living easier to-day than it was two and a half years ago? Can anyone say that it is? We are getting more and more controls, rationing of bread and potatoes, and we do not know what else. A lady down in Devonshire (she voted Labour too!) said to me last week: "Do you think rationing will be over this year?" I said: "I am afraid that I shall not live to see it"; and I am sure that I shall not, at; the rate we are going on. Will things get easier? I tell your Lordships that, in my opinion, they will not. It is axiomatic that one cannot have abundance with high taxation. The tax receivers do not produce commodities of general use; they are generally an infernal nuisance, but that is another matter. High taxation increases the number of food consumers who do not produce food for themselves. I have been looking in the Economic Digest at what has happened since 1938. In 1938 there were 950,000 agricultural labourers and fishermen; in 1947 there were 1,090,000. That represents an increase of 140,000. If you take the Government Departments—and the local government departments, because they are coming along well with new officials—the increase has been 686,000 officials, which represents four times as many as before. How can we expect food to be plentiful if we have so many more consumers than producers?
  We have heard a good deal about this statement from the Government. That is purely a manoeuvring for position. There is no question of real conversation to settle this matter. In 1935 the Socialist Party put forward a manifesto in these terms:
  "Labour seeks a mandate to carry out this programme by constitutional and democratic means, and with this end in view it seeks power to abolish the House of Lords."
  That was the Labour Party programme in 1935. Does anyone think that a Party which holds those opinions is going to enter into real conversations for the reform of the Second Chamber? I may be wrang—I hope I am—but I regard the situation of this country, from the point of view of food and vital commodities, as extremely grave. We have spent the Loans from America, and we are eating into our reserves. What is to happen after that? I hope that Sir Stafford Cripps will be able to tell us. What are we hoping for now? The Marshall Plan. Well, before the Marshall Plan goes through there will be a good deal of talk in America and some

  791
  uncomplimentary things will be said about Britain. For my part, I can only say that as an Englishman I am sad; I am really humiliated that old England is to head the queue of nations pleading for the bounty of America.
  I am glad the noble Marquess who moved this Amendment has broached the question of the reform of this Chamber. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, showed with remorseless logic that it is possible now for this place to function only because three parts of its members neglect their duties. If we had 800 members here I do not know how we would get through the Lobbies. But the hereditary principle, in my judgment, is indefensible. There has been a great change in the House of Commons since I first entered it. Men went there with a certain amount of private means and they were fairly independent. Now, membership of the Commons has become more like a profession, and it is very difficult to get the best young men to go into Parliament. There is no question now of large fortunes being left to them—death duties have seen to that. Therefore, I am sorry to say, you get a different class in the House of Commons. Young men who have to make their way will not adopt a Parliamentary career because there are so many uncertainties. A man is elected and in four or five years he may be turned out, and what is the good of an ex-Member of Parliament? To be an ex-Member of Parliament is no qualification for any commercial concern. Moreover, Parliament to-day is delving into industry, and therefore it is more and more essential that you should have a Second Chamber which commands the respect and the confidence of the country. I would add two words to the world renowned dictum of Abraham Lincoln: We want in this country "government of the people, for the people, by the best of the people."
  5.6 p.m.
  Lord TEYNHAM: My Lords, I wish to refer for a few minutes to the Government statement made at the beginning of the debate in this House and also to the second intervention which, I think, was made by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House in reply to certain questions. As I understand it, if we went into this conference we should be committed to a delay for discussion only in both Houses,
  792
  and we should not be able to consider a delay which would permit the people in the country to crystallize their views on a contentious measure.
  I think we must get right down to the difficulty which is before us, and I cannot help feeling that the introduction of this Bill is a great waste of Parliamentary time when our efforts should be concentrated on the economic and financial difficulties of the country which, as we all know, are very difficult at the present time. Yet His Majesty's Government have chosen this moment to introduce a Bill—and a contentious Bill at that—which will divide both Houses considerably, and which has been neither asked for nor wished for by the people. We have heard from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House who introduced this Bill various reasons for its presentation, but, like Ministers in another place, he has completely failed to disguise the fact that one of the main reasons for its introduction is the advent of the Iron and Steel Bill. Coupled with this is another reason which goes very much deeper and which reflects the views of the Left Wing of His Majesty's Government and the continuous pull of the crypto-Communist element of the Socialist Party. It was only towards the end of last year that the Minister of Health, in a speech in Morpeth, said this:
  "After next Session it would not be possible to use the Parliament Act to destroy the powers of the House of Lords in this Parliament, because after next Session the House of Lords will be able to reject such a Bill."
  The Bill which is before us to-day, and which at first sight appears to propose to limit the powers of this House, will, in fact, destroy the powers of this House as we know them to-day. It is obvious that this Bill has been forced from within, and the forcing has been done by the Minister of Health. The nationalization of iron and steel was no doubt pushed out by the pressing needs of our economic situation, but rather than risk severe Party strife, the Prime Minister, owing to the postponement of that nationalization Bill, has allowed a measure to come forward before Parliament which will tamper with the Constitution. There is little doubt that this Bill is a declaration by the Government that they are determined to carry through their complete programme of socialization in the present Parliament by removing all those checks which are at present provided by the

  793
  Constitution, and regardless of the fact that they have not the exclusive representation of the national interest.
  None of the major objections to the Bill have, in fact, been effectively answered by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House. Perhaps one of its most objectionable features is the evil precedent set up by the retrospective clause. Retrospective legislation is unusual and, I would suggest, very dangerous. Surely any proposal to make such retrospective legislation ought to be justified by a very good reason. It seems almost inconceivable that the Leader of this great House can give his support to a Bill which antedates a constitutional change without bringing forward any real, substantial reason for doing so. I always thought that it was immoral to cause a preventative war, but this Bill seems to be doing that very thing, and I am not at all sure that the real intention of the Bill is not to qualify us all under Defence Regulation 18b. There is little doubt that a Bill which upsets the balance of the Constitution is going a long way towards single-Chamber Government, and I maintain that there ought to be an overwhelming reason produced before this House is asked to accept such a proposal.
  I would suggest that perhaps one of the motives underlying the present proposal is to allay the sense of injustice felt by the Socialist Party owing to the lack of balance of Parties in this House, which in their opinion might always lead to the power of delay being used only when their Party was in power in another place. In fact, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has admitted that feeling in this debate. I am quite prepared to accept his argument as a real and substantial grievance, but it clearly constitutes, in my opinion, an objection, not to the powers, but to the composition of this House. But in spite of the Opposition being predominantly Conservative, it does not by any means follow that when a Conservative majority exists in another place, this House is always subservient to it. I have had personal experience of this (matter. In fact, I moved an Amendment against the Government during the debate on the Coal Royalties Bill, which was successfully pressed to a Division, and was inserted in the Bill.
  794
  I need hardly remind your Lordships that under the Constitution the supreme authority under the Crown is divided between the two Houses. It is true that they are divided in unequal proportions, but if those proportions are felt to be unfair surely the proper course for His Majesty's Government is to secure agreement for alteration by negotiation and not by the presentation of such a Bill as this. I maintain that no Administration should tamper with the constitutional issue of the relation between the two Houses without dealing with the need of reform of this House, The argument that during the thirty-six years since the introduction of the Parliament Bill the Conservative Party have made no efforts to amend the composition of this House cannot be sustained. Many efforts have been made by Conservative Peers to raise the issue, notably in recent years, in 1929 and 1933. On both those occasions the efforts met with censure by the Socialist Party; that cannot be denied. And only recently, in the opening stage of this debate, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, put forward an offer of negotiation.
  The responsibility for taking the initiative however, should, I maintain, rest with the Government in office. I would remind noble Lords who sit on the Government Benches that the Preamble to the 1911 Parliament Act places upon any Government who seek to revise the provisions of that Act a moral obligation to promote an agreed reform of the composition of this House. I hope that the present unwillingness of His Majesty's Government to consider a reform of the composition of this House is not moved by a cynical view that it may be good Party tactics to stave off any improvement in its composition so that attacks upon it may be more easily justified.
  I should now like to refer to the major argument on this Bill, which is whether the proper delaying period should be two years or one year. I do not think that there; is any great disagreement amongst your Lordships that there should be some period of delay. The question is whether the delay as set out in this Bill is sufficient to allow public opinion to crystallize on a contentious measure. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the Bryce Report, which gives an interesting definition of the powers of delay which they

  795
  recommended should be given to a Second Chamber and which was agreed to by all three Parties who sat on this Commission. This definition was as follows:
  "The interposition of so much delay and no more in the passing of a Bill into law as may be needed to enable the opinion of the nation to be adequately expressed on it."
  That is the test to which I would ask your Lordships to direct your attention.
  It has been shown by other speakers that, as the Constitution stands at present, the delay is approximately eighteen months, sometimes a little less; but by this Bill the delay would be brought down to under six months, sometimes to as little as three months. I suggest that the delay is so short that public opinion would be unable to crystallize on a contentious measure. And there is yet another point of view, which I feel is of the utmost importance. Would this House have the slightest chance of getting its Amendments into a Bill accepted by the Government in another place if it had not the power of two years' delay behind it? There is little doubt that if this House had not sufficient power to hold up a Bill in a way that impressed its point of view, we should not have seen the admirable results of revision which have been carried out in this House, and which I think were admitted by all Parties. I would suggest that an important point to remember is that the time when a Bill becomes an issue before the people is really when it reaches this House, when further discussion takes place on contentious points. That, of course, is one of the main reasons for the maintenance of a Second Chamber, which allows the people further time for consideration before the adoption of a contentious Measure.
  Nearly all democratic countries to-day—certainly most of those on this side of the Iron Curtain—have Second Chamber Constitutions, with proper powers of delay. In 1861 the great political writer, John Stuart Mill, wrote the following:
  "The consideration which tells most, in my judgment, in favour of two Chambers is the evil effect produced upon the mind of any holder of power, whether an individual or an assembly, by the consciousness of having only themselves to consult. It is important that no set of persons should in great affairs be able, even temporarily, to make their ' sic volo' prevail, without asking anyone else for his consent.
  796
  "The same reason which induced the Romans to have two Consuls makes it desirable that there should be two Chambers, that neither of them may be exposed to the corrupting influence of individual power even for the space of a single year."
  These reasons, which are so admirably set out by John Stuart Mill, are, I suggest, sufficient justification for a Second Chamber with proper powers of delay. I would further suggest that the great increase of legislation which nowadays confronts Parliament makes all the more necessary a Second Chamber with proper powers.
  Surely, My Lords, the future Constitution of this country, which is an unwritten one, is really a much more important thing than Party; it should be dealt with by agreement and certainly not forced through by the predominance of one Party. I suggest that this Bill deals with a grave constitutional issue in the wrong way and at the wrong time. This Bill places the nation absolutely at the mercy of a single Chamber, which may no longer represent the views and wishes of the electorate. We do not have to go very far back into the history of England, when England was a Republic, to see that even then a Second Chamber was considered necessary. Your Lordships will no doubt recall that the House of Lords was abolished during the period of government by the Protector, but was reconstituted, after some eight years, in 1658. At that time, during a debate, one of the Commissioners of the Great Seal, while discussing in another place the reconstitution of the House of Lords, used these words:
  "If anything inconvenient should chance to slip out at one door, must it not pass two more before it comes abroad to the detriment of the people?"
  Again, in that debate it was further argued that:
  "The barons anciently were the great bulwarks in defence of the liberties of the nation. How oft did they fight for Magna Carta? There is a necessity for a House of Lords. Had there not been a House of Lords, then we had not been a House of Commons neither. They always fought battles for our liberties."
  I would commend this debate of many years ago to those in another place who feel that this Bill does not go far enough and who would like to abolish this House altogether. What is the use of a Second Chamber without proper powers? It would be a negligible quantity. The

  797
  weakening of a Second Chamber is, of course, normally a manifestation of revolutionary thought which is closely allied to the fundamental doctrines of the Communist Party, which cries for its abolition. Very recently we have heard of the heated debates in the French Constituent Assembly on this very subject of the powers of a Second Chamber, and it was only after a referendum of the people that the Second Chamber, the Council of the Republic, was established with certain legislative powers.
  The Prime Minister has suggested that the limitation of power, as set out in this Bill, is necessary as a safeguard against the possible transfer of the leadership of this House into irresponsible hands. On the contrary, I would suggest that the delaying power which now exists is a safeguard against possible irresponsible leadership in another place, and a protection to the nation. Who knows when, and in what circumstances, we may have a more extreme faction at the helm in another place, when they would be able to pass as many revolutionary Bills as they chose within the five years of Parliament, even though they might have lost the confidence of the people? This Bill is nothing more than a whited sepulchre, erected by a group of nervous men in order to throw dust in the eyes of the people at a time when the country is in the throes of an economic storm and when everyone should be concentrating on the national difficulties, rather than on a constitutional issue which has been brought in by a side door through pressure from irresponsible members of the Socialist Party.
  5.52 p.m.
  Lord CALVERLEY: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, and especially to his closing peroration. He reproaches this Party for not tackling and taking the initiative with the reform of the House of Lords. I would remind the noble Lord that the Conservative Party have a past in this regard. The Coalition Liberal-Conservative Party have a past and have never handled as a Government what is, after all, a prickly pear. I for one am glad that in this Bill which is now before us we have had the good sense to leave out that pious Preamble about the reform of this House and
  798
  go straight on with the business as to whether there should be second thoughts or third thoughts. I always listen with great respect to whatever the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, has. to tell us. But when he mentioned the power of the Executive, he said it with such eloquence that I almost imagined that the power of the Executive had come into being only since May, 1945. I want to remind my noble friend that fifty odd years ago W. S. Gilbert said that M.P.'s down below there "in close proximity," or something like that—
  Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: Brain and cerebellum.
  Lord CALVERLEY: The noble Lord need not try to instruct me in the art of recitation.
  Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: Quotation.
  Lord CALVERLEY: Or quotation. I can do it without his help.
  Lord STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: Or mis-quotation.
  Lord CALVERLEY: It was in the days when there was not even a Labour Party, so they cannot be blamed. Those M.P.s had to do as they were told. To refer to this Bill, I wish again to say how glad I am that we have knocked out the pious Preamble and that we are ready to discuss—at any rate, the rank and file members of the Labour Party are ready to discuss—the reform of the House of Lords when we have put this Bill on the Statute Book. That is the opinion of the rank and file. Before coming down here, I re-read the 133rd Psalm and I wondered whether that was to be our theme song, or whether His Majesty's Government were going to base their policy upon the 3rd Chapter of Relevations, verses 14-17. I hope that His Majesty's Government will stick to their guns in this regard. After all, I was brought up in the Radical Party, as was the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. It was the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, who made me interested in politics by a great speech in my home town, in which he denounced, in proper English and without qualification, your Lordships' Horse of that day. Lord Rosebery changed his mind because he had the idea that Lloyd George's Budget of 1909 was going

  799
  to revolutionize the country as there was in that Budget a weak clause, which was never operative, about the taxation of land values.
  The noble Lord, Lord Lambert, who has just left the Chamber, mentioned the last speech of Mr. Gladstone in another place, which I believe was made in 1893. These were his words:
  "It is intolerable that an irresponsible House"—
  that is the House of Lords—
  "should be able to overrule the electorate of 6,000,000."
  There were 6,000,000 voters in those days. I was looking at a copy of Mr. Gladstone's diary only the other day and apparently, so far as I could weigh it up, he would have liked to go to the country in 1893 about the issue of the House of Lords. He did not do so, because he was overruled, as he says, by the majority of his Cabinet. In that speech of Mr. Gladstone there was a certain amount of bitterness, but it still stands that the people of this country will never allow an irresponsible House to overrule the predominant partner, which is the House of Commons.
  Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: Would the noble Lord say that he is equally irresponsible with the rest of your Lordships?
  Lord CALVERLEY: I do not understand the relevance of the noble Lord's interruption. Perhaps he will explain it to me when we get outside. At any rate, the point I want to make is this. After the experience of these last thirty-seven years, is it wrong to say that there must not be a second time of asking, and certainly not a third time of asking, which usually appertains only to the Church in banns in marriage? Why should this House ban legislation of the House of Commons three times? With the change and the speeding up of legislation there is a good and substantial case for second thoughts, but they should be real second thoughts and not gerrymandering. I agree with noble Lords opposite that there should be real time for reflection in regard to Bills which your Lordships still have the power to reject. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said last week that this House has been praised, and properly praised, almost overpraised, for the work of the
  800
  past two or three years. The people realize that the stock of this House has increased during the past three or four years—and even longer, during the war years.
  The noble Marquess referred to there being a battle of flowers and somebody throwing a bomb. I disagree with him there. The most that we could throw would be a jumping cracker, or something like it. The noble Marquess, however, has only to go to the Moses Room, or to a similar committee room, and he can manufacture a time bomb or a delayed action bomb—though not an atom bomb. He can come to this House and drop a bombshell by saying, "We refuse that this Bill shall have a Second Reading." That he has a right to do. He has a right to command his forces—I was going to say to bring them to heel, but there is no need for that, since they are independent. They can reject our Bills. I put it to your Lordships, quite frankly, that this House of Lords is the cause of the overwork of the House of Commons. I ask you to reflect on the King's Speeches in the first and second Sessions of Parliament. Your Lordships, time and again, complained of the overloading of the legislative programme. I am certain that if I had been a member of the House of Commons—which I had the honour to be for many years—I should have complained.
  But the Labour Government know the past history of this House, when it was the rubber stamp of the Conservative Headquarters, when it opposed almost every piece of Radical, Progressive, or Labour legislation. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, only the other day was praising the Lord Chancellor. He quite rightly gave him a bouquet, but it was for a little Bill on Common Law which I thought, from what the noble and learned Viscount said, was rejected by this House fifty-five years ago, and introduced and passed through the Commons by the then Home Secretary, that greatest of Yorkshiremen, Mr. Asquith. The noble and learned Viscount told the Lord Chancellor that the clause of Mr. Asquith was even better than that of the Lord Chancellor; and I can well understand it, because if there is one thing that North country people have, it is the ability to express themselves in terse, logical and good English. My Lords, you are like a woman with a past. You have a past. This House has been responsible as I say

  801
  for the overloading of the legislative programme in these days. Do you think that the Labour Party would have adopted the policy of Lord Rosebery when I believe he coined that phrase about "ploughing the sands"? Do you think he would have adopted the policy of the 1910-1914 Government—I believe they called it "filling the cup"—of sending Bills to this House to be rejected, and of futility and frustration? To-day it is too dangerous for this House to attempt to commit suicide; and that is what it would amount to. This House can only destroy itself, because it stands high in the esteem of the people in the country.
  I was only a youth when I was shouting for Lord Rosebery in the streets of Yorkshire, but I remember that some years afterwards I had a more responsible position, that of leading the revolt instigated by the then right honourable member for Cleveland and the then learned and right honourable member for Walthamstow, who were full of philosophic doubts. We put our money on Mr. Churchill. When he said he was astonished at the moderation of the Liberal Government, we young fellows all agreed with him, and I was sent to Lancashire, to a somewhat delicate conference, because it was a revolt against the pundits, the doubting philosophers of the Liberal Party. As it was, there was another General Election in December, 1910, and those young fellows said: "Never again shall the House of Lords be in a position to demand the dissolution of Parliament; that is the prerogative of the House of Commons on a vote of confidence in the Government." Therefore, this House should not take exception to this Bill. There should be safeguards, but not what the Americans call the gerrymandering of legislation and constituencies.
  I want to tell the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, that he is very much to blame for the introduction of this Bill. Before he went grouse shooting in August there were many veiled threats of this up and down the country, in regard to the introduction of a Steel Bill. But if His Majesty's Government, in their wisdom, wish to introduce a Steel Bill, they have a perfect right to do it; and they have a right to expect that, after due examination, that Bill shall receive the Royal Assent in a reasonable length of time.
  Viscount SIMON: Does that apply to any Bill they introduce?
  Lord CALVERLEY: Certainly. This House is an amending and revising Chamber. That is my point. I want to put it very bluntly. If the House of Commons sends to this House a major Bill, this House has the right to reject it; it has a right to its second thoughts over a reasonable length of time—I should say anything from nine to twelve months, but not nine to ten weeks—and also to allow the country reasonable time. I want to make that perfectly plain. I do not want to pull a fast one over the noble Marquess. And, if I wished to, the noble Marquess is far too wide-awake to allow me to do it. I was not going to address your Lordships as "any friends," but, most of us, truly, are friends, and this brings me to the matter of the speech which was made during the debate on the gracious Speech, by the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury. I always listen with great respect and affection to what the most reverend Primate has to say to me.
  On that occasion he said: "Would this break up the unity of this nation?" There is nothing more certain, my Lords, than that it would be a very grave matter if your Lordships took a hand in the game of breaking up that unity. As a youngster, I found it the easiest thing in the world to go to a street corner and make a speech, with great heat and very little light, upon the theme: "Down with the House of Lords." I do not want any more of that sort of thing. On the other hand, I plead with your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading. After the Second Reading, let the Bill be suitably amended, if you wish, and then, if your Lordships are in the mood for reforming yourselves, take steps to that end. For my own part, I do not want the sack yet—I tell you that quite frankly. I am afraid that I am rather enjoying myself in this House.
  Several Noble Lords Several Noble Lords: So are we.
  Lord CALVERLEY: I do not want to be declared redundant—
  Viscount SWINTON: You might be directed.
  Lord CALVERLEY: I do beg the House to act in accordance with the reputation that it has built up since we have

  803
  had a Labour Government and have faced new conditions—it has meant that your Lordships have had to look upon new and novel proposals—and to do as I ask. Further, I would like to say this to your Lordships, and I can say it quite candidly, because I am one of the least of the eight hundred odd members. This House has lately enhanced its reputation. I would ask you to give this Bill a Second Reading. Let it be made water-tight in the matter of its precautions; by all means let there be second thoughts, but do not let there be third thoughts. For those reasons, I plead with your Lordships to agree to a Second Reading of this measure.
  6.15 p.m.
  The Earl of HALIFAX: My Lords, it is always with great pleasure, which I have no doubt the House shares, that I listen to a speech made by my old friend who has just addressed us, even if I cannot always pretend that the arguments that he adduces produce the intellectual revolution in my mind that the vigour with which they are asserted would clearly entitle them to expect. But I am also sure that your Lordships share with me admiration for the way in which the noble Lord has been able to overcome the hampering restrictions of terseness and logicality that, as he says, haunt and hamper every North-countryman. The noble Lord said that he was enjoying himself in this House. I am sure that I speak for all your Lordships when I say that we enjoy his attendance here.
  I venture to ask leave to intervene in this debate for a few moments only, because of a feeling that has grown in my mind that the House is in a position of no little difficulty, and is in some danger, perhaps, of moving into a position that is slightly ridiculous; for, as I see it, the House is trying to debate two things at once. It is at times apparently trying to debate the merits, or the demerits, of the Parliament Bill, and at other times it is debating upon the terms on which discussion of that Bill might be postponed. That, as was pointed out earlier, is likely to be an unprofitable attempt at mixing two totally different subjects. I confess that, in the somewhat confused position in which our affairs have been placed, I could have found it in my heart to wish that the noble Marquess, who leads the
  804
  Opposition, had moved the adjournment of the House until the situation, in one direction or the other, was made more clear. I therefore do not rise for the sake of contributing anything to the discussion about the merits or the demerits of the Bill, but I want to direct the few observations which I have to make to the narrower, though, in my judgment, more important question of whether or not there is to be, or can be, as things stand, a conference between Parties on the whole subject.
  With all respect to my noble friend who has just addressed us, I think that the debate upon whether or not we should vote for the Second Reading is, at this stage, a debate that would be quite premature, and for this reason. A vote upon the Second Reading is clearly, at this stage, not a condition of the establishment of a conference. The Government do not suggest, as a condition of a conference, that it should be preceded by a vote for the Second Reading. Therefore, while such a vote would not help a conference one way or the other, it would clearly defeat the whole purpose of the appeal which has been made by my noble friend who leads the Opposition, to postpone consideration of the Bill until some idea can be formed of the possible value of such talks as may be enabled to take place. I suggest that the real question to which we can all most usefully apply our minds at this moment is: Are we, or are we not, to have such a conference as the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, sketched in the statement that he made? I do not conceal my view that the House and Parliament and People and Nation, at this moment are in face, as the most reverend Primate has said, of a great and almost unique opportunity to come very near to settling a great constitutional issue that has, in some respects, embarrassed the life of the Nation over many, many years. And it is an opportunity which may never return.
  There is the opportunity before us. It is for us here and now to decide whether or not it should slip through our fingers and again disappear. We are all now fully sensible that the difficulty that blocks the way to grasping that opportunity arises on the wording of the first paragraph of the statement that the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, read at an earlier stage. As a layman, with

  805
  no knowledge of what may have been passing between those who are principally concerned, I confess that I am totally unable to appreciate the difficulty that has arisen. The Government seem to me either to be moved by some purpose that is sinister or to be a good deal less intelligent than their appearance on that Bench would suggest. Even now, at this stage, I would like, if I may, to ask the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, one or two plain questions, and ask him whether he is able to follow me in the quite logical argument by which I myself seek to explain the matter.
  Do the Government really want to have a conference? The answer to that must presumably be, "Yes," or else they would not have come so far as they have already to meet my noble friend, the Leader of the Opposition. Do they mean to have discussion on powers, within limits? The answer to that must be, "Yes," because indeed it is apparent in the circulated statement, and the noble Viscount said so earlier to my noble and learned friend, Lord Simon. Within what limits do they intend the discussion on powers to range? Clearly they must intend the discussion to range between the limits of two years and one year. They do not intend to go beyond the existing Parliament Act powers, and the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, if I understood him rightly, said that it was fantastic to suppose that they were arguing for a period of less than one year.
  And if this is so, why in Heaven's name cannot they say so? Because—the noble Lord who spoke last put his finger on the same spot that many of my noble friends on the other side have been touching also with great force—we are not concerned in all this business only with the adjustment of differences in a conference, with the discussion between the two Houses; we are also concerned—we on the Opposition side, and I believe it is also the position of many on the side of the Government—that reasonable time (whatever reasonable time may be) should be given to the country to appreciate what are the points at issue and what judgment they, in turn, should form on it. And that is the kind of question one would suppose that reasonable people like the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, and the noble Marquess, the Leader of the Opposition, could settle in five minutes. The fact that they do not settle it, or do
  806
  not appear to settle it, suggests to me that there is something more difficult and more sinister behind it which I, in my simplicity, do not understand. That embarrasses me and makes me nervous.
  Yet the position is that we would find that 90 per cent. of the members of the House and 90 per cent. of the people of the country want a conference to be held, if there is a chance of a conference finding a settlement of this issue. On any basis of logic, it would appear that the noble Marquess and the noble Viscount mean substantially the same thing. Yet it also would appear that each side is afraid of being led into a trap by the other side. Both sides would strenuously deny, and. with perfect honesty, that they are trying to do that. But if I have to choose between who is doing the leading into a trap, I am bound to conclude, on a superficial judgment, that the difficulty the Government have in putting plain words on paper to let plain men understand, makes me rather more suspicious of them than I am of my noble friend. The result, however, I venture in all seriousness to assert, is intolerable to the House and to the country, and I appeal with all the force I can command to my noble friend, the Leader of the House, who I think can help us more than anybody else, to show the means by which the House can be extricated from a position it ought never have been asked to accept.
  6.25 p.m.
  The Marquess of SALISBURY: My Lords, I would like to make one intervention and there is a question I wish to ask the Leader of the House, if the House will permit me. I think your Lordships have all been very impressed by the speech which has just been made by the noble Earl, who was obviously actuated by no bias on either side and seeks only to find a satisfactory solution. What I should like to understand is, first, what is the meaning of the Government's form of words in paragraph 1, and secondly, why should it not be altered to a more simple form acceptable to us all? I ask the Leader of the House—I am aware he may not wish to answer it to-day, but he can consider it—whether he would be willing to omit all the words after "limited to" in line 2 and add "the powers of delay." That would satisfy all of us. The sentence would then read:

  807
  "So far as discussions of the powers of the Second Chamber are concerned, they should be limited to the powers of delay."
  That would enable the discussion to range over the whole area between one year and two years. I ask if the Government would consider this suggestion. I do not ask for an answer immediately. I think it would satisfy all of us here.
  5.28 p.m.
  Viscount ADDISON: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene and I only do so because the noble Earl and the Leader of the Opposition have asked me to do so. I agree with the noble Earl that the majority of sensible people want a conference and would like it to succeed, if possible. I assure him there is no sinister intention behind the words on the paper. I am sure we are nothing like so clever as he seems to suggest. I may say that we discussed many forms of words to put into this sentence on what the discussion would be about. We have misgiving—and there is no good hiding it—as to what is meant by "delay" so far as concerns what is called the public discussion of an issue. You cannot define it. In some instance the issue might be simple and readily resolved one way or another; in others it might be very complex and difficult. I can only reassure the noble Earl and the House, with complete sincerity, that there is nothing sinister, obscure or tricky about it.
  It is just a straightforward attempt to put into words what we should be discussing. I think the time occupied in discussing the differences between the two Houses always would include public information. The public know about differences often before they arise—and sometimes when they do not arise. They are the subject of headlines all the time. There is no obscurity about that. I think the time would vary a good deal, but with good will we are willing to explore the position. I would answer the noble Earl's question, as to whether it would be something more than one year and something less than two years, by saying: "Yes, it would." If anything was done at all to meet the case put by the noble Marquess opposite, where this House had had a very short time to consider a complex view, and an arrangement was arrived at that was mutually satisfactory, it would not be less than one year and it would clearly be more. All I can say in response
  808
  to the noble Marquess's appeal is that I will discuss his suggestion with my colleagues and communicate with him again.
  6.31 p.m.
  Lord SALTOUN: My Lords, after what has passed, I shall confine anything I have to say to the Bill. I really wish that those noble Lords who, like I do, remember the passages of 1911, would find it convenient to forget them, because I do not think they help a fair and calm consideration of the Bill in front of us. I listened carefully to the reasons given by the noble Viscount who leads the House, when he spoke last Tuesday, for bringing forward this measure. One of them, as your Lordships will remember—it has been repeated this afternoon—was that this House met last September at a very difficult period. As that reason has come from the other side, I will not use the short and sharp word that I would use if it came from our side, but I will say that that reason lacks the congenial good nature that generally distinguishes British politics. The second reason he gave was that a claim had been put forward by this House that it was entitled to confine the Acts of His Majesty's Government to those for which they had received a mandate from the people. I do not think any such claim has ever been put forward. It certainly has never come from me. I have never concealed my own opinion, that it is the business of the Government to govern and to decide each question which comes before them on its merits.
  Perhaps I may be allowed to say a word on that point, because it is one on which I am afraid I am at variance with the most reverend Primate in what he said. In the first place, I think it is for the people who have the power to decide how they use that power; and the people who have not that power cannot, by compliances which they ought not properly to make, try to control how that power is used. For that reason, I could not vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, because that would mean admitting the principle. But it is one thing to say in argument that the Government have received no mandate for the action which they take, and another to claim the right to decide the question. Although I certainly think—and we all think—that possibly it is quite proper for any Second Chamber to say at the end of a Parliament: "This is a very controversial

  809
  measure. There is a General Election coming along. Had you not better wait to see what is the decision of the people?", I think your Lordships would be slow to do that.
  There is, however, another danger latent in this Bill. I do not say that the Government have it in mind, but I do say that it could be used. Suppose that this Bill goes through as it is to-day. Let us take a case. Suppose, as might happen, that the handling of this crisis by the Government led to another crisis, and still a further crisis, so that their chance of success at the Polls became very problematical. Supposing that this Bill were law—and as we have been told it imposes a delay on this House of three months—it would be a simple matter to pass a short Act abolishing this House altogether. There is nothing in the Parliament Act to stop that occurring. Having passed that Act, a subsequent Act, could be passed prolonging indefinitely the life of Parliament.
  Viscount ADDISON: That is not correct. If the noble Lord will study the Parliament Act, he will see that it would require the consent of both Houses to alter the life of Parliament.
  Lord SALTOUN: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon. It is true that it requires the consent of both Houses to alter the life of Parliament, but it does not require the consent of both Houses to pass an Act abolishing your Lordships' House. That is the point I am making, and that is the danger. The only power that can stop that, and always would stop it, whether it was a purely Tory Government, a Labour Government or any other Government, is this old hereditary Chamber. I cannot imagine any circumstances, except the stress of war, that would lead this House to grant the extension of the life of any Parliament.
  There are three main criticisms made against your Lordships' House. The first is that when there is a Labour majority in another place there is a Conservative majority in this House. That is perfectly true. The world has been stiff with Second Chambers, from the days of Solon on. I think there have been few of them which have not been more conservative than the popular Chambers connected with them. I doubt, indeed, whether there has been a single one. As I understand it, it is the purpose of any Second Cham-
  810
  ber to be able to impose delay, and it is not likely to do that unless its members are somewhat more conservative in complexion than the popular Chamber of the moment. That does not mean to say, so far as that is concerned, that I would not welcome a wider basis in this House; but any Second Chamber must have that conservative complexion.
  There are two other criticisms, and they are very old. I have traced them back to the 'nineties, and they cover practically all the members of your Lordships' House. We are, therefore, all subject to them in one form or another. The first one is that membership of your Lordships' House is derived by inheritance. That is perfectly true. The second is that members are drawn very largely from the House of Commons. The argument there is that no one whose abilities assure his political power in the future would ever wish to leave that House. I deny that absolutely. As a matter of fact, the major ingredient in excessive political zeal is probably ambition, and I do not think there is any harm that your Lordships' House: should be recruited from those of us who are more reflective and less ambitious. Facts themselves are the best answer, for not only do Peers who command most confidence and a great deal of your Lordships' friendship come from another place, but we have also in this House very many Peers whose fathers also came from another place and who have left sons whose great abilities are the best testimony of the excellence of their fathers. But if this Bill were to become law, I know of very few men of first-class ability who would be willing to come up and take part in a debating society with no power at all, unless they had the misfortune to inherit that position.
  The Bill, as it stands, is single-Chamber Government in disguise, and it makes it possible to reduce the Constitution to single-Chamber Government at very short notice. I think we might very well consider what happened the last time that was tried. It was tried 300 years ago. The period commenced with the trial and the murder of His Majesty the King. I think your Lordships may be amused to recollect that when Lord Fairfax's name was called in that assembly a clear voice rang through Westminster Hall declaring that Lord Fairfax "Was not such a fool, "—a judgment which I think many of your Lordships would probably

  811
  endorse to-day, and which says something for the hereditary principle. The point to remember is that that Act was speedily followed by the abolition of the House of Lords. In a very short time the House of Commons lost its supremacy, with startling rapidity, and became practically a cypher in the government of the country. Moreover, if the Government are put into the position of being able to prolong their life at will, what remedy have the people if they are discontented, save that of taking arms in their hands? As it stands to-day, this House may appear illogical, but it works, as even His Majesty's Government have acknowledged. The Austrian Empire seemed pretty illogical, but it also worked, and your Lordships will consider how much happiness and peace have been enjoyed in Europe since the disappearance of the Austrian Empire.
  There is another point, and an important one—at least it seems to me to be important. There is no proper locus to argue this question. It will be seen that we cannot. Suppose that it comes to a General Election. We have very small opportunities of presenting the case as it should be presented, and as we feel it ought to be presented, to the country. I therefore think that there is no proper locus to put this before the country, and I think it is, to some degree, unconstitutional in itself for that reason. I certainly am not willing to discuss any great changes in this House until I am assured what its powers are to be. It appears to me that if the powers are to be those given in this Bill, it will not be worth anybody's while to belong to such a Chamber, or to work for it. It does seem to me to go too far, and it will be better, I think, and more honest of the Government, if I may say so, to go for a single-Chamber Government, and abolish all titles of honour. It would come to an end, in time, because I do not believe this country can be governed by a single Chamber. But as this Bill stands, I think it opens too big a door to misuse, and I hope the Government will consider that before they force it further.
  6.44 p.m.
  Viscount BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I am one of those who share the surprise and disappointment expressed by the
  812
  noble Earl in that it seems impossible to bridge the gulf which separates both sides of the House. I do not suggest that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is guilty of any mischievous intent, but I must admit that his words do not seem capable of being easily understood. Even now, it appears from the further statement which he was good enough to make that, if we entered into these discussions, we should do so with our hands tied behind our backs, in so far as the possibility of discussing a power of delay is concerned. In other words, to put it plainly to the Leader of the House, as I see it we should have agreed that we would not ask for any extension of powers at all without any corresponding advantage. If the noble Viscount would accept the simple proposition that we should go into the conference on the basis that the powers should not be less than one year and should not be more than two years, then, so far as I can see, the gulf would be bridged. As I understand it, however, the noble Viscount is not prepared to say that. The powers have ipso facto to be less. We have to go in with our hands tied behind our backs, and that is no good. Therefore, to my great regret, I am compelled to abandon that aspect of the matter and address myself as briefly as I may to the Bill itself.
  I was one of those who originally thought that there was something to be said for giving this Bill a Second Reading. It is because I have been convinced of the error of such a course that I venture to address your Lordships to-night, hoping that my conversion may cause my words to carry greater weight than might otherwise have been the case. It did, in fact, seem that there was something to be said for giving this Bill a Second Reading, if it could have been coupled with some undertaking that there would be no further encroachment on the powers of your Lordships' House. The noble and learned Viscount who sits upon the Woolsack, indeed, suggested that such would be the probable course of events, but in fact no specific promise could or would be given. The result is that we find ourselves in the position of another great Law-giver, King Canute—the only difference being that he was wise enough to escape, whereas your Lordships would most certainly be engulfed.

  813
  I find it difficult to put a limit to a reform such as this. I do not find it easy to gauge its consequences or to guess its ultimate extent. If one thinks there is no danger of further encroachment, it is surely only necessary to look at the reasons put forward in support of this Bill. What are they? The Government have not suggested that your Lordships have improperly rejected any measures; there is no charge of provocation in the thankless and exacting task of revision. If our affairs are in disorder, is that suggested as being your Lordships' fault? If an economic crisis casts its shadow across the land, if our liberty is rapidly diminishing, is that due to coercion or provocation on the part of your Lordships? Would any diminution of your Lordships' power have prevented it? I think, rather, that those who have contributed to the discussions in your Lordships' House would feel that wider powers might have served to prevent some of the ills from which we now suffer.
  Be that as it may, I am not advocating that we should have them. What then is the real reason put forward? We are told that this Bill is to prevent a political crisis. Yet your Lordships have shown no desire for any clash. Your Lordships have studiously avoided any excuse for a political crisis. If it were really thought that the risk of such a crisis existed, why was this measure not introduced when the Government first came into power? Why did they wait until this moment to introduce it? It is suggested again, as the noble Viscount, Lord Lambert, said, that: it is part of a pledge to resist obstruction contained in a Labour leaflet. But your Lordships have not obstructed the will of the people. I suggest that the reason for introducing this Bill is something wholly other than appears on the surface. I am particularly sorry that this should be so, for I have been trained, as have all your Lordships, to regard our Ministers as guardians of our Constitution. One would have thought they would not put forward any Bill encroaching on its foundations without the most careful thought and the most solemn deliberation.
  If we look at the greatest of all democracies, the United States of America, we find that their Constitution is most jealously guarded; and theirs is a written Constitution. One would suppose that it would be less in need of protection than
  814
  ours, which is not in writing. In America they require a very large majority in both Houses—I will not weary your Lordships with the details—not before they alter the Constitution, but before they even assemble the convocation at which the Amendment is to be discussed. Yet here we have a measure encroaching vitally on our Constitution, put forward for the flimsiest reason and on the slightest pretext. I feel that Pitt was right when he said that experience had taught him the danger of altering the established form of government. While I do not say that that is a risk that must never be run, I do suggest that it is one that should not be taker at the present moment. Further I feel that we have an added cause for alarm in this matter because of the record of the Government themselves. Over a period of years we have seen rule by Order, the delegation of dictatorial powers to individual Ministers, and the free and frequent use of the guillotine preventing the discussion of vitally important measures. It is not altogether unreasonable in such a case to suggest that the delaying power of two years now in your Lordships' hands should not be reduced.
  Particularly is this an unfortunate moment to reduce it. It is a moment when the utmost effort of every individual and the united endeavour of the whole country is needed if as a nation we are to survive. The Government are seeking to create a sense of urgency and a sense of crisis in order that they may force this Bill through. I suggest—and I am sure your Lordships will accept what I say as having no personal allusion to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House; I speak purely of the Government—that they are not physicians seeking to heal a patient; they appear before us as quacks, seeking by fear to create a belief in some disease which does not exist in order that they may force some spurious remedy down the unhappy victim's throat. I urge your Lordships to reject this Bill and to support the Amendment of the noble Marquess, and, if I may, I would urge your Lordships to do it not in defence, most certainly, of the privileges of this House but in defence of the Constitution, and in preservation of that liberty which throughout the ages his been the birthright of our race.
  6.53 p.m.
  The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, at an early stage in this debate the most

  815
  reverend Primate said that the debate would probably do harm. I do not think it has done any harm. I think it has been a very informative debate, and my only regret is that more noble Lords on the other side have not taken part, because those who have done so have given us a very valuable contribution. The noble Lord, Lord Calverley, stated definitely that he hoped that this Bill would be on the Statute Book before we discussed powers at all. That, I am afraid, was a suggestion that this was a trap which was being laid for the Opposition to walk into. I hope that that is not true. But I would like to make a further comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Calverley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, said. I think it is curious that they used very similar words. Lord Stansgate said that this House was usurping the functions of the electorate; and Lord Calverley said we were overruling the electorate. There is no possible question of that. I ask the noble Lord to give one single comment or quotation from any members of your Lordships' House which has contained the words "overruling the electorate." I challenge him to do it. There is no foundation whatsoever for what he said.
  I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, said, that we are in some confusion, and it is rather a curious confusion, because it is noble Lords opposite who are in fact defending the hereditary position and it is noble Lords on this side who are saying that there should be some reform. It is curious, because it was the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, who told us that we should keep the House as it is. In view of that opinion, it is rather a pity that we cannot extend the area of common ground—and the area of common ground is already fairly big. I do not think any noble Lord questions for a moment that there should be a Second Chamber. I believe there is also agreement that we should not be just a debating Chamber. I emphasize that responsibility is an essential feature for this House. I submit that this is a big opportunity; and I feel that to press this Bill at the present time is most unfortunate. It would indeed be unfortunate if the Labour Party were to have it said of them that they had tinkered with the Constitution for a temporary political advantage—because those are the argu-
  816
  ments which we have heard. It may be that there are others, but that is an argument which has in fact been used.
  We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, for having given us that admirable quotation from John Stuart Mill, because it shows clearly that what the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, said in his speech is not just a fad which he has invented but something which was thought about long before he was born; and that he was merely expressing a modern version of the same line of thought. The view which has been expressed by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, is, I think, entirely without precedent: that it is for the Government to decide what is their mandate and what they can do and it is for this House merely to accept what they decide. That, if it is accepted, is an entirely new step in our Constitution. There is no precedent for it. If I may turn his own phrase, I would ask, What is that but "newfangled Cæ esarism"? May I ask him to recall what was said on the subject of the duties of this House by the Lord President of the Council when he introduced this Bill?
  I will take first the question of the rejection of Bills upon which the nation is not yet determined. The noble Viscount quoted various other statements, particularly some of Mr. Asquith at a time of heat in 1911. May I give him a more recent authoritative comment, and that is the Report of the Bryce Conference?
  "In only one respect does this subject present a serious difficulty. It has always been understood in this country and in nearly every country where a Second Chamber exists that the Second Chamber should be entitled to full powers in the sphere of such legislation as is not of a financial character."
  Then it goes on to say:
  "In financial matters alone is its range of action limited by the long-established superior rights of the popular House. Accordingly it was with questions of finance and with these only that the Conference found it had to deal."
  I do not question the authority of the Bryce Conference. It is true that there were certain recommendations which did not receive universal approval, but the members of that Conference represented all Parties and I think represented the leading people of that date. That was the view they expressed. Now I would remind noble Lords of what the Home Secretary said:

  817
  "We hold the view that the restricted powers which we propose in this Bill are the maximum powers which should be allowed to any Second Chamber, no matter how constituted."
  I would say that what is proposed is a complete breach of the constitutional procedure of this country; and I think that very strong reasons should be advanced for it and that the reasons should not be temporary political advantage of any kind. I should like to mention briefly what could be done. The result first might be the censorship of the Press and the B.B.C. and the restriction of the franchise. I am not suggesting that noble Lords opposite would be a party to these things, but they are forging the tools by which these things could be done. You can abolish trial by jury, or you can restrict trial by jury. You may say that that is difficult. I would ask you to read again the retro-active clause of this Bill. How many members of the general public understand it? None.
  It would be possible for a Government to extend the life of Parliament. I know that it is held to be impossible, under the Parliament Act, to extend the life of Parliament, but I would ask any lawyer to look at the Parliament Act, Section 2. We are changing "three" to "two" in the same section. Is there any reason why an ordinary Act should not amend the Parliament Act by leaving out the words:
  "or a Bill containing any provisions which will extend the maximum duration of Parliament beyond five years"?
  I think there is no question that legally it would be possible to take that phrase out, and an unscrupulous Government (which, I admit, I have in mind) could do it; they could have a Parliament of any length they might decide.
  But what above all we are anxious about is what I would call the enabling Acts. These again are things that have taken place, to a very large extent, and which we have seen happen. They are not simply new ideas in this Parliament; they have been growing up for a long time. The noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker, in his introduction to Mill's Essay on Liberty, produces ideas which describe admirably what are the dangers. He says this about Mill's idea of absolute liberty.
  "State interference promotes liberty if it expresses collective as against individual
  818
  interference. But government is impossible without giving power into the hands of individuals and hence arises the danger that that interference which claims to represent the collective will may really be the fad of an individual bureaucrat or be administered by a tyrannical official."
  He goes on to say:
  "Liberty is possible only where there 1.3 a Government sufficiently strong and sufficiently skilled to substitute ordered and reasonable for arbitrary and capricious interference, and Where there is a guarantee that State interference shall represent the collective will and not the arbitrary will of officials, in democratic institutions, and, above all, in the spirit of a people who, in Walt Whitman's words, 'Rise at once against the never-ending audacity of elected persons'."
  I feel that the spirit of the people is showing itself to-day in the medical profession. It is implicit in any democracy to believe in the principle of vox populi vox Dei. I do not think that any speaker to-day has questioned that. It is clear that some duties of Parliament cannot be justified in democratic theory. The problem of Parliament is, how is the will to be interpreted? It is not easy, but it is certain that a Resolution of one or both Houses of Parliament is not the vox Dei. Still less so are those Government orders which pour out departmentally in very great numbers. I am informed that in the year 1947 there were 2,909 Orders published; that is to say, three every hour. I suppose there have been two such orders issued since we started sitting this afternoon. If those are to be enforced, how can it be done? It can be done only by a police Stale, and by nothing else. It is the sensibleness of Parliament which prevents a police State being created, and it is the status of Parliament which, I submit, is in some degree being reduced by this measure.
  How does this House make itself felt? Ultimately, it is by Division, but in actual fact it makes itself felt by the good offices of the noble Lords who sit on the Government Benches. We have had many charming words said about the work of this House. I feel that we should reciprocate to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, and to the noble and learned Viscount sitting on the Woolsack, by expressing our appreciation of what they have done, during last summer and at other times, in the way of helping us on these Benches to get our wills expressed. It is their work which has done that, and we appreci-

  819
  ate it very greatly indeed. However, are all future holders of those offices to be so actuated by a deep and profound sense of duty? Is that inevitably the case? Why should the Government have any noble Lords here at all to speak on their behalf? Only because the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1937, which deals with this, says that there is a limit to the number of Ministers sitting in another place.
  There are two functions of the Second Chamber in regard to liberty. One in regard to the protection of the liberty of the subject, is to
  "represent the more permanent attitude and tendencies of the nation."
  They are the words used by the Bryce Report. Secondly, I suggest that we have to maintain stability in an unwritten Constitution, which is far more difficult to do than in a written Constitution of any sort. There was a period—I was just leaving school at the time—when people believed with facile confidence in any form of democracy which contained a ballot box and a debating Chamber. The Government would then be perfect, there would be no difficulty and everyone would be happy. We watched what happened to
  820
  the Weimar Constitution. There was the referendum and the initiation of the Popular Republicans, rather like a motorcar at a motor show, while here we had our old Constitution, old-fashioned and unfitted for those people. We have been at war for one-third of the last thirty-five years, and we are the only major country which has maintained intact its Constitution. Here is a unique opportunity. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House has earned our deep affection and our respect. The noble Viscount who sits on the Liberal Benches has unparalleled experience in this matter. His position, by tradition and by his personal qualities, remains unique. Because of its uniqueness, I would ask your Lordships to take an opportunity which may not recur.
  Lord AMMON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Viscount Hall, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
  Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Amman.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.
  House adjourned at seven minutes past seven o'clock.