Sitting of 18 February 1948

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 26th February.
  ROCHDALE CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time, and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  POST OFFICE

    Premises, Renfrewshire
    Major Guy Lloydasked the Postmaster-General if new premises have yet been chosen for the post office at Thornliebank, Renfrewshire.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling): I am advised that the circumstances have changed and the need for new premises does not now arise.

    Clissold Telephone Exchange
    Mr. Eric Fletcherasked the Postmaster-General how many operatives are engaged on the Clissold Exchange after 7 p.m.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: The number of operatives (including supervisors) on duty at Clissold Exchange after 7 p.m. on weekdays is 19 up to 8 p.m.; 21 from 8 to 10 p.m.; 16 from 10 to 11 p.m.; 14 from 11 to 11.30 p.m.; and five from 11.30 p.m. onwards. On Saturdays and Sundays the numbers are slightly less.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that sometimes subscribers on this exchange have to wait as long as 10 minutes before they get a response?
    Mr. Paling: That is a consideration which belongs to the next Question.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Can my right hon. Friend say how many of the operators are employed full time, and how many are experienced operators, because the delays on this exchange are becoming abominable?
    Mr. Paling: I think most of these people are employed full time. I have not the actual figures.
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Postmaster-General whether he will take steps to improve the telephone service in the Clissold Exchange.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: I can assure my hon. Friend that every effort is being made to improve the service at Clissold Exchange. On the technical side, the switchboard has been thoroughly renovated and extended, and constant attention is being given to the working of the junction lines to other exchanges. On the operating side, the bulk of the staff is of very short service as a result of heavy losses in 1947, but the wastage rate is now declining and the service should steadily improve as the staff gain experience.
    Mr. Fletcher: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply and for the assurance it contains, may I ask him if he can give any indication when the exchange will be transferred to automatic control?
    Mr. Paling: I am afraid not.

    Gift Food Parcels (Delay)
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the delay in the delivery of gift food parcels arriving in this country from East Africa; and whether in view of the fact that such parcels carry customs declarations and that there is no need to examine them if no dutiable goods are listed, he will arrange for steps to be taken to expedite their delivery.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: I regret that all parcels from overseas have been subject to delay over Christmas and New Year owing to the very large number received.

    1131
    Although some check of the accuracy of Customs declarations is necessary, food parcels, with few exceptions, are now being released within a few days of arrival at Postal Customs depots.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Is the Postmaster-General aware that an undertaking was given that in the case of gift parcels sent by air with special Customs delivery and examination forms there would be no delay, but that, in fact, delays of up to a month have occurred in the case of food parcels?
    Mr. Paling: I think the longest delay occurred at Christmas and the New Year. We are catching up with it now, and I think deliveries will be back to the normal time.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that when these undertakings are given they are honoured so that perishable foodstuffs are not sent under a misapprehension?

    Television Service, Wales
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Postmaster-General what plans he has for the provision of television in Wales; and when the Service will be inaugurated.
    Mr. Wilfred Paling: I certainly look forward to the time when it will be possible to extend the Television Service to Wales, but it is too early at present to say when that will be. We are pressing on with the first extension which will provide television in the Birmingham area.
    Mr. Freeman: Can my right hon. Friend give any indication of whether there is any chance of getting it this year or next year?
    Mr. Paling: Not this year, anyway.
    Mr. Lipson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the extension from the Birmingham area will extend as far as Cheltenham?
    Mr. Paling: I am not quite sure of the distance.
    Mr. Lipson: Forty miles.
    Mr. Paling: That would stretch it somewhat.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Bombing Range, Calshot
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for Air if he proposes to re-establish the aerial bombing range at Calshot.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): Practice bombing has taken place off Calshot for over 20 years, and it is not proposed to alter either the use or the area of the range. Representations have, however, been received that it should be moved elsewhere and we are seeing what can be done to meet these representations.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Does not the Under-Secretary realise that because it has gone on for 20 years does not mean it should go on now; that it is a great menace to shipping and yachtsmen; and could they not find another place to carry out these exercises?
    Mr. de Freitas: Without accepting the allegation that it is a menace, I would say that we are looking for another place. We are doing our best. If any hon. Member wants a bombing range in his constituency I will be pleased to consider it.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would the hon. Gentleman assure the House that he is not selecting the Forth?
    Mr. de Freitas: Yes, I can assure the hon. and gallant Member of that, because these squadrons are based at Calshot.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: But will the Under-Secretary assure the Minister of Defence that the battleship "Rodney" will no longer be bombed in the Forth?
    Mr. de Freitas: This Question refers to Calshot.

    Mustard Gas Destruction. Bedfordshire
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that several recent cases of death and serious injury to domestic animals have occurred in the vicinity of the village of Melchbourne, Bedfordshire, as a result of the presence there of mustard gas; and what steps he is taking to deal with this development.
    Mr. de Freitas: I have seen newspaper reports that sheep dogs have received injuries through straying on to the land where this mustard gas is being burned. My right hon. Friend regrets the inconvenience which is being caused to the inhabitants of Melchbourne while this gas is being destroyed, and he is doing everything he can to ensure that its destruction will be completed as soon as possible. The contaminated area will be fenced off to prevent animals straying on to it.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Could the Under-Secretary say how much longer he thinks it will be before this gas is finally burned, in view of the fact that the inconvenience locally is very great indeed; and, although I appreciate that his Department has helped to the utmost extent, does he not realise that the people in this part of the country are most disturbed by the long continued period that it is taking to get rid of the gas?
    Mr. de Freitas: It entirely depends on the weather. There are 50,000 more gallons to be destroyed. On a day such as this, without rain or wind, we can destroy about 4,000 gallons.
    Mr. Berry: Can the Under-Secretary say why the precaution which it is now proposed to take to keep animals off the land could not have been taken initially?
    Mr. de Freitas: It was not realised that animals were likely to stray there. However, to get this in proportion, I should point out that the only evidence of any animals being killed consists of one fox and one cat.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will supply the hon. Gentleman with another list.

    Air Accident, Edgware Road (Inquiry)
    Mrs. Ayrton Gouldasked the Secretary of State for Air if, at the conclusion of the inquiry into the disaster caused by an aeroplane crashing into a trolley bus in the Edgware Road on 9th February he will give a full explanation of the cause of the disaster.
    Mr. de Freitas: Yes, Sir. I will do so as soon as the inquiry is completed

    Low Flying, Hendon
    Mrs. Ayrton Gouldasked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that people living in the vicinity of the
    1134
    Hendon Aerodrome are much disturbed by the continual low flying of aeroplanes; and will he arrange that no aeroplane in this built up area shall fly lower than is absolutely essential for taking off and landing at the aerodrome.
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that low flying by R.A.F. aeroplanes during an exercise in the early hours of 12th February caused considerable alarm to residents of the N.W. area of Greater London; that the recent fatal accident at Burnt Oak Broadway has accentuated local anxiety; and whether he will take steps to check the practice of low flying over the densely built-up area around Hendon Aerodrome.
    Mr. de Freitas: I am afraid that there must, inevitably, be a good deal of flying over North-West London, especially at weekends, when the two auxiliary squadrons at Hendon put in their training. There are the strictest instructions against unnecessary low flying, and I have no reason to believe that these instructions are not being followed. However, I will always investigate allegations of unnecessary low flying if I am given details of time and place, and if possible, the aircraft number. During the night of 11th–12th February there were, it so happens, no R.A.F. aircraft in the air over London.
    Mrs. Ayrton Gould: Could my hon. Friend institute some form of check-up without actual times, places, or the exact craft, as when flying goes on the whole time it is impossible for people to know the exact moment that a particular aircraft is flying low; and would it not be possible to have a general check-up?
    Mr. de Freitas: Certainly, I will have one. I should like to make two points clear. First unnecessary low flying is a most serious offence, the usual punishment for an officer being dismissal from the Service. Secondly, many allegations of low flying, not made by the hon. Lady, are made by people who forget that an aircraft can neither land nor gain operational height without at the same time flying low.
    Mr. Skinnard: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the difficulty appears to be caused by aircraft flying in to land in the midst of a "saucer," the rim of which is a very congested residential area?
    Mr. de Freitas: I realise that. Of course, the direction of approach depends on the wind, and so on. I will certainly give the undertaking that we will look for unnecessary low flying, and punish it very severely should it be found.

  CIVIL AVIATION

    Aer Lingus
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation to what extent British European Airways Corporation have been consulted by the Irish Air Line, Aer Lingus, regarding their decision to dispose of seven Vickers Viking aircraft.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): The decision to dispose of these aircraft was made by the board of Aer Lingus, on which the British European Airways Corporation is represented.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the Parliamentary Secretary not realise that the arrangement with Aer Lingus is most unsatisfactory; that the British have a financial interest, and that the decision made causes great harm to the British aircraft industry, as such; and will he see that representation is made that the British side of the board should participate in these decisions, and should have more say in what is to happen?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir, they do have quite a lot of say, but it is votes that count.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the British taxpayers paid 50 per cent. of the loss last year, amounting to £63,000, ought we not to have 50 per cent. representation on the board.
    Mr. Lindgren: I understand that representation on boards is dependent upon the amount of capital invested, and not upon profit or loss.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: As this matter requires investigating, I give notice that I shall endeavour to raise it on the Adjournment at a very early date.
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what percentage of the shares of Aer Lingus is held by the British Overseas Airways Corporation; and what percentage of the loss on current operations is payable by the Corporation.
    Mr. Lindgren: The answer to the first part of the Question is 10 per cent., and to the last part approximately 12½ per cent.

    Weather Ships, North Atlantic
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation which countries have agreed to operate weather ships in the North Atlantic and to what extent they have fulfilled their obligations.
    Mr. Lindgren: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Would the Parliamentary Secretary say, in the meantime, whether we are doing more than the other countries, or whether everybody is doing as much as ourselves?
    Mr. Lindgren: That is difficult to answer. There are 13 stations to be operated, seven of which are already opened. We have completed our part. The Americans have to do more, but they undertook greater obligations than we did.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Are these weather ships controlled by any international organisation; and, if so, has it any relationship with the United Nations organisation?
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. It is organised through the International Civil Aviation Organisation, which is not a part of the United Nations but is in association with it.
    Following is the list:

    Country.

    No. of Stations to be operated‡

    No. of Stations in operation‡

    United States

    7

    2

    United States and Canada jointly

    1

    1*

    United Kingdom

    2

    2

    Belgium and Netherlands jointly

    1

    1

    France

    1

    1

    United Kingdom, Norway and Sweden jointly

    1

    —†

    * On half time service

    † Due to come into service in March-April, 1948.

    ‡ Each station requires two ships to maintain a continuous service.

    Booked Seats (Cancellations)
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation how many seats were wasted during the past year's operations of the Civil Aviation Services, as a result of Departmental demands subsequently cancelled; and what was the financial loss incurred.
    Mr. Lindgren: For the calendar year 1947 the number of booked seats which were cancelled and not filled was 509. The fares totalled £46,403.
    Sir T. Moore: Is this one of the reasons, albeit a small one, why the Corporation lost £10 million in their first year's operations; and will the Parliamentary Secretary say what he intends to do about it all?
    Mr. Lindgren: Whilst there is a lack of capacity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] In aircraft seats—for business men engaged on urgent affairs to get quickly from place to place, it is necessary to reserve some of those seats on a priority basis. As soon as possible that priority system will be removed, and is being progressively removed.
    Mr. Stokes: In the event of a seat being cancelled and not filled, is the Department concerned charged with the amount involved?
    Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir, if a seat is cancelled. But there are priority seats which are not taken up, and those are not charged because there is nobody to charge.

    Maintenance Base, Montreal (Transfer)
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation the target date to which the B.O.A.C. are working, by which they can give an undertaking that the maintenance base at Montreal will have been transferred to Filton; and whether work is proceeding without delay for the preparation of Filton to receive the Corporation's Atlantic maintenance organisation.
    Mr. Lindgren: It is hoped to complete the transfer before the end of 1948. The answer to the last part of the Question is: "Yes, Sir."
    Mr. Cooper: Does my hon. Friend realise that for over two years now I have
    1138
    been making representations to his Department that this transfer should take place, and that had notice been taken of those representations we should have saved many hundreds of thousands of dollars; does he realise further that at the present time delays are taking place due to protracted negotiations by his Department and B.O.A.C.; and will he see that those delays are eliminated?
    Mr. Lindgren: There is a very happy co-operation between my Ministry, the Ministry of Works, the Bristol Aeroplane Company and the Ministry of Supply, to bring Filton into operational use as quickly as possible. The delay is really due to the fact that the American aircraft manufacturers of Stratocruisers are not keeping up to their delivery dates.

    Tudor IV Aircraft
    Mr. George Wardasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he is aware that a Tudor IV aircraft of B.S.A.A.C recently landed at Bermuda with insufficient petrol remaining to enable the aircraft to be taxied off the runway; whether a report was received from the Governor or any other authority in Bermuda; and what action was taken.
    Mr. Leslie Hale: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. This Question postulates a matter which, in my respectful submission, is now the subject of a quasi-judicial inquiry. It asks about the use of a Tudor IV aircraft on a voyage to Bermuda, and suggests one of the reasons why there may have been difficulty in connection with the aircraft. That is a matter which will be investigated. It is the same make of aircraft, and the difference between them—
    Mr. Speaker: Let us hear what is the answer to the Question.
    Mr. Lindgren: The Governor of Bermuda telegraphed on 15th November that Tudor IV G-AHNK had landed at Bermuda from the Azores on 14th November after 14 hours 23 minutes flight with insufficient fuel safely to complete a circuit of the airfield. Inquiries were immediately made, and it was found that the aircraft had met abnormally strong headwinds of which the captain had received no adequate warning. British South American Airways Corporation state that the "dipping" of the tanks

    1139
    undertaken when the aircraft reached Bermuda gave a misleading reading because the aircraft was in a tail down position, and that, in fact, at least 100 gallons remained.
    Mr. Ward: Will the Parliamentary Secretary answer the last part of my Question and say what action was taken? Will he also say why it was that when certain newspapers rang up the British South American Airways Corporation last week, they categorically denied any such incident had taken place, which was quite untrue?
    Mr. Lindgren: So far as the last part of the supplementary question is concerned, I cannot give an answer, because I do not know the facts. As far as the first part is concerned, immediately it was brought to the notice of my noble Friend, he referred the matter to the Air Safety Board, who inquired into it and presented him with a report.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I ask whether it was incidents like this, and not an article in the Press, which led to the disagreement between the Chief Executive and the Board?
    Mr. Lindgren: I think incidents such as this did have a bearing on the lack of confidence of the Board in their Chief Executive.
    Mr. Crawley: Is this the only instance of an aircraft landing at Bermuda short of petrol, or is it true that there have been other instances of the same kind?
    Mr. Lindgren: This is the only instance of an actual shortage of petrol. This is a difficult route. The range is very long, and the type of aircraft flown in regard to that range makes it the more difficult. There have been cases when the margin has been too narrow to be pleasant, but there has been no such case before.
    Commander Noble: Can the Minister say whether any of the types of aircraft which have operated on this service during the past year have had sufficient fuel to reach any other port if they experienced such adverse winds?
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. One of the difficulties on this leg is that there is no alternative aerodrome in the vicinity of Bermuda. Whether the flight is under-
    1140
    taken at all depends on weather reports, and if bad weather develops on the route, then there is a point of "no return" where the captain decides whether or not to return.
    Sir Ralph Glyn: In an earlier answer to a supplementary question, the Parliamentary Secretary said that a weather report had not been received. Can any inquiry into why it was not received be made?
    Mr. Lindgren: Weather does change. Reports are received by captains of aircraft before a flight takes place. Remember that this flight takes 12 hours and that there is a gap before the receipt of the weather report.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: Is it not the case that when it landed this aircraft had sufficient petrol on board for a flight of 200 miles? Will the Parliamentary Secretary inquire into the possibility of faulty forecasting of winds, and will he bear in mind, when such suggestions are made, that B.S.A.A.C. have many foreign competitors who are jealous of their success?
    Mr. Speaker: I think we are getting on dangerous ground in view of the fact that there is an inquiry going on in respect of the Tudor IV.
    Mr. Wardasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation how many times the Air Sea Rescue Service in Bermuda has been alerted in the last six months owing to distress signals from aircraft of B.S.A.A.C.
    Mr. Lindgren: Twice, Sir.
    Mr. Ward: Will the Minister say whether on both these occasions there was a shortage of petrol, or whether it was due to other causes?
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. In one instance it was a shortage of petrol, and in the other it was an engine failure. On both occasions the captain thought it advisable to alert the Air Sea Rescue Service.
    Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether a direction has been issued to B.S.A.A. grounding the Tudor IV aircraft; and what advice has been received from the Air Registration Board on this subject.
    Mr. Lindgren: British South American Airways Corporation were informed of the decision to ground all Tudor IV aircraft,

    1141
    as a measure of prudence, pending detailed investigation. My noble Friend made the decision following a report from the Air Registration Board. It may be assumed that the advice of the Board was given the fullest consideration in reaching a decision.
    Mr. Thomas: May I take it that the Minister of Civil Aviation has not taken a decision that the cause of the accident was a structural defect in the aircraft?
    Mr. Lindgren: He is not in a position to make such a decision. His decision was that the cause of the accident might be one of a number of factors, one of which might be the aircraft. Therefore, it was deemed prudent to eliminate the possibility of the aircraft, as there were already aircraft of the same type in service.
    Mr. Frank ByersIs it not a fact that the Air Registration Board refused to ground this aircraft, and that the Minister on his own responsibility made this panic decision which may have a very serious effect on British civil aviation?
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. Normally one would give the answer that it is the Minister who is responsible for making a decision, that it is the Minister who takes responsibility for that decision, and that he does not divulge the advice he receives which enabled him to make his decision However, in view of the question raised by the hon. Member and the number of times this question has been asserted in other parts, the answer is that it is not in accordance with the facts. What the Air Registration Board advised was that it would be prudent to ground the aircraft.
    Mr. Hale: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this decision was taken immediately following a full investigation which reported favourably on the Tudor IV? Is he further aware that this decision does infinite harm to the British civil aviation constructional industry, and should not have been taken except on the most sound, important and decisive grounds?
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. Here was an accident in which an aircraft had vanished into thin air. It might have been due to a number of causes, one of which might have been the aircraft itself. If these
    1142
    aircraft had been allowed to continue to fly and another accident had happened, what would this House have said then?
    Mr. Hale: Is my hon. Friend further aware that these planes have been flying for two years, and that there were three accidents to American Constellations in the first few weeks of their existence, about which no such decision was taken?

    Foreign Services (Reciprocal Rights)
    Mr. William Shepherdasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what reciprocal rights were secured by British Airlines, in respect of the facilities given by the British Government to foreign services operating from Swatow and Foochow.
    Mr. Lindgren: The reciprocal rights are shown in the schedule of routes attached to the United Kingdom-China Air Transport Agreement, published as Command 7211.
    Mr. Shepherd: When shall we begin to take advantage of these reciprocal rights?
    Mr. Lindgren: As soon as we have made the necessary local arrangements and the aircraft are available.

    Link Services, Scotland
    Mr. Cookasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether it is proposed to sanction the introduction of an air service in the near future between London and Errol
    Mr. Willisasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation when it is proposed to sanction the institution of link services between Turnhouse, Errol, Renfrew and the main services.
    Mr. Lindgren: British European airways are not intending to introduce, In the near future, services between Errol and Renfrew or Turnhouse to link with existing services to London, or to provide a through service to London Such services would involve a considerable operating loss, and also expenditure on the improvement and operation of Errol aerodrome. In view of the present need to curtail uneconomical and inessential air services, the introduction of an air service on either of these routes to supplement existing rail communications would not be justified.
    Mr. Cook: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Chairman of the Scottish Advisory Council wrote a letter to the Provost of the City of Dundee informing him that the Council were going ahead with this venture? Why is it suddenly cancelled, and what powers have the Scottish Advisory Council to make recommendations? Just where does the Ministry interfere in the day-to-day administration?
    Mr. Lindgren: The duty of the Scottish Advisory Council is to give advice, but all the advice which is given is not necessarily taken.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does the Parliamentary Secretary mean to say that the whole of this area of Scotland is to be without air service, when it had a service before the war? In view of the promises given by the Parliamentary Secretary, among others, that this would be looked into quickly, what is being done in the matter?
    Mr. Lindgren: Scotland is well served. Perth and Dundee are within a small mileage of Glasgow and Edinburgh. We are continually being pressed to give the North-East Coast, Cornwall and Wales some services before link services are provided for Scotland.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Are Members of the Scottish Advisory Council being paid £1,500 a year to give advice which is not taken?
    Mr. Lindgren: Strange as it may seem for Scotland, the services of members of the Scottish Advisory Council are given voluntarily.
    Mr. Cook: Will the Parliamentary Secretary go to Dundee and try the service for himself? Is he aware that this is a growing industrial district covering a wide area, and that this aerodrome has to provide for two cities?
    Mr. Lindgren: One appreciates the urgent need for a large number of services In a large number of places, but when the capacity is small, we have to decide where It is most proper to supply that capacity. As far as this case is concerned, we do not think it is proper.
    Mr. Douglas Marshall: Arising out of the Parliamentary Secretary's reference to Cornwall, may I ask him to re-read the Debate on the Third Reading—
    Mr. Speaker: Cornwall is not in Scotland.
    Mr. Willis: Has a stop at Errol on the Shetland Islands-Edinburgh service been considered?
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir, that has not been considered. It is considered more important to give a service to the Islands and to provide communication with the mainland than to provide communication between Errol and Edinburgh and Glasgow, where road and rail communications already exist.

    Air Vice-Marshal Bennett (Dismissal)
    Mr. Proctorasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what were the financial arrangements upon which the British South American Airways terminated the services of Air Vice-Marshal Donald Bennett.
    Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Foxasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will now make a full statement about the reasons for the dismissal of Air Vice-Marshal Bennett.
    Mr. Lindgren: I will, with permission, make a statement at the end of Questions.
    Later—
    Mr. Lindgren: The following is the statement in answer to Questions Nos. 26 and 32:
    The Boards of the Corporations are responsible for making and terminating appointments to the post of Chief Executive. This is not, therefore, a matter in which, strictly, my noble Friend has a responsibility to Parliament. In view of the circumstances of this case, however, he considers it right that a full statement should be made.
    The Chairman of British South American Airways Corporation informed my noble Friend, on Monday, 9th February last, that the Board had met that day to consider the serious situation which had been created for them as a result of statements made by the Chief Executive in an interview reported in a daily newspaper on 5 February. The Chairman said that the Board had unanimously concluded that these statements were in contradiction of the considered views of the Board, of which the Chief Executive was aware.

    1145
    Moreover, this was not an isolated instance of its kind, and was the culmination of a series of differences between the Board and the Chief Executive. They had accordingly lost confidence in him, and had decided that they had no option but to dispense with his services. He had refused the Board's suggestion that he should tender his resignation, and the Board were therefore obliged to dismiss him.
    On Tuesday, 10th February, formal confirmation was received from the Chairman of the Board's decision, and my noble Friend was informed that notification of dismissal had reached Air Vice-Marshal Bennett. He was also informed that the Board were making a gratuitous payment of £4,500 to Air Vice-Marshal Bennett as compensation for loss of office.
    Mr. Mikardo: Will my hon. Friend give Air Vice-Marshal Bennett every possible assistance with his conscience, in order to enable him to take this money from the nationalised industry of which he does not approve?
    Mr. Bowles: Is my hon. Friend aware that I, and various other Members of the House knew, when we returned after the Christmas Recess, that four things were going to happen—that B.S.A.A.C. was going to make £25,000 profit; that Air Vice-Marshal Bennett would resign from his post; that accidents would happen; and that he was seeking a very important position? It was only in the matter of order that it was wrong, because Air Vice-Marshal Bennett resigned after the accident and not before.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member rose to put a supplementary question, but seems to be giving a lot of information.
    Mr. Bowles: The point I am trying to put is, in view of the fact that it was known that these things were going to happen, should this man be paid because of a position that he wanted to vacate and vacated by his own will?
    Mr. Lindgren: That is a matter of management, and decision by the Board.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Was the £4,500 free of tax? If these differences had been going on for some time upon the Board, why did not this position come about some months ago?
    Mr. Lindgren: So far as the tax is concerned, the question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
    Mr. Hale: What financial arrangements were made when lower grade workers were dispensed with several months ago?
    Mr. Lindgren: Generally, if one is a workman, it is misconduct, and you collect your cards. If one is a chief executive, it is loss of confidence, you are asked for your resignation and you get a year's salary.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: Would the Minister of Civil Aviation have any objection to Air Vice-Marshal Bennett making known his side of the case, since matters have become very confused, and would he give him access to any documents for the purpose?
    Mr. Lindgren: In my opinion, Air Vice-Marshal Bennett appears to be doing so very successfully.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The Parliamentary Secretary has told us what the Corporation have reported to him, hut he has not indicated whether his noble Friend has heard both sides of the case and has come to any conclusion. What is the Minister's considered opinion?
    Mr. Lindgren: It is not for the Minister to come to a conclusion on that point. It is a matter for the Board.
    Mr. Beswick: There are rumours that the former chief executive had given instructions to Tudor pilots that they were not to report any aircraft defect in the Tudor aircraft log. In fairness to all concerned, can the Parliamentary Secretary confirm or deny those reports?
    Mr. Lindgren: I can do neither. Rumours have reached us, but I think it is far better that they should be a matter for investigation when the inquiry, which my noble Friend will institute, takes place.
    Mr. Thomas: Is Air Vice-Marshal Bennett still a member of the Board of the B.S.A A.C.?
    Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. He has ceased to be a member of the Board. He failed to resign, and therefore my noble Friend declared the position vacant.
    Mr. Boothby: If the Minister of Civil Aviation is not required to come to any decision on the matter of the chief executive of one of the main Corporations, what function does he discharge?
    Mr. Lindgren: He appoints the Board.

    Accidents
    Major Vernonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will inform the House of the number of aircraft accidents which have occurred in each of the three aircraft corporations in relation to miles flown over any convenient period.
    Mr. Wardasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation the number of passenger miles flown by each of the three Corporations in the last 18 months; and the number of fatal accidents to fare-paying passengers per million miles flown by each Corporation.
    Mr. Lindgren: The provisional estimate for the revenue passenger miles flown by British Overseas Airways Corporation, British European Airways Corporation and British South American Airways Corporation in the 18 months up to 31st January, 1948, is, to the nearest million, 432 million, 137 million and 66 million miles respectively; and the number of fatal accidents to fare-paying passengers per million passenger miles flown has been 0.025, nil and 0.88 respectively. The number of aircraft accidents involving fatalities during the same period per million miles flown is 0.09, 0.07 and 0.66 respectively.
    Mr. Mikardo: Would my hon. Friend agree that in the running of an air line it is much more important to ensure the safety of passengers than to make profits? In framing future British civil aviation policy will my hon. Friend take into account the correlation in the figures which he has just given between the making of profits and the proneness to accidents?
    Mr. Lindgren: I think it is well known to the House that my noble Friend has made safety the first consideration in civil air operations.
    Mr. Ward: To what does the hon. Gentleman attribute the fact that the accident rate of B.S.A.A.C. does not compare favourably with the other two Corporations? What action is he taking to reduce the accident rate of that Corporation?
    Mr. Lindgren: I do not think that the high accident rate is unrelated to the fact that the operations of the Corporation were very near to the bone. I said earlier that my noble Friend had instituted an Air Safety Board inquiry into the general operational standards of the Corporation. The result of that inquiry has been submitted to the Board of the Corporation, which is acting upon it at the moment.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Can the hon. Gentleman say what he means by operations being "near to the bone"?
    Mr. Lindgren: The inference has been made with some justification, I think, that training and maintenance standards were not as high as they should have been.
    Mr. Rankin: While I appreciate that the policy laid down by the Minister is "Safety first," will my hon. Friend recognise that so long as aircraft take off and land at between 90 and 100 miles per hour safety cannot be guaranteed? It can only be guaranteed when the airframes of the machines are crash proof?
    Mr. Speaker: These two Questions asked about the number of accidents, and we are now getting on to genera] questions of safety.

  KOREA (COMMUNICATIONS)
  Mr. William Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what means of communication he has with the U.K. Consul-General in Korea; how this officer is kept informed of Press or Parliamentary references to Korea; and how long this takes to reach him.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): Communications with His Majesty's Consul-General at Seoul is maintained by telegraph and by the Foreign Office bag. He is kept informed of relevant Press references and extracts from Parliamentary proceedings either by telegraph or by bag, as the need may be. Communication by bag takes a minimum period of 14 days, but varies according to circumstances.
  Mr. Teeling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that communication by bag very often takes considerably longer.

  1149
  Does he realise how much the Consul-General there feels cut off, because he has no wireless communication with Tokio or any other of our Embassies, and has to rely on the United States Army telegraph? If there was a crisis in that part of the world—as there might well be—the U.S. Army would not have time in which to allow him to get through. Could the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements for the Consul-General to have direct contact with Tokio?
  Mr. Bevin: I will communicate with him, and ask him why he has not put this to me before, as a servant of the Foreign Office. I do not think that he ought to have waited for someone to put a Question.

  BRITISH INTERNEES, SHANGHAI
  Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what have been the results since 1st December of his circular to 500 British subjects in Shanghai who had not paid back sums required for their upkeep whilst in Japanese concentration camps during the war; and what further steps he has taken, or is about to take, to collect these outstanding sums.
  Mr. Bevin: I regret that the information asked for is not available. As regards the second part of the Question, while I hope that those who have not yet done so will discharge the obligations they assumed, as my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary, informed the hon. Member on 15th December, there is no intention of pressing where this would cause hardship.
  Mr. Teeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that those obligations were assumed when, in many cases, the people were in prison? Would it not be a far better thing if this could be put down to reparations from Japan? Could it be made clear to these people that they will not be pressed if they have not got the money?
  Mr. Bevin: I shall not press the matter if there is hardship, but I understand that some people have already been paid compensation, and, if that is so, I think they ought to meet their obligations.

  PALESTINE

    Holy Places (Protection)
    Sir Ralph Glynasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken to ensure that the plans of the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations are made effective so far as preserving Jerusalem and the surrounding Holy Places from damage is concerned; and whether to this end he will take steps to see that the United Nations Palestine Commissioners on no account select the city as a headquarters which would result in making Jerusalem the centre of political conflict.
    Mr. Bevin: The Trusteeship Council will consider the future of Jerusalem at its session which begins today. So far as I am aware, the United Nations Commission have not expressed any intention of establishing their headquarters at Jerusalem.
    Sir R. Glyn: While recognising the delicacy of the present position, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he will do everything possible to prevent the Holy Places in Palestine from becoming seats of war, as they undoubtedly will become, if the headquarters of Government of the United Nations is established in Jerusalem?
    Mr. Bevin: I have already explained to the House that it is our intention to come out of Palestine, and I cannot add to that. The matter is now in the hands of the United Nations, and I have no doubt that this Question and answer will be considered by them.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend make a distinction between Jerusalem and the rest of Palestine in the matter of security, and will he be assured that public opinion will be behind him if the United Kingdom will make a contribution to the defence of Jerusalem, whatever is done in the rest of the country?
    Mr. Bevin: I cannot undertake to leave British troops there.
    Sir Patrick Hannon: As the Holy City of Jerusalem has been the inspiration of human progress for thousands of years, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that it will be protected from riot and bloodshed?
    Mr. Bevin: It is now the responsibility of the United Nations; His Majesty's Government cannot undertake it.

    United Nations (Security Forces)
    Major Tufton Beamishasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has now received details of the organisation of the U.N.O. Naval, Air Force, Army and Police units on whom responsibility for the maintenance of law and order in Palestine will fall alter 15th May; whether detailed arrangements for the hand-over of these responsibilities are now completed; and whether he is satisfied with the arrangements.
    Mr. Bevin: The only arrangements hitherto approved by the United Nations for the maintenance of law and order in Palestine after 15th May are those contained in the resolution adopted by the General Assembly on the 29th November. Under this resolution, the United Nations Commission are to establish in each state a provisional Council of Government, and these Provisional Councils are to recruit armed militias "sufficient in number to maintain order and to prevent frontier clashes." General military control, including the choice of the High Command of the militias, is to be exercised by the Commission. The United Nations Commission have now made certain additional proposals which have yet to be examined by the Security Council.
    Mr. Warbey: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that this country still has a responsibility in this matter as a member of the United Nations and a member of the Security Council, and will he take a positive attitude towards this by framing practical and constructive proposals for United Nations Forces along the lines indicated?
    Mr. Bevin: I have repeatedly announced, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies announced at the beginning, and His Majesty's Government adhere to it now, that they cannot take part in forcing partition in Palestine or in any solution that is not acceptable to the Arabs and the Jews.

  GERMANY

    Rations (Calorie Value)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the calorie value
    1152
    of the called-up normal consumer ration for with Period in North Rhine—Westphalia and Hamburg, respectively.
    Mr. Bevin: The calorie value of the called-up normal consumer ration for the 111th period has been fixed at 1,410 calories per day for Hamburg and the Ruhr, and at 1,280 calories for North Rhine—Westphalia outside the Ruhr.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the information in a letter issued in North Rhine—Westphalia, on 3rd February was that the calorie ration was 1,241, and that although that included meat, fat and potatoes none of these things is available, so that the ration is reduced to 1,005?
    Mr. Bevin: These are the latest figures; I asked for them yesterday.
    Mr. Stokes: Do they include meat, fat and potatoes?
    Mr. Bevin: I must have notice of that question.

    Level of Industry Plan
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what percentage of washing powder expressed in terms of 1936 domestic consumption has been provided for in the revised Level of Industry plan.
    Mr. Bevin: One hundred and thirty-two per cent.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend quite sure about this? Is he aware that the area board stated openly that washing powder, as distinct from soda, has a domestic availability reduced to 11 per cent. of what it was in 1936?
    Mr. Bevin: I am assured that the available capacity left is 132 per cent. That is the capacity left in connection with the Question asked about the Level of Industry plan.
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what tonnage allowance was provided for the export from Germany of steel plates and sections in the revised Level of Industry plan; and whether he will state the average tonnage yearly exported from Germany for the five years ending 31st December, 1939, or near date.
    Mr. Bevin: No provision was made in the revised Level of Industry plan for

    1153
    the export from Germany of steel plates and sections. In the five years ending 1939 the average yearly exports from Germany of heavy plates were 180,000 tons. Average net exports of heavy sections, light sections and bars amounted 10 510,000 tons a year, of which 45,000 tons were heavy girders, beams and joists and 465,000 tons were light sections and bars.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the official figures given to me averaged over 2½ million tons a year before the war, and can he say how Germany will be able to pay for extra imported food if she is not to be allowed to export steel?
    Mr. Bevin: All these factors were taken into account when the whole question of a level of steel of up to 11 million tons was considered, and I do not propose taking steel out of Germany until she has developed a steel capacity to recondition herself; this, I think, is the right policy.

    Captured Diplomatic Documents
    Mr. William Wellsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Government refused a proposal of the Soviet Government that the latter's experts should collaborate with British and American experts in examining German-Soviet documents in the Government's possession.
    Mr. Platts-Millsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will publish in full the text of the request made by the Soviet Government in 1945 that Soviet experts should take part in a joint study of German documents captured by Anglo-American troops; and if he will also publish, at the same time, the reply of His Majesty's Government to that request.
    Mr. Bevin: In June, 1945, the Soviet Ambassador who had read reports of the arrival in London of large quantities of German documents, requested—the Russian word was "insisted"—that Soviet experts should be allowed to examine them. On 10th July, 1945, Sir Alexander Cadogan told him that these reports were without foundation but that vast quantities of documents were in Allied hands in various places in Western Germany; no doubt the Russians had similar archives. Facilities for examination would depend on the exigencies of
    1154
    military administration and on the progress made in sorting the material. The moment, therefore, said Sir Alexander Cadogan, appeared premature for the Soviet Government to send experts to London to take part in any reciprocal arrangements which might eventually be made.
    Arrangements are being made for the publication of these two notes. There has been since no further correspondence with the Soviet Government on this subject.
    Following are the Notes:
    Soviet Aide Memoire of 19 th June, 1945 (Translated from Russian)
    From reports published in the London Press it has become known that several carloads of documents from the archives of the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs have arrived in London from Germany and that these archives are being studied by British and American experts. Mention of this fact was made, for instance, in the London "Daily Express" on May 29 and in the "Daily Herald" on May 31 last.
    In view of the above, the Embassy of the U.S.S.R. in Great Britain herewith has the honour to notify the Foreign Office that the Soviet Government insists that Soviet experts be immediately allowed to study the German State archives captured by the Allied troops and, in particular, the archives of the Miinstry of Foreign Affairs.
    For this purpose the Soviet Government intends to send several Soviet experts to London within the next few days.
    Sir A. Cadogan's reply, dated 10 th July, 1945 to Monsieur Gousev
    You handed me on the 19th June, and have subsequently spoken to me about, an aide memoire which referred to reports in certain British newspapers that considerable quantities of documents from the archives of the German Ministry for Foreign Affairs had been brought to London for examination by British and American experts.
    I have made enquiries into these reports and find that they are without foundation, inasmuch as all the original German Foreign Office documents which have been discovered by the Anglo-American Forces are still in Germany among the large mass of miscellaneous German archives located at various places in Western Germany. I presume that German State archives of similar type and value have likewise been discovered by the Soviet Forces in their area of occupation. In each case facilities for examination will no doubt depend on the exigencies of military administration and on the progress made in sorting out such material
    The only material that has reached this country consists of certain microfilm copies of German documents. These are at present being processed and sorted by a technical Department preparatory to a thorough examination, and to translation where this is considered to be worth while. The Soviet

    1155
    authorities have no doubt taken similar steps to copy, as a matter of routine, selected documents from the German archives in their possession.
    In view of the early stage of the work so far done on our side, we have not yet thought fit to take the initiative in proposing discussion between the Allied Powers on the exchange of copies of documents under their respective control. It would thus appear premature for the Soviet Government to send experts to London in order to take advantage of any reciprocal arrangements which may in due course be made in this field.

  INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN'S EMERGENCY FUND
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now state whether His Majesty's Government feel able to make a grant to the International Children's Emergency Fund.
  Mr. Somerville Hastingsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what countries have agreed to subscribe to the United Nations Children's Emergency Fund and what countries have refused; and whether he can yet announce a decision to make a token payment to this fund to be spent on goods and services provided by this country.
  Mr. Bevin: I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) on 11th February last, to which I have at present nothing to add. With regard to the first part of the Question put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) the following countries have contributed or have pledged contributions to the International Children's Emergency Fund: the United States, Canada, Australia, Uruguay, France, New Zealand, Czechoslovakia, Switzerland, Newfoundland, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Peru, Dominican Republic, Luxembourg, Poland. I have no information as to which countries have actually refused to contribute.
  Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that in fact his previous answer and his present answer stated or inferred that a decision had not yet been reached? May I ask whether some indication has been given of when a decision is likely to be reached?
  Mr. Bevin: I am still in discussion with the Treasury, but I have not yet got a decision.
  Mr. Hastings: Has my right hon. Friend considered what the effect would be of even a small token contribution from this country?
  Mr. Bevin: I have not put my request quite as low as a token.

  CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION
  Mr. Cooperasked the Lord President of the Council if it is the intention of the Government to set up a representative national advisory council for the Central Office of Information along the lines of the Post Office Advisory Council, and including Members of Parliament.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): No, Sir. I do not think that such a council could effectively assist the Central Office of Information. Its responsibilities lie directly to the Ministerial Departments which it serves as a common production agency and by which it is appropriately advised.
  Mr. Cooper: Does my right hon. Friend recall that it was as a result of the recommendations of the Bridgeman Committee that looked into the inefficiency of the Post Office that an Advisory Council was set up, and does he not consider that this is a parallel case that justifies the setting up of an advisory council for the Central Office of Information?
  Mr. Morrison: I am familiar with the recommendations of the Bridgeman Committee to which my hon. Friend refers, but I think there is no real analogy between the constitution, status and set-up of the Post Office and that of the Central Office of Information, which is the instrument of a whole series of State Departments.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that so far as the Post Office Advisory Council is concerned a serious omission in its make-up is that the workers in the industry are not represented on the Council?
  Mr. Morrison: I think that question should be addressed to the Postmaster-General.

  ARMED FORCES

    Rations
    Mr. Fitzroy Macleanasked the Minister of Defence whether, in attempting to equalise Service and civilian rations, he has taken into account the fact that camp or barrack cook-houses have not usually as good access to non-rationed foodstuffs and marginal supplies as family households; and whether, under the new scheme he will differentiate between the needs of growing boys of 18 doing their basic recruits' training and older Service or civilian clerks living at home.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): Yes, Sir. As regards the second part of the Question, recruits undergoing basic training benefit by the supplementary ration issued to men engaged on specially strenuous duties

    Service Medical Records (Life Assurance)
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Defence why the service medical history of a demobilised man cannot at his request be made available for life assurance purposes.
    Mr. Alexander: The point is one of some difficulty. I am considering it with the Service Ministers and will write to the hon. and gallant Member as soon as possible.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind while he is considering this matter that it may be desirable for soldiers who find it impossible to get life insurances unless they have their medical records to be allowed to get them in special cases?
    Mr. Alexander: It is quite a new principle in medical examination for insurance for a client to be told that he cannot be insured unless he produces his Army record. It is the responsibility of the insurance companies to obtain their own medical officers and to take their own risks.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is sometimes essential, in order to establish whether a certain disability has a certain cause behind it, to get hold of the records made at the time of the original injury or illness?
    Mr. Alexander: We shall always do our best not to do any injury to an ex-Service man. It is fundamental that we should not interfere with the general practice that applies to general cases of insurance for the civil population and which has been a long established practice in all industrial organisations.

    Comparative Strengths
    Mr. Chaterasked the Minister of Defence if he will state in each case the personnel totals of the armies, navies and air forces, with the numbers of war vessels and military aircraft, of Great Britain, the United States and Russia,
    Mr. Alexander: No, Sir. The Defence White Paper which I am arranging to make available tomorrow will indicate the Government's plans in regard to the manpower of the three Services during the next financial year—and the Service Estimates will give such other information as, in present circumstances, can prudently be disclosed. I cannot answer for the United States or Russia.

    Discharge by Purchase
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Defence what effect discharge by purchase from the Services will have on any gratuity or bounty accruing to the person concerned.
    Mr. Alexander: As my hon. Friend knows, I hope to make an announcement of all the conditions governing discharge by purchase in the near future. I would prefer to deal with the question of gratuities then, and I will make sure the point is not overlooked.
    Mr. Rankin: While I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask him if he will assure us that there will be no discrimination between those who are wealthy enough to purchase their discharge and those who are not?
    Mr. Alexander: I can assure my hon. Friend that discharge by purchase has never been of a discriminatory nature, and we would not wish to make a departure from that precedent.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Bread Rationing
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Food whether he can now make a

    1159
    statement regarding the date of his intention to abolish bread rationing and the B.U. system having special regard to the fact that the B.U. system is now largely ineffective in most parts of the country.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall) on 11th February.
    Mr. De la Bère: Does the Minister realize that in all parts of the country thousands upon thousands of the public are simply not practising bread rationing and that it has degenerated into a farce? How long does her Ministry propose to perpetuate this folly?
    Dr. Summerskill: I do not realise that at all, but as the hon. Member seems to have some intimate knowledge of these transactions perhaps he would like to see one of our enforcement officers.
    Mr. De la Bère: Hon. Members in this House can tell the hon. Lady that the practice of buying bread without bread units is widespread in every district. In view of the fact that the Minister is not aware of what is a well-known fact, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    Illegal Dealings (Allegations)
    Major Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Food how many letters have been received by his department this year accusing named individuals of black market deals in food and feedingstuffs; what proportion of these is anonymous; and what action is taken about such communications.
    Dr. Summerskill: I regret that the detailed particulars asked for by the hon. and gallant Member are not available as no special record of such letters is kept. Letters are frequently received in my department containing allegations of food offences. They are examined and dealt with on their merits, and those which contain sufficiently specific information are investigated.
    Major Legge-Bourke: Can the hon. Lady say what is done with anonymous information?
    Dr. Summerskill: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that some of it is not fit to file.

    Lighterage Port, Tanganyika
    Mr. Walter Fletcherasked the Minister of Food whether the advantages arising from turning Mikindani into a lighterage port instead of a more expensive deep water pier port have been considered before the decision in Cmd. 7314, paragraph 21, was arrived at.
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir. A lighterage port could not, however, on a long term basis, handle so rapidly or economically as a deep water port the imports and exports of the area to be developed in Southern Tanganyika extending to over 1,600,000 acres.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is not the hon. Lady aware that her answer is entirely inaccurate, and that the world record for loading is held by a lighterage port in South Africa? Will she make sure that a further investigation is made before an enormous expenditure of public money takes place?
    Dr. Summerskill: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has some expert knowledge on this subject, but he must agree with me that experts do not always agree. The experts who have advised us say that, in view of the fact that perhaps 300,000 tons of outward cargo will be handled at this port, it would be better to have a deep water port.
    Mr. Fletcher: Will not the hon. Lady look into it again in view of what happened in Kilindini where million of public money was expended in making a deep water port, when a gravity force that was available there would have saved the whole of it?
    Dr. Summerskill: I have looked into it and that is why I have given the answer I have.
    Mr. De la Bère: Why not change the expert?

    Social Functions (Meals)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Food when he hopes to conclude his investigations into the dinner held by the Bow and Bromley Labour Party at Poplar Town Hall, on the 8th January, 1948.
    Dr. Summerskill: Investigations into this matter have been completed, and our legal advisers are now considering whether the evidence is sufficient to justify proceedings.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: After the Department's legal advisers have come to a conclusion, will the House be informed what action it is proposed to take?
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Keeling: As the hon. Lady said that the objection to dinners of over 100 was the psychological effect on the housewife, may I ask her if she is aware that the psychological effect on non-Socialist housewives of these large Socialist dinners is bad?
    Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman is not the only one who knows non-Socialist housewives.

    Fish Albumen (Experiments)
    Mr. Douglas Marshallasked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the experiments of fish albumen being used in the manufacture of sweets in South Africa; if he is aware that this process has potential uses in confectionery, mayonnaise, custard powder, ice cream, pharmaceutical products, the leather industry, synthetic resins, lacquers, foam extinguishers, the laundry industry, etc., and what investigations regarding the possibility of using dog fish in this connection are being carried out by his scientific research department.
    Dr. Summerskill: We know of the potential uses of fish protein. Our scientific advisers are studying the uses of albumen derived from a number of different sources, including dogfish.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will that include catfish?
    Dr. Summerskill: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman is well aware, it is usually African stock fish.

    Broccoli Crop, Cornwall
    Mr. D. Marshallasked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking, in view of the fact that the importation of Italian broccoli has recommenced, to clear the Cornish broccoli crop at the earliest moment, as delay in clearing this broccoli will result in a lowering of the potato yield.
    Dr. Summerskill: Imports of Italian broccoli form only a minor part—less than 10 per cent.—of our total supplies. We have no reason to expect that the period of marketing of Cornish broccoli will be abnormal this year.
    Mr. Marshall: Has not the Minister received representations upon this matter from the N.F.U.?
    Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. We have sent special investigators down to the hon. Gentleman's Division to confirm what he has stated.
    Mr. Beechman: Will the hon. Lady bear in mind that people in Cornwall were officially encouraged to produce a large crop, that there is a fine crop this month, and that the Italians have crates and other packages which the home growers cannot get?
    Dr. Summerskill: The hon. and learned Gentleman is speaking to a different point altogether. This has to do with the planting of new potatoes.

    Farms, Staffordshire (Inspection)
    Mr. Hugh Fraserasked the Minister of Food how many of his Ministry food enforcement officers and inspectors are employed in North Staffordshire; and what, when inspecting farms, is the normal number of their inspection unit.
    Dr. Summerskill: Five enforcement inspectors are normally employed in North Staffordshire. Usually two men would visit a farm together.
    Mr. Fraser: Is the hon. Lady aware that the other day no less than six persons visited one farm; or was it a case of an official taking his friends out for the afternoon?
    Lieut. - Colonel Bromley - Davenport: And the rest went to buy eggs.
    Dr. Summerskill: If there is a special area—and I am not suggesting that in North Staffordshire there is a widespread black market—which we believe should be investigated, we allow officials from headquarters to attend with those from the local centre.
    Mr. H. D. Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that the last time this allegation was made in regard to Staffordshire it

    1163
    was alleged that 11 people visited a farm, but when inquiries were made into it the number turned out to be three.
    Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Fraser: It is excellent that we have reduced the number from 11 to three, but surely the hon. Lady can now reduce it to two to investigate one small farm?
    Dr. Summerskill: If the farms were all small and if the infringements of our regulations were all small, we should only want a few men, but sometimes it is necessary to investigate rather widely in these farms.
    Mr. Beswick: Would my hon. Friend say how this number compares with the number of enforcement officers employed by the Conservative Central Office to investigate Labour Party dinners?
    Mr. H. Fraserasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that his inspectors are searching farms in Staffordshire without prior presentation of their authorities to those farmers concerned; and whether such action is approved by him.
    Dr. Summerskill: Instructions have been issued that inspectors should present their authorities to the farmer before inspecting his premises. One complaint only has been received that an inspector on visiting a farm in Staffordshire did not present his authority until asked to do so.
    Mr. Fraser: Is the hon. Lady aware that when questioned by the Press one of the inspectors said "We do not want to be a Gestapo. We are merely carrying out instructions"?

    Meat Distribution (Payments)
    Mr. Ronald Chamberlainasked the Minister of Food what were the net amounts handed over by his Department to the Meat Importers National (Defence) Association Limited and the Wholesale Meat Supply Associations respectively for distribution among their members in respect of the year 1946–47; and whether an early termination of this war-time arrangement is contemplated.
    Dr. Summerskill: The nett amounts made available for distribution to the members of the Meat Importers National (Defence) Association, Ltd. and the Wholesale Meat Supply Associations in
    1164
    respect of the year 1946–47 were £695,959 and £1,733,146 respectively. The answer to the last part of the Question is, "No, Sir."
    Mr. Chamberlain: Since these payments represent purely tribute payments and not for any service or goods to the community, is it not time that they were stopped, particularly in view of what we are told about inflationary tendencies?
    Dr. Summerskill: I cannot understand my hon. Friend. Of course, these payments cover services. These men are responsible for distributing meat throughout the country and these are payments to them for their services.
    Mr. Chamberlain: The Minister explained very kindly in a letter to me some time ago that this was really a wartime arrangement, but was now dealt with by the Government.
    Dr. Summerskill: Certainly, it was a wartime arrangement. While meat is in short supply we must centralise and canalise distribution. We employ these men, who are experts in the handling of meat, to do this work.
    Mr. Chamberlain: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter at an early opportunity.

  SOAP POWDERS, ST. IVES
  Mr. David Rentonasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that soap powders are in short supply in the St. Ives district of Huntingdonshire; and what steps he is taking to ensure that distribution of soap powders to that district will be adequate to meet the ration.
  Dr. Summerskill: No complaints of any shortage have been received by local food officers in the St. Ives district. If the hon. Member will let me have more details I will arrange for further investigation.
  Mr. Renton: Does the Parliamentary Secretary rely only upon the complaints that food officers make to her about these matters, and when an hon. Member of this House refers a matter to her will she not have inquiries made beyond the food officers?
  Dr. Summerskill: Certainly, I am only too happy to make any inquiries which the hon. Member would like to have made, but he must realise that if a shop in his constituency is short of soap powders, the proprietor would normally 'phone up the

  1165
  food executive officer. As we have had no complaints, I think I am in a position to tell the hon. Gentleman that so far as we know there is no shortage of soap powders.
  Mr. Renton: Is the hon. Lady aware that I put this Question down three weeks ago when there was a shortage, and there has been plenty of time to make the fullest possible inquiries in the interval.
  Dr. Summerskill: I thought the hon. Member's previous Question was on soap and not soap powders.
  Mr. Vane: Cannot the hon. Lady safely assume that there is a shortage of soap powders all over the country?
  Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make about Friday's Business?
Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I have to inform the House of a rearrangement of the Business for Friday, following discussions through the usual channels. We now propose that the order of Business for Friday of this week should be as follows: "Committee stage of the Police Pensions Bill; Second Reading of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Bill [Lords].
We hope that there will be time for the Committee stage of the Water Bill [Lords].

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put:
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,
from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. H. Morrison.]
The House divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 117.

Division No. 79.]

AYES.

[3.38 p.m.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Lindgren, G. S.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

Durbin, E. F. M.

Lipson, D. L.

Alpass, J. H.

Dye, S.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C

Longden, F.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Edelman, M.

Lyne, A. W.

Attewell, H. C.

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

McAdam, W.

Austin, H. Lewis

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

McEntee, V. La T

Ayles, W. H.

Edwards, W J. (Whitechapel)

McGhee, H. G.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B

Evans, A. (Islington, W.)

Mack, J. D.

Bacon, Miss A.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Balfour, A.

Evans, John (Ogmore)

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

Barstow, P. G.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

McKinlay, A. S.

Barton, C.

Ewart, R.

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Battley, J. R.

Fairhurst, F.

McLeavy, F.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Farthing, W. J.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

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

Mainwaring, W. H.

Benson, G.

Foot, M. M.

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Berry, H

Forman, J. C.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Beswick, F.

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.

Bevin, Rt Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.)

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Medland, H. M.

Bing, G. H. C.

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Mellish, R. J.

Binns, J.

Gibbins, J.

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Blackburn, A. R

Gibson, C. W.

Mikardo, Ian

Blenkinsop, A.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Mitchison, G. R.

Blyton, W. R.

Greenwood, A W. J. (Heywood)

Morley, R.

Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

Grenfell, D. R.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Grey, C. F.

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

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

Grierson, E.

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

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Mort, D. L.

Bramall, E. A

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Moyle, A.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Murray, J. D

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Gunter, R. J.

Nally, W.

Brown, George (Belper)

Guy, W. H.

Naylor, T E.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Neal H. (Claycross)

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Hale, Leslie

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

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

Burke, W A.

Hardman, D. R.

Oldfield, W. H

Butler, H W. (Hackney, S.)

Hardy, E. A.

Oliver, G. H.

Byers, Frank

Harris, H. Wilson

Paget, R. T.

Carmichael, James

Harrison, J.

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

Castle, Mrs B. A.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Chamberlain, R. A.

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)

Parkin, B. T.

Champion. A. J.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Chater, D.

Herbison, Miss M.

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Chetwynd, G. R.

Hicks, G.

Pearson, A.

Cluse, W. S.

Hobson, C. R.

Perrins, W.

Cocks, F. S.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Piratin, P.

Horabin, T. L.

Popplewell, E.

Coldrick, W.

House, G.

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Collick, P.

Hoy, J.

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Collindridge, F.

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

Proctor, W. T.

Collins, V. J.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Pryde, D. J.

Colman, Miss G. M

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Comyns, Dr. L.

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

Randall, H. E.

Cook, T. F.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Ranger, J.

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

Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

Rankin, J.

Corlett, Dr. J

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Rees-Williams, D. R.

Cove, W. G.

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

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Crawley, A.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Richards, R.

Cunningham, P.

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Daggar, G.

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Robens, A.

Daines, P.

Keenan, W.

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Davies, Clement Rt. Hon. (Montgomery)

Kenyon, C.

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Kinley, J.

Rogers, G. H. R.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A

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

Lang, G.

Sargood, R.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

Scollan, T.

Deer, G.

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Scott-Elliot, W.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Segal, Dr. S.

Delargy, H. J.

Leonard, W.

Sharp, Granville

Dobbie, W.

Leslie, J. R.

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Dodds, N. N.

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Shurmer, P.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

Sliverman, J (Erdington)

Thomas, D E Aberdare)

West, D. G.

Skeffington, A M.

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

Skeffington-Lodge, T C

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Wheatley, J T (Edinburgh, E.)

Skinnard, F. W

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

White, C F (Derbyshire, W.)

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Thurtle, Ernest

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

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Tiffany, S.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon W

Smith, H N. (Nottingham, S.)

Timmons, J

Wilkins, W. A.

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

Titterington, M F

Willey, F T. (Sunderland)

Snow, J. W.

Tolley, L.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Sorensen, R. W

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Sparks, J A

Turner-Samuels, M.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingreve)

Stamford, W

Vernon, Maj W. F

Williams, W. R (Heston)

Stokes, R R

Viant, S. P

Willis, E.

Stross, Dr. B

Wadsworth, G

Wills, Mrs. E A

Stubbs, A E

Walker, G H.

Woodburn, A

Summerskill, Dr Edith

Warbey, W. N

Yates, V F.

Sylvester, G O

Watkins, T E

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Symonds, A. L.

Watson, W. M.

Zilliacus, K.

Taylor, H B. (Mansfield)

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

Taylor, R. J (Morpeth)

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Wells, W T. (Walsall)

Mr Simmons and

Mr. G. Wallace

NOES.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Harvey, Air-Comdre A V

Peto, Brig C. H. M.

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Head, Brig. A. H.

Poole, O. B. S (Oswestry)

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

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

Price-White, Lt.-Col. D

Beamish, Mai T. V H

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

Prior-Palmer, Brig, O

Beechman, N A

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Raikes, H. V.

Birch, Nigel

Joynson-Hicks, Hon L. W

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

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

Keeling, E. H.

Renton, D.

Boothby, R.

Kerr, Sir J Graham

Roberts, Peter (Ecclesall)

Bower, N.

Lambert, Hon G

Robertson, Sir D (Streatham)

Boyd-Carpenter, J A.

Lancaster, Col C G

Robinson, Roland

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W

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

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Sanderson, Sir F.

Bullock, Capt M

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Scott, Lord W.

Challen, C

Low, A. R W.

Shephard, S. (Newark)

Channon, H.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col G

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Snadden, W. M

Cooper-Key, E. M.

McCallum, Maj. D.

Spearman, A. C M

Crowder, Capt John E

Macdonald, Sir P. (I of Wight)

Spence, H. R.

Cuthbert, W. N

McFarlane, C. S.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Darling, Sir W. Y

Mackeson, Brig. H. R

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M

De la Bère, R.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

Digby, S W.

Maclean, F. H. R.

Studholme, H G

Dodds-Parker, A D

Macpherson, N (Dumfries)

Sutcliffe, H.

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

Marlowe, A. A H

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

Drayson, G. B.

Marples, A E.

Teeling, William

Drewe, C.

Marsden, Capt. A.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T (Richmond)

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Thorp, Lt.-Col R A F

Duthie, W. S.

Marshall, S. H (Sutton)

Touche, G. C.

Eccles, D. M.

Medlicott, F.

Turton, R H.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A

Mellor, Sir J

Vane, W. M. F.

Elliot, Lieut.-Col., Rt Hon W

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T

Walker-Smith, D

Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E L

Morris-Jones, Sir H

Ward, Hon G. R.

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

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

Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

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

White, Sir D. (Fareham)

Galbraith, Cmdr. T D

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Gammans, L. D

Noble, Comdr A. H P

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Glyn, Sir R.

Odey, G. W.

York, C.

Gomme-Duncan, Col A

Orr-Ewing. I. L

Grimston, R. V.

Osborne, C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Hannon, Sir P. (Mossley)

Peake, Rt. Hon. O

Major Conant and

Major Ramsay

Question, as amended, agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
  Order read for consideration, as amended (in Standing Committee B and in the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills).
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the following Amendments standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Bevan or of Mr. Secretary Woodburn, that is to say, Clause 6, page 5, line 45, Clause 6, page 6, lines 8 and 11, Clause 7, page 6, line 21, Clause 10, page 7, line 20, Clause 22, page 14, lines 31, 44 and 47, Clause 23, page 15, line 10, Clause 31, page 19, line 44, Clause 54, page 34, line 41, Clause 70, page 41, line 11, Clause 71, page 41, lines 19, 31 34 and 37, Clause 72, page 43, line 33, Clause 74, page 45, lines 30 and 32, Clause 75, page 46, lines 8, 12 and 28, Clause 76, page 46, lines 42, 44 and 46, Clause 76, page 47, line 5, Clause 77, page 47, line 21, Clause 78, page 48, line 47, Clause 79, page 49, lines 14 and 23, Clause 83, page 51, linen 23, 25 and 29, Clause 85, page 53, line 42, Clause 85, page 55, line 10, Clause 91, page 59, line 24, Clause 93, page 60, line 34, Clause 94, page 61, line 46, Clause 94, page 62, lines 37, 41 and 48, Clause 94, page 63, lines 17, 19, 25 and 30, Clause 109, page 73, lines 35 and 38, Clause 109, page 74, lines 1 and 19, Clause 122, page 84, line 21, Clause 124, page 84, line 46, and Clause 137, page 94, line 7 and of the new Clauses (Advertising stations to be separate hereditaments in certain cases), (Assessment of certain buildings occupied in parts), (Hereditaments shown as railway hereditaments, &c., but not in fact occupied by British Transport Commission) and (Provision of entertainments) and of the amendments in Schedule 1, page 95, line 12, Schedule 2, page 97, line 17, Schedule 2, page 98, line 3, Schedule 2, page 100, lines 41 and 51, and Schedule 2, page 101, lines 7 and 28.—[Mr. Aneurin Bevan.]
  3.48 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker: There are a great number of Amendments to this Motion. I think it would be better if the Amendment in the name of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot),—at the end to add:
  "and in respect of the Amendment in Clause 3, page 2, line 28; and in respect of Clause 11; and in respect of the Amendments to Clause 100, page 66, line 39, and Clause 100, page 67, lines 3, 4 and 5; and of the new Clause (Employment of valuers by local authorities) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Elliot."—
  was moved without: "and in respect of Clause 11," which appears to be quite redundant. There is an Amendment in
  1172
  the name of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor)—at the end to add:
  "and in respect of Clauses 81 to 105; and of the new Clause (Static portions of electricity undertakings to remain rateable) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Sir John Mellor."
  I am afraid that I cannot select the first half of that Amendment, but I will select the proposed new Clause: (Static portions of electricity undertakings to remain rateable.)
  If it is agreeable to hon. Members, it would be better if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities formally moved all the Amendments en bloc. I will then put them together instead of putting them separately, and all will be added as an Amendment to the original Motion. I must say here quite frankly that putting these into the Recommittal stage does not affect the right of the Chairman in selection. It does not commit the Chairman in any way. I have no power to interfere with his right of selection. It must not be taken that I am indicating that I think he ought to select these merely because I am putting them into the Recommittal stage. That is his responsibility. I merely put them in for the sake of Order, and leave the matter to him.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add:
  "and in respect of the Amendment in Clause 3, page 2, line 28, of Clause 11, of the Amendments to Clause 100, page 66, line 39, and page 67 lines 3, 4 and 5, and of the new Clause (Employment of valuers by local authorities) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Elliot; in respect of the new Clause (War memorials) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Heathcoat Amory; in respect of the Amendment in Clause 3, pay 2, line 40, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Piratin; in respect of Clauses 81 to 105, and of the new Clause (Static portions of electricity undertakings to remain rateable) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Sir John Mellor; in respect of the new Clauses (Rating of owners instead of occupiers) and (Transfer of road property and liabilities) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Thomas Lewis; in respect of the Amendment in Clause 11, page 7, line 38, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Turton; in respect of the new Clause (Allowance to sheriff) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Colonel Wheatley; and in respect of the Amendment to Clause 116, page 80, line 27, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Pargiter."

  1173
  I understand, Sir, that you consider that an opportunity to debate Clause 11 will arise in any case, as there is an Amendment down to that Clause, and I am willing to move the Amendments en bloc with the omission of Clause 11, trusting that the Chairman will exercise his discretion favourably for my hon. Friend's Amendment when that stage of the Bill is reached. While willing to do so, Sir, I ask for your consideration and that of the Chair at later stages in respect of the extremely complicated procedure into which we are now passing, which is inevitable through this extensive recommittal Motion. I do not deny that the recommittal is in respect of many Amendments which were pressed on the Minister both from our side of the House and from his own side, but, as the House knows, the Bill already has been subject to a certain process of dissection in that it was divided and part taken upstairs in one Committee and part in another. It now comes down united again for the first time, and scarcely is it laid before the House when it is snatched away and recommitted to a Committee. After that we shall have to return again this rather omnium gatherum of considerations to the consideration of the whole House. Although these things arise from the great pressure under which both the House and the Committees are working, I suggest on behalf of the Opposition that pressure of this intensity is not conducive to the best legislation.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL

    CLAUSE 3.—(Meaning of "standard rateable value.")
    Mr. Piratin: Before we begin, Major Milner, I had in mind to ask Mr. Speaker before you took the Chair whether my Amendment to Clause 3 can be taken at this stage. It is in page 2, line 40, leave out from "shall," to end of Clause, and insert:
    "be used to adjust the rateable value for England and Wales to a figure which ensures that the aggregate of the Exchequer equalisation grants for each financial year shall amount to not less than twenty-two and one-half per cent. of the expenditure met from rates and the equalisation grants in the preceding
    1174
    financial year, of county borough councils, county councils, and the other local authorities in the counties."
    The Chairman: I must remind the hon. Member that that is for my consideration. I will consider whether to select it or not, and I will inform him later.
    Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, leave out from "than," to end of Subsection, and to insert:
    "one hundred and fifty, by the percentage represented by the proportion which the difference between the population thereof and one hundred and fifty bears to one hundred and fifty."
    This is the complicated question of the sparsity factor in the Exchequer grant. The Committee will recollect that in the 1929 Act provision was made so that those districts which had a population of less than 200 to the mile of road would get an increased weightage for that factor. In 1937, Parliament decided that that sparsity factor should be revised, and that those who lived in areas where the population was less than 300 to the mile of road should get increased weightage. In this Clause the Minister has taken a reverse decision; he has decreased the sparsity factor so that the only weightage given shall be where the population is less than 70 to the mile of road, and it is minimised by the fraction of one-third introduced.
    I submit that this is a harsh injustice on the more rural parts of England and Scotland. If I may illustrate it by an example from my own county, £750,000 has to go on our county rates a year, which is a very heavy burden on an agricultural community. In addition, the cost of taking children to school—an obligation which we in Parliament placed on the local authorities under the recent Education Act—has increased the cost of those services from £46,000 a year to £150,000. Although we have that increasing burden on a local authority, which arises from the fact that the population is reasonably sparse—it is in fact 100 to every mile of road—under the Bill as drafted they do not get one penny extra in weightage.
    The Amendment is to give weightage in all cases where counties have a population of under 150 a mile of road. While appreciating the Minister's argument that his rateable value factor, which comes in Subsection (1) will have an effect to the

    1175
    advantage of the remote areas, we say he should add to that by giving this extra weightage for population below 150. If this is not done, the effect will be a great disparity between those ratepayers who live in remote districts but do not enjoy the services given to ratepayers living in urban districts. For instance, farmers and farm workers living often some distance from a county road, whose children have to be taken a long way to school, do not get all the facilities of those who live in urban areas.
    I cannot understand what magic there is in the number 70 which the Minister, with a certain Welsh ingenuity, has taken. We could not find out what were the numbers of persons per mile of road in England and Wales until this week, but now I think I know why the Minister chose that figure. Apparently by choosing 70, the majority of the Welsh countiesseven—come in and get the advantage, but of the English counties only some four come in. If the figure had been 80, the position would have been different. The effect of my Amendment would be to increase by three the number of Welsh counties affected, but to increase by 20 the number of English counties affected. That is really a fairer division between the Principality and the major partner in the United Kingdom.
    I do not see why, with all our sympathy for Wales, we should put down a figure that will help Wales and not help the scattered rural communities in the counties of England. It is surprising that Cornwall and Cumberland, as well as my own county, are not regarded as counties where the sparsity factor comes in. It is quite true that Cornwall is just out but, if the Minister made it a higher figure, he would bring in both Cornwall and Cumberland. If hon. Members will look at the reply given by the Minister on 13th February this year, they will be surprised how the Minister has cleverly defined this Bill so as to include all Wales and to exclude all the remoter parts of Britain. I hope the Committee will agree with this Amendment, and make the sparsity factor more fair, and one which covers typical rural areas of England, Wales and Scotland.
    4.0 p.m.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): This matter has been discussed
    1176
    before. We had a very considerable discussion on the Committee stage, where the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) failed to make his case. Since then, he has been reflecting about it, and has tried to find some ulterior and almost sinister motive behind the figure selected by me. I can assure him that, anxious though I am to secure that the Welsh counties are fairly treated, I have not manipulated mathematics in order to bring about this result. What actually brings about this result in Wales is that many more counties get substantial equalisation grants.
    The benefit from the sparsity factor is two-fold; first, it is because the Welsh counties have been grossly neglected over many years and are exceedingly, poor, and the other cause, which has probably not occurred to the hon. Member so far, is that it happens to be an exceedingly mountainous area and even the hardy Welshmen do not cultivate the land on top of Snowdon. The sparsity factor, therefore, brings in the Welsh counties to a greater extent than the more luscious English counties.
    If we gave a greater weighting for sparsity, other parts of Great Britain would receive less of the equalisation grant. In fact, the sparsity factor is not of itself absolutely necessary in order to enable the poorer counties to attract substantial shares of the equalisation grant. As the hon. Member himself admitted, the rateable value per head of these areas is already so low often not only because of their poverty, but also because of the fact that various Parliaments have exempted agricultural hereditaments from rating entirely and that fact enables them to receive substantial shares in the equalisation grant. The sparsity factor is added in order to deal with extreme cases.
    This matter has been argued over and over again and I do not think it necessary to spend much of the time of the Committee upon it. The Amendment in its present form is completely meaningless and I have been trying to find out what it means. I do not complain, because hon. Members have not the same facilities with regard to drafting as have Ministers, and I would not resist the Amendment simply because it is not an appropriate vehicle for the purpose the hon. Member has in mind. It is, however, an Amendment which I cannot accept in itself.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think the Minister proves too much. He adduced strong arguments that even his hardy fellow countrymen did not cultivate the top of Snowdon. But Inverness also suffers from mountains, and so does Argyllshire. Being a Welsh speaker he may be able to translate the war cry, "Cruachan! suas E!" which means "Look out for yourselves, the Campbells are here." Believe me, they did that because the dangers of extracting a living from their mountain fastnesses were great, and it was very necessary to raid the fatter lower provinces. But it is an odd coincidence that the formula works out so mathematically in favour of one part of the United Kingdom as against another. The right hon. Gentleman will be acquainted with the maxim that justice has not only to be done, but should be seen to be done.
    We appreciate that he is dealing with this matter in other ways, that rateable value covers the main part of the distribution, and that the sparsity grant is merely brought in as a sort of additional weightage. This does not come only from ourselves, but many of the local authorities closely concerned in the matter still feel a sense of grievance. We have modified the suggestion which we made on the Committee stage and have reduced the sparsity weightage. But when we get sparsity weightage such as this—before the 1939 Act in the County of Argyll it was 123,000, whereas under this Measure it will be 11,000, and in Inverness it was 144,000, which now becomes 19,000—one cannot help feeling that many of the counties have a sense of grievance about it.
    This is the first time we have had an opportunity of discussing this Measure with the whole of the Members interested present, and I appeal to hon. Members from other Scottish Divisions, Lanarkshire, for instance, which comes off very badly. Previously Lanarkshire had a weighting of 276,000 for sparsity and the hon. Member for North Lanark (Miss Herbison) will be well acquainted with the great degree of sparsity in the upper ward of that county. What does it get under this Measure? Nothing at all. I suggest that to drop from 270,000-odd to nothing at all is the sort of thing which makes a county feel it has had somewhat raw treatment. I ask the Minister to see whether he cannot make some sort of concession
    1178
    on this point. We do not bring up this point again simply because we want to hammer on the nail until we split the board, but because there is uneasiness among the local authorities, who feel that the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland have given them rather harsh treatment.
    Mr. Oliver Poole: The Minister is hardly fair in saying that this very important matter has been discussed at great length over and over again. We spent 20 minutes over it in Committee. His speech today does not give any reason to suppose that he has really gone carefully into the whole matter which we tried to put before him. I find it difficult to follow his arguments, because he seems to make out that the sparsity weighting does not matter at all. If that is so, why have it? It is admitted on all sides that counties which are sparsely populated must have advantages given to them, and we are trying to show that the line which the Minister has drawn is too low and falls very harshly on certain counties.
    The right hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to give me detailed information for which I asked the other day, and from it I noticed that the county I represent, which has made representations to me, has a population per road mile of 76, which does seem to bear out the point we made in Committee, that the figure on which the Minister has decided is far too low. I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give some further information on this, because it does not seem that this formula has been worked out with great care. It does seem, from the point of view of the expenses which these scarcity population districts have to carry, that they are suffering a grave injustice. I hope that we shall not pass from this Clause without further reassurance on this matter.
    Mr. Heathcoat Amory: We have listened with care, both upstairs and this afternoon, to the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has given why this formula was chosen. I am left with the impression that in practice it will not work out well. He has told us that the sparsity factor, except in extreme cases, is not really necessary because the matter will be dealt with by the equalisation grant. That is not actually and completely so. The method that has been

    1179
    chosen to give effect to the sparsity weighting is really inadequate, particularly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. O. Poole) has said, in the case of these intermediate authorities whose density is just over 70 but well below the average. The sparsity factor is important because in practice considerable extra costs fall on such authorities.
    The sparsity factor here is undoubtedly negligible. I think it amounts to one-quarter of one per cent. spread over the whole country. Twelve counties benefit but only six of them benefit considerably. I agree that in the extreme cases the formula suggested is adequate. Radnor nearly doubles its actual population under the formula, while the increase in Montgomery is nearly 50 per cent. In my own county, Devon, I do not think the position will be met under this formula at all successfully. We have a population per mile of about 64. As far as we can see the sparsity weighting will work out in our case to an increase of about 4 to 5 per cent. of our population, which will mean a rate relief of something like 6d. in the £. We know that the extra cost falling on the rates due to sparsity is very much greater than that.
    Mr. Bevan: How does the hon. Member know?
    Mr. Amory: We believe that. We estimate it from careful calculations that have been made in the light of the best evidence we can get. I suggest one or two headings which will bear that out. Take education. Under the old block grant there was a sparsity factor; under the new grant there is to be no sparsity factor. Conveyance alone, a matter referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), which naturally falls on the rates, is at present about 4d. and
    will in the foreseeable future rise to at least 6d. There, at once, a benefit has gone.
    Mr. Alpass: But the hon. Member's county will get that back in other directions, such as in administration.
    Mr. Amory: On the contrary, our administration costs are higher, because of sparsity, for sewerage, water, police, fire and ambulance and such matters. We have 7,000 miles of roads in Devon, and on unclassified roads the whole expenditure falls on the rates. Our officials travel two million miles a year on administrative duties, taking these things together. I am only quoting Devon as an example which is intermediate in this respect. It is an authority to which justice is not done under this formula. If we are to have sparsity weighting why not have a formula which will cover the point as well as we possibly can? I suggest that this formulat requires remodelling if it is to prove effective in practice.
    4.15 p.m.
    Colonel Wheatley: It has occurred to me that if one takes the example of a county in which there is one non-county borough, one may find a large portion of the population, up to as much as a quarter, in one corner. That will make the sparsity formula work out badly for the rest of the county. The county is sparsely populated because a large portion of the population is in one corner. For that reason alone the formula laid down in the Bill requires looking into again. I hope that the Minister will take up this point and think over the matter again before we finally part with the Bill.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 117.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Piratin: I have an Amendment down in page 2, line 40, to leave out from "shall," to the end of the Clause, and to insert:
    "be used to adjust the rateable value for England and Wales to a figure which ensures that the aggregate of the Exchequer equalisation grants for each financial year shall amount to not less than twenty-two and one-half per cent. of the expenditure met from rates and the equalisation grants in the preceding financial year, of county borough councils, county councils, and the other local authorities in the counties."
    I had hoped that it might be called, but, as the Chairman saw fit not to call it, I propose to say a few words before this Motion is put. I raised this point on the Committee stage. I hope it will be given further consideration now, although I acknowledge that the matter was fairly discussed in the Committee. It does, however, deal with this Clause, which is one of the key Clauses of the Bill, and one which can set the pace for better or worse for the whole purpose of the Bill, or this part of the Bill.
    1184
    I would wish to see a granting arrangement made in regard to expenditure, and not merely the topping up of local rateable values to the national average rateable value. I feel that this is one of the defects of this Clause and of this part of the Bill. Subsection (3) gives power to the Minister to increase in subsequent years the amount provided in relation to the proposed sum of £33 million. I would have liked to see something which goes beyond that, and which indicates a minimum. When I moved my Amendment on the Committee stage I proposed 25 per cent. but I was not adhering to 25 per cent. What I wanted was a minimum. The present figure works out at about 17 per cent., but it is not the percentage, it is this principle in which I am interested, and which I propose to develop in the point I am making.
    It is recognised on all sides that the expenditure of local authorities is increasing. If the Minister adheres to the sum which happens to be fitting for this coming year, it will mean that, in subsequent years, there will be less granted to the local authorities though their expenditure goes up. The Minister may

    1185
    answer that he will also be a ratepayer, and will therefore make greater contributions as the rates go up. That is perfectly true. It does not, however, alter the fact that the rates will go up. It merely means that he would be a ratepayer at a higher rate. If a local government authority is now rated at 15s. in the pound and the Minister makes his contribution on the basis of a ratepayer, it means that the rateable value for which he takes responsibility, and the subsequent rate, goes up to 17s. It is true that the contribution from the Minister will increase accordingly, but it is equally true that the contribution from each local ratepayer will increase. My contention is, therefore, that, in view of the fact that this expenditure is likely to increase in the coming years, this Clause should be wider in its allocation of the grant than it is at the moment.
    4.30 p.m.
    I want to repeat an argument which I made earlier, because I do not think that the Minister gave it sufficiently serious consideration. Theoretically it is possible for this grant to be wiped out on the basis that, as in succeeding years the rateable value of the lower rated localities goes up, the time could be reached when the gap between the lower rateable values, as they exist today, and the average rateable value, will be so small that the amount to be granted to make it up to the average will be infinitesimal. I do not think that the Minister dealt with that question sufficiently. Though I admit that it is theoretical, nevertheless it is in line with the policy of the Government in trying to raise the standard of life, and the rateable value of industrial property, and so on, in all parts of the country which are at the moment backward in that respect.
    If the Minister wants to challenge this point, I would inform him of something of which I was not aware when we dealt with this question in the Standing Committee. We who are connected with the Stepney Borough Council have received information from the borough treasurer that the arrangements being made for London—which I grant are separate from the arrangements for the whole of the country, though the principle remains—make it likely that the Stepney rate will be over 20s. At the moment it is 18s. 6d. Last year it was 16s. 3d. On the new
    1186
    basis, it is likely to be over 20s. An hon. Gentleman dissents, but this is a fact. This is information from the borough treasurer arising from the negotiations of the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee with the Minister. If that is the case this year, and if the local authorities are to be burdened with further expenditure in coming years, then here is an argument in favour of meeting the point which I have attempted to make. I suggest that the Minister should review the matter further.
    In this respect the Clause is inadequate to the extent that the Exchequer grant is being linked to rateable value. That in itself is not a bad basis; but a far more important and a much better basis is the expenditure of the local authorities. The Exchequer grant is not being linked with that expenditure. In the proposals which I put before the Minister I tried to suggest that a combination of the two is possible. If he cannot accept my proposals, there may be other ways which he and his advisers may discover of putting this into the Bill. I hope that further consideration will be given to the matter.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Discontinuance of burden payments on changes of boundary.)
    Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 7, line 38, at the end, to insert:
    "if immediately before the said change an equalisation grant was payable to that authority."
    This is a curious and striking Clause in that it stops a practice which has gone on since 1913. When we had a revision of local boundaries, there were negotiations as to the added burden that had been placed on the local authorities which lost an area because another local authority gained it. It is a feature of which many hon. Members are aware in their own constituencies and otherwise. The great spreading of the urban authorities results in great hardship to the surrounding ones, because they lose important rateable value. Ever since 1913, when a Select Committee of this House laid down the procedure, negotiations have gone on, and, if there is a difference of opinion, arbitration is provided as to what amount of added burden should be paid in the adjustment.
    The Minister now says that the standard rateable value is such a lightly adjusted factor that that procedure will
    1190
    no longer be necessary, and the Minister is always very certain of his powers in this respect, as in other respects and other Act. It may be that he will find difficulties on this Clause, as he is finding under another Act recently passed. The point to which I want to draw the attention of the Committee today is that, if the authority does not receive an Exchequer equalisation grant, the Minister cannot possibly adjust it at all.
    4.45 p.m.
    It would be easier if I illustrated my point by taking a concrete example. I am in a difficulty in doing so because, when the Bill was introduced, the Minister went to great trouble and expense—the nation's expense—in publishing Command Paper 7253, which sets out which authorities were to get the Exchequer equalisation grants. I asked the right hon. Gentleman a fortnight ago If he could give the alterations and was somewhat surprised to find that the whole of that Paper, published at considerable expense to the taxpayer, was completely inaccurate, and the Minister has now given us, not in the form of a White Paper but in a page of HANSARD, a completely different set of figures showing quite different authorities which get these equalisation grants and those that do not. I have found one that is common to both lists, although the amounts received are somewhat different.
    Let us take the counties of East and West Sussex. Under the revised version—I have not got the authorised version in front of me—East Sussex will get a transitional grant of £70,853, but will get no equalisation grant at all. Let us suppose that East Sussex loses a valuable rateable area to one of the towns in East Sussex. We have not got this added burden adjustment procedure which we have had for the last 35 years. The Minister's equalisation grant will not operate, and so the ratepayers of East Sussex will have "had it", and it is just bad luck for them. I think I know what the Minister will say. It will be, "After all, they are pretty rich, and I have not got much sympathy with them. What does it matter if we do injure the rich? We are doing it every day of our lives." That I think, will be the reply to this Amendment. On that side of the Committee, it might have some weight, but I do not think it will in the country,

    1191
    and still less in East Sussex. Therefore, I hope the Minister will apply himself to this question and accept this Amendment.
    Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member has sought to raise the issue of burden payments, as it were, by a side door. The Amendment, as he knows, is an exceedingly narrow one, and no one would be more disturbed than he, I am quite sure, if I accepted such a monstrosity as this Amendment actually is. What it would do, in effect, would be to make burden payments possible only to that area of local government which is outside the area receiving the equalisation grant. Why on earth that should be so I cannot for the life of me understand, because it could quite easily happen that a burden payment under the hon. Member's proposal would come, not from a rich authority to a poor authority but from a poor authority to a rich one, relative to each other. It is perfectly true that the poor authority would not be poor in the sense that it would be receiving the equalisation grant; otherwise, the Amendment would not apply to it, but it still might be very much poorer than the authority—
    Mr. Turton: That would be a factor to be taken into account by the arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings.
    Mr. Bevan: Why should the arbitrator take that particular matter into consideration? All that the arbitrator normally takes into consideration is whether, in fact, the burden has been transferred and assets have been transferred from one authority to another, or a burden has been imposed as between one authority and another. What does take into account the relative wealth of the two authorities is the equalisation grant itself. If it happens that the re-allocation of functions and of territory brought the local authority adversely affected by it too low, it would bring that authority within the area covered by the equalisation grant, and so such assets as would be realised by it would be mitigated by the grant. If, on the other hand, the authority has not received such damage as to bring it within the equalisation formula, then, obviously, it is still sufficiently prosperous as against other local authorities within the equalisation grant.
    1192
    We have discussed this matter over and over again. We have always taken the view that such re-distributions of functions and boundaries as would be made, particularly of boundaries, would be made for good local government reasons. Therefore, the reorganisation would still leave each authority violable. That being so, there is no justification at all for the cumbrous, expensive forms of burden payments to which we have been accustomed, and which usually provided handsome revenues for accountants and arbitrators, made bad blood between local authorities, and perpetrated the stupid position of one local authority permanently contributing to the revenue of another.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Minister, with his logical mind, continues to insist that he has discovered a formula which, by the smooth and flexible nature of its working, will automatically solve all the difficulties that arise in this complex business of the adjustment of the boundaries of local authorities, and many other things. That view is not universally shared in the Committee. I would mention in passing that hon. Members of all parties have been to see the right hon. Gentleman on another question—the finance of this Bill—and the fact is that the local authorities themselves have worked out this procedure over a long number of years, and that it is a very useful thing indeed. It is going too far to say that if, as the Minister says now, and, indeed, as he said in Committee upstairs, the authority from which the area has been transferred still remains an authority which is particularly well off, it will not benefit. That, in so many words, is the argument used by my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. It is the principle of "soak the rich," reduced to local authority adjustments. That is not always the simplest way of working. The fact of the matter is, as we said during the Committee stage, a cash payment has a wonderful emollient effect in dealing with the difficulties of readjustment. On that occasion, the Minister said, "How sordid," but we were not able to follow him to the heights of his Celtic idealism on that occasion.
    As we said on Committee—we do not wish to reiterate our arguments made then—there seems to be a division of

    1193
    opinion between the two, sides on this point. Our side, as is not unnatural, hold that because the system has worked in the past that is a reason for giving it further consideration, while the Minister, as is probably right in his radical zeal, says that, because a thing is old, it should be swept away. The correct view, no doubt, lies somewhere between the two. But the Minister is altogether exaggerating the reliance to be placed on the formulae to solve those difficulties automatically as they come up.
    He said that this Amendment was a monstrosity. We put it down to make sure that some Amendment should be called. The Amendment having been called, the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" will have to be put. We will defer our decision until that Question is put.
    The fact is that we do not agree with the Minister's view on this point, but I do not think we shall get closer to it by argument. We wish to register a division of opinion on this matter, which the right hon. Gentleman will find, in practice, will give him a great deal more trouble than he allows for. Therefore, in the interest of good administration, I beg him not to tie his hands and the administrations of the future, as he now proposes to do, and not to say that
    "no grant shall be made for any payment to a local authority under, etc., etc."
    That would be setting up an absolute bar which we think would be to the disadvantage of good administration, and, if the Minister is ever to operate this procedure, to the disadvantage of the Minister himself.
    Mr. C. Williams: I was interested in the Minister's speech. There were parts of it which had a persuasive element, especially that part where he was pointing out that, if this Amendment were accepted, it might make a great deal of work for lawyers at a high fee. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and also my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) that if I thought that was going to be the position brought about by this Amendment, I should, as usual, do my best to see that It was not accepted.
    Mr. Turton: The Minister said, "accountants and arbitrators." not "lawyers."
    Mr. Williams: I rather think that correction is right, but it only means what I might describe as a variation in the type of professional men. If that were the result of this Amendment, there would be something to be said against it. I find myself in very considerable doubt, however, whether the Minister has any real reason for not accepting it. I quite realise that he got a bit hot and bothered, but that is a very constant state with the Minister these days.
    The only thing this Amendment seeks to do is to provide some adjustment on those occasions when great changes are made in the boundaries of local authorities. Such changes are coming, and there have been many arguments on matters of that kind. For instance, in the West Country there is still indecision whether the County Council of Cornwall or the City of Plymouth is to absorb a certain large area. That is an illustration of what my hon. Friend said, and something which might make a terrific change in the rateable value of one or other authority. If we have these adjustments, we shall not have, as the Minister said, adequate and fair readjustment of the value under the scheme in this Bill.
    As far as I can understand the Amendment—and I think it is a perfectly easy and clear one to deal with—it is one which ought to have been in the Bill from the beginning. What is the good of having these adjustments, or a Clause of this kind, if the Bill is worded in such a way that it does not meet all the troubles and difficulties which will arise in the immediate future? On this occasion, if I may say so with adequate respect, the Minister seems to have run away with himself. The only conclusion I can come to—and I daresay other hon. Members share the same conclusion—is that, in some way or other, he has got hold of the wrong brief on this Amendment. I hope that the Amendment will be added to the Bill.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 265; Noes, 132.

    Division No. 80.]

    AYES.

    4.16 p.m

    Acland, Sir R

    Bechervaise, A. E

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Benson, G

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Alexander, Rt. Hon A. V

    Berry, H.

    Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

    Alpass, J. H

    Beswick, F

    Bruce, Maj. D. W T

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Bevan, Rt Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

    Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Bevin, Rt Hon. E. (Wandsworth C.)

    Burke, W. A.

    Attewell, H. C.

    Bing, G. H. C

    Butler, H W. (Hackney, S.)

    Austin, H. Lewis

    Binns, J.

    Byers, Frank

    Ayles, W H.

    Blackburn, A. R

    Carmichael, James

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs B

    Blyton, W. R

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Chamberlain, R. A

    Balfour, A.

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

    Champion, A. J

    Barstow, P. G

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

    Chater, D

    Barton, C

    Bramall, E A.

    Chetwynd, G. R

    Battley, J. R.

    Brook, D (Halifax)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Cocks, F. S

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

    Richards, R.

    Coldrick, W.

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

    Collindridge, F

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

    Robens, A.

    Collins, V. J.

    Jones, P Asterley (Hitchin)

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Colman, Miss G. M

    Keenan W.

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Comyns, Dr. L.

    Kenyon, C.

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Cook, T. F.

    Key, C W.

    Rogers, G. H. R

    Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

    Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

    Sargood, R.

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

    Kinley, J.

    Scollan, T.

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Kirkwood, Rt. Hon D

    Scott-Elliot, W.

    Cove, W. G.

    Lang, G

    Segal, Dr. S.

    Crawley, A.

    Lawson, Rt. Hon J. J.

    Sharp, Granville

    Cunningham, P.

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Shurmer, P.

    Daggar, G.

    Leonard, W.

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Daines, P.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

    Davies, Clement Rt. Hon. (Montgomery)

    Lewis. A. W J. (Upton)

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Lewis, T (Southampton)

    Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Lipson, D. L.

    Smith, C. (Colchester)

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

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Longden, F.

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

    Delargy, H. J.

    Lyne, A W.

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

    Dobbie, W

    McAdam, W.

    Snow, J W

    Dodds, N. N.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Sorensen, R W

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Sparks, J A.

    Dumpleton, C. W

    Mack, J. D

    Stamford, W.

    Durbin, E. F M.

    McKay, J (Wallsend)

    Stokes, R. R.

    Dye, S.

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

    Stross, Dr. B.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    McKinlay, A. S.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Edelman, M.

    Maclean, N. (Govan)

    Sylvester, G. O.

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

    McLeavy, F.

    Symonds, A. L.

    Edwards, John (Blackburn)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Taylor, H B. (Mansfield)

    Evans, A (Islington, W.)

    Macpherson, T. (Romford)

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Evans, John (Ogmore)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W.

    Thomas, D E. (Aberdare)

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Mann, Mrs. J.

    Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

    Ewart, R.

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Fairhurst, F.

    Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Farthing, W. J

    Medland, H. M.

    Thurtle, Ernest

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

    Mellish, R. J.

    Tiffany, S.

    Foot, M. M.

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Timmons, J.

    Forman, J. C.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Titterington, M. F.

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Tolley, L.

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    Monslow, W.

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    Moody, A. S.

    Turner-Samuels, M

    George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Morley, R.

    Vernon, Maj. W. F.

    Gibbins, J

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Viant, S. P.

    Gibson, C. W.

    Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

    Walker, G. H.

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Mort, D. L.

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Grenfell, D R.

    Moyle, A.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Grey, C. F.

    Murray, J D.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Grierson, E.

    Nally, W.

    Watson, W. M.

    Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden

    Neal, H. (Claycross)

    Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

    Guy, W. H.

    Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

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

    West, D. G.

    Hale, Leslie

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

    Oliver, G H

    Wheatley, J T (Edinburgh, E.)

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

    Paget, R. T.

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

    Hardman, D. R.

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

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

    Hardy, E. A.

    Paton, Mrs F (Rushcliffe)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Harrison, J.

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Pearson, A

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Perrins, W.

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Hicks, G.

    Piratin, P.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Hobson, C. R

    Popplewell, E.

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Holman, P.

    Porter, E. (Warrington)

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

    Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Willis, E.

    Horabin, T. L.

    Price, M. Philips

    Wills, Mrs. E. A

    House, G.

    Proctor, W T.

    Woodburn, A.

    Hoy, J.

    Pryde, D J.

    Yates, V. F.

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

    Pursey, Cmdr. H.

    Younger, Hon. Kenneth

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

    Randall, H. E.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Ranger, J

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

    Rankin, J.

    Mr. J. Henderson and

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Reeves, J.

    Mr. Simmons.

    Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    1182

    1183

    NOES.

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    Head, Brig. A. H.

    Price-White, Lt.-Col. D

    Amory, D. Heathcoat

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

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

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

    Hollis, M. C.

    Raikes, H. V.

    Beamish, Maj. T. V H.

    Hope, Lord J.

    Ramsay, Maj. S.

    Beechman, N. A.

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

    Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

    Bennett, Sir P.

    Jeffreys, General Sir G.

    Roberts, Peter (Ecclesall)

    Birch, Nigel

    Keeling, E. H.

    Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

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

    Kerr, Sir J. Graham

    Robinson, Roland

    Boothby, R.

    Lambert, Hon. G

    Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

    Bossom, A. C.

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

    Sanderson, Sir F.

    Bower, N.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Savory, Prof. D. L.

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Low, A. R. W.

    Scott, Lord W.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

    Shephard, S. (Newark)

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

    Challen, C.

    McCallum, Maj. D.

    Snadden, W. M.

    Channon, H.

    Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

    McFarlane, C. S.

    Spence, H. R.

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Maclean, F. H. R.

    Strauss, H. G (English Universities)

    Crowder, Capt. John E.

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

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

    Darling, Sir W. Y.

    Marples, A. E.

    Teeling, William

    Digby, S. W.

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

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

    Drayson, G. B.

    Medlicott, F.

    Touche, G. C.

    Drewe, C.

    Mellor, Sir J.

    Turton, R H.

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

    Walker-Smith, D.

    Eccles, D. M.

    Morris-Jones, Sir H

    Ward, Hon. G. R.

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

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

    Elliot, Lieut.-Col., Rt. Hon. W

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

    White, Sir D. (Farsham)

    Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

    Neven-Spence, Sir B.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

    Odey, G. W.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

    York, C.

    Gammans, L. D.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col A.

    Osborne, C.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Grimston, R. V.

    Peto, Brig. C H. M.

    Mr. Studholme and

    Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Major Conant.

    Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

    Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Division No. 81.]

    AYES.

    [5.0 p.m.

    Acland, Sir R

    Ganley, Mrs. C S

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Alexander, Rt. Hon A. V

    Gibbins, J

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

    Alpass, J H

    Gibson, C W

    Mort, D. L.

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Murray, J D

    Anderson, F (Whitehaven)

    Greenwood A W J. (Heywood)

    Nally, W

    Attewell, H. C

    Grenfell, D R.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Austin, H Lewis

    Grey, C F.

    Neal, H. (Claycross)

    Ayles, W. H.

    Grierson, E.

    Nicholls, H R. (Stratford)

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs B

    Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

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

    Bacon, Miss A

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Balfour, A.

    Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Barstow, P G

    Guest, Dr. L Haden

    Paget, R. T.

    Barton, C.

    Guy, W H

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Battley, J. R

    Haire, John E (Wycombe)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Bechervaise, A. E

    Hale, Leslie

    Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

    Benson, G

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Beswick, F

    Hamilton Lieut.-Col. R

    Pearson, A

    Bevan, Rt Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)

    Hardman, D. R

    Perrins, W

    Bing, G H C

    Hardy, E. A.

    Piratin, P.

    Binns J

    Harrison, J.

    Popplewell, E.

    Blackburn, A. R

    Hastings, Dr Somerville

    Porter, E. (Warrington)

    Blenkinsop, A

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Blyton, W. R.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Price, M. Philips

    Bowden, Flg.-Offr H. W.

    Hewitson, Capt. M

    Proctor, W. T

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Hicks, G

    Pryde, D. J.

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

    Hobson, C R.

    Randall, H. E

    Braddock, T (Mitcham)

    Holman, P.

    Ranger, J

    Bramall, E A.

    Horabin, T L

    Rankin, J

    Brook, D (Halifax)

    House, G

    Reeves, J.

    Brooks, T J. (Rothwell)

    Hoy, J.

    Reid, T (Swindon)

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Hudson, J H (Ealing, W)

    Richards, R.

    Bruce, Maj. D W T

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M

    Burke, W. A.

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

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Chamberlain, R. A

    Irvine, A. J (Liverpool)

    Rogers, G. H. R.

    Champion, A J.

    Irving, W J (Tottenham, N.)

    Sargood, R.

    Chater, D

    Jeger, G (Winchester)

    Scollan, T.

    Chetwynd, G. R

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

    Scott-Elliot, W

    Cluse, W S

    Jones, P Asterley (Hitchin)

    Segal, Dr. S.

    Cocks, F S

    Keenan. W

    Sharp, Granville

    Coldrick, W

    Kenyon, C

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Collick, P

    Key, C. W.

    Shurmer, P.

    Collindrige, F.

    King, E M

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Collins, V. J

    Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

    Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

    Colman, Miss G M

    Kinley, J

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Comyns, Dr L

    Kirkwood, Rt Hon. D.

    Smith, C. (Colchester)

    Cook, T. F.

    Lang, G

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

    Lawson, Rt Hon J. J

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

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

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

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

    Corlett, Dr J

    Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

    Snow, J. W

    Cove, W G

    Leonard, W.

    Solley, L. J.

    Crawley, A

    Leslie, J. R

    Sorensen, R. W

    Daggar, G

    Levy, B. W.

    Soskice, Sir Frank

    Daines, P.

    Lewis, A. W J (Upton)

    Sparks, J A

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Lewis, T (Southampton)

    Stamford, W

    Lipson, D L.

    Steele, T.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M

    Stross, Dr. B

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

    Longden, F.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Lyne, A W

    Sylvester, G. O

    Deer, G

    McAdam, W.

    Symonds, A. L

    Delargy, H J

    McEntee, V La T

    Taylor, H B. (Mansfield)

    Dobbie, W

    McGhee, H G

    Taylor, R. J (Morpeth)

    Dodds, N. N.

    Mack, J. D

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Driberg, T E. N.

    McKay, J (Wallsend)

    Thomas, D E (Aberdare)

    Dumpleton, C W

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

    Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

    Durbin, E F M.

    McKinlay, A S.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Dye, S.

    Maclean, N (Govan)

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Ede, Rt Hon. J. C

    McLeavy, F.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Edelman, M.

    MacMillan, M K (Western Isles)

    Tiffany, S.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon Sir C. (Bedwellty)

    Macpherson, T. (Romford)

    Timmons, J.

    Edwards, John (Blackburn)

    Mainwaring, W H

    Titterington, M. F

    Evans, A (Islington, W.)

    Mallalieu, J P W.

    Tolley, L.

    Evans, E (Lowestoft)

    Mann, Mrs J

    Tomlinson, Rt Hon. G

    Evans, John (Ogmore)

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Evans, S N. (Wednesbury)

    Mathers, Rt Hon. G.

    Ungoed-Thomas, L.

    Ewart, R

    Medland, H. M.

    Vernon, Maj. W F

    Fairhurst, F

    Mellish, R J

    Viant, S P

    Farthing, W J

    Middleton, Mrs. L

    Walker, G. H.

    Foot, M M.

    Mitchison, G. R

    Wallace, G. D (Chislehurst)

    Forman, J C

    Monslow, W.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Fraser, T (Hamilton)

    Moody, A S

    Watkins, T. E.

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    Morley, R.

    Watson, W. M.

    1196

    1197

    Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Woodburn, A

    Wells, P L. (Faversham)

    Willey, F. T. (Sundenand)

    Wyatt, W.

    Wells, W T (Walsall)

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Yates, V F.

    West, D. G

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Younger, Hon. Kenneth

    Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Zilliacus, K.

    White, C. F (Derbyshire, W.)

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

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

    Willis, E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Wills, Mrs. E. A.

    Mr. Simmons and

    Mr. Richard Adams.

    NOES.

    Agnew, Cmdr, P. G.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Amory, D. Heathcoat

    Grimston, R. V.

    Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

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

    Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.

    Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

    Head, Brig. A. H.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

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

    Raikes, H. V.

    Bennett, Sir P.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Reed, Sir S (Aylesbury)

    Birch, Nigel

    Hollis, M. C.

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

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

    Hope, Lord J.

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Boothby, R.

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

    Roberts, Peter (Ecclesall)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Jeffreys, General Sir G

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Bower, N.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

    Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

    Kerr, Sir J. Graham

    Robinson, Roland

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

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

    Sanderson, Sir F.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Savory, Prof. D. L.

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Linstead, H. N

    Scott, Lord W.

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

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Shephard, S. (Newark)

    Byers, Frank

    Low, A. R. W.

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

    Challen, C

    MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

    Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

    Channon, H.

    McCallum, Maj. D.

    Snadden, W. M.

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

    Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

    Spearman, A. C. M

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col G.

    McFarlane, C. S.

    Spence, H. R.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Stewart, J Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Crowder, Capt. John E.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Cuthbert, W N.

    Maclean, F. H. R

    Strauss, H. G (English Universities)

    Darling, Sir W Y.

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Studholme, H. G.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

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

    De la Bère, R.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P (Monmouth)

    Digby, S. W

    Marples, A. E.

    Thorp, Lt.-Col R. A. F

    Dodds-Parker, A. D

    Marsden, Capt. A.

    Touche, G. C.

    Donner, P. W.

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Turton, R. H.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

    Wadsworth, G.

    Drewe, C.

    Mellor, Sir J.

    Walker-Smith, D.

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Molson, A. H E.

    Ward, Hon. G. R.

    Eccles, D. M.

    Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

    Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

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

    Elliot, Lieut-Col., Rt. Hon. W

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

    White, Sir D. (Fareham)

    Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L

    Noble, Comdr. A H P

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Fletcher, W. (Bury)

    Nutting, Anthony

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

    Odey, G. W

    Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H

    York, C.

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T D.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L

    Gammans, L. D.

    Osborne, C.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Major Conant and

    Glyn, Sir R.

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Major Ramsay.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Power to reduce Exchequer grants.)
    Amendments made: In page 5, line 41, after "may," insert:
    "subject to the provisions of this section."
    In page 6, line 8, leave out from beginning, to "make," in line 9, and insert:
    "(2) Before reducing any grant by virtue of this section, the Minister shall."
    In line 11, at end, add:
    "and he shall not make the reduction until the said report is approved by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament."—(Mr. J. Edwards.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It will be agreed that this Clause has been greatly improved by the Amendments which have been made. These Amendments were put forward by us on the Committee stage, and I think that they commended themselves to the Committee. The reduction of a grant is a very serious thing. In fact, the real danger is that it is so powerful

    1187
    a weapon that the Minister can scarcely ever employ it. He certainly could not employ it without the full concurrence of the House. I think that the procedure adopted will greatly strengthen his hand in that he has to seek the prior approval of the House of Commons before bringing this very powerful engine into play. We are very grateful to the Minister for having made the Amendments.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 7.—(Provisions as to Health Service Exchequer Grants.)
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards): I beg to move, in page 6, line 21, at the end, to add:
    "subject to the following modifications, that is to say—

    (a) the reference in paragraph (a) of Subsection (1) of that Section to the discharge of their functions by the council shall be construed as a reference to the discharge of their functions under the National Health Service Act, 1946, by the local health authority; and

    (b) the reference in paragraph (b) of the said Subsection (1) to the expenditure of the council shall be construed as a reference to the expenditure of the local health authority under the said Act."

    This Amendment is proposed in accordance with an undertaking given in Standing Committee. It is on the same principle as those Amendments with which we have just dealt.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think that a few words of explanation would be of advantage.
    Mr. Edwards: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember that in the Standing Committee he had certain observations to make on this Clause. I think that he moved an Amendment which he withdrew later. My right hon. Friend tabled this Amendment to meet the undertaking that he then gave. The Minister will now have the power, subject to report to Parliament, as under the preceding Clause, to reduce a Health Service Exchequer Grant if a local health authority has failed to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of efficiency and progress in the discharge of its functions under the National Health Service Act or if the
    1188
    expenditure on a local health service under the Act has been excessive or unreasonable. I would emphasise that this is subject to the same procedure as that provided in Clause 6.
    Mr. Charles Williams: May I ask for a full explanation of this? It is rather difficult for those who were not on the Standing Committee to follow what has happened from the short explanation which has been given. The Clause is slightly complicated. We have been told that the Amendment meets the wishes of the Committee, but I think that a Committee of the whole House is entitled to a further explanation of what is done and under what circumstances this position arises. These are matters upon which we may be cross-questioned at some time, and it is inconvenient to have to search out what happened in the Standing Committee when the position might be explained clearly in a few minutes.
    Mr. Bevan: My hon. Friend explained the Amendment, but I would like to point out to hon. Members that, although they are fully entitled to discuss these matters in detail today, they could easily avail themselves of information on the point at issue by reading the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee stage. That is what it is for. This Amendment is tabled in fulfilment of a promise which I gave to the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) during the Committee stage. It follows from the Amendments which we made to Clause 6.
    Mr. C. Williams: I have been in this House for a few years and I have discovered that there are reports of the Committee stage discussions which we can read. I confirm that the Minister is completely and absolutely accurate on that point. We can really read them. However, it is utterly and absolutely impossible to keep up to date with all the Committees in all their doings. I ask very politely whether we might have a wider explanation today. It seems that we have an agreeable working arrangement between the two parties on opposite sides of the Committee, and I thought that the Minister, with his great ability and kindness, would have been only too glad to avail himself of the opportunity to tell us what this Amendment really means. I apologise to the Minister for giving him

    1189
    the extra trouble, but I thought it was a chance for him to help some of us who were in difficulty about it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Payments to metropolitan boroughs.)
    Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 7, line 20, at the end, to insert:
    "(3) Any payment under a scheme made under this Section shall, if the scheme so provides, be effected in whole or in part by making the appropriate deduction from the amount due under a precept."
    This Amendment provides for payments to Metropolitan boroughs to be made like the payments to district councils under Clause 9 (3). It seems a desirable arrangement, and we thereby bring the Metropolitan boroughs into the same arrangements as we have already provided for district councils.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 22.—(Power to reduce Exchequer grants.)
    Amendments made: In page 14, line 31, after "may," insert
    "subject to the provisions of this section."
    In line 44, to leave out from the beginning, to "make," in line 45, and insert:
    "(2) Before reducing any grant by virtue of this section the Secretary of State shall."—[Mr. Woodburn.]
    5.15 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I beg to move, in page 14, line 47, at the end, to add:
    "and he shall not make the reduction until the said report is approved by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament."
    Mr. McKie: Although the words in this Amendment go a certain way to satisfy my anxieties, they do not go the whole way. I am sorry that the local authorities concerned will not have the benefit of a local inquiry into all the circumstances of the case. That would have been a far better way of dealing with the matter. We expressed this view in the Scottish Grand Committee, but the Joint Under-Secretary was quite obdurate. Now that the Bill has been recommitted to a Committee of the whole House, the occasion should not be allowed to pass without a word of protest being uttered.
    I speak from the point of view of one who is concerned with small local

    1199
    authorities—small boroughs and also the county councils of two counties, the rateable values of which are not high, and both of which are very scattered areas indeed. I might point out in passing that we are here dealing with the possibility of a reduction in an Exchequer equalisation grant or an Exchequer transitional grant payable to a council by such an amount as the Secretary of State may think just. I hope that as a result of my words of warning there will be no cases such as I am envisaging, but certainly the possibility of such a reduction is not one which any local authority, whether it be a small borough or a county council, in a poor rateable area can regard with equanimity. The two counties which I represent will suffer considerably, for I understand that the grant which one local authority will receive under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, will be reduced from £86,000 to ¢32,000—
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Young): I cannot allow the hon. Member to discuss that matter on this Amendment.
    Mr. McKie: I was aware that you would probably not allow that, Sir Robert, but I am only referring to it by way of illustration of my point that local authorities which are already confronted with serious losses will not view calmly the possibility of these reductions being made at the will of the Minister.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The Amendment relates to the report, and it is that to which the hon. Member should address himself.
    Mr. McKie: I have said that these local authorities will not view with favour the possibility of a report, incorporating the Minister's reasons for reducing grants, coming to this House for affirmative Resolution without a full inquiry being held within the ambit of the local authorities concerned. That is the only point I wish to make. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Scotland has not seen fit to go further than he has done, and I am sure that my fears will be shared by many small local authorities in Scotland. I hope the Joint Under-Secretary will have a word to say about the way in which it is intended to operate the Amendment to which the Committee is being asked to agree.
    Mr. C. Williams: I welcome this Amendment, because when a reduction directly affecting a local authority is made, the House of Commons, who by this Bill are delegating their authority, should be the final court of appeal and should be able to decide on these matters. However, if there are to be many of these reports—and I hope there will not bean additional burden will be laid on the House of Commons to examine them. It is becoming almost impossible for the ordinary Member to have any knowledge whatever of the whole of the reports and orders which he is supposed to examine. It is only right I should point out that we are likely to be overwhelmed with the amount of work involved in these reports. I wish to ask the Minister for one piece of information which will be helpful. On what basis will these reports be made? It is not very useful to have a report unless we can be told the basis of that report.
    The Deputy-Chairman: This is a very simple Amendment. The only question is whether the reduction shall be made until the report is approved in the manner suggested in the Amendment.
    Mr. Williams: Yes—as to whether I approve of the report. It is a very simple matter, but I am not at all sure that I want to have that report.
    The Deputy-Chairman: I must again remind the hon. Member that the whole question is whether the reduction shall be made until the report is approved.
    Mr. Williams: We are being asked to accept the fact that we are to have this report—
    Mr. Bevan: I think that perhaps I can extricate the hon. Member from the awful quagmire into which he has fallen. We have already passed this point half an hour ago on the English part of the Bill. All we are now doing is to propose a consequential Amendment, bringing the law applicable to Scotland into line with the English law. The hon. Member apparently did not notice that at the time. This Amendment is purely consequential upon what we have already done, and brings Scotland into line with what we have already determined for England and Wales.
    Mr. Williams: I have been wondering whether it is consequential. May I thank

    1201
    the Minister for his helpful interruption? I am so glad to find that he knows enough of his Bill to be aware that one Amendment is consequential upon another. I congratulate him most heartily.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: This is a painful story, and I am surprised at the Secretary of State for Scotland sitting dumb before his accusers. I should have thought that even the Secretary of State for Scotland would have been stunned when the Minister of Health said that an alteration of the law of Scotland was consequential upon an alteration which had been made previously to the law of England. The Secretary of State for Scotland, with that delightful naivety which is becoming one of his most surprising features, has said during the passage of the Bill:
    "… we have been able to get through the House of Commons on Second Reading a Bill which might have been made into four separate Bills."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee on Scottish Bills; 10th December, 1947, c. 28.]
    That was the point which he was pleading—namely, that a Scottish Bill was being stitched to an English Bill. It led to the astonishing conclusion that he had then to run like a dog behind the butcher's cart, and put into the Scottish Bill any Amendments which had previously been put into the English Bill. There is no legal compulsion about this, but there is a moral compulsion. The Secretary of State for Scotland is put into the pitiful and humiliating position of having to get up and say that there was a pledge given in the English Committee, and so he has to follow it out here.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not seem to be now discussing the Motion that the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Clause, as amended, Sir Robert; and these are the Amendments. As the Minister of Health told us a few moments ago, the reason for putting in these Amendments is that he gave a pledge in Committee. The Secretary of State for Scotland has to conform and follow suit with regard to the
    1202
    Scottish provisions. It is a shocking, humiliating and very painful episode. I trust there will be no more of this, and I trust that it will not be necessary in future for the Secretary of State to come to the House of Commons, or to a Committee of the whole House, in such circumstances again. The House itself has had to rescue him already. The Scottish portion of the Bill was sent to the Scottish Grand Committee, where it could be considered—
    The Deputy-Chairman: I do not want to interrupt the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I must deter him from this line of argument and remind him of the Motion.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: This is the first time that Part II of the Bill has come up for discussion by hon. Members—
    The Deputy-Chairman: The Question is that the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is going very wide of that Question.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do not wish to divide against the Question that the Clause, as amended, stand part.
    Mr. Woodburn: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is objecting to it.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am objecting to the humiliating procedure under which we are working.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must stick to the the Question before the Committee.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I was answering a challenge by the Minister and the Secretary of State. It was the Secretary of State who interrupted. I said that I was not desirous of dividing against the Clause, and it was the right hon. Gentleman who interrupted. If the Minister of Health wishes to make a speech, I should be glad to give way.
    Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not mentioned the Clause once. He has made no reference at all to the contents of the Clause, but has merely spent time discharging his bile.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is going very wide of the Question that the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am sticking closely to the Question. I say that when it comes to the Secretary of State having to be defended by the Minister of Health for England, we have to come to a pretty pass.
    Mr. Bevan: Obey the Chair.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Certainly. I have the utmost deference for the Chair. I do my best on all occasions never to come into conflict with the Chair. I say that here we have a set of Amendments set down by the Secretary of State for Scotland to be inserted into this Clause—
    Mr. Bevan: We are not discussing the Amendments. I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is now abusing his position, and that he is entirely out of Order. He has been pulled up five times, and yet continues to say the same thing over and over again.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to discuss the Clause as amended, but he has not been doing so up to now.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am most willing to compliment the Minister of Health, not merely on defending the Secretary of State for Scotland, but on giving advice to the Chair. All that I can say is that we are in the presence of a Clause which has been amended by the Secretary of State for Scotland without one word of explanation coming from responsible Scottish Ministers. There have been three Amendments. Surely, when it comes to the Question that the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill, we have a right to speak. I have said what I wanted to say, and I do not wish to add anything to it.
    Mr. McKinlay: As a humble back bencher, and as a Scotsman who has not the advantage of coming into this Committee to represent the Scottish Universities, I do not want to sink to the depths of the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). I think that what has been added to the Clause improves it. I want only to express one regret, that while the Clause gives power to reduce the Exchequer grant, it does not contain power to raise the Exchequer grant if that should be considered necessary. It seems to me that this Clause, when it was
    1204
    before the Scottish Grand Committee, escaped the notice of the intelligentsia; it escaped notice that the Minister could do things by this Clause without affirmative Resolutions of Parliament. If those who were dealing with it in Committee upstairs were wise in deciding that affirmative Resolutions are necessary, I do not think it can be bad, because that provision was inserted into another Part of the Bill. It escaped the notice of the intelligentsia who represent Scotland when the matter was being dealt with by the Scottish Grand Committee.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Has the hon. Gentleman read the minutes of the Scottish Grand Committee?
    Mr. McKinlay: Not only have I read the minutes, but I was present at the meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee. If I were as enthusiastic as some people make themselves out to be about Scottish affairs, I should have devoted more time to the Scottish Grand Committee than to harassing Ministers in charge of the English part of the Bill elsewhere, scoring cheap party points unworthily.
    The Deputy - Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is making the same mistake as was made from the other side of the Committee just now.
    Mr. McKinlay: I seem to have annoyed people whose philosophy is based on the humanities. I am sorry if I have done what I intended to avoid. Will the affirmative Resolutions be submitted to the House of Commons? Will the Secretary of State move them; or will they find their way among the very many documents which lie upon the Table, on which discussion takes place only if the eagle eye of the Opposition sees them? Quite definitely, the Clause as amended, is an improvement on what it was; but I think Scottish Labour Members ought to be rapped on the knuckles for not observing how the Clause stood when it was in Committee. I recommend the Secretary of State to continue to maintain his silence, because—although it is not for me to advise him—he has been deliberately provoked by the other side of the Committee for the purpose of making party capital.
    Mr. McKie: Confining myself strictly to the Motion, may I say that I wish

    1205
    we could have had a little explanation from the Secretary of State about the way in which he proposes to operate the whole of this Clause. I am not dealing especially with the words we have just added, but, on behalf of the local authorities, and especially the small ones, I would say that there are justifiable fears on their part about how they may stand if the Secretary of State operates the Clause in any arbitrary manner. I am very glad that the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) has owned up to his sins of omission, and, indeed, to the sins of omission on the part of the Scottish Socialist Members generally with regard to this whole Clause. I would just enlighten him on one point. In Scottish Grand Committee we occupied sufficient time discussing this question to fill 11 columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT, although I am not aware whether any Socialist Members took part in that discussion. That is all I have to say on that matter.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. McKinlay: Was an Amendment similar to that just accepted moved in Scottish Grand Committee?
    The Deputy-Chairman: I trust the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) will confine himself to the Clause, and will not deal with any other question.
    Mr. McKie: Up to the moment I have been careful to confine myself to the Question before the Committee. I was challenged by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire to answer a question, and I was about to do so. I see from the OFFICIAL REPORT that the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) did move an Amendment substantially in agreement—
    The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot now discuss an Amendment moved in the Scottish Grand Committee.
    Mr. McKie: I was not proposing so to do. I was merely supplying the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire with the information he sought from me.
    Coming strictly to the Question that the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill, surely we are entitled—especially after having had this Amendment added to it, which to be quite generous, goes a long way to meet our case—to know how the Secretary of State for Scotland pro-
    1206
    poses to operate this Clause in the event—I hope the unlikely event—of being compelled to reduce any grants to local authorities, borough or county, be these large or small. As you, Sir Robert, with your great knowledge of local affairs in Scotland will know, that is a matter which most of these authorities, particularly small authorities, watch very closely indeed. Under this Clause as it is now about to leave us, they are not allowed any special protection by way of local inquiry. It is all to be left to the arbitrary judgment of the Minister. I sometimes think that the Secretary of State for Scotland, in particular, is over-burdened with work now; he has many critical judgments to make, and we are not completely satisfied—
    Mr. Medland: Oh, dear!
    Mr. McKie: I am sorry the hon. Member is so tired. He can easily leave the Chamber if he desires. We hope that the Secretary of State will not use these great powers, which we think may be exercised, in some directions, in an arbitrary manner. If he could say something about this, it might go a long way towards relieving any fears held by local authorities in Scotland.
    Mr. Woodburn: I must confess I did not understand the torrent of abuse which came from the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), which, I gather, was addressed to yesterday's Debate and not to this Debate.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Who is out of Order now?
    Mr. Woodburn: In reply to the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie), I would say that the matter is quite simple, for under the Local Government Act the Secretary of State has power to hold an inquiry into any case of hardship such as that mentioned by the hon. Member. That was explained, as he may remember, in Scottish Grand Committee.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 23.—(Provisions as to Health Service Exchequer Grants.)
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I beg to

    1207
    move, in page 15, line 10, at the end, to add:
    "subject to the following modifications, that

    (a) the reference in paragraph (a) of Subsection (1) of that Section to the discharge of their functions by the council shall be construed as a reference to the discharge of their functions under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, by the local health authority; and

    (b) the reference in paragraph (b) of the said Subsection (1) to the expenditure of the council shall be construed as a reference to the expenditure of the local health authority under the said Act."

    This Amendment is a reiteration of an Amendment made earlier to Clause 7.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Lieut-Colonel Elliot: We have made our protest. We do not desire to make it again, but we simply put if on record.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 31.—(Supplemental provisions as to Part II.)
    Amendment made: In page 19, line 44, leave out Subsection (3), and insert:
    "(3) Any reference in any enactment to grants under Part III of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, shall be construed as a reference to grants under this Part of this Act."—[Mr. T. Fraser.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 54.—(Rates in London.)
    Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 34, line 41, after "rates," to insert:
    "and Section fifteen of that Act (which relates to the recovery of arrears of rates from tenants and lodgers)."
    This Amendment fulfils an undertaking which we gave in Committee, and extends to London the powers that have hitherto covered only the Provinces, under Section 15 of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 70.—(Scope of provisions of Part IV as to gross values.)
    Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 41, line 11, to leave out from "Section," to "fifty-nine," in line 13.
    1208
    This Amendment should be taken together with the following Amendments: In Clause 71, page 41, line 19, at the beginning, to insert:
    "Subject to the provisions of this Section;"
    in page 41, line 31, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that the preceding provisions of this Subsection shall not apply to any dwelling-house to which Section seventy-two of the Local Government Act, 1929 (which relates to agricultural dwelling-houses), applies, and references to dwelling-houses in the subsequent provisions of this Part of this Act relating to the ascertainment of gross values by reference to the matters mentioned in this Subsection or either of them do not include references to any dwelling-house to which the said Section seventy-two applies;"
    and in Clause 78, page 48, line 47, after "Section," to insert:
    "or if the dwelling-house is one to which Section seventy-two of the Local Government Act, 5929 (which relates to agricultural dwelling-houses), applies."
    These Amendments all deal with the same topic. As drafted, the Bill leaves agricultural dwelling houses to which Section 72 of the Local Government Act, 1929, applies, to be assessed under the ordinary law, apart from Part IV. That means they will be assessed by reference to current values. These Amendments meet an undertaking given in Committee to secure that these agricultural dwelling houses shall be valued by reference to 1938 values instead of current rental values.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 71.—(Scope of principle that gross value is to be ascertained by 1938 cost.)
    Amendments made: In page 41, line 19, at beginning, insert:
    "Subject to the provisions of this Section."
    In line 31, at end, insert:
    "Provided that the preceding provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any dwelling-house to which Section seventy-two of the Local Government Act, 5929 (which relates to agricultural dwelling-houses), applies, and references to dwelling-houses in the subsequent provisions of this Part of this Act relating to the ascertainment of gross values by reference to the matters mentioned in this subsection or either of them do not include references to any dwelling-house to which the said Section seventy-two applies."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]
    Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 41, line 34, after the first "by," to insert "or by arrangement with."
    This raises a different point, so perhaps I ought to explain it. In Committee we undertook to try to make it absolutely beyond doubt that the definition of local authority post-1918 dwelling houses included houses erected by private builders, and handed over by them to local authorities. That is what this Amendment does.
    Colonel Wheatley: I should like to express our gratitude to the Minister for accepting the arguments we put forward on this Clause. I am quite sure the Amendment has made this Clause very much more clear.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 41, line 37, at the end, to insert:
    "or

    (b) a structure made available under Section one of the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1944, for use by a local authority for the provision of temporary housing accommodation; or

    (c) any other structure of a temporary nature used as a dwelling-house by virtue of any tenancy under or licence from a local authority."

    This Amendment gives effect to a promise made during Committee stage. It provides that the definition of a local authority post-1918 dwelling-house shall be extended to include temporary houses and temporary hutted accommodation.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 72.—(Meaning of "hypothetical 1938 cost of construction.")
    Amendment made: In page 43, line 33, leave out from beginning, to "what," in line 40, and insert:

    "(a) assume that the cost in the year nineteen hundred and thirty-eight of constructing houses or buildings conforming with the specifications included in the statement prepared by the Minister as aforesaid for the area in which the dwelling-house or building in question is situated was in each case that which is determined in relation thereto in the statement; and

    (b) estimate on that assumption."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 74.—(Post-1918 local authority or housing association dwelling-houses, other than flats and maisonettes.)
    Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 45, line 30, to leave out "and a half."
    There was a good deal of discussion in Committee in regard to the figure of 5½ per cent. We were under considerable pressure to reduce it to 5 per cent. The matter has been re-examined, and we think that adjustment might in certain cases be of such an order as to produce difficulties. We have, therefore, decided to meet the views of hon. Members by reducing the figure to 5 per cent.
    Mr. O. Poole: I take this opportunity to point out how amiably we were able to conduct these English affairs, as there was an alliance between the Communist Party and ourselves on this during the Committee stage. I am sure that this will be a great improvement to the Bill, and I thank the Minister on behalf of all concerned.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In line 32, leave out "and a half."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 75.—(Post-1918 local authority or housing association flats or maisonettes.)
    Amendment made: In page 46, line 8, leave out "and a half."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]
    Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 46, line 12, to leave out from second "of," to "the," in line 15, and to insert:
    "the buildings in the locality which consist of or contain post-1918 local authority or housing association dwelling-houses (whether flats or maisonettes or not) comparable to the flats or maisonettes contained in the first-mentioned building."
    This also fulfils an undertaking given in Committee. It was pointed out that the valuation officer ought to be able to take into account comparable local authority, houses as well as flats and maisonettes.
    Mr. O. Poole: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for having proposed this

    1211
    Amendment. It is as a result, I think, of an Amendment I moved in Committee.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 46, line 28, leave out from beginning, to first "the," in line 29, and insert:
    "post-1918 local authority or housing association dwelling houses in the locality (whether flats or maisonettes or not)."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 76.—(Other small post-1918 dwelling-houses, except flats and maisonettes.)
    Amendments made: In page 46, line 42, leave out "and a half."
    In line 44, leave out "and a half."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 46, line 46, to leave out from "no," to "with," in line 1, page 47, and to insert:
    "impediment (whether of a legal nature or not) to the use of the site for the construction thereon of a dwelling house of the same general character and dimensions as the existing dwelling house and."
    This Amendment gives effect to an undertaking given in Committee. An Amendment was moved and it was argued that the matter was not sufficiently clear. The present Amendment makes it clear that the site is available for the construction of a dwelling house of the same, general character and dimensions as the existing dwelling house.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The Amendment certainly clarifies the position. The Minister will agree that this is a complex and difficult matter. The hypothetical house with its hypothetical site will present problems almost as difficult as the hypothetical tenant. We are now narrowing the field of the hypothesis, and the hypothesis means that the house which is being erected thereon is to be the same, or as nearly as can be conceived the same, as the ideal hypothetical structure the Minister has in mind. I cannot feel that the Minister will extricate himself from all the difficulties of the English system by means of these very complicated provisions. I wonder, when we come to the question of the Clause stand-
    1212
    ing part, whether the Minister will be able to clarify the position, because these matters are so very complex. I am sure that if he took the opportunity to give a short survey, it would be very valuable, not merely to Members, but to those outside who look to these debates for the purpose of acquainting themselves with the context of the statutes which they frequently have to interpret. We certainly have no objection to the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 47, line 5, leave out from "provision," to "will," in line 6, and insert: "for that use of the site."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]
    Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    I do not know whether the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) has any special point he wishes to raise on this Clause. He will remember that it was discussed in some detail in Committee and the reports of the Committee are available. We have to consider, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember, not only the local authoritry houses, but the post-1918 houses which lie outside the local authority area. We want to value these houses in accordance with what it would have cost the local authorities to build these houses in 1937–38. It will be recollected that we had to consider the fact that towards the end of 1938, housing costs were already rising. The shadow of the war had already begun to be thrown on the building industry, and housing costs had begun to respond.
    We have to consider these houses in relation to prewar costs. There is the difference, which has been brought out before, that in the case of houses lying outside the local authority sector, small dwelling houses, the contemporary site cost is taken into account, whereas in the case of other local authority houses its actual site cost is taken into account. It was explained in Standing Committee that we had the actual site cost of local authority houses. It would be difficulty to ascertain the site cost of the other houses, and no hardship is involved by taking into consideration the contemporary site cost as distinct from the old site cost.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We are not so happy as the Minister seems to be in thinking that there is no hardship involved in this question of site costs. In the case of local authority sites there is a ceiling which is not present in the case of the private dwellinghouse site. We wondered whether it would not be possible to introduce some election a principle of choice, in the case of the person whose house is being valued under this Clause. We feel that all sorts of rather sharp steps may be created. This matter will be subject to further debate but, speaking from personal experience, I know there is nothing more painful in a Minister's life than to find that a statute which he has passed in all good faith is beginning to bite like an adder.
    A number of hard cases are arising, for which we can find no relief within the four corners of the statutes. We hoped that some of our Amendments on this topic would be selected in Standing Committee, but they were not, and, of course, we make no complaint. I do ask the Minister, however, and the Committee in general, to consider whether we have fully disposed of this ticklish and troublesome question within the four corners of this Clause and succeeding Clauses. On Clause 78, which relates to comparable houses, there is a Government Amendment. There is a far-reaching hypothesis in that Clause. If the Minister could succeed in obtaining within the four corners of his Clause a little elbow room, a little more give, I think it would be to his advantage.
    As our Amendments were not in Order we can only raise these matters in more general terms, but perhaps between now and the time when this Bill reaches another place we might have some conversations about these marginal cases. On one or two occasions in Standing Committee the right hon. Gentleman suggested that we might be able to have conversations about some of these difficult points, but owing to the pressure under which we all live nowadays that has not been possible. I trust that if the matter is discussed in another place it will be possible for the Government not to stand too much on points of privilege. What we want here is a just and easily working system which will not bring sudden and severe changes to people who are not expecting to find themselves affected in that way.
    Mr. Bevan: I do not wish to appear to be discourteous, but our Amendment to this Clause does, in the opinion of those who have had time to examine it carefully, and of the Parliamentary draftsmen, provide considerable additional elbow room and protection for people who might otherwise have been treated more harshly. I hope that the words of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not provoke another place into putting down Amendments on the assumption that we have already, as it were, paved the way for their reception. We think we have gone a considerable way already; we have reached a considerable degree of amity and have made a number of Amendments to meet wishes expressed on both sides of the Committee.
    Commander Galbraith: The Minister has touched on a subject which, in my opinion, is of great importance. He is dealing here with the small post-1918 dwelling houses, and examples have been put to me where great hardship may be caused in these marginal cases. I would, therefore, like the right hon. Gentleman to consider putting this matter even more right than it is now. Take the case of a house with a rateable value of £74, which might well have been let in 1938 at about £100 a year, and which would probably have cost about £3,000. If that house is to be valued under the provisions of this Clause it means that the valuation will be £150, and not £100.
    Mr. Bevan: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not assume that these illustrations are irrefragable. I have found that some of the illustrations given to me are based on a misapprehension of the Bill. If I thought that any great disparities would arise I should be alarmed myself.
    Commander Galbraith: I have been given a number of examples from the South of England, the North, and also from Wales, and in certain aspects they are very alarming. Take, for instance, the small post-1918 dwelling house which had a rateable value of £44 in the current list. That house cost £2,200, so that it is now to be rated at £110.
    Mr. Bevan: No.
    Commander Galbraith: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not contradicting me

    1215
    on that point. It is 5 per cent. on the hypothetical cost in 1938, plus 5 per cent. on the site value for the time being, which works out, in this case, at a gross value of £110 as against a gross value of £55 in the current list. If we compare that with exactly similar houses coming under Clause 78, we find that a house which at present appears at £75 has a gross value, under the Bill, of £95. In the case of the one coming under Clause 76 and the other coming under Clause 78, there is a difference, between the gross value, of £110 as against £95. These are only two examples. I have here a number of them. I think that in dealing with these marginal cases the Minister should look into the matter again. If he had accepted the Amendments which we had down but which have not been called, he would have found a means of getting out of the whole of this difficulty.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 77.—(Adjustment for adaptations for business purposes.)
    Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 47, line 21, after "value," to insert: "for the time being."
    This is a point of particular interest to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). I think that our drafting is all right, but to make it quite clear, the words "for the time being" are being put to make it possible in the assessment of current values for the valuer or valuation officers to make proposals for adjustment when the values vary.
    Mr. Turton: I would have preferred my own words "at the time of valuation," but if the Minister is satisfied that these words convey that meaning, I express my gratitude.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 78.—(Gross value of other dwelling-houses.)
    Amendment made: In page 48, line 47, after "section," insert:
    "or if the dwelling-house is one to which Section seventy-two of the Local Government Act, 1929 (which relates to agricultural dwelling-houses), applies."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    6.0 p.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: This Clause shows the extent to which one can go with the hypothetical house and the hypothetical site when the hypothesis goes so far on one occasion as to suggest that we must say:
    "The gross value thereof shall be estimated as if this Part of this Act had not been passed,"
    That is to say, we are hypothecating ourselves out of existence. I think that shows the length to which we have to go in our quest of the hypothetical house, and, still more, when we have to assume that this Act has not been passed and we are back to the halcyon years of 1938, instead of the level of values on which we are at present. I think that applying these hypotheses one upon another, as the Minister admitted during the Committee stage, shows the length to which we have to go.
    We welcome this Amendment, but it does not remove in our view the fundamental unreality on which so much of this Part of the Bill is based, and which we fear will finally drive the Minister back to the old basis of the tenant which, after all, served in this country for a very long time and which he himself admitted, as a member of a committee, he had been able to operate in a rule of thumb manner by making a set of assessments no greater than those set down here—and able to operate them with singular satisfaction to all concerned. I think that he, having been able to work the old mechanism in that way, is leaving for his successors on local authorities a series of problems no less difficult than those with which he was faced when operating local government.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 79.—(Continuation of s. 2 of Rating and Valuation Act, 1928.)
    Amendment made: In page 49, line 14, at beginning, insert:
    "Subject to the provisions of this Section." —[Mr. J. Edwards.]
    Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 49, line 23, at the end, to add:

    "(2) The Minister may by order provide that, in the case of hereditaments of such classes as may be specified in the order, being

    1217
    bereditaments consisting of houses or buildings without land other than gardens, the deduction or maximum deduction to be made from the gross annual value for the purpose of arriving at the net annual value shall, instead of being ascertained by reference to Part I of the Second Schedule to the Rating and Valuation act, 1925, or by reference to the Third Schedule to the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, as the case may be, be such as may be specified in the order in relation to those classes respectively.

    (3) An order under the last preceding Subsection may be revoked or varied by a subsequent order of the Minister.

    (4) Before any order is made under Subsection (2) or Subsection (3) of this Section, a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament, and the order shall not be made until approved by resolution of each House."

    This Amendment fulfils a promise given in Committee. It would enable the Minister by order—an order requiring the approval of both Houses—to vary the statutory deductions which have to be made in gross value in order to arrive at rateable value. These are at present set out in the Rating and Valuation Acts, 1925 and 1928. The original need of these deductions was to make allowance for the cost of repairs, but they have tended to be used as a means of reducing the rateable value of the smaller house as compared with the larger house. We hope that the formula laid down in the Bill for the valuation of small dwelling houses will produce equitable results and remove any need for the second device to be used. It was argued in Committee that the present deductions did not fairly take into account the present cost of repairs. I think that is debatable, because the statutory deductions range from 40 per cent. for the smaller houses to 16⅔ per cent. for the larger.
    It seems reasonable to say that the cost of repairs has not yet overtaken the substantial margin which the present deductions allow, taking into account other factors, in producing equitable rateable values for dwelling houses as compared with other property and of small dwelling houses as compared with larger. We agree that this balance will change from time to time, and it may be that at any time the cost of repairs will make it necessary to review these deductions. It may be necessary to deal with one class of house differently from another. If it became evident that the cost of repairs say for the older house were substantially greater than that for the newer house, it seems to my right hon. Friend that this
    1218
    would be a flexible method of dealing with the matter and would meet the views expressed in Committee if these powers were taken as now proposed in the Amendment, it being borne in mind that the changes that the Minister may propose to make at any time would be subject to affirmative resolutions of both Houses of Parliament.
    Mr. O. Poole: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after "such," to insert "greater deduction."
    As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, the Minister listened with care to the arguments put forward not only from this side of the Committee but also by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin). The Amendment he has put down substantially covers the points raised then. I understand that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) will have some remarks to make about the Clause as a whole, and I, therefore, wish to confine myself to the Amendment in the name of myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends. The point of my Amendment is quite simple. While it is right that the Minister should have power to reduce by regulation the burdens on the ratepayers, we do not think that he should have the same power of increasing them. We think that the statutory deductions should represent the maximum burden, which cannot be increased, except by legislation. I hope that I have been able to make my point clear. The words in our Amendment would meet that point if they were accepted by the Committee.
    Mr. Bevan: I am rather astonished by hon. Members opposite on this particular matter. I thought I had gone all the way to meet their wishes, because they will remember that when this was discussed in Committee, the view was expressed that the statutory allowance might not be sufficient to meet the increased cost of repairs. I was able to convince the Committee at the time—at least I hope I was—that the allowances were so generous that even a very considerable increase in the cost of repairs would not swallow them up. However, I conceded the point that we are here dealing with a situation which changes quite rapidly, and which might change

    1219
    even more than has occurred in the immediate past, and that a very much more flexible instrument was necessary to adjust the actual allowances to the prices and the cost of building materials, building labour, and repair costs in general.
    Therefore, I promised—I think with the universal support of the Committee—that I would take power on the Report stage or on Recommittal to make regulations to vary the allowances. We cannot take the power to vary them only one way; the idea is to try to adjust the allowances to the real situation whether the costs are greater or less. This is done by affirmative Resolution of the House of Commons, and a case has got to be made out for it. Therefore, it would be undesirable for the regulations only to work one way. I hope hon. Members opposite will not press this point, because we have gone a considerable way to meet them.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I want to make one or two observations in regard to the proposed Amendment from perhaps a rather wider standpoint than those which it was proper for my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. O. Poole) to make in accordance with the more limited terms of his own Amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to this Amendment being put on the Order Paper in accordance with a promise made in Standing Committee. As he will appreciate, the matter arose somewhat differently. It arose out of an Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin), and it was another instance of that happy harmony that can sometimes exist between the Communists and the Conservatives in the domestic affairs of this country, because it is a fact that people who stand on the extreme Left often take a very Right-wing point of view on that very limited range of subjects of which they have any real knowledge. That was the origin of the matter in the Standing Committee.
    The hon. Member for Mile End moved his Amendment, but, of course, it had nothing to do with giving the Minister this power of regulation and variation. In his Amendment the hon. Member for Mile End proposed certain definite and specific increases in the prescribed deductions for
    1220
    houses of a gross annual value up to £30 in the country as a whole and up to £40 in London. This proposal commended itself to the good sense of many Members of the Committee irrespective of party affiliations, because of the possibility of the increase of the rateable value of these houses by reason of this current legislation, and also by reason of the certainty that the cost of repairs is rising compared with 1928, which was the date when present rates were fixed.
    6.15 p.m.
    The proposal put forward by the hon. Member for Mile End was that there should be specific and definite increases in the deductions allowed under the Second Schedule to the 1928 Act. The Minister has not done that. What he does in this Amendment is to take power by Ministerial order to vary at large the deductions prescribed in the Second Schedule to the 1928 Act. That is to say, by Ministerial order, after the approval of the House is conveyed in an affirmative Resolution, he is able to substitute a different set of figures, be it higher or lower, for the prescribed set of deductions in the Second Schedule. He can do that as often as he pleases. He can revoke and vary them without any other restraint upon him than the necessity of having an affirmative Resolution of the House. Those who have experience of these affairs will know how much precise, practical importance to place upon that restraint.
    The consequence of this is that the Minister is, by his voluntary action, importing a degree of imprecision and uncertainty into the calculation of the rateable value. The whole tenor of the Minister's approach to the question of valuation in this Bill has been that the old method of valuation was too vague and too uncertain. He has made great fun of the idea of the hypothetical tenant element in the ascertainment of gross value, but what I suggest to the Committee is that under the existing law the gross value is ascertained, as the Committee knows, in accordance with Section 68 of the 1925 Act, and from that gross value there falls to be deducted the perfectly specific deductions prescribed in the Second Schedule to the 1928 Act. The Minister who has attacked uncertainty, proposes himself by this Amendment to introduce a new element of uncertainty,

    1221
    because, instead of having specific figures for deduction prescribed in the Bill, he has got this wide general power to substitute any figures which he may desire to add. In my view, that is certainly introducing a hypothetical and fugitive element into the ascertainment of rateable value which was not present before.
    It is true that there may be a necessity to vary those figures, but the Minister will recollect that the variation of the statutory figures took place only three years after the 1925 Act had come into operation. The first set of figures was prescribed in the Second Schedule to the 1925 Act. The second set of figures was prescribed in the Second Schedule of the 1928 Act to take their place. The first set of figures, in other words, lasted three years and the second set has lasted since then. That being so, it does not seem to me to be a convincing reason why an appropriate set of figues should not be given statutory sanction now in order to be a clear guide to the business of the ascertainment of rateable value.
    Instead of that, the Minister has deserted his general position in regard to this Bill, and is voluntarily importing this unnecessary and arbitrary method of arriving at deductions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry has pointed out, they may be larger or smaller than the deductions which are prescribed. I cannot think that this is a satisfactory way of meeting the very proper point that was brought out in the proceedings of the Standing Committee. There is a very strong case for increasing these deductions today, by reason of the increased cost of repairs. That could have been done more simply and with greater certainty, without giving the Minister this arbitrary and almost unbridled power of revocation and variation which it is proposed in the Amendment to give him.
    Mr. Turton: While there is a great deal in what my hon. Friend has said, I think the Amendment is an improvement upon the Bill as it was previously drafted. The Minister may well consider, on future stages and in another place, whether to adopt the suggestions made by my hon. Friend. I rise to put two points. At an earlier stage the Minister gave an undertaking that between the Committee stage and the Report stage he would confer with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and with the Inland Revenue Department
    1222
    to see whether the time had not arrived for a general revision of the deduction for repairs in rateable value and in Schedule A assessments. I listened very carefully to what the Parliamentary Secretary said, but I found no reference to that pledge. No doubt the Minister will tell us later about his conversations, so far as it is possible for him to disclose them.
    What alarmed me in the speech which we heard a moment or two ago from the Parliamentary Secretary was his statement that, in his considered view, the cost of repairs had not risen higher than the deduction. I should have thought it was clear to anybody in a position of responsibility, as he is, with access to the Treasury and the Inland Revenue Department, that the cost of repairs to cottage property is now very much higher than the statutory deduction. Repair and maintenance costs have gone up by 100 per cent. If the 1928 figure was generous, a rise of 100 per cent, can well make the present deduction insufficient. I hope that the Government will look at the matter in a sympathetic way. In small cottage property, the man concerned has to pay most of his rent for repairs and then he has an increased burden of rates. That is very unjust and unfair. There is no reason why he should be rated on a part of the rent that has actually gone in the repair of his dwellinghouse.
    Mr. Bevan: I will deal with that point in a moment.
    Mr. Turton: In certain classes of property it is true there is a hypothetical cost of erection, but the Minister must not forget that we are dealing with pre-1918 property, where the problem of repairs is insuperable, especially if the owner has not bothered to recondition the property, in view of the report of the Hobhouse Committee. That is a digression which I do not want to pursue now. I hope that the Minister will address himself, first to the conversations he has had with the Inland Revenue Department, and secondly to the evidence that the cost of repairs is now well over the statutory deduction.
    Mr. Bevan: I must once more repeat my disappointment that the Amendment has not been received with more cordiality. When I made the suggestion in the Committee, it was received with

    1223
    general approval. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) was there. I do not think he was, on that occasion.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I was in the Committee. I did not express my approval of the Minister's promise because, even at that stage, it seemed to me that if it were to be done by regulation it might be unsatisfactory. I reserved to myself the right to study the Amendment and to express my opinions in the House.
    Mr. Bevan: I always assume when dissent is not shown that assent is given. Approval was fairly general in the Committee. The hon. Member did not dissociate himself from the observation made by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), who enthusiastically accepted the suggestion. If the hon. Member will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton at once jumped up and said that he thought it was a good proposition. I do not want to underline the fact that there is a difference of opinion between hon. Members opposite. I have not always found myself in full accord with Members of my own party. I do not think it is necessary to rub that in.
    Hon. Members are making a little mistake about this matter. Leaving aside the pre-1918 houses, the houses built between the war years, except for the very large properties, are not to be rated any longer upon the basis of their rents. There is no connection between rateable value and the owner or the tenant or the rent. Rateable value will be based upon the cost of construction of local authority houses.
    May I say, in passing, that here was the mistake that the advisers of hon. Gentlemen opposite made when they talked about valuation of a £2,200 house. It will not be 5 per cent. of that house. Assume that the house is in the general category of property to which I have referred. Their calculations were all out. I am not quite sure whether the allowances are logical. If we value a house in relation to the cost of construction or, in the case of the small, privately-owned dwelling, in relation to a hypothetical cost of constructing that house by the local authority in 1937 or
    1224
    1938, and if we have a 10 per cent. allowance, we would take that 10 per cent. gross in fixing the gross figure.
    In the case of the old valuations, where the valuations vary from category to category and from house to house on the basis of what the hypothetical tenant would pay, the valuations being indeterminate, it was necessary to have an allowance. If we have a figure or a category of property, 10 per cent. is irrelevant, but we should put in the 10 per cent. in order to create a figure which was appropriate. Fears are being expressed which are entirely unjustified. I agree with the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton that that proportion does not apply to the pre-1918 house. There we have a valuation based upon rental. These houses are, in the main, rented dwellings.
    I have discussed this matter. I have carried out my promise. The conversations cannot have been protracted or in great detail, but I am still assured that our general position was right and that there has been no such increase in the cost of repairs as to absorb the very generous statutory allowances which exist. The advantage of this procedure is that we can now make a much more detailed investigation, and if it is found that these allowances are not sufficient, the power to make an order enables us to adjust the Statute to the realities. The hon. Member for Hertford is a little apprehensive when he says that this introduces an element of unpredictability. We shall not change these allowances from month to month or from year to year.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: That could be done.
    Mr. Bevan: This House would not allow the Minister to do it. We could not change these allowances as frequently as that. The case would have to be made out, and if the case were made out, hon. Members opposite would be the first to demand an increase in the allowances. It would therefore depend upon the actual facts at that time, so there is no element of unpredictability, and insofar as it exists, for all practical importance it would exist only for the pre-1918 houses. I therefore hope that the Committee will allow me to have the Amendment, which

    1225
    is, after all, in discharge of a promise which I gave.
    General Sir George Jeffreys: I would assure the Minister, if he needs any such assurance, that there is no disagreement between hon. Gentlemen on this side of the Committee. We think that the Amendment is an undoubted improvement, and to that extent we welcome it, but we think it would have been a still greater improvement if the words proposed by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. O. Poole) could have been included. We also feel that it may have been unnecessary to include those words because there is certainly no sign of any reduction in the cost of repairs and maintenance. The cost of building and construction goes up and up and the cost of repairs and maintenance goes up and up with it, and it is very unlikely that there will be a turn the other way within any foreseeable time. While in theory the Minister's Amendment allows for a reduction in the cost of repairs, that reduction is very unlikely to come into effect.
    One other thing which I must say is that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) as to the desirability of these allowances for repairs and maintenance being brought into line in respect of both rating and taxation valuations. One of the advantages of this Bill should be that in that way the valuations will be in the hands of the Inland Revenue. If they can only bring their valuation for taxation purposes into line with the valuation for rating, which they ought to do, it will very greatly improve the whole system of rating and taxation.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think we are not in any way at variance on the matter. If the Minister will look at the records of the Committee he will see that he suggested that the matter should be adjusted by regulation. That suggestion was received with guarded assent on my part and with a greater degree of enthusiasm by two hon. Members. The Minister rather justifies our criticism because In Committee, after giving an assurance, he said:
    "I ask that I should not be thought to be pledging myself to an alteration of these figures."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 29th January, 1948, C. 410.]
    He has just said that even after the consultations which he has had—for which
    1226
    we are grateful—with the Inland Revenue, in pursuance of his pledge at the time, he still thinks these allowances are considerably above what are necessary. That does not seem to agree with the experience which most of us have had in our own private lives, and that is the point at which we find ourselves still a little dubious. I do not say that we are looking the gift horse in the mouth but we are wondering whether a certain amount of teeth scaling and burnishing would be a good thing for it. The fact is that the cost of repairs to small property is quite out of scale with what it was some time ago.
    When the Minister first takes power to do this and then hedges his point around as strongly as he has done both on the Committee stage and now, we are bound to say that it introduces, as the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) said, an element of unpredictability into it. We hope that the Minister will, when scrutinising these figures, also—if I may use a phrase from another aspect of the law—empanel a jury of matrons to consider the matter. I am sure that the Minister will be told by any woman who has had to do with small running repairs and getting tradesmen's bills settled that the views of the Inland Revenue do not at all coincide with the experience of the ordinary man.
    Proposed words there added.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 83.—(Railway or canal heredita- ments partly used for other purposes.)
    Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 51, line 23, to leave out "reduced."
    This Amendment and the two following Amendments are of a drafting nature and are put down to meet points raised by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. O. Poole).
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 51, line 25, leave out "non-rateable." and insert "those other."
    In line 29, leave out "the purposes which are not non-rateable," and insert "those other."—[Mr. Bevan.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 85.—(Commencement of provi- sions as to railway or canal hereditaments and transitional provisions.)
    Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 53, line 42, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that this Subsection shall have effect subject to the provisions of the Section (Hereditaments shown as railway hereditaments, &c., but not in fact occupied by the British Transport Commission) of this Act."
    This and the following Amendment are drafting Amendments leading up to a new Clause on which it would probably be more convenient to take the discussion.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 55, line to, at end, insert:
    "or
    (c) prejudice the operation of the Section (Hereditaments shown as railway hereditaments, &c., but not in fact occupied by the British Transport Commission) of this Act."
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 91.—(Amount of payments by British Electricity Authority.)
    Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 59, line 24, to leave out "electricity sales,' and to insert:
    "the amount of electricity supplied."
    There seemed to be some alarm during the Standing Committee proceedings that electricity might be given away and might not be accounted for. The Amendment alters the words, and a number of consequential Amendments will follow.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 93.—(Adjustments for changes in electricity sales.)
    Amendment made:
    In page 60, line 34, leave out "electricity sales," and insert "the amount of electricity supplied."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 94.—(Amount of payments by Hydro-Electric Board.)
    Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 61, line 46, to leave out "electricity sales," and to insert "the amount of electricity supplied."
    This is a drafting Amendment.
    Commander Galbraith: There is a little more than drafting in these words. Is it not coming back to what we had before, to bring the Scottish provisions into line with those which have just been moved by the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Woodburn: This and the next seven Amendments are consequential on what has been done, but they are drafting in the sense that they are making it clear and bringing it into line.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Consequential Amendments made.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 100.—(Temporary grants by county councils to county district councils, parish councils, etc., in certain cases.)
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, in page 66, line 39, to leave out "nine," and to insert "fourteen."
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Bowles): Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman propose to discuss his next Amendment at the same time?
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Yes, Mr. Bowles, I should be glad to do so if it is convenient to the Committee.
    Our view is that this transition on the basis of rating, which is implied by taking the railway and electrical hereditaments out of the valuation list, is at least as profound for the authorities affected as was the effective derating in 1929. A 15-year transitional period was adopted in the 1929 Act. These great changes are removing properties from the purview of the local authorities, very large blocks of property indeed, which have been for many years the subject of large revenues to local authorities. It seems odd that the period for which the transition is allowed should be so much shorter than the period allowed in the Act of 1929, for which I myself had a certain responsibility. The Minister has explained that, first, the position of the Government as a ratepayer will effectively cushion any sudden shocks there may be and, secondly, that the views of the Government with regard to the payments which are to be made to the local authorities

    1229
    will be so generous that none need fear anything. All we can say is that the local authorities do not share those rather roseate views, and I would like to know whether the Minister still stands as stubbornly as he did on the period he has here inserted in the Statute.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. Bevan: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is usually fairly exact in his use of the English language and I was rather shocked at hearing a Minister described as stubborn who has already agreed to a 100 per cent. increase in time. The time in the original Bill was five years; I have now agreed to put in 10; the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tries to push me to 14. That is quite unreasonable and, when he talks about local authorities, he must speak about the local authorities making the payment as well as the local authorities receiving the payment. I can assure him there is not anything like the same enthusiasm on the part of authorities making the payment as on the part of those receiving it.
    The situation is that there are certain county districts in which there are large undertakings such as power stations. Those undertakings will now make their contribution to the local rate in an entirely different and in a much tidier fashion than in the past. A county district was happy enough to have a power station there because its own rateable value was inflated enormously by that fact—purely fortuitous—although in most cases the local authority gave little or no contribution whatever to the power station, but the consumers of electricity in other parts of the country were making their contribution to the revenues of that local authority.
    The result was that in many cases, owing to the inflated rateable value, the rate poundage was very low. Naturally, it follows that, when you take this power station out of a local rating roll, that county district will be affected, but it will be benefited in two different ways. It is a most happy coincidence that the county districts so affected all happen to have been in the areas attracting grant under the equalisation of grants scheme. Therefore, where the rateable value is reduced as a consequence of these large undertakings now being taken away from the local valuation list, the average rateable value per head of that area is reduced and
    1230
    a larger proportion of equalisation grant is attracted. Therefore, that county district will receive some benefit by way of the increase in equalisation grant and the reduction of the county precept. Of course, it follows in some cases that the amount of loss far outweighs the benefit—
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Bevan: —but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman shakes his head dolefully about these poor authorities when all that is really happening is that they are now being called upon to bear the same burdens as their brothers. Far from having been cruelly treated, they have been treated lavishly for years at the expense of other authorities, and all that is happening to them now is that they are being invited to accept exactly the same, no more, responsibility than their brothers. However, because it is always unpleasant to have to accept all your responsibilities at once, especially if you have been so nurtured as not to be able to undertake them at once, it is necessary to ease the burden, and so it is being done in the following way.
    Where the difference is more than twopence the county can make the contribution to that county district, expiring over a period of 10 years, so that at the end of that 10 years that county district is put in the same position as the other county districts. They will all be county districts which are poorer than the districts to which they are making the contribution, because in the very nature of things the county districts which will have benefited will have had a very much lower rate poundage. The proposition is that for 14 years those poor authorities should continue to make a contribution to authorities better off than themselves. That is a proposition which has only to be stated to be shown to be absolutely untenable. We have made a provision which is generous and which the local authorities concerned have willingly accepted. It would be rather unwise to add to their burdens and increase the period. I think we have met all the claims reasonably made against us.
    Sir John Mellor: I am sorry that the Minister is not going to meet us on this point, because a number of districts are going to suffer very severely indeed—
    Mr. Bevan: Will the hon. Member explain how they will suffer?
    Sir J. Mellor: If the Minister will allow me, I am proceeding to explain, as I have explained, with the assistance of a deputation from a rural district council, to his Parliamentary Secretary, who gave us his very close attention for a considerable time. This is going to hit such districts extremely hard. The Minister has held them out as having lived in luxury for a long time in the enjoyment of rateable value from power stations and similar undertakings. Whether there be any truth in that proposition or not, and I do not think there is, their position is suddenly to be altered. They have entered into capital commitments on the basis of the position as it existed before this Bill was introduced. I think they were entitled to assume that their resources in rateable value would remain constant for the duration of those capital commitments. They are faced with capital commitments, but at the same time their resources are being very seriously depleted. The right hon. Gentleman has contended that they enjoyed a rateable value to which they were not entitled and that these power stations really cost them nothing.
    These power stations cost them a great deal in spoliation of their amenities. Large areas have been sterilised as a result of the existence of these undertakings. That sterilisation will remain in perpetuity, so far as I can see. Yet those power stations will be wiped out of the valuation list altogether, and will be in no way reflected in the valuation lists of the future. What are those districts to get by way of compensation? The British Electricity Authority is to pay into a pool, which is to be divided evenly among rating authorities throughout the country. It is going to be divided evenly according to their rateable value. Those which have power stations within their boundaries will get no more out of the pool than those which have not. The grants provided under Clause 100 may be adequate in the first year, but they diminish to zero at the end of 10 years and that will result in a very heavy loss during a period in which the councils, in my submission, will not be in a position to bear it. They will still have the burden of their capital commitments entered into when they had no reason to foresee this radical change in the rating of electricity undertakings.
    1232
    In future local authorities will be extremely reluctant to have new power stations constructed within their boundaries, because an authority with a power station will get no financial compensation in respect of it, whereas another exactly similar authority nearby without a power station will be in the same financial position, but will not suffer any spoliation of its amenities. I submit that that spoliation is very real. In a county district in my constituency, the Meriden Rural District, there is the Hams Hall power station, belonging to Birmingham Corporation. It is the biggest power station in England and altogether takes up about 1,000 acres. That acreage will remain sterilised and virtually no rateable value will be derived from it.
    I think the Minister dismissed our proposition much too lightly. The fact that a five-year period was originally in the Bill means nothing at all, as that was any guess. The fact that he has been willing to extend it to 10 years shows that he realises that there is substance in our argument. I feel we should have some good reason given why this should be to and not 15. I should have argued in favour of 20 years. I say that 10 is not nearly enough. The rural district which I have mentioned, as a result of Part V of this Bill, will lose 34 per cent. of its rateable value. One of the parishes, the parish of Curdworth, will lose 85 per cent. of its rateable value and another parish, Lea Marston, will lose 76 per cent. as a result of the elimination of Hams Hall power station from the valuation list.
    I have been a little surprised, especially having regard to the great amount of attention which the Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to give to the representations we made to him on behalf of Meriden Rural District Council when he received a deputation, that the Ministry have not made more careful inquiries to find out to what extent and how widely district councils are likely to be affected by Part V of the Bill. On 17th December I asked a Question of the Minister:
    "if he will identify those local authorities in whose areas transport and electricity undertakings contribute more than 20 per cent. of the rateable value."
    The Minister answered:
    "No. I could not obtain this information without detailed inquiries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1947; Vol. 445, c. 356.]

    1233
    It seems to me singularly strange that, when admittedly a number of authorities are going to be seriously prejudiced by a provision in the Bill, the Ministry should have no information whatever as to how many authorities are going to be affected and to what extent. Twenty per cent. of one's rateable value is a large slice to lose. The local authority with which I am particularly concerned, the Meriden Rural District Council, will, as I pointed out, lose 34 per cent. of its rateable value as a result of Part V of this Bill.
    7.0 p.m.
    This is a serious matter. Therefore, for the Minister to dismiss this Amendment, saying "I put down five years, I have extended it to 10 years; why on earth do you want to ask for 15 years?" is not a sufficient argument against this Amendment. We should have some figures, we should have a careful examination of how this will affect a number of local authorities in this country. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies we shall get a detailed reply, because I know that he is fully seized of the importance of this matter, and that we shall get a more conciliatory answer than the Minister gave when he spoke.
    It is a most invidious step to wipe out of the valuation list a great structure which represents a large part of the rateable value, and to put nothing permanent in its place, except a share of the pool which is to be distributed, not in accordance with the original rateable value but in accordance with the residual rateable value. That will leave these authorities in a bad position. Not only do they lose that rateable value but their share of the pool is diminished by virtue of the loss of that rateable value, so they are to be left in a very weak position indeed. I hope that we shall have from the Parliamentary Secretary a carefully reasoned answer to the proposition which we have put forward. I submit that at least the grants from the county councils should be extended over a period of 15 years.
    Sir Peter Bennett: I wish to support the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor). The City of Birmingham has been mentioned, but though I represent one of its Divisions this matter has nothing whatever to do
    1234
    with the city, and I speak because I happen to live in the constituency to which my hon. Friend has referred. I can hardly go out for a walk in the district without seeing that power station, so it is present in my mind all the time. I know from conversations in the district how seriously this matter is considered there. I listened to the Minister's reply. It was rather cavalier of him to say, "They have had the benefit all these years, and they should be satisfied with that." That is all very well, but when a local authority has had a certain income which it has regarded as a permanency, and has made its arrangements on that basis, it is not easy to be told, "Forget that. You have to find some other way of making up your income." In these days a rural district situated as Meriden is finds it almost impossible to attract anything else of a similar nature. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, who knows the story and has seen a deputation and let them go away thinking, as usual, that careful consideration would be given to what they had said, will be able to say something which will reassure such authorities.
    Colonel Wheatley: I, too, would like to support my hon. Friend. It is all very well for the Minister to say that those authorities which have these power stations in their area have done very well for many years. They have also had great expenditure on account of those power stations. Very often their presence has meant the provision and the keeping up of new roads, the spending of more money on education because the children of the workers at those power stations have to be educated, and a greater expense in the way of health services. The Minister cannot have looked at this matter clearly if he assumes that the presence of a power station in a locality is all gain and no loss.
    It is a point which is keenly felt. It has been suggested that these authorities should still have these power stations included in their rateable value, that that rateable value should be deducted from the global sum and that they should be allowed to keep the rates which they have been receiving for so many years in respect of these power stations. In that way their share of the global sum would be lessened and their neighbours who now, according to the Minister, are paying for what these authorities have been having

    1235
    all these years, would have their position evened up by those authorities not receiving so much of the global sum. I hope that the Minister will look into this matter again. It is felt keenly not only by the actual villages or towns where these power stations are: the county councils also support these areas in their protest against this method of dealing with the rates of these power stations. The Minister should take into consideration the fact that it is not only the areas themselves, but the county councils which are also affected in this way.
    Mr. J. Edwards: I am sorry that it is quite impossible for us to accept this Amendment. Perhaps I may be permitted to give a few additional reasons why we cannot do so. First, we have reached the conclusion that as a matter of principle from which we cannot depart the moneys that are paid into the pool covering the amount formerly paid in rates shall be distributed over the country in accordance with rateable value. We have, therefore, been left with the problem of deciding how long local authorities which are adversely affected by this provision in isolation ought to be given to turn round. We began by saying that the period should be five years. I have now received some six or seven deputations from local authorities which are affected by this proposal. Some of them came almost as soon as the Bill had been produced and was publicly known. It was as a result of our careful reconsideration of the matter that we came to the conclusion that it would be fair to double the time we gave to the authorities to turn round.
    Later it seemed to us that there might still be an odd case for which we could not legislate and we put down in Committee a new Clause, which is now Clause 121, under which it would be quite possible for the county council to come to the aid of any authority which really had not been able to adjust itself to its new circumstances over the 10 years for which the grant will run. It would be permissible, under that new Clause, for the county council to come to the aid of a district council. All the cases I have seen, and such knowledge as I have of the circumstances, lead me to conclude that the district councils that are affected insist
    1236
    that they must take this part of the Bill in isolation from the rest. There are other parts of the Bill of which local authorities can say, "Taking this alone we are worse off," but we have to consider the overall effects of the Bill on local authorities.
    I received a deputation this morning from an authority which was losing one-third of its rateable value. They insisted on telling me of their sufferings and their losses. They said they would lose something of the order of a 3s. 10d. rate. It was clear, from the estimates that we had of the overall position, that even when the 10-year grants had come to an end, that particular authority, all other things being equal, would be better off to the extent of something like an 8s. rate. I do not believe that we can find cases of hardship in any absolute sense. I think that such hardship as is said to exist is comparative hardship, in the sense that people say: "We are not getting as much out of this as other people are, and if we could retain this rateable value we should be better off." I would ask hon. Members to consider this from the point of view of the impact of the whole Bill. They should consider, also, that we have doubled the period which we are giving for local authorities to turn round, and, in addition, the effect of Clause 121, which will enable county councils to help in any genuine difficulty that may arise.
    Sir J. Mellor: The Parliamentary Secretary states that a deputation came to him and said that they would lose 30 per cent. of their rateable value, and he says in fact that they would appear to be better off. The point, surely, is that they were worse off as compared with another authority—
    Mr. Edwards: Not so well off as the other authority.
    Sir J. Mellor: —which did not happen to have an electricity undertaking or a railway within its boundaries. I assume that what he means it that, as a result of the general transfer of liability from the ratepayer to the taxpayer, in the net and ultimate result their poundage rate may not be increased. Surely he would agree that, compared with a neighbouring authority which had not a power station, it would be true to say that they were substantially worse off.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We have had an interesting discussion, but I fear we shall not be able to reach agreement on this point. Some of the points are, in fact, inherent in the solution which the Minister has chosen in the Bill. The question of pooled resources and pooled payment is an example. We shall never get fully away from that. The real difficulty is that both the Minister and the junior Minister have explained too much. The Minister has explained so convincingly why it ought not to be a 15-year period that we begin to wonder why he made it 10 years, instead of five. He explained so convincingly why it would be to the
    advantage of everybody for electricity to be given a full payment, in lieu, that we wonder why, in the Gas Bill, he has so carefully provided that payment should not be made in this way at all, but that the rate should fall on the gas undertakings just as before. On this point we are, I am afraid, at the parting of the ways. We on this side of the Committee cannot feel ourselves convinced by the arguments which the Minister has adduced.
    Question put, "That the word 'nine' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 279; Noes, 114.

    Division No. 82.]

    AYES.

    [7.15 p.m.

    Acland, Sir R

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    House, G

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

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

    Hoy, J.

    Alexander, Rt Hon A. V

    Davies, S O. (Merthyr)

    Hudson, J H (Ealing, W)

    Alpass, J H

    Deer, G.

    Hughes, Emrys (S Ayr)

    Anderson, F (Whitehaven)

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Attewell, H. C

    Delargy, H. J

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

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs B

    Dobbie, W.

    Hynd, H (Hackney, C.)

    Bacon, Miss A

    Dodds, N. N.

    Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

    Baird, J.

    Donovan, T

    Irving, W J. (Tottenham, N.)

    Balfour, A.

    Driberg, T E. N.

    Isaacs, Rt Hon. G. A

    Barnes, Rt. Hon A J

    Dumpleton, C W

    Jay. D. P. T

    Barstow, P G.

    Durbin, E F M

    Jeger, G (Winchester)

    Barton, C

    Ede, Rt Hon J. C.

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

    Battley, J. R.

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

    Jones, D T (Hartlepools)

    Bechervaise, A. E

    Edwards, John (Blackburn)

    Jones, J. H (Bolton)

    Benson, G

    Edwards, N (Caerphilly)

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    Beswick, F

    Evans, A (Islington, W.)

    Keenan, W.

    Bevan, Rt Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)

    Evans, E (Lowestoft)

    Kenyon, C

    Bing G. H C

    Evans, John (Ogmore)

    King, E M

    Binns, J

    Evans, S N. (Wednesbury)

    Kinley, J

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Ewart, R.

    Lang, G

    Blyton, W. R.

    Fairhurst, F.

    Lawson, Rt Hon J. J

    Beardman, H

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

    Lee, Miss J (Cannock)

    Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

    Foot, M M.

    Leonard, W.

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

    Forman, J. C

    Leslie, J R.

    Braddock, T (Mitcham)

    Fraser, T (Hamilton)

    Levy, B W

    Brook, D (Halifax)

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    Lewis, A. W J (Upton)

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    Lewis, T (Southampton)

    Brown, George (Belper)

    George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Lindgren, G. S

    Brown, T J. (Ince)

    Gibbins, J

    Lipson, D. L.

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

    Gibson, C W

    Longden, F.

    Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G.

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Lyne, A. W.

    Burke. W. A.

    Gooch, E. G.

    McAdam, W.

    Byers, Frank

    Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

    McEntee, V La T

    Carmichael, James

    Grenfell, D R.

    McGhee H G.

    Chamberlain, R A.

    Grey, C F.

    McGovern, J

    Champion A J

    Grierson, E.

    Mack, J. D

    Chetwynd, G R.

    Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

    McKay, J (Wallsend)

    Cluse, W S

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon J (Llanelly)

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

    Cocks, F S

    Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

    McKinlay, A S

    Coldrick, W

    Guest, Dr L. Haden

    Maclean, N (Govan)

    Collick, P

    Guy, W H

    McLeavy, F.

    Collindridge, F

    Haire, John E (Wycombe)

    MacMillan, M K (Western Isles)

    Collins, V. J.

    Hale, Leslie

    Mainwaring, W H

    Colman, Miss G. M

    Hall, Rt Hon. Glenvil

    Mann, Mrs. J

    Comyns, Dr L

    Hamilton, Lieut-Col. R

    Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

    Cook, T. F

    Hardman, D. R.

    Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)

    Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

    Hardy, E A.

    Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.

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

    Harrison, J.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Corlett, Dr J

    Hastings, Dr Somerville

    Messer, F.

    Cove, W G

    Henderson, Rt Hn A (Kingswinford)

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Crossman, R. H S.

    Herbison, Miss M

    Mikardo, Ian

    Daggar, G.

    Hewitson, Capt M

    Mitchison, G. R

    Davies, Clement Rt. Hon (Montgomery)

    Hicks, G

    Monslow, W.

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Holman, P.

    Moody, A. S

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

    Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

    Morley, R.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Titterington, M F.

    Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

    Robertson, J. J (Berwick)

    Tolley, L.

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

    Rogers, G. H. R.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Mort, D. L.

    Scollan, T.

    Ungoed-Thomas, L.

    Murray, J D.

    Scott-Elliot, W.

    Vernon, Maj. W F

    Nally, W.

    Segal, Dr. S

    Viant, S. P.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Sharp, Granville

    Wadsworth, G

    Neal H. (Claycross)

    Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

    Walkden, E.

    Nicholls, H R. (Stratford)

    Shinwell, Rt Hon. E.

    Walker, G. H

    Oldfield, W H

    Shurmer, P.

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Oliver, G H.

    Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Orbach, M.

    Silverman, J (Erdington)

    Watkins, T. E

    Paget, R. T.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Watson, W. M.

    Paling, Rt. Hon Wilfred (Wentworth)

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

    Skeffington-Lodge, T. C

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Skinnard, F. W

    West, D. G.

    Palmer, A. M F

    Smith, C. (Colchester)

    Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Wheatley, J T (Edinburgh, E.)

    Paten, Mrs F (Rushcliffe)

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

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

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

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

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

    Pearson, A

    Snow, J. W.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

    Perrins, W.

    Solley, L. J.

    Wigg, George

    Papplewell, E.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Willey, F T. (Sunderland)

    Porter, E. (Warrington)

    Sparks, J A.

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Stamford, W

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Price, M. Philips

    Steele, T

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Proctor, W T

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Stross, Dr. B

    Williamson, T.

    Pursey, Cmdr. H

    Sylvester, G O

    Willis, E.

    Randall, H. E

    Symonds, A. L

    Wills, Mrs. E. A

    Ranger, J

    Taylor, H B (Mansfield)

    Woodburn, A

    Rankin, J

    Taylor, R. J (Morpeth)

    Wyatt, W.

    Rees-Williams, D. R

    Thomas, D E (Aberdare)

    Yates, V F.

    Reeves, J.

    Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

    Zilliacus, K.

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Thomas, I O. (Wrekin)

    Richards, R.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Mr. Joseph Henderson and

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Tiffany, S.

    Mr. Wilkins.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Timmons, J.

    NOES.

    Agnew, Cmdr. P G.

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

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H

    Amory, D Heathcoat

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

    Hollis, M. C.

    Peaks, Rt Hon. O

    Barlow, Sir J

    Hope, Lord J

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Beechman, N. A.

    Hurd, A.

    Pools, O B. S. (Oswestry)

    Bennett, Sir P.

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

    Prior-Palmer, Brig, O

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

    Jeffreys, General Sir G.

    Reed, Sir S (Aylesbury)

    Boothby, R

    Keeling, E. H.

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

    Bowen, R.

    Kerr, Sir J. Graham

    Roberts, Peter (Ecclesall)

    Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

    Lambert, Hon G

    Robinson, Roland

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

    Langford-Holt. J.

    Ropner, Col. L

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

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

    Sanderson, Sir F

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

    Savory, Prof. D. L

    Challen, C.

    Low, A. R W

    Scott, Lord W.

    Channon, H.

    Lucas, Major Sir J

    Shephard, S. (Newark)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

    Shepherd, W S (Bucklow)

    Clarke, Col. R. S

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

    MacAndrew, Col. Sir C

    Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

    Conant, Maj. R J. E.

    McCallum, Maj. D.

    Snadden, W. M

    Crawder, Capt. John E.

    MacDonald, Sir M (Inverness)

    Spearman, A. C. M

    Darling, Sir W. Y.

    McFarlane, C. S.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

    Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

    De la Bère, R.

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Studholme, H G

    Digby, S W.

    McKie, J. H (Galloway)

    Sutcliffe, H.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Maclay, Hon. J S.

    Thorneycroft, G E. P. (Monmouth)

    Donner, P. W.

    Maclean, F H R

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N

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

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon Harold (Bromley)

    Touche, G. C.

    Drayson, G B.

    Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

    Turton, R. H.

    Drewe, C.

    Manningham-Buller, R. E

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Marples, A. E.

    Walker-Smith, D

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

    Elliot, Lieut.-Col., Rt. Hon. W.

    Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

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

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.

    Medlicott, F.

    White, Sir D. (Fareham)

    Gage, C.

    Mellor, Sir J

    Williams, C (Torquay)

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

    Molson, A. H. E

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

    Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

    Winterton, Rt Hon Earl

    Gomme-Duncan, Col A

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

    Grimston, R. V

    Noble, Comdr A. H. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

    Odey, G. W.

    Major Ramsay and

    Lieut.-Colonel Thorp.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 109.—(Bodies by whom payments by way of allowances are to be made.)
    Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 73, line 35, at the end, to insert:
    "(2) Where, by or under any statutory provision other than this part of this Act, a body to which this Part of this Act applies has power to defray the expenses incurred by the members of the body on account of travelling for the purposes of the performance of approved duties as members of the body, or otherwise to relieve the members of the body from the burden of meeting those expenses, that statutory provision shall cease to have effect in relation to the members of the body, but subject as aforesaid nothing in this Part of this Act shall affect any such statutory provision:
    Provided that where a local education authority in England and Wales or an education authority in Scotland incur expenditure under this Part of this Act in paying or contributing towards the expenses of a member thereof on account of travelling for the purpose of attending a conference, being a conference in respect of which the authority is authorised to incur expenditure by or under Section eighty-three of the Education Act, 1944, or, as the case may be, Section twenty-eight of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946, the first-mentioned expenditure shall, for the purposes of determining the amount of any sum payable to the authority out of moneys provided by Parliament, or out of the Education (Scotland) Fund, be deemed to have been incurred under the Education Acts, 1944 and 1946, or, as the case may be, the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946."
    Some authorities may have local Acts or other powers enabling them to pay travelling expenses, or relieve members of travelling expenses, in circumstances similar to those covered by the Bill. This Amendment is moved in order to provide that any such powers shall be exercisable only in conformity with the general scheme of the Bill. The first part of the Amendment is concerned with that. There is a proviso which secures that certain payments by local education authorities on account of the expenses of their members will continue to rank for grant under the Education Acts.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: This Bill, with its astonishing power of traversing from China to Peru, has now passed from the vexed questions of the hypothetical house, or whether electricity should be rated centrally or locally, and comes down to the question of expenses of members of local authorities. It may be that the long study of this Bill is making me
    1242
    a little confused, but I find these words difficult to understand. I have cudgelled my brains about them, but I must say that I would not like to pass an examination as to what exactly they mean, either by themselves or by reference to the rest of the Clause. I listened carefully to what the Parliamentary Secretary said and really it comes down to a case of whether he can assure us that he is perfectly certain that he himself has understood the Amendment and that he has given the Committee a full description of the effect of these words. Frankly, we must be in his hands as far as this is concerned. If he would assure us that it goes no further than the explanation he gave, I think we on this side of the Committee would be content. I beg him to accept that as a trust, because on this occasion I do not intend to detain him or cross-examine him. I merely ask him if he can give an assurance that he has given us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about these words.
    Mr. Turton: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, after "statutory," to insert "or other."
    I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give a little more detailed description of his Amendment. I think it is a good one. I think that it is one made in answer to a request by me, but I do not think it is very clearly worded, particularly where it refers to:
    "… any statutory provision other than this part of this Act …"
    I doubt whether that is sufficient, because there is a later Amendment, in page 74, line 19, at the end to add:
    "(5) In the application of this section to Scotland any reference in subsection (2) to a statutory provision shall be construed as including a reference to a rule of the common law."
    That applies this provision to Scotland. Never before had I thought that a rule of the common law was in the same genus as a statutory provision. I had always been taught that they were two very different birds. I should have thought that it would have been wiser to insert something wider than a statutory provision at the beginning of this Subsection. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my suggestion that the words should read:
    "… any statutory or other provision …"

    1243
    I presume that a local Act of Parliament is a statutory provision. I imagine that that has been held by the courts, but I should like to be reinforced in that view. I know that in Scotland, with the systems of common good and burgh and barony funds, very curious perquisites are obtained for members of local authorities. Clearly, they are not statutory provisions. I do not know under what authority members of local authorities are granted free passes at present. I do not think that it is always by a statutory provision. Therefore, I think that we need something wider than that. Let us have a notable advance in this part of the Bill in granting proper travelling allowances to members of local authorities at a fixed standard for all local authorities provided the journey is for more than three miles. Let us not have some local authorities going back into the past and enjoying perquisites not enjoyed by others. I am sure that it is in the interests of the great reputation which local authorities enjoy that we should wipe out in this Bill the whole stream of perquisites, and I believe that is the intention of the Parliamentary Secretary in this provision, though I wish it were put more clearly. I therefore hope that he will accept the Amendment.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. J. Edwards: I cannot accept this Amendment, because, quite honestly, I do not think it is necessary. What the hon. Gentleman says, in effect, is that the word "statutory" will cover most things, but there may be some others, and so he wants to put in the words "or other." So far as England and Wales are concerned—I do not speak for Scotland, because there is another Amendment on which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will speak—I am not aware of any provision other than a statutory provision. We have looked at this very carefully, and that is the advice given to me—that the words "or other" are quite unnecessary, because there cannot be any other provision which can apply. I hope that, with that assurance, the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment.
    May I say, at the same time, that what we have tried to do in our Amendment has been to put in legal terms what is
    1244
    required by accepting the principle that local authorities shall all have the same powers and all be subject to the same restrictions, and that sort of principle, which I am sure commends itself to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, is the one accepted. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that, having started from that, I am assured that the form of the words, difficult though they may be to understand, is the form of words which the adoption of that principle really requires if we are to deal with any local Acts which may be in operation in this respect at the present time.
    Mr. Turton: I am quite clear, from what the Parliamentary Secretary said, that the habit of some local authorities, of providing their members with free passes not by statutory provision, has no foundation at all, and that was the view of the Departmental Committee that examined the question. I have made the point clear, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Proposed words there inserted.
    Further Amendments made: In page 73, line 38, after "expenses," insert:
    "(other than expenses on account of travelling.)"
    In page 74, line 1, at beginning, insert:
    "Subject to the provisions of Subsection (2) of this Section."
    Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 74, line 19, at the end, to add:
    "(5) In the application of this Section to Scotland any reference in Subsection (2) to a statutory provision shall be construed as including a reference to a rule of the common law."
    This Amendment is consequential on the first Amendment which was moved by my hon. Friend. It is necessary, however, to have this further Subsection to the Clause in order to secure that any payment that would be made to a councillor, and could be made to him, out of the common good fund would be taken into account; that is to say, to secure that the council cannot have it both out of the common good fund and the general fund of the local authority.
    Mr. Turton: The effect of this Amendment is quite different and far more desirable. As I understand the reference to

    1245
    Subsection (2), it is saying that, in Scotland, the rule of common law shall be a statutory provision, and that it shall no longer be possible to pay members' travelling expenses out of the common good fund. That is something very different from that which the Parliamentary Secretary said. If it is paid out of the common good fund, it will be taken into account; in fact, it will not any longer be legal to pay the …26 a year which I know a certain authority in Scotland pays for the travelling expenses of its members.
    Mr. Fraser: That is right. I was wrong in saying that it was to secure that payment would not be made from both funds. It is provided that payment will be made, in the first place, out of the general fund, and we are here making it quite clear that expenses cannot, in addition, be paid out of the common good fund. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the mistake in my original statement.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We do not blame the joint Under-Secretary for occasionally tripping up in the jungle of Scottish law. I think it is a pity that, on the point made by my hon. Friend, who is learned in the law, and which, apparently, has substance, we should not have had one of the Law Officers here to explain it. I am a babe in these matters, and I do not complain of the Joint Under-Secretary not being able to distinguish clearly between a statutory provision and a rule of the common law. I was lost in admiration when my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton) said he had been taught in childhood that these were different things. I think, perhaps, it was somewhat arid literature for childhood, and not perhaps as friendly fare as Grimm's "Fairy Tales."
    Have we now got it right? As I understand the Under-Secretary, in the case of Glasgow, a luncheon is provided out of the common good fund and certain travelling expenses are also paid. The Under-Secretary's statement, I understand, will mean that in future, if these payments are made, they will be debited against the sums which any councillor may be entitled to receive, and, therefore, he will not be able to be paid twice over, and that that is the general purpose of the provision here set out. I should like to know if I am right in that interpretation.
    Mr. Fraser: I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has taken too much out of the words which I have just uttered. I do not think that the Amendment we are now discussing, or the first Amendment, upon which this is purely consequential, would have the effect of barring the Glasgow Corporation from providing meals out of the common good fund in their restaurant in the City Chambers, but, where travelling expenses and the like can be paid normally out of the common good fund, we now provide under this new Amendment that it shall not be done out of the common good fund. I think that is the effect, and the only effect of the Amendment I have moved.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Just what class of expenses has the Joint Under-Secretary in mind? He states that certain expenses previously met out of the common good fund will still continue to be paid out of that fund, but that certain others, previously paid out of the common good fund, will still be paid from that fund, but will be deducted against other receipts which a councillor might otherwise have. I am only anxious to get the matter clear, because it is difficult to deduce the meaning from the words on the Order Paper. It would be very difficult for any of us to get either a lunch or a railway ticket out of those words.
    Mr. Turton: Is not the position that, under the new Subsection (2), it will no longer be possible to get free travel out of the common good fund, and that under the old Subsection (2), which was the original draft of the Minister, it would have been illegal for free meals to be provided out of that fund? I hope it will be the frequent practice of local authorities to provide meals, but that they will charge their members for the meals, as is done in this Parliament. I think that is the position that will lie under this Amendment.
    Mr. Fraser: I do not think it does. This Amendment is consequential on the one we discussed a moment ago, which really deals with the travelling expenses of members of local authorities in carrying out their functions as members of the education authority. It is nothing more than that.
    Commander Galbraith: This is a point which we want to try to get clear. Does

    1247
    not this Amendment simply mean that where as, previously, the members' expenses have been paid out of the common good fund, they will now be paid and charged against the appropriate account—that the common good fund will be relieved of that payment, but that the fund will still remain to meet expenses other than those which can be charged against any particular account?
    Mr. Fraser: I think that is so. I am sure the effect of the Amendment is not that the common good fund in, say, Glasgow, for instance, would no longer be able to bear the cost of providing lunches or teas in the lunch-room of the City Chambers. That would not be the effect of the Amendment.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think it would be a pity to pursue the matter further just now. Perhaps, when it comes up again on the Report stage, it might be possible for you, Major Milner, to allow, and for the Minister to give, a somewhat fuller answer, dealing with some of the points we have been discussing.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 116.—(Provisions as to precepts for expenses of Metropolitan Police.)
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. Pargiter: I beg to move, in page 80, line 27, at the end, to add:
    "As from the first day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, the expenses of and incidental to the Metropolitan Police Courts which under Section one of the Metropolitan Police Courts Act, 1897, are to be paid out of the Metropolitan Police Fund and all sums in relation to probation officers and to the probation of offenders in the County of London payable out of that fund shall be charged only on the Administrative County of London and not upon any other rating area wholly or partly within the Metropolitan Police District, and the precepts to the rating authorities in the said County of London shall be issued so as to secure that the said expenses and sums shall be levied as an additional rate on the said County of London."
    This Amendment is designed to remove a long-standing grievance between the areas fringing on the County of London and the Metropolitan Police areas. The Metropolitan Police Courts Act provides that expenditure on these courts, with the
    1248
    exception of the salaries and pensions of the Metropolitan magistrates, shall fall on the Metropolitan Police Fund. The rest of the funds are made up of fees and fines, and, for a number of years, there has been a deficiency which has had to be met out of the Police Fund. That Fund is contributed to, not only by the County of London, but also by the surrounding counties and county boroughs in the Metropolitan Police area. The police also have the duty of providing their own courts and meeting the deficiency of those courts, and the deficiency which falls in the London area. That is an obvious injustice and anomaly which ought to be rectified. Although it is somewhat late in the proceedings of this Bill, we thought it desirable to put down this Amendment in order to get it rectified in what is essentially a Local Government Bill.
    It is interesting to note that the Inter-Departmental Committee in 1937 agreed that this was wrong. The charge for the area was about £12,000. London paid £7,500, Middlesex paid £2,000, and the remaining sum fell on the county boroughs and county councils in the area. This Amendment seeks to put something right which is obviously wrong, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to accept it.
    Mr. Bevan: I think my hon. Friend will agree that it is rather hard lines to put down a technical Amendment of this kind at so late a stage in the life of this Bill. The Bill has been gestating for many months between the local authorities and the Ministry of Health, and the appropriate Departments of Health in Scotland.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Bevan: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says, "Hear, hear." It is a strange thing, but one cannot make any suggestion about Scotland without some remark being made by hon. Members opposite, even though it might be said that the Bill has been led by two Scotsmen. However, I do not want to underline that, or to emphasise the irrationality of the point of view of hon. Members opposite. With regard to this matter, it seems unreasonable to move this technical Amendment at this stage. It may be that the purpose is unobjectionable, but it is certainly not a grievous burden which has been suffered.
    Mr. Pargiter: Surely, my right hon. Friend would agree that any unjust burden is grievous?
    Mr. Bevan: Yes, but it may be redressed in the most unjust way. I am protesting against the injustice which I am suffering at the moment in having a proposal of this kind put upon the Order Paper, I think, only yesterday. I am prepared to examine it, but I cannot accept the language of the Amendment because, I am informed, it is entirely inadequate and inappropriate for the purpose. However, as I say, I am prepared to look at it and to see if something can be done. I hope my hon. Friend will not regard that as a firm promise, but I will certainly see if something can be done, even at this late stage. In the circumstances, I hope he will withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. C. Williams: Before we part with this Amendment, I hope that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Pargiter), who had the courage and good sense to move it, even at this late stage, will not be discouraged by what the Minister has said. This is an Amendment which certainly demands the consideration of the Committee, as, undoubtedly, it should have received the very careful consideration of the Home Secretary. The fact that it has only come up now is one of the troubles and defects of the system of Standing Committees. Also, of course, there is the Report stage. I do not wish to make needless trouble for hon. Members opposite, because they have so much of their own already.
    This is a matter on which I should have thought we might have had a free and open plebiscite of the Committee. If that were the case, I would not mind telling with the hon. Member opposite, provided he guaranteed that both his Whips and mine would take no action in the matter afterwards. Frankly, this Amendment is one of considerable importance, and one which deserved to be ventilated in the efficient way it was just now. We have arrived at the position that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill is going to consider the Amendment with a view to seeing whether anything which is reasonable and right can be done in another place.
    I will add to the far more persuasive voice of the hon. Member for Spelthorne
    1250
    my humble opinion that now that the Home Secretary is here—and this matter concerns him to some extent, in view of his friendly interest in the police and matters of that kind—he might consider, between now and another stage, incorporating an Amendment of this kind. It is a good thing that this matter has been raised, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will not allow himself to be deterred by his powerful and almighty Front Bench, as this Amendment shows considerable thought, interest and care. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman sincerely on his courage. I hope that courage will have its due reward, and that the matter will be reconsidered. I hope also that he will be able to go out from this Parliament saying that he has persuaded both the Home Secretary and the Minister of Health to agree that his Amendment is right, and that it will be put on a proper footing at another stage.
    I shall not commit myself too deeply on the practical side of this Amendment because, having read it carefully, I agree with the Minister of Health that there is a considerable amount of detail in the wording—which I can point out if necessary, but I rather doubt that it is necessary—which could be put in a better way. At the same time, there is something in the Amendment which is worth considering, and, after all, we are met here for the purpose of considering these matters. I am sure you will agree, Major Milner, that this is one of the rare occasions in a Committee stage on which we have benefited by having listened to a back bench Member opposite put forward a suggestion I can only add that I hope that if further persuasion is put upon the Government they may be able to accept this Amendment as it stands with a view to having it readjusted at a later stage. I see that the Minister of Health is taking an interest in my remarks, and that a kindly look is passing over his face, which I hope will enable him to accept this excellent Amendment.
    Mr. Skinnard: I hope that the intervention of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has convinced the Minister of Health that while this is not a grievous burden, it is by no means a negligible matter. While the wording of the Amendment may be open to objection, I can assure my right hon. Friend that the authorities which contribute to the Metropolitan Police rate

    1251
    have felt in the past that this is an injustice, and this might be an opportunity to remedy it.
    Colonel Dower: We have had no kind of adequate answer from the Government Front Bench to the last two Amendments with which we have dealt. I hope the Minister of Health will give some kind of assurance, because we have had no adequate reply from the Front Bench so far. Knowing the great interest which the right hon. Gentleman has in this Amendment, I would like to have an assurance from him that we shall have a fuller statement on the Report stage.
    Mr. Binns: I was very sorry to see this Amendment on the Order Paper. As hon. Members may know, I have some slight connection with local government in London, particularly in the county area, and I would be the last to say that there is not an anomaly in this matter. On the contrary, I would say that there are probably hundreds of anomalies concerning the police and the judiciary of London.
    I protest, however, against this Amendment being brought forward at this stage, because it is impossible for proper consideration to be given to it by the Minister or by people like myself who might wish to support it, but who have not had time to acquaint themselves with the necessary facts. All that I know, with regard to the police courts, for example, as with many other facilities that we have in the Metropolis, is that in London we probably get more out of the police courts in terms of fines than they actually cost; but in certain other aspects of the work, such as probation officers and work of that sort, undoubtedly there are very considerable sums of money involved. This Amendment does not really belong to this Bill. There should be some other means whereby the anomaly in this respect, and scores of other anomalies, can be dealt with.
    I would remind the Minister that conversations are proceeding among all local authorities in the Metropolitan Police area with a view to getting the whole position with regard to the London police clarified. Even if my right hon. Friend says that he will consider this matter, I hope he will not do so in the belief that he has the full support of us all on the Amendment.
    Mr. Pargiter: My courage has been slowly evaporating. I appear to have so many friends on the opposite benches that I find it embarrassing. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Binns) will appreciate that he has some interest in Kent as well as in London, and he might be able to regard the matter from that point of view. I appreciate that the words in the proposed Amendment may not be satisfactory, but I am so convinced that if this injustice is properly examined it will result in some Amendment, that I am happy to leave it in the hands of the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. C. Williams: I do not agree to this Amendment being withdrawn. If it is not accepted, I think it ought to be negatived. I do not wish to embarrass the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Pargiter), but I think the Government ought to be able to make up their minds to a greater degree than they have done. For that reason, I do not agree that the Amendment should be withdrawn.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 122.—(Amendment of 23 & 24 Geo. 5. c. 51, s. 86.)
    Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, in page 84, line 21, after "committee)," to insert:
    "and in Subsection (3) of Section sixty of the London Government Act, 1939 (which makes similar provision in relation to county and borough councils in London)."
    The purpose of this Amendment is to bring the position in London into line with the position in the provinces.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 124.—(Insurance by local autho- rities against accidents to members.)
    Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 84, line 46, at the end, to add:
    "(4) In the application of this section to Scotland the expression "local authority" includes the town council of a small burgh, a district council and the county council of each of the separate counties combined for the purposes mentioned in Section one hundred and eighteen of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947."

    1253
    This Amendment is necessary to define a local authority for this particular purpose. In Clause 135 (2), "local authority" is defined as "a county or a town council"; but for this purpose—that is, for the insurance of members against accidents—we want to have all local authorities included in the definition—that is to say the county councils, district councils, large boroughs and small boroughs, all of them alike.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 137.—(Repeals.)
    Amendment made: In page 94, line 7, leave out "forty-nine," and insert forty-eight."—[Mr. Bevan.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Advertising stations to be separate hereditaments in certain cases.)
    Where the right to use any land (including any hoarding, frame, post, wall or structure erected or to be erected on the land, and including also any wall or other part of a building) for the purpose of exhibiting advertisements is let out or reserved to any person other than the occupier of the land, or, when the land is not occupied for any other purpose, to any person other than the owner of the land, that right shall be deemed for rating purposes to be a separate hereditament in the occupation of the person for the time being entitled to the right, and shall be included in the valuation list as a separate hereditament accordingly, and, notwithstanding anything In Section three or Section four of the Advertising Stations (Rating) Act, 1889, in estimating the value of the land for rating purposes no account shall be taken of any value or, as the case may be, of any increased value arising from the use of the land for the purpose of exhibiting advertisements in accordance with that right.—[Mr. Bevan.]
    Brought up, and read a First time.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This Clause is in order to give effect to a promise made in Committee. There were a number of Members on both sides of the Committee who were apprehensive lest it would not be possible for a local authority to rate certain hereditaments at all on account of the fact that they might be on the premises of various services taken over by the State from the local authorities. I think the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Binns) had an interest in this matter. This is to make it quite
    1254
    clear that, where a piece of property is let out by a railway company or an electricity undertaking for the purpose stated in the Clause, for advertising, it shall be possible to rate it as a separate hereditament. Local authorities were naturally anxious at the fact that these undertakings did not now appear on the local rating roll, and would be part of the cumulo of both electricity and transport and, therefore, would only make an indirect contribution to the local revenues. We should not deny to the local authority the possibility of rating those hereditaments which could not be regarded as inseparable. The language of this Clause is very clear, and I think it meets the wishes of the Committee, and I trust it will have a happy passage.
    Mr. Boothby: Before I make my few remarks, I have to declare to this House a personal interest in this matter. I have to tell hon. Members that I am a director of a billposting company. I hasten to add, that my modest remuneration will be in no way affected by the acceptance or rejection of this Clause, or by any modifications the Minister may think fit to make. I want to make one or two observations because, as the Minister will agree, this was introduced at a very late stage in the Bill, and I think, perhaps, it would have been better if the Minister, or the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Binns), had thought of it earlier and had had an opportunity of discussing the matter in some detail with some of the interests affected. The present position is governed by the Act of 1889, which has never been substantially changed, as regards the rating of these particular hereditaments. Under that Act, there were two cases. The first was where land is used for exhibition of advertisements, but not otherwise occupied, and the person who permits the use of the land is the person under that Act who is very properly rated. Secondly, there is the land occupied for other purposes, but also used for advertisements, and in that case, under the Act of 1889, it is the occupier who is again properly rated and the value of the land is increased under that Act by the additional value it may acquire as a result of the advertising.
    Under this Clause the Minister intends to add a third class and, therefore, unnecessarily to complicate the business.

    1255
    This third case—and I will use his own words, is:
    "Where the right to use any land … for the purpose of exhibiting advertisements is let out or reserved to any person other than the occupier of the land"—
    for example, a contractor. In that case, under this Clause, it is the "person … entitled to the right"—in other words, the contractor—who is rated. Two questions will arise as a result of this which may cause very considerable difficulties. It has to be decided, first of all, is the right let out or is it reserved? This business of advertisements is a complicated business, and there is no easy answer. Secondly, when that decision has been taken, who is the person "for the time being entitled to the right"? I would like to explain to the Minister that, in many cases, contracts are let out to various firms for quite short periods—say, a month at a time—and it does not necessarily go to a billposting firm, as such. These two questions will have to be answered: who is the actual contractor, and is the right let out or is it reserved?
    I am sure there are a great many existing contractual relations between landlords and advertisers which have lasted for a long time, but which will be upset by the Clause, and which will, in consequence, require revision. Perhaps the most difficult feature of this Clause is the situation which will arise with regard to the railway companies—or, as it is now, the British State Railway. In the past—and presumably the national railways will do so in the future—railway companies have conducted an increasing billposting business in competition with private bill-posting companies. What will be the effect of this Clause on stations let by the railways direct to advertisers? Who is the advertiser? Returning to the point I made just now, in some cases the advertisement is let out, for example to "Bovril" or any other firm, who may take it for a month, and then another firm takes it for a month. At what point, and at what period in connection with these railway sites, do any particular advertisers become liable, as contractors, to the payment of rates? If they do not, the advertisement will remain a railway hereditament within the general cumulo of the railway undertaking. If we do not give any particular contractor the responsibility of paying this rate, the hereditament will remain within the general
    1256
    cumulo of the railway, and I submit, most seriously, that it is a little unfair to the billposting industry, with which the railways are in direct competition, if we allow the railway advertisement to come within the general cumulo of the British State Railway so that it is not subject to any special rating and, at the same time, impose this additional burden upon the contractors.
    Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is mistaken entirely as to the purpose of the Clause. The purpose of the Clause is to restrict the advantages which the railway companies possess in the absence of the Clause. Without this Clause, that property would not be rated for local purposes and the Clause is moved in order to make it rated. So far from adding to the hardship about which the hon. Member complains, the hardship is mitigated by this Clause. There is nothing in this Bill, however, and nothing that can be done under this Bill, which would remove altogether from the British State Railway power over the rest of their property.
    Mr. Boothby: According to my reading of the Clause, and to the technicians who advised me in this matter, it definitely entitled the railway companies to put their own property into the general cumulo and not to pay additional rates on it. If I am wrong, I shall be delighted to hear so.
    Mr. Bevan: This Clause does not permit that. The general Act and the Railways (Valuation for Rating) Act do that; this Clause says that certain things shall not be in the cumulo and shall be rated locally.
    Mr. Boothby: In that case, I am very much more satisfied on the point, because the only point I was asked to put in connection with this question is that sites let to the billposting companies by the railways, and those let direct to advertisers should be assessed on the same basis. We want a fair assessment as between the railways and the private billposting companies. If the Minister says that is the effect, and that is the intention, of this Clause, I must say that is not the interpretation put upon it by the legal advisers of the billposting companies. I simply say, Sir, that all sites on railway property should either be within the general assessments of the railways or should be outside it, and if we have—as I thought, hitherto—a half-and-half

    1257
    business, with some sites outside the cumulo and some inside the cumulo, it would give an unfair advantage to the railways over the private billposting companies.
    Mr. Bevan: It is not this Clause which puts certain sites inside and certain sites outside. Were it not for this Clause, all sites would be inside. This Clause is described as:
    "Advertising stations to be separate hereditaments in certain cases."
    In other words, we are alienating from the railway cumulo certain advertising stations. We are saying that where they are let out and contracted for as advertising stations, they shall be liable to local rates. The purpose of the Clause is a mitigation of what the hon. Gentleman considers to be an evil. The evil is not produced by this Bill, but is produced by another statute, which is the Statute nationalising the railway system. The answer to what he said about it not being possible always to determine whether a certain person has been in possession of this entitlement long enough, is that valuation officers must settle every case on its merits. Where it has not been long enough, it will remain part of the cumulo. In other words, it must be alienated from the general purposes of the railways in order to be separately rated.
    Mr. Boothby: In that case, and in view of the fact that those who advise me on this matter tell me that if they could meet the officials of the Minister they could draft a Clause which would meet his requirements rather more simply, can he arrange for a meeting to take place?
    Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is a most seductive speaker. I cannot possibly agree that my officials should meet representatives of an outside interest for the purpose of drafting a Clause for this House. I am satisfied that this Clause meets the purposes we have in mind, and that it fulfils the promise made in Committee.
    Mr. Binns: Perhaps I may be able to mollify the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) even further. I admit that I know nothing about advertising; nor do I have any interest in it. What has happened for a long time is that it has not been possible to adhere to the 1889 Act. From my experience the
    1258
    Act has been ignored, because strict adherence to it would have made the whole thing unworkable. It is merely because the rating authorities thought it advisable that there should he a legal background, that this has been incorporated in the Bill. In other words, this legally gives the same advantages which these people have enjoyed in the past--that is, objections to rateable valuation lists and so on. I am sure that the interests for whom the hon. Member speaks can be reasonably well satisfied that this Clause is not directed against them, but is merely an attempt on the part of local authorities, through the Minister, to put the matter into legal form.
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: It seems to me that the Minister in commending this Clause addressed himself more particularly to the circumstances arising in the case of the railways. Though that may be the historic origin of this Clause in Standing Committee, Members who now see it for the first time will realise that it is not so confined, but that it is of considerable general importance in regard to the rating of advertising structures. So far as the point about the railways is concerned, I think that what the Minister said was quite convincing. I think that it commended itself to my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). I agree with the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Binns) that this part of the machinery has stood unchanged on the Statute Book far longer than most of the rating machinery with which we come into contact. Having an open mind on this matter, I should like to feel that the Minister has considered this fully from the general point of view, as well as from the railway point of view to which he principally addressed himself. I do not think that there is very much the matter with the procedure proposed in this Clause. Under it, the right to use land becomes rateable. It is presumably analogous to the rating of sporting rights, for example, coming under the general heading of "incorporeal hereditaments." That seems to me to be a reasonable way of dealing with rating of advertising structures.
    I appreciate that there may be a difficulty in regard to the specific point raised by my hon. Friend. Although I do not know the professional workings of the

    1259
    advertising industry, I appreciate that there may be a difficulty as to the identification if the contracts are of such a short term. As to whether the land is let out or reserved, it would appear that it is not material to determine whether land is let out or reserved, because the same considerations would appear to apply in either case. Therefore, that apprehension may not be so well founded as my hon. Friend thought. I feel sympathetic towards this Clause from the practical point of view, but I should like the Minister to assure the House that general consideration was given to it, as well as consideration to the specific requirements in regard to advertising on property of the railway undertakings which was the immediate reason for bringing it forward.
    Mr. C. Williams: The Minister was complaining bitterly because a Member with none of the advantages of the Minister gave very little time to considering a comparatively simple new Clause. Here we have a new Clause introduced by the Minister which is undoubtedly more complicated. It has not been made less complicated by the speech of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Binns), because he insisted on referring only to the railways.
    Mr. Binns: I did not mention the railways; I was dealing with the generality of the matter. It was my right hon. Friend who made the reference to the railways.
    Mr. Williams: Well, then, I will not carry that any further, although I did think that the hon. Gentleman's speech contained some generalities. If we accept this Clause we are opening wide the door for the future. In the first line it states:
    "… including any hoarding frame, post, wall …"
    Supposing the Post Office suddenly greatly increases its advertisements. Every telegraph pole might become a small hoarding. Indeed, in view of the patent desire of the Leader of the House for advertisement that might happen at any time now. Under this Clause I am not certain where the local authority's chance of new rates might come in. I was more convinced by the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) than by the Minister's knowledge, but what was clear from the
    1260
    right hon. Gentleman's statement, and his state of mind, is that we ought to have had a Law Officer to put the case clearly and quickly. But they are never here, and we have not had any clear explanation of it. I suppose this Clause will go through and, like so many other Clauses of this Bill, and from this Government, will be rectified in another place.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Assessment of certain buildings occupied in parts.)
    (1) Where a building which was constructed or has been adapted for the purposes of a single dwelling house, or as to part thereof for such purpose, and as to the remainder thereof for any purpose other than that of a dwelling or residence, is occupied in parts, the valuation officer, in preparing or revising a draft valuation list or in altering a current valuation list, may, if he thinks fit, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the extent, if any, to which the parts separately occupied have been severed by structural alterations, treat the building or any portion thereof as a single hereditament, and a building or portion of a building so treated as a single hereditament shall, for the purposes of rating, be deemed to be a single hereditament in the occupation of the person who receives the rents payable in respect of the parts.
    (2) Section seven of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, and Section twenty-three of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, are hereby repealed.—[Mr. J. Edwards.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    In accordance with the undertaking given in Standing Committee, this Clause does no more than apply to London the law as it is outside London. It also avoids making reference to earlier parts of the Bill.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: This Clause does not, as I read it, constitute any change in the law, and has the advantage that words will be put clearly into the Bill so that legislation by reference will not be required. That being so, I am sure it is one that we on this side would wish to welcome.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAusE.—(Hereditaments shown as railway hereditaments, etc., but not in fact occupied by British Transport Commission.)

    5

    (1) Where, on the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, the whole or any part of a hereditament which is shown in any valuation list in force at the said date as a railway hereditament within the meaning of the Railways (Valuation for Rating) Act, 1930, or as a transport hereditament within the meaning 5 of that Act as applied by a scheme under section ninety-two of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, is in the occupation of some person other than the British Transport Commission, such amendments may be made of the valuation list (by way of proposal under Part III of this Act, of proposal under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, or of provisional or supplemental list according as may be appropriate) as

    10

    are necessary to secure that that hereditament or, as the case may be, that part thereof, appears as a separate hereditament in the list as if it had not been shown in the valuation list as being, or forming part of, a railway hereditament or a transport hereditament.

    15

    (2) For the purpose of the liability of any person (other than the British Transport Commission) to rates, an amendment made under this section shall, in relation to any rate (including any rate for a period which has already elapsed when the amendment is made), have effect as from the beginning of the quinquennial period under the Railways (Valuation for Rating) Act, 1930 (or, as the case may be, under that Act as applied by the London Passenger Transport (Valuation for Rating) Scheme, 1935) current at the date of the passing of this Act or as from the date on which the hereditament ceased to be in the occupation of the British Transport Commission or, as the case may be, the relevant body specified in the Third Schedule to the Transport Act, 1947, whichever is the later date; and the amount underpaid shall be paid and may be recovered as if it were arrears of the rate.—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

    20

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This Clause, to which I referred when I moved certain Amendments anticipating it, has been put down to meet an undertaking which we gave in Standing Committee to deal with let-out properties, about which Members on both sides had strong feelings. As the Bill stands, it would not be possible to bring let-out properties, at present regarded in the valuation lists as railway properties, into assessment until the new valuation machinery is in operation. Assuming that this is some time next year, rates will become payable on such property from 1st April, 1949. As the new railway roll has not come into operation, the properties which have been let out since 1st April, 1946, have not yet come into rating. If the new roll had been confirmed rates would have been payable back to 1st April, 1946, or the date when the property was let-out, if that were since that date. All the Clause does is to enable the rating authorities to deal with such property as from 1st April next and to collect rates respectively as they would have done under the Railways (Valuation for Rating) Act, 1930.
    Clause read a Second time.
    Mr. O. Poole: I beg to move, in line 6, after "is," to insert:
    1262
    "or since the first day of April nineteen hundred and forty-six has been."
    This Amendment seeks to remedy a defect in the new Clause, which I am sure we all welcome. It seeks to ensure that there should not be an allowance for those hereditaments which were leased before April, 1946. If these are excluded the local authority concerned would lose two years' rates on them, and we think that the right hon. Gentleman has overlooked this point in his new Clause.
    Mr. Bevan: As I understand it, what is worrying the hon. Gentleman is that certain properties might have been let out and then restored. If they are still let out they are, of course, dealt with, but if they are returned they are not. I sympathise with the hon. Member's intention, but I am wondering whether there is any practicable way of rating people who are no longer in occupation. If we could do it, it would be desirable, but we might not be able to find them. I do not suppose there are many cases, and I do not think there will be a substantial loss, but in any case our difficulty is to recover rates from people who may not be in occupation.
    Mr. Poole: There is some point in the right hon. Gentleman's comment, but perhaps it might be possible to make a suitable Amendment if the matter is discussed in another place. If the right hon. Gentleman will keep an open mind

    1263
    on this matter, I am quite prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause added to the Bill.
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    I move this Motion in order to make a statement about the progress we are making on the Bill. I think Members in all parts of the Committee will agree that we have made reasonably good progress, and that we are all in a good temper, which we want to preserve. I do not think we ought to burden ourselves at this time of the night with a Debate on the new Clause (Provision of entertainments) which stands in my name on the Order Paper. Such a Debate might run for some time, and I think it is better that the controversial issues which will no doubt arise upon it should be taken when we are fresh, and when all the principles involved can be properly considered. I propose, therefore, that I should not now move this new Clause, but that I should put it down again tomorrow, and that we should finish the rest of the recommittal stage this evening. I think it would be agreeable to the Committee if we started off tomorrow with that new Clause.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think the right hon. Gentleman's proposal is reasonable, and one which commends itself to hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the Committee. The entertainments Clause, as the Minister said, is one in which there is keen interest in the country and in which many hon. Members are interested. I think that it should be taken when we are fresh and can apply ourselves to it. If we can clear the remaining matters on the Order Paper, with the exception of this Clause, tonight, we on this side of the Committee would be reasonably willing to do our best to accelerate the business, so that consideration of the Bill may be concluded at a reasonable hour tomorrow. If the Minister wishes to suspend the Rule for safety's sake, we would make no objection, but I think that we should be able to conclude at about the normal time. Therefore, I agree to the proposal and com-
    1264
    mend it to right hon. and hon. Members on this side.
    Mr. Beechman: On behalf of all Liberals in the Committee, I am very ready to fall into line with the proposal made, although I rather regret it, because this Clause which we were about to reach I find rather attractive. I had hoped that it might go through without much difficulty, but since it appears to be the wish of the Committee that is should not be taken tonight, and since it is the attitude of Liberalism that personality should express itself freely and as It may desire, I gladly acquiesce in the proposal.
    Mr. Mitchison: May I call the attention of the Committee to two points? We have heard the views of the National Liberal Party. The views of the other section of the Liberal Party on this weighty matter have not been vouchsafed, and the views of the back benches have not been vouchsafed. Many of us came here prepared to consider and discuss this new Clause. The temperature and attitude of the Front Benches on both sides have been so happy that it would be a pity if that happy attitude were lost until tomorrow. We do not know what the Front Benches may do in the interval. While I am sure we would not wish to divide the Committee on this question, as back benchers we like to take things in the order we had expected to take them, and not be cut short in our intentions by these nefarious agreements.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I would like to make a few comments on the unexpected suggestion of the Minister that we should by-pass this new Clause until tomorrow. Far be it from me to attempt to assess the relative importance of this Clause as against the other 100-odd Clauses in this most important Bill. I cannot assess their relative importance, but I think that I am not altogether unqualified to assess their relative complexity. The Committee will agree that however important this Clause may be, it is a good deal less complex than many of the other Clauses which we have to consider Therefore, the logical thing would be for the Committee to take in the afternoon and early evening the more complex and technical Clauses which impose a greater strain on our cerebral processes, and to take at the present hour the important but less complex and less technical Clauses.

    1265
    I cannot help fearing that if this Clause is left over until tomorrow, and is advertised in the Press as being discussed tomorrow, public interest in it will be stimulated, and the Debate on it may run a long time—perhaps, from the point of view of the Bill as a whole, a disproportionately long time. That will leave the complex and technical Clauses and Amendments on the Report stage of the Bill to be dealt with late tomorrow night by a conscientious minority of hon. Members. With great respect to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) and to the Minister of Health, that does not commend itself as being the most practical way of arranging the Business of the House in regard to the remainder of the Clauses.
    Mr. James Hudson: I warmly approve the Minister's suggestion and the support given to it by the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). It is all very well to talk about other Clauses being important—they are—but the issue referred to in this long new Clause is of considerable importance from many points of view. The point of view on which I should wish to speak would be of considerable importance. For that reason, I think that the Minister has got us out of a very real difficulty. His suggestion will enable us to deal with this matter at a time when people outside as well as hon. Members, will be interested in it. I hope that the suggestion which has been happily agreed to by the two Front Benches will be warmly accepted by all hon. Members.
    Mr. E. P. Smith: I must protest against the Minister by-passing this Clause in this extraordinary way. Some of us are peculiarly informed upon these matters and are here specially to lend our contribution to the discussion on this Clause. Now we find that we are without a Clause to discuss. We do not know that we may be here tomorrow, although we hope so, but we never can tell what tomorrow will bring. I hope the Minister will reconsider this rather arbitrary and last-minute arrangement.
    Mr. O. Poole: With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith), I submit to the Committee that whereas there are many extremely complex and difficult points in
    1266
    the Bill, they are, in fact, being discussed in the main by those Members who sat on the Standing Committee and some other hon. Members who have taken a considerable interest in the Bill. This proposed new Clause is of very wide interest and many other hon. Members will wish to discuss it. The Amendments on the Order Paper do not give a clear idea of the amount of business that is to be taken tomorrow. It has been intimated, Major Milner, that most of our Amendments on the Order Paper will not be called, and, therefore, we shall not have a great deal of business to take tomorrow night. I should have thought that from the point of view of getting the best quality of debate, the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman and supported by the right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) represents the best way of dealing with this matter. I hope that the Committee will not resist the proposal on the speeches which have been made, because I suggest, having given my whole attention to this matter on the Standing Committee, that this way is the best.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Does the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. O. Poole) suggest that the views of hon. Members on this or any other subject can be of any value to Parliament if they do not take the trouble to come and express them at 8.40 in the evening?
    Mr. Bevan: When I am attempting to meet the wishes of the Committee and trying to get subjects of very considerable importance discussed at an appropriate time I should not be resisted. We have now taken a quarter of an hour on this proposal in which we could have made considerable progress with the New Clause. The benches opposite are not as full as they might be on this matter, and I could quite easily demand that we go through the Bill in the ordinary way. In that connection I appreciate the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), but I do not think that that is the best way of getting important business discussed. Therefore, I hope that this arrangement will commend itself to the Committee.
    The Chairman: The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. O. Poole) referred to certain Amendments which he suggested I did not propose to call. I should like

    1267
    to point out that as the Amendments arise on the Report stage they will be a matter for Mr. Speaker and not for the Chairman of Ways and Means. In the second place and with regard to the suggestion by the Minister, and assuming it has the approval of the Committee, as apparently is the case, the proper procedure is for the Minister to ask leave to withdraw the present Motion, move the First Reading of the Clause formally, and then move that further consideration be postponed until tomorrow.
    Mr. Bevan: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision of entertainments.)
    (1) A local authority may do, or arrange for the doing of, or contribute towards the expenses of the doing of, anything necessary or expedient for any of the following purposes, that is to say—

    (a) the provision of an entertainment of any nature or of facilities for dancing;

    (b) the provision of a theatre, concert hall, dance hall or other premises suitable for the giving of entertainments or the holding of dances;

    (c) the maintenance of a band or orchestra;

    (d) any purpose incidental to the matters aforesaid, including the provision, in connection with the giving of any entertainment or the holding of any dance, of refreshments or programmes and the advertising of any such entertainment or dance:

    Provided that the powers conferred on a local authority by this Subsection shall not be exercised in relation to any entertainment or dance held in any place outside the area of that authority, or in relation to a theatre, concert hall, dance hall or other premises situate in any place outside that area, unless—

    (i) that place is convenient for residents in the area of that authority;

    (ii) the local authority for the area within which that place is situate consent.

    (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of the preceding Subsection, a local authority—

    (a) may for the purposes therein specified enclose or set apart any part of a park or pleasure ground belonging to the authority or under their control not exceeding one acre or one-tenth of the area of the park or pleasure ground whichever is the greater;

    (b) may permit any theatre, concert hall, dance hall or other premises provided by them for the purposes of the preceding Subsection and any part of a park or pleasure ground enclosed or set apart as aforesaid, to be used by any other person, on such terms as to payment or otherwise as the
    1268
    authority think fit, and may authorise that other person to make charges for admission thereto;

    (c) may themselves make charges for admission to any entertainment or dance held by them and for any refreshment or programmes supplied at any such entertainment or dance:

    Provided that nothing in this Subsection shall authorise any authority to contravene any covenant or condition subject to which a gift or lease of a public park or pleasure ground has been accepted or made without the consent of the donor, grantor, lessor or other person entitled in law to the benefit of the covenant or condition.
    (3) The expenditure of a local authority under this Section (excluding capital expenditure, but including loan charges) shall not in any year exceed the product of a rate of sixpence in the pound, plus the net amount of any receipts of the authority from any such charges or payments as are referred to in the last preceding Subsection:
    Provided that where a local authority exercise any powers under any statutory provision other than this Act for the provision by them of entertainments or the holding by them of dances, any expenditure incurred by them under those powers (excluding capital expenditure but including loan charges) less the net amount of the receipts, if any, of the authority in respect of the exercise of those powers shall, for the purpose of determining whether any, and if so what, expenditure may be incurred in any year under this Subsection, be taken into account as if it was expenditure under this Section.
    (4) Nothing in this Section shall affect the provisions of any enactment by virtue of which a licence is required for the public performance of a stage play or the public exhibition of cinematograph films, or for public music or dancing, or for the sale of intoxicating liquor or tobacco.
    (5) In this Section, the expression "local authority" means the council of a county borough, metropolitan borough or county district or the common council of the City of London
    (6) The following enactments are hereby repealed, that is to say, paragraph (3) of Section forty-four of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1903; paragraphs (d), (e) and (h) of Subsection (1) of Section seventy-six of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907; Subsections (1) to (4) of Section fifty-six and the proviso to Subsection (1) of Section seventy of the Public Health Act, 1925; the proviso to Subsection (1) of Section two hundred and twenty-six of the Public Health Act, 1936; the proviso to Subsection (1) of Section one hundred and seventy-two of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936; in Subsection (5) of Section ten of the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937, the words from "Provided that," to the end of the Subsection; and in Subsection (5) of Section seventy-four of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, the words from "so however," to the end of the Subsection.
    (7) Nothing in this Section shall have effect so as to extend the powers of the council of a county or of a parish under Section seventy of the Public Health Act, 1925 (which relates to the use of the offices of an authority fox entertainments) as applied to those councils by Section four of the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937, and accordingly the following proviso shall be inserted at the end of Subsection (2) of the said Section four, that is to say—
    "Provided that the following restrictions shall have effect with respect to any concert or other entertainment provided by the council of a county or of a parish by virtue of this Section, that is to say—

    (i) no stage play shall be performed; and

    (ii) the concert or other entertainment shall not include any performance in the nature of a variety entertainment; and

    (iii) no cinematograph film other than a film illustrative of questions relating to health or disease shall be shown; and

    (iv) no scenery, theatrical costumes or scenic or theatrical accessories shall be used."

    (8) In the application of this Section to Scotland—

    (a) the expression "local authority," includes the town council of a small burgh, a district council, and the county council of each of the separate counties combined for the purposes mentioned in Section one hundred and eighteen of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947;

    (b) for any reference to intoxicating liquor there shall be substituted a reference to excisable liquor;

    (c) for any reference to a rate of sixpence in the pound there shall be substituted a reference to a rate of four and four-fifths pence in the pound;

    (d) expenditure incurred by a district council under this Section shall not be taken into account in calculating the limit imposed on the district rate by Section two hundred and twenty-six of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947.—[Mr. Bevan.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Second Reading of the Clause be postponed till after the consideration of the Amendments to Schedule 2," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Bevan.]

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Employment of valuers by local authorities.)
    (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of Part III of this Act, a local authority may, if they think fit, employ, either whole time or part time, a competent person to give advice or assistance in regard to the value ascribed in a valuation list to any hereditament or in regard to any other of the matters specified in Subsection (1) of Section thirty-five of this Act, and the person so employed shall have power, at all reasonable times and after giving due notice, and on production if so required,
    1270
    of authorisation in writing in that behalf from the local authority to enter on and survey any hereditament in the area of that authority which the authority may direct him to survey.
    (2) If any person wilfully delays or obstructs any person in the exercise of any of his powers under this Section he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds—[Lieut.-Colonel Elliot.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This new Clause is self-explanatory. I do not know whether the Minister will find it possible to accept it, but those of us who were discussing this matter on Committee will remember that the point was raised and we had some uneasiness whether local authorities themselves would be able to have the services of valuers. It is true, of course, that a great deal of work will have to be gone through under the proposals of the Minister, but we feel that certain duties and responsibilities might still fall on the local authorities. We wish to be quite sure that they would not be stopped from availing themselves of the services of valuers by reason of the fact that valuation in general had been transferred to the central authority.
    Mr. Bevan: On reflection perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not persist in the proposal which he makes. He will recollect that one of the arguments advanced against the new machinery of valuation by him, and by some of his hon. Friends, was that this would throw so great a burden upon a piece of new machinery at the time when there was a great scarcity of valuers, that it would be almost impossible for us to get the valuations done by the stated dates. I myself confess that this comparatively small body of highly trained experienced people will have very many calls made upon their resources. There is the Land Board and the work to be done under the Town and Country Planning Act as well as various other work. The Inland Revenue Department will certainly find it difficult to get enough valuers to carry out this very important work.
    On the Committee stage I gave an assurance that we would avail ourselves of the very considerable pool of private valuers that lie outside the local authority sphere. To add to that a further call upon the same body of people by making the local authorities, not now having any

    1271
    valuation functions at all, able to employ valuers will, in our view, be quite impracticable and make the operation of this part of the Act difficult, if not impossible. It would be rather inappropriate for the local authorities to be paying out local rates for valuation officers merely to watch the valuation officers of the Inland Revenue Department. That would be a waste of public money and would not streamline the valuation, as we hope to do. For those reasons, I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not press his new Clause.
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Of course, the Minister's argument is cogent, and any argument in regard to the general sphere of valuation, which bases itself upon the shortage of trained valuers which is likely to arise in regard to the multiple and manifold demands made upon them, notably by the Town and Country Planning Act and by this Act, has considerable force. But it would have more force if this proposed Clause, instead of being permissive, were mandatory, and instead of reading "whole time or part time" simply referred to "whole time officials."
    The argument against the possible employment of valuation officers by local authorities does not come nearly so strongly when one takes account only of part-time officials, because it is probable that if this Clause confines itself to the possibility of part-time officials, they would not necessarily be drawn solely from the general resources of valuers available, because in that case any part-time valuers advising local authorities would, of course, be doing other useful functions by way of valuation as well. The Minister has now agreed and is proposing to embody in the Bill a provision for third party appeals by local authorities, and that will, in the case at any rate of some of the larger authorities, constitute a good reason for the retention of the part-time services of planned valuers. I suggest to the Committee that the Minister's condemnation of this Clause would be a good deal less strong if it is put on a part-time basis, as no doubt would almost invariably be the case if this permissive power were allowed to local authorities.
    Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I must confess I was a little disappointed at the Minister's
    1272
    words. In fact, I was a little perturbed, because I was merely reserving a right which perhaps inadvertently was being removed from the local authorities, but the Minister is very strongly arguing that the local authorities will have no use for the services of valuers at all, and, in any case, the appeal is so small that it will be impossible for them to avail themselves of it. I have great sympathy with him in his second argument. The scarcity of a highly skilled technical staff is one of the greatest difficulty for bringing this complex Measure into operation. I should have thought that a part-time provision, and the fact that it was not mandatory would have mitigated against anything like a fall-down due to the impossibility of getting staff.
    A great many local authorities will look at it hardly if they are to be statutorily debarred from employing the services of valuers in the many problems which come before them. The Minister will find that the local authorities will look with a great deal of uneasiness upon the short discussions we have had upon this subject tonight. I do not propose to press the matter to a Division, but the Minister will be well advised to give it a little further consideration. The great local authorities have for generations worked very closely with whole-time and part-time officers, and they will find it extremely difficult to carry out some of this routine business if suddenly a guillotine is brought down between them and the services of those technical staffs. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(War memorials.)
    (1) In Section one of the War Memorials (Local Authorities' Powers) Act. 1923 (which enables local authorities, as defined in that Act, to incur reasonable expediture in the maintenance, repair and protection of war memorials in their district which are vested in them) for the words "which may be vested in them," there shall be substituted the words "whether vested in them or not."
    (2) The matters on which expenditure may be incurred under the said Section one shall include the alteration of any memorial to which that section applies so as to make it serve as a memorial in connection with any war subsequent to that in connection with which it was erected and the correction of any error or omission in the inscription on any such memorial.—[Mr. O. Poole.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. O. Poole: I beg to move, "That the Clause, be read a Second time."
    The wording and the intention of the proposed Clause are clear, and should commend themselves to the Committee. Subsection (2) gives the local authorities power to amend war memorials created as a result of the 1914–1919 war so as to commemorate people who gave their lives or services in the recent war. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman may be sympathetic to the motive of this proposal, if not to the new Clause as drafted.
    Mr. Bevan: The Clause has an admirable purpose, and I propose to accept it.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Static portions of electricity undertakings to remain rateable.)
    Appropriate assessments shall be created in any valuation list in respect of those portions of Electricity Undertakings as are only indirectly productive, and the sum total of contributions in lieu of rates accruing in favour of rating authorities upon such assessments shall be deducted from the payments to be made year by year by the British Electricity Authority for the benefit of local authorities under this Act.—[Sir J. Mellor.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir J. Mellor: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    I shall be able to deal with this proposal rather more briefly, because of certain observations that I made upon an Amendment to Clause 100. I am afraid that the Minister was not here at the time. The Parliamentary Secretary is fully aware of what I said, with particular reference to a rural district council in my constituency. It is owing to the misfortune in which that council now finds itself because of the provisions of Part V of the Bill, that I have put the proposed new Clause on the Order Paper.
    The purpose of the proposal is that power stations shall still appear in the valuation lists. Under the provisions of Part V, power stations are to be entirely eliminated from valuation lists. My proposal is that in certain respects they should still be rated and that the amount paid by the British Electricity Authority to the pool should be diminished by the total amount which that authority pays in rates.
    1274
    The result would be that the British Electricity Authority would pay no more in rates at all. This Clause would provide merely a different method of distribution of what the British Electricity Authority will pay in rates from that provided in the Bill. It would mean that in respect of the static portions of electricity undertakings the British Electricity Authority would pay rates to the rating authorities. As to the rest of the amount which it would have to pay, it would pay to the pool, and that will be distributed in accordance with the provisions of the Bill.
    I have proposed this new Clause because of the very great hardship which is being inflicted upon those authorities which have power stations within their boundaries. As I dwelt on this at some length on an Amendment to Clause 100 it would not be appropriate, especially as you, Mr. Bowles, were in the Chair when that discussion took place, for me to proceed at any great length, but I feel that I should remind the Committee that the Meriden Rural District Council in my constituency will lose 34 per cent. of its rateable value as a result of the total exclusion of the Ham's Hall power station, which belongs to the Birmingham Corporation, from its valuation list.
    That raises a very formidable proposition. Although the trouble will be tapered off by means of the grant from the county council which is provided under Clause 100, the hardship will nonetheless be extremely severe. The permanent position will be that that rural district will have in perpetuity the Ham's Hall power station located within its area and it will get not a penny in rates directly in respect of it. After 10 years it will get nothing at all from any source in respect of that power station. That is a very severe hardship, because about 1,000 acres will remain sterilised in perpetuity. That is a very grave affliction upon the amenities of the area.
    I hope very much that the Minister will give another thought to this matter. Why is it that only electricity undertakings are to be excluded from the valuation list? Why not other public utilities in the same way? Is it merely because they are nationalised? I hardly think that can be the answer, because hospitals are going to be nationalised but I understand that they will remain rated—
    Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order, Mr. Bowles; there is nothing at all in this Clause which even remotely relates to what the hon. Gentleman is now putting before the Committee. The Clause is extremely narrow. All it says is that:
    "… those portions of Electricity Undertakings as are only indirectly productive."
    No one can say that the power station itself is indirectly productive. It is directly productive, and therefore every argument directed to the derating of a power station is entirely outside the point. Nor is it relevant to argue about the hardships inflicted upon the local authorities where power stations exist. That was taken on a previous Amendment.
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Gentleman should keep more strictly to the terms of the Clause.
    Sir J. Mellor: Certainly, Mr. Bowles. With great respect, I was doing so, most strictly. I am not familiar with the technical expressions currently in use in connection with electricity supply, but I am informed that the expression "indirectly productive" means, to those who understand these technicalities, the structural portions and the underground mains. The Minister may be no more familiar with it than I am, but if that is a correct interpretation, this deals with the structure of the power station. My point is that the power station ought to be represented in some form in the valuation list, and it is not. Why are electricity undertakings to be removed entirely from the valuation lists whereas hospitals, for instance, are to remain in? The Minister is competent to answer on the latter point, and I hope he will. That is the reason I am moving this New Clause. This rural district council in my constituency is being deprived of 34 per cent. of its rateable value, so far as I can see, for no just reason whatever, and I hope we may have a full answer from the Minister.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Bevan: I most certainly shall not give the explanation for which the hon. Member asks because, if I attempted to do so, I would be out of Order. Why should I imitate the errors of the hon. Member?
    Sir J. Mellor: On a point of Order, Mr. Bowles, if the right hon. Gentleman is accusing me of having been out of Order,
    1276
    I submit he is not entirely respectful to your Ruling, for you permitted me to continue my argument. Therefore, I do not think it is right for the right hon. Gentleman to say I was out of Order.
    Mr. Bevan: It is within the recollection of the Committee that the Chairman said that the hon. Member should address himself more narrowly to the new Clause. What he is now asking—
    Sir J. Mellor indicated dissent.
    Mr. Bevan: —is that I should make a Second Reading speech all over again and explain why it is that electricity undertakings have been dealt with differently from other forms of property. Every hon. Member knows the answer to that one; it is self-evident, and I should not at this stage of my Parliamentary life start explaining why an electricity undertaking is slightly different from a cottage or a hospital. The hon. Member knows that.
    What the Clause does is to try to leave for local rating those parts of the electricity undertaking that could be described as not being directly related to the production of electricity. I am informed that "indirectly productive" is not a term of art and it is almost impossible to construe. It would be foolish to decide that the power station itself is productive, but that mains carrying the current from the power station are only indirectly productive, because everybody knows that a dynamo which does not have a cable attached to it produces nothing at all, not even a friction. Consequently the illustration given by the hon. Member does not stand for a moment. Furthermore, it is difficult to detach the building itself from the turbines and from the generators. You cannot rate the building and not rate the contents of the building, so that the difficulty of severance is almost impossible of achievement.
    However, even if we succeeded in carrying out this extremely complicated operation, what would be accomplished? There never was a better example of crossing the river to fill the pail. In the hon. Member's own Clause he would first hand over to the local authority the right to rate indirectly productive parts of the undertakings, if they can be identified, but then he would not give them any share in the pool, but would take away from them that share in the pool represented by the actual hereditaments for

    1277
    which they were entitled. The local authority would be denied its share of the cumulo. There would be accountants working hard in order to shift the sum from one side of the balance sheet to the other, whereas on the hon. Member's own showing the local authority would not benefit.
    Sir J. Mellor: It would get its rates in respect of the static portion directly in the ordinary way. Then, in respect of the other part it would get its share of the pool.
    Mr. Bevan: But if the hon. Member reads his own Clause, he will see that the electricity undertaking would not pay to the local authority any share that would be related to the alienated parts of the property.
    Sir J. Mellor: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has not read the Clause. The point is that the British Electricity Authority would pay a certain amount to local authorities direct through the rates. That total amount would be deducted from what the British Electricity Authority paid into the pool. That latter part would be distributed to the local authorities in proportion to their rateable value.
    Mr. Bevan: Exactly, and in other words they would not get any part of the pool. That makes the whole thing unworkable and unnecessary. We must, therefore, resist the new Clause.
    Sir J. Mellor: I am sorry, but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has properly read the Clause, or understood it. That seems perfectly clear. It will not be denied that a local authority in my constituency is going to lose 34 per cent. of its rateable value, and a number of other authorities will lose something of the same amount. In compensation, those authorities are going to draw out of the pool of rates which will be paid by the electricity authority. Out of that pool they are to draw in proportion to their rateable value—not their existing rateable value as it was before this Measure, but according to their future rateable value after this Bill has become an Act, and after Part V of the Bill has become effective. These local authorities are going to suffer not only because they will be unable to rate the electricity undertakings, but because out of the pool they are only going to draw in proportion to their depleted rateable value. It is a very grave hardship which they have to face. I am sorry the Minister did not take the trouble to read the Clause, or that when he read it he did not understand it. I think I have a very good point here, and I hope the Minister will give more thought to it.
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The Committee divided: Ayes 75; Noes 256.

    Division No. 83.]

    AYES.

    [9.10 p.m.

    Amory, D Heathcoat

    Hollis, M. C.

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Barlow, Sir J

    Hope, Lord J.

    Sanderson, Sir F.

    Beamish, Maj T V H.

    Hurd, A.

    Shephard, S. (Newark)

    Bennett, Sir P.

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

    Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

    Birch, Nigel

    Jeffreys, General Sir G.

    Snaddan, W. M.

    Boles, Lt-Col D C. (Wells)

    Keeling, E. H.

    Spearman, A. C. M

    Bower, N.

    Kerr, Sir J. Graham

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Challen, C

    Langford-Holt, J.

    Strauss, H. G (English Universities)

    Channon, H

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

    Sutciiffe, H.

    Clarke, Col R. S

    Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

    Thorneycroft, G E. P (Monmouth)

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

    Low, A. R. W

    Thornton Kemsley, C. N.

    Conant, Maj. R J. E

    Lucas, Major Sir J

    Touche, G C.

    Darling, Sir W Y

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

    Turton, R H.

    De la Bère, R.

    MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Digby, S. W.

    Macdonald, Sir P. (I of Wight)

    Wakefield, Sir W W

    Dodds-Parker, A D

    Maclay, Hon. J. S.

    Walker-Smith, D.

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

    Macpherson, N (Dumfries)

    Ward, Hon. G. R.

    Drewe, C

    Marples, A. E.

    Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

    Dugdale, Maj Sir T. (Richmond)

    Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

    Wheatley, Col M J (Dorset, E.)

    Fyfe, Rt. Hon Sir D. P. M

    Molson, A. H E

    White, Sir D. (Fareham)

    Gage, C.

    Morrison, Maj. J G. (Salisbury)

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Gomme-Duncan, Col A

    Odey, G. W

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Grimston, R. V

    O'Neill, Rt Hon. Sir H

    York, C.

    Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

    Peto, Brig. C. H M.

    Harvey, Air-Comdre A. V.

    Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Headlam, Lieut-Col Rt. Han. Sir C

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

    Sir John Mellor and

    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.

    NOES.

    Acland, Sir R.

    Grierson, E.

    Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

    Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)

    Alpass, J. H.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanally)

    Palmar, A. M F.

    Attewell, H. C.

    Griffiths, W. D (Moss Side)

    Paton, Mrs F. (Rushcliffe)

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

    Guy, W H.

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Halre, John E. (Wycombe)

    Pearson, A.

    Baird, J

    Hale, Leslie

    Perrins, W.

    Balfour, A.

    Hall, Rt Hon. Glenvil

    Platts-Mills. J. F. F.

    Barstow, P. G.

    Hardman, D. R.

    Popplewell, E.

    Battley, J R.

    Hardy, E A.

    Porter, E (Warrington)

    Bechervaise, A. E

    Harrison, J.

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Benson, G.

    Hastings, Dr Somerville

    Price, M Philips

    Beswick, F.

    Henderson, Rt. Hn A (Kingswinford)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Bevan, Rt Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Pryde, D. J.

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Pursay, Cmdr. H

    Binns, J.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Randall, H. E.

    Blankinsop, A.

    Holman, P

    Ranger, J

    Blyton, W. R.

    Holmes, H E. (Hemsworth)

    Rankin, J.

    Boardman, H.

    Hoy, J.

    Rees-Williams, D. R

    Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.

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

    Reeves, J.

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

    Hughes, Emrys (S Ayr)

    Reid, T (Swindon)

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Richards, R.

    Brooks, T J. (Rothwell)

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

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Brown, George (Belper)

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshira)

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

    Robertson, J. J (Berwick)

    Bruce, Maj D W. T.

    Irving, W. J (Tottenham, N.)

    Rogers, G. H. R

    Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Burke, W A

    Jay, D P. T

    Scollan, T

    Butler, H W (Hackney, S.)

    Jeger, G (Winchester)

    Scott-Elliot, W.

    Byers, Frank

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

    Sharp, Granville

    Champion, A J.

    Jones, D. T (Hartlepools)

    Shawcross, C N. (Widnes)

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Jones, P Asterley (Hitchin)

    Shinwell, Rt Hon. E.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Keenan, W.

    Shurmer, P.

    Cocks, F S.

    Kenyon, C.

    Silkin, Rt. Hon L.

    Coldrick, W.

    Key, C. W.

    Silverman, J (Erdington)

    Collick, P

    King, E M.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Collindridge, F.

    Kinley, J

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Collins, V J

    Lang, G

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Colman, Miss G. M.

    Lawson, Rt Hon J. J.

    Smith, C. (Colchester)

    Comyns, Dr L.

    Lee, Miss J (Cannock)

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Cook, T. F.

    Leonard, W.

    Smith, H N. (Nottingham, S.)

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

    Leslie, J R.

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

    Cove, W G.

    Levy, B W.

    Solley, L. J.

    Daggar, G.

    Lewis, A W J. (Upton)

    Soskice, Sir Frank

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Lewis, T (Southampton)

    Stamford, W

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Steele, T.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Lipson, D. L.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

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

    Longden, F.

    Stross, Dr B.

    Davies, S O. (Merthyr)

    Lyne, A W.

    Swingler, S

    Deer, G

    McAdam, W.

    Sylvester, G O.

    Delargy, H J

    McEntee, V La T

    Symonds, A. L

    Dobbie, W

    McGhee, H G.

    Taylor, H B (Mansfield)

    Dodds, N N.

    McGovern, J.

    Taylor. R J. (Morpeth)

    Donovan, T

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

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    McKinlay A S.

    Thomas, D E. (Aerdare)

    Dugdale, J (W Bromwich)

    Maclean, N (Govan)

    Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

    Dumpleton, C W.

    McLeavy, F.

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Durbin, E. F M.

    MacMillan, M K (Western Isles)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Mainwaring, W H

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Ede'man, M.

    Mann, Mrs. J.

    Thurtle, Ernest

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

    Manning, C (Camberwell, N.)

    Tiffany, S.

    Edwards, John (Blackburn)

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Timmons, J

    Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

    Mathers, Rt Hon. G.

    Titterington, M. F.

    Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapal)

    Messer, F.

    Tolley, L

    Evans, A (Islington, W.)

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Evans, E (Lowestoft)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Ungoed-Thomas, L.

    Evans, John (Ogmore)

    Mitchison, G. R

    Vernon, Maj. W. F.

    Evans, S N. (Wadnesbury)

    Morley, A S

    Viant, S. P

    Fairhurst, F.

    Morley, R.

    Wadsworth, G

    Farthing, W. J.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Walkden, E.

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

    Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

    Walker, G. H.

    Foot, M. M.

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

    Warbey, W. N.

    Forman, J. C.

    Mort, D. L.

    Watkins, T E

    Fraser, T (Hamilton)

    Murray, J D

    Watson, W M.

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    Nally, W

    Webb, M (Bradford, C.)

    George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

    Naylor, T E.

    Westwood, Rt Hon. J.

    Gibbins, J

    Neal, H (Claycross)

    Wheatley, J T (Edinburgh, E.)

    Glanville, J E (Consett)

    Nicholls, H R (Stratford)

    White, C F (Derbyshire, W.)

    Greenwood A. W. J. (Heywood)

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

    White, H (Derbyshire, N.E.)

    Grenfell, D R.

    Oliver, G H.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Gray, C. F.

    Orbach, M.

    Wigg, George

    Paget, R. T.

    Wilkins, W A

    1280

    1281

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Williamson, T.

    Yates, V F

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Willis, E.

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Wills, Mrs. E. A

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Williams, J. L. (Kevingrove)

    Woodburn, A

    Mr. Snow and

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

    Wyatt, W.

    Mr. George Wallace.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Rating of owners instead of occupiers.)
    (1) Subsection (1) of Section eleven of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925 (which imposes a limit on the rateable value of hereditaments outside London in respect of which owners may be rated instead of occupiers of thirteen pounds or, where at the passing of that Act a higher limit was in certain circumstances in force, that higher limit) for the words "thirteen pounds," there shall be substituted the words "eighteen pounds," and for the words "that higher limit," there shall be substituted the words "twenty-five pounds."
    (2) The Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, shall have effect as if in Section three of that Act (which imposes a limit of twenty pounds in the corresponding provisions relating to London) for the words "twenty pounds," there were substituted the words "twenty-five pounds."—[Mr. T. Lewis.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Thomas Lewis: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This Clause deals with the question of the compounding of rates. Under the law as it is at present, the rating authorities are empowered to direct that owners of certain classes of hereditaments shall be rated compulsorily, instead of the occupiers. This is known as "compounding." At present, the general limit is £13 in the provinces, and £20 in London. Several other large towns have limits between these two figures.
    It is anticipated that the revaluation of dwelling houses, in accordance with the provisions of Part IV of the Bill, will remove a large number of houses from the compounding provision. In Birmingham, there are about 170,000 houses concerned, and, if the limits remain the same, it is anticipated that 90,000, considerably more than half of them, will be removed from the compounding provisions. The result will be that considerably more tenants will become ratepayers because, of course, the owner is commonly the owner of more than one property.
    This, in its turn, will mean a considerable addition in the cost of collecting rates, and will involve the revision of tenancy agreements. The figures of £18 and £25 would, it is anticipated, allow
    1282
    most of the existing compounded properties to remain subject to this very convenient method of collecting rates, and, therefore, I hope the Minister will accept this new Clause.
    Mr. Bevan: I see no reason at all why this new Clause should not be accepted. I cannot accept the reasons given by my hon. Friend, because they are largely based upon conjecture, and may not be realised; but the new compounding limits would have a certain practical value, and, therefore, I propose to accept the Clause.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Transfer of road property and liabilities.)
    The provisions of section one hundred and seventeen of the Local Government Act, 1929 (which provides for the transfer to a county council of property and liabilities relating to roads vested in the county council on or before the appointed day therein referred to) shall with any necessary modifications apply to roads in a borough or urban district which since that appointed day have become or which shall hereafter become county roads and as regards roads which since that day and before the passing of this Act became county roads shall be deemed to have applied thereto as from the day upon which they became county roads:
    Provided that as regards roads which become county roads after the said appointed day and before the passing of this Act paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of the said section one hundred and seventeen shall apply only to land unexpended balances and sinking funds which have been retained by the council of the county district in which those roads are situate.—[Mr. T. Lewis.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. T. Lewis: I beg to move, "That the Clause he read a Second time."
    I do not know whether I shall be quite as successful with this new Clause. This is a rather more complicated point and deals with a transfer of road property and I anticipate that there may, perhaps, be difficulties between the county authorities and the county boroughs The Local Government Act, 1929, transferred to county councils, as from 1st April, 1930, all roads in rural districts and the classified roads in urban districts and non-county boroughs. Section 117 of that Act

    1283
    provided that certain property and liabilities of county district councils, relating to such roads, were to be transferred to the county councils as from that date.
    Since 1930, a number of further roads have become classified roads, and have passed from the county districts to the councils, but the county councils are unable to accept responsibility for liabilities which the non-county boroughs have incurred in respect of those roads, because Section 117 does not provide for the transfer of property and liabilities in respect of roads which, subsequent to April, 1930, became classified roads, nor is there any such provision elsewhere. The object of this new Clause, therefore, is to provide that the county council should accept the transfer of property and liabilities in connection with roads which have become classified roads since 1st April, 1930. I expect that the county councils may have an entirely different view about this, but I think that, in the public interest, it should be done.
    Mr. Bevan: I am afraid I cannot accept this new Clause, because it would put a requirement upon county councils which they would be quite entitled to reject. After all, a county district may have involved itself in expenditure on its own account, and then might require the county council to take over the scheme, and that would be quite unreasonable. It can be negotiated, and a transfer made by agreement, but it certainly would he inappropriate for a county district to decide on its own scheme, and, after having involved itself in very considerable expense, at a certain moment, require the county council to take it over. Where, however, it can be shown that a county district has got itself into financial difficulties, owing to excessive burdens consequent on circumstances beyond its control, another portion of the Act enables the county council to make a contribution to its relief.
    Mr. T. Lewis: In view of the Minister's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Minor Amendments consequential on Part III.)
  Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 95, to leave out lines 12 to 16.
  This Amendment is consequential.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I hasten to reassure the Committee that I am not rising to oppose or criticise the Amendment to the Schedule, which is consequential on a previous new Clause, but it is appropriate to suggest for the consideration of the Minister that it might be possible to follow in this Bill the valuable precedent set in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. This Schedule refers to amendments of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, and, in addition to the amendments to this Act, there are, of course, provisions for the repeal of a very substantial number of Sections of this Act in the ensuing Schedule, and this forms a very close parallel to the case of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, and the Act of the same name of 1947. As a result, I think, of something done in another place, the amended and unrepealed provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, are now set out as a Schedule to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.
  The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is very wide of the subject of the Amendment.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: With respect, Mr. Bowles, I think my comments arise out of the proposal to amend the Schedule, which itself is amending the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, and what I am putting before the Committee is an appropriate method, which has already been effected—
  The Temporary Chairman: I think the hon. Gentleman may make his speech more appropriately on the Question, "That this be the First Schedule to the Bill."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule, as amended, be the First Schedule to the Bill."
  Mr. Walker-Smith: I will now seek to develop the argument I was putting before the Committee on the Amendment to this Schedule. I was in process of trying to draw the attention of the Committee to what I conceive to be a very valuable and useful precedent, and that is the incorporation in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, of a Schedule setting out the unrepealed and amended portions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944. That is of great advantage to those

  1285
  who have to make frequent reference to the Statute. They have ready to hand the whole of the existing portions of the previous Act, as amended and as partly repealed by the new Act. I hope the Minister will take it that it is the general opinion of those who have for various reasons to use this Statute that this has been most helpful. There seems to be a parallel case here, as a large number of the Sections of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, are being repealed by the provisions of this Bill, and certain other Sections of that Act are amended

  "30 & 31 Viet. c. 102.

  The Representation of the People Act, 1867

  Section seven"

  —[Mr. J Edwards.]

  In page 98, line 3, leave out "Subsection (2) of."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

  "7 Edw. 7 c 53.

  The Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907

  Paragraphs (d), (e) and (h) of Subsection (1) of Section seventy-six.

  15 & 16 Geo 5. c. 71

  The Public Health Act, 1925.

  Subsections (1) to (4) of Section fifty-six and the proviso to Subsection (1) of Section seventy."

  This Amendment and the four subsequent Amendments all relate to the new Clause which it was agreed we should take tomorrow. I think it would be convenient to take them now, as they cover

  "3 Edw. 7. c. 33.

  The Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1903.

  In Section forty-four, paragraph 3."

  [Mr. T. Fraser.]

  In line 51, at end, insert:

  "26 Geo. 5 & 1 Edw. 8 c. 49.

  The Public Health Act, 1936.

  The proviso to Subsection (1) of Section two hundred and twenty-six.

  26 Geo. 5 & 1 Edw. 8. c. 50

  The Public Health (London) Act, 1936.

  The proviso to Subsection (1) of Section one hundred and seventy-two."

  [Mr. J. Edwards.]

  In page 101, line 7, at end, insert:

  "1 Edw. 8 and 1 Geo. 6. c. 46.

  The Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937.

  In Section ten, in Subsection (5) the words from 'Provided that,' to the end of the Subsection."—[Mr T Fraser.]

  Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 101, line 28, column 3, at the beginning, to insert:
  "In Section seventy-four in Subsection (5) the words from "so however," to the end of the Subsection."
  Commander Galbraith: I did not hear whether we were told that this is a consequential Amendment. I should be glad if we might have some information about it.
  The Lord Advocate (Mr. Wheatley): The reason for this Amendment is that by
  by the provisions of this Bill. It will be a great convenience to those who will use this Measure if the remaining provisions of the 1925 Act, as amended, could be set out as a Schedule in precisely the same way as the amended and unrepealed Sections of the 1944 Act were set out as a Schedule to the 1947 Act.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

  SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Enactments repealed.)
  Amendments made: in page 97, line 17, at end, insert:
  Mr. J. Edwards: I beg to move, in page 100, line 41, at the end, to insert:
  a relatively minor point and pave the way for the later discussion.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: In line 41, at end, insert:
  virtue of the new Clauses certain Acts which already give limited powers will be superseded by the general powers in the new Clauses. These Acts are no longer necessary, and the Amendment seeks to remove them from the Statute Book.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  To report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. G. Wallace.]
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  SARAWAK (MR. ANTHONY BROOKE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. G. Wallace.]
  9.36 p.m.
  Mr. York: I have been caught at some disadvantage tonight in that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling), who should have raised the subject of Mr. Anthony Brooke and Sarawak has unfortunately been detained, and I am left with the privilege of putting before the House one or two points in connection with the case until his arrival. The House will recall that this controversy arose out of somewhat curious proceedings which were undertaken by the Rajah of Sarawak at that time. As a consequence of those proceedings, the next in succession was prohibited from going to that country to find out the opinions of its people as to the method by which the Colony, as it now is, was taken over by the Government.
  My hon. Friend will no doubt say to the House that there are many things to be explained by the Government. One of them—the most awkward—is that any British subject, whatever his qualifications of birth may be, should be prohibited from going to any part of the British Dominions. I hope that my hon. Friend, and other of my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side, will make clear exactly how we feel about this matter.
  9.39 p.m.
  Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: The point which concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling) and myself and others in this case has already been raised with the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and if I may let the House have the facts in chronological order the importance of the point will become immediately clear. On 20th December, 1946, the Secretary of State purported to quote the reliable Press in the vicinity of Sarawak, or in Sarawak itself, and mentioned as a paper which constituted that Press, the "Sarawak Times." In fact, the right hon. Gentleman meant to quote the "Sarawak Tribune," but we do not intend to hold such minor muddlements against him in view of the more serious matters involved in this case.
  1288
  The reason the right hon. Gentleman quoted the wrong paper was that it was a paper which shared his views against Mr. Anthony Brooke. What the right hon. Gentleman did not tell the House at that time was that the article from which he purported to quote, as giving legal opinion, had been written for that paper by the legal adviser to the Sarawak Government—an official of his own service. When the Under-Secretary replies to the Debate, I hope he will tell us whether it was known to his right hon. Friend, or to the Colonial Office in London that the article which was quoted as representing legal opinion was the contribution of an officer of the Government, written no doubt as part of an official campaign against Mr. Anthony Brooke.
  That was not the end of the matter. This literary legal officer of the Sarawak Government pursued his labours with the pen and, on 3rd January, 1947, wrote a further article, attacking Mr. Anthony Brooke more strongly, and in more vigorous language. I am not going into the question of whether or not that article constitutes defamation, but the hon. Gentleman—and none better—will appreciate the reasons why I am not so doing. I merely mention, as part of the history of the matter which has been made out before, that Mr. Brooke was advised by counsel, whose name has been mentioned, and I need not mention it again, as it will be well known to the Minister that the article was defamatory. That is not the end of the matter, but that is the position. He then desired to commence proceedings in the court of Sarawak.
  It is clear to every one, whether or not they have any legal knowledge, that if someone is defamed, the place where they want to clear themselves from such defamatory attacks is the place where the defamation is launched. Mr. Brooke endeavoured to take proceedings in Sarawak, and caused inquiries to be made to the means of doing so. On 29th May, 1917, the Registrar of the Supreme Court in Sarawak wrote:
  "There is, however, no provision for legal representation."
  On 26th June, he enlarged on that by saying that the usual procedure was for the plaintiff to present his plaint to the court of competent jurisdiction himself. At that time, Mr. Anthony Brooke was not permitted for reasons which have been explored in this House, to go to Sarawak.

  1289
  He was, therefore, in the position that he had been forbidden to go to this part of the British Empire. He has been attacked and, on his own showing, defamed in a paper published in that part of the British Empire, and in an article written by the legal adviser to the Government of that part of the British Empire. In those circumstances he not unnaturally requested that he should be allowed into this place, where there was no provision for legal representation, and at any rate be given the opportunity of clearing his name.
  There was no question of any ignorance in the matter. The legal adviser admitted he had written the article, and, he did so, in fact, with a frankness which made obvious what is clear to everyone who knows the admitted facts. He himself wrote and emphasised in his letter to Mr. Brooke the fact that Mr. Brooke was prohibited from entering Sarawak, while presumably making the institution and taking of proceedings in Sarawak difficult, if not impossible. Further, he suggested that a very convenient course from his point of view and from that of Sarawak was that Mr. Brooke should take proceedings in Singapore or in this country.
  On 12th August, Mr. Brooke was refused permission to go and prosecute his claim. Again, let me make it perfectly clear that Mr. Brooke not only stated that he desired to go for the purpose of putting forward his claim in this action, but that he desired naturally to press his right to be present to give evidence. He also undertook to co-operate with the authorities in any steps which they might think right to ensure that his arrival would not result in any untoward incident. What more could he have done? When I put certain questions to the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, he mentioned the point, which I have already stated, that Mr. Brooke could have brought his proceedings in Singapore or in this country. Let us once again look at the uncontradicted facts. The British Government, or through their legal representative who constitutes the British Government in that territory, put up an official to attack Mr. Brooke. They then deprived him of access to the place where the libel was published, and where it was clearly desired that it should have a certain effect, which was to lessen the position and status of Mr. Brooke among the people of that
  1290
  place. Moreover, this was done in a place where there is no provision for representation. In those circumstances he was refused access and told to bring the action elsewhere.
  It must be obvious to the most hidebound official mind, as it is clearly obvious to anyone of the experience of the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State, that the amount of damages is not the only matter which is in the mind of someone who believes he has been defamed and brings an action therefor. Is it important, on the issue of damages. to get clear the extent of the injury which has been done to the person attacked. Whether hon. Members follow the law or not, they will realise that it is very important, when a libel has been spread either widely or among people who are of special concern to the person who has been defamed, that the person should clear his reputation in the eyes and minds of the people to whom the libel has been published. That can be done only if the evidence is appreciated and understood by those to whom it is presented.
  Another essential purpose which may be most important, and is very important, when a libel is made by the official legal adviser to a government for a purpose which is the purpose of the Government and has been explained to be in complete accord with the policy of the Government, is to stop further publication of that libel. That can only be done by an injunction. To put the matter in an ordinary paraphrase and ordinary words, an injunction is to the effect that if one repeats the libel, one is not only acting against the person who is defamed but against the court which has told one to stop it.
  The only court that can effectively enforce an injunction is one in the area where the person whom we want to injunct resides. It would not be of much use for anyone to get an injunction against an hon. Member of this House in the courts of Kamchatka, because those courts would have considerable difficulty in dealing with a person like the present Home Secretary. An injunction must he taken out in the country where person resides. The only court that can effectively enforce such a legal decision in Sarawak would be the courts of Sarawak. That was an additional reason why it was essential to bring proceedings there.

  1291
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will not think that I am avoiding this question. I am anxious not to go into matters which are not relevant, or into any criticism of those who have the legal office. The injunction was asked for a month ago, and was refused. In order to avoid judgment against him and the consequent legal difficulties which that involves, action had to be withdrawn. I do not want to indulge in any criticism, because it is no business of mine to criticise courts, wherever they operate, unless the matter has passed into the realm of clear fact and is beyond any matter that may arise in subsequent litigation. I am not shirking the point; I only want to state it and make it clear why I am not pursuing it at length.
  We are concerned with the position of a citizen of the British Empire who wishes to litigate in the British Empire and is not permitted to do so. I have read with great care the speech of the hon. Gentleman, then a private Member of this House, and the speech of his right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary in dealing with this matter, and I have endeavoured to give such weight as they deserve to the remarks both of them made with regard to the Colonial ordinances which occur in many parts of the Empire with regard either to the deportation or non-admission of undesirables.
  I am quite aware, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows, of these ordinances and their application in many directions, but that is quite a different matter from the case to which the hon. Gentleman humorously referred—I am not holding that against him; it was in his private capacity—from Singapore as an example of circumstances under which these ordinances may be used. There can be no precedent based in good law or equity, and there is nothing that can arise in the old words of international law, "ex aequo et bono" for the refusal to permit a person who claims to be wronged in part of the British Empire the very limited visit which is necessary to bring that action and establish one way or the other whether he has been wronged and, if he has been wronged, to restrain the people who have wronged him.
  That is our point. I have deliberately abstained from going into any of the wider questions, but this House has throughout its history prided itself on the
  1292
  readiness with which any matter that concerns the liberty of the subject can be raised and the readiness with which it is met. We say that these circumstances, admitted as the facts are, show not only a gross invasion of the liberties of the subject but a denial of justice and a wrong without a remedy which it has for hundreds of years been the glory of English law to try to prevent.
  9.59 p.m.
  Mr. West: The House has listened with great care to the case which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) has put up and we have all been impressed by the forensic skill which he displayed. I notice that this matter has been before the House on no fewer than 10 previous occasions, and tonight we gather from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he is laying the greatest emphasis upon the right of Mr. Anthony Brooke to go to Sarawak to pursue a legal remedy for libel. On the previous occasions when this matter has been raised the important point stressed was, it appears from reading the reports, not so much the legal right to go to Sarawak to pursue a legal remedy but whether this gentleman should be entitled to go into that territory for the purposes of endeavouring to establish a claim—
  It being Ten o'Clock the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Simmons.]
  Mr. West: —but for the purpose of going into that territory to establish a claim which he seeks to set up to become Rajah of Sarawak. The House will have to consider with some care whether the case which has been put tonight really is the purpose of Mr. Anthony Brooke or whether it is not in fact a clever subterfuge so that he might get into the territory to achieve his ulterior purpose. It is quite clear that the gravest consideration must be given before any of the arguments put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman tonight could be accepted by my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. John Foster: Is the hon. Member suggesting that Mr. Brooke got himself libelled on purpose in order to go to Sarawak?
  Mr. West: I am suggesting that if there is in fact a libel—which, of course, the House is not yet in a position to judge for we only have the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view that Mr. Anthony Brooke has been libelled—but if Mr. Anthony Brooke is so concerned about his reputation and feels that he has been libelled, and if to vindicate his reputation is his main concern, then there are open to him opportunities of doing this in the highest and the fairest courts known in the world—he can bring his action in the United Kingdom. No one can deny that if he brought his action here he would have a fair trial. Therefore, if the argument really be that he desires to vindicate his reputation and his character, why has he not brought proceedings? As I understand it, no proceedings have been brought up to the present.
  Mr. Foster: Does the hon. Member realise that all the witnesses are in Sarawak and that it would be complete nonsense to bring a case in England? Sarawak is the place where he has been libelled.
  Mr. West: There is an opportunity. Indeed the right hon. and learned Gentleman will no doubt be able to give the necessary advice to the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. Foster) as to how the witnesses could be obtained. However, even if the United Kingdom were not considered appropriate, there is ample opportunity for him to take his proceedings in Singapore and, of course, there is the most important matter to be considered also—I gathered it from a reply made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies in reply to a Question—that no lawyers practise in Sarawak. Therefore, if Mr. Anthony Brooke were to bring his action to vindicate his character, he would have the opportunity of the great forensic skill of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to pursue his case in an appropriate court.
  What really is the purpose of this agitation on the part of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite? Why is it that Mr. Anthony Brooke is so anxious to get into Sarawak? I suggest that there is another motive, and that this talk about a libel action is merely a specious excuse. I suggest that purpose is clearly indicated by the statements which this gentleman has made and which have been reported in the Press. I see in the "Evening
  1294
  Standard" of 4th November, 1946, that Mr. Anthony Brooke is reported as stating that he has decided to fight the plan for the annexation of Sarawak by Britain, and that he has instructed his lawyers to prepare a case for presentation to the Privy Council. This is as far back as 1946. If Mr. Anthony Brooke desired to test the legality of the annexation by Britain, why have proceedings not been instituted, and why is there this constant agitation that he should go into the territory for the purpose, the specious purpose, of pursuing a libel action? It seems that the aim is to be a declaration that the Order in Council is invalid by which Sarawak ceased to be an independent State, and became part of the Empire.
  The report further points out that under the financial terms of the annexation Mr. Brooke receives £2,800 a year and it says that he is using his share to finance the campaign. Is it to finance the libel action or to finance the campaign which he seeks to embark upon in Sarawak? His allocation for the cession of Sarawak to Britain is £2,800 a year and, as I understand it, he has been receiving that money. He then, as he has clearly stated, decides to agitate that he should be established in Sarawak as the Rajah. He seems to want the best of both worlds. He wants to have the financial benefit and to become the Rajah as well.
  There are a number of reports to which I could refer where this gentleman has stated that his sole purpose is to go to Sarawak and to find out whether they wanted him as the Rajah, not his uncle—after all he is only the heir presumptive—not his father, but whether they wanted him as the Rajah of Sarawak. We must remember there is a duty with which my right hon. Friend is charged. He must see that the territories are not disturbed and brought into a state of disorder and chaos. The agitation of this gentleman in the Press of this country and indeed some agitation in Sarawak demonstrates that there is an inspired organisation which contends that they want Mr. Anthony Brooke as the fourth Rajah of Sarawak. If that is the real purpose of the argument which has been adduced tonight it is only right and proper that the Colonial Secretary should view all the circumstances with very great care before any permission can be given to

  1295
  this man to enter that territory, because it must be remembered he has himself stated that the people there are in such a condition that they are not able to appreciate the fact and the operation of the constitution. Indeed, the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) who went to Sarawak said that the population of Dyaks, Malays, Chinese and various pagan tribes is largely illiterate in the ordinary sense of the word. It must be remembered that the condition that the right hon. Gentleman has to bear in mind is whether there is any doubt that there is likely to be strife and disorder through the agitation of this man and if there is any possibility of strife and disorder it is his duty to see that it does not occur.
  The hon. Member for Hornsey had no doubt whatever in the statement he made. He said that the cession to the British Crown is the best thing for the people of Sarawak. Indeed, if that is so, I would ask my hon. Friend some questions in regard to this matter, because it is most important that the House should clearly understand what is the purpose of this agitation. I do not really understand why right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have taken such a keen interest in this particular gentleman. I do not know that they have on other occasions even attempted to defend the rights of ordinary men and women in this country.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, yes."]—They have raised the case of this particular gentleman on the Floor of the House of Commons on no fewer than 10 occasions. I do not know that they have ever persisted so long on behalf of a British subject in this country who has apparently been denied some right to justice here. Yet, on this occasion this particular gentleman must receive their most urgent consideration.
  I am suggesting that it is not so that this gentleman might have the right to pursue his legal action but really that he might go into this territory and create disorder for the purpose of embarrassing His Majesty's Government. I wish, therefore, to ask my hon. Friend whether, in point of fact, since this territory has been ceded to His Majesty's Government the people of Sarawak have not benefited under our rule, and whether they themselves do not now appreciate the benefits that are being
  1296
  conferred upon them by the fact that they are now within the Empire.
  I would also like to ask my hon. Friend whether Mr. Anthony Brooke himself is not aware of the situation now prevailing there. If he is, and is so anxious to go into that territory, it can only be for the purpose of trying to usurp the present authority in order that he might become the Rajah of that territory. I know that other Members desire to speak and for that reason I will not continue further—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I am glad to hear the jeers of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite because I know that when we receive jeers from that side of the House we are almost invariably right. I ask my hon. Friend to inform the House whether the conditions in Sarawak have not considerably improved as a result of British rule.
  10.13 p.m.
  Mr. William Teeling: In the few minutes that remain to me, due to the length of the speech of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. West), who has just been put up, obviously upon a ludicrous brief, might I refer him to the Debate on the Motion for the Adjournment in December, 1946, in which almost every single point he raised was answered. It was then stated that the position of Mr. Anthony Brooke would be reviewed over a period of time. I raised this question two or three times, and it was therefore finally decided that this evening we should be informed whether he could go back or not. The hon. Member who is to reply to the Debate will not be able to show that since those days of December, 1946, until today Mr. Brooke has done a single act which could possibly prevent him from going back any more or less than at the date of that particular Adjournment Debate.
  Since then in the Far East the question has been constantly raised, and those who thought it was a good thing that Great Britain had given up India, Burma, and other places are becoming most unhappy over the fact that Sarawak has, on the contrary, been annexed by us. Very clearly and determinedly the Colonial Office referred to this annexation as cession, not annexation. We had a similar problem in Malaya, where we called it annexation and then had to go back on it in spite of the MacMichael Report. Unfortunately we keep talking

  1297
  about the question of Sarawak here as if it was "cession." Today we find in every visa issued from Sarawak that it is no longer the question of "cession" on the passport, but the word used is "annexed." Furthermore, Mrs. Brooke, the wife of Anthony Brooke, has been for many months in Sarawak. There nave been no riots or trouble or worry about her visit, but she has been told by the Government—they will not provide her with any definite statement in writing—that if she goes to join her husband in Singapore, she may not be allowed to return. They say that it may be a question of the conditions at a particular moment. That is disgraceful and a definite breaking up of a family. The children are remaining in England.
  The hon. Member for Pontypool referred to the question of £2,800 a year. Perhaps he does not realise that the Rajah and the Rajah's brother received a sum of money. It was well over £1 million that they should have received as it was one of the biggest private estates in the world. The Rajah and his brother received their money free of Income Tax and they receive more than our Prime Minister. But Mr. Anthony Brooke, who was to receive his money on the same basis, has his £2,800 cut down by Income Tax, because he wants to go and fight for the cause of the people in Sarawak. It is, in other words, just another financial effort of the Government to make his position more difficult.
  I wish to make it clear, however, that we are not now fighting over that issue. Today we are discussing the legal question of whether a British subject can, or cannot, go back to Sarawak and have discussions in regard to the libel action. The hon. Member for Pontypool must remember that when in December the present Colonial Secretary quoted from local papers and referred to an article by the "legal adviser," we were not told then that it was the Legal Adviser. The Colonial Secretary tried to get away with the fact that it was just an ordinary newspaper. It was not only the legal adviser, but the same man who on the occasion of that very famous debate in the Oxford Union before the war led the debate against fighting for King and country Today he is the Attorney-General of Sarawak. That is the type of person we are dealing against and worried about.
  1298
  Sarawak in the years to come might quite easily, with the Brooke family, work together with the British Government, for they are very loyal, and everything could have been all right. What is now fast happening is that a position is arising whereby many of the people are turning against the Brooke family, and are out for a separate republic, and before we know where we are we shall have a second Indonesia. That is what the Colonial Office has brought upon itself.
  10.18 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): There are, in fact, two issues here and they are so closely interwoven that it is very difficult to separate them. There is the broad issue of cession and the attempt of Mr. Anthony Brooke to restore the Raj to the Brooke family in his own person, and the other issue to which the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) has alluded tonight. It is impossible to separate the two; it is obviously impossible because the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling) in his speech concentrated on cession and hardly mentioned the other issue at all.
  One thing he said I think was very significant. He said that Sarawak, a country the size of England, was the Brooke's private estate. I should have thought the time had now gone when half a million people could be regarded as anybody's private estate. We in the Colonial Office look at the matter from the point of view of what the people want and what is to their best advantage. The House will remember that the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) and I went out there. We made a tour—not an extensive tour; we could not in the time—with the object of finding out, if possible, whether there was a feeling towards cession in the country, or whether everyone was against it We eventually came to the conclusion that there was enough feeling for cession, and enough feeling which was neutral to justify the matter going to the State Council.
  On the narrow issue, the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies quoted "The Times" when he meant the "Tribune." It is a good thing he did not make that mistake in this country as, otherwise, it would have led to a great deal more mis-

  1299
  understanding than in Sarawak. But I may say that he did not realise he was making a misquotation of the name of a newspaper, nor did he or anyone in the Colonial Office know that the author of this anonymous article, of which complaint has been made, was, in fact, the Legal Adviser. I am not going to justify that. I think it was improper for an officer of the Colonial Service—I am not arguing, for the moment, whether it was libellous or not—to make an anonymous attack upon a person who is politically concerned with the future of that country. I understand—
  Mr. Teeling: Why has he been promoted since then to be Attorney-General?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: The change was made in the title; before, he was Legal Adviser, and we now call him Attorney-General.
  Mr. Teeling: Did he get any more money?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: That is not promotion; that is merely a change in title. I should have thought hon. Members would accept the fact that we do not justify that action. The Legal Adviser wrote to Mr. Brooke on 26th June, 1947, and admitted the authorship. He submitted to the jurisdiction of the courts, either in the United Kingdom or Singapore. Singapore is only two hours away by air, and there is a very constant flow of information and of life and trade between the two places, Kuching and Singapore. He also informed Mr. Brooke, and Mr. Brooke's solicitors, that, if it was so desired, the court would permit Mr. Brooke to appear by attorney in the courts of Sarawak. Mr. Brooke did not accept either of those alternatives, with the result that, at the present moment, Mr. Brooke has not proceeded with his libel action.
  The question as to whether Mr. Brooke can be excluded is, I am advised, one upon which there is no doubt. Under the law of Sarawak, he can be excluded by the Chief Secretary, and has been so excluded. The reason he has been excluded is not because of the libel action, or any matter of that kind, but simply and solely because of this political matter—the cession. Mr. Brooke is a pretender to the throne of Sarawak; that is the point. He is not in the position of any ordinary British subject. He is the pretender to the throne, and his presence in Sarawak, we
  1300
  are advised would inevitably lead, or would very probably lead, to insurrection. We have taken up this matter quite recently.
  Mr. Teeling: Why, if cession is such a success?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: I will tell the hon. Gentleman why in a moment. We have taken up this matter quite recently with the Governor-General, who has been here on leave. Hon. Members will know Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, and will know that he is a man of political experience, and is not likely to come to a conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—No one can deny that he has had considerable political experience and that he is not likely to come to a conclusion of this kind without carefully weighing it up. [An HON. MEMBER: "What did you say about him in 1931"?] In addition to that, this is 1948; hon. Members opposite never realise that.
  I also took the opportunity of discussing this matter with the Chief Secretary, whom I have known for many years, and who was an officer in the Malayan Service and is very experienced. He was very much against admitting Mr. Brooke. We also consulted the Governor, and all three of these responsible officers said that, on no account, should Mr. Brooke be admitted to Sarawak. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman is very funny, and it is all right being funny sitting here, but there are no troops in Sarawak and no roads, and if there is insurrection, with an inflammable population, some people will lose their lives. It is a matter of life and death that we are talking about. It may be very funny talking about it here, but it is not so funny out in Kuching—
  Mr. Teeling: Who has brought all this trouble?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: No one has brought this trouble; it arose out of the cession by the Rajah partly because he did not think Mr. Brooke was fit to be Rajah. All these responsible officers say that, if we let him in, there is a small proportion of the population which might, and probably would, back him, and there would be insurrection. We have there a country the size of England with no roads whatever, outside the few towns, and no troops. We have a country which has only recently been restored from the Japanese, and, when the Japanese were there between 1945 and 1946, they took 1,500 heads in

  1301
  Sarawak from the Japanese and a few others by mistake. We have that situation to meet, and if we have insurrection in a country like that, with no troops, no roads and a population part of which is used to head-hunting and is not yet civilised, then we are imposing upon the government of that country, and, consequently, upon this Government and finally ourselves, a very serious responsibility indeed.
  That is the position that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies was facing. Was he to disregard the unanimous opinion of the Governor-General, the Governor and the Chief Secretary. [Interruption.] I am not worried about the Attorney-General, because he is not an administrative officer. The question was whether to admit Mr. Brooke or not. That was the reason that we decided that we would not admit Mr. Brooke in those circumstances at the present time. Mr. Brooke has recourse to the courts here or in Singapore or the courts of Sarawak by attorney; he can take any of hese steps he wishes and the present Attorney-General will submit himself as defendant in any one of these courts in these three territories. That offer is still open to Mr. Brooke.
  1302
  In these circumstances, therefore, I feel that, in this peculiar situation—and I admit it is only one in 50 million—the Government cannot go back on their decision but must leave it as it is. These circumstances are not likely to arise again, because I do not think we are likely to have another cession of another territory. There are not many left now, and we are not likely to have many more.
  Mr. Teeling: In view of the fact that it cannot be proved that Mr. Brooke has been disloyal, would it not he better to let him go back and organise forces to prevent disorder?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: We cannot prove a negative in any case, and it is not a question of his disloyalty His presence in Sarawak might be highly inflammatory to some parts of the population.
  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 Half-past Ten o'Clock.

POST OFFICE
  Air Mail Services, Western Isles
  Air Mail Services, Western Isles
  Telephones and Offices, Outer Hebrides
  Telephones and Offices, Outer Hebrides
  Postage Stamps
  Postage Stamps
  Letter Deliveries (B.A.O.R.)
  Letter Deliveries (B.A.O.R.)
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (PAY PERIODS)
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (PAY PERIODS)
CIVIL AVIATION
  Petrol (Dollar Expenditure)
  Petrol (Dollar Expenditure)
  Landing Fees
  Landing Fees
  Air Vice-Marshal Bennett (Dismissal)
  Air Vice-Marshal Bennett (Dismissal)
GERMANY
  Undertakings (Public Ownership)
  Undertakings (Public Ownership)
  Captured Official Documents (Publication)
  Captured Official Documents (Publication)
  Agreements (Publication)
  Agreements (Publication)
ARMED FORCES
  Occupation Force, Japan
  Occupation Force, Japan
  Dependants, Eire
  Dependants, Eire
  MIDDLE EAST (MILITARY MATERIAL)
  MIDDLE EAST (MILITARY MATERIAL)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Groundnuts Scheme
  Groundnuts Scheme
  Prices
  Prices
  Eire Foodstuffs
  Eire Foodstuffs
  New Potatoes (Prices)
  New Potatoes (Prices)
AFRICAN COLONIES
  Uganda Cotton (Marketing)
  Uganda Cotton (Marketing)
  Nyasaland and Uganda (Agricultural Staff)
  Nyasaland and Uganda (Agricultural Staff)
  Cocoa Disease, West Africa
  Cocoa Disease, West Africa
  Missionary Schools, Nigeria
  Missionary Schools, Nigeria
  Nigerian Import Duty (Motor Cars)
  Nigerian Import Duty (Motor Cars)
  Nigerian Railways (Spare Parts)
  Nigerian Railways (Spare Parts)
  Bamenda Gaol, Nigeria (Prisoner's Death)
  Bamenda Gaol, Nigeria (Prisoner's Death)
  Uganda (Detained Persons)
  Uganda (Detained Persons)
KENYA
  Coffee and Maize
  Coffee and Maize
  Customs Duty (British Forces)
  Customs Duty (British Forces)
COLONIAL EMPIRE
  Mass Education
  Mass Education
  Cocoa Production
  Cocoa Production
  Trade Unions
  Trade Unions
  Economic and Development Council
  Economic and Development Council
  Import Restrictions
  Import Restrictions
  Hong Kong (Newspapers)
  Hong Kong (Newspapers)
  SINGAPORE (ELECTORAL REGISTER)
  SINGAPORE (ELECTORAL REGISTER)
PALESTINE
  Surplus Stores and Equipment (Disposal)
  Surplus Stores and Equipment (Disposal)
  Arrests
  Arrests
  Police (Disbandment)
  Police (Disbandment)
  CYPRUS (INTERNED JEWS)
  CYPRUS (INTERNED JEWS)
  BRITISH GUIANA (LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL NOMINATION)
  BRITISH GUIANA (LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL NOMINATION)
  ADEN DISTURBANCES (INQUIRY)
  ADEN DISTURBANCES (INQUIRY)
ROYAL NAVY
  Mine Explosion, Bigbury Bay
  Mine Explosion, Bigbury Bay
  Shipbuilding (Steel Allocation)
  Shipbuilding (Steel Allocation)
  Transferred Ships (U.S.S.R.)
  Transferred Ships (U.S.S.R.)
  Prize Money
  Prize Money
  THOROUGHBRED HORSES (EXPORT)
  THOROUGHBRED HORSES (EXPORT)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Surplus Stores and Equipment, Palestine
  Surplus Stores and Equipment, Palestine
  Factories, South Wales
  Factories, South Wales
  WAGE AND SALARY INCREMENTS
  WAGE AND SALARY INCREMENTS
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Post-Vaccinal Encephalitis
  Post-Vaccinal Encephalitis
  Diphtheria
  Diphtheria
  HOUSING (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT, 1944
  HOUSING (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT, 1944
  SUPPLEMENTARY PETROL ALLOWANCES
  SUPPLEMENTARY PETROL ALLOWANCES
COAL INDUSTRY
  House Coal, London (Quality)
  House Coal, London (Quality)
  Europe (American Coal)
  Europe (American Coal)
  EDUCATION (RUSSIAN LANGUAGE)
  EDUCATION (RUSSIAN LANGUAGE)
  CIRCUS, MANCHESTER (INCIDENTS)
  CIRCUS, MANCHESTER (INCIDENTS)
  INDIA AND PAKISTAN (PROVIDENT FUND BALANCES)
  INDIA AND PAKISTAN (PROVIDENT FUND BALANCES)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands first on the Order Paper. I think your Lordships will agree that it is in accordance with the understanding previously reached.
  Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be suspended for this day's sitting; and that the Order for the Third Reading of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Bill have precedence of the other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Viscount Addison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
  2.35 p.m.

REQUISITIONED LAND AND WAR WORKS BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 8:
(4) In this section the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:
"rent-restricted property" means a property (whether or not the subject of a tenancy) in the case of which the following conditions are fulfilled, that is to say—
(a) that immediately before the time when possession was taken of the property or part thereof in question the property or part was being used for residential purposes or if it was not then being used that it had been used for residential purposes when last used before that time, and
Lord LLEWELLIN Lord LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (4) (a), after "purposes," where that word first occurs, to insert "by a tenant." The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is, perhaps, somewhat unusual to move an Amendment on the Third
1168
Reading of a Bill. It has been done quite often before, however, and I think that, to-day there is some excuse, because we had the Committee stage of this Bill only yesterday; we have had no Report stage, and, though I am not casting blame on anyone, it is certainly not our fault that this Bill must become law within a very short time, otherwise the powers lapse. That—if there be any excuse needed—is my excuse for moving this Amendment on the Third Reading.
In the discussions which we had on the Bill yesterday one point made was that by this Bill we are putting back into the category of rent-restricted houses some houses which at the present moment no one considers to be in that category at all. By Clause 8 (1) your Lordships will see it is provided that:
"Where the requisitioned land consists only of rent-restricted land, the rental compensation shall not exceed the permissible rent."
If one looks at the next sub Section in that clause one sees that:
"Where the requisitioned land includes no rent-restricted land, the rental compensation shall not exceed one hundred and sixty per cent."
and so on. I think that the Government are tackling this problem, if I may say so, in the wrong way. They are tackling it on the assumption that anyone who at present lives in a rent-restricted house, whether tenant or owner, when turned out by requisitioning, can automatically get another rent-restricted house in which to live. Similarly, I suppose, the assumption underlying subsection (2) is that if the person is living in a non-rent-restricted house he should be paid 160 per cent. of the value because he is the sort of person who will not get into a rent-restricted house, and in view of present-day prices will need the extra compensation. But that is not how it works out in practice.
I think it must be clear to your Lordships that it does not follow that if I live in a rent-restricted house it is likely that I shall be lucky enough to get back into one after I have been turned out by reason of requisitioning by a Government Department or by a local authority. This is how this Bill may work. I shall quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, if he says in reply—as he may—that this will not happen very frequently because, in the majority of cases, houses requisitioned are empty houses. That I quite appreciate.

1169
But it does not give any satisfaction to the two or three or twenty or a hundred—or whatever the number may he—who have had their houses requisitioned under these powers and who have to go out with what I believe is inadequate rental compensation. For what is rental compensation under the Rent Restrictions Acts? It is not the 1939 value, whether plus 60 per cent. or plus nothing. It is the 1914 value, plus whatever the permissible increases are, which may amount to 40 per cent.; and that is extremely little to give in rental compensation to a man whose house is to be requisitioned. Surely, it has been the policy of all Governments in this country, and of successive Parliaments, that if a property is needed for State purposes the State shall pay fair compensation; and it would follow that because the State happens to select the property of one individual damage shall not fall on that individual.
Let us assume that there are two houses side by side; they are exactly the same in all respects, and both are requisitioned under the powers of this Bill. One of them, in which is living an owner, has been subject to the Rent Restrictions Acts and has a restricted rent. Next door, another man is living, in an exactly similar house, but the house has never been let since 1914 and so has no restricted rent. The requisitioning authority come down and take both houses. Under the provisions of Clause 8 (2) of this Bill the man living in the house which is not rent-restricted receives 160 per cent., and the owner of the house next door receives 1914 restricted value, plus 25 per cent., or whatever it is. That is not fair. One man is treated completely differently from the other. The point may be made that the authorities will never requisition a house with people living in it. If that be the case, then it would do no harm whatever if the Government accepted my Amendment, because no charge will fall on the Treasury if it is never going to be done. But there is the power in the Bill to do it. If these powers are in the Bill, we ought to see that there are the necessary safeguards for people who live in their own houses.
My Amendment is a very simple one, to add three words to Clause 8 (4). At present the sub Section is as follows:
"'Rent-restricted property ' means a property (whether or not the subject of a tenancy)
1170
in the case of which the following conditions are fulfilled, that is to say—

(a) that immediately before the time when possession was taken of the property or part thereof in question the property or part was being used for residential purposes … "

and I am seeking after that to put in the three words, "by a tenant." It may be said against me: "Why are you doing this only in favour of the owner-occupier and not in favour of the tenant-occupier? If you turn a tenant-occupier out of a rent-restricted property, he may not be able to get a similar rent-restricted house in which to live." I believe that there is a distinction between the man who has bought his own house, and a man who is a tenant. We are not dealing with vast mansions or country estates, but with small houses under rent restriction. I believe that there is a distinction between the man who has put what capital he has into buying a home for life—a man who may be turned out with this inadequate compensation which is most unlikely to be sufficient for him to buy another house these days—and the tenant of a rent-restricted property, who has considerable security of tenure. It is true that it is not so secure as that of the owner of the property; there are ways in which the tenant can be made to give up possession, if the landlord claims that he wants the house for his own use, or for some other reason covered by the Rent Restrictions Acts.
At any rate, in my view it is a hardship to give as compensation to those people whose houses are under requisition only the 1914 rental value when we know that it is most unlikely that they will be able to get other houses at that value. I may not be doing as much as I could; perhaps I ought to have moved to leave out the whole of Clause 8 (1). But even if I am not going the whole way, I am by my Amendment going so far as to see that the person who has put his savings in a house and is living there, and thinks he has security of tenure, shall not be turned out with the highly inadequate compensation which this Bill, as it is at present drawn, provides. For these reasons I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 35, after ("purposes") insert ("by a tenant").—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I regret that I am not able to accept the noble Lord's Amendment. As he pointed out,

1171
the effect of the clause as it stands is that if an owner is occupying a small house which has previously been let and to which, therefore, a standard rent is attached, then rental compensation on requisitioning will be limited to that standard rent plus, of course, any statutory adjustments allowable under the Rent Restrictions Acts. If it has not previously been let, then no such maximum applies and rental compensation will be current market value subject to a maximum of 1939 value plus 60 per cent. The effect of the Amendment is to secure that an owner-occupied house shall attract a rental compensation, subject only to the maximum of 1939 value plus 60 per cent., even if the house has a standard rent which is all that the owner could secure if he let to anyone else.
The Government have given further careful consideration to this point since the Committee stage but they are unable to accept the Amendment. The point is not a large one, but it affects the whole principle of the clause. It has already been fully considered in another place and it is entirely a financial matter. The argument for the Amendment is that when the owner-occupier's house is requisitioned he has to rehabilitate himself elsewhere; and if the rental compensation is limited to the standard rent, then, unless he is lucky enough to be able to get another rent-restricted house, he is left with insufficient money to provide himself with anything similar. To the Government's argument that he ought not to receive more from the Government than he would receive if he let the house to anyone else, the Opposition reply that he never had any intention of letting to anyone else. Requisitioning is, in effect, a compulsory hiring and it is not fair for the Government to limit him to the rent which he would receive if he did something which he has no intention of doing.
These arguments cannot properly be used in support of this particular Amendment. If they were sound, they would apply over a much wider area. It is quite possible to argue that whenever a man is turned out of his house (whether permanently or temporarily and whether he is the owner or the tenant) by the compulsory action of the Government and receives compensation less than is sufficient
1172
to enable him to rehabilitate himself else-here, then there is injustice. This applies to the man whose house is compulsorily acquired and whose compensation is reduced through the operation of the notional lease. It applies to the man whose property is requisitioned and whose rental compensation is limited by the ceiling of 1939 value plus 60 per cent. It applies also to the tenant of a rent-restricted house which is requisitioned at a rental compensation limited to the standard rent; and last, it applies to the owner of a rent-restricted house whose rental compensation is similarly limited. In all these cases it can be said there is injustice. There are, of course, a number of telling arguments the other way, but it is not necessary to deploy them, because the remedying of the alleged injustice is not what the Opposition are proposing. They are proposing to single out only one small class for special treatment, and their arguments do not apply to this small class more cogently than to any other, but rather the reverse.
The man whose house is requisitioned—that is, the man who is only temporarily dispossessed—suffers much less disability than the man whose property is compulsorily acquired and who is thus dispossessed permanently; and even within the field of requisitioning it is difficult to see why the owner-occupier of a rent-restricted house should be specially treated. The Opposition may point to a case—as indeed they have—where there are two identical owner-occupied houses side by side, one of which has previously been let and has a standard rent and the other has not. It is quite true that if both are requisitioned one will receive higher rental compensation than the other. But if this is an anomaly—and the Government do not agree that it is—it is not nearly so serious as the anomaly which the Opposition's Amendment would create. Consider two identical rent-restricted houses with the same standard rent, one occupied by its owner and the other by a tenant. If both are requisitioned the Government propose that the rental compensation shall be the same in each case. The Opposition propose that the tenant should receive standard rent only, while the owner would receive much more. There is no difference in merits between the two cases, except indeed that there is a presumption (not, of course, a certainty) that the owner-occupier is a

1173
man of much more substantial means than the tenant-occupier. Yet it is the owner-occupier whom the Opposition wish to treat more favourably.
In order to justify their Amendment, the onus which the Opposition have to discharge is to show cause why the owner-occupier of a rent-restricted house should receive better treatment than a tenant-occupier of an identical house, and this onus they have not discharged. The fact, of course, is that it is quite impossible to justify the Opposition's Amendment, except on grounds which are addressed to the abolition of the whole of the rent-restriction ceiling; and the Opposition themselves clearly see that this is not a proposal which they can hope to sustain. As to the argument that the owner-occupier of a rent-restricted house would not willingly let it to anyone else, the same may, of course, be said of the owner of any other requisitioned house, or, indeed, of the owner of any house compulsorily acquired. Yet, although the owner is in fact unwilling to part with his house—whether to the Government or to anyone else—it is a fundamental principle of public compensation that it shall be assessed on the assumption of a willing buyer and a willing seller—this has been the law of the land since 1919—or, in the case of requisitioning, on the basis of a willing lessor and a willing lessee. This argument, therefore, gets us nowhere.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT SIMON: May I interrupt for one moment? Would the noble Lord mind expounding in his own words that last passage?
LORD CHORLEY: The law ever since 1919 has been that the principle on which compensation is based is that of the willing seller and the willing buyer. Therefore, the argument which the Opposition have put up gets us nowhere. Let me add that when this Bill was in another place an Amendment to exclude owner-occupiers from the rent-restriction ceiling was debated and negatived without a Division, the Opposition presumably being satisfied with the explanation which was given by the Government at that stage. At a later stage an Amendment to omit all the provisions dealing with the rent-restriction ceiling was debated at some length, and negatived on a
1174
Division. I am sure that in the light of these observations—
VISCOUNT SWINTON: In the what of these observations?
LORD CHORLEY: I am sure that in the light of these observations the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his Amendment.
2.49 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, until the noble Lord rose and addressed the House I never knew there were so many injustices done by requisitioning as those which he read out in his attempt to justify this further injustice. That was the effect, as far as I could understand it, of the first part of what perhaps he will allow me to call his well-read essay. Surely, it is quite clear to all your Lordships that the Government are not here dealing with a willing buyer and a willing seller, or a willing lessor and a willing lessee. They are dealing with a man upon whose property the Government Department or local authority will descend and say: "We requisition this property." The willingness does not seem to me to enter into one side of that bargain at all. The short simple point is: Are you giving him sufficient compensation when you give him only the 1914 rental value, plus, it may be, 25 per cent. in some cases, and in others 40 per cent., and telling him to get somewhere else to live? That is the short and simple point. All of us in our hearts know that that is not being done, either for the tenant or for the owner-occupier who is being turned out. It is difficult for us to know what to do now. The noble Lord says that because some Division was not taken in some proceedings in another place, the Opposition were obviously satisfied with foe arguments. I can tell the noble Lord that I am not at all satisfied with the arguments he has put before this House to-day, and if we do not divide on this let it not be said that we are satisfied, because we are not. I think a lot of injustice—
LORD HARLECH: We must divide.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I think injustices will be done under this measure. It is quite true that my Amendment does not cure them all. I never knew that there were so many until the noble Lord spoke, and for myself I should not toe content to leave the matter as it is. It is quite

1175
clear that this does involve a charge on the Treasury, and a very proper charge which the Treasury should pay if they are requisitioning the property of small people in this way. But for the moment I will leave the matter like this. I do not think that the noble Lord's answer was a satisfactory one, nor was it sufficient. I would sooner have heard him speak the truth from his heart rather than read out the brief he did. If he had done that, I believe that he would have gone very much further towards meeting what I am sure is a very just and proper point of view.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has put us in an extremely difficult position. He read out an absolute farrago of words. I do not know whether it made any sense to him, but it made no sense to anybody else. Having stated very fairly in rather a confidential manner the case for the Opposition Amendment, the noble Lord admitted that there were a great number of injustices of which this was one; and so far as I could see he did not attempt to justify the conclusions which the Government have reached on this Bill. In any case, the speech of the noble Lord is one which really deserves consideration. As I say, it made little sense to us, but there may be more sense in it than appears at first sight. It is the sort of point on which, if there were time, I should feel that we ought to have further consideration. I know that there are peculiar difficulties about this Bill, and I am a little at a loss to advise what to do. I understand that the Government have special reasons for wishing to get this Bill passed this week, but I would ask what would happen if we did not pass it.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I am afraid that that is a question about which I should require notice in the ordinary way. Perhaps my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will be better able to answer it. I gather, however, that if this Bill is not passed, some of the requisitions which have already been made will become illegal, and that would create a vast crop of difficulties which I am sure it is everybody's desire we should not create. I fully recognize the strength of the appeal of the noble Mar-
1176
quess; but he, of course, recognizes—as does the noble Lord beside him—that this case is one out of a very large number which necessarily arise when requisition takes place. We should have to deal with the subject as a whole—if it is dealt with at all—rather than with a small isolated case of this kind.
I believe that the noble Lord is aware that the existing powers expire on February 23, 1948, and to enable these tenancies or these occupations to be continued in some form it is vitally necessary that this Bill should be passed. I would ask the noble Lord to recognize the difficulties of the situation—as I am sure he does. I will certainly consult forthwith with my friends to see whether we can devise some ways or means of discussing with noble Lords opposite what can be done in the matter. So far as this particular Bill is concerned, it would create a host of difficulties which nobody wants to create if we were not enabled to enact it in time.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for that conciliatory statement, but the fact remains that we are being asked to legalize what we believe to be an injustice. The Government have brought this Bill forward in this House so late that there is no time for proper consideration. If it had come forward a fortnight ago we should have been able to deal with it in a peaceful and orderly manner. We are now having a pistol held at our heads. I know that it is not the fault of the noble Viscount, and I am not criticizing what he said. We are told that if we do not pass this Bill in its present form then the powers will lapse and a host of difficulties will occur. I wonder whether the Government could give any undertaking about this particular portion of the Bill, and whether they would reconsider it and, if necessary, bring in some amending measure? It seems a large thing to ask upon a comparatively limited point, but Parliament is responsible for the interests' of the people, and especially the interests of the small man, in this country. I do not think that the considerations of mere machinery of business should prevent us from doing that justice.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I understand that unless the Bill is passed it would be quite impossible to hold the lands already occupied—but I am sure

1177
the noble Marquess recognizes that. I will gladly bring this matter to the attention of my colleagues without delay, and I will confer with noble Lords opposite as to the result of such consultation. I will do my best to secure that consideration is given to the case, but, for all that, I am sure that a very small portion of a very wide matter should not be dealt with in this piecemeal fashion. Therefore I hope noble Lords, recognizing the situation which is neither of their creating nor of ours, will allow the matter to be dealt with in the way I suggest.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, it occurs to me that if the Government get their Third Reading of the Bill without Amendment to-day, they might go so far as to say that only in the rarest cases will they exercise these powers over houses which are occupied. That is the first point. I think they might equally say that the Treasury, in cases of hardship, will look into the possibility of giving some of these people an ex gratia payment. If we had some satisfaction on those two points I think we could probably dispose of this Amendment.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: On those two points I can give the noble Lord the assurances for which he asks. It is expected that there may be no difficulties of this kind at all; there will certainly be very few. I am also authorized to say that in such cases the possibility of an ex gratia payment will be favourably considered. I can give those assurances, but it may well be that there will be no cases at all.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am obliged to the noble Viscount, as usual. A reasonable solution has probably been arrived at. I feel that it was perfectly right to ventilate this case, and our discussion has been justified, since it has drawn that assurance from the Government. In view of that assurance I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill passed.

ARMY LIST.
3.10 p.m.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the question standing in my name on the Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government when the Army List will be published again and made available to the general public]
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (Lord Nathan): My Lords, as in the case of the Navy and Air Force Lists, the contents of the Army List are being reviewed, and it may be possible before long to make a limited number of copies available for sale to institutions which particularly feel the need for them. I cannot forecast the date when this will be possible, as the Army List is still very large, and the need for economizing in the use of paper remains extremely urgent.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: While thanking the noble Lord for bis comparatively satisfactory reply, I should be grateful if he would explain one tiling which puzzles me. As the Army, we understand, is being reduced to vanishing point, how can the Army List remain very large?

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Borough of Tewkesbury Order;
Borough of Thetford Order;
Urban District of Litherland Order;
Urban District of Tavistock Order.
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that these Orders be approved.
Moved, That the Orders made under the Act by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending Section one of the Act to the said areas, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ATOMIC WARFARE PERILS.
3.13 p.m.
The Lord Archbishop of YORK The Lord Archbishop of YORK rose to call attention to the continued peril caused by the lack of international control of the preparation and production of atomic bombs; and to move for Papers. The most reverend Primate said: My Lords, about ten months ago, I brought before the House the question of international control of the atomic bomb. The noble Viscount the Leader of the

1179
House said in his reply that the Atomic Energy Commission—the technical Commission—had agreed on four possible aims. It is possible, he said, to exchange scientific information on atomic energy for peaceful aims; it is possible to control atomic energy so that it is used only for peaceful purposes; it is possible to ensure the elimination from international armaments of atomic weapons; and it is possible to provide safeguards by way of inspection against violations and evasions. These four aims were agreed upon unanimously by the Commission, which included among its members a large number of extremely capable experts. But while there was agreement on the ends at which they should aim, there was great difference of opinion about the methods which should be used. Because of that the matter was referred back again to the Commission, and the noble Viscount who replied to me said that he hoped that the Commission might soon make further and practical suggestions. I am now anxious to know what has happened since that reply was made.
I have done my best to follow statements which have been made not only in this country but also in the United States, and I am bound to say that I am in a considerable amount of uncertainty as to what is the present position. It is almost impossible to exaggerate its gravity. Through this invention mankind has been brought nearer to an unprecedented and appalling disaster than it has ever been in the whole of its history; and although at this moment the bomb is in the possession of the United States alone, it is known that several nations are doing their utmost to possess it. In a report to the President of the United States a short time ago it was stated that by 1952, in all probability, other nations would have a quantity of these bombs, and that it was quite possible that before that date they might have a number of small bombs. That being so, it means that within a very few years—in the lifetime of most of us living—the whole world may be facing the most grievous crisis it has ever had to face. The danger is not only the destruction of our nation—this island would be in an impossible position if atomic warfare broke out—it confronts the whole of our civilisation.
When I speak to people about the danger I generally find that there are
1180
three replies. There are some optimists who tell me that I am stressing unduly the dangers which come from this discovery, and that the discovery is going to bring a number of benefits to the world: we shall have more heating, we shall have more petrol (or we shall be able to do without petrol), we shall have all sorts of material advantages. I have not the slightest doubt that that will be the case in the distant future. But meantime the atomic bomb is ready, and it may be used before those benefits come into full play. Others say "Well, after all, you exaggerate the thing. When gunpowder or dynamite was first discovered, it was thought that catastrophe was about to fall on the human race. Even when aerial warfare first started, many thought that the results would be even worse than they have been." And there are a number of other people who comfort themselves by believing that even if it is used, the atomic bomb will not really be so bad as many think.
I notice that considerable use was made of quotations from part of a statement made by Sir Charles Darwin last September. He said that it was doubtful whether the atomic bomb would actually win a war. And he went on to say that probably death through the atomic bomb would not cause more suffering than death through gas or through other weapons of war. But, having said all that, he went on—and here I think it is important to quote at some little length—
"When we turned from the use of atomic bombs during the course of a war to their use in peace, or at the start of a war, the position was quite different. The sudden atomic bombardment of all our leading towns at the start of the war almost certainly would have won it for the Germans, though there was a doubt whether even that use would be very profitable, for before the inevitable defeat there would be some retaliation. … The really deadly method would be different. The bombs could be planted secretly, with time fuses, in the principal cities of a country during the time of apparent peace. Not only would the country be ruined, but it would not be certain who had ruined it, so retaliation would not be possible."
Then he went on to say:
"The danger in that use depended on the enormous effect of the single unit of the atomic bomb. Where the ordinary bomb killed five men, the atomic bomb killed 50,000, so that, loosely speaking, it reduced the population units of the world by a factor of 10,000; it made the whole world a small place as far as concerned atomic warfare."
There are other people who are inclined to answer any talk about the danger by saying that it is most unlikely that this appalling weapon will ever again be used in war, since retaliation would be so terrible. In support of that argument they point out that gas was not used in the last war. It seems to me, however, that the position is entirely different. If gas were used, no doubt there would be very great suffering; but the use of gas would not knock out a whole nation. There would be time for recovery. With the unexpected, treacherous use of the atomic bomb, a war might be won or lost within a few minutes. The use of such a bomb on a country like our own, on our great centres of population, on our harbours and on our means of transport, would within a few minutes bring untold suffering, ruin and catastrophe. Nothing that has been said on the other side seems to me to reduce by one iota the grim possibilities in front of us. The only possibility of safety at the moment seems to be to place these bombs and the application of atomic energy under an international agency. That was a proposal which was made by Mr. Baruch, and that is the proposal which has been supported—with two exceptions—by all the members of the Commission inquiring into this matter.
Their proposal is that there shall be an established international agency having exclusive control of atomic energy to the extent necessary to ensure its use only for peaceful purposes; that such an agency should have power of inspection in every country to see that there was no secret preparation of atomic weapons, and that it should have the power to enforce its regulations and to punish any violations of them. Mr. Baruch said that if such an international agency were set up by international agreement, with effective powers of inspection, then the United States would cease the manufacture of these bombs and would agree to their disposal. I am not sure if, until recently, I quite appreciated the magnitude of this offer which was made by the United States. It is a very great offer. They have spent a vast amount of money in producing the bombs, and are carrying on a large number of experiments connected with them. We were told in the Press the other day that they are perfecting the bombs. It means that that nation at this moment has supremacy in
1182
armaments over any other nation in the world. And yet, for the sake of international peace, they are prepared to give up that supremacy. It is a very great offer made by a great people.
Apparently there are difficulties in the way, and they are to be found in the opposition to these proposals by Russia and by Poland. Mr. Gromyko, speaking for Russia, has objected on two grounds. First, he urges that the bombs should be destroyed before an international agreement is reached. That is really much more than a question of procedure. It is an invitation to the United States to destroy their bombs and then, if no agreement were reached, all the nations could start level in a race to create the bombs afresh. That is some slight exaggeration, but it comes very near to that. Secondly, he expresses great difficulties about inspection. It is not fair to say that he has rejected entirely all forms of inspection. He recognizes that some inspection is necessary, but it is hard to find out to what extent Russia would agree to that inspection being carried out.
I thought that one of the speeches made by Mr. Gromyko in the middle of last year was rather more hopeful. Then the British put to him a number of questions. I cannot quite understand all the answers given, for there was a certain amount of ambiguity about them. Unless inspection is agreed to, it is impossible to go forward with a comprehensive international agreement. Inspection is essential to the success of the whole scheme—inspection not only of those buildings which are labelled "atomic bomb production buildings," but also of buildings which might be harbouring machinery which is going to be used, or could very easily be used, for the production of the bombs. There must be thorough and effective inspection if this international agreement is really to be of any great value. I notice that Sir Henry Dale, speaking in relation to this matter, in one of the papers published by Chatham House, said:
"The preservation of national sovereignty must come to mean the retention by every nation of an unquestioned right to prepare in secret for the annihilation of others."
It is quite true that international inspection would mean some interference with the sovereign rights of a nation, but only through such interference is it possible to

1183
gain any safety in this matter. I hope that the noble Lord who will reply will explain this point to me, but I understand that the position is that no satisfactory agreement has yet been obtained with Russia on this question.
What is to be done? Are we in effect to go on discussing, while the years pass by, what practical steps can be taken? I notice that two suggestions have been made. I am rather inclined to think that one was made on the last occasion by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. One suggestion was that a direct approach might be made by the President of the United States and our Prime Minister to Marshal Stalin, explaining to him the utmost gravity of the whole position. Whether such an approach is ever made in that way in diplomacy I do not know. It might be an unprecedented step to take, but we live in unprecedented days. One reason that would justify such an approach would be if Marshal Stalin were not fully acquainted with the whole position. There is a widespread suspicion in the United States that he is not fully aware of what is actually happening and what might happen.
I think it was last November that one of the United States representatives on the Atomic Energy Commission stated that the Russian scientist assigned to the Commission would ask for the floor, and, after making sure that a stenographer was taking a record of the proceedings, would then "launch into the most extraordinary attack on the honesty, fairness and legality of the procedure." Mr. Osborne then goes on to ask:
"What was the extraordinary performance about? These records are not made public; they are released only to the delegates for the use of their Governments; these speeches went to the Kremlin, and apparently constituted the only recorded comments by a Soviet and therefore trusted observer of what went on in the Committee. Is this the type of information on which the Kremlin is basing its political decisions?"
It sounds highly improbable that that is so, but, if there is any possibility of there being a misunderstanding of the position by Marshal Stalin, it is worth almost anything to bring the full facts of the situation before him.
But supposing that is tried and is found to be useless, what then is to be done? The only other suggestion is that those nations who are ready to enter into a pact should enter into it. Of course, such
1184
an agency without Russia would be gravely limited in many ways. I know that objections can rightly be urged against the formation of an agency if some great Powers stand outside it. It means that those who have entered into the pact will have tied their hands, whilst outside there are nations who are free to act whenever they wish to. On the other hand, it would mean that those who entered into the pact would possess overwhelming forces, which they could use if necessary as a deterrent against any nation who proposed to use or had used the bombs. I do not know whether it is possible to take action on those lines. I am not sure if the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to give us an answer. But, whether he is able to give us an answer on that matter or not I urge the Government to tell us what they are proposing to do, and what instructions they are giving to their representatives.
It is now two and a half years ago since the bomb was first used, and Mr. Churchill, speaking about it then and of the dangers with which it threatened the human race, said:
"There is not an hour to lose."
Two and a half years have gone. We are drawing nearer and nearer to catastrophe, and an ever-darkening threat is spreading over mankind. This bomb affects everyone in every nation. Never has the world been confronted with such appalling possibilities. I am quite certain that the Government would find behind them the full support of the whole nation in any attempts they may make to secure some international agreement which might, at any rate, reduce the terrible dangers which are now pressing. I beg to move for Papers.
3.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, the most reverend Primate has had this Motion on the Order Paper for a very long time past and I am glad that at last he has been able to submit it to your Lordships. I should like, if I may, very respectfully, to congratulate him on this just reward for his pertinacity and patience. This subject is of the highest importance. Probably all people who live in this country are very unhappy about the grave economic situation in which we find ourselves, but the problem of the international control of atomic energy transcends all troubles of any one particular

1185
country or group of countries. It naturally affects the future of civilization and of mankind as a whole. It is therefore extremely useful that it should be discussed in public from time to time, and I earnestly trust that the Government spokesman, when he comes to reply, will be able to tell us what is the existing position in the Atomic Energy Commission of the United Nations, and how the Government view both it and the future. Such a statement would clearly be of high value because, owing to the lack of newsprint in this country, the national papers are able to publish little about the proceedings of the Atomic Energy Commission. Further, I think this debate may lead to some fresh considerations, such as those suggested by the most reverend Primate, being put forward. They can then receive consideration by the Government and be thrown into the common pool.
By a happy coincidence a Chatham House study group, to which the most reverend Primate referred, has just published a discussion on atomic energy and its international implications. The membership of the group was remarkable both on its scientific side and on what I may term its lay side. The Chairman was Sir Henry Dale. I think it would be invidious to pick out specific names from the list of eminent personalities who composed the group, but I would like to observe that your Lordships' House was represented by Lord Hankey who, I am glad to see, is going to take part in this debate. As I said, that publication must be of the highest value to anyone who is interested in this essential question. It sets out clearly all the problems connected with the production of atomic energy, the plans for international control already put forward, the difficulties encountered and the future possibilities, with one or two chapters on scientific matters which, though I assume they were supposed to be written for the unscientific mind, I and probably people like myself have not been able to assimilate at all adequately. There is a brilliant and completely impartial introductory chapter by Sir Henry Dale, in which he explains—and I should like to quote his words in that connexion—the gravity of the matter. He writes:
"It may be held, indeed, to be the most important of all the problems which face mankind at the present time; for success in finding an effective and permanent solution
1186
for it, or, alternatively, failure to do so, may well be decisive for the future of our existing civilization."
Those, my Lords, are grave words coming from such a high authority.
The most reverend Primate has pointed out that there seems to-day to be a complete deadlock in the Atomic Energy Commission owing to the diametrically opposed points of view of the United States and the Soviet Governments. I am going to develop very shortly what the most reverend Primate said on that point, because I think it is of great importance. The United States insist that a system of international control and inspection over the production of atomic energy shall be accepted before they transfer to an international authority the plant material and knowledge, which they alone possess, required for the production of atomic energy. I should like to reinforce what the most reverend Primate said on this point with regard to the offer which the United States has made. It is of extraordinary generosity and also, to my mind, is a great act of faith in the future of the United Nations. The Soviet Government, on the other hand, as I understand the position, maintain that they cannot agree even to discuss any measures of international control and inspection until arrangements have been made and carried out for the destruction of all existing atomic weapons. They agree, however, that international agreement should be concluded to outlaw the use and production—and I want to underline the word "production"—of atomic weapons. To put it rather shortly and bluntly, the Soviet Government desire to deprive the United States of their existing advantages before discussing any scheme of international control. The United States' reply is that until they are assured of adequate international control they do not feel able to surrender their existing advantage. I do not think that I need ask your Lordships which of the two theses you think to be right and which you would support.
Now, if I may, I will turn for one moment to another aspect. There are some—and among them there is one distinguished member of your Lordship' House—who hold that in view of the vital results for the human race as a whole, the problem of atomic energy, and in particular of its use in war, can only be solved by the constitution of a World

1187
Government. They go so far as to add that if any nation refuses to enter into a plan of this kind it should be forced to do so by the threat of using atomic energy against it. We all look forward, I presume, to the formation some day of some form of world government, and we hope that its beginnings may have been set up in the constitution of the United Nations organization. But it would be an illusion to suppose that to-day the world is ripe for any such development. The use of atomic energy to compel a reluctant Power to take part in a World Government is, I think, strongly repugnant to the moral sense. Quite apart from that consideration, surely, to force a country by threats to enter into a world arrangement would mean that that country would take every opportunity of sabotaging the world authority; and if it saw any favourable possibility it would certainly endeavour to overthrow it. I rather feel that the advocates of schemes of this kind have not fully thought out the logical results of their proposals, quite apart from the moral considerations to which I have referred. I think your Lordships will agree that however much we desire world government, it can come only by consent.
To return for a moment to the present dilemma: I frankly see little possibility of reconciling the theses of the United States and Soviet Governments at the present time. In my view, the underlying factors are not so much technical as psychological. If suspicions and fear could be removed, a compromise might be found; but, from what I read, the Soviet Government are becoming more and more obdurate. What then, as the most reverend Primate has asked, is to be done, or can be done? He has put forward two suggestions. The first is what is known as the high level approach, in which Marshal Stalin, President Truman and our Prime Minister, would be concerned. Of course, if that suggestion would be effective, we ought not to hesitate to act on it because of any difficulties of technical or diplomatic procedure. I very much doubt, however, whether Marshal Stalin does not know what is happening and, therefore, although it might be tried, I do not believe that that step would really be effective. The second suggestion was for a convention between such Powers as are ready to accept inspection and controls. That is
1188
a suggestion which seems to be worthy of great consideration. I myself was going to put it forward in a slightly different form, and I should like to develop it later. I do not think that it ought to be done at once, because I fear that it would mean a possibility of war breaking out at an early date.
For a moment I would refer once more to the Chatham House study group. In Chapter VII of their published discussions Sir Charles Webster, Sir Arthur Salter, and Sir Oliver Franks state:
"One thing, however, is certain. If the situation is allowed to drift, experience teaches us that disaster is bound to follow. The mere existence of this new force, if it is left uncontrolled, will produce terrifying political, and psychological effects."
Later they say:
"If risks have to be run the greatest risk is to do nothing."
But, in the last chapter, which he has contributed, the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, states his conclusion, that:
"In the circumstances, the wisest course would be to suspend the work on atomic bomb control for a time in order to relieve the United Nations of this intractable question and give them time to build up solidarity and to establish confidence among the nations."
He adds that, in the meantime, as a token of good intention, there should be a ban on the use of atomic weapons in war. I confess that I disagree very profoundly with some of the premises on which the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, based his conclusions, and particularly with his view about the League of Nations and the reasons which he gives for its failure. However, this is not the time or place to enter into controversy with my old friend on the subject, and I shall certainly refrain from doing so. Yet I think it is fair to point out that, as your Lordships will have noticed from the quotations which I have given, there is a very distinct divergence of view between the members of the group to which I have referred.
Some seem to hold that delay would be fatal, others that it is essential. I think that perhaps the best course to-day lies between the two views which have been expressed. We probably have at least two or three years respite, and I would like to put forward for the consideration of His Majesty's Government the following proposals: (1) That the Atomic Energy Commission of the United Nations

1189
should continue their efforts towards finding a solution of the present difficulties; and (2) That a convention should be drawn up as soon as possible, open to general signature, to ban the use of atomic weapons in war. The second of these proposals is supported by Lord Hankey. I do not know, of course, whether the Soviet Government would be prepared to sign such a convention, since the agreement, as I see it, would outlaw only the use and not the production of atomic weapons. If, however, the Soviet Government were prepared to sign, then real progress would have been made towards that general agreement which I am sure we all desire. If they refuse to do so, the convention should still be concluded between such Powers as are willing to accept its terms.
Now I approach very closely what the most reverend Primate said. If within, say, a year it becomes clear that no general agreement about the control of the production of atomic energy is practicable and that the positions of the United States and the Soviet Governments remain unchanged—that is, there is no diminution of the existing fears and suspicions—then the nations that are ready to accept control and inspection should get together and conclude a separate convention, by which they would pledge themselves collectively and separately that, if atomic weapons were used against any one of them, the others would retaliate by all the means which lay in their power, by the use of atomic weapons or otherwise.
Such a convention should be open to the adherence of all other nations. It would not be in any way an offensive agreement; it would be solely defensive; but it would ensure that if a would-be aggressor utilized atomic energy, retaliation would take place immediately, and not only by one nation and from one quarter, but by many nations and from many regions. I think if that happened we could then hope—and here I believe the analogy of the non-employment of gas in the last war can be applied—that any desire to use the far more terrible and destructive weapon of atomic energy would be frustrated. I realize that even the course which I have indicated is by no means ideal and it is one about which I am not altogether happy, but in the present state of world conditions, in which perhaps a solution may be only tempor-
1190
ary, the course I have indicated may be the best that is possible.
3.53 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, this is the third time I have heard the most reverend Primate speak on this subject, and each time he has impressed me more than the time before. If I remember aright, the first occasion was when we heard that the atomic bomb had been dropped. Speaking, I feel sure, without much warning, he said he was deeply concerned at what had happened. I felt very much in agreement. The second time, the most reverend Primate outlined the dangers to which the world would be exposed if the bomb were not controlled. I heard him with sympathy, but I did not speak that day, because I was engaged in the Chatham House Working Party, to which reference has already been made. The third occasion was to-day, when the most reverend Primate crossed the t's and dotted the i's of what he had said before.
The peril of the bomb has been sufficiently emphasized and I cannot add much to what has been said. I should have preferred that instead of "bomb," the words "atomic energy" had been used, because I have an uncomfortable feeling that other methods as diabolical as the bomb will be introduced in due course. I propose to go straight to the question of international control, which has been the subject of the Chatham House inquiry. On that subject I have been engaged for about eighteen months as a member of the study group, which included many of our leading scientists, and I have read a most portentous documentation, including a great many of the proceedings of the United States Atomic. Energy Commission. I cannot say I have read them all, because I have been away for a couple of months in Egypt and I did not receive the documents until I came home. Therefore I have not had time to read them all, so I am not quite up to date. So far our group has not attempted to formulate agreed conclusions, but last summer we felt that an interim report would be useful. Owing to delays in publication, which is a problem nowadays, it was not published until January 21. I will admit to your Lordships that I was very uncomfortable at having to produce my own contribution, which I wrote on May 20, so long before publication. That is a very long time ago, at the rate at

1191
which events take place nowadays, but I can say this: that if I wrote that chapter to-day, I would not change a word. "Gloomy" is how I described the position.
The truth is that the Atomic Energy Commission have had an impossible task. To begin with, the international organization of peace, of which this subject forms a part, is probably the hardest problem the world has ever had to face. It has baffled mankind throughout the ages. In modern times the hardest part of that peace problem is disarmament, and, according to my experience, the toughest aspect of disarmament is the control of atomic energy. The subject is extremely difficult. It involves both inspection, which killed disarmament at Geneva, and sanctions, which killed the League. I know my noble friend, the Earl of Perth, does not agree, but that is an old controversy between us. It goes back to 1915, when Colonel House came over and made the first proposals of the League of Nations and included disarmament—that will be found in Colonel House's memoirs and the memoirs of Lord Grey. I then put on paper my views and, roughly speaking, those were my two propositions. I have never varied from the view that sanctions killed the League, and I maintain that I was right.
THE EARL OF PERTH: The noble Lord will forgive me if I equally maintain he is wrong.
LORD HANKEY: If the Government will allow my memoirs to be published, I think I could settle that point. I have been right through these matters. I had the greatest sympathy with the League of Nations, but I was certain from the first that it could not stand sanctions, and I could easily make the case that sanctions killed it. The Commission, then, have had to tackle one of the most intractable problems that exist. But that is not all. They have had to tackle that problem in the most unfavourable circumstances that could obtain; that is to say, amidst the din of incessant wrang-lings at the Peace Conferences and in the United Nations, while the rift was ever widening between East and West, and while Russia was remorselessly pursuing over half the world the ideologies of Lenin as expounded in Stalin's Problems of Leninism. An approach to Stalin was
1192
mentioned. I am all in favour of it; I am in favour of anything that might reduce this danger. But if one studies the 600 odd pages of the Problems of Leninism, the English edition of which was published in Moscow only in 1945, one sees how very serious this business is. It stipulates as a fundamental doctrine "victory of the revolution in all countries pursued through an entire historical epoch"; and that historical epoch is described as "replete with civil war and external conflicts." According to Karl Marx, as quoted by Stalin, that period is to consist of "fifteen, twenty, fifty years of war and international conflicts." It has already lasted for thirty years, and there is no particular reason why it should stop.
That, my Lords, is all going on before our very eyes. We have seen the Russian advances all over Eastern Europe. I am not going into 600 pages of the Problems of Leninism, but the external part of it shows that they are in the programme. We are still anxiously watching the ebb and flow of the conflicts in Greece and nearer home, in one form or another, to say nothing of the perennial struggle with Communism in China. By whatever name we call it—whether we call it propaganda, for there is propaganda; civil war, because they have promoted civil wars; or the cold war, although in some places it is rather a hot war—that struggle creates an atmosphere in which sober discussion of the control of the atomic bomb, must be well-nigh impossible. How can we entrust our security—because that is what it comes to—to a body that must include a nation whose openly declared policy, which it is carrying on before our very eyes, means the destruction of everything that you and I hold dear? There cannot be the trust or confidence, such as is necessary in dealing with such a difficult subject, when all that exists.
For example, how can the representatives of the Western Powers avoid asking themselves: Can we possibly abandon the use of atomic warfare? Can we possibly destroy our stocks of atomic bombs, as the other side is insisting? Can we contemplate surrendering our "know-how" to the other side—or for that matter to any nation—at a time when this propaganda is going on universally, when we never know in which nation it will turn up next? No doubt the other side are also saying: "Well, if these fellows

1193
cannot agree to abandon the bomb and destroy their stocks it is clear that they do not mean business. They may all the time be working out new uses of atomic energy for the purposes of war." I am sure that is what they must be saying. With that great rift between the nations the differences are really irreconcilable.
We must not make the mistake that we made over disarmament. After the war of 1914-18 the Disarmament Conferences (there were more than one; there was a Preparatory Commission, and the work then went on, I think, for about twelve years) were allowed to work on long after all prospects of success had vanished, until they became a danger to peace, and were even one of the causes of the late war. I do not know whether I need develop that matter; it has been so often developed in this House before. I am quite prepared to do so, but as I have a certain amount still to say I will let it go to-day. Some of the same sort of arguments are now being put forward for prolonging the agony in the case of the atomic bomb as were used between the two wars to keep the Disarmament Conference going. We are told now, as we were told then, that the next war will destroy civilization. We were told it them very seriously. I see the noble Lord opposite—
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: It very nearly did.
LORD HANKEY: It seems to me that there is quite a bit of it still left.
Viscount CECIL of CHELWOOD: I am not sure yet that it has not.
LORD HANKEY: Now we are being told the same thing. We are told that we must make tremendous sacrifices of sovereignty and independence in order to obtain what I shall show in a minute will be a very fictitious security. It is no use continuing this inquiry unless, and until by some miracle, East and West become reconciled. Indeed, the Commission are actually doing harm by increasing friction and irritation, and by lowering the prestige—already none too high—of the United Nations. I submit, then, that the Commission ought to be suspended. Against that, I think my noble friend the Earl of Perth put the consideration of urgency. My case is that unless the
1194
international situation improves, that argument goes, because the Commission will not be able to reach agreement. It is no good the Commission continuing wrangling, and then not getting complete agreement.
To suspend gives only a breathing space, and the big question behind the Motion of the most reverend Primate is whether effective control is feasible. That problem still remains, and I should like to examine it a little. Effective it must be, for nations will not give up research and production of atomic bombs, and other war uses of atomic energy, unless they are satisfied that an absolutely reliable scheme of control is available. An unreliable scheme is worse than no scheme, because it gives all the advantages to the aggressor.
I am afraid that the schemes upon which the Atomic Energy Commission have worked do not inspire much confidence in that respect. It is easy to draw up a paper scheme on the assumption that all the nations will sign and ratify the Treaty; that all will play the game; that there will be no running out when they have got the "know-how"; and that the whole of their territories will be thrown open. At present a great many territories, including the whole of Russia, are not thrown open. Nations must be willing to throw open the Government offices where there are documents, plans and suspected agreements with other countries, or their own plans for making the bombs secretly. They have to throw open the arsenals, magazines, dockyards, and anywhere where they could hide either the raw material or atomic energy in any form. It is also easy to draw up schemes on the; assumption that there will be no espionage, no bribery, no corruption, no attempt to conceal or mislead that none; of the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of persons engaged in the inspection and control will put the interests of his own country before those of the United Nations; and that none will be open to those tendentious influences which we saw in the case of the Canadian Royal Commission, influences by which men and women of apparently high standing, selected for responsible positions and entrusted with national secrets, were gradually "drawn into the net".—the phrase which is constantly used. If we make all those assumptions., we may assume that war itself can be abolished;

1195
and I am not at all sure that it is not easier—or at least any more difficult—to abolish war than it is to find a really reliable control which the nations can trust.
Let us pause for a moment to consider the personnel who will be employed and the conditions in which they will carry out the work. They will come from many countries—a fact which always weakens loyalty and team work—for every nation will want to have a finger in the pie. They will also want to get the "know how" of atomic energy, especially in the early days when the scheme is still on probation and the secret not yet divulged. Is it not certain that some countries will plant the organization with agents, whose business it will be to discover all the secrets in order to forward the interests of their own countries rather than those of the United Nations? Then let us consider the inspectors of this varied personnel, planted out all over the world in different countries, for years at a time, in dull places, with the hateful task of ferreting out the evasion of the rules, whether it be in mine, laboratory, or factory, or on the communications between the two. Will they really be able to carry out their task? Will they be allowed to see more than their hosts want them to see? Some nations are past masters in gulling people. I suggest that the inspectors will often be gulled or lulled into inactivity and into keeping their eyes shut.
In the vast spaces of America, Asia or Africa—to look very far ahead—how are these inspectors to discover what is going on? Will these territories be open to them? Why, nobody is even allowed to fly over some of them! What chance or hope is there of agreement until we get over that kind of difficulty? After the Battle of Yena, the Germans completely re-armed under the very noses of the French Army of Occupation. After the war of 1914-18 the Germans prepared the way for future rearmament—I will not say they re-armed—under the noses of the Inter-Allied Disarmament Commission, and after the Commission had gone they re-armed quite openly; and no one could, or would, stop them. In Palestine, with our large forces, we could not stop both sides arming themselves. However ingenious a scheme is, if a nation want to break it I am afraid they would be able to do so. There will be no means for enforcing control upon
1196
a strong recalcitrant nation, or group of nations, except by a world war, and it would be very difficult to get anyone to face that. I think we knew that the Germans were breaking the Naval Treaty, but there was not much that we could do about it. If a major war breaks out, and the whole matter of agreement is washed out, then within a year or two, I am afraid, all the nations will have the bomb. It seems to me that any nation would be mad to entrust its security to any scheme which has been produced up to the present time.
The most reverend Primate summed up the whole thing in a nutshell in the debate on April 27, 1947, when he said:
Man has made immense advances in scientific knowledge, but he has not made corresponding advances in moral stature."
I do not believe that even that statement goes far enough. I am afraid that Lord Fisher's saying is true:
"You can no more tame war than you can tame hell."
All this, I admit, is very deplorable and very depressing; but so is the whole international outlook. I submit that it is better to face the facts fairly and squarely than to bury our heads in the sand. It is not easy for me to make this speech, but I feel it my absolute duty. If my survey is incorrect, I shall be only too glad to have that proved. But if it is more or less correct, as I believe it is, then we have to confront a new situation with courage, composure and foresight.
Before I give my own proposals—though I do not say that they are very effective—I should just like to say a word about the proposals of my noble friend, Lord Perth. He wishes the Atomic Energy Commission to continue their work. I have given my reasons against that; I want to delay or suspend it. Then he proposes a convention banning atomic warfare. I do not want to give away anything confidential, but I was not supported in making that proposal. A great many people—I am thinking of people at Chatham House—think that that is playing with the problem and is perfectly useless. Nevertheless I stand by my noble friend. We generally agree on most things and I agree with him there. But I think that the ban, following the precedent of the Gas and Bacteriological Warfare Convention, should permit national research and development; those should not be for-

1197
bidden by the ban. Then my noble friend made another proposal, which I shall be grateful if he will repeat.
THE EARL OF PERTH: If the Atomic Energy Commission fail, then there should be a kind of convention such as I indicated. The convention would be concluded by such Powers as are ready to accept inspection and control, and it would provide that if any one of them were attacked by a Power using atomic energy the other signatories to the convention would retaliate by whatever means they had in their power, including the use of atomic weapons.
LORD HANKEY: On that, I should like to reserve my views about the position on inspection and control, because I have not had time to think about it. But I very much like the idea of setting up a convention. Otherwise my own proposals would be as follows:
First, to secure the suspension of the work of the Commission on the Control of Atomic Energy sine die, in order to relieve the United Nations for a time of this intractable question and to give them time to build up solidarity and to establish confidence among the nations. Second, to leave the bomb for the present to the Americans, with whom it will be safer than with the United Nations. Third, in co-operation with the Commonwealth and Empire to pursue with energy our own research and experiment on all aspects of this new source of power, including, of course, the counter measures and the protective measures, which I suspect are more considerable than they are sometimes thought to be. Fourth, if and when the time comes again to take up the subject of control internationally, it should be dealt with by statesmen of the highest calibre with the best possible expert assistance, instead of being remitted to a separate expert Commission.
Fifth, as a token of good intention there should be a ban on the use of atomic weapons in war, but, on the analogy of gas and bacteriological warfare, national research and development should not be forbidden. Sixth and last is that we should devote every possible effort to the underlying political difficulties and especially to securing the elimination throughout the world of hate, of which I always regard the atomic bomb as a symbol. As a first step trials and prosecutions of war criminals should be
1198
dropped and there should be a universal amnesty.
"Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord."
I would like to leave it at that. It is not by fear, threats of countermeasures, and so forth, that the world can be won to decency and kindness, but by charity. Until a beginning is made in that direction we shall never get either control of the atomic bomb or a reasonably stable peace.
4.26 p.m.
LORD CHERWELL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, said that he had had the pleasure of listening to three speeches by the most reverend Primate. I have had the pain of delivering four speeches on this subject. As a suitable exercise for the First Sunday in Lent I read through those four speeches at the week end. I was glad to find that I had nothing whatever to retract, and that by the same token I had very little to add. In the circumstances I trust this will allow me to cut short the duration of my address to your Lordships to-day. Everybody will, of course, agree that the most reverend Primate was quite: right to raise the subject, which we must all see is one of overriding importance and urgency. I hope, though with but slight confidence, that the Government may be able to give us some reassurance about the position.
I do not think I need stress to-day all the horrors of atomic war; that has been done on many occasions by others who are more capable of doing it with the eloquence which carries conviction. We are familiar on a small scale with blast effects. In an atomic bomb it corresponds to tens of thousands of tons of T.N.T. In addition there is the radiant heat sufficient to sear and burn all within half a mile of the bomb. Your Lordships are also familiar with the Gamma Ray, which attacks the marrow of the bones, and with the radio-active poisons to which the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, ret erred. Moreover there can be little doubt that all these effects will be multiplied and increased by improvements (if that is the right word) in the bombs as time goes on. Nor can we really isolate this atomic form of warfare from others which are equally horrible to contemplate. Germ warfare, as we all know, has the extraordinary unpleasant characteristic that it spreads catalytically; a few germs in favourable circumstances may go on generating more and more.

1199
Modern poisons are excessively potent; one pound of them properly distributed would be enough to poison the whole of the inhabitants of the globe. Atomic war, of course, is the most spectacular, and many people had hoped that co-operation amongst the nations might have been induced by the mere fact that the horror of war with these weapons and the fear of retaliation would make it plain even to the most obstinate that war in these circumstances would not pay.
As has been stressed, we had the extraordinarily generous offer by the United States of the so-called Baruch Plan. The noble Lord, Lord Hankey, has stressed all the difficulties of implementing that plan, or indeed any plan, to prevent atomic weapons being constructed, produced and used by recalcitrant nations, even though they might technically have accepted the plan. I think that everybody, including Mr. Baruch, would agree that there are a great many difficult details to be hammered out before we can trust any such plan, but, at any rate, it is a beginning. It offers some possible chance of avoiding the worst results of atomic warfare. If it had been accepted and welcomed by all concerned, I think we might have had some hope for the future.
But as everybody knows, it was blocked by the obstinate Soviet insistence, in the first instance, on complete independent sovereignty. They stated that any attempt to inspect a foreign country was an infringement of sovereignty which no self-respecting nation could accept. Afterwards they took a rather different line. They said that they would not even discuss the matter until all existing bombs had been destroyed and the use of bombs had been universally banned. I was rather sorry to find that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, lent themselves to this proposal to ban the use of atomic bombs. We all want to avoid their use; but, if we just ban them, the effect is that those nations which are susceptible to moral inhibitions will not use them, whereas those nations which take a different view of moral obligations will be in a position to employ them as soon as they think fit.
So far as I know, the position now is that we are faced with Russian insistence on the independent sovereignty of all
1200
nations. I sometimes wonder what the Roumanians, the Bulgarians, the Hungarians, the Poles and even some of the Austrians think about this particular aspect of Russian policy. I trust that one day they will regain that sovereign independence of which so much has been heard in the Atomic Energy Commission. It is indeed a strange and tragic situation that the nation which produced such men as Tolstoy, Dostojewsky, Mendeljev, Vinogradoff and Tchaikowski should have taken up this attitude which, if persisted in, must split the world into two halves and almost inevitably lead to some form of war which will be infinitely more horrible than the Second World War through which we have just passed.
The Russians have always been suspicious, of course, but they have really allowed suspicion to proliferate until it has grown into national obsessional neurosis. If it is allowed to go on like this—for I see no way of checking it since no news or information is allowed to percolate to the Russian nation—it will definitely endanger the whole future of civilization. It is curious that they should have taken this line for, after all, they pride themselves on their realism. Anyone would have imagined that they had everything to gain and nothing to lose by accepting the Baruch Plan and trying to work it. It is strange that they did not accept it. They cannot hope, for very many decades at any rate, to outstrip the United States in research and development, and surely they ought to be aware of that. If they are not, then their vaunted Intelligence Service, which the Report of the Royal Canadian Commission certainly shows to be pretty effective, must have failed utterly.
If it is agreed that there is no prospect of a change of heart, what do we do next? The noble Lord, Lord Hankey, if I understood him aright, said that we should dissolve or adjourn—
LORD HANKEY: Disband.
LORD CHERWELL:—disband the Atomic Energy Commission. I must say there is a great deal to be said for that. As long as it goes on, it acts as a sort of sleeping draught; we get bogged down in interminable discussions. Action is inhibited, meanwhile, others can proceed with their researches. Should we be a party to this? There I must say that only the Government, with all the infor-

1201
mation in their possession, can judge. Personally, I must say that I am much inclined to agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, said about it, but without the fuller information and all details of the discussions that have gone on being available, I do not think anybody outside Government circles can really express a final opinion.
If the Government did take this line, and if the Atomic Energy Commission were dissolved, what next? It is easy to say: "Let those nations"—I hesitate to say "the peace-loving nations" because that is a phrase which is often used by others in the wrong context—"who are prepared to accept the Baruch Plan get together and co-operate on the basis of that Plan." Quite apart from the general objections mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, this is a very difficult line to adopt. Above all, I am thinking about questions of security. There are Communists in the Governments of many countries that might be prepared to co-operate in this course of action. If there are not Communists there now, there is no certainty that there will not be Communists in some future Parliament. Again, quite apart from the Communists in the Government, there are many Communists in scientific and engineering circles, abroad as in this country, and it would be difficult in many cases to make sure that they did not obtain all the information and knowledge which was being developed in the Internationa] Research Institution.
The possibility of continuing to live under a democratic regime presupposes that everybody, or at any rate the vast majority, accept the same fundamentals and that the minority will agree to accept the verdict of the polls and will obey Government laws and regulations, even if they dislike them. In a democracy anyone who fails to do this is a criminal. It is very difficult to deal with a body which claims all democratic privileges but refuses democratic duties. International co-operation would be impossible if we were concerned with countries which contained notable groups whose first loyalty was, say, to the Cominform or to a Fascist International—if there were one—and yet who claimed posts under the Government dealing with the most secret matters. If any plan such as has been adumbrated from various sides (that these nations
1202
should go ahead together and accept the Baruch Plan) is agreed to by the Government, these preliminary problems will have to be faced and dealt with. I do not know whether the Government have considered these things at all, and I scarcely hope:: or any detailed reply to-day.
So far as I can make out, the Government have taken the right line on this topic. It is a great pleasure to me—for, as the noble Lord opposite knows, I am always most reluctant to criticize the Government—to be able to say for once that 1 have nothing to complain about in their handling of this matter. On the whole, of course, the outlook is definitely gloomy. We have never yet had any long period of peace over a large area, unless that peace has been imposed by conquest. As I said on a previous occasion, the only instance in European history was that of the Roman Empire which imposed peace on the whole Mediterranean basin for three or four hundred years. It is quite true that slow integration has been enforced as weapons have improved. The robber barons in their castles gradually had to give up their means of livelihood, and accept a more or less ordered Government, when gunpowder became available to destroy their strongholds.
It was hoped at one time, as Lord Hankey said, that air power might compel national States to fall into line in some sort of federation or similar unit, which would prevent them fighting one another. But this is a slow and a painful process, and I very much fear that if it is on its way we, who are in the middle of it, will not live to see the end. Frankly, I do not see any alternative to, or any way out of, these lamentable conditions so long as a large part of the world attaches importance only to material values. We must hope against hope that perhaps one day by a miracle, as the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, said, this Satanic doctrine may be overthrown and that possibly the civilized world may return to that older view, to which at any rate for a thousand years or so, they all paid lip service—namely, that eternal moral values transcend mere material gain. If this outlook should spread about the globe then our troubles would be solved, but, unless and until it does, it seems to me that that hope is very slender.
4.45 p.m.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Lord Pakenham): My Lords, no words of mine are necessary to underline the gravity of the subject which once again has been discussed in your Lordships' House with such tremendous authority of various kinds—logical authority, diplomatic authority, administrative authority and scientific authority. I feel that the same note has been struck throughout, beginning with the words of the most reverend Primate and ending with the moving peroration of the noble Lord who has just sat down. I think we all feel—and I do not pretend that the story I have to tell will cast any ray of optimism over the dark scene—that, until there is a change of heart throughout the world, many of these labours and studies and discussions will be in vain. At the same time, we obviously have a bounden duty (particularly those of us in the Government or serving in an official capacity) to try and see if out of even the present apparent impasse we cannot produce a measure of advance.
The most reverend Primate, I am sure, will not regard it as a mere form of words if I say that this House and the whole country are in his debt for raising the subject in the way he has done this afternoon. I think that he and the other speakers who have come forward and suggested clear proposals will not expect—and, in fact, they have generously made it plain in advance that they do not expect—a detailed commentary on what they have said, or a closely reasoned reply to the particular steps that they have advocated. I think they will realize that a great part of the value of this debate is obtained when it is over, and when proposals put forward by noble Lords of great eminence are considered in the Foreign Office and other Government Departments. If noble Lords feel that there is some danger of the reply not being forthcoming for some little time, I would remind them that we are to have a general debate on foreign affairs in about a fortnight's time, so it will be possible to raise the broader aspects again.
Meanwhile, I am sure that the House will expect me to carry on the story from where it was left last year by the noble Viscount who leads the House, at the time when he wound up the debate on April 30, 1947. After the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, had spoken last year, the most reverend Primate concluded by saying that
1204
four points had been brought out very clearly. He said:
"First, we are all of us convinced of the gravity of the position; secondly, we realize that some progress has been made, and that there are possibilities on which this Commission agreed; thirdly, those possibilities cannot be carried out unless there is some restriction of national sovereignty; and fourthly, whatever we are doing must be done quickly."
That was how he interpreted the spirit of the House and, indeed, the spirit of the Government, last year.
I would say, myself, that that remains the spirit of all concerned to-day. But, in reiterating the points made by the most reverend Primate at the end of the debate last year, I would express reservation about the phrase that progress has been made, if we are thinking of the period that has intervened between last year's debate and to-day. It will be remembered that in March, 1947, shortly before last year's debate in this House, the Security Council decided to refer back to the Atomic Energy Commission the Report on atomic energy, with instructions to continue the study of the problem. I am sure the House will wish me to describe to them what has happened as a result of that instruction to the Atomic Energy Commission to continue its studies.
The Report that was referred back for further discussion had been presented on December 31, 1946. The substance of that Report was in line with the original Baruch proposal. May I say, on that subject, how heartily I echo the words used by the most reverend Primate, when speaking about the generosity of the whole American attitude in this matter? When all is said, it is a very remarkable thing to find a country ready to throw away such a colossal advantage provided that agreement can be arrived at regarding terms. It will be remembered that the Report which was referred back concerned certain basic ideas. It contained the idea that the international control of atomic energy is technically feasible. It contained, also, the idea that control would have to be applied at all relevant stages and that, to this end, an international control authority would have to be set up and endowed with far-reaching powers, including the exclusive right to carry on atomic research for destructive purposes. These and other ideas were the main features of the proposal which was referred back to the Atomic Energy Commission.

1205
It will also be remembered that the Report in question was always a majority Report. The Russians at that stage—the stage which had been reached in December, 1946—had not abandoned their own counter proposals, which had been put forward in June, 1946, but were participating in an examination of the American plans. In view of the fact that the Russians were participating in discussion on the American plans it was possible for the Security Council—and I think one can say that it was possible for this House—in April last year, to adopt an attitude of qualified and guarded hopefulness. I think that the most reverend Primate will agree that that sums up the feeling at the end of the debate here. It was in that spirit also that the Commission was asked to resume its work. It was generally felt in this House, I think, especially by the most reverend Primate and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, that what was wanted, above all, was more elucidation of the Russian attitude and that more light was required on parts of Russian thought that were still obscure. I would say that much of last year was, in fact, devoted to this task of elucidation and the throwing of light on dark places. I am bound to say, however, that elucidation, when it has come and in so far as it has come, has tended to damp down rather than to stimulate optimism. Such light as has been thrown on dark places has shown them to be even darker than was supposed. We should not be far wrong if we called it a year of discouraging clarification. That does not mean that the discouragement has been complete—or the clarification either for that matter.
Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if I tell briefly the procedural story and then ask the contemporary question: What separates the Russian point of view to-day from that of others?—rather than stopping at each point to describe the particular conflict which occurred at each passing moment. The work of the Atomic Energy Commission has proceeded in two Committees—Committee I and Committee II. So far as relates to the year 1947, Committee II is the only one with which we need concern ourselves, because, in fact, that was the only one in which much ground was covered. Committee II embarked on a detailed consideration of the controls necessary to provide safeguards
1206
against the misuse of atomic energy. It has done an immense amount of work, but it would be difficult to speak of progress in this connexion, except in the sense in which parallel lines progress towards infinity. The work which the Committee has clone has taken two forms—first, consideration of the proposals submitted by the Russian delegates; and second, an attempt to elaborate proposals which had been endorsed by the majority and contained in the Commission's first Report to the Security Council.
If I may, I will take first the Committee's examination of the Russian proposals, leaving until later an attempt to analyze the differences which separate us, or which appear to separate us at the moment, from the Russian point of view The House may have observed that on June 11, 1947, the Russian delegation tabled a second set of proposals developing and adding to the proposals which they had originally introduced a year earlier, in June, 1946. The chief features of the plan of June, 1947—the plan with which we are most concerned—were (1) that a convention prohibiting atomic weapons should be established before the setting up of an agency for the control of atomic energy, and (2), that control should be exercised by inspection only at periodic intervals, as opposed to continuous inspection.
As some of the features of the Russian proposals were not clear, the United Kingdom delegate to the Atomic Energy Commission was instructed to ask for clarification, and as a result he put certain questions in writing—they have been referred to earlier in the debate by the most reverend Primate. The reply to these questions and other results of clarification more recently obtained I will refer to later. The point I am making now is this: that the Russian proposals were considered by Committee II and on August 15, 1947, Committee II passed a resolution to the effect that the Russian proposals do not provide an adequate basis for the development of the specific proposals for an effective system of international control of atomic energy. In other words, the Russian proposals would not do as a basis. That was the conclusion which was reached by Committee II on August 15, 1947. This resolution was passed in the Committee by nine votes. No votes were recorded by the Polish,

1207
Syrian or Soviet representatives. There were nine votes and three abstentions. So much, therefore, for the examination of the Russian proposals in Committee II.
The second task of Committee II, which, as I have explained, was throughout the whole period the relevant Committee, was to elaborate the proposals which were supported by the great majority and had been contained in the Commission's first Report. These elaborated proposals give expression to certain basic principles, and they may be summarised as follows:

(1) Decisions concerning the production and use of atomic energy should not be left in the hands of nations—that is individual nations.

(2) Policies concerning the production and use of atomic energy which substantially affect world security should be governed by principles established in the treaty or convention which the Agency would be obliged to carry out.

(3) Nations must undertake in the treaty or convention to grant to the Agency rights of inspection of any part of their territory, subject to appropriate procedural requirements and limitations. In implementing these proposals the further basic measures are provided (I am still quoting from the introduction of the Atomic Energy Com mission's Second Report)—

(a) Production quotas based on the principles and policies specified in the treaty or convention,

(b) Ownership by the Agency of nuclear fuel and source material,

(c) Ownership, management and operation by the Agency of dangerous facilities,

(d) Licencing by the Agency of non-dangerous facilities at present operated by nations, and

(e) Inspection by the Agency to prevent or detect clandestine activities.

These are pretty far reaching proposals. They were, I repeat, the proposals agreed to by the great majority of the Atomic Energy Commission. These elaborate proposals were at first subjected to a very searching criticism by the delegates, but they eventually agreed that they represented
1208
the necessary basis. But though I have described them as "far-reaching," I should draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the proposals cover only part of the whole field of study; there are still left for discussion important matters which have not yet been dealt with—the whole problem of sanctions, for example. These proposals were eventually adopted by the Atomic Energy Commission itself, with ten members voting in the affirmative, Russia in the negative and Poland abstaining. In welcoming the report, the United Kingdom delegate, Sir Alexander Cadogan, said that he accepted the work done by Committee II as indicative of the powers which an international agency will need. These proposals alone, he said, gave promise of effective security, in contrast with the proposals of the Soviet Union.
In addition, speaking on instructions, he referred briefly to the points regarding which His Majesty's Government were not entirely happy. He said that the United Kingdom delegation would like to see more work done on the definition of dangerous quantities of materials. Again, he reminded the Commission that in the discussion the United Kingdom delegation had called attention to the proposal which provided for the right of the Agency to develop atomic weapons. His Majesty's Government thought that this question of the Agency's right to develop atomic weapons required further study and, in particular, that more consideration should be given to the extent to which it was necessary for the Agency to conduct that type of research. These expressions of a desire for further exploration by the British delegation must not, however, be taken to detract from the strength of our general support for the proposals of the great majority of the Commission.
To round off this procedural history, the Second Report of the Atomic Energy Commission was submitted on September 11—that is to say, too late for the matter to be discussed either by the Security Council or by the last session of the General Assembly. The present position, therefore, is that the Second Report of the Atomic Energy Commission is on the agenda of the Security Council. Meanwhile, the Working Committee of the Atomic Energy Commission have decided informally to take up two further tasks; first, the question of organization and staffing of the future International Agency,

1209
and, second, a further and more detailed study of the Russian proposals. Work is now being carried out on both these tasks, and that is where the matter stands at present. I have run rapidly over the procedural history because, while it is interesting from the point of view of history, I think we all agree, that what matters is where are we to-day and, above all, where shall we get to in the future. I wished for the purpose of record, however, to give that brief account.
What does it all amount to? What emerges from these tangled controversies of the last two or three years? Three points, I would say, emerge clearly. (1) There is a strong desire among all the nations of the world that atomic power should be internationally controlled. I feel one can say that without making any exceptions. (2) There is every indication that control is technologically possible—and this seems to represent a certain amount of agreement. (3) It has hitherto been found totally impossible to reconcile the ideas of the Russians in regard to the; system of control with those of the great majority of other nations. May I attempt to summarize the reasons why we regard the Russian proposals as inadequate? The Russians insist that the Convention prohibiting the manufacture of atomic bombs and providing for the destruction of stocks must be signed and must come into force before the Convention setting up a control authority has been concluded. I feel that some of the speakers went a little too far in criticism of the Russians, though it does not require any great ingenuity to see points of especial weakness in the Russian case. Though many things have been said on many occasions, I do not think the Russians have ever said they will not continue the discussion regarding a Control Authority until the earlier Convention has been signed and put into force. They have said the Convention must be signed and. put into force, which means that existing stocks must be destroyed before a new Convention can be called, but it would be going too far to say—as one or two noble Lords have suggested—that Russia had refused all further discussions about the second Convention.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I took the statement, I believe, from a Times correspondent. I am glad that the noble Lord has been able to contradict it.
LORD PAKENHAM: There is no record of any Russian statement to the effect quoted by the noble Earl, What I have said is the most accurate information open to us, and I feel sure that it is correct. In their latest statements the Russians refuse to guarantee that there would necessarily be a second Convention, even if the first were concluded and enforced. Therefore they desire 10 secure the destruction of all bombs without giving any assurance that there will be a second Convention regarding this international authority and inspectorate, That is not quite the same thing as saying that all bombs must be destroyed before they will discuss a Convention. The Russian proposals for control relate almost entirely to a system of inspection. We do not regard inspection by itself as sufficient, and we maintain that the Control Authority must have the power (a) to license all atomic plants, to manage at least those engaged in dangerous processes, and to own atomic energy raw materials and at least certain facilities connected with the production of atomic energy: and (b) to control and allocate the raw materials involved. In our view, while an inspectorate is all-important, it is not the whole organization.
The system of inspection proposed by the Russians is inadequate because it would exclude the following points which we consider essential: first, day-to-day contact between the inspectorate and the operation of plants in all countries. As I mentioned earlier, the Russian proposals provide for a "periodic" inspection only, and we cannot accept inspection unless it is continuous inspection; secondly, the Russians exclude the right of access on reasonable grounds on behalf of the Authority to any part of the world; thirdly, we insist on a clear understanding that every plant would be open to inspection by a truly representative international inspectorate. It would not be sufficient if, shall we say, British plants were inspected by British inspectors, and Russian plants were inspected by Russian inspectors. I do not want to give the impression that the Russians have insisted on the Russian plants being inspected by Russian inspectors only, but they have not been ready to clarify their attitude in this matter; and until they do so their proposals will not satisfy us. Fourthly, the Russians agreed that research by individual nations must

1211
conform to any agreement relating to the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes. They agreed to that, but they have not agreed that national research should be subject to inspection by the Control Authority. We and the Americans feel that that is essential.
There are the differences, and I have no doubt that most members of your Lordships' House, when you read what I have said in Hansard, will study them very carefully—more carefully perhaps, than is possible when one hears them expounded in speech. I do not know what the House feels about these differences. Clearly, they must not be underestimated; clearly, in their present form, unless they can be greatly reduced, they make real progress impossible. But I doubt if most members of your Lordships' House, studying these differences on paper, would conclude from them that there is a gulf between Russia and the rest of the world on this subject which cannot be bridged without the grave surrender of vital principles. I imagine that those members of your Lordships' House who have discharged great responsibilities will have known of occasions when larger differences were overcome by diplomacy and negotiation. May that, indeed, prove to be so on this occasion!
It is my duty, however, to make it plain to the House, from the inside knowledge which a Government spokesman possesses, that the prospect of reducing these differences seems definitely worse than it was a year ago. I must repeat that, because the House should be aware not only of the facts but of the atmosphere surrounding the facts. I would offer the House the opinion that if Russia were simply looking at this matter of atomic energy she would be ready to come sufficiently far in our direction to meet us. But I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, emphasized more than once in his speech, that it is not just a question of the Russian attitude to atomic energy, but of the Russian attitude to the whole situation in the world—and, indeed, to other countries; it is her appalling suspicion, which the noble Lord so rightly referred to as an obsessional neurosis. This suspicion, which we encounter in every field, is as tragic for Russia as for the rest of the world—and perhaps even more tragic. I speak with
1212
all humility, as one who prays twice a day for Russia, and I am sure the most reverend Primate would agree that there is no country in the world which so badly needs our prayers. So long as that suspicion lasts, and while the general position remains as it is, these differences which I have set out in this rather elaborate way are not likely to be overcome in any one field. Therefore, I suggest to the House that we must not raise any great hopes in our own minds, nor in the minds of other people, about agreement on atomic energy, unless and until we make progress towards reconciliation with Russia generally.
I will not anticipate what others, and perhaps I myself, will be saying in a fortnight's time, when we discuss foreign affairs. In conclusion, I will simply return to the questions that have been asked as to what we propose to do in the Atomic Energy Commission. In that respect, I am afraid that I cannot say anything to the House more definite than this. We will consider all that has been proposed. Some of the proposals conflict rather sharply with others, but that does not mean that some of them may not represent the right course. We will consider all of them. We shall continue to try and extract advantage from continued discussions. But if it proves that we get nowhere along our present lines (the Government feel that some time limit must be set to a state of affairs of this kind), and if we find that all advance is indefinitely, persistently and deliberately resisted, we shall have to reconsider our whole attitude to the problem of atomic energy. Too many millions of lives are at stake, not only in our own country, and not perhaps only in this generation, for any other course to be possible. I am sorry not to be able to say anything more definite to-day; perhaps the House hardly expected it. I certainly cannot sit down without thanking the most reverend Primate once again, and begging him as urgently as possible to keep this subject before both the country and this House.
5.16 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I rise only to thank the noble Lord most warmly for the very fair and full statement he has made. His has been a depressing account, for he has told us quite plainly—and I am glad he has been plain about it—that there is less progress to report than there was when we

1213
discussed this subject ten months ago. The outlook at the moment is indeed gloomy and depressing. I am certain that the noble Lord has told us everything that he could tell us. I am sure that the Government will do their utmost to explore every channel which may lead to agreement, and, if agreement is impossible, will decide on the course which they must adopt. All I would say is this. We have not unlimited time; the time is running short. I agree with what was said, I think, by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that the most dangerous course of all may be to do nothing. Once again I thank the noble Lord, and I ask leave of the House to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

IMPORT OF BOOKS.
5.18 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE rose to call attention to the present restrictions on import of books; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House has had a fairly long debate on a subject of vast importance, but I make no apologies for troubling your Lordships with my Motion for a short while. I think it is common ground that human progress largely depends upon the circulation of thought, and that the present impediments to the circulation of thought, in the way of restrictions on literature, reduce our intellectual and scientific contacts with other lands, and particularly with the United States. I would submit to the House that at this stage, from the industrial and scientific point of view, we cannot afford to fall behind in the application of the most modern processes which science has developed. As I hope to illustrate in a few moments, with the restrictions the Government have found necessary to impose, we are at present definitely handicapping our industry. To-day there is no foreign travel; there is heavy restriction on newsprint; there are grave difficulties in the publication of books in this country, due to paper shortage; and there are grave difficulties in regard to importing literature from abroad.
We are in some danger, I think, of an iron curtain on the exchange of ideas and knowledge falling around our frontiers. It is a danger which I feel sure your Lord-
1214
ships on all sides of the House would wish to avert.
I must say that when I put down this Motion I was heartened to read again the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker, in the debate on the Parliament Bill, when he said:
If noble Lords opposite wish to criticize the Government … they should criticize them far more for their behaviour about paper and for their behaviour about the Press. It is by their bad behaviour about paper and their bad behaviour about the Press that they are preventing public discussion; and public discussion is what matters."
I obviously shall have the support of noble Lords opposite in raising this particular matter.
For the benefit of those of your Lordships who are not fully acquainted with the present position, I will recapitulate in a few sentences, so that we may know what we are speaking about. Before the war there were no restrictions upon the import of books into this country. The second stage occurred during the war, when it was found necessary to restrict the importation of books from all countries. Immediately alter the war the restriction was on the basis of allowing an importation from other countries (if it could be obtained) of 100 per cent. of the 1938-39 imports from those countries of scientific books and books of value, but no imports of fiction were allowed. After the war an open general licence was issued which allowed the import of books from the Commonwealth but not from the United States, and the quota of 100 per cent., based on the 1938-39 trade, was built up to 200 per cent.
In January, 1947, due to the Article 9 provisions of the Bretton Woods Agreement, we were not allowed to continue any discrimination against the United States. Therefore the open general licence was extended to include books from the United States. Imports from the Commonwealth were still allowed, but the 200 per cent. was reduced to 100 per cent. of the 1938-39 trade, and fiction was allowed to be imported provided that 50 per cent. of the value of the fiction imported was re-exported from this country. That open licence lasted from January to September. During that time the imports of literature rose to something like ten times their prewar level. Also there was imported into this country from America—one might

1215
term it dumped into this country—what is known as "pulp fiction," which has no real literary value at all and was obviously taking a large amount of our dollar resources.
In September, 1947, the President of the Board of Trade found it necessary to stop the open general licences, and he re-instituted a selected individual licence which is now in force. This, theoretically, allows an import of scientific books up to 100 per cent. of the 1938-39 trade, and also a small amount of fiction. But each licence is granted on its merits, and in practice, as I shall show in a few moments, licences granted are fairly few and it takes time to obtain them. Although individual books are allowed to be imported in single numbers, the book trade and those responsible for the supply of scientific literature are heavily handicapped by the present restriction.
May I give your Lordships one or two examples which have been sent to me? The University College of London report that they have great difficulty in obtaining American scientific books. Several copies of one particular book can be ordered only if a licence is obtained, which generally involves a delay of eight to ten weeks. The University of Durham say that the position is so bad that lecturers are having to write weekly sheets for distribution to their classes, because of the difficulty of getting the necessary text books. I have tried to take a sample of what I call the scientific life of our country. The National Veterinary Medical Association of Great Britain and Ireland say that one of the books for which they have asked for a licence is Duke's Veterinary Physiology, a new edition of which was published in America in the autumn, and upon which students are entirely dependent for this particular knowledge. Smith's Veterinary Physiology— which is the British counterpart—is no longer obtainable, and students' veterinary studies are being seriously prejudiced.
The Institute of Structural Engineers complain that many months pass before they can obtain licences for books, and their research work is being seriously prejudiced. The British Cast Iron Research Association has been refused the necessary currency to subscribe to an American Translation Service specializing in scientific work, for which there is no
1216
equivalent in this country. I will give one more example. The Biochemical Society say that there is a book called The Annual Review of Biochemistry, a volume which every biochemist has at his hand, which is published in America, and this year its delivery in this country was held up for many months due to Customs difficulties. The Physiological Society also complain of their troubles. There are various other bodies who complain, but I will not weary your Lordships at this late hour. One and all say that they are hampered, first, by the import restrictions themselves, and, secondly, by the administration of the restrictions which are at present in force.
I want to make three suggestions to the Government if I may, and I am not going to detain your Lordships by trying to prove my case. When the debate on the adjournment in another place was held on the subject of the importation of books, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade admitted heavy overwork in the Import Licensing Department of the Board of Trade, and he promised better things. The fact is that the delays still exist, and it is sometimes four or five months before people can get books which are at the dockside. As the Customs guarantee to hold a consignment for only twenty-eight days, if the licence is not obtained in that time there is serious danger that the books will never be delivered to the proper recipient. I would suggest, first, that there should be a maximum time laid down within the Department by the Minister in which these licence applications should be dealt with. Let it be twenty-eight days, or let it be six weeks. It should be progressively reduced. It would enable the importers to have some knowledge of the maximum time they will have to wait, so that they will know whether or not they are going to get their licences. That is my first suggestion. My second suggestion is that the figure of 100 per cent. of the 1938-39 trade should be increased again to 200 per cent. The 1938-39 trade is not a very-good yardstick to take, for two reasons. First of all, since that time values have risen.
LORD CHORLEY: May I correct the noble Lord? I am informed that the average over the years before the war is taken, and not just the figures of one year before the war.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I am informed that in practice the authorities are taking the figures of the 1938-39 trade. But, giving the noble Lord his point, if you look at the statistics from about 1934, you will see that the shadow of war over Europe seriously diminished the enterprise and opportunities of our book importing industry. If you took the 1920's and the early 1930's you would have a better yardstick. I suggest that it should be increased to 200 per cent., for the reason that the yardstick of years itself is bad and, secondly, because of the change in the value of money.
My third suggestion is that blanket licences up to a given amount should be granted to universities, libraries and other approved scientific bodies who, if they knew they had power to spend up to an amount decreed by the Government, would then be able to proceed with the application for a licence within the amount they were permitted to spend; at the same time they would be able to obtain a far better selection of foreign scientific literature than they can at the present time. Those are my three suggestions on this subject. I have dealt with the subject very inadequately, and in a very rapid manner. It is, I think, worthy of non-Party consideration, because we feel on all sides of the House that British culture has something to give to the world and something to receive from other countries in the world; and that British science and British industry, particularly when we are trying to regain our export markets, cannot afford to be handicapped by a lack of technical knowledge. I hope that the Government will study the representations of those in charge of industry and scientific processes. I beg to move for Papers.
5.32 p.m.
LORD CHERWELL: My Lords, I must apologize for inflicting myself upon you again after such a brief interval. But I feel that it would be wrong for a man who is a professor in one of our universities, and therefore, to some extent, responsible for the training of the youth of this country, to remain silent when a topic so vitally urgent to the teaching of young men and women is being discussed. Most people—if not all people, indeed—require quiet, solitude and leisure to ponder and comprehend new ideas and arguments. I well remember once having the temerity to derive
1218
an extremely simple equation—the equation on the motion of a rocket—in your Lordships' House. Afterwards I was told not only that nobody understood it, but that even after seeing it in Hansard people had to read it several times before they appreciated what it was all about. That is equally true concerning all ordinary lectures; and it is especially the case with young people who are not of the high standard of intelligence that we find here.
It is no use saying that lecture notes should be enough. Not only does it distract people to have to take down everything the lecturer says, but it is necessary for them to read around the subject; they should not confine themselves to the series of items that have been discussed in the lecture. I do not know that I need argue the case for the necessity of books for learning. The whole efflorescence after the invention of printing proves the case without any further discussion. We are now really back to the conditions of the Middle Ages. In Oxford, undergraduates have to lend one another a book for twenty-four hours because there are so few available. This means learning against a time limit, and one really cannot do that. One cannot study and understand something if an eye has to be kept on the clock because a book must be given back next morning. It is quite intolerable that conditions of this sort should be allowed to exist.
The general shortage of books, of course, is greatly exacerbated by the difficulty—sometimes almost the impossibility—of getting foreign books. On my own subject of physics, for instance, a large number of the best and most up-to-date books are printed in America. Everybody knows that the nuclear research which led up to the atomic bomb was concentrated in America during the war, and that they have kept their lead partly because of the start this gave them and partly because of the excessively expensive apparatus required for that work. Large numbers of the most distinguished emigré Jewish scientists went to America. It is no use shutting our eyes to the fact that at the present moment in these subjects America is pre-eminent. Germany is down and out; in France science, though recovering, has not yet recovered; and unless we can get these American books our acquiring knowledge and information about nuclear subjects, at any rate, will be gravely

1219
handicapped. It is not as if we were dealing with large amounts of dollars. I believe that one-tenth of the amount of dollars wasted on dried eggs would put the whole position right at once. It is not as if the restriction were really effective. I have here an advertisement which is offering "America's best-loved magazines" to all and sundry. They say "You will be charmed with these delightful magazines. Call soon." No doubt I should be charmed with these magazines, but I should be much more charmed if I could simply go into a shop and buy Bethe's book on Nuclear Physics.
It cannot be right that tutors should be compelled to recommend their undergraduates to read, not the best book on the subject but the book that they might be able to get. That is the position we are in now. If you want a foreign book you may be lucky, but in general there is interminable delay. I have here an instance of one of the best-known book shops in Oxford, which applied for a licence on September 19, 1947, and by the middle of February, 1948, they still have not received that licence. After all, the Government are spending vast sums on education, and they will be stultifying their efforts if they do not make sure that we have enough text books to teach the people what they are supposed to be learning. I would therefore appeal to the Government, not only to facilitate the import of educational books from abroad but to increase the paper allocations to printers and publishers for educational books. Ten per cent. of the 70,000 tons of paper which I believe go on Government forms every year would put the whole position right. I hope that on this occasion the Government will be forthcoming and will make every effort to meet us.
5.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I should like to support the Motion. It seems to me sad that a Party which counts so many of the intelligentsia in its ranks and is genuinely anxious to raise the level of education throughout the country should have brought us to a position not unlike that of a totalitarian country. We have an iron curtain down now, which prevents our getting not only technical books but ordinary literature. It is rather a debacle to place Goethe and Voltaire on the same level as caviare and champagne, but that is what we are
1220
coming to. As the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, has just said, we are back to the position of the Middle Ages. The last time, I believe, that there was a restriction on the import of books was in the reign of King Edward IV, 500 years ago. Although I am not a Protectionist, I think he had very good reason, because he was trying to encourage Mr. Caxton in his nascent industry. It was his brother, Richard III, who subsequently allowed books to come in.
It is not only technical books which are affected; ordinary literature, books that people want to read—or ought to want to read—are also restricted. Those books are needed in this country, and one cannot buy them. Go to the very few shops that deal in French, Italian or German literature, and you will not be able to buy them. They are not there. Not only is the import of foreign-produced books prohibited; so is the printing abroad of English books. We are so short of English literature in this country that we would be glad to get our English books printed abroad; but that we are not allowed to do. What the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has said about the difficulties imposed by the Board of Trade is, I believe, absolutely correct. There are several Departments concerned, and to a certain extent they are at cross purposes; one or two are quite adamant. They say that a trader must have been in business before and brought in the necessary quota for him to be authorized to import at this time. I hope that the very small amount of" foreign currency which is needed to allow these books to come in will not weigh so heavily with the Government as it seems to. Mental food is surely nearly as necessary, although perhaps not quite so necessary, as physical food. This Government of all Governments ought to be able to take a strong lead and allow principle to carry the day against a purely material gain.
5.42 p.m.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, as a Back Bencher on the Government side, I should like to support this Motion. I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that this should be a non-Party question. We are all concerned with a problem which the Government are trying to solve in many different ways—the dollar shortage. The plea which I would make to the noble

1221
Lord who is to reply is that the amount of dollars involved is relatively small. I do not agree with the dried egg argument. I do not think that we could absorb knowledge if we had not previously absorbed eggs—dried or otherwise—or some other imported foodstuffs. Anyway, we are not now buying any dried eggs, and have not been since September of last year. As I say, the amount of dollars involved in the question of books is relatively small. I am not concerned with the sort of books to which the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, referred—books for amusement purposes. These pass round from house to house. I am told that: Forever Amber can be borrowed from your friend in the next house if you want it. That is not the sort of book with which I am concerned. I am particularly concerned with books dealing with industrial efficiency. I believe that industrial efficiency is vital to the future of this country, particularly at a time when by comparison we are not showing up very well with the United States. I think it must clearly be admitted that any assistance we can obtain in connexion with the development of industrial efficiency should be supported by the Government.
I happen to have led a party of industrialists to Germany a year ago. It was quite pathetic to meet these great leaders of German industry who had been deprived of all contact with the outer world for perhaps ten years, and had, in fact, been deprived of contact with one another. It was pathetic to find, when they met one another and when they exchanged information with this British delegation, how lamentably ignorant they were of every development in industrial efficiency in the rest of the world. For instance, they had no knowledge of the basic development of industrial psychology. They did not know what factorial analysis was. They had little or no knowledge of the tremendous work done in the Harvard School of Business Administration, in the University of Iowa, in the University of New York and even in this country. They had been deprived of all possibility of learning what was going on in the rest of the world, and of the interchange of knowledge.
This problem has given great anxiety to the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. We have now been considering
1222
this matter for eighteen months and we are profoundly concerned. It is not only industry itself which is affected; it is the. libraries upon which industry depends. I happen to be Chairman of a body concerned with industrial efficiency. We cannot obtain the books on motion economy, on job simplification, and so on, which are so improvement in production efficiency. It is a serious problem. A few weeks ago, I was in the library of the Institute of Economic and Social Research. That body were formed only in 1940; therefore, they have no licence because they had no imports before the war. They are experiencing the greatest difficulty in obtaining a licence for those books.
The same thing applies to the shortage of paper. A most important document written by Dr. Rostas which appeared some months ago had to be duplicated, and only one hundred copies were available for the world. So far as I know, it is the only document produced on a scientific analysis of a comparison of industrial productivity in the United States and the United Kingdom. Of the 100 copies available, sixty have been sent to the Dominions and other parts of the world; there are forty copies in this country. I borrowed that book; I have to return it within a week, because those are all the copies which there are available. These are the factors which are limiting our progress. I thought that the constructive suggestions put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, were well worth consideration by the Government. I am sure that the Government are sympathetic in this matter. I do add my voice to an appeal to allow us in this case to have the very few additional dollars which might add enormously to the value of our productive effort to meet the economic crisis in which we are involved.
5.50 p.m.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, this obscure cloud of regulations which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has to some extent illumined, is ominous, for the reason that it casts a shadow not only over some of our most cherished traditions of freedom, but also across our relations with our friends of the Commonwealth. By Article 9 of the Anglo-American Financial Agreement, we have undertaken not to discriminate against the products of the United States in any

1223
imports we may have to restrict in quantity. Therefore the Board of Trade appear to have decided that, in order to meet our dollar difficulties, we are obliged instead to regulate the importation of books by means of these baffling and uncertain rules. But, in doing so, they have violated certain important principles.
At a time when we are all thinking in terms of closer co-operation and economic union with other countries, at a time when the group of nations associated with us is regarded as an example of economic co-operation which others ought to follow, it is not encouraging to see our administration give a lead of unilateral action to restrict the reciprocal flow of our trade with our partners. This onesided closing down on the importation of books has been resented, as a matter of principle, in several of the Dominions, notably, I believe, in Australia. I happen to know more of the reactions in Ireland, where the regulations have made it exceedingly difficult for the small group of Dublin publishers to sell their books even in Belfast. The very large quantity of British books imported into Southern Ireland, and the natural wish to trade freely within the limits of a small island, would seem to call for some special treatment. If it were put to them, I cannot believe that our friends in America would refuse to allow some agreed measure of discrimination in favour of the Dominions in this matter.
But that, is only an example of a problem which is wider than these particular difficulties. Is Article 9 going to be interpreted so as to strike at the roots of our whole economic union? Is the shortage of dollars to drive us to close down on the importation of one commodity after another until trade within our group of nations is at a standstill? As many foretold, Article 9 places us in a false position and is the thin edge of a most dangerous wedge. I suggest that we ought not to hide our heads like ostriches in the sand of expediency, but consult again with our American friends before the position becomes intolerable. I think that it is now generally believed that the Americans are encouraging other countries to unite, and they must see what a stumbling-block to effective economic union this condition must be among countries which are all short of dollars.
1224
The other principle violated is the great international tradition that literature should pass without hindrance between one country and another. Unfortunately the United States to some extent honour this custom in the breach. They are not members of the Copyright Union and they actually charge an ad valorem duty on books. The tide is flowing the right way, however. They have lately reduced their import duty to 5 per cent. I would like to suggest that the time is ripe, that we should seek good out of evil and take the opportunity of our present difficulties for a frank discussion of this question with our American friends, in the hope that they may at last be induced to abandon their isolationism in the field of literature, as they have in so many other fields, so that publishers on both sides of the Atlantic may compete on equal terms in one another's country.
In the meanwhile we are in a desperate situation which may, for the time being, call for desperate remedies. The restrictions are on and the Government may take the short view that they must stay on for the present. But in that case I suggest that this duration should be defined, so that Dominion publishers should at least be able to know where they stand, and that the restrictions themselves should be eased to meet some of the criticisms which have been made. I would take first books in foreign languages. These very sensibly, I think, are not subject to any quota or re-export provision. Applications are considered on their merits and permission to import is being freely granted, but after a delay that often reaches up to two months, because with all these restrictions the Board of Trade are naturally overworked. But why insist on permits for bona-fide books in "foreign languages at all? Such freedom need not involve discrimination against books of this kind produced in America. Linguists are not so plentiful that any serious drain of dollars would result.
And I would extend this freedom further. For learned, scientific or educational books, I would give an open licence, whether they came from hard currency countries or not. After all, though our economic difficulties may be desperate, we are not postponing the raising of the school-leaving age. Must we add to the shortage of teachers and buildings a continuance of the shortage of books? If, however, the Government will not at

1225
present go so far as that, I would at any rate support Lord Balfour's suggestion that the quota should be increased to 200 per cent., bringing it back approximately to the pre-war position. It was suggested in another place that the privilege of being allowed to import fiction on condition of re-exporting 50 per cent. of it should be extended to serious works also. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade seemed favourably inclined to that suggestion and I hope that we shall hear that it is to be put: into operation.
This re-export privilege, however, though some help, does not, I understand, go far enough even in the case of fiction. In practice it is said to be very difficult for publishers to get the necessary individual licences, because many of them were not importers before the war and because firm orders from abroad are not easy to obtain in advance. I am told that we are running serious risks of losing old-established and valuable markets in the Dominions, which re-exportation would help us to retain. Shortage of paper and shortage of printers owing to the limited number of apprentices allowed to be trained has prevented publishers from offering the range of books which the Dominion markets desire. For instance, any relief which would enable British publishers to bring in books in sheet form for binding here and re-exporting would help us to hold those markets; and even the importation of more finished books would set free paper and other resources to help towards the attainment of the Board of Trade's ambitious export target of £12,000,000 worth of books.
As things are at present, publishers tell me they are often accused by authors' agents of being "dogs in the manger" when they refuse to cede Dominion rights to American publishers while they themselves cannot supply the Dominion markets. The Dominions would still prefer to buy from Britain, not only for reasons of sentiment but also because of the availability of our currency. The existing arrangements are a tangle of uncertainty and hamper, for instance, the making of reciprocal arrangements with American publishers who are likely, as time goes by, to resent the present oneway traffic. In conclusion, I would like to say a word on the number of tributes I have heard paid to the Board of Trade for the efforts they are making to cause
1226
these difficult restrictions to work as smoothly as possible. My contention is not that they are failing to do their best to unravel the knot, but that it ought never to have been tied so tightly, and, indeed, for reasons of broad principle, that it ought never to have been tied at all.
5.55 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, would you allow me to make a few observations in support of all that has been said by others who have spoken in favour of Lord Balfour of Inchrye's very important Motion? I am closely concerned with several technical bodies dealing with production, aircraft and automobile engineering, and with the British section of the World Engineering Congress. All those four bodies are endeavouring to build up modern libraries. So far they have been utterly unable to do so. Our members, young and old, are oat of date because they cannot get the up-to-date publications mentioned by the noble Lord who raised this Motion and referred to by others; and unless my noble friend who is to reply realizes this fact and acts as suggested, we shall so remain. Advance in technological education will be gravely hampered and our engineers will not be up to date.
5.56 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I think we have had a very useful discussion in which more points have been made in a short time than in any debate within my immediate recollection. If, in replying, I am not able to deal with them all, I hope noble Lords will forgive me. It appeared from the opening observations of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that he appreciated—and I think most other noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion have appreciated—the exceptionally difficult circumstances with which the Government is faced over this business. We are very glad indeed that this matter should have been raised, because it does enable us to ' bring out the difficulties with which we are contending. And it is very appropriate indeed that this matter should have been brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, because we all know how the Scottish nation in particular is enthusiastic in regard to all matters of education and of books. Indeed, he prayed in aid the observations of my

1227
noble friend, Lord Lindsay of Birker, a fellow countryman, whose remarks, I think, were not in fact directed to this particular question of the import of books. I well remember in my student days Barrie's fascinating play, When a Man's Single, in which this enthusiasm for books in a working class Scottish family is brought out. Although not being very much addicted to study themselves, they furnish the front room by ordering a yard of the best books, which were duly installed.
But I would remind the noble Lord that we in England are no less interested in literature, and in good literature. Indeed, in re-reading The Areopagitica the other day I was astonished at the number of very apt quotations to which, if time was not getting on, I might well refer your Lordships. The difficulties, of course, as the noble Lord has indicated, are essentially related to the balance of payments problem. It is because of that that there is an extreme paper shortage in this country, and this has resulted in great pressure being brought to bear on the importation of foreign books. And it is not only that there is a shortage of paper; it is undoubtedly the fact that there has been an enormous increase in the output of books, of good books, in recent years, and a very gratifying increase in the demand. Much more reading is going on here now than formerly, not only in university and scientific circles, but throughout the country as a whole.
Of the paper which is available, a generous allocation has been made to the book industry. They are receiving 80 per cent. of their pre-war amounts and, of course, having regard to the much thinner paper which is being used and other matters of that sort, the actual output of books is considerably larger, indeed it has already exceeded the prewar figure. It is true that the whole of the allocation is not available for the benefit of the general public, as 25 per cent. has to be used either for the production of educational works or for works for export. Lord Cherwell, I think, said, in effect, that the situation was so difficult at Oxford that undergraduates could not get books. The demand by undergraduates for books to be owned by them has increased enormously. As I say, it is not that the output of books is not con-
1228
tinually increasing, it is just that supply cannot keep up with demand. And that has undoubtedly meant a great pressure in favour of importing books from abroad.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has very succinctly and accurately, on the whole, described the history of this business. The Government were very anxious indeed to encourage, so far as possible, the importation of what have been called the serious books—that is learned, scientific and technical books—and in 1947 an open general licence was given for the importation of books of this kind. Very little question has been raised to-day with regard to fiction, and I do not propose to say much about it. On the other side, this open general licence was, in fact, issued, and as the noble Lord, himself, has pointed out, the result was a tremendous increase in the supply of books. I am not sure that it was a ten-fold increase as I think the noble Lord said, but it certainly was a tremendous increase; and by the time the dollar crisis came upon us in August it was well on in the direction of £1,000,000 per annum which, with respect to my noble friend Lord Marley, is a very substantial sum. A considerable proportion of the material, it is true, was what Lord Balfour of Inchrye called pulp literature, some of it pornographic literature masquerading as the biographies or autobiographies of famous film stars, and that sort of thing.
In July and August of last year, as everyone knows, we were confronted with an exceedingly difficult economic situation. We had to cut down in all sorts of ways; we had even to cut down our importation of foodstuffs from dollar sources. I think it would have been quite unreasonable to do as the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, suggested in his very charming speech, and leave books untouched when we were cutting down food supplies. Clearly there had to be some restriction on the import of books. A famous member of your Lordships' House many years ago produced a stanza—it had great currency at the time and it may be familiar to some of your Lordships—which may not be inappropriate at the present day, when slightly modified. The author of the original stanza was Lord Lytton. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to repeat it:

1229
"We may live without books—
What is knowledge but grieving?
We may live without hope—
What is hope but deceiving?
We may live without love—
What is passion but pining?
But where is the man
That can live without dining?"
We had, therefore, to return to the quota system, and the quota was fixed at 100 per cent. of the pre-war amounts which were allocated to different firms who had, in fact, been engaged in the business of importing these books from abroad. It has been suggested that that 100 per cent. is not enough. It is quite true that there are difficulties arising here and there, particularly with regard to certain types of books which have been referred to by a number of noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion. It has been suggested that if the quota could be increased to 200 per cent. that might go a long way towards alleviating the position. It is interesting to know that this is in the minds of noble Lords, because my right honourable friend is already discussing with representatives of learned institutions in this country the question of how serious is this inability to obtain these books, particularly from America. These discussions are going on at the present time, and it may well be that as a result there will be some increase in the quota. I am not in a position to say anything more definite, or, indeed, to hold out the hope that there will be an increase to the 200 per cent. which the noble Lord has suggested.
It is undoubtedly the fact that there have been administrative difficulties. This present quota system in regard to these serious books came into force, as the noble Lord has indicated, only in September last. And it so happened the department in the Board of Trade which was given the job of handling this matter was weakened as the result of illness and other troubles over those very critical months. Moreover, it was found necessary to go into the question of the quota to which each individual importing firm was entitled. The increase had to be looked at in respect of the business they had been doing in the years before the war. That, of course, meant a substantial amount of work, and that work fell on the department which, as I have indicated, was depleted by sickness and other troubles. But my right honourable friend
1230
has been able to reinforce that particular department, and I am glad to be able to inform noble Lords that the business of looking into the quotas has now practically come to an end, and therefore in future these delays ought not to be anything like so serious as in the past.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: May I interrupt the noble Lord to ask if he can tell us what this department may consider an appropriate time, once a quota has been examined, in order to go through the procedure of examining an application and then granting or refusing a licence?
LORD CHORLEY: The problem is to catch up with the arrears, which may well take a little time. When that has been done I should not imagine there would be any great delay. I am informed it would be about two weeks, and it might even be less.
The noble Lord made one other interesting suggestion which I shall be very glad to bring to the attention of my right honourable friend—namely, that blanket licences should be issued to the universities and similar institutions, to enable them to import books themselves. He pointed out—but I am not sure that he made it quite clear—that there is an open licence to any individual to import a particular book. Anyone can get currency from his bank, give an order to a bookseller in America, and the book will be imported by parcel post. There is no difficulty about it and many professors and scientists have been importing books in this way. The noble Lord suggests that something of the kind on a rather wider basis should be granted to universities. Universities are not so constituted as to embark on the business of importing books, and if it is found, as a result of the discussions to which I have referred, that the general quota can be increased, the most effective way of dealing with the problem would probably be by the regular dealers who import books from America, and who are now doing it in respect of the 100 per cent. quota, proceeding with the job. The noble Lord's two suggestions come together, as it were. If there were an increase in the allocation of this type of book, it would be probably more efficiently handled by the booksellers themselves than by the universities, who would have to set up new machinery.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: Will an English publisher be allowed to get books printed on the Continent?
LORD CHORLEY: I am coming to the speech of the noble Viscount. He made a point about foreign literature which was to some extent answered by the noble Lord, Lord Moyne. There is no ban on foreign literature and I am surprised to hear the noble Lord recount the difficulties he has had in getting the works of Goethe and Voltaire. I was recently in bookshops in both Cambridge and Oxford and I was gratified to see shelves well filled with the works of both those famous authors and many other equally famous French, German, and other Continental writers.
LORD MOYNE: I hear everywhere that these books come in freely, eventually, but there is a very long delay, because of the unfortunate overwork of the Board of Trade. If there were an open licence there need be no discrimination against books printed in America. They are presumably not normally printed in America, but if they were, they could be allowed in. I do not mean anything but bona-fide works, and not picture books with a few words in a foreign language inserted in order to get them through the Customs. If application could be avoided, this amount of extra work for the Board of Trade could be abolished and the time saved.
LORD CHORLEY: In regard to the importation of foreign classical works, I am not sure the delay is very serious. Any delay should be avoided if possible, and if the noble Lord's suggestion that there should be an open licence is technically feasible, I hope it may be possible to carry it out. I shall be glad to bring it to the attention of my right honourable friend.
The noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, also suggested that English books should be printed in a foreign country where there is a better supply of paper, or binders are easier to get, or the printing presses are more readily available. That is a suggestion which has been made to my right honourable friend and which, at the present moment, he has under consideration. It is very much hoped that, without coming within the discrimination difficulty, it will be possible to get quotas well in excess of 100 per cent. for English
1232
books printed in countries such as Holland and Austria. I hope it may be possible to meet the noble Viscount in that way.
The main burden of Lord Marley's speech was that the question involved very few dollars, and I think I have sufficiently dealt with that point. The noble Lord, Lord Moyne, several of whose points I have discussed, said that the Commonwealth was very unfairly treated in this matter. It is perfectly true that some of the Dominions, notably Australia, have, during the war years, developed substantially increased printing industries, but the whole arrangements in regard to the importation of fiction have been based on the importance of providing for Commonwealth imports. As the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, pointed out, up to the time when the discrimination Clause in the American agreement came into force there was, in fact, an open general licence to all members of the Commonwealth. When the discrimination clause came into play, some method had to be discovered for retaining these imports from the Commonwealth, and the method was invented of allowing as much juvenile literature and English fiction to come in from all countries as was possible, provided 50 per cent. of it was re-exported.
LORD MOYNE: In spite of these arrangements, there are many small firms of Irish publishers, some new, and many established long before the war, whose books are not normally exported from this country. The re-export conditions virtually shut them out of the market, and they feel this bitterly. Recently I read a review in an Irish magazine giving the opinion of different Irish publishers. It was full of technicalities into which at this late hour I have not the heart to enter; but it is clear that they are, in fact, shut out altogether.
LORD CHORLEY: I hope the noble Lord will allow me. After all, he is making a series of speeches, if I may say so. The gravamen of his remarks is that discrimination is a very bad thing. That is a much wider topic than the importation of books, and is under active discussion with the whole range of imports into the country. It is not a problem which can be properly raised in regard to this question of the importation of books. The question of the flow of international books was very much on his

1233
mind; I have already dealt with that. In regard to the open licences for serious works, I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord that it would not be possible to give them. He wanted serious works to be brought into line with fiction, so that if 50 per cent. were re-exported it would be open to an importer to import as much as he liked. Surely tat would be much less fair than the quota system. The Americans export an expensive series of books to most countries which require them. The only result of this suggestion would be that the import of this type of literature would be very much cut down.
LORD MOYNE: If the noble Lord will allow me—
LORD CHORLEY: I do not think I should give way. The noble Lord's final point related to the import of books and sheets. There is really no difference between sheets and ordinary books; nor can there very well be. Obviously a discrimination policy is exactly the same whether the book is imported bound or whether it is imported in sheets. If we are saving dollars by imposing a quota system, clearly the situation is the same. There is no reason why these sheets should not be imported, if the publishers or booksellers prefer to import them; but they must come within their quota. I think I have dealt with all the points. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, will realize that the Government have these matters very much in mind, and that my right honourable friend is already taking steps to deal with them.
6.20 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, we have had a short, if agreeable and not sharp debate—seven speeches in one hour and six minutes. I want to thank the noble Lord for his reply which,
1234
although it does not completely satisfy other noble Lords and myself, is reassuring. I have never disputed, as he said, the need of some form of restriction of books at the present time. He has given us encouragement by saying that the President of the Board of Trade is discussing with appropriate bodies the possibility of improving the situation, and I hope that we may look forward to having some early news of the result of those discussions. Let me assure the noble Lord that the importation of single books by individuals does not meet the case. I hope that he was not supporting the present position by saying that it was made much better by that. That is a help, of course, but it is not a substitute for improvement of the main position. I am glad to know that the administrative delay will be cut down to approximately a fortnight. That will be a great contribution to the smooth working of the present system. I would like once more to thank noble Lords who supported me in this debate, and beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SOUTH LINCOLNSHIRE AREA (CONSERVATION OF WATER) ORDER, 1948.
Report by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons under Section 3 of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, that no Petition has been presented against the Orders: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past six o'clock.